Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
4 Nader Myths
When Nader announced his candidacy yesterday, I expected a stream of Nader-hate to come down the TPM wire, and there was certainly plenty of that. I did not, however, expect the eruption of Nader support that followed. I had been under the impression that, other than a few kooky left-wingers, everyone who supported Nader in 2000 had come to regret it. But here were TPM posters, young and old, with whom I had been bantering the last few months over the relative merits of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, defending Nader's candidacy. I think that Nader is unlikely to be a serious threat to the Democratic candidate this year for a number of reasons, but I believe that a Nader candidacy will nonetheless accomplish more harm than good. I further believe that many of those who support him have fallen under the sway of several myths, which this post will attempt to debunk.
Myth #1: It's not Nader's fault that Bush won in 2000
Examples:
dhs: Gore won the election in 2000 (I voted for him); but he lacked the courage and tenacity to challenge the situation in Florida. He lost Tennesee. He ran a lackluster campaign. The Republicans stole the election in 2000, with the help of the Supreme Court, and the Democrats have never challenged that. Instead they blame Nader.
davidco: The Dem. campaigns in 2000 and 2004 were slovenly run so all this anti-Nader projection has become the conventional wisdom by way of misdirection. The real culprit in Democratic defeats is corporate control of the two major parties. In every election, the most complicit candidate (from either party) wins.
Kcm: The scapegoating of Nader for 2000 is beyond ridiculous, and speaks very poorly of Democrats -- including Josh and Eric -- who engage in it. Quick question: Even notwithstanding all the folks who backed Dubya in 2000, why would you blame Gore's loss on the 2% of voters who followed the process enough to vote third-party, rather than 40% of Americans who didn't even bother to vote?
Homelesseus: ANyone who blames Nader for the loss in 2000 is just another ostrich.
There are several versions of this argument, but they all share the same premise: It was someone else's fault. Nader himself has blamed Bush for stealing the election, Gore for losing it, the Supreme Court for deciding it, Democrats for crossing party lines, and other players like Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and the mayor of Miami for their parts.
This argument is fallacious because the fact that others share the blame does not diminish Nader's own responsibility. I'll offer an analogy to make this clear. Let's suppose that a man, we'll call him "George", asks you for ammunition so that he can shoot people. If you give him one bullet, and he kills someone, you are an accomplis, even if 100 other people also give him ammunition and weapons that he uses in his shooting spree. Moreover, to continue the analogy, you should ask yourself, what kind of man would express no remorse for lending that bullet and then would go so far as to give the guy another bullet four years later.
Of course Democrats do blame Bush for stealing the election, Gore for losing it, and the various other players for their parts, but Nader stands out from the crowd particularly because of his hypocrisy and lack of remorse. Gore made mistakes, but he was at least trying to beat Bush and regrets the loss. Nader is the most prominent progressive to purposefully take actions that contributed to Bush's win. It may be that the he didn't know that his campaign could make a difference in 2000, but clearly, the more votes that Nader received, the fewer (by a 2-1 ratio) Gore received relative to Bush, which means that Nader's success was directly proportional to George Bush's success. Or more simply, every vote for Nader was half-a-vote for Bush. And again, even if Nader didn't see it coming in 2000, he didn't learn the lesson, and ran again in 2004.
Myth #2: The Democrats and Republicans are the same
Examples:
oleeb: Nader's entire case is simply that there isn't a significant difference between the outcomes of electing a Democrat versus a Republican. There's quite a bit of truth to that given the historical record of the past 30 years or so and particularly what we've seen Democrats do (or consistenly fail to do) since the 06 election returned them to power.
terryhallinan: Nader was right. Both Bush and Gore ran as
anti-environmentalist, anti-union, anti-working class, anti-civil
rights conservatives.
Homelesseus: Obama is as much of a hawk as Clinton or Bush. Don't worry, we're never leaving Iraq.
Ellen: But was there a dime's worth of difference between Lieberman and Cheney?
Busdrivermike: But Obama, Clinton, and McCain....those corporate hacks deserve our vote?
Nader declined to state this myth explicitly on Meet the Press, but he declined to state a preference for Obama versus McCain, and many posters directly pushed the claim that the Democrats and Republicans are the same. This fallacy here seems to be of a dogmatic kind: "If you don't hold sufficiently progressive positions, then you are no better than the Republicans". I'm surprised that anyone still holds this position after Iraq, the Bush tax cuts, and the Cheney energy policy, but let's take it seriously for a moment. One of Nader's biggest concerns is the impact of corporate interests on Washington. Obama has also cited this issue as one of his biggest concerns, and he has proposed reforms to make corporate lobbying more transparent. Now it may be the case the Obama's proposed reforms don't go as far as Nader would like, but as long as they go further than what McCain would do, and what George Bush has done, there is improvement. The same for health care. Obama's plan may not be universal, but as long as it increases coverage, it's an improvement over the status quo which would continue under McCain. Therefore, the positions are not the same.
I've seen at times an almost a willful blindness to the differences that exist. Consider this comment by terryhallinan: Consider that Al Gore was a tool used by Clinton to help destroy the most important environmental legislation ever passed - the Protection of Species Act. What sort of environmentalist is that? His renewed interest in global warming is mighty fine but even now he ignores the most efficacious remedies in favor of those measures that are least likely to help.
Al Gore was the most passionate advocate of the environment that has ever run for President under one of the major parties. He was awarded a Nobel prize, he wrote his first book on the environment, Earth in Balance, in 1992, and has been a global warming activist long before that. From Wikipedia:
According to The Concord Monitor, "Gore was one of the first politicians to grasp the seriousness of climate change and to call for a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases. He held the first congressional hearings on the subject in the late 1970s." During his tenure in Congress, Gore co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste in 1978–79, and hearings on global warming in the 1980s. In 1989, while still a Senator, Gore published an editorial in the Washington Post, in which he argued, "Humankind has suddenly entered into a brand new relationship with the planet Earth. The world's forests are being destroyed; an enormous hole is opening in the ozone layer. Living species are dying at an unprecedented rate."Terry's quote is a classic example of a warped perspective which views small policy differences as more significant than massive philosophical differences.
