Why do democrats blame Nader instead of those with the Diebold keys?

Question

"Voting for a candidate of one's choice is a Constitutional right, and the Democrats who are asking me not to run are, without question, seeking to deny the Constitutional rights of voters who are, by law, otherwise free to choose to vote for me." Ralph Nader

oohhbother I disagree no-one knows who has a chance of winning until the votes are counted. The USA badly needs a third choice, if it is to ever escape the narrow confines of corporate party rule.

Answer 1

Okay, here's one Democrat who does not blame Nader. Let me be clear that I don't like him: I consider him a self-centered, self-righteous jerk.

But I don't believe in two-parties-only politics, either, and in Florida in 2000 there were at least three factors affecting the result:

(1) third-party candidates, particularly Nader and Buchanan;

(2) an organized Republican vote-suppression effort, including removing from rosters people whose names (unless they were Hispanic) even vaguely resembled the names of people convicted of felonies (or even misdemeanors) in Florida or nearby states;

(3) an illegal and deceptive Presidential ballot layout in one large county, which was devised by Democrats and had been shown four years earlier to cause thousands of invalid (overvoted) Presidential ballots, all taking votes from the second candidate listed.

Had that illegal ballot layout not been used, the vote-suppression effort would not have succeeded and the third-party vote would not have been damaging to Democrats. Their ticket would have carried Florida by at least 15,000 votes.

(Incidentally, you'll note that the exit pollsters, who only measure which candidate the voters believe they chose, actually got it right.)

Oh, I should probably address the main question, too. After four years of steady involvement with the Democratic Party, I find their capacity for turning off their brains and following the simplest, most partisan rhetoric to be almost unlimited. Of course, that goes for a whole lot of Republicans, too!

Answer 2

Nader, without question, and, with no shame on his part whatsoever, GAVE the election to Bush in '00. Nader has done more harm to his own country than any Democrat since LBJ because of his selfish antics in '00.

Answer 3

When a candidate who has NO possibility of winning stays in the race and collects funds from a party most opposed to his own policies while taking votes from the party that is most favorable to his polices - there is cause for complaint.
He was a spoiler.
He knew what he was doing so let him wear the label.