I hafta disagree on Nader. As Nader said himself, "there is no difference between George Bush and Al Gore." Nader was running to fight the current system, to help make this nation a better place.

 

Nader was a far superior candidate to Gore. And if Hillary is the democratic candidate, then that is who I am actively campaigning for. Honestly, I would much rather see McCain as president before Hillary as president (tho I feel that both are horrible) and I am sure that there were many liberals who hated Gore (and his running mate was Joe fucking Lieberman who is George Busy by another name for crying out loud) who would have much rather seen Bush as president but hated him as well.

 

I do not buy this idea that Nader was "stealing votes" from Gore, because it is foolish to assume that the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore. 

Adelman:

I do not buy this idea that Nader was "stealing votes" from Gore, because it is foolish to assume that the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore. 

 

 Why is it foolish to assume that people who voted for a fairly radical liberal candidate would have voted for a more moderate liberal in his absence?  It seems like basic common sense.  Do you see a Nader supporter voting for Bush under any circumstances?
 

Not saying they would vote for Bush, maybe they wouldn't vote.

 

It is unfair to assume that they would vote Gore. Everybody knew that Nader did not have a shot in hell at winning, everybody knew that this was a close election (between a moderate liberal and a conservative), and despite this, Nader got a good number of votes.

I think it's more foolish to assume that people would rather have not voted than vote for Gore.  That's more of a leap than assuming that somebody who is obviously not politically apathetic and liberal would have voted for Gore if Nader was not an option.

Gore was the only liberal option with a realistic shot at winning, and they passed on him. I do not see how it is a leap to assume that maybe they do not like Gore.

 You do realize that the point of voting is not to pick the winner, right?  You don't vote for the candidate you think is going to be victorious, you vote for the candidate you want.  With Nader out of the picture and only Gore and Bush to choose from, do you really think people who care enough to try to establish a third party are just going abstain from voting?  These are obviously people who care about the democratic process and are not politically apathetic.

 That's much more of a leap than the assumption that Nader took votes from Gore.

 Considering what's been going on for age's between China and Tibet I would suggest reconsidering what you talk about. It's not like anyone is threatening a peace leader or anything. Long live one of my workers the Dali Lama. Free Tibet, and have many daughters. Were stereotyping when typing in stereo right?

xduckshoex:

 You do realize that the point of voting is not to pick the winner, right?  You don't vote for the candidate you think is going to be victorious, you vote for the candidate you want.  With Nader out of the picture and only Gore and Bush to choose from, do you really think people who care enough to try to establish a third party are just going abstain from voting?  These are obviously people who care about the democratic process and are not politically apathetic.

 That's much more of a leap than the assumption that Nader took votes from Gore.

 

 

If you live in a swing state, and you vote for Nader, then it is obvious that you do not like Gore. If Nader was not on the ballot, who is to say that they would either not vote or choose another third party candidate.

 

You can't blame Nader for Gore's weak campaign. He didn't even win his home state. Gore lost because he is Al Gore.