What was the real difference?

[Nym90]

Overall Nader, obviously, for the reasons Polnut mentioned.

Why blame Rather as opposed to Voter News Service? In addition, I think the idea that Bush lost massive numbers of votes in the panhandle is overblown. The call of Florida was 10 minutes before the polls were to close there, and it would've cost Gore votes as well. And of course I could just as well argue that if those people didn't care enough to vote under those circumstances they shouldn't be voting to begin with.

And obviously it's not Buchanan's fault that the ballot in Palm Beach County was messed up.

[Nym90]

Each in their own special way.

Rather is the only who I think is a questionable. No one is exactly sure what impact that had. I have read something that does kind of refute it.

Nader got over 97,000 votes in a state lost by Gore officially by 537... I think it's fair to say that at least 1,000 of the would have voted for Gore were Nader not there.

Buchanan himself said that there is NO WAY he would get 3,000+ in Palm Beach Co. The ballot was stupid... but you did have to be pretty stupid to get it that wrong.

Well, not necessarily stupid, just have poor vision, which of course is a common problem among the elderly who make up a disproportionate number of the voters in Palm Beach County, especially the Democratic voters.

[Nym90]

Buchanun cost Bush Oregon, New Mexico, and Iowa if I remember correctly. However, Nader allowed the states to be that close in the first place.

If you assume that all of Buchanan's votes would've gone to Bush, and of course as you also noted that none of Nader's votes go to Gore. Both of which are obviously suspect assumptions to make.