He's talking about 2000, not 2004. It wouldn't make a strong argument that Nader had an effect on the 2000 election since Bush got over 50% of the votes.
are you serious? this is absolutely ridiculous. you dudes need to quit skewing history to your liking. Bush LOST the popular vote in the 2000 election. 2000 election results:
Bush: 50,461,092 (47.9%)
Gore: 50,994,086 (48.4%)
Nader: 2,882,728 (2.7%)
Nader clearly had an effect. I don't remember exactly, but break it down state by state and if Nader and no other significant 3rd party candidate had been running, Gore would have probably won several "Bush" states and been the undisputed winner.