http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html
Exit polls show that nationally, Nader voters were disproportionately
male and white. Was that because those categories of folks had less to
lose from a Bush victory over Gore?
The blitheness, and cynical detachment, with which folks dismiss the
differences between the two potential administrations is breathtaking.
I have to support Brad on this -- if all we can do is make binary
good-bad distinctions, our capacity to understand the world is going to
be rather limited. Yes, a principled argument for supporting Nader
could be made, but in order to get whatever benefits ensued from voting
Nader, there *was* a risk of throwing the election to the more
conservative of the two major candidates. Why are Nader backers so
unwilling to take *any* responsibility for this? (Pointing out Gore's
many failings is not an answer -- a close election is, in a sense,
determined by everything.)
But Michael is right that it's probably not worth debating a lot more
now. If we get Bush, we'll have four years to see how big the
difference is, for people's lives.
Best, Colin
