Social change is never achieved through electoral politics, so to expect it to occur by presidential voting seems a bit silly.

I voted for Nader in 2000. Had I not voted for Nader, I absolutely would not have voted for Gore. I would have left the presidential part of the ballot blank, as I had done for the previous three elections. My entire inner city neighborhood was full of Nader lawn signs, I'm rooted deeply in this community both socially and politically, and I can tell you that very few of the hundreds of households with Nader lawn signs would have supported Gore in the absence of Nader as a candidate.

Finally, I don't believe Nader only took votes away from the Democrats, any more than I believe that the Greens or Socialists only take votes from the Democrats. Third party voting and voters who have declared themselves independent of any party, are a complex voting bloc. For instance, I know two Libertarian Party members who voted for Nader in 2000. I also know several Republicans who voted Nader and a good handful of Republicans who voted for Gore.

The majority of voters in some states like South Dakota and Arkansas are neither Democrat or Republican, but independent.

Democrats are looking for someone other than themselves to blame for their electoral failures of the past 20 or so years. Guess what? Nader isn't the reason the Democrats keep losing elections everywhere in the country. Democrats are the reason Democrats keep losing elections everywhere in the country.