Post a response to this discussion thread
IMO, Nader has been a scapegoat for Gore's failure in 2000. With a booming economy and the backing of one of the more successful administrations in recent years, Gore should have mopped the floor with Bush or any other challenger. Nader's 1-2% (if even that) shouldn't have made a difference. Same with the Florida hijinks. It shouldn't have had to come down to a questionable decision by the Supreme Court. That whole mess stinks, even now, but it shouldn't have mattered.
.
The problem, IMO, is that the Democrats in 2000 were much like the Republicans in 1992: The more radical wing of the party was demoralized and weren't mobilized for their candidate. The right wing of the Republican party never forgave George Bush for breaking his promise on "No New Taxes." It strikes me that 8 years of Clinton left the liberal wing of the Democratic party with table scraps and the occassional bone, and a lot of hard-to-swallow compromises. Nader offered these folks an opportunity to express their dissatifcation and to put forgotten issues back on the table.
.
Then again, what do I know? I'm a Free Silver backer. ;)
Post a response to this discussion thread