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.
![whistel :whistle:](https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/Smileys/default/th_rolleye0012.gif)
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