Still another example of the democrats finding a scapegoat to hide their own incompetence.

a vote for Stein. Democracy: vote for whom think best represents your views.

Excellent essay with a lot of good information and arguing points.

(I'd vote for Eugene Debs were he still around and on the ballot.)

It gets old hearing this argument as to how a third party candidate spoiled a victory for a Democrat. I argued this with the same facts and figures over at LOF to no avail. I am glad you are putting this stale argument to rest here. That is also why I was upset with Bernie using this same spoiler argument by refusing to run third party. I hope everyone here will vote his or her conscience and not worry about it being a spoiler.

First, I have no idea what "running as spoiler" means, other than it is nasty way of saying "someone who was not sanctioned by Democratic Party poohbahs ran." Nader ran, not as a spoiler, but as a Green Party candidate, as was his right under the laws of Florida and other states.

I did not vote for him, which I regret, even though my vote certainly would not have made a difference in my state. I also regret that I did not work for him or donate to him. However, I am glad he ran. Voters have far too few choices, especially voters on the left. His run also caused him to challenge some undemocratic ballot access laws and we also have too little democracy.

Second, let's assume for the sake of discussion, that Nader did run as a spoiler, whatever that means. That is, at best, irrelevant. Gore Bush was 16 years ago; and Nader is not running now.

And, btw, while Nader was the only candidate to run for President to the left of Gore that year, three, count 'em, three, candidates ran to the right of George Bush that year.

Third, only a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/144082#comment-144082

Fourth, although you said it, I will repeat because it cannot be said too often that it was the right of the Democratic Party, not its left, that defeated Gore in Florida, if indeed Gore was defeated in Florida. (Different sources say different things about that.) The right of the Democratic Party, the incredibly confusing ballot and whatever tricks Jeb! and the Secretary of State pulled, and the Supreme Court. Also defeating Gore was voter apathy, which I attribute to many voters noting that their lives don't improve, no matter whom they elect--exactly what Nader was pointing out.

The reality is that the nation had down from bjs in the Oval Office and an impeachment. After 8 years, Gore was not offering anything new. Also, Gore was dull on the campaign trail and his behavior during the debates was downright bizarre--the mugging, the sighing, the eyerolling, the walking into Bush 43's personal space. Nader did not lose that election for Gore; Clinton and Gore lost that election for Gore. Gore could not even carry his home state.

When McGovern, also not a charismatic candidate, failed to carry his home state, the official Democratic lie was that McGovern lost because liberals can't elected. When centrist Carter lost, the official Democratic Party lie was that Carter lost because liberal Ted Kennedy had mounted a primary challenge. When centrist Mondale lost, Democrats just flat out lied and claimed centrist Mondale was a liberal. When DLCer Gore lost, it was because a liberal challenged him. Anyone seeing a pattern?

Hillary Clinton is a dangerous warmonger who won by corrupting the primary election. Not rewarding that with a vote regardless of the other candidates.

Al Gore was and is a good man who took it upon himself to sound the alarm over global warming. President Gore would never have invaded Iraq and left us to contend with the ongoing mess we have now. Nader sold the voters the lie that the choice between the major parties' candidates at that time made no difference.

overreacted to 911. Democrats have long been defensive about being weak on defense, often appointing Republicans as Secretaries of Defense, as did both Clinton and Obama. Moreover, Gore, like Clinton, Lieberman and others, was a founding member of the DLC, which was hawkish on invading Iraq. Al From's partner in crime, Will Marshall, even signed the PNAC letter. Moreover, Gore himself has changed since he was Clinton's VP and a firm believer in the DNC. I see no reason to assume Gore then would not have taken retaliatory action after 911. The reason we remember the Cuban Missile Crisis is that it was handled so differently from the way US Presidents typically react.

Either way, it's a matter of opinion and no one can ever know for certain what Gore would or would not have done, had he been in the Oval Office on 911. Maybe he would not have attacked Iraq, but I think it is highly likely that Gore would have retaliated with major force. Heck, even Sanders voted to attack Afghanistan. In any event, what a President Gore would or would not have done after 911 is speculation. The diary cites actual facts and figures about the 2000 election.

No one who qualifies under the Constitution needs an excuse to run for President and facts about the outcome of the 2000 election are not excuses.