------------------- > Here's one on which I agree with Blankfort. William Mandel > > Jeffrey Blankfort wrote: > > > The problem with the analysis by Friedman and others of the same mind is > > that they assume that those who voted for Nader would have voted for > > Gore if the former had not been running. Speaking for myself and others > > I know who voted for Nader, none of us would have voted for Gore under > > any circumstances. Half the electorate who stayed away from the ballot > > box apparently made the same decision. I don't think the statistical viability rests on a poll of your group of friends. I voted for Nader, but I certainly would have voted for Gore in his absence--not of any great love, but because George Bush is not someone I'm interested in seeing over and over again for the next four years. Most published estimates have run about 40%, as a ratio of Nader voters who might have pulled for Al instead. When you consider that at this point, about 2% would have made a difference, it's damn near impossible to argue that Nader did not cost Gore Florida. On the other hand, that Nader was an issue at all suggests Gore wasn't up to the task anyway.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/24/00 EST