If you have "no place to go," come here!

Bernie! Pay attention! It was Democrats! Democrats! Democrats! who lost Florida for Gore

Jim Hightower in Salon, November 28, 2000, before the Democrats had begun the blame-shifting that's the best thing they do:

308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader’s votes wouldn’t have mattered.

So, Bernie, when I hear you say stuff like this, I'm shaking my head:

"SANDERS: [T]he dilemma is that, if you run outside of the Democratic Party, then what you’re doing — and you have to think hard about this — you’re not just running a race for president, you’re really running to build an entire political movement. In doing that, you would be taking votes away from the Democratic candidate and making it easier for some right-wing Republican to get elected — the Nader dilemma."

First, as we've just seen, there is no "Nader Dilemma." Democrats lost Florida to Bush, not Nader.

Second, putting the Democratic Party out of its misery by splitting it, and giving the left a voice, would be one of the best things that could happen to this country. How about it, Bernie? But first, you'll have to shake off at least one self-serving Democratic myth.

No votes yet


nippersdad's picture
Submitted by nippersdad on

A little honesty would be nice. Everyone has faults, every group has faults, it would lend credibility to the Democratic Party were they to admit to those which lost them Naders' voters in 2000. Maybe even, horrors!, do something more than lie just before and during political campaigns to regain their lost ground. The future was theirs to lose in '08, and they gave it to the Republicans for no better reason than a few pieces of silver.

They have a credibility gap, and blaming those who find it insurmountable is of increasingly limited utility.

nippersdad's picture
Submitted by nippersdad on

Reagan Democrats aren't demonized for their defections because to do so would be to admit that the Nader voters had a point. They are not reliably Democratic voters, otherwise they would not be denominated Reagan Democrats. What would be the point of criticizing them from the corporatist point of view?

In their uni-party vote they got what they wanted from them anyway; the Washington Consensus was legitimized. I must disagree, that is not where the schism lies and it would be counterproductive (for corporatists) to put that part of the vote under a magnifying glass. The good cop/bad cop routine has been far too successful for them to drop it unnecessarily.

Better strategy to sideline the weirdos.