My talking points on "But Ralph Nader!"
We seem to be reliving the 2008 campaign, so I thought I'd put up the talking points I use when Democratic loyalists play their trump card: "But Ralph Nader!"
Gore lost the Presidency because:
1. He followed Beltway conventional wisdom and ran away from Clinton's record even though Clinton's polling was very high;
4. Gore's campaign was infested with cheesy Quislings like Ed Rendell, who called on Gore to concede, and Joe Lieberman, who sold Gore out on counting illegal votes from the military. On national television.
6. The Gore Campaign only challenged the FL vote in counties they thought they could win, instead of a general recount for all FL, ceding any moral advantage and looking like cheesy pragmatists, besides (as it turned out) outsmarting themselves, because the math worked against them.
In fact, the Gore campaign was a massive #FAIL and they lost an election they should easily have won. Blaming Nader for their loss is like blaming the last pebble down the mountainside for the avalache.
Here's what "ZOMG!!!! Nader!!!!" really is: A big steaming cup of STFU for anybody who dares to think outside the bankrupt paradigm of the legacy two-party system. The STFU also plays into the main institutional psychosis of the Democrats: Everything is about blame-shifting to the other guy, and failing to be self-critical about anything, in the slightest degree whatever. Because Obama or, really, whoever.
Of all these points, it's #3 -- "308,000 FL Democrats voted for Bush" -- that causes the typical Obot's head to explode.
Readers? How do these points work for you? Do you have better points or better links? Since anybody who advocates voting for an emergent party candidate is going to have to deal with the "ZOMG!!! Nader!" talking point, we might as well work to polish this up.
NOTE There's also the realpolitik way to turn it around: "Yeah, Nader cost Gore the election. So meet our demands -- the 12-Point Platform, say -- or we'll do it again."