Help me understand. People repeat mantra-like that Nader's participation in Florida got Bush elected.

According to Susan MacManus, a political scientist at the University of South Florida, exit polls from the 2000 presidential election in Florida reveal that when Nader voters were asked who they would've voted for if Nader had >not< run, the responses were "split right down the middle." So the number of Nader votes going to Gore and to Bush would've been the same.

Nader received 96,837 votes in Florida in 2000. If we shoot one of them, and perhaps some Dems would enjoy that, we can give 48,418 votes each to the two front-runners. Working from the final recount numbers in the Fla. Race, this would give Bush a total 2,597,594 votes. Gore would claim total votes of 2,955, 869.

So Nader and some Greens may hope to be spoilers, but the actual numbers don't support the constant (and continuing) repetition by Democrats that this is what happened in Florida in 2000.

But, wait..that's not all! Florida 2000 exit polls also tell us that 256,274 Democrats voted for Bush, and 167,598 Republicans voted for Gore. Letting the two lead candidates keep "their" Nader votes, if we assume for a moment that all Bush's Dem votes go to Gore & all Gore's GOP votes go to George II we can adjust the vote totals:

Gore = 3,212,143
Bush = 3,125,192

Well, I'll be darned. With enough Democrats pulling the lever for him, old Al mighta won the day. But, please, ignore all of this, it's much easier to blame the Nader and the Green Party.

Pre-election voter roll purges, post-election hype and Supreme Court action IMO were the biggest factors involved in rigging the Florida election to produce the guy now in the White House.

There're are lots of good progressive Dems around. And I'd love to see a Democratic Party rank-n-file demanding progressive candidates the way some Dems on this site do (progressive in their actions and not just their rhetoric). I think this would generate more interest, loyalty and votes for the Dems.

- Merritt