Why is it so important to blame Nader for the 2000 election?

[frazzled]

22. But Gore got over half a million more votes than the "winner"

50,999,897 votes (or 48.4%) to Bush's 50,456,002 (or 47.9%). That's a difference of 543,895 votes, no small potatoes—indeed, it was the largest national margin ever. If the 2.74% of the vote Nader got had gone to Gore, it would have been a solid majority of the nation. D'oh. If a mere 544 of the 97,000 votes Nader got in Florida had gone to Gore, Gore would have been president. This, my friend, is the definition of "spoiler."

But more important: getting a majority, as opposed to a plurality of the votes in an election is no measure of anything. Bill Clinton won the presidency both times without winning 50% of the electorate— 43% in 1992 (far less than Gore got) and 49.2 in 1996).

Getting 50% of the electorate ... what does that have to do with the price of eggs in a three-way race? He would have gotten it, had Nader not run, and had Florida not been a hotbed of deceit, aided and abetted by Nader's spoiler campaign. I can't understand what people don't "get" about this. It's just the facts, m'aam.