not sure if I can articulate the lessons rn but it's the same people who are still mad about Jill Stein costing Hillary the 2016 election, ignoring that Gary Johnson got 3x her votes. if you vote you have to vote for the Realistic Option, they think if those voters didn't have Jill Stein that they would have been forced to vote Hillary instead of just not voting like most of the working poor
The lessons they took is that the democrats need to scold lefty people into voting for them instead of changing their policy positions to appeal to those people. They blame 2000 on people voting for Ralph Nader of the green party instead of on themselves for not getting more votes or on the conservatives for stealing the close election from them (Gore actually won, the SC just appointed Bush to the presidency anyway).
Ralph Nader was an independent presidential candidate who got some votes in 2000, where the democratic candidate was Al Gore and the republican candidate was George Bush Jr.
The election came down to an extremely close race in Florida. A recount was halted and Bush was given the presidency (partly because of deliberate sabotage on Bush's part, see the Brooks Brothers Riot) by the US supreme court.
Libs claim that Al Gore would have won Florida (and thus the presidency) if Nader hadn't ran. This ignores that there's no guarantee Nader voters would have voted for Gore instead of just not voting, or voting for Bush. They do this because they believe that america's institutions are functional and just, so any evidence to the contrary is blamed on individual bad actors, including the voter base. This belief in institutions is largely the result of propaganda, as it was and is transparently obvious that the country is rotten to the core and must be torn down.
Damn it's crazy how third party voters keep costing democrats elections. It seems like their success or failure really hinges on winning those voters. So I wonder what they've done to...
Oh right I forgot, "The democratic party can never fail, it can only be failed."
Lmao I have been following politics way more than any normal person should and those numbers are absolutely meaningless.
Make up shit.
author is a turbolib who took all the wrong lessons from 2000
Ignore my username - I'm not american, could you explain this comment?
The Supreme Court stepped in during the Florida recount and said "stop that, Bush is president now mkay", and for some reason everyone listened
Why is the author a turbolib and what are the wrong lessons they took?
not sure if I can articulate the lessons rn but it's the same people who are still mad about Jill Stein costing Hillary the 2016 election, ignoring that Gary Johnson got 3x her votes. if you vote you have to vote for the Realistic Option, they think if those voters didn't have Jill Stein that they would have been forced to vote Hillary instead of just not voting like most of the working poor
The lessons they took is that the democrats need to scold lefty people into voting for them instead of changing their policy positions to appeal to those people. They blame 2000 on people voting for Ralph Nader of the green party instead of on themselves for not getting more votes or on the conservatives for stealing the close election from them (Gore actually won, the SC just appointed Bush to the presidency anyway).
Ralph Nader was an independent presidential candidate who got some votes in 2000, where the democratic candidate was Al Gore and the republican candidate was George Bush Jr.
The election came down to an extremely close race in Florida. A recount was halted and Bush was given the presidency (partly because of deliberate sabotage on Bush's part, see the Brooks Brothers Riot) by the US supreme court.
Libs claim that Al Gore would have won Florida (and thus the presidency) if Nader hadn't ran. This ignores that there's no guarantee Nader voters would have voted for Gore instead of just not voting, or voting for Bush. They do this because they believe that america's institutions are functional and just, so any evidence to the contrary is blamed on individual bad actors, including the voter base. This belief in institutions is largely the result of propaganda, as it was and is transparently obvious that the country is rotten to the core and must be torn down.
Amazing. Just wonderful.
Thx for your detailed response
Removed by mod
Damn it's crazy how third party voters keep costing democrats elections. It seems like their success or failure really hinges on winning those voters. So I wonder what they've done to...
Oh right I forgot, "The democratic party can never fail, it can only be failed."
Pick one