Gearing up for 2008, thinking about 2004

[electionhistorian]

Not to bring up a sore subject here, but I've been wondering about the old Nader Factor thing...Most people seem to think Nader was a decisive factor in the 2000 election, but that somehow he wasn't much of a factor in 2004.

I wonder why this is?

Partly I think it reflects the unwillingness of former Nader supporters to risk four more years of Bush. But this can't be the whole story, can it? These voters knew the risk they were taking in 2000, even if they didn't appreciate just how great the risk was. I think the difference was the Dems were more organized in 2004, and were really able to neutralize Nader like no party has ever done before.

Does anybody know about this? I mean, it seems clear Nader was nowhere near the factor in 2004 as he was in 2000. What's the explanation?