Very much so, but more generally I’d point out that just about anything could have tipped it one way or another, simply because the result was so close. It’s like six years later, when Colbert could say the senate was lost because of an old-school jingle.
In most circumstances a jingle could hardly be said to prevent a proper democratic choice, and neither would third party candidates, or even the petty anti-democratic measures that were going on. They apply here only because there was barely any such choice; to a first- or even second-order approximation, the electorate really didn’t know if they preferred Bush or Gore. Very nearly half the voters, taken through electoral weighting, would have their choice either way.
There are lots of reasons this metaphorical coin landed as it did, but I think the underlying one is that it was a toss in the first place. I’ve stated my thoughts on third party candidates, but I don’t think it’s the main issue. I feel like these arguments about strategy often lose site of the point that you shouldn’t expect there to be a way to consistently beat a party that keeps getting half the votes.
In the long run, that half is the main concern. If Trump wins, there will be lots of little things to point fingers at, but they all depend on him being a genuinely popular choice for president. That’s the real anchor on the democratic system to keep in mind.
