http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/index.html
Gore=51,003,926 + Nader=2,883,105 = 53,887031
in 2004 Nader=396000, Kerry=54,996,123 with 96% votes in.
Looks to me there was a swing away from Nader, most probably a combination of not wishing to throw a vote away and his inability to stay on some ballots, that gave Kerry an extra 2.5 million. Hardly a mass turn out, just a shifting around with an expected increase in a voter base, the population isn't static, the voting pop. must have increased by at least several million in four years
As a
> percentage of eligible voters, Kerry got a higher percentage of that
> potential vote than and Democratic candidate since Jimmy Carter won in
> 1976-- who got roughly the same percentage of the potential vote-- and far
> more than Bill Clinton did in either 1992 or 1996.
obviously our sources differ and you seem to be rounding up and down as
fits your argument
>
> Kerry had his weaknesses but he also had his strengths. He ran on a very
> progressive platform-- pro-union, anti-death penalty, pro-choice,
> pro-education-- with concrete goals to improve the lives of people we all
> care about.
well he failed to convey that message to me, the message I got was a guy with a glass jaw whose foreign policy was no better than Bush's. Anyway Americans vote on celebrity and Kerry doesn't have the good looks and charm.
Gary? ride si sapis