Gary North is one of the some, who doesn't agree with all of your analysis on the 2000 election regarding Nader, Ringleader. There are others, some on this board I've seen claim it.
Al Gore lost in 2000 because of the approximately 22,000 voters in New Hampshire who voted for Ralph Nader. Bush won New Hampshire by about 7,000 votes. Those four electoral votes were his margin of victory. I have heard no one argue that if Nader had not run, fewer than 15,000 of Nader's voters would have voted for Gore.
The Republicans did not steal the election in Florida. They and the Supreme Court merely kept the networks' TV anchorpersons from having stolen it when they announced the results of Florida's exit polls — Gore has won! — as soon as the polls in Miami closed, conveniently overlooking the fact that western Florida, which was Bush country, was still voting because it was on Central Standard Time. A sufficient number of Bush's supporters there gave up and didn't go to the polls, so the election was close enough to be contested.
Hardly anyone remembers either of these crucial aspects of the 2000 Presidential election.
The Democrats blame Republican chicanery for their loss. They do not publicly blame Nader, who was the real culprit. This resentment against Bush has inserted an element of revenge into the next campaign. Never underestimate revenge as a political motivation. Keeping "them" out is every bit as powerful a political motive as getting "us" in. Given the level of voter commitment generated by Presidential candidates since Reagan, "accentuate the negative" is today the strongest underlying motivation for electoral victory. "Stick it to them!"