RealName @ 10:53: "No not really"...what? This post makes no sense. What tie are you referring to? Gore won the actual vote by a wide margin and Bush won the "official" recount by a mere 500+ votes.

And, if you're going to use language that alludes to statistical authority, kindly cite the study that provides it.

tangerine @ 11:08 and 11:10: What makes you so certain the votes that Nader got in Florida would automatically have gone to Gore had Nader not run? I suspect most of those people would have found other third party candidates to support as a protest of the Democrat/Republican duopoly or would have sat out the election altogether.

Further, other left leaning third party candidates on the Florida ballot got more than 500 votes. Since, using your (flawed) logic, these votes would have been alternatively cast for Gore, why are you singling out Nader?

The final electoral vote tally was Bush 271, Gore 266. New Hampshire and its whopping four electoral votes are relevant how?

And you write ...still a crime in the title of your second post. WTF? So, standing for public office outside the aegis of the two major parties is now a crime? Or are you referring to the people who voted for the candidate that best represented their beliefs? It's really comforting to know that rampant authoritarianism ("failure to support my candidate is a crime") is alive and well among Democrats. Jeebus.

Finally, I'd had hoped to avoid this because, frankly, it's getting boring, but I include the following to clarify and augment my original post:

Had Gore carried his home state, the Florida outcome would have been moot.

Had he chosen to actually lead (as we now see he is eminently capable of with regards to the climate issue) instead of listening to his ever timid advisors and attempt triangulating the polling data, he would have inspired many more people to support him and the Florida outcome likely would have been moot.

Had he embraced the active support of Bill Clinton—one of the most gifted campaigners ever—the Florida outcome may well have been moot.

Had he backed up the progressive rhetoric of his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention by choosing a progressive running mate instead of Joe Lieberman--whose repugnance while inchoate at time was still apparent (e.g., his unabashed membership in the DLC and his self righteous and sanctimonious finger wagging during the Clinton impeachment)—I and countless other progressives would have voted for him and the ultimate result likely would have been a landslide victory.

Would we all be better off had Gore become president in 2001? Of course we would. Was Ralph Nader the primary (or secondary, or tertiary or …) cause of this not occurring? Please. Al Gore is responsible for his loss in 2000.

Is Nader responsible for our current dilemma simply because he exercised his civic duty to stand up for his beliefs, beliefs shared by a significant percentage of the electorate? Bullshit. George Bush is responsible for this mess. Moreover, more than a few Democratic congress members, public intellectuals and pundits are complicit.

Surely, anyone who can read and comprehend material written at the twelveth grade level is capable of more complex analysis than “it’s all Ralph Nader’s fault.”

If you still cannot put your denial behind you and require a scapegoat for Gore’s defeat, see Bob Somersby’s ongoing analysis at The Daily Howler concerning the double standard applied to Gore during the 2000 race by the mainstream political press corps and the effect it had on the election.

Anonymous, project much?

First, take a deep breath. You'll feel better.

Then, back up your argument. Explain exactly how Nader's participation in the 2000 election was more significant than any one or two of the dozens of major missteps made by the Gore caampaign. Remember, unsubstantiated ranting does not make for a cogent argument.