General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Yes, Nader cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000. [View all]merrily
(45,251 posts)Put differently, Bush failed to garner the popular vote-but so did Clinton.
In 1992, Clinton only got a plurality in the popular vote, thanks to Perot.
However, Clinton did get a wide margin in the electoral vote, which is the only one that matters. I have not done a state by state analysis, which would be the only way to determine how many electoral votes Perot "cost" Bush.
That Gore dropped the ball on the electoral vote, allowing to come down to Florida, a semi-red state to begin with is, I would argue primarily the fault of the Gore campaign and Gore as a candidate.
When his own big campaign joke is that he can finish the macarena without moving a muscle, that indicates a major stick-up-the-ass problem. And then there was his imitation of an adolescent mean girl during one debate with Bush, exaggerated sighs, rolling eyes. Good grief. I never saw anything like it in a Presidential debate my life. I cringed repeatedly. Then, in the next debate, he tried to correct by apologizing to Bush constantly. Unreal.
None of that was Nader's fault.