2000 Without Nader?

[© tweed]

but Democrats blame whoever the Greens run anyway

right.  there was space on the left for a third-party run after Clinton consciously severed the remnants of the New Deal Democratic party, turned it into full-on business party, attacked labor right out of the gate and govered from the center-right.  a non-Nader Green type could have pulled 1.5% or so.  whether that means Gore would've eked out a win, given the razor thin margins we're talking about, maybe so.

[© tweed]

Normally I agree with TNF that it's stupid to blame third parties, but come on, he lost by literally 500 votes. At least 500 Nader votes would have switched to Gore.

it's not so much that you're wrong, it's the entitled attitude the (D)s have when despite selling is out time after time.  a progressive activist would have every reason to despise the Clinton presidency.

this coming from a left-revolutionary who does believe in voting Democratic in 'swing states'/genuinely contested races.  voting, nothing more.