Fck ff nd d, Rlph

[womzilla]

Daily Kos has poll numbers:

New Mexico

American Research Group. 3/30-4/1. MoE 4%. No trend lines.

Bush 46
Kerry 45
Nader 3

(Entry title courtesy of Xopher. If you don't get the joke, you should probably read TNH's blog Making Light more often.)

UPDATE: Be sure to read the comments for more about why Rlph should fck ff nd d.

Comments

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

Which brings us back to Nader's "Big Lie".
"Gore lost the election! It was his to lose."
But pointing out the cold hard facts of numbers of votes (especially in Florida) simply causes the Naderites to react like Neo Cons (or that character on "Mad TV"). They simply sit in a corner and hum until you go away.
By the way, I called Nader's Washington headquarters and asked them about Republican contributions to his campaign.
They responded:
"Ralph has lot's of friends and supporters who are Republicans."
Will someone please buy Ralph a Corvair.....and quick!

[dougo.livejournal.com]

I am highly skeptical of your "cold hard facts". There are so many hidden assumptions in the statement "Gore would have won if Nader hadn't run" that it becomes ludicrous. Playing the blame game like that is silly—why not blame Bush voters instead? They're the ones who elected a Republican Congress in 2002. Democrats have lost touch with people on both sides of them, and they have to figure out a better strategy to get them back than finger-pointing and guilt-tripping.

Now Will You Go Off in to a Corner

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

and hum "Melancholy Baby"?


http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presge.htm#FL

Bush, George W. R 2,912,790
48.85

Gore, Al D 2,912,253
48.84

Nader, Ralph GPF 97,488
1.63

Gore losses by 537 votes

Ralph (Retch and Leave Puke Here) Nader gets 97,488

You got number to prove these wrong, I'm glad to hear them.
Just list links as well.
You're about as realistic as a Yahoo Neo Con

Re: Now Will You Go Off in to a Corner

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

Rule one: Be polite to other posters.

As to the numbers: Doug's point, which you completely missed, is that we might want to concentrate some of our animosity at the 2.9 million Bush voters in Florida or the 50 million Bush voters nationwide instead of concentrating our animosity on the 3 million Nader voters. On the other hand, I don't think anyone can accuse me of being gentle on Rutherford Bush.

Re: Now Will You Go Off in to a Corner

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

I responded to the following:

"I am highly skeptical of your "cold hard facts."


The reality is, that whatever else may have happened, Bush won by the numbers he did, and Gore lost. It is likely that, had Nader not run, or thrown his support to Gore things would have turned out differently in Florida (even with the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters).
So, I don't really think it matters what the poster's opinion is, based on the facts, he's wrong. He can criticize the Democratic party until the cows come home, but Nader STILL got the votes he did, and Gore lost by what he did.
Perhaps I overreacted to someone questioning information I knew to be facts, but that is less of an issue then his response being the sort of cookie-cutter reaction I have heard from every Naderite.

Re: Now Will You Go Off in to a Corner

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

The numbers are facts, yes. But they don't prove that Nader "cost" Gore the election. Now, in fact, I believe that Nader did do exactly that, but so did several other things, which latter point is Doug's point as well even as he disagrees with the first point.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

I believe the numbers, I wasn't arguing them. My point is that you cannot simply conclude from those numbers that Ralph Nader was the single (or even primary) cause of Bush's victory. If you remove him from the equation, you have to recalculate all the variables from the beginning: not just the people who voted for Nader, but everyone who voted for Gore, Bush, Buchanan, or someone else—not to mention the millions who didn't vote at all—and figure out what they would have done in this hypothetical other world where Nader had dropped out or never run at all. Ultimately this is a pointless exercise in historical fiction. And why not go the other way, and wonder what would have happened if Nader had been allowed to join the 2000 debates? Maybe he'd have convinced more people of Bush's stupidity or corruption. Clearly Gore did a terrible job of this, but he was the only one allowed to debate. We need more voices, more options, and more reasoned discussion of the issues, not more whining, name-calling, and misdirected anger.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

Nader's campaign was backed by (at least some) Republican money.
I believe it is unlikely that a Republican-based special interest group would have supported it for the good of the country.
Once again, Nader had taken money from the Republican party. He has learned little or nothing. He is being a useful tool of the Republican party, and therefore will hopefully be ignored.
If he wants to promote change from within I agree with Randi Rhodes, he should sit down with Kerry (as he didn't do with Gore) and work out some sort of king-maker arrangement (unfortunately for him however, he has lost mountains of credibility sine 2000).