Nader no more cost Gore the election in 2000 than he cost Kerry the election in 2004. Why people continue to have such animosity towards Nader and the Green party is strange to say the least. You don't see any similar animosity to Buchanan, Perot or the Libertarian party; if they were any logic behind the hatred towards the Greens and/or towards Nader, why is there not any animosity towards other third parties?
The reality is that the Nader haters are 100% emotion and 0% logic:
http://votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=3The number of people who chose not to vote in Florida in 2000 outnumber the Nader voters by a 60 to 1 margin. It is unfortunate that the Nader haters ignore the non voters, because, if they had their way and third parties were kept of the ballot, the number of non voters would increase. If we are not given real choices why should we vote?
The Nader haters don't seem concerned about the 562 people who voted for the Socialist Workers party candidate. Do any of you Nader haters even know who that person is? When are you going to start complaining about how the Socialist Workers party was the *real* spoiler in 2000?
Blaming Nader makes about as much sense as blaming any of the seven candidates who also got votes.
Did it ever occur to any of you Nader haters that Joe Lieberman may have cost Gore enough votes to tip the election to Bush? Did it ever occur to you that it might make more sense to blame Bush, who got 30 times as many votes as Nader? Gee, I guess I am going out on a limb, but maybe Gore himself may have had something to do with why Gore lost.
Or maybe, if you really need a scapegoat, why not blame Pluto's position in the sky; I am sure that had more to do with why Gore lost than the relatively low per cent of people who voted for Nader.
