I know Michael Moore is not universally popular here,

[progree]

73. OK. CRIME (or should be): stealing an election in the many ways described above.

NOT A CRIME (and should not be): running as a 3rd party candidate.

However, Nader knew his candidacy would draw more votes away from Gore than Bush, and he campaigned vigorously in swing states, including Florida, despite promising not to in order to get enough signatures to get on the ballots. And trashing Gore and the Democrats a lot more than Bush and the Republicans, and arguing disingenuously that there is essentially no difference between the two parties. Not a crime, but he was and is a liar and a first class horse's ass. The people who argue that he had no effect on the outcome when he obviously did -- uhh, well, fuzzy thinking at best.

Yes, what the Republicans did was far worse than what Nader did. Yes, yes, yes.

But again, as I said in #57 (and in #32 and #34)

Nader's candidacy made the election close enuf for Bush to steal

... I've made it clear time and time again that there many factors, most larger than the 12,000 plus votes on net that Nader siphoned from Gore, that led to Bush winning officially by 537 votes. Including Jeb and Kathleen Harris. The Supreme Court would not have awarded the election to Bush if had been down by 11000 plus votes. It wouldn't have even gotten to the SC.

And again something I've made clear time and time again, that those 12000 plus votes were ESSENTIAL to Bush's victory. Otw he would have ended down by 11000+ votes.

Inarguably, Nader's candidacy and those 12,000 net votes made the election close enuf for Bush to steal the election by just 537 votes.

If a recount had been stopped with Bush 11,000 votes down (or nearly 25,000 votes down according to source {3} in #32), the Supreme Court would not have declared Bush the winner. In the 2016 election, Biden won by 11,779 in Georgia, 10,457 in Arizona, and 20,608 in Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court didn't flip those states nor even hear those cases.