Brad,
>It is true that Nader's net lifetime impact on social welfare has
>probably switched from plus to minus as a result of yesterday...
This is absurd. The benefits of his crusade against the auto industry dwarfs any harm done by possibly getting Bush elected.
Besides, it is easy after the fact to point to Nader and say that he was the difference in the election. And in a sense he was. But that is to ignore a myriad of other factors, all of which could have cost Gore 2,000 Floridian votes. Gore might have won if he had argued more vociferously that he deserved credit for the good economy. He might have won had he run a little more to the right, enabling him to capture West Virginia and perhaps Ohio or Arkansas or Tennessee. He might have won had Bush's DUI come out a week earlier. He might have won if Buchanan had only polled a bit stronger in Florida. He might have won if he had picked a running mate from Florida. He might have won if he had only worn a different tie in one of the debates, for crying out loud.
Nader is right about one thing - Gore only has himself to blame for his defeat. To focus on Nader and claim that he is THE reason Gore lost (if indeed he does lose) is baffling to me.
Brett