Bigger margins leave you less vulnerable to fuckery by corrupt election officials and judges.
Fact of the matter is, if Nader wasn’t on the ballot in 2000, Gore would’ve like had a healthy margin. He had almost 100,000 votes, and Gore only needed several hundred.
Nope, but you’d have to be fooling yourself if you thought, the people at the Nader rallies were down with Bush. If Nader wasn’t on the ballot, those votes were going to be Gore, people who declined state, or people writing in candidates out of protest.
Gore needed less than 1% of Naders voters. The odds would’ve have clearly been in his favor.
gore won 2000. blame the supreme court, not nader.
Bigger margins leave you less vulnerable to fuckery by corrupt election officials and judges.
Fact of the matter is, if Nader wasn’t on the ballot in 2000, Gore would’ve like had a healthy margin. He had almost 100,000 votes, and Gore only needed several hundred.
you can't prove that.
Nope, but you’d have to be fooling yourself if you thought, the people at the Nader rallies were down with Bush. If Nader wasn’t on the ballot, those votes were going to be Gore, people who declined state, or people writing in candidates out of protest.
Gore needed less than 1% of Naders voters. The odds would’ve have clearly been in his favor.
you can't prove a counter factual. In a world where Nader isn't on the ballot, you don't know who the dem nominee was either.