you have ralph nader — to talk about? absolutely. you have ralph nader who _ to talk about?didate — ralph nader who was a third—party candidate during the 2000 campaign. he actually played a significant role in — he actually played a significant role in al— he actually played a significant role in al gore losing in florida. third _ role in al gore losing in florida. third parties play a role in presidential politics. they have never _ presidential politics. they have never won— presidential politics. they have never won not but they have a role of sucking — never won not but they have a role of sucking up votes and pushing a message — of sucking up votes and pushing a message that is the most popular among _ message that is the most popular among the particle parties, and much more _ among the particle parties, and much more you _ among the particle parties, and much more you have to keep an eye on mr west _ more you have to keep an eye on mr west hes— more you have to keep an eye on mr west he's a — more you have to keep an eye on mr west. he's a progressive, he's an africa

i mean, you're going up against with jane fonda and ralph nader say as well. absolutely. uh, but you know, i admire the both of them. no, i much for what they get to mr. nate are brought to our attention to automobile safety and seat belts. and so forth. and uh, jane is an advocate passion and advocate against vietnam and i admire her courage and i supported her all the way through. but she's dead wrong on nuclear energy. and so it was ralph nader and there's no reason to, to, to harbor these mess we have to move on because the last, the life of the plan is at stake. so this is far more important than the protests against it. and that goes back to the 19 seventy's and eighty's. of course, things have changed so much that we didn't even know about climate change when people were easily protesting nuclear power among them. i didn't protest, but i was, i went along with the i said ok. they may have appointments, we don't need nuclear power, but that was back in 8070. we now know that we need clean energy because the atmosphere is poisoning itself. and we don't know how badly

and so is ralph nader's and there's no reason to, to, to harbor these mess. we have to move on because the life of the life of the plan is at stake. so this is far more important than the protests against it. and that goes back to the 19 seventy's and eighty's. of course, things have changed so much that we didn't even know about climate change when people were easily protesting nuclear power among them. i didn't protest, but i was, i went along with the i said ok. they may have appointments. we don't need nuclear power, but that was back in 8070. we now know that we need clean energy because the atmosphere is poisoning itself. and we don't know how badly this is going to happen. but the i p. c. c, the international government, intergovernmental panel on climate control, new in as large body of scientists in large body. it has warned us repeatedly since 1980 that we're reaching a point of 0 tolerance early where the part of the plan is going to be poisoned really forever. and it's not going to stop the warming is going to keep going. and it seems to be eviden

i mean, you're going up against, with jane fonda and ralph nader say as well. absolutely. uh, but you know, i, in my, or the both of them know i much for what they get to mr. nate are brought to our attention to automobile safety and seat belts. and so forth. and jane is an advocate, passion and advocate against vietnam. and i am myra courage and i supported her all the way through. but she's dead wrong on nuclear energy. and so it was ralph nader and there's no reason to, to, to harbor these mess we have to move on because the last, the life of the plan is at stake. so this is far more important than the protests against it. and that goes back to the 19 seventy's and eighty's. of course, things have changed so much. and so we didn't even know about climate change when people were easily protesting nuclear power among them didn't protest, but i was, i went along with i said okay, they may have appointments, we don't need nuclear power, but that was back in 80 seventies. we now know that we need clean energy because the atmosphere is poisoning itself and we don't know how b

ralph nader got almost 3% of the vote, which if it had gone to al gore would have propelled him into the presidency. are democrats the ones who are really afraid of a third party candidacy here, juan? >> yeah. >> absolutely. >> i hope i made that clear, john. i think they are the ones that are worried. i think david and i can agree on this. i think it's democrats who fear what could be coming here and you think about it not just in terms of the vote which is down the way, but think about in terms of fundraising, already you see they are going to raise $70 million. where is that 70 million coming from, right now by the way it looks like it's coming from a lot of people who are aligned with conservative or republican causes. maybe not with trump, but with conservative causes, and that's very worrisome again to the democrats. they see this as a threat. >> john: i also find it curious, if it looks likes ron desantis is going to be the nominee, that no labels may stay out of the race. final thought to you, david. >> all that to be determined. right now it's joe manchin who is on their rad

