"The people who lost it for the democrats were the voters, not Nader. "

And THAT is just rhetoric. Of course voters ... ummm.. voted! Nader asked for votes for a cause. His cause was not "to make the Republicans win", but he gleaned votes that mostly would have gone to Democrats. I didn't even claim that the loss could be attributed to Nader... I said only [or tried to] that his 'cause' was one factor in an electoral system that penalizes one or the other of the major parties if a 3rd party does too well. It has almost happened to Republicans too...in 1968, George Wallace actually won several states, and if his platform had not been so hateful and obnoxious, he might have caused Nixon to be defeated.

If Nader had run AS a Democrat, like Sanders is doing now, he might have done more for his cause.

Totally out of order, Bill. I'm surprised at you. If you want a democracy you do not try to manipulate who does or doesn't stand on the basis of tactics or splitting votes. You embrace the philosophy of cheerfully accepting that anyone who wants to stand should be allowed to stand without all your umming and ahhing. You are arguing for the perpetuation of a bloody rotten two-party system that could in any case do with a healthy shake-up. In a proper democracy you should be encouraging a whole spectrum of opinion to be aired so that the people can make a real choice, not manipulating your own man into power. That's the way they do it in countries that end up with leaders who you and I would regard as total undesirables. Don't make me list names. As an aside, perhaps you could look up "rhetoric" in a dictionary.