I cannot believe we are still arguing about Nader

[BzaDem]

55. It isn't Gore's responsibility to "attract" them. That premise is completely upside down.

Gore was going to be fine, win or lose. In fact, he has probably made many times more out of office than he would have made in office.

An election isn't decided by the candidates. It is decided by the voters. Voters are the one who decide who the President is, and voters are responsible and accountable for the outcome. This is more than obvious; it is axiomatic.

Blaming Gore for losing the election is like blaming a homeowner for his house being burglarized.

Who do you think was harmed more by Gore not being inaugurated on January 20th? Gore? Or the average Nader voter? (For that matter, who do you think was harmed more: Gore, or the hundreds of thousands of people who would not have died had one percent of Nader voters voted for Gore?)

It is not Gore's responsibility to explain to Nader voters what should be quite obvious in 5th grade civics.

Perhaps that is why you always try to change the subject, to emphasizing how one vote never changes anything. It is quite telling that you won't come out and admit the direct and clear implication of your logic. You never quite come out and say what you would do if your vote could single-handedly elect Gore or elect Bush (through any sort of non-Gore vote). Instead, you try to hide behind the collective action problem.

If someone wants to take an action that will help Bush get elected, that is their legal right. But they do not have the right to make a false statement, and claim that helping Bush is not what they are doing, without someone pointing out the falsity of the statement.