Four years ago, Nader appeared on the ballot in 43 states and Washington, D.C., garnering only 2.7 percent of the vote. But in Florida and New Hampshire, Bush won such narrow victories that had Gore received the bulk of Nader's votes in those states, he would have won the general election.
Exit polls from 2000 show that about half of Nader's voters would have backed Gore in a two-way race. Nader dismisses the spoiler label.
[ Yahoo! News - AP Poll Finds Bush, Kerry Tied in Race ]
So if 1/2 of Nader's voters would have backed Gore, who would the other 1/2 of his voters have backed? I am so fed up with the Democrat's lame whining about Nader running. If you man is so darn good, he should have little to worry about. And if he's not that good, he should drop out since he's reducing Nader's chances of winning.
For the record I am a republican, that's right a republican. And I've just bought Nader's book to see what he's all about.
Why? I like giving all sides the benefit of the doubt and reviewing what they have to say.
As for the dems, I don't think they have what it takes to run the country. Their man Clinton was just a Northern Virginia Republican living in the wrong state, and Jimmy Carter (a man I respect for his post-presidential career) was highly ineffectual. JFK? We'll likely never know what how he would have been judged by history, due to his unfortunate circumstances. Kerry's best asset? He's the “most electable” against Bush. He's not the “best candidate” or “the right man for the job” or any other political posturing, he's just the guy that most democrats think has the best chance of ousting Bush. Personally I don't think that's the best way to pick the countries leader.
With that I say, each man to his corner and come out fighting, but not whining please.