Myth #3: Nader's campaign will help to raise national consciousness of important issues
pfb: America's political history is full of third party candidates that raise issues that are often ignored by the two major parties that would rather have people vote based on whether candidates wear lapel pins. Nader was right in his interview on Sunday that issues like women's right to vote, the environment, and countless of other "crazy" ideas that were ignored by the two major parties for years were only adopted into mainstream politics after successful third-party runs.
lordjellyroll: He's a valid voice of dissent and that makes our country stronger!
I haven't the studied the issue enough to make a general argument that a third party candidates cannot bring issues to the mainstream, but pfb does not cite any specific examples. I do not deny that non-mainstream activists play an important role in raising political consciousness, and indeed, Nader's early work on product and labor safety was very successful at that. But activism and third-party presidential candidates are not the same. Nader's most successful campaign in 2000 did not move Democrats to the left; Kerry was nominated, not Dean. And after Anderson's independent run in 1980, the Republicans and the Democratic party moved to the right. Ross Perot's campaign also seem to accomplish little for his objectives, which I barely remember, other than to help Clinton win the Presidency.
But I would argue more strenuously that Nader is no longer the right person to lead the voice of dissent. First, his egoism and lack of integrity in failing to acknowledge the consequences of his 2000 campaign do not make him a good spokesman for the left. Second, his personality-driven politics has become such that the media focuses on him, not his message. Despite two Presidential campaigns, I was not even sure what Nader's positions were before I looked into them, and I'm someone who pays attention to politics. I was familiar only with his anti-corporate positions, due mainly to his early activist work, not his campaign. I've got no pole data, but I'm willing to bet that if you ask people who don't follow him what his agenda, they won't be able to offer any more than his anti-corporate position.
Myth #4: A Nader run won't hurt the Democrats
athenian stranger: I don't think Nader would be such a bad thing for us this time. Insofar as he can help rhetorically position Obama as the centrist, he may actually help. Especially if he hangs around for a while but drops out before the election. It almost sounds like that's what he's planning. Even if he doesn't, I don't think he'll hurt anything. There will be a counterbalancing effect if he stays in as everyone tries to avoid a repeat of history.
minoxidil: I doubt that Nader will have much impact in 2008.
featherfamily: a lot of this kerfluffle is pretty useless, he's not going to have any impact in the environment of Repub. fascism and no ballot access ...
These posters are not all Nader supporters, and I don't entirely disagree with them. Nader will never again draw the vote that he did in 2000. But even if doesn't directly spoil the race, he will be a distraction for the Democratic candidate and the party, as he was in 2004. He will attack the Democratic candidate, as he has done in previously elections, and has he did yesterday. There will be more diverting lawsuits over ballot signatures which the Democratic party will pursue, rightly or wrongly, for fear of a repeat of 2000, and the Republicans will encourage with financial support as they have done in previous elections. There will be continued divisiveness between the left-wing progressives who support Nader and Democratic partisans who despise him.
In summary:
The U.S. is a democracy, so it is of course Nader's right to run, and anyone else's right to vote for him. But insofar as he interested in pushing progressive causes, another campaign will be counterproductive. In order to justify their support, many of his supporters have subscribed to a set of myths which do not represent the reality of what Nader has done and the man that he has become. Therefore, I urge all liberals, lefties, and progressives to be active in the causes in which they believe but not to support another Ralph Nader campaign which can do little good and much harm to these important causes.
Comments (82)
I'd have to disagree with you on #3 and partly on #1.
As for "myth #1": It wasn't solely Nader's fault that Gore lost. There are at least two other factors, either one of which would have resulted in a Gore win even with Nader running: (1) Gore could have run a better campaign, and (2) the votes could have been counted correctly. Of course, you do address this in your comments, but I don't think you're really "smashing" the myth. As you suggest, he was one of several decisive factors. However, yes, without Nader, Gore would have won. (Btw, even including Obama, Gore has been my favorite presidential candidate in my life. He was both pro-environment and pro-technology—just like me. Is that narcissistic? Probably.)
As for "myth #3": As your comments suggest on this topic, he might not be the best person to accomplish the goal of raising awareness, and a 3rd party candidate might not be the best method, but he does raise awareness on a couple of issues. (Of course, you might argue that he's raising them from 10.2% to 10.3%. I.e., not very substantially.)
Now I'll add one:
Myth #5: People who vote for Nader most likely wouldn't have voted for anyone if he wasn't running.
This is a half-truth in the sense that, sure, several people fall into this category. However, when you subtract those people, you're still left with a margin that can swing states Republican (at least if they're counted incorrectly).
Another consideration: I think part of Nader's draw is among the pro-marijuana crowd. I'll be the first to admit this is pure supposition, but have you checked out the Green party platform (specifically, plank 2)?
February 25, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, thanks for Myth #5. Some data to back you up:
Regarding your comment on myth 1. My point was never that Nader bears sole responsibility, but that does not mean that he doesn't bear responsibility. When your actions have a consequence, you don't get out of it by saying that other people did it too. And the fact that he ran again in 2004 and, now, 2008, indicates that he holds no concern for having contributed to the undermining of progressive objectives under the Republicans.
February 25, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, he was definitely an accessory, but he wasn't the cause. He was a factor.
So, it's fair to say that it's partly Nader's fault, which makes your myth a valid myth. I suppose I'd say that one could also call this a myth, however:
Corollary Myth 1A: Nader was the sole cause of Gore's defeat.
Again, I realize that's not what you're claiming.
February 25, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The usual self-serving (or Nader-serving) obfuscations. Of course Gore should have run a perfect campaign and deflected all of Bush/Rove's attempts to steal the election. The fact that he didn't does nothing to change the fact that Nader did everything in his power to defeat Gore.
