>>>>>>There seems (still) to be big encouragement - at least by the media - for Bloomberg to run. Why is Nader such a joke?... and such a 'destroyer'?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because there's a desperate belief that only Dems can save the country, and yet even though so many believe in it, they still fear that the numbers of disilusioned won't suffice to surpass what these guys (aka GOP) can steal. So Nader is perceived as basically stealing votes from the left (because nobody really expects anybody from the right to even listen to what he has to say) and thus helping them lose again. Ergo, traitor.
>>>>
>>>>Well I'm anxious to hear just how many Ectectoral College votes Nader actually got.
>>>>
>>>>If it was zero then he really didn't (as I understand it) hurt anyone/anything.
>>>
>>>That's just bad math. If Nadar in fact drew votes from Democrats causing them to lose a state they would have otherwise won to GOP then he hurt them - and in 2000 it means he cost them the election.
>>
>>Yes, that's what I was wondering. And I just heard on CNN that Nader did cost Gore the Florida Electoral College vote(s?).
>
>Of course in fairness to Nader, 2000 was Gore *really* blowing it. I still find it almost impossible to believe he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory so badly. All the whining about the Supreme Court being paid stooges of the evil Bush clan is rubbish. He should have won that election by 10 points being a sitting VP after an 8 year feel-good run and actually being a pretty qualified guy.

Absolutely. If Bill Clinton had been allowed to run a third time he would have won that election with his eyes closed. He probably could have helped Gore win it if Gore had not felt he needed to distance himself from Clinton. That was a fatal miscalculation IMO.