Ralph Nader runs for the Democratic nomination in 2000

What if in 2000, instead of running again as a Green candidate like he did in 1996, Nader decides to run for the Democratic nomination (like George Wallace did in 1972 before he got shot), thereby making the primaries a three-way race between Gore, himself, and Bill Bradley. Would Nader put up more of a fight against Gore than Bradley? Assuming Gore wins the nomination, would Nader accept the result, or would he run as an independent?

If Nader is out of the race, how does this impact the 2000 election?
 
He can't beat Gore. Gore has the Wall Street money and the support of the regular Democratic establishment. If Bill Bradley couldn't beat Gore on a slightly more liberal platform, Ralph Nader definitely won't.
 
Gore'd still win the nomination, but since Nader has established himself as a prominent member of the Democratic Party, it now becomes important that he gets Nader's blessing when running against Bush in the final round. Likely, Nader will demand that Gore goes radically to the left on a number of issues. After a few days of negotiations, Gore promises not to run with Lieberman as his running mate, picks someone from the Democratic left (remember, back in these days, Gore was still considered a moderate, in the Senate he was considered something of a Blue Dog, some would even say conservative, I mean, Rick Perry had endorsed his run in 1988!), and then employs slightly more leftist rhetoric on the campaign trail...

Seeing that the Gore/Lieberman ticket lost states that the Clinton/Gore ticket is credited to have won thanks to both Clinton and Gore being moderate "New Democrats": Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Ohio, it is safe to say that the Democratic ticket will lose those states in this timeline as well, and the final result in the electoral college might actually be identical. The tricky thing is of course Florida. A number of Greens and social liberal Democrats who in OTL voted Nader might vote Democrat this time. Still a couple of Blue Dog Democrats and moderates may actually be persuaded to vote Republican.

There a reasonable possibility that the results will be nigh exactly the same as in OTL. Everything comes down to Florida, and there it's basically a coin flip.
 
You're fatally confusing Nader with a standard Democratic politico.
Nader's an activist. He sees a problem and bulldogs the public and powers-that-be into addressing it. Politicians have to compromise and logroll to get consensus, something that Ralph would do when he took up folk dancing and publicly puffing a blunt. Nader has zero bend in him. I respect and admire him for tackling things with brio and zeal and usually some solid facts, but even when I agree with him in principle he makes some face-palm-worthy gaffes turning off potential supporters for being insufficiently pure in heart.
Nader went Green b/c he felt the Democratic Party had gotten too much in bed with Wall Street and in effect become GOP-Lite. FWIW I agree with him 100% on that score. I don't agree with tipping the election to W, seeing the results of W's regime over eight years.

Nader'd gotten into some spectacular pissing matches with Democratic insiders even during the Carter Administration and called out Clinton as a sellout of the first water, so the DNC would never support him. Nader knew he'd go absolutely nowhere as a Democrat. Even Dennis Kucinich could get a little floor time at the convention pushing for plank #1278 on the platform, but Ralph? NFW.

OTL he made his point. He wanted the DNC to quit acting like progressives are votes already in the bag for Dems. Gore ran a rather moribund campaign and was orphaned from Clinton's active support so what should have been a walk for him was enough of a squeaker we were looking through mailbags for Florida absentee votes. :rolleyes: We all know how that worked out.

Could Nader have hectored from the sidelines and made that impact?
Nope. DNC would've yawned and dismissed his critiques as they had for the last twenty years. Status quo would have rolled on.
Gore would have gotten the nom. I liked Bradley and it was shame he ran into the brick wall he did in the 2000 campaign. If he were veep instead of Lieberman, you'd have seen a tad more enthusiasm in the general election IMO, but again, it's the moribund national campaign and fatally underestimating Bush that made it even close.
Nader had zip to do with both of those aspects so how much Gore's chances improve are tough to call.
 
Last edited:
Gore loses, because Nader's presence will have fored the Vice President to campaign more firmly to the Left. As a result, ush does better in states that narrowly went for Gore in our timeline.
 
Gore loses, because Nader's presence will have fored the Vice President to campaign more firmly to the Left. As a result, ush does better in states that narrowly went for Gore in our timeline.

The "states that narrowly went for Gore" were New Mexico (0.06%, 5 EV), Wisconsin (0.22%, 11 EV), Iowa (0.31%, 7 EV), and Oregon (0.44%, 7 EV). On the other side we have Florida (0.01%, 25 EV).
Not counting all of those, Gore has 237 EV and Bush has 246. If Gore wins Florida (likely), he'll have 262; if he also wins one of Iowa/Oregon, he'll have 269 (tie).
In all: Gore wins more likely than not, but as a whole the election is really even closer than it was IOTL, impossible as it sounds... :eek:
 
If I recall correctly Gore started doing better when he used more populist rhetoric.

He might have inspired more people to vote.

