> "Nearly 10 percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at
> least $250 each have a history of supporting the Republican
> president, national GOP candidates or the party, according to
> computer-assisted review of financial records by The Dallas Morning
> News"? That is not surprising, given that 37.6% of the voters who
> ranked Nader the highest in surveys of voter preferences and actually
> voted cast their votes for Bush (Barry C. Burden, 4, "Minor Parties
> in the 2000 Presidential Election,"
>
<http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/burdosu.pdf>).
Yoshie, the Nader donors mentioned in this piece aren't the perplexed swing voters who kinda like Nader and kinda like Bush. They're major GOP players, highly informed and committed pro-Bush partisans. If voting for Nader is the progressive tactic, why do you think these guys are supporting Nader?
> Presumably, the question of what percent of the Kerry contributors
> who have given him at least $250 each have a history of supporting
> the Republican president, national GOP candidates or the party is not
> newsworthy, as too many readers expect the answer to be close to
> 100%. :-)
But that's perfectly consistent with the analysis of those of us who say Bush-Kerry differences are small (but significant). It's not consistent at all with your analysis, which says voting for Nader is progressive.
Seth