It's also true that Nader's candidacy was the one factor contributing to Gore's defeat that was completely outside Gore's control. Gore was painfully imperfect, but he at least tried manfully to keep Bush from becoming president. Just ask yourself what Nader did to prevent Bush from becoming president. He did the opposite. He enabled the Bush presidency.
And none of this would matter at all if the crux of Nader's 2000 argument were even close to being anything but a perfect, cynical lie: that Gore and Bush were "the same" and that it made no difference which one was elected, so it was therefore okay to vote for Ralph. Don't worry, it won't matter if Bush gets in instead of Gore!
That, coupled with Nader's current loathesome refusal to accept any aspect of the reality of Bush's tenure, for which he has so much responsibility, is enough to make him one of the darkest, most malign figures in the history of American politics.
February 25, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you actually read what I wrote? It wasn't exactly pro-Nader…
February 25, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was very troubled yesterday by the Nader news. What good can possibly come of this?! As if everyone weren't divided and fractious enough, he had to (re)introduce himself into the mess... Can't he be doing something USEFUL?
Also interesting is that he is even older than McCain, does anyone that supports him even care about that? Maybe the guy is getting senile after all....
February 25, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS, Genghis I really enjoy your posts. I am new on TPM and I have to say your blogs and responses are respectful & insightful, and tend to flow with my train of thought & stance on issues. (Just wanted to give a shout-out ;)
February 25, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks oakviolin. I appreciate the compliment. Welcome to TPM.
February 25, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like your posts as well. Any chance you can cross post them over on www.wiseass.org ?
February 25, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said in the previous posts on Nader, I'm really conflicted. I want this to be an open and inclusive democracy and for the people who are disenchanted with both parties, why shouldn't they get a chance to cast a vote for whomever they want to on Election Day?
But this gets to the issue of (now added) Myth #5. I was surprised to talk with people after 2000 who said that if Nader wasn't on the ballot they would have voted for Gore. This still makes no sense to me. I don't know what it is if not a protest vote - because Nader isn't getting elected. So what't the difference if his name is there or not? I've more than once written in a candidate's name in protest of the lack of options of real options in an election.
I still would rather err on the side of an open democracy where voters make choices and we live with the consequences. I think Nader's campaign in 2000 was needed and relevent at a time when the DLC was growing in influence and power within the Democratic Party. Today, Nader's relevence in a national election is nearly non-existent.
I still admire Nader for what he's accomplished outside of running for President, but feel a sadness that he is taking this path again. He's like an aging athlete who doesn't know he's past his prime and how pathetic he looks now.
February 25, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I was disappointed to hear it as well, however I believe that if a candidate in my life can beat down the Repub's and good ol Nader then it would have to be MrObama. His response was exactly what I would expect from his campaign, basically there is no crying over spilled milk, so he moves on and tries to keep the momentum growing.
If I am the type of person who believes in our democratic process, then it would be hypocritical for me to blame Ralph Nader for trying to steal the election. In fact this is the same arguement that many Republican's have used against Huckabee, saying that he is dividing the party. IF the election is lost because MrNader splits a small percentage of the democratic party thus allowing Johnny McBush into the white house, then....either I become an activist or ex-pat!
February 25, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
All fine except point #1. It makes as much sense to name Nader as a reason for Gore's defeat as it will in the fall if I start naming Obama as the "reason" for McCain's defeat. It's an ELECTION. And if we're ever going to break free from the two-party monopoly (duopoly?), we have to stop treating third-party candidates as spoiled brats trying to play with the big kids. If you didn't get the most votes, that's why you lost (of course, not really true of Gore, but...); quit blaming the people who got them instead. Gore lost because Gore didn't convince those people to vote for him. Luckily, it's not gonna happen again.
February 25, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And because Nader split the vote. It's not an opinion. It's a simple fact. Had Nader not been on the ballot in Florida, Gore would have won. So there is a causal relationship between Nader's campaign and Gore loss, so Nader caused Gore to lose. (Which is not to say that there weren't other causes.)
Now you can argue that Nader should not be chastised for that, but it's simply false to say that his campaign didn't contribute to it.
We won't break free from the two-party system unless the rules change. Until that happens, no third party will ever win the presidency (except under extraordinary circumstances), and so third party presidential candidates can never be more than spoilers. I'm very happy for right-wing spoilers to run as often as they like, but if a popular left-wing third party candidate runs
in a tight race with no right-wing candidate as a counter-balance, it can only mean a loss for the Democrats. Thus, the left-wing third party campaign would prove counterproductive, as Nader's campaign was in 2000.
February 25, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
[Bush won FL] because Nader split the vote. It's not an opinion. It's a simple fact. Had Nader not been on the ballot in Florida, Gore would have won.
This might hold some water if Gore had not won in FL, but he did, in fact, receive the most votes in that state. Therefore, your statement is not, in fact, a fact. It is, in fact, the opposite of a fact.
The election was rigged. It was stolen. Bush was going to win regardless of the actual vote count.
Further, Mr. Gore was unable to carry his home state of TN. These delusive arguments about FL always ignore this fact, which is, in fact, a fact. If Nader is to blame for costing Mr. Gore the election, how much more so is Gore's campaign to blame? And since Mr. Gore is responsible for his campaign, then by all these specious arguments, we can lay the blame for these past eight years of misery squarely at the feet of Mr. Gore himself.
February 25, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The election was rigged. It was stolen. Bush was going to win regardless of the actual vote count.
Sorry, this is a huge load of bull. The election was very stealable with only a margin of 400 votes, but with 15000 or so extra Nader votes going instead to Gore, it would not have been stealable at all. 3000+ american soldiers and upwards of 600,000 iraqi citizens would have their lives now if Nader were to have agreed to at least stay out of Florida, which he was urged to do. That Nader has absolutely zero remorse for his obvious role in the ensuing carnage and keeps trying to repeat the same exercise reveals him to be the ultimate sociopath of the left wing.
February 25, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, this is a huge load of bull.
Assuming that "this" refers to your comment, I am forced to agree.
February 25, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
To lay the lives of these people at Ralph Nader's door is beyond asinine.
