*sigh* i think the hardcore naderites *are* happy. what is annoying is the claim that "we" lost because nader was a spoiler. the assumption that this somehow bothers hardcore naderites is astonishing. furthermore, what is even more astonishing is that none of the whiners have bothered to notice that borebreath lost because people voted *against* him. don't the stats say that this was a predominate reason? they voted against clinton. none of the whiners have bothered to acknowledge that borebreath sucked as a candidate and had they been behind a candidate people could get behind then, well, who the hell knows what would have happened. but borebreath lost because of *who he is*.
furthermore, the claim that is the demise of the left --and that's nader's fault--is a stinky pile of manure.
again, borebreath lost flordia because he WAS GOING TO ANYWAY! if the dem hacks don't like it that a third party candidate takes away some of the votes, well, triple fuck'em once again. that's democracy and if they don't like that, quadruple fuck'em.
i hope it's clear now. borebreath did not suffer a loss because of nader's 5% push. he lost in part b/c nader supporters were going to vote for nader be/c nader would have been on the ballot, like he was last time. the hypothesis that he might not have been on the ballot is just plain silly.
do a projection based on bore/gush no nader and typical voter turnout do a projection based on bore/gush w/ nader and typical voter turnout (and typical nader voting , up it just a little for fun) how many gore voters went to the polls who might otherwise have stayed home? factor that one in.
then take a look see. my money's on a borebreath loss no matter what. i'll send ya that bottle of lagavullan that max owes me (and mark wanker jones owes him). ha!
criminy
kelley