I said "that argument goes both ways" meaning "my candidate would have won if X, Y, and Z happened" is always valid regardless of the candidate.

You can't rewrite the past, so you're inventing a hypothetical/fictional scenario based on your opinion. In a fictional scenario, anything is possible. Your argument was "if more people voted for Gore, he would have won" and I countered with "if more people voted for Nader, he would have won." You can't claim Gore was the best choice because the best choice is the one who wins the election.

In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either don't believe in democracy, or you're happy with things never getting better.

What a joke. The "you" here is the entire American public while "everyone else" is a small handful of wealthy, powerful individuals.

Can you explain how continuing to elect corporate Democrats makes things better? Are we better now than 10 years ago? Are we better than we were 20 years ago? There's obviously a quality of life trend here, and it hasn't trended up in quite a long time. You'll predictably place the blame solely on Republicans even though Democrats make up 50% of that equation. Republicans sure don't seem to have the same issue passing their legislation. Why do you think that is?