>>He got 2,882,955 or 2.74% of the votes, but zero electoral votes (to my knowledge):
>>
>>http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm#brown
>>
>>However, Democrats see his votes as votes that would have gone to Gore had Nader not run...
>
>But if Gore did win the popular vote, and Nader got 0 Electoral COllege votes, doesn't the complaint sound a bit hollow?
>
Gore's winning the national popular vote is a rallying point, but not relevant in any discussion about the 2000 election. The rules are well established and winning the popular vote doesn't matter --- winning the electoral vote does.



>Is there somewhere where Nader seemed to have put the margin of victory to a Republican (for the Electoral College) over Gore?
>
That's the real question. It's not how many electoral votes Nader got, it's whether he swung any states from one column to the other. Had Gore gotten Nader's vote in Florida he would have won there.

But even giving Florida to Bush.........

In New Hampshire the vote totals were
Bush 273,559
Gore 266,348
Nader 22,198

And Bush won the four electoral votes. Making the assumption that Gore would have gotten all the Nader votes then his total would have been 288,546 and he would have won the four electoral votes. The electoral vote total of 271-266 would have been 267-270 and Gore would have won.

I don't think the assumption that Gore would have gotten all those votes is valid. I think it more likely that many of Nader's supporters would not have voted at all. But, had Gore gotten 50% and the rest not voted that would still have been enough to swing the state to Gore. I do not think it likely that Bush would have received any significant percentage of Nader's votes, but I suppose it's possible.

Conclusion: If Nader had not been in race, Gore would have won.