February 26, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
And yet there are those for whom, much like the Founding Fathers, this type of pragmatism is not enough. They may, at times and begrudgingly, cast a vote for a candidate that doesn't meet their ideals, but recognize that this is only the politics of self-interest at work. At other times, as my man Jiminy Cricket would say, the conscience must be the guide.
Change will only come when people are willing to finally say that pragmatism is not a principle in and of itself, when people are willing to say, "If not now, when?" If all you are capable of is political calculation, of realpolitik, then your good intentions will never be enough to save you from calculating your way straight to hell.
February 26, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This leaves me wondering, is it ever okay for third party candidates to run? By your logic, any third party candidate is always going to be "splitting" the vote with someone, thus "giving" the election to the other party. Just because Nader voters might (an exit poll, despite your portrayal, is not a guarantee of how things would have gone in a hypothetical, alternate version of reality) have voted for Gore doesn't mean that those votes were Gore's. The votes only become Gore's once citizens walk into their polling places and cast their votes for him.
Hypotheticals based on statistics do not equate to empirical facts.
February 26, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. People around here sure have a hard time wrapping their minds around the concept that something can be a cause without being the cause. Any one of a number of events would have been sufficient to push Florida over to Gore. Nader's not being on the ballot is clearly one of those events. How anyone can deny that is beyond me.
By the way, Genghis--great post.
February 26, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's only a cause of Gore losing if all you can look at is Gore winning. It's not incumbent upon Nader, or any other candidate in any other election, to help and any other candidate get elected. That's not how elections work.
I wish Dems would recognize that this is a serious waste of energy on their part. Nader is a much a reason that Gore lost as Wheaties are the reason that athletes win. Did it contribute? Perhaps, but you severely overestimate by how much. Why aren't Gore losing Tennessee and Arkansas deserving of as much credit? Why isn't the Iraq war Bill Clinton's fault. Here we go: Clinton fooled around with Monica, Gore had to distance himself, Gore lost Tennessee and Arkansas, Gore lost the election, Bush invaded Iraq... Iraq is all Bill Clinton's fault.
Third party candidates are just about as marginalized as they could possibly be. Wasting time on figuring out how to marginalize them further is laughable. Figure out how to better represent your constituents and win elections.
February 26, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there's a lot of great stuff in this post. Generally speaking, your comments are thoughtful and insightful. So I hope I won't ruffle feathers too much by saying that I can't agree with the bullet analogy for myth #1. You make a huge leap by using a bullet, rather than "vitamins," for instance. I think there are a lot of negative connotations with "bullets" that I don't think carry over to Nader's bid for the presidency. Involvement and engagement of the electorate are more important than any one candidate or one election. The fact that there are Nader supporters out there show that there is a void. I hope Obama proves he's up to the task of filling this void. But taking away choices from voters isn't the way to do it.
Respectfully, knoh.
February 25, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
knoh, I always welcome and appreciate a thoughtful challenge. No feathers ruffled.
I was a bit hesitant about making a point with an analogy, which is always a little dangerous, rhetorically speaking. But look, even if you do something with the best of intentions, it can have unintended consequences. If you gave George a vitamin, which he then shot at someone, you would have (unintentionally) contributed to the crime. There's no culpability unless you knew of his intention. I don't see how Nader could not have known that his campaign would take more votes from Gore than from Bush and thus, that it could contribute to a Bush win. Even if he didn't fully comprehend it, you would think that he would regret the decision. But not only did he not express regret, he ran again. If he had been able to get more votes, and if Kerry had run a closer race against Bush, it could have happened a second time. If Nader is somehow able to get votes and this year's race is really close, it could even happen again. So whether you call it a bullet or a vitamin, if Nader knowingly contributes to the election of a Republican, he bears some responsibility for the outcome, and insofar as the outcome works against his professed causes, he's culpable for betraying those causes.
February 25, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree that the facts of the situation show that Nader impacted election outcomes. And I question his motives. Obama's comments about the Nader bid are spot on, in my opinion. I hope posts like yours will help to hold Nader accountable for his actions.
February 25, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well actually, I think Nader SHOULD be chastised for 2000, and 2004, and 2008. But "Nader split the vote" assumes that there's a vote out there that the Democratic Party holds title to. Don't get me wrong; I think Nader IS a spoiled brat, and I'm more than half in love with Al Gore, and I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone in a contested state voted for Nader, and I think 2000 was a tragedy as well as a travesty.
But I bristle at the idea that the Democratic Party owns my vote. You're right that no third party will win until the rules change, but the rules aren't going to change unless a lot of people start demanding it, and voting for a third-party candidate is one way to voice that demand. I'm a lot happier when it's the Republican vote that gets "split," too, but when it happens to my party I have to assume it's because my party didn't take the real discontent of its progressives seriously, and that's THEIR tactical blunder.
I am heartbroken at the results of their making it, but I think the completely preposterous claim that "the Democrats and the Republicans are alike" survives, and our voter turnout is so embarrassing, exactly because both parties so frequently make the mistake of assuming that they can count on "their voters," instead of worrying about whether the voters feel like it's "their party."
February 25, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
professordarkheart, thanks for the thoughtful response. I don't think that Democrat candidates are owed anyone's vote. I mean "split" in the sense that some people who would have otherwise voted for the Democratic candidate voted for the third-party candidate (as opposed to not voting or voting for the Republican). I hold Nader culpable, and that is an opinion, not because he owes the Democrats anything, but because his decision to run is counterproductive to our shared efforts to enact progressive policies. It wouldn't bother me so much if his campaign didn't actually contribute to a Republican victory, which it certainly occurred in 2000. So it seems to me that Nader betrayed his own ideals but will not admit to those of us who share those ideals that he did so.
February 25, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS. I think your proposed remedy is the right one: "Therefore, I urge all liberals, lefties, and progressives to be active in the causes in which they believe but not to support another Ralph Nader campaign which can do little good and much harm to these important causes."
February 25, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Professordarkheart's point is important.
I actually think the party has responded to progressives, somewhat, as evidenced by the Ned Lamont and Donna Edwards campaigns. This is exactly why I said I don't think Nader will have much effect in 2008.
One effect he probably has right now (though not necessarily an intended one) is that his presence on the landscape will raise the cost of any weirdness around superdelegates and the Michigan and Florida delegation questions. I mainly agree with those who think this will sort itself out. The party insiders, however, will have to weigh the consequences of any weirdness with more care now that Nader has announced.
Genghis, you're smart and fair-minded, it seems, so what about this myth: "The past eight years are all Nader's fault"? As I said before, I think Nader voters need to take responsibility for their part in what happened in 2000. But they are not solely responsible. If Nader presents a threat this year, all the better to redouble efforts to make sure all eligible voters are allowed to cast ballots and that their votes are counted.
February 25, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Repeat after me professordarkheart. There will never be a third party in this country. Never. Not gonna happen. Pigs will fly first. I don't care if it would make the country a better place or more democratic or whatever other great benefit you think breaking the "duopoly" would bring. It won't happen. ever.
If you run a third party from the left you hurt the Democrats and help the Republicans. The better they run the more Republicans get elected. The opposite is true. A far right party would only elect more progressives. Most people are pragmatic enough regardless of what policy positions they may have to catch onto that fact after a Bush or two gets elected. The only reason to run a third party is because you are so angry your party for being ideologically impure that they must be punished and taught a lesson. Its an ego thing.
If you want to make a change in this country at some point you are going to have to work through one the parties. Keeping the one that agrees with you out of power is not going to help.
February 25, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
There were probably people who argued the exact same thing about King George.
Like it or not, the Democratic Party is not owed any votes from anyone, whether left, right or independent. This is just as much a reality as the two party system and it will continue to be as long as we still have something resembling elections.
February 26, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ultimate solution is that Democrats need to win over the Nader voters who in the past or currently say that they'd vote for Nader if he's on the ballot but for a Dem if he is not.
I believe strongly though that the number of people who would vote Nader if he's on the ballot (and would vote Dem if he's not) is extremely small these days. It's a completely different landscape than in 2000.
I believe that Obama can win over most of the people in this category, once people really begin to look at his very progressive record as a public official and private citizen.
February 25, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree. Denying that these voters exist and that they are independent agents is a denial of our election system as foolish as denying that it's primarily a two-party system.
Also, I'm especially inclined to agree because I consider myself to be an example of the type of person you've described.
February 26, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is something like Henry Kissinger, a man who bears a large share of the responsibility for the killing fields of Cambodia, being awarded the Nobel Peace prize for that fine effort.
You did not bother addressing the little problem of Al Gore aiding Clinton in destroying the Protection of Species Act while you quote wikipedia quoting Al Gore:
Why would this passionate concerned fellow hasten species to their end?
I have pointed out in numerous places Al Gore has not bothered much with technology that might provide vast new sources of energy without adding to global warming. My particular interest is geothermal with its vast potential but this very day biomass offers a quick fix and generates far more power. Waste wood can and does supplement or even replace coal but admittedly does nothing for corn farmers.
Al Gore is apparently a lightweight on the subject and has misled millions of fans in the bargain.
Where is the myth?
BTW I support Obama and have contributed to the cause. Obama is not likely to be harmed as the self-described "conservative alternative," who chose Joe Lieberman for a running mate, was by a most dedicated fellow running a quixotic campaign.
Al Gore is no Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt was a true environmentalist. TR set the pattern for true progressivism with his later Bull Moose Party. Teddy Roosevelt was no dilettante making movies and doing environmentalism in his spare time when he wasn't helping do away with species.
Best, Terry
February 25, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terry, to be honest I don't even know what the "Protection of Species Act" is. Do you mean the Endangered Species Act, the one that was gutted by G.W.? The one under which Clinton added more species than any other president?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26242-2004Jul3.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/27/endangered_species/
But let me get this straight, you're saying that the fact that Gore was complicit in destroying this act and that he has not endorsed geothermal energy means that he doesn't care about the environment and that his environmental policies are equivalent to Bush's, the worst environmental president since Reagan? Are you so dogmatic that you think that every agenda which is not identical to your own is equivalent?
February 25, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis,
How you do go on? LOL!
The Protection of Species Act was demolished by Clinton under the rubric of adding an economic element.
Fine to save species but if it hurt the economy - well tough turkey.
Of course that means the end of most any threatened species.
My mother said some very unlady-like things long ago when our horses ran through her garden. Now imagine you are an African with a small subsistence plot and a herd of elephants runs through it. Would you guess that Africans might not always feel kindly towards elephants?
There are numerous difficult challenges that must be faced in any serious effort at conservation but when you have presidents like Clinton and Bush to whom law means nothing at all, you get the results that occurred with both.
You would have us believe that because Bush is badder than Clinton was by some unspecified measure that then Clinton is mighty fine and anybody that says different is a perverted dogmatic fool?
From your own link:
Bush has not claimed Cheney is an environmentalist as far as I know.
I have said geothermal is of special interest to me with its enormous potential but even now biomass produces far more energy and might replace the hated coal for power. Wood is shipped from the U.S. now for generating power elsewhere but we prefer to burn coal.
Meanwhile the Prophet Gore specifies solar and wind as the preferred options.
Solar is a relative cipher in the total energy picture. Perhaps some day it will loom larger but it is very high cost for the time being.
Windmills make more of a contribution but need lots of maintenance and are intermittent as well.
Until the problem of intermittency is solved, there will be limits to the contribution any intermittent energy source will make.
Where is Al Gore in this picture? You tell me. I don't hear any argument from his fans. Just a lot of wind and name calling as with yourself.
My ancient ancestor Genghis Khan had a word for that undoubtedly. He didn't pass it on. Like Al Gore he was too busy with other pursuits rather than intellectual endeavors.
Others are left to do the work.
The U.S. is the world's largest producer of electricity from geothermal. How can that be? Other countries supply most of the funds and technology while Americans are mostly ignorant of the Beetlebaum of green energy, when not downright hostile to it.
B.C. McCabe is the answer to the riddle. He done it and then died and then was mostly forgotten.
What has Al Gore done except lose to George Bush because he was too conservative, help damage the environment unnecessarily and make a movie?
Best, Terry
February 26, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps he thought you might have heard of Abraham Lincoln.
Best, Terry
February 25, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ghengis,
A few things.
1. "Gore made mistakes, but he was at least trying to beat Bush and regrets the loss." Okay, but the same can be said for Nader. Nader made mistakes, was trying to beat Bush, and regrets losing to him.
2. "I had been under the impression that, other than a few kooky left-wingers, everyone who supported Nader in 2000 had come to regret it." Why in the world would you think that?
3. "This argument is fallacious because the fact that others share the blame does not diminish Nader's own responsibility." Um, that's not a fallacy. Holding the gravity of the consequences constant, the move from being wholly to blame to being partly to blame is a diminishing of blame. To relate this to your example: You're less to blame for having given one bullet than you would have been had you given all hundred.
4. "Had Nader not been on the ballot in Florida, Gore would have won. So there is a causal relationship between Nader's campaign and Gore loss, so Nader caused Gore to lose." First of all, what evidence do you have for the counterfactual 'if Nader hadn't been on the Florida ballot, then Gore would have won'? That's a mighty bold claim, and I simply can't fathom how you could know such a thing, especially in light of all the crookedness and corruption on display in FL that campaign. Second, even if we grant you the counterfactual, it's widely recognized that mere counterfactual dependence is insufficient to establish a causal relationship. Compare: "If the Big Bang hadn't occurred, then Gore would not have lost. Therefore, the Big Bang caused Gore to lose." I could multiply examples ad nauseum--counterfactuals come a dime a dozen.
February 25, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point 1:
You're right, Gore split the Nader vote, causing him to lose to Bush. Seriously, Gore did not cause Nader to lose to Bush b/c Nader would not have won if Gore had not run. Nader did cause Gore to lose to Bush b/c Gore would have won is Nader had not run. Which brings me to your point 4. From wikipedia:
Your point 3:
I'll accept this. "Diminish" might have been too strong a word. Nader bears less responsibility than he might have without the other conditions. But he still bears responsibility. A person of integrity would say, "There were other factors, so I'm not the person most responsible for this travesty, but I accept responsibility for my part." Nader is obviously not that kind of person.
February 25, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nader did cause Gore to lose to Bush b/c Gore would have won is Nader had not run.
Keep saying this and it may become true, but remember to click your heels together three times.
February 25, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gore was in the playing field. If all he could do was what he did, then he deserve what he got. Nader is not an accomplice, but a competitor; a minor irritant of a competitor. But you don't underestimate opponents enough to loose the game. You win games on your strengths. If Gore has appropriated vigorously even some of the mantle of progressivism that Nader had proposed, he should have had a better chance than what he did. But who cares. Gore was a bad politician and an excellent activist just like Nader, maybe not as bad.
Also, Nader has a very narrow vision what a progressive is and within that it is easy for him frame democrats and republicans as the same.
February 25, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Nader supporters would be amusing in their mental gyrations to try to rationalize away the painful facts, if only their gullibility hadn't been a key factor in giving us eight years of Bush.
But the idea that the Democrats should reward their behavior by moving in the direction Nader prefers? Hogwash. If you reward the political temper tantrum that gave us Bush, you only encourage other fringe groups to throw their own political temper tantrums.
(And BTW, great article, Ghengis!)
February 25, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the idea that the Democrats should reward their behavior by moving in the direction Nader prefers? Hogwash.
Right, because the Democrats currently bear no resemblace to the Republicans. For example, the Democratic Congress has blocked every effort of the Bush administration to extend the Iraq war, trample civil liberties, and enrich corporations.
Keep nominating conservatives for president, and keep losing elections. Keep nominating conservatives for the Senate, and lose the party's soul. Keep moving further and further to the right, and lose America.
February 25, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
People have a right to vote however they want to vote. It may be irrational, it may be illogial, it might be for someone who has no shot at winning, and may just be a protest of whatever issue isn't being addressed by the candidates.
That may piss you off but it doesn't change the fact that these voters are out there - hundreds of thousands of them in swing states alone.
Al Gore and his runnin mate Joe Lieberman ignored the Nader voters actual concerns (for the most part) in the 2000 election. Their aim was instead to win Republicans in a handful of swing states. The only way the Gore-Lieberman campaign tried to win Nader voters was throgh the fear of a Buh presidency, as opposd to giving them positive reasons to vote for Gore. It was a crappy strategy based on people voting their fears rather than their hopes.
People like to vote their hopes and for change...that sounds familiar. Nader represented "hope and change" for hundreds of thousands of voters in 2000.
Obama was brilliant in his response about Nader's candidacy - he wants those voters and he's going after them. He doesn't need to even have some radical shift in his platform, he just needs reach out an find common ground.
February 26, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the fact that some independents will still vote their conscience may piss you off in kind.
February 26, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I won't be pissed if people vote Nader in 08. I won't be pissed at people who vote Clinton in the primary, even though I think she's the only Democrat who could lose in November.
Except people who vote Gravel - I mean, what the hell? (just kidding, even the Gravel voter should have his chance).
It's democracy and it's not a nice, neat, clean process. It's more like making sausage.
February 26, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh.. making sausage.
For what it's worth, I really liked seeing that cranky old battle-axe in the early debates. He made for some fantastic debate fun.
February 27, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
February 25, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
time to make another plug for instant runoff voting. We have a silly system.
there is chocolate, vanilla and a fringe flavor strawberry. you love strawberries, but because you are allergic to chocolate you always order vanilla.
February 25, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, Genghis. This is a great topic and while I agree with some of the sentiment surrounding Nader at this point I'd like to play devil's advocate a bit here. As a matter of disclosure I'll tell you that I am not a registered Democrat, nor do I consider myself one. I did vote for Nader in the 2000 Presidential election, but I don't plan on voting for him this year.
It's easy to pull out the statistics and say that Nader spoiled it for Gore. However, I wonder if you're willing to accept what this says about democracy. There's the implication here that not only would Gore have received these votes but that that he deserved them.
47% of voters exit polled may have said that they would have voted for Gore otherwise, but as long as our system is based on plurality this is neither here nor there.
The facts of the vote, which are what matters as long as we're still trying to call this a democracy, are that Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college. We all know that this came down to Florida. If you're familiar with Greg Palast's reporting on the issue you know Katherine Harris spearheaded an effort to disenfranchise approximately 70,000 black "felons" in Florida, over 90% of which were registered Democrats. Depending on who's counting, Gore lost by less than 1,000 votes, but none of this matters because the judicial branch ultimately decided this one. Now, this has been debated, but my read of the Florida state election law says that Gore made a devastating tactical error here. The state law gave Gore the right to request a statewide recount. Al Gore, et al, decided to ask for a recount in four strategically chosen counties. Had he asked for the statewide recount it would have been far more egregious for the Supreme Court to end the recount once the appeal reached them.
Bush gamed the system. Nader didn't do this.
These are really just some details I wanted to present that I feel frequently get left out. Of course, Nader received nearly 100,000 votes in Florida. So, of course, Democrats say that those votes should have gone to Gore. Maybe they would have, but that doesn't mean that they should have.
As far as the election went, Nader only cost Gore the election if you think those votes ought to have gone to Gore. But what of Democracy? Ours is not a system of entitlement.
What's really going on here is a major case of hindsight. The implication is that if Nader hadn't run then Gore would have won (maybe, you don't know this as fact and citing exit polls doesn't make it certain.) And, of course, if Gore had won then we wouldn't be in Iraq and on and on therefore everything that's happened under Bush is Nader's fault.
Wrong. Bush is to be blame for what Bush has done, not Ralph Nader.
There is a detachment from reality and an arrogance that is held within this point of view and I see it as a cultural issue for the Democratic Party. Our system is a democracy. Votes are earned, no bestowed through some system of entitlement. Democrats seem to think they just ought to get all of the votes of everyone on the left because they consider themselves the party of the left.
Take Hillary Clinton and the now defunct story of her inevitability. Jon Stewart was on Larry King this week and King asked him what he thought had happened to this story. Stewart, in his typical wit, responded that what happened was that people started voting. Honestly, I don't think Clinton or the establishment Democrats understand this at all. I also don't think they even understand why people voted for Nader to this day. Likewise, the Clinton camp doesn't seem to understand why so many people have rallied behind Obama either. They would do well, for the sake of the party, to figure this out. (I'm honestly not trying to pick on Clinton over Obama here, but to me she pretty much embodies the culture that I'm referring to.)
Hidden within this assertion that Nader cost Gore the election is the implication that there shouldn't even be third party candidates at all. I'm sorry, but I missed the part in the Constitution where it says that we're only allowed to have two political parties. From within the parties, this seems perfectly logical. Both of them hope to shoehorn as much of the electorate underneath their banner as possible, but what about those who don't feel represented by either party? There's a willful ignorance, an arrogance even, at play here that says two choices ought to be enough. To think that a nation of 300 million as diverse as ours can possibly hope to be entirely represented by one of two people is pure insanity.
So what about now? As I said above, I'm not planning on voting for Nader this time around. I'm leaning towards Barack Obama for a number of reason that I won't detail here, but I can tell you that this is a political calculation. I am not considering voting for Barack Obama because I feel that he is the best candidate on his merits, but because I would rather castrate myself with a rusty hacksaw than see another four years with the GOP at the Executive wheel. They have used fear to criminally dismantle the Constitution in ways that I won't even bother to discuss because the list is far too long. They have destroyed a country in an illegal war. At the same time, the Democrats have done nothing to stop them. Pelosi, Reid and their excuse makers like Claire McCaskill can all go on a permanent vaction as far as I'm concerned. They all took an oath to defend the Constitution and they refuse to use the powers bestowed upon them to stop it. They're all complicit and I'd like to see them all gone along with Bush at the end of the year.
I don't really want to get into Clinton versus Obama, but there is a difference between them that goes to the heart of why I'm not a Democrat. I will absolutely not vote for Hillary Clinton. She has admitted to not reading the NIE prior to voting on Iraq. Almost none of them read the Patriot Act. Clinton still refuses, despite everything that's happened since, despite Colin Powell's shameful presentation in front of the UN, despite Joseph Wilson, despite Downing Street, to admit that this vote was the wrong move. Just like Bush, she wants to tell us that it was the best decision possible at the time (no, it wasn't.. and others got it right) made with the information available even after a mountain of evidence showed that she barely even looked at this so-called information.
To be clear, Clinton isn't unique within the Democratic party in this respect, but this is exactly the problem. There is no party for me. There is no party that truly represents my interests and issues. Milton Friedman, in response to the charge that constitutional democracy is the best of all possible governments, replied that it is actually the least bad. This is exactly the way I feel about the Democratic party and Barack Obama. Sure, there are things that I have found to like about them, but at the same time I know that when he talks about change it's not what I have in mind.
We have a system which is purposely engineered towards the dominance of two political parties. This is a reality that we must deal with, but recognize that the party looks very different from the outside than it does from within. From within, you already know you're going to support the party candidate, but that's not the case for independents.
If the Democratic Party does earn my vote this fall it will only because of how horrible Bush has been, not because of how great the Democratic candidate is. It will only be because they are slightly less awful when it comes to being corporate puppets, because they are slightly more progressive on health care, because promises to end the war in Iraq are now only slightly better than promises to continue it. It won't because they've actually earned it on their merits and it sure as hell won't be because they upheld their oaths to defend my Constitution.
