Ralph Nader

It is extremely likely that Ralph cost Gore the Election in Florida.
He may well have thrown the New Hampshire race, but chances are slightly better than even that he did not.
Before the election you can't tell, but we know for sure that, if the race is close again, there is a very good chance Nader will throw it again.

The exit poll data from Florida tells very little becaus the sample of Nader voters is too small. But here is what we know from national results:

The % of Nader voters that would have voted for Bush/Gore in a a two-way race:
Gore Bush
47% 21% VNS, largest sample
47% 24% CBS, sample = 85
30% 15% NES, sample = 33.
38% 25% Democratic exit poll
Dem Rep
45% 21% Nader voters / House candidates (NES)
52% 12% Nader voters / Senate candidates (NES)

Nader cites

the Democratic poll most often because it indicates the least damage. But it is also one of the least if not the least reliable. Even if the poll is the best indication of Florida voters, without Nader, Gore would have gotten 13% of 97,000 more votes thatn Bush from Nader voters, and would have won by 12,000 votes instead of losing by 537.

Gore needed to gain a 32% advantage from Nader's voters to take New Hampshire, but only the Senate voting indicates this much advantage. Still, it would have been so close that we really can't be sure.


	Nader Admitted Not Minding Spoiler Role Sep. 14, 2000 Rolling Stone, #849, Sept.14, 2000 Rolling Stone: "In 1996, you told the New York Times, 'If I really wanted to beat Clinton, I would get out, raise $3 or $4 million, and maybe provide the margin for his defeat. That's not the purpose of this candidacy.' Since you're planning to raise $5 million and run hard this year, does that mean you would not have a problem providing the margin of defeat for Gore?" Nader: "I would not—not at all." (more)

If Ralph Nader had not run in 2000, Gore would be President and Bush would be in Texas, not Iraq. Nader's 97,000 votes in Florida would have given Gore a net gain of about 20,000 votes. Gore needed only 600.

But there were other factors. Why blame Ralph? Blame is not the issue. The issue is what to do in 2004. It is foolhardy to ignore the Nader factor.

But you can't be sure he will hurt Kerry. No, not absolutely sure. But the risk of catastrophe is high if Nader runs full steam in Florida, thanks to the Reform Party, and a few other crucial states. Cooperation is possible!

Links Quotes FAQs

Look what happened in New Hampshire and Florida last time. This could happen again. If you're for Nader, you care about what happens and you're willing to work for it. Don't help Bush and the neocons continue destroying what you stand for.

	Florida	New Hampshire
Bush:	2,912,790	273,559
Gore:	2,912,253	266,348
Needed:	537	7,211
Nader:	97,488	22,198

Electoral votes with and without Nader
	with Nader	Gore wins NH's 4	Gore wins FL's 25
Bush:	271	267	246
Gore:	266	270	291

Even New Hampshire could have tipped the election. No one knows if Gore would have taken it without Nader. The exit polls are just too inaccurate to tell. But even small states count - especially this year.

Nader Says He Did Not Cost Bush the Election. He's wrong. Without Nader, Gore would have won. Nader never denies this. Instead he says "Al Gore won" and "Bush cost Gore the election" and "No one is entitled to votes."

But just because Gore would have won, it doesn't mean Nader caused the loss. Yes, it does. Say Bush and Kerry ran for mayor of your town, you and your friend decided to stay home, and Bush won by 1 vote. Your staying home caused Kerry to lose. If staying home doesn't matter, voting doesn't matter. If Nader's 2.7 million votes don't matter, then my vote sure doesn't. We should all stay home.

What is Nader's logical flaw? Here's the argument. Only one thing caused Gore's loss. The Bush factor (Gore factor, whatever factor) was bigger than the Nader factor. Therefore the cause was not Nader. But almost every disaster has many causes. Every factor whose removal would have prevented the disaster is a cause. The important causes are the ones we can affect. Let's work on the Nader factor to find a solution that will make us stronger and stop Bush in the process.

Nader Claimed 'Gore = Bush' on His Home Page

Nader now claims that he did not say Gore was just the same as Bush. But he frequently called them Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee, implying they were so similar it didn't matter.

On his home page, on election day, second under "Campaign Highlights," we find this link: Gore = Bush Administration

. You can still click on it because I've hooked it to the Way-Back-Machine. You will find Nader telling you "No" there's no difference, but then taking it back just a little, but Nader's statement is almost too complicated to follow.

Down below, he quotes Michael Moore: "A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush; ... It is a wasted vote if you vote for more of the same, which is what you get with Gore or Bush." –Michael Moore

This is all on the Gore=Bush.html web page, and Michael's video link is "Gore = Bush".

Ralph Nader told us, over and over, there was no meaningful difference between Gore and Bush. He was wrong in 2000, and he is wrong to refuse to cooperate in 2004.

Why did Todd Gitlin oppose Ralph's run in 2000 and warn of disaster?
"I'm the sort of voter who ought to be flocking to him. I was the third president of Students for a Democratic Society, active in New Left politics thereafter, frequently critical of Clinton-Gore politics from the left. . . . The outcome might well be, with a few other states, catastrophic -- and not only for the next four years


	Moore to Swing States: Vote Nader Nov. 6, 2000 Michael Moore If you live in a swing state and you feel your conscience telling you that you have to vote for Gore to stop Bush, then do what you need to do. It's not how I would vote, ..." (more)


	Nader's 'Gore = Bush' Web Page from Election Day Nov. 7, 2000 Michael Moore (quoted on Nader's web page) A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush; that is the new equation. A vote for Nader is a political Molotov that we need to throw into a corrupt and bankrupt system filled with its dirty money. We need to do this right now folks. We need to do this. It is a wasted vote if you vote for more of the same, which is what you get with Gore or Bush." (more)


	Open Letter from Michael Moore to Al Gore Oct. 31, 2000 Michael Moore "I will not feel one iota of guilt should you [Al Gore] screw up and lose on Tuesday. The blame I do share is that I voted for you and Bill in 1992." (more)

Links Ralph Nader

http://2act.org/p/33.html | 07/04/09 03:49 GMT
Modified: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 23:46:59 GMT