It's kind of hard to "establish" the outcome of any "what if" scenario, but even as an admitted liberal and a person who is glad Clinton won, I think it is likely.
Way to go, Merko. Are you trying to reposition yourself from intelligent poster to "as dumb as a CT twit" in one post? If so, you are succeeding.
As I recall (and I don't have the numbers handy to back this up, so take it as you will); Nader didn't co-opts a significant number of Democrat voters during either election. Those who voted for Nader/GP, according to polls, were typically those who don't vote at all, or were fringe third-party voters (GP and similar) who wouldn't have voted Democrat. Nader's numbers were due in large part to mobilizing an atypical number of non-voting single-issue voters and extremist environmentalists by providing the sort of highly visual candidate that the GP lacked in the past.
Uh, I never said the Democrats always played this game. But when they do - and I think they have done so at least for the last two presidential elections - the conclusion is valid.
I know that is a possible scenario, but from what I know of environmentalists (being a moderate one myself) I find that they are highly political. Sure there is a fringe that would never vote Dem or GOP, but they really are a fringe. A lot of Nader's support was solid, politically active people who just consider the environment a high priority, plus a number who liked his views on other positions.
We don't "know" it. Luchog mentioned some polls that suggested something like this, but we all know how polls can be manipulated. Speaking as an environmentalist and and nearly a Nader voter, I can say honestly that I would never stay home. I eventually voted for Gore, but it was a hard and pragmatic decision.
I would say that is a very simplistic way of looking at the situation. Since each voter (we hope) gets only one vote, obviously any if they cast their vote for one candidate, that is a vote another candidate cannot have. Almost all of the campaigning in a presidential election is aimed at a relatively small but critical segment: the undecideds. Tiny things can influence the swing of that segment, especially in an election as close as the 2000 one was.
I'd be in favor of that if weh had a run-off system or a ranked-vote system (vote for your favorite, then second favorite etc.), but under the current system, third party candidates, unless they can capture some electoral votes, merely hurt the chances of the candidates they are most like.
It would be a mistake to assume that everybody who is a registered Democrat is actually a Democrat. Many people cross parties so that they vote in the primaries for the candidate thay they would most like to see their preferred candidate run against. (I'm a registered Republican in Texas). Does that story show how many registered Republicans voted for Gore?
Did you miss the first part of that paragraph? He said, "the repercussions are still being felt", then brought up the supreme court to support that. So clearly he's being accurate.
Nope, better men than him have tried and failed. He'd have tried, however, of that we can be sure, but to pretend that a US president can achieve Middle East peace is to misunderstand the Middle East. Only the people there can make the peace, though the US can aid and abet, as President Carter did with Egypt and Israel.
Nope, he's not a doctor. He might have endorsed more funding for the research, however.
Nope. Even Al Gore admits that it will take more than a few years to reverse the trend he is so concerned about. That said, I imagine he'd have tried to make some changes to US energy policy, but whether or not he'd have overcome the Congressional Corporate complex is unknown.