Ralph Nader is expected to announce his candidacy for President tomorrow on Meet the Press. Conservative pundits and bloggers are already praising the move, believing it will help Bush and hurt the Democrats.
I think they're wrong.
Here's why:
Gore lost in 2000 -- A protest vote is only worthwhile if your second choice candidate gets elected. After Gore lost to Bush by the narrowest of margins there were a lot of voters who were left feeling queasy about pulling the lever for Nader. They won't make the same mistake again. Besides, Nader will most likely run as an Independent and won't have the support of the Green party. As an independent he will only get a very low percentage of the vote, probably less than 1%.
It makes Kerry look like a 'centrist” -- Kerry is farther Left than almost any member of Congress. He makes Joe Lieberman look like Rush Limbaugh. But set him up next to Nader and he suddenly becomes a 'centrist.” With Nader on the Left and Bush on the Right, Kerry can claim the middle. Those of us who know him won't be fooled. The 'undecided” and independent voters, however, don't follow every nuance of the campaign and may fall for the ploy. This could throw a significant amount of 'centrist” voters to Kerry.
Bush gets attacked from two flanks -- Nader has already hinted that he won't be using his 'Republicans and Democrats are the same” routine that he used in 2000. He will come out swinging against Bush while only taking soft jabs at the Democratic nominee. If Bush chooses to ignore the attacks it makes Nader look like an underdog populist. But if Bush is forced to respond, it takes away valuable time and momentum that could be used against the Democratic challenger. Either way it becomes a lose-lose dilemma.
Nader will bring ‘em to the polls… -- …but it won't be to vote for him. The Democrats got a taste of what happens when they let Nader play the spoiler. The DNC will be able to use this as a way to reduce apathy and increase voter turnout.
None of these points by themselves make a Nader candidacy a definitive threat to Bush. But they should at least give us pause before we start cheering a third party candidate as a victory for the Republicans. Ralph isn't doing us any favors.
Update: Robert Tagorda asks, "Has anyone bothered to consider that this independent's candidacy might actually help Democrats?" At least I'm not alone...
Update 2: Mark Byron counters my four points:
"People are looking for the Kerry's-to-the-left-of-Teddy strategy; what they might use is a line of attack that that Kerry is a politician in the worst sense of the term and not worthy of the White House."
An effective approach? I don't know. Let's ask Bill Clinton...
1
You might be right. However, Mr. Nader is now merely a Nowhere Man and his coverage by the official press is far larger than his dimension among voters. Overall, his political venture is a zero sum game where he is both zero and sum. Mr. Bush's real enemies or threats are the whimsical cassandran evangelicals and formal conservatives whose decisions of support are made in accordance to old scorecards and very narrow definitions of profit to their pet cause. They have little peripheral vision or lateral thinking capacity. This is why it has always been easier to govern with the support of the leftists than with the bickering of the righteous. Thus, the election can simply become a referendum on the state of righteousness of the righteous. Unfortunately, the negative outcome of such referendum will be pernicious and disastrous over the long term; BUT, the righteous will rejoice in another gallant stand against evil and in the crucifixion of another not-quite-so-righteous leader. They can then agitate for the changes they earnestly desire but are unwilling to process through the body politic or even the body ecclesiastical. Most care only for the platitudes of religiosity and the comfort of a determined place in a sanctuary well isolated from the rest of those who are not like them. The moment Bush loses, on that moment I will cease for the rest of my life to contribute in any manner to any evangelical or "religious" group. And I will dedicate my energies to convinving others to do the same.
posted on 02.21.2004 7:05 PM2
wow. that was a verbose and superfluous explication rife with generalities and grossly assumptive indictments, unfortunately not germaine to the well-constructed statements presented by the original author.
posted on 02.21.2004 10:12 PM4
German:
Dude, even I can't tell what you're talking about. I think you're infringing my patent, however. I want a user's fee every time someone accuses you of "verbose and superfluous explication."
As for Nader, I also think Joe's right about this in general, though exactly how it plays out remains to be seen. The fact that Nader is now independent reduces both his threat and the counter-threat reaction. Whether Nader's positions strengthen Kerry or weaken Bush depends on how much attention they get, and without the Greens as both platform and cause, Nader will get much less than before. These factors tend to mute any impact. I think Nader will not hurt Kerry, but will probably wind up more as a sideshow than some sort of paradoxical secret weapon.
posted on 02.22.2004 2:55 PM5
The first and last are true. Leftists want Bush out and Nader will bring some extra leftists to the polls that may well vote Democratic down-ballot.
The "centrist Kerry" idea may be somewhat true, but Nader also makes Kerry cover his left flank, