On Jan 2, 4:02 pm, "thinker"
notreal.com> wrote:>> On Jan 2, 3:17 pm, "thinker"
unreal.edu> wrote:>>> "ta"
nc.rr.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>> On Jan 2, 11:13 am, "thinker"
notreal.com> wrote:>>>>> "ta"
nc.rr.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>>>> On Jan 1, 5:12 pm, "thinker"
notreal.com> wrote:>>>>>>> "ta"
nc.rr.com> wrote in message>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, that's true, too. But it hardly seems worth arguing whether
>>>>>>> Nader
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> a spoiler. Any credible candidate with views close to another is
>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> "steal" votes from the other. If Nader wasn't a choice, then Gore
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> have probably had enough of those voters voting for him to tip the
>>>>>>> balance
>>>>>>> in Florida, because many of those people would have still voted. It
>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> question of blame or scapegoating (because who really cares at this
>>>>>>> point),
>>>>>>> but how people vote with the choices that are before them.
>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, it isn't something anyone will ever know for
>>>>>>> sure.
>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>> might have had a hint if exit polls of people who voted for Nader
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> asked
>>>>>>> afterwards who they would have voted for if Nader hadn't been on
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> slate.
>>>>>>> But the pollsters could hardly be faulted for not asking such an
>>>>>>> academic
>>>>>>> question because no one knew how things would turn out in Florida.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> way we would have known for certain is if Nader wasn't on the
>>>>>>> ballot.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>> that didn't happen, so all we can do is speculate.
>
>>>>>> The whole problem with your (and the whining, self-pitying victims
>>>>>> who
>>>>>> blame Nader for Gore losing) "spoiler" argument is that it's
>>>>>> childish
>>>>>> and irrational. To claim that one person "spoiled" the victory is to
>>>>>> presume that Gore has some God-given right to those votes to begin
>>>>>> with. He doesn't.
>
>>>>>> In political elections, people run *against* the other candidates --
>>>>>> by definition, he is competing against Gore and the other candidates
>>>>>> for votes. I could just as easily claim that Gore spoiled the
>>>>>> election
>>>>>> for Nader.
>
>>>>>> Duh.
>
>>>>>> If this, if that, if this, if that . . . grow up.
>
>>>>>> Nader has a right to run for President and present his agenda to the
>>>>>> people.
>
>>>>>> Gore didn't convince enough people to vote for him. Period.
>
>>>>> I'm not arguing about any of that. In fact, I didn't vote for Gore so
>>>>> I
>>>>> have no motivation to explain away his defeat and I'm not whining.
>>>>> You
>>>>> are
>>>>> right, Nader had a right to run and Gore didn't persuade enough people
>>>>> to
>>>>> vote for him. Those are facts and I have no argument with them.
>>>>> However,
>>>>> those facts have nothing to do with whether or not Nader was a
>>>>> spoiler.
>
>>>> The point you seem to be missing is that the very notion of "spoiler"
>>>> is irrational and irrelevant.
>
>>>>> I
>>>>> think that if you look at the available exit polling (eg, people who
>>>>> voted
>>>>> for Nader tended to vote for Nelson for senate), then a good case can
>>>>> be
>>>>> made that Nader's presence in the race affected Gore.
>
>>>> Well duh. And Bush's presence in the race affected Gore too.
>
>>>>> Since Nader had no
>>>>> chance of winning,
>
>>>> Red herring, and totally irrelevant.
>
>>>>> his entry served more to spoil Gore's chances instead of
>>>>> being a realistic run for presidency.
>
>>>> I'll try one more time. In order for the notion of "spoiler" to be a
>>>> valid one, we must presume that one candidate or another (in this case
>>>> Gore) has some predetermined, God-given right to those votes. Since he
>>>> doesn't, we must discard the whole notion of "spoiler".
>
>>>>> No doubt Nader and his followers
>>>>> would dismiss such a claim, but that's also irrelevant. There are
>>>>> many
>>>>> reasons why Gore lost
>
>>>> No, there's only one reason why Gore lost -- he failed to convince
>>>> enough people to vote for him.
>
>>>>> and it seems that one of those reasons is Nader was in
>>>>> the race and received votes that otherwise would have went to Gore.
>
>>>> This is silly and childish. I could just as easily say that Bush
>>>> spoiled the victory for Gore because, after all, if Bush wasn't in the
>>>> race, more votes would have gone to Gore.
>
>>>> Or I could say that Gore spoiled the victory for Nader. After all, if
>>>> Gore wasn't in the race, Nader would have received those votes and
>>>> become president.
>
>>>> Those of us that deal with reality see that there were a number of
>>>> candidates, each with equal right and chance of winning, and one of
>>>> those candidates won.
>
>>>> For those that have trouble dealing with reality, they go back and try
>>>> to alter the past and come up with excuses/blame/whining for why their
>>>> candidate didn't win.
>
>>>> If only this . . if only that . . . hey, if I were Tony Romo I'd
>>>> be . . . ah, never mind.
>
>>> You can say anything you want, but the issue is whether or not Nader
>>> spoiled
>>> Gore's chances of winning in Florida. "Spoiler" isn't a technical term,
>>> but
>>> it is defined and you can find the definition here:
>
>
>
>>> Or you can find it anywhere else you want and you will find a similar
>>> definition. There is nothing in any definition about God-given rights or
>>> lack of God-given rights to a vote. You are free to make up your own
>>> definition, but no one must except your peculiar twist on the term. By
>>> the
>>> standard definition of "spoiler", a good case can be made that Nader was
>>> a
>>> spoiler in Florida.
>
>> I don't care whether or not you can find definitions in the dictionary
>> that agree with your notion of spoiling. The concept itself is still
>> not a reasonable one. Nader (or Perot) didn't "prevent the other
>> candidates from winning", no more than the Indianapolis Colts
>> prevented the Cleveland Browns from making the playoffs.
>
>> Gore didn't get enough votes to win; the Browns didn't win enough
>> games to make the playoffs. Nader is no more to blame for Gore losing
>> than Indy is to blame for Cleveland losing.
>
>> You can call this whatever you like . . . "spoiler", or whatever . . .
>> how bout "whooziwhatzit"? Nader is a whooziwhatzit. There. Where does
>> that get you? What conclusions would you draw from Nader being a
>> whooziwhatzit? What's the point?
>
> Of course, everything you say it true, but really has no bearing on whether
> or not Nader affected Gore's chances of winning.
Even if he did affect Gore's chance of winning, so what? That's the
whole point of any competition: to beat the other candidates.
Again I would ask: what's the point? What conclusions do you draw from
the fact that Nader affected Gore's chance of winning. If there is no
point other than to attach a convenient label "spoiler" which has no
real meaning, then whoopdeedoo!!
