[RJCogburn]

If Nader had not run in 2000 studies show that only a tiny fraction of Nader's 2.8 million votes would have gone to Gore

Which would have been enough to elect Gore.

[Common Tator]

If Nader had not run in 2000 studies show that only a tiny fraction of Nader's 2.8 million votes would have gone to Gore

Which would have been enough to elect Gore.

All that would have happened is that Gore would have carried states he already carried by a very slightly bigger margin. That increase in margin would have been less than one - one hundreth of a point. Counting errors have more effect on outcomes than the far right or far left.

I doubt if there were 50 Greenies in Florida who thought there was a pennies worth of difference between GORE and BUSH. Fifty more votes could not have elected Gore.

And the small handful of Greenie votes for Gore would have gotten in California if he were the only choice would not have given Gore any more Electoral votes from California. Gore won the Greenie states with out the greeies... You may a want to make a note to yourself that in presidential elections each state is "winner take all." Gore won all the states where Greenie have a presence.

The far left looks at Bush and Gore and concludes there is not a dimes worth of difference between them.

The far Right looks at Gore and Bush and concludes there is not a dimes worth of difference between them.

The far left will only vote for the far left. The far right will only vote for the far right.

The fringes are never ever worth what they cost. Gore lost because he tried to win some Greenies insteand of some RINOs.