I you the same mistake alot of Republi-Crats make, and that is creating this abstract of the "third" party, in which all other parties are in.

In 1996, the Reform party was HUGE!!! Not third-party material (such as world workers, socialist, constitutional law, etc.)

in 2000 the Greens are HUGE!!!


Harry Browne is a joke candidate. He will be lucky if he gets 0.1% of the popular vote--LUCKY. In fact, let's go back and examine that.


Nader is a very popular candidate. He took 4% of the popular vote in the 1996 election--and he had NO CAMPAIGN--sad efforts at best. This year, the Greens are huge, with hundreds of candidates in every state, people running local, state, national--many of which are the only non-republican candidate, many of which will win.

Nader is huge for a reason. Not 'cause he's some "oh, woe is me" complaining "third-party" candidate--because he is a famous champion of people's rights, of efficiency, and of government and corporate responsibility. He has the longest history of public service of any candidate, the most ideas, and a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE support structure.

Granted the greens are not running a powerful presidential campaign. Alot of this is due to absence of contributions from Exxon or Pharmaceutical Companies, and being shut-out by the press, but they ARE getting by on penny candy.


Every newspaper, including the ones that claim to be more progressive have shut Nader out. The only Nader articles are attacking opinion pieces. Your logic that Nader gets the most press is faulty. It's like saying ads calling clinton a liar are "press"

Nader is being attacked because he is a REAL threat to a REAL problem. If he wins, it's all over for the duopoly. If he wins 15%, the Party qualifies for millions of dollars in Federal aid.

In that case, the current hundreds of Green candidates become hundreds of well-funded green candidates--goodbye duopoly.