So who voted for Nader in 2000? Check in here...

Just curious. :shrug:

In NY, knew it was safe. All for Dean now.

and I'm for Dean, as well.

because I really liked Gore but I was tempted to because of the DLC and Lieberman.

I'm a full Dem who's heart is Green. :)

And here in Ma I could have without hurting Gore.But in Nov of 2000 I still had faith in the Democratic Party.

Most of that faith was dashed when not one of the gutless bastards stood with the CBC.

The rest was dashed in Nov of 2002 when they shit on people on the left in favor of "swing voters".

did not stand with the CBC because Al Gore asked them not to. I'm not saying that was the right decision, but it wasn't because they didn't care.

if they really cared they would have no matter who asked them not to.

as an independent in NY.

Gore had no chance in Texas, so I voted for Nader. I won't be doing that again, though. As long as it's not Lieberman, the Dem gets my vote this year, no matter what.

Come on! I care who gets the candidacy but care even more who gets the wh. So if it came down to georgie and leiberman (Which it won't), you wouldn't go leiberman? YIKES!

I still live in Texas. W is going to win here. My vote will have no bearing on who ends up in the WH. So why SHOULD I go for Lieberman? If I lived in just about any other state, I would vote for him, because I do believe he would be better than the chimp. But I will not vote for him under my current circumstances. I don't think he deserves it.

Maybe you shouldn't go around putting words into people's mouths without fully understanding the context of their comments....

Nader was not on the ballot. He was a write-in candidate and one had to request a paper ballot to vote for him. My vote for Nader had nothing to do with Indiana going Republican (again!).

INDIANA

Bush, George W. bbbbbRbbbbb1,245,836bbbbb56.65%

Gore, AlbbbbbbbbbbbbbDbbbbbb 901,980bbbbb41.01%

Nader, RalphbbbbbbbbbWbbbbbbb18,531bbbbbb0.84%

Buchanan, PatbbbbbbbbIbbbbbbb16,959bbbbbbb0.77%

Browne, HarrybbbbbbLBTbbbbbbb15,530bbbbbbb0.71%

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

I must admit, I was tempted.

But Gore and the ballot got the better of me!

I had a friend in FL who wanted to vote for Nader, but wanted Gore to win. So I voted for Nader in Virginia, and she voted for Gore in Florida.

Of course this time around both states will go DEM!

I really, really had to hold back the vomit that day. But, Gore pulled off Oregon.

......................................................................

And I don't want to get into a thing of who did what and is responsible for whatever, either.

I REALLY held my nose voting for Gore.

Now, the Democratic party MUST change. No Repukes. No Liberman-lites.

Until and unless we have a Pol Pot on the ticket, I say turn HARD LEFT.


HARD LEFT.

All the misery that the Nader campaign has wrought upon us. Oh The Humanity. Hey, I'm serious about this!

we'd see him seek out and embrace Nader and the Greens

...twice '96 and '00. With no regrets, either.

In fact, I was so fed up by '96 (welfare reform, salvage rider, telecom act, and on and on) I swore I'd never vote for the major parties againg. Don't worry though, since the GOP has managed to morph into the American Nazi Party, I'll have to go Demo in '04.

I've said before on these boards that Shrubbo is the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party. I've thought he's toast all along. He's so unimagineably, godforsakenly bad that all us 'casual' greenies and third-party types are pretty much forced to hold our nose and vote for whoever the Dems put out there, probably even Holy Joe. Sigh.

-AA

I voted for the best choice.


TWL

This is a board for Democratics, I hope that any third party supporters have found there own boards by now.

If they haven't, let me be the first to invite them to go.

I voted for Gore, but did consider Nader for a very short time. I talked family members into voting for Gore as the race was so close.

I consider the 2000 Nader vote a naive and idealistic one. However, if a person votes for him again in a swing state and helps Bush get re-elected :mad:

I am curious as to what your plans are for the future though?

Nader in 04 or Any One But Bush...???

what the fuck is a "Democratic"? Is that like an "emetic"?

:shrug:

they're everywhere.

and according to the Admin they're welcomed.

(democratics- what pray tell is that?)

And it is high time all Democrats stopped such penny-ante backbiting and started thinking about the greater good.

I presume that most posters here have seen "The West Wing." I call your attention to Josh Lyman's girlfreind, Amy; a rabid liberal who attacks a Democratic president and hurts her own party's re-election chances. Why do you think Sorkin wrote that allegory? Go look in the mirror.

If you manage to turn the Democratic party into an exclusive club for leftists only, who sit around and sneer at the "weak moderates," will you feel good about what you have done while living under 4 more years of fascist GOP rule?

If you manage to turn the Democratic party into an exclusive club for leftists only

HELL, I WAS HOPING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, A PLETHORA OF MODEARTE AND RIGHT-WING VOICES, IF THEY COULD EVEN ALLOW ONE LEFTIST INTO THE TENT.

Fact of the matter is, Democrats want the left to vote for them, but they don't want any of the left's ideas.

Your extremism is what has put me off the DNC all my life. I have come to join you in the urgent quest to rid our country of the Kristian Taliban and their chickenhawk mafia. Sitting around complaining that the DNC leadership is too far right for your personal taste is not productive.

Whom do you think would give your leftist ideas a fairer hearing: The DLC or the GOP? Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

the DLC would tell me how wrong I was to think that way.

Frankly, you're a "moderate" which means you're not a Democrat and you have no stake in the fututre of the country.

It's not a question of "my" personal taste...you should see how many others are abandoning this "centrist" corruption of the Democratic party.

