Reply #15: There's a lot of things that ruined it.

[MGKrebs]

Add to your list: Tennessee going to Bush, media lies and distortion, Gore's choice of Lieberman (perhaps), Ken Starr. But Nader is one of those things too. A difference in any of these things could have changed the result. Why not do differently, what we can control, this time?

From Mike Hersch,

"Gore won Florida by all fair, full vote counts. However, Nader's "spoiler" efforts there - culminating in his last-ditch, last minute campaign swings - handed Bush the White House by drawing enough votes to cost Gore a clear victory.

Nader pulled a net estimated 22,422 votes from Gore. That turned a Gore 21,885 vote win into the "official" 537 vote "loss." Gore lost New Hampshire (by 7,211 votes, 1.3%). Nader took triple that margin.

Gore would have won Florida's 25 electoral votes - and probably New Hampshire's 4 - if Nader hadn't run, or if he hadn't run intentionally helping Bush. my note here: by "intentionally" he's saying that Nader forced Gore to spend more time and money in places where Bush probably wasn't going to winEither state's electoral votes added to Gore's 266 "official" total would have given Gore enough to win the White House - 270 (with New Hampshire's) 291 (with Florida's) or 295 with both. "

I think it is quite possible that without Nader, Gore would have won.