pete: remember this guy a big name at this guy, ralph nader, green party candidate. imagine that.l: yeah. pete: that's pretty ironic considering what he went on to do. the reason that's also significant is nader garnered 100,000 votes in florida so if that's the margin and this guy gets 100,000, he's also ran, does that determine who was the president on 9/11? you know, it could have been al gore, not george bush. will: and then, perhaps most famously when it comes to third party candidates we can go back to 1992 when texas billonaire ross perot, ended up getting 19% of the vote and most people believe that ross perot's vote tally pulled from george h. w. bush. pete: yeah, it's certifiable when you look at people, he was a populist, a billionaire, a blunt talker. i mean, bill clinton won with 43 % of the vote. under water on that victory. 19% changes the entire campaign. you talk to people inside the h. w. bush camp to this day or even clinton folks acknowledge clinton is not in the white house without ross per ot. will: they believe that to be the case and there are others again

he brought up that al gore -- i'm sorry, you brought up the ralph nader cost al gore the election in000 and that is incorrect. the reason for that is al gore carried his home state of tennessee which has 11 electoral votes to put him at 277. he wouldn't have needed florida to begin with. al gore lost the election on his own by losing his home state. mr. nader did not even get any electoral votes in the election. how did he affect the outcome? i just think that needs to be corrected. host: ray is our next caller in king of prussia, pennsylvania on the independent line. caller: hi. i was just calling to say unfortunately, things are not going to change until there's a new generation of politicians and their. it would be nice if some of the middle-aged politicians would change but the way it is now, it's crazy that one party just votes whatever the head of the party, whichever way they vote, they should be independent-minded. nobody has an independent mind now. if an independent likewest, he would need the independent-minded democrats and republicans to speak up for him, to nominate him

a lot of people try to view jill stein and ralph nader as spoilers.not spoilers at all. they could not galvanize the public. you don't blame it on the weaker party. you will never -- we will never actually be able to deal with the escalating fascism in america with milk toke -- with milquetoast neoliberalism. you and up postponing the collapse of democracy. we have to get at the roots of fascism which mean i am going to trump country, sister amy, i'm going to talk to those why brothers and those white sisters and say quit scapegoating the most vulnerable and let us confront the most powerful. i don't have a minute -- at the same time i know you're catching hell and many of you have been losers in corporate globalization, given push against a wall by big monopolies. you have difficulty with any kind of unionization. you have to transpose and filter your fears through different means rather than following the neofascist pied piper. we have to be able to speak to these folk directly and as fellow citizens. i plan to do that. i come out of the black tradi

sometimes you can affect the outcome as did ralph nader in a state like florida. it was enough in florida, many will argue, in the 2000 race, to have tipped it to george w. bush. what do you think? >> if by disgruntedeled republican leaving the race, donald trump, that would effectively hand the presidency back to joe biden. because it would split the republicans down the middle. if it's anyone else who runs as a third-party candidate, they are going to syphon off some of those suburban moms, the college educated white collar workers that don't really want to vote for joe biden but they don't have an alternative right now. it's not socially acceptable for them to vote for donald trump if he was the republican nominee. if there was anybody else to share with their friends, if they pulled the lever for that guy, biden would lose enough votes in the wisconsins, pennsylvanias to tip the key states even if the third-party candidate is getting a single digit percentage of the popular vote. >> neil: doug, we can go back to 1912. the first presidential contest that i cove

are democrats out there who the minute you jumped in the race said basically remember 2000 with ralph nadergreen party candidates took votes, they say, from the democratic nominee and might very well have swung the election. >> i say the democratic party didn't learn their lesson. the lesson they should have learned was they need to speak to working people so that gore wouldn't have been able to take arkansas, take his own congressional seat. same so with sister hillary clinton. he could not refuse to go to wisconsin, call so many working folk deplorables and so forth. where are the high quality democratic candidates who can speak to poor and working people? no, it's a party dominated by the corporate wing. big money, big donors, big militarism. look at the debt ceiling. you see what i did? brother biden expansion of military, cut back on poor people again. no, the legacy of martin king can't stand by. we've got to be focused on poor and working people, no matter what color, what gender, what sexual orientation, what region. that's why i'm going to trump country and i'm going to tell my bro

does cornel west really want to help the gop nominee win the way ralph nader helped defeat al gore in the things that you care to help, unquote. >> his fear obviously that would sap away enough votes of progressives who otherwise would vote for swriden and thus deliver the white house to the republican making things worse than they would be under biden in laurence tribe's view. your response. >> well, one, i mean, brother tribe, he's looking at the world again through these manekian views. either this or that. tweedle dee, tweedle dumb. frick or frac. neofascist catastrophe, neoliberal disaster. are disasters better catastrophes? absolutely. but are disasters disasters? absolutely still. so the idea that brother trump would reduce -- brother tribe would reduce what i'm trying to do and focus on this unbelievable suffering of social and working people around the world as some ego, vanity, i say good god almighty, what are you doing, do you actually think that the rich legacy that the figures that i talked about can be reduced to their ego vanity when they moved in the electric al polit

a lot of people do turn to 2000, when ralph nader won 97,000 votes just in florida, a state that al goreoters cast ballots for third party and write-in candidates. i mean, what that tells us is that there's a lot of people like you, right? there's a significant number of americans motivated enough to vote, but not happy with the candidates there are. and i'm sure that there are a lot of others of those, probably in double digits, who feel the same way but decided to vote for, you know, one of the two main candidates. but i guess the bottom line is why shouldn't they have an alternative? >> yeah. well, i guess there are two points to that question. first on the political analysis. 2016 is a great example of the difference. donald trump wins in '16, loses in 2020. in 2020, the third-party vote share goes down to 2%. a big part of my people, who voted for evan mcmullen or gary johnson in a three-way race in 2016, in large part because they didn't think trump could win, ended up voting for biden in 2020, and that's what helped get biden over top in georgia and arizona. even somebody who only

i always go back to ralph nader's book 1965. unsafe at any speed and think about it unsafe at any cpu speed. that was 1965 should it took until 1983 to get legislation for seatbelts. we cannot wait that long for the technology we rely upon every hour of every day to be inherently unsafe. >> this is interesting because given the prominence of the issue and to your point i think the potential role for congress, i want to ask marshall about a program the strategy calls out the doj has in place to hold companies accountable specifically vendors to the federal government should i believe that is the civil fraud initiative. old account entities or individuals that put u.s. information or systems at risk by knowingly providing deficient cybersecurity's or services. i would be curious to know what would you need in terms of clarity on a standard or duty of care to use ccf i to start to hold companies venting to the federal government liable for defects in their product? in the next year >> you're already moving out in the civil fraud in

ralph nader got a percent or two and surprised al gore.ust florida but new hampshire. those electoral votes in new hampshire -- he would have won with new hampshire. they have every right to run. they are american citizens. they feel strongly about things. i'm not questioning their right to run, but i think practical politics should come into the consideration. host: let's talk to andy calling on the republican line. caller: larry comey mentioned something about the 2020 election being legitimate. i would remind you that dominion voting machines, government institutions interfered in our 2020 election just the way they did a 16 election. how could they support trump? probably millions of people. the reason is this. it started off with the dossier. we do not want to live in the past, but we need to keep this in mind, when we are deciding what our government is doing. they identified -- talking about worse than watergate. all these authors and everything, worse than watergate. russia collusion, impeachment one and two, media put surprises fo

ralph nader got a percent or two and surprised al gore.ust florida but new hampshire. those electoral votes in new hampshire -- he would have won with new hampshire. they have every right to run. they are american citizens. they feel strongly about things. i'm not questioning their right to run, but i think practical politics should come into the consideration. host: let's talk to andy calling on the republican line. caller: larry comey mentioned something about the 2020 election being legitimate. i would remind you that dominion voting machines, government institutions interfered in our 2020 election just the way they did a 16 election. how could they support trump? probably millions of people. the reason is this. it started off with the dossier. we do not want to live in the past, but we need to keep this in mind, when we are deciding what our government is doing. they identified -- talking about worse than watergate. all these authors and everything, worse than watergate. russia collusion, impeachment one and two, media put surprises fo

he brought up that al gore -- i'm sorry, you brought up the ralph nader cost al gore the election inand that is incorrect. the reason for that is al gore carried his home state of tennessee which has 11 electoral votes to put him at 277. he wouldn't have needed florida to begin with. al gore lost the election on his own by losing his home state. mr. nader did not even get any electoral votes in the election. how did he affect the outcome? i just think that needs to be corrected. host: ray is our next caller in king of prussia, pennsylvania on the independent line. caller: hi. i was just calling to say unfortunately, things are not going to change until there's a new generation of politicians and their. it would be nice if some of the middle-aged politicians would change but the way it is now, it's crazy that one party just votes whatever the head of the party, whichever way they vote, they should be independent-minded. nobody has an independent mind now. if an independent likewest, he would need the independent-minded democrats and republicans to speak up for him, to nominate him and