>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/12/05 9:37 PM >>> >nader in 2000, i'm tempted to say surely you jest, please explain >campaign's effectiveness... mh
He filled Felt Forum in NYC and venues everywhere. He also got a huge vote for a 3rd party candidate. If he ran an ineffective campaign like the sectarian left, DP lawyers wouldn't have worked overtime trying to get him thrown off the ballot. <<<<<>>>>> henry wallace had large numbers at lots of his campaign appearances, (30,000 in chicago, for example, he packed hollywood bowl in los angeles, in comparison, place was half full for truman), may well have been because paul robeson performed at many stops, but then, nader had list of celebs, wallace received about 2.5% of '48 vote, nader about 3.5% of 2000 vote... political circumstances were obviously different, but each campaign had something in common - well-known candidate (hell, nader got almost 1% of '96 vote and he didn't even campaign), each reflected 'personality party' (in contrast to 'idea party'), a dead end street... as for scurrilous dp lawyers, had '96 election in florida been as close as 2000, they would have blamed their candidate's loss on 4100 votes that nader received in the state without having campaigned... mh -------------------------------------------------------------- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
