Lets try that link again.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=10&u=/ap/20040709/ap_on_el_pr/nader_petitions
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=10&u=/ap/20040709/ap_on_el_pr/nader_petitions
As opposed to the DNC opposing his name on the ballot thereby infringing on his right to run. Maybe Kerry should distinguish himself from Bush in such a way that the confusion and disgust associated with Bush would be a non factor. Maybe it's just me but if I view the Republicans helping Nader and see that as a problem I would identify the root cause and attempt to correct it. That is much easier than wasting time and energy trying to alter the agenda of two different groups IMO.
Sonny2003,
Many analysts consider the '92 election to have been very close with the inclusion of Mr. Perot. Clinton won a lot of states with 5% or less margin where Perot would get double digits in the polls. It's hard to say if those people would have chosen Clinton or Bush or just stayed home and chilled. It's kind of a moot point but to say that the election wasn't as close as it was is misguided IMO.
Many analysts consider the '92 election to have been very close with the inclusion of Mr. Perot. Clinton won a lot of states with 5% or less margin where Perot would get double digits in the polls. It's hard to say if those people would have chosen Clinton or Bush or just stayed home and chilled. It's kind of a moot point but to say that the election wasn't as close as it was is misguided IMO.
Perot changed the whole tenor of the debate. Had the fight been only between Clinton and Bush, Clinton's attacks may have been deflected. But with Perot joining Clinton in attacking the economy, Bush had a tough time getting out his message. The pessimism from those two drowned out the positive news that the economy was recovering. Perot's damage to Bush was already done by the time the election came about.
Bill Clinton received 370 Electoral votes. George Bush received 168 Electoral votes. You really have to be disingenuous to say that Ross Perot was the reason Bush lost.
Poll after poll showed that Perot voters were slightly more in favor of Bush than Clinton. Still experts will agree, without Perot, Clinton would have still won. It takes a Dinosaur to say that Nader DID NOT cause the election to go to Bush Jr.
Poll after poll showed that Perot voters were slightly more in favor of Bush than Clinton. Still experts will agree, without Perot, Clinton would have still won. It takes a Dinosaur to say that Nader DID NOT cause the election to go to Bush Jr.
I guess I'm a dinosaur. I never said that Clinton would have lost without Perot in the race. I merely threw out the possibility(and others will agree) that it was a closer race than the final score indicated.
I don't know how I'm being disingenuous by stating an opinion but if you want I can look up the poll #'s and see how close some of the states were. I'm almost sure there are more than a couple close races to examine.
Gore's problem was his anemic performance in the rural areas. Those electoral votes add up. We can argue 'til the cows come home about Florida but had he taken care of business in even just a couple of those "meaningless" states he just might be in the White House today enraging all the Democrat haters on this forum and elsewhere.
I don't know how I'm being disingenuous by stating an opinion but if you want I can look up the poll #'s and see how close some of the states were. I'm almost sure there are more than a couple close races to examine.
Gore's problem was his anemic performance in the rural areas. Those electoral votes add up. We can argue 'til the cows come home about Florida but had he taken care of business in even just a couple of those "meaningless" states he just might be in the White House today enraging all the Democrat haters on this forum and elsewhere.
I guess you did not read my last line of my post carefully. I said, and I quote "It takes a Dinosaur to say that Nader DID NOT cause the election to go to Bush Jr. "
Again, regardless of all of Gore shortcomings. You really are lacking in candor if you still hold to the belief that without Nader in the race, Bush Jr. would still have been elected.
You go back to the 1992 election and my initial post has nothing to do with that. I am just saying that many Nader voters, still hold to the belief that Nader DID NOT cause Gore to lose. The reason they say that is probably because they do not want to be connected to putting this poor excuse of a President in the White House.
<<< Nader voters
Again, regardless of all of Gore shortcomings. You really are lacking in candor if you still hold to the belief that without Nader in the race, Bush Jr. would still have been elected.
You go back to the 1992 election and my initial post has nothing to do with that. I am just saying that many Nader voters, still hold to the belief that Nader DID NOT cause Gore to lose. The reason they say that is probably because they do not want to be connected to putting this poor excuse of a President in the White House.
Talking to you is kind of like talking to Alvin and the Chipmunks, I have to walk you through it.
'00 election
guy #1 Al Gore
guy #2 George Bush
guy #3 Ralph Nader
I won't list every candidate as there were others.
Gore lost by a small margin. Every state was a swing state in that election whether or not Nader voters should be saddled with humiliation is up to the individual. One thing they shouldn't have to carry is guilt for voting their conscience (at least I hope that's how they voted) or your disdain for their selection. I'm not going to presume to ascertain their intention like that stupid hanging chad debacle if the Nader voters still voted without him in the race. I'll leave that to you. My post was more about the ad infinitum Florida election rant. BTW the reason I used the '92 election was because of the presence of Mr. Perot. I tried unsuccessfully to draw a parallel between that election and '00.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Mr NJ, Ross Perot took away votes from both Clinton & Bush Sr. Besides, the election was not even close. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Poll after poll showed that Perot voters were slightly more in favor of Bush than Clinton. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here's where I connect some of the dots. If you'll research some of the links I provided you'll find that Clinton won quite a few states by single digits. Without Perot, you, by your own admission said that Perot voters favored Bush slightly over Clinton. Could that slightly have been enough to win some of those states? That was the point I was trying to make not insult you.
The primary difference between us is that you want to blame Nader for Gore's defeat. I want to blame Gore for his own defeat. I'm sure there's some Chinese proverb about how a wise man will find knowledge in his defeat and a foolish man will find excuses.
'00 election
guy #1 Al Gore
guy #2 George Bush
guy #3 Ralph Nader
I won't list every candidate as there were others.
Gore lost by a small margin. Every state was a swing state in that election whether or not Nader voters should be saddled with humiliation is up to the individual. One thing they shouldn't have to carry is guilt for voting their conscience (at least I hope that's how they voted) or your disdain for their selection. I'm not going to presume to ascertain their intention like that stupid hanging chad debacle if the Nader voters still voted without him in the race. I'll leave that to you. My post was more about the ad infinitum Florida election rant. BTW the reason I used the '92 election was because of the presence of Mr. Perot. I tried unsuccessfully to draw a parallel between that election and '00.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Mr NJ, Ross Perot took away votes from both Clinton & Bush Sr. Besides, the election was not even close. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Poll after poll showed that Perot voters were slightly more in favor of Bush than Clinton. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here's where I connect some of the dots. If you'll research some of the links I provided you'll find that Clinton won quite a few states by single digits. Without Perot, you, by your own admission said that Perot voters favored Bush slightly over Clinton. Could that slightly have been enough to win some of those states? That was the point I was trying to make not insult you.
The primary difference between us is that you want to blame Nader for Gore's defeat. I want to blame Gore for his own defeat. I'm sure there's some Chinese proverb about how a wise man will find knowledge in his defeat and a foolish man will find excuses.