Nader has a right to run and people have a right to vote for him, as is the case with any candidate. Those votes don't belong to the Democrats, they have to be earned. Neither party, despite what they would like you to believe, is so anointd. Clinton will likely lose the nomination because she arrogantly assumed that she had already earned the nomination. The Democratic Party would do well to stop blaming a guy who got less than three percent of the popular vote and start figuring out how to earn those votes by being a better party with better candidates. I honestly hope Obama can fill this role, both for the Democratic Party and for the country.
Looking back over this I've realized what a diatribe I've written, but I'm going to go ahead and submit this in the hopes that some of my points may come through. I apologize if parts of this seem overly vitriolic, but, as you can tell, some of this stuff really raises my hackles.
February 25, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
well said.
and again http://www.instantrunoff.com/
would keep civil TPMers from being haters. And a little competition to the political monotony would be healthy.
February 26, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see instant run-off as part of a number of reforms to both elections and campaigns. (Actually, I really like the election methods described by Condorcet, but I'm enough of a realist to recognize that convincing Americans that an 18th century French mathematician is a tall order at this stage in the game.
February 26, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
hmmm, if i understand Condorcet correctly:
if 49.5% D's vote D,G,R
and 49.5% R's vote R,G,D
then the 1% G vote wins the election.
i would accept that, but some might lynch mr G.
February 26, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, this is more or less how it works although I would say that 99% voted for G at rank 2 ;)
February 26, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
mr G's entire platform could be: i'm not D, and i'm not R.
Heck that's a platform i would do, i could be mr G! and any system that would give me such a good shot at POTUS is seriously flawed.
February 26, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, to be fair this is a bit more complex than what you've portrayed and this example can be turned around to favor Condorcet as is shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method#Comparison_with_instant_runoff_and_first-past-the-post_.28plurality.29
Also, if you look at the rest of the article you'll see that there are several mathematical methods for removing circular ambiguities, but this is one reason why I prefer runoff: it's a lot simpler to explain. Most people already dislike or even fear math and I don't see how you can have an election system that people don't understand. As an academic point, Condorcet's method(s) can be shown mathematically to select the Condorcet winner (this is, of course, by design.)
But I'm fine with runoff. In fact, I'd get behind it in an instant.
Pun intended.
February 26, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word. Thanks for the excellent diatribe.
February 26, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
There has been a lot of talk about the so-called Obama cult... but I think this thread shows that a Nader cult is out there, alive and well.
Now, I'm not talking about people who may have voted for Nader (hi, DF!), I'm talking about extremists.
And this is why Nader is divisive: he made the moronic (yes, I said that word) assertion that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. While there may be not enough of a difference between the Dems and the GOP for some, that there is little difference between Gore and Bush shows a willful neglect of reality.
This was obvious in 2000. Genghis has detailed some of it here, to deaf ears, so I won't bother repeating.
I submit that anyone, in 2008, who agrees with Nader's assertion is merely looking for attention. So far, none of the Nader supporters has answered my simple, direct question:
Why did you support and/or work for Nader after he refused to campaign in 1996?
Consider this Nader supporter from another thread:
Now, do you think you can have any more of a rational conversation with a mind like that than someone who wants the Constitution to be brought into line with "God's language"? This is just the flip side of the religious right extremism.
I'm sure this person is sincere. More's the pity. Terry had a similar knee-jerk reaction when I used the word "socialism" and s/he accused me of calling her/him a "commie pinko". Terry, in fact, was spoiling for a fight!
Or consider the Nader supporter who asked why no one wanted to sit down with Nader and then, in the very same post(!), said that Nader was an uncompromising individual.
You tell me who is trying to stir the pot. Or be as ineffective as possible to feel more pure about their agenda. The fact is, for these people it's their way or no way. Doesn't sound too democratic to me!
In a democracy you basically have two choices:
a) Majority rules
b) Build a consensus of mixed views
In many cases, those people supporting Nader reject both of these options.
By the way, the Dems should have had a better campaign in 2000. In fact, if they did, Nader wouldn't have even garnered as much attention as he did. Without the 50%+0.1 philosophy, Nader won't be a force in 2008 and these extreme left-side people can go back to their grand visions where their policies, and only their policies, rule supreme.
(DF, I do not include you in this group as you are able to write without dogma.)
February 26, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In a democracy you basically have two choices"
I think that's part of the problem.
"the Dems should have had a better campaign in 2000"
Well, Joe Lieberman won't be on the ballot, so there's probably no way that it could be worse. But never underestimate the ineptitude of the Democratic party nominee. (I was against the war before I was for it!)
February 26, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, what would your alternative 3rd choice be? And how would you implement it in a country of 3M people?
February 26, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I don't agree with the assertion that there's no difference between the parties. This is just obtuse nonsense. There most certainly are differences, but for many progressives these differences are frequently too few and too minor. I get the feeling that some Democrats really hate hearing this, but it's true.
There's been a lot of emotion and a lot of fear in the past seven years, some of which is understandable, but it goes too far. We've dug ourselves a hole based on the premise that we must use a massive land army to hunt a shadowy enemy that hates us because of our goodness and righteousness. This is a myth that we pursue at our own peril. We would do well to forget this myth and try to understand the mind of this enemy. Likewise, Democrats can persist in thinking they that stand on the other side of a vast philosophical chasm from Republicans. They can continue to think that those who would vote for Nader or any other third party candidate are short-sighted fools who know no what they do. Alternatively, they can banish this myth from their minds and try to understand what's driving these voters and what it's going to take to bring these voters into the fold.
Or we could just get rid of elections and each party could nominate a candidate with the winner of the Presidency being determined by a coin toss. I think I still have some Reagan/Carter President Picker coins around that we could use.
February 26, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
DF, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I always appreciate your posts are always thoughtful, and this is no exception. I'm too tired to do it justice, unfortunately, but I'd like to address a couple of points.
I'm not a big "should" guy. Our system is imperfect. The electoral vote is not identical to the popular vote, and ballot errors are unavoidable. When the popular vote is very close, the winner of the popular vote may not become President. It sucks when it's not your candidate, but that's how it goes.
So I don't think that Gore "should" have won Nader's votes, b