>I have all the criticism of Gore in the world - remember I was the one who
>bet on him blowing the election, while everyone on this list was confidently
>predicting he would win the election.
>
>But the fact is that he won more votes than Bush and actually won a higher
>percentage of the vote than any Democrat since 1976. And if Nader hadn't
>divided the progressive vote, he would have translated that numerical vote
>into winning the election.
That you think that Nader cost Gore the election suggests that you only half-believe he blew the election. Given a strong economy, the incumbent party should have won big. Nader shouldn't have made a crucial difference, even assuming he did. And don't forget, in Florida, it was Monica Moorhead's fault (and can't you just imaging Bill C in the Oval Office, ordering, "Monica! More head!!").
Besides, you can't just assume that Nader's votes came from Gore. Many Nader voters probably wouldn't have voted otherwise.
Doug