>Nader would have gotten more votes if those intending to vote for him had
>been "freed" to do so by the Democratic party liberals who have been guilt
>tripping every Dem who wanted to vote Nader for weeks. For instance in CA
>Nader was up to 7-8 percent in the polls but when people actually voted the
>support dropped to 4 percent.
>I think people who where coerced into voting for Gore made a big mistake by
>caving -- they cost the Greens the loss of federal funds.
I know a lot of folks, like myself, who would have voted Nader if the Nader supporters were not attacking other progressives and if Nader had not campaigned in the swing states the week before the election. If Nader had chosen to campaign hard in "free states" a la the Molly Ivins strategy, he would have done two things - increased votes in those states and not alienated folks in those states. On election day, here in safe Connecticut, I had meant to vote for David McReynolds but found that he was not certified for write-in, so I almost voted for Nader but was pissed off about the swing state campaigning, so voted for Gore. Since then, I have talked to a bunch of others who were planning to vote for Nader, but ended up voting for Gore for the same reasons.
There was a large panel today with students discussing the election. These were overwhelmingly liberal students, most of whom would normally love Nader. But when Nader's name was mentioned in the introduction, spontaneous hissing broke out from around the room.
Nader made the choice to campaign in the last week in swing states rather than in states like Texas or Connecticut. Yes, the voters in the swing states collapsed for fear of Bush, but what is remarkable is how poorly Nader did in safe states like Connecticut. That collapse is Nader's own fault, not the fault of the liberal Dems.
Nader cost himself federal funds by alienating voters in safe states.
-- Nathan Newman