While it is true that Nader brought in a great deal of new votes to the Green party it is not necessarily a fair guess to assume that those who would vote for Nader would have voted for Gore.

Firstly, it is probable that those who voted for Nader did so expressly because they rejected Gore as a "real environmentalist". As such it is much more likely that these people would have either a) not voted b) voted for the green candidate regardless of whom it was or c) voted for another third party candidate had Nader not run.

Likewise, since the margin was so small, Pat Buchanan by running as a conservative alternative exacerbated this scenario, and lessened Bush's lead.

Based on the official tally absolutely any of the final third party tallies given to one or the other candidate were enough to result in a non disputed election. But again that presumes a total redistribution of Votes.

It is likely that Nader drew libertarian Republicans from George Bush, as well as environmentalist Democrats from Al Gore. But the vast majority of Nader's supporters would simply have not voted if he was not an option.

But more importantly the idea that some Democrats seem to press when they dredge up the Nader candidacy is that minority opinions should not be allowed in politics. I have never known a society that limited debate or sought to limit the ability of participants to choose their own candidates to move towards liberalism, but perhaps I am mistaken.

As a final point, it should be noted that rather than run a more liberal candidate in 2004 to draw back its "lost votes" from 2000 the Party redoubled its move towards the center. Did they do this because they are idiots? Possibly, or perhaps they just understood that the votes for Nader were more than votes for Bush, they were expressed votes against Gore. They knew those votes were lost, and that no effort to gain them back would allow them to hold the broad base they needed to win, and so they left the votes on the table, hoping they would get some protest votes back to stop Bush, but making no real effort to reclaim them.

In the end Nader was right; the Democratic Party had no interest in the issues that the left supported, at least not in a national election. Until the rest of the nation catches up, it is unlikely they ever will be.

Once again, the Democrats are likely to run a middle of the road candidate, with a soft enough position on the war to declare a pull back, while leaving many of our troops in Iraq. The environment will be the topic dejour so long as Summer is hot, so it is less likely that it will be pushed to the back burner again in the near future, but it is equally likely that both center parties will adopt green sounding programs, and both will declare that we can have business growth and environmental stewardship, and both will likely do little to bring about change.

The funny thing is, Al Gore's current statements on the environment, and George Bush's are not as dissimilar as many Gore proponents would have the world believe. Both favor individual effort, and personal choice to bring about lowering of CO2 emissions, Both feel higher MPG rating for cars is the best way to combat personal CO2 output, Both feel Carbon trading is a good idea, neither feels a Carbon tax is the answer, and both feel that Growth and environmental stewardship can walk hand in hand. Both are of course wrong on many points, and neither are likely to run for or win the presidency in 2008. It's like looking in the Mirror I'm sure.

As to the war, it's very easy to oppose the war after the fact, and after it has clearly been derailed. It is much harder, as Obama did, and as the current Democratic Chairman did, to come out against the war at the height of its popularity, when your opposition meant political risk, and personal conviction; just as honesty about the war now requires.

Point 1) third party candidates can draw votes from a candidate and give the win to either participant.

Point 2) Nader was likely not this case.

Reson for the differnce: As Nader ran on an environmentalist ticket against a man who was arguably the most environmentaly minded candidate in the main stream party, it is unlikely that anyone who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore based on that issue.

In Ross Perot's Case he like Buchanan took an isolationist's stance counter the tac of both major parties. They were espousing a real alternative to the major choices, and as such they drew from the pool that traditionally agreed with these stances. In this case the Republicans.

By contrast, Al Gore was a noted environmentalist in the public mind, as such Nader only drew votes from people for whome Gore's credentials as an environmentalist were questioned. It is unlikely that these people would have voted for Gore, since their oposition to Gore was specific.

Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush endorsed Nafta, Ross Perot opposed it, as such the traditional Pro-Business Isolationist proponants voted for Perot. Al Gore and Ralph Nader are arguably aligned on the envirionment and as such those wishing to vote for Nader do so because they oppose Gore, or support the Green Party, not because they feel the Democratic has abandoned their principles. The persons voting for Nader feel Al Gore personally does not espouse the policies they hold dear, and as such are unlikely to vote for him regardless of their options.

I hope that clears up my position.