If you blame Nader then you are saying Katherine Harris numbers were correct and aboveboard

[karynnj]

81. What I was saying was exactly that

Further, I was making the point that GIVEN that he still ran in 2004, it is very possible that the reason he ran in 2000 was not just his view of Gore. Then, as he was running, when making a case for doing so, he spoke of there being no difference between Gore and Bush - a comment that people are quoting - including here on this thread - 14 years later!

It is subtle, but the point is that Nader, I think, thought:
- the two party system inadequate
- thought that what he represented was a large group of people who neither party represented

The dilemma is that with the US having (in reality) a two party system, any third party that lies either to the left of the Democrats or the right of the Republicans will, in fact, work against the major party they are closest to. I realize that in fact political space is multi dimensional and this simplifies it to one dimension, but the same thing could be said in a more complicated way - as if the preponderance of people in the new minor party would say that one of the major parties is there second choice. In 2000, Nader made the comment that there was no difference between the two parties as a way to justify potentially helping Bush.

In 2000, no one has questioned that - of the Nader voters, who would have voted had he not run, most would have voted for Gore. Nader's point was that neither would provide the change needed. One person I knew, who supported Nader, argued that sometimes you need things to get REALLY bad to make people angry enough to demand change. Well, we got Bush and things got worse than anyone expected -- and we have a Supreme Court that is working on change ... in the opposite direction.