Following the extremely close 2000 U.S. presidential election, some supporters of Democratic candidate Al Gore believe that one reason he lost the election to Republican George W. Bush is because a portion of the electorate (2.7%) voted for Ralph Nader of the Green Party, and exit polls indicated that more of these voters would have preferred Gore (45%) to Bush (27%), with the rest not voting in Nader’s absence.
This part of the article largely contradicts the rest of it, ESPECIALLY, since we do not know beforehand ( a priori) just how close our state will be.
Yes, but for Nader, W does not win as FLA would have gone to Gore. Pining to hear rampant reports of TBR members convincing their liberal friends to vote Jill Stein.
This piece bothers me for another reason. We have lost the popular vote on the freedom/liberty sphere all the way back to 1988! With one exception, more on that in a minute. And running up the score in CA for Gore DID make a difference in this regard.
Losing the popular DID make W's presidency illegitimate with less of a perceived mandate.
If 911 did not happen, there would have not been a second term.
We have lost the popular vote in every election since 1988, because there was not a
fighter on our side. Ah, but what about 2004?
The SWIFT boat veterans for truth were the fighters in this election. W did nothing to counter the bilge placed at his feet and his legacy/candidacy of his brother suffered accordingly.
@don-o