I think it is possible that had Gore been pulled to the left in Primries he might have won.

Though I suspect that there were better candidates than Nader for doing that
 
Nader could make the SC poll closings an issue. Bradley was out of the race at that time, William Kreml (a pol sci professor) was a single issue candidate, and Keyes and McCain quit talking about the poll closings the day after the Republican primary. This could harm Gore...and take the edge off Bush later in Florida, no matter who wins.
 

Thande

Donor
The "states that narrowly went for Gore" were New Mexico (0.06%, 5 EV), Wisconsin (0.22%, 11 EV), Iowa (0.31%, 7 EV), and Oregon (0.44%, 7 EV). On the other side we have Florida (0.01%, 25 EV).
Not counting all of those, Gore has 237 EV and Bush has 246. If Gore wins Florida (likely), he'll have 262; if he also wins one of Iowa/Oregon, he'll have 269 (tie).

Someone ought to do that scenario as a 2000 TL, make it even more contested and controversial than OTL!
 
Someone ought to do that scenario as a 2000 TL, make it even more contested and controversial than OTL!

House of Representatives vote for POTUS:
26 votes needed to win
1st Ballot-
George Bush ... 28 (winner)
Al Gore .......... 18
No Vote Cast .. 4

Senate vote for VPOTUS:
51 votes needed to win
The President of the Senate/Vice President Al Gore cannot vote to break a tie
1st and 2nd Ballots-
Richard Cheney ....... 50
Joseph Lieberman .... 50

3rd Ballot-
Joseph Lieberman .... 51 (winner)
Richard Cheney ....... 49
Either Jim Jeffords or Lincoln Chafee breaks from the GOP ranks and votes for Lieberman.
 
House of Representatives vote for POTUS:
26 votes needed to win
1st Ballot-
George Bush ... 28 (winner)
Al Gore .......... 18
No Vote Cast .. 4

Senate vote for VPOTUS:
51 votes needed to win
The President of the Senate/Vice President Al Gore cannot vote to break a tie
1st and 2nd Ballots-
Richard Cheney ....... 50
Joseph Lieberman .... 50

3rd Ballot-
Joseph Lieberman .... 51 (winner)
Richard Cheney ....... 49
Either Jim Jeffords or Lincoln Chafee breaks from the GOP ranks and votes for Lieberman.

Gore would still be Vice President and could vote for Lieberman
 
Gore would still be Vice President and could vote for Lieberman

Actually, he might not have a vote here. The 12th Amendment states that "... the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for that purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice." Al Gore was VPOTUS and not a senator and thus his vote would be irrelevant/not-necessary (though this is open to Constitutional debate). Interestingly, the amendment also necessitates that a candidate receive a majority of the whole number of senators to be elected. In other words -using 2000 numbers as an example- Even if only 67 senators (quorum for this purpose) are present 51 votes (by Senators) is still necessary to win.
 
Actually, he might not have a vote here. The 12th Amendment states that "... the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for that purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice." Al Gore was VPOTUS and not a senator and thus his vote would be irrelevant/not-necessary (though this is open to Constitutional debate). Interestingly, the amendment also necessitates that a candidate receive a majority of the whole number of senators to be elected. In other words -using 2000 numbers as an example- Even if only 67 senators (quorum for this purpose) are present 51 votes (by Senators) is still necessary to win.

I believe that if the Senate has a tie, the VP (Gore in this case) gets the deciding vote (just like he would in any other Senate desicion); at least, that was the way it worked in FL&G.
Of course, if that's indeed what the 12th amendment says, it might not be the case, but I doubt people will actually argue on that (as otherwise we aren't getting a VP at all).

I'm not exactly sure, coincidentally, that all Congressional races were won ITTL by the same people as IOTL (i.e. some closer races could have shifted). Anyone knows which Congressional races in 2000 were won by under 1%?
 
I believe that if the Senate has a tie, the VP (Gore in this case) gets the deciding vote (just like he would in any other Senate desicion); at least, that was the way it worked in FL&G.
Of course, if that's indeed what the 12th amendment says, it might not be the case, but I doubt people will actually argue on that (as otherwise we aren't getting a VP at all).

I'm not exactly sure, coincidentally, that all Congressional races were won ITTL by the same people as IOTL (i.e. some closer races could have shifted). Anyone knows which Congressional races in 2000 were won by under 1%?

Did this question concerning the wording & intent of the 12th Amendment come up in Drew's TL? I don't think it did. I, like you and others just presumed that Agnew - in that instance - would vote (we may have discovered a new twist for him to employ if he ever does a TL re-write). I imagine that, given how high the stakes and how great the divisions are, that someone would arge the issue.
 

Kissinger

Banned
I heard Ralph Nader is a nut when it comes to consumer safe projects so just have the other candidates do unsafe things and watch how Nader wipes them off the face of the planet, plus rumor says hes an ASB/
 
Top