Why do Democrats prefer to blame third party candidates, rather than the Republicans who did the cheating?

Question

Source(s)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1937071681971703102&hl=en-GB

Answer 1

Because they're against multi-party democracy. They'd rather see the death of alternative parties than fight the repugs.

Answer 2

What a whiner. If you lose it's not your fault it's because the other side cheated. Waaa Waaa.

If Gore had won his HOME state of Tenn he would have won the election. Kerry was a horrible candidate who could never connect with Americans. Unpopular George Bush beat him. It shouldn't have even been close.

If Obama loses will it be because repubs are racists, cheater or both?

Answer 3

Why do they need to blame anyone at all?  Why can't they accept the responsibility for their own shortcomings and failures and not childishly point fingers?

Answer 4

Ralph is unsafe even at slow speed.

Answer 5

Pehaps you should ask why democrats always look for someone else to blame instead of accepting responsibility themselves, you know, admitting their candidate sucked and never had a chance in the first place.

Answer 6

Well, if cheating is lieing, the Democrats don't have far to look for a cheator, theirselves

Answer 7

Wow.  I agree with Ralph Nader on something.  Nader didn't cost Gore the 2000 election, Gore cost Gore the 2000 election.  

Alas, where is the evidence the Republicans cheated?  The Supreme Court Decision in Bush v. Gore was 7-2.  That meant two of the liberal Justices had to agree with them.  How is that cheating?  

Answer 8

Because hey are too wedded to the two party system and are threatened by third parties because they are unwilling to adopt their programs. By this I am referring to Nader and McKinney

Answer 9

I don't think it's either/or. Democrats blame Republican operatives first, then take issue with Nader's recurring candidacy.  There may be a difference in protesting something so immoral and astonishing as stealing an election that makes people feel quite helpless, and protesting political activity that's entirely fair and honorable yet possibly susceptible to complaints of splitting the liberal vote. A partisan is going to try and plug all holes that might drain off votes, such as Ralf Nader running against them. But Nader's point, that Democrats could avoid his candidacy simply by taking on his issues is correct, and Democrats don't seem to get it.

We blame Bush II's  imperialism but Nader points out how Clinton I abusively projected US power in Iraq (killing 500,000 children with his embargo) and postured for regime change long before GW went to war. And of course Clinton I's CIA point man gave Republicans the needed excuse of WMD for attacking Iraq. This is just one of many important issues many Democrats would like to address, but their party does not for one reason or another. In Clinton I's case, he bargained early on with party operatives to hold a hard line in foreign policy in order to obtain the support of party big wigs and become the democratic nominee.

Nader's a strong thinker, strong man and should really be a strong candidate were it not for a lack of press coverage. His analysis of third party politics is unassailable: Democrats should take his issues and run with them rather than take issue with his candidacy.

I am always impressed by his intellect and his practical views.

Excellent video snippet.

Answer 10

I agree with Nader. He makes a lot of sense, and this time I think I'm voting for him. Too bad he never got the attention and the interest of the media.

Answer 11

They would rather not acknowlege their own miscues more than anything else.

Answer 12

Throwing Stones In Glass Houses...

Answer 13

I blame Republicans.