Nader should just hang it up. He was a cute novelty in 2000 who must have appealed to at least a few voters but I agree that in 2004 he was a non-factor and is even less of a factor this year.

I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004 for several reasons and would do so again.
1. I think the two party system we have (DFL and REP) is VERY ineffective and was not even something required in the Constitution. We need more voices / choices in our leaders, like Nader.
2. I don't have much respect for most politicians. Politicians think they do a lot for the people, but not really. I think people would be fine without them. With that said, I think the only candidate that has ever personally made my life better is Nader with his "Unsafe at any speed". How many people owe their lives to his efforts to put seatbelts in cars?

As a 2004 Nader voter, I would have NEVER cast a vote for Gore. I do not think Nader cost Gore the election. I will continue to vote for a third-party candidate until society abandons its failed feeling of security in a two-party system. We would be better off with a jury-duty-like selection of our legislatures and presidents than the system we have today.

I didn't know Nader was running this time around, haven't even heard his name...which says something about his ineffectiveness.

It seems to me some of the best action we could take with these two lame parties is to simply vote to make sure neither is in total power, keep them in gridlock so they fight along themselves and actually cdo as little as possible and let society and the free market run itself like it should.

The more we can keep government out of the way the better. Keep them from passing their stupid laws, inacting cost controls, wage controls and other such idiocy and letting society run itself through free market supply and demand would work better.