Yes. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

There was a lot going on. The final count used had bush up by 537 votes out of 5.8 million cast. The close margin triggered a recount and Bush dropped to 327 vote lead.

Nadar probably cost the democrats more votes then republicans by greater then that 327. But there were other things that hurt Gore. Some intentional some random.

There were ballot design issues. In areas where the butterfly ballot was used Buchanan (who was also a 3rd party candidate) got way more votes than elsewhere. So if you wanted Gore saw him under Bush and selected the dot below you voted for Buchanan. See below.

Bush. O

/ O Buchanan

Gore. O

In another democratic area the ballot had the presidential race split on the front and back page. 21,000 votes were invalidated because they had multiple selections for president.

There was a large purge of mostly black felon voters. 15% weren't felons.

Then there were lawsuits trying to stop and start recounts in both state and federal court. The state supreme court ordered recounts while they decided if the recount should be used. Then they decided the recount should be used and set a date it was du. Then the US supreme court stopped the recount. Several days later they decided there wasn't time for a recount and ordered the Bush ahead by 537 count to be used.

So honestly it probably took all the above to swing the final count to Bush from Gore. I'm guessing if any one had not happened Gore would have been president.

A personal note I live in Florida and that was the first election I voted in. My vote for president has never be closer to making a difference in who was president. It's shaped my views on elections and voting.

Well yeah, you (and the other poster who referenced the Brooks Brothers Riot) are 100% correct in stating the count ended prematurely, but if Nader hadn't siphoned away those votes, Gore likely would have had yhe lead throughout the recount and Republicans wouldn't have been in a position to pick a favorable time to stop.

But when Obama won the nomination the DNC didn't support Obama in the general.

So Obama ignored the DNC for 8 years and let it fester until 2016 when Hillary's primary campaign took control of it they shady backroom financial deals that resulted in her campaign getting approval over what the DNC did during the primary.

There was a brief window Donna Brazille got in leadership and showed everyone the receipts, then Hillary's people got back in control and Biden kept them.

With Kamala losing the DNC votes for it's own leadership, and will likely retain like they always do.

Obama has the chance to appoint progressive leadership to the DNC and fix the party, but instead he ignored it as a relic.

And we're still paying the price.

I wonder why they are so afraid to prove it in a primary

Because challenging the party favorite is career suicide when the party is corrupt.

If Obama hadn't won in 08 none of us would remember his name, and the party did nothing to help him because they knew if he won he could change leadership.

They got lucky and he choose not to fix the party

Disagree, Harris would not have been close to winning at all if there was a primary. Even Tim Walz would have absolutely smoked her in a primary.

Obama, sadly was a failure. Better than any other president since FDR and Carter, but that's not saying much. America wanted change and all we got was the ACA from him and a few less terrible trade deals. Obama deported more people than Trump and never fixed the decline in the middle class. I turned 18 when Obama first ran and was so excited for all the "change" and nothing improved sustainably for the average American. He could have solidified himself as the best ever but road the middle too often and now the party is officially dead.

Their platform for a decade has been “what are you gonna do, vote trump?”

The people: Yes

But seriously, the Democrats need to get better candidates, and they need to take a long-hard look at their policy agenda. The people don't want it and will literally vote for Trump before what Democrats are offering.

So I really really think that today being the day after the election is the day we start talking about a third option in 2028.

Might I recommend supporting the Forward Party.
They're trying to build a whole New Kind of Party, genuinely from the bottom up. Focusing on local politics, where election rules can be changed to make representatives more responsive to their voters. They're quite unlike other 3rd Parties that just run pointless presidential candidates every 4 years.

Then there's RepresentUs. Not a Party, but a political organization trying to do the same. Fix our election system at the state and local level.

Fuckers will NEVER learn.

Yeah, courting far left people like Dick Cheney was the problem. Next time they will just run Ivanka Trump and if you're against her, you are a misogynist.

Just kidding, they won't run her until she's at least 60, everyone knows people who are younger than that can't politics.

“they can’t rely on the left to support them”

Worse, they do not want to. That would be bad for their billionaire buddies. The same buddies that funnel untold millions to both parties at the same time, to ensure they get what they want either way.

Well I'd prefer more than one thing to replace it, but certainly this is one of the rare opportunities to do so.

There’s certainly a lot of blame to lay at the feet of “both sides bad” people who didn’t vote

No. Absolutely not.

The Democrats and Republicans have spent 40 years, but more importantly, the last six months making it very clear that losing a badly-needed day's pay for a worker isn't worth the time it takes to vote. (Unless you were in Missouri with the $15 minimum wage on the ballot.)

Democrats are the reason that Democrats lose.