Your rejection of me is what is hurting the Democratic party. If you get your way, your party will melt down and disappear like the Whigs. Maybe in the long run, that would be better for the country. But in the short term, it is more important to hang together and get rid of Bush.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

... your construction allows pre-emptive invasion to become "moderate middle." I trust that you've been alive long enough to see the middle occupy what used to be pretty far right. If you haven't, then I trust that you're smart enough to know that the past 50 years we had the Geneva Convention, which Bush has basically erased at a stroke.

At some point, politics is about ideas, and not merely about occupying a middle ground that shifts ever-rightward.

not Republicans or Republican wannabes

This really frosts me. You sound just like those "love it or leave it" righties. How dare you say I have no stake in my own country's future? It's dogmatism like yours that helped elect Nixon by choosing McGovern to run against him. We all know how well THAT turned out.

for the bullshit they are

THEN read this speech by Bill Moyers:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0610-11.htm

:7

I did. Let's hope that your query results in something constructive and not another round of calls to purge Greens and other lefties.

see above

But I live in NY, so I could afford to.

:)

I'm looking for something constructive in the way of a Non Republican president. You???

you?

:D

"If by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal."

That is the foundation of the Democratic Party. However, Democrats still have to work with Republicans who don't give a hoot about any of the above.

:shrug:

:eyes:

From the DU rules page;
We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

This is a "big tent" message board. We welcome a wide range of progressive opinion. You will likely encounter many points of view here that you disagree with.

guess the 'shared' goals it key here.

Anyone have a list of shared goals?

Goal # 1 for me is to get Bush out of the White House.

Is Lieberman an acceptable alternative to George W. Bush?

A ham sandwich is an acceptable alternative to Shrub. The question is: Can he get elected?

Sadly, in this nation of Kristians, I think not. The winning candidate will be a white male with an Anglo-Saxon name. And though I have often slagged off Vince Lombardi and Nicolo Machievelli, this time the future of our country hinges on winning.

I saw no real difference between the two big candidates, and figured it didn't matter who won. So I gave my vote to the Greens in the hope that they would make 5% and get federal funds.

OK, I fucked up. I admit it. Now, let's learn from my lesson. NO MORE DISUNITY! Stop bashing Democratic candidates. Bash the GOP instead. ANY Democrat is better than the Shrub Mafia, so work for whomever you want, but don't go bashing other Democrats just because they don't pass some 1-issue litmus test for your personal dogma.

And if you don't understand that, or worse, if you don't care about that, then you might as well stew in your juices because many of us ain't buying the snake oil you are selling.

I live in DC, which consists of 80% registered Dems, so figured I could safely get away with a protest vote against the centrism of Clinton and Gore without jeopardizing DC's single electoral vote for Gore.

I really didn't even like Nader that much, but I couldn't force myself to vote for a mainstream candidate. I don't know what I would have done in a swing state.

eom

here in NC, Gore had no chance, I wrote in Nader but they wouldn't even count the write-ins, not a very fullfilling experience all around. I'll vote for whichever Dem runs this time, but I'm of the school that believes we seriously need a move to the left and most of the folks I know feel the same, very much disenfranchised by the Democrats in recent years (the DLC in particular).
If Bush wasn't such a completely evil monster I doubt if the Dems could muster the unity that they WILL have in '04, something to think about.

I had friends that did because CA was a definite Dem state, but I just couldn't check his name.

A safe vote here in Texas, so I thought I'd teach the "new democrats" a lesson by helping Ralph get 5% or more of the vote nationwide.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, I guess. ANY Democrat gets my vote this time.

eom

If Nader were to run as Democrat now, he would not be near the top of my list.

If he gets the Green nomination and runs, he will be on the bottom of my list, duking it out with Lieberman for the honor of least favorite candidate opposing Bush.

:toast:

I didn't think that all the Florida funny biznis was gonna happen, and I didn't realize what a self-serving hypocrite repub agent provocateur Nader is. I'm quite liberal, and Al Gore seemed too corporate to me; at the time, my big pet peeve was corporate control. I'm voting for whoever the dem candidate is in 2004 (and I'm hoping it's Dean). The stakes are too high to vote third party this time, IMHO.

In Ohio, a non-battleground state. Slept like a baby that night.

Surely you jest!

No, and quit calling me Shirley...

leftist...nut :-)

activist elite you! ;-)

I voted for Nader but my vote also counted as a Gore vote. I wanted to vote for Gore but I knew the only way for him to win was to get the swing voter in swing states, so I swapped my Gore vote with a Nader voter.

In 2000 swing voters traded Gore votes for Nader votes or Nader votes for Gore votes in swing states. The Republicans filed lawsuits to try and stop it because it would not benefit Bush. About 50,000 or more people voted in swing states as swing voters trading votes, in 2000.

http://votetrader.org/results/

http://voteswap.com/

Which is to switch to the Green Party for 2004, but vote Democrat.

I would think that the Dems would be more worried about the 7.7 million Dems who voted for Bush instead of the 2.5 million people of all walks of life that voted for Nader. If the Dems could have gotten members of their own party to vote for Gore in Florida, Tennessee and Arkansas, Gore would be president right now.

I know many who voted for Shrub, but have since considered voting Dem. These include Republicans...

I'll take pragmatism over "principled lite" anyday

Gore wasn't doing it for me. He seemed to be more interested in the corporations/special interests than the people. I voted Clinton/Gore in 1992 because of Gore, and his vision for the future, including high speed rail. I didn't see that he'd followed through, so I went Green.

I vote in California, where all polls showed Gore winning easily.

stand a snowballs chance. I am a proponent for a third party. This year I'll be voting for Gov. Dean, our next president.