> 1. The reversal of the following factors could
> have led to a Gore victory: using Clinton too much,
> using Clinton too little, writing "Earth in the Balance,"
> losing West Virginia due to association with gun control
> and/or tobacco, being a stiff, being too populist, not being
> populist enough, promoting deficit reduction and free trade,
> choosing Joe Lieberman as running mate, fighting like a
> weenie in Florida, outsmarting himself in Florida by failing
> to call for an immediate total recount, failing to hire myself
> as grand campaign strategist, or getting his economic advice
> from Brad DeLong.
Of course Nader wasn't the sole (or even most prominent) cause of Gore's loss. However, making that obvious point isn't sufficient to show that the conditional "If Nader hadn't run Gore would've won" is false. Of course, it cannot be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the conditional is true, either. However, it still appears to be a pretty good inference.
> 2. Since any number of changes in Gore's campaign might
> have reversed the outcome, it cannot follow that Nader is
> more to blame than Gore himself or any of the minor party
> candidates whose votes exceeded the margin in Florida.
> Especially Monica Moorehead.
Pre-election polls showed that there was good reason to think Nader might cost Gore a pivitol swing state or two. There wasn't similar evidence to indicate that Monica Moorehead, Dave McReynolds, and/or Pat Buchanan et al. would prevent Gore from winning in any state.
-- Luke