I viewed this a lot differently.
Queen Alixana wrote:
Yes, Gore was a relatively weak candidate in 2000, hence the importance of Nader that year. However, the fact still remains that if that 2% of the vote that Nader got had went to Gore, there would have been a very different outcome in the 2000 election. Many Democrats do feel that 2% is what cost Gore the election- and I agree with that sentiment.
Gore should have been a strong candidate. For lack of a better way of putting it, had Al been Al from the beginning of the campaign to the end he would have probably won a state or two elsewhere taking Florida out of play completely.
Nader's major upswing came after the first presidential debate. I recall watching that debate wondering if Al was
trying to lose. The second debate was just as bad and the Nader uptrend continued. Nader was polling as high as 20% in Oregon at one point after the second debate. It was almost starting to look like Nader was actually electable. Al reverted to the slightly dull but intelligent man that we were used to in debate three. It was a huge improvement and Nader's support fell drastically, but not back to the numbers it was before the first debate.
The second mistake was the DNC fear tactic. Far too many Democratic leaders were running around playing the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" banter. This was a really stupid thing to do. All it accomplished was solidifying Nader's then sliding support turning what was left in contentious states into an obstinate voting block. Had this fear tactic not been pulled, Nader would have likely continued to slide.
Something else to consider, a substantial chunk of Nader's supporters claimed they would not have voted for president at all if Nader was not in the race, so counting those as Gore votes is questionable logic. Some people have sincere trouble with voting
yes to a candidate they don't actually support.
Joe as a running mate wasn't an asset with the more liberal bunch either.
Queen Alixana wrote:
and that right now it's more imperative to vote for a candidate that can actually win
This perception is why we will never have a truly viable third party in the US. Third-party candidates are considered unelectable by default to most people presently and I don't see the perception changing any time soon.
Queen Alixana wrote:
Both of the Democratic candidates are very strong, and unless the outcome of the nomination ends up very badly
I disagree and think is another mediocre set of candidates. We've just become a lot more accustomed to it.
Hillary, should have been a given for the nomination, but an overconfident, arrogant and inept campaign is probably going to lose it for her. It's not helping her that Obama is her equal (if not a touch better) in the debates.
The Republicans would rather run against Clinton. They know how to run against her: attack her not her positions. The mainstream media seems to be a shade biased toward Clinton. Obama, on the other hand, they are going to have a tougher time campaigning against. His unknowns and ability to debate effectively in what McCain likely considers to be his strong suit will be a huge asset. Sadly, I still don't think either one is what I would consider to be a strong candidate and the national elections will probably be a little too close for comfort with either one.
If it becomes a brokered convention nomination, McCain will win in a landslide due to disenchanted supporters of the losing side ceasing to care. Once again, if it's close anywhere: expect shenanigans.
Queen Alixana wrote:
What would be nice is if we had a sort of preferential system, like Australia. That way, people could say they "support" third party candidates, and still vote for a main party candidate.
Instant run-off voting is starting to inch it's way around in a few places but is being met with massive opposition by the current two party system every time it is brought up. The usual and insulting attack its detractors use is that it would be too confusing for people to understand. It's a lousy argument, but it seems to work to defeat it most of the time.