Nader to run again?

On November 7, 2000, Americans held an election to determine who would be the next President of the United States. The four biggest vote getters were;

Democratic candidate Al Gore with 50.16 million votes,

Republican candidate George W. Bush with 49.82 million votes,

Green Party candidate Ralph Nader with 2.78 million votes,

Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan with 0.45 million votes.

If Americans had chosen their President based on who got the most votes nationwide, Al Gore would have been elected.

Remind me again why Gore lost in a democracy???

(Disclaimer…..I'm no Gore fan, just think the electoral college is a fucking joke)

Originally posted by pollard:
http://www.multied.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

Here's a better article on the subject:

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Here's a better article on the subject:

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

I think something might be wrong with google's search results

Nader should run for one of the Senate seats that will be vacated by Democrats in the next election, and mix it up there, but it's more about his ego than he and his (dwindling) fans will admit. I challenge anyone who voted for him in 2000 to say now that there is no difference between Bush (the great uniter?) and Gore, Rep & Dem.
He's a frigging nightmare, and his supporters are either naive, stupid, or careless.

Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Speaking as a Nader voter in 2000 and 1996, I can say the Dems would not have recieved my vote in either of those election. The idiots who say Nader cost Gore the election are idiots. Do they also claim that Perot running won the election for Clinton? They should.

That said, Nader has made his point and shouldn't run again.

And the idiots who say intemperate and foolish things like, "The idiots who say that Nader cost Gore the election are idiots," now they would REALLY be idiots for not doing their homework before mouthing off. From a 12/31/2000 AP article (link posted at the end for verification purposes):

"Nationally, exit polls found that half of Nader voters would have supported Vice President Al Gore had Nader not been on the ticket. Thirty percent said they would not have voted and the rest would have gone for Bush.

"In Florida, Nader got 2 percent of the vote. That's too small a group to analyze with exit polls, but if these voters were anything like Nader voters nationally, Gore easily would have won the state, its 25 electoral votes and the White House.

"Bush won 2,912,790 votes in Florida and Gore won 2,912,253 â?? a difference of 537 votes. Nader got 97,488 votes."

Or do the idiots in question think that the proportions of alternate choices among Florida Nader voters were so different from the national means that Gore wouldn't have scraped up a 538 vote advantage over Bush from among the 97,488? If that is said idiots' grasp of probability, then they are cordially invited to a game of poker at my house.
AP Postmortem on Nader Effect

Holy shit!! Does that mean I have to endure more Eddie Vedder benefit concerts for Nader??! That's worse than having to witness his pathetic attempt to get elected to public office….uugggghhhh!

There is simply no valid debate to the fact that Nader cost the Democrats the '00 election. There is no other way to interpret the numbers. It's like trying to claim that 2 plus 2 equals five.

As for Perot, he was far more centrist than Nader is, and he drew support from the center-right and center-left. Much of the weirdo-American community, which is well represented on both sides of the fence, voted for him. As a result, the case that he cost Bush the '92 election is far less clear cut.

Even so, it's possible he did do so, and that possibility is one reason Republicans were such remarkably sore losers for the duration of the Clinton Administration.

No amount of denial will change one basic fact: The United States is a two-party system, and any third party candidate functions only as a spoiler.

You want four more years of reckless lie-based wars (what's next, Syria? Iran? Korea?), unilateral foreign policy, ballooning deficits, insane religious ideologues in critical posts? Go ahead and vote Nader in November.

everybody listen to Doctor Doom, he knows how you should vote

The Nader of old will be trounced thoroughly, that's why I'm voting for the buff & beefy Schwarzenader.

Quit your whining, Democrats. If anyone actually votes for Nader in 2004, it will truly be people disgusted with the Democratic Party who would never vote for Edwards or Kerry. Dems who are only mildly disgusted with the Dem Party will hold their nose and vote for the Dem candidate, given the results of 2000.

fuck it all! hopefully we can get schwarzenegger ventura 2008!

if not maybe a horribly predictable movie like soul plane!!! www.soulplane.com snoop and tom arnold will own!

If that were to happen, I'd move to France.

Originally posted by flawd101:
fuck it all! hopefully we can get schwarzenegger ventura 2008!

<img src="http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/images/us/local/products/productsall/p86353c.jpg" alt=" - " />

Get Your's Today!!

Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
If that were to happen, I'd move to France.

Originally posted by flawd101:
fuck it all! hopefully we can get schwarzenegger ventura 2008!

what, are you holding out for the last living von Erich to run?