You misinterpreted my message, though I'll admit I could
have phrased it better. I neither said nor meant to imply
that Nader is "the most important third-party candidate
in recent history." I said that Nader is the worst instance
of the spoiler problem in recent history. Actually, I was
mistaken a
>Nader is *not* the most important third-party candidate in recent
>history.
That's true. I'm not sure if Ralph was saying that he was... he did say
that this was the worst example of the spoiler effect, which might mean
something different. For one, with Perot, it's not especially clear
Nader is *not* the most important third-party candidate in recent history.
In 1992 and 1996, Perot got 19 and 8 million votes respectively.
(http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html). In the past century, third
party candidates exceeded Nader's 2000 2.8 million votes in 1996, 1992,
1980, 1
Yep. You got it. Kerry's hold on his votes is very tenuous. If he even looks
like he's asking Nader for "help", he's toast.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rob Brown
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 4:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
NO THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA
If Kerry "negotiates with Nader" Kerry will lose about half of his "core"
supporters and EVERYBODY who is "in the middle." Nader is accomplishing
nothing by running except trying to get Bush re-elected.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL P
