[Standard introduction: Politics can bring out the best in people. It can also bring out the worst. All Nader supporters are, or will be, under attack from Democrats. Sometimes the best response, especially when personal friends or family members are involved, is to agree to disagree -- and postpone any discussion until a couple weeks after the election.

Some folks are so wrought up they are not just unwilling, they are truly incapable of dealing with reasoned analysis.

But for those with whom you can have a civil discussion during the next week you might consider the following.]

OK, in a moment we’ll do the math.

But first let’s put the charge in perspective.

• No third party movement, oppressed by the two-party system in numerous ways (not the least of which was keeping Nader out of debates where he could have helped Gore), has an obligation to help either major party.

• The Democrats have spent the last eight years raising millions of dollars from the same corporations as fund Republicans, launching pre-emptive strikes against Republicans by introducing Republican legislative programs before the Republicans do, turning their backs on their natural (and majority) base of voters (progressives, labor, working class and poor). (As a result, it is not surprising there are so many similarities between the positions of Bush and Gore with regard to the issues affecting their corporate backers. See, Common Sense 2000, No. 5, "Bush and Gore: What Difference?".)

• Ralph Nader didn’t do that to the Democrats. Even the Republicans didn’t do that to the Democrats. Only the Democrats, and their corporate-backed, right-leaning Democratic Leadership Council – with the active support of President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, and Senator Joe Lieberman – did that to the Democrats. As a result their natural base of support has, naturally, drifted away. Some are now disillusioned or apathetic stay-at-home non-voters. Some are union members who ignore their leaders’ advice and vote Republican.

• Moreover, their candidate, Al Gore, however experienced, informed and ready to perform as president, does not appeal to voters as a candidate, as a human being. George Bush may be an uninformed, often-incomprehensible, inexperienced, former playboy with a miserable record as Texas Governor. But he comes across to many voters like someone who knows who he is, is consistent and uncompromising, relaxed, and the kind of easy-going guy with whom you might enjoy a fishing trip.

• Ralph Nader didn’t do that to Al Gore, either. George Bush didn’t do that to Al Gore. Al Gore did that to Al Gore, and the Democrats chose him to run.

• Given the economy and their other accomplishments, and who they had to run against, this election should have been a slam dunk for the Democrats.

• This guy is a third party candidate with little or no money.

• His “party” scarcely exists; he acknowledges one of his major purposes is to create it.

• He has little or no party organization.

• He was excluded from the presidential debates.

• He regularly deals with a hostile media that ignores his issues in order to push their “spoiler” questions.

• He is the target of hostile attacks from Democrats, with their money, media and celebrities putting pressure on his supporters.

Nevertheless, it looks like, should Gore lose, Nader supporters will need to deal with Democrats' charge that “Nader cost Gore the election.”

Hopefully Gore will win. But, if he does not, and Nader supporters can find any Democrats willing to look at the facts rationally rather than emotionally, here is a possible decision tree analysis.

At the outset, note that Nader's percentage of the national popular vote is irrelevant. Who wins the presidential election is a matter of electoral college, not popular, votes. So any rational analysis of Nader's impact has to be on a state-by-state basis.

Moreover, if Gore wins the electoral vote obviously there is no issue. So we begin with the assumption that:

Bush wins the electoral vote.

Calculate by how many electoral votes did Bush win. Otherwise put, how many electoral votes would have to be subtracted from Bush, and added to Gore, for Gore to have won?

The states won by Gore can be ignored. As long as Gore was credited with their electoral votes it makes no difference how many votes Nader received in those states.

So we need only look at the results in those states where Bush has won the electoral votes.

In those states, calculate the popular vote for Bush, Gore, Nader, and others, state by state.

Assume hypothetically that every single vote for Nader would, but for Nader, have gone to Gore (a patently false assumption, as we will shortly see, but the strongest case for the Gore supporters attacking Nader).

When Nader’s votes in any state are added to Gore’s votes in that state does the total exceed Bush’s votes?

If not, there is no reason to consider that state’s electoral votes. There is no scenario in which Gore could have been credited with that state's electoral votes anyway.

Now consider each of the remaining states; that is, states in which, had all of Nader’s votes gone to Gore the electoral votes of that state would have gone to Gore.

Had all of the electoral votes in those states gone to Gore would Gore have had more electoral votes than Bush?

If not, that’s the end of the exercise. Bush would have won, and Gore would have lost, with or without Nader.

If anyone is serious – and not just an angry loser looking for a scapegoat elsewhere than in their bathroom mirror – some interviewing of Nader voters' preferences (or review of exit polling, if done) is required.

Preliminary polling suggests something like 25-30 percent of Nader supporters, but for Nader, would have voted for Bush. As many as half, but for Nader, would have stayed home and not voted. Of course, preliminary polling numbers are not decisive. The relevant data can come only after the election.

In other words, no factually accurate statements about Nader costing Gore the election can be made without making at least some sampling effort to find out how many of those Nader voters would have, in fact, voted for Gore had Nader not been in the race.

At that point the numbers have to be run again (a) in the states Gore lost, (b) in which the Gore and Nader votes together would have been greater than the votes for Bush.

What percentage of the Nader voters in that state would, otherwise, have voted for Gore? How many votes is that?

Add those votes to Gore’s votes. Does that total exceed Bush’s total? If not the only fair conclusion is that Bush would have carried the state even with Nader out of the race.

Total the electoral votes of the states Bush won, where the votes of the Nader supporters who would otherwise have voted for Gore would have given the state to Gore.

Subtracting those electoral votes from Bush, and adding them to Gore’s total, would that have altered the result?

Nader supporters shouldn’t have to be put to this analysis.

Nader didn’t break into one of Al Gore’s lock boxes and steal Gore’s votes in the dead of night. Those never were “Gore’s votes.” They have to be earned. Nader competed for them fairly in the political marketplace, with his program and his personality, the same way Bush did.

The Democrats in general, and Al Gore in particular, bear full responsibility if they lose this election.

I hope Al Gore wins.

But if he doesn’t, and rational analysis demonstrates Nader contributed to that defeat in some small way, that’s one of the risks of freedom and democracy. I'm willing to take that heat.

All I insist upon is that before there’s any post-election scapegoating of Nader supporters something better than "fuzzy math" is used by the Democrats in their analysis.