dinos wrote:
GG, your point is entirely without merit. If Gore had run a half-way intelligent campaign instead of running around slobbering on his hag of a wife on stage to show that he's sensitive to female voters, he'd have gone further.
Gore cost himself that election by being a bigger disaster than Bush. If he was a strong candidate, he'd have won over Nader's supporters. Nobody is obligated to vote for any particular party and support of a third party simply cannot be construed as support of one of the larger two by the loser of the larger two parties. Some people reject the choice of two evils to vote for. Good for them.
Hi Dinos,
What you say about Gore is fairly true, and had he not distanced himself from Clinton too much, because of "Lewinsky Gate", he could have done much better, despite all the shenanigans with Florida's election board. Also lets not forget, that Gore even lost his home state of Tennessee, which would have gave him the Presidency, so Gore did screw things for himself, no doubt.
Having said all that, this is the part I found it to be troubling for me with Nader and those who supported him in 2000. Gore run on being environmentalist and Bush run on "Fuck the environment", and yet those who supported Nader, as well as being a protest voters, they were also by and large environmentalist. So it defied logic, as to why one would vote for Nader who had no chance of winning to have made a difference on the environment, when Gore would have been a better choice, and on the flip side of the coin, they also knew that Bush could care less about the environment, which their Nader support was in fact a factor in electing Bush, specially in Florida.
Happy 4th of July.!!