"As Ralph Nader campaigns for president across the country, he is telling audiences, 'In 1996, I just stood for election. In 2000, I'm running.' In 1996, Nader gave Greens permission to put his name on the ballot for U.S. President, but did not campaign for the office. The Greens got Nader on the ballot in 22 states and he received nearly 700,000 votes, the most for an independent party candidate to the left of the Democrats since Henry Wallace's Progressive Party campaign of 1948" (Howie Hawkins, "A Green Perspective on Ralph Nader and Independent Political Action," <http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue29/hawkin29.htm>). In 1996, Nader just stood for election without campaigning, spending only $5,000, and yet got "the most for an independent party candidate to the left of the Democrats since Henry Wallace's Progressive Party campaign of 1948," which got folks thinking, "what if Nader campaigned hard?" Hence the progress to 2000.
What's the point of spending $40 million to win *no* vote in the general election? -- Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>