Premier Rock Forum

Sorry, we can't find that page
The page you requested may no longer be on azcentral.com. Please use the site search above, or consult this site map.

Certainly not something Nader needs to involve himself with...business must be slow.

That does seem pretty ridiculous.

Almost as ridiculous as accusing Nader of "costing Gore the election."

Almost.

i actually believe that he cost gore the election. i’m sure there are numbers out there to prove it. i believe the vast majority of nader votes would have went to gore in “lesser of two evils” voting theory. would you not concur lvp?

If Nader had not run, Gore probably won more votes...but to strictly blame Nader for his defeat is silly. Gore was not a strong enough candidate, and he lost. Would we really have beeen any better off with Gore in the Whitehouse anyway? I'm not so sure.

i can guarantee we wouldn’t be in iraq at this point and would’ve never attacked iraq in the first place. i believe the deficit would
be enourmously better off than it is right now. the people in charge of other areas of the administration would probably be a lot
more prepared for their jobs because they would’ve received them based on their past acheivements as opposed to just being buddies
with the president and that’s how they got their job. but i agree with nader not being the sole cause of the loss. democrats seem
to finally be getting a backbone these days and even some republicans. gore was lacking one his bid for presidency.

i actually believe that he cost gore the election. i’m sure there are numbers out there to prove it. i believe the vast majority of nader votes would have went to gore in “lesser of two evils” voting theory. would you not concur lvp?

First, there are not numbers out there that show how many Nader votes would have gone to Gore. There might be polls that give you some kind of idea, but in a race as tight as Florida's, the margin of error is too great. I would guess that a majority of Nader votes would have gone to Gore, had Nader not been in the race. I would also guess that this majority was not vast.

Second, your reasoning appears to be: If there was a candidate in the race who received votes that would have gone to Gore had that candidate not been in the race, and if that candidate received more votes than the margin of victory, then that candidate can be said to have cost Gore the election. Using this reasoning, I declare that George Bush cost Gore the election, and did so a lot more than Ralph Nader did.

My list of peope who "cost Al Gore the election":
The US Supreme Court
The Bush campaign lawyers
Bush voters in red states and Florida
Bush
Gore
Third party voters in red states and Florida
Third party candidates.

There is a list, and Nader is on it, near the bottom.

sunset_gun wrote:Would we really ba any better off the Gore in the Whitehouse anyway?

Yes.

waltermalling wrote:i can guarantee we wouldn’t be in iraq at this point and would’ve never attacked iraq in the first place. i believe the deficit would
be enourmously better off than it is right now. the people in charge of other areas of the administration would probably be a lot
more prepared for their jobs because they would’ve received them based on their past acheivements as opposed to just being buddies
with the president and that’s how they got their job. but i agree with nader not being the sole cause of the loss. democrats seem
to finally be getting a backbone these days and even some republicans. gore was lacking one his bid for presidency.

Five stars for content.
Three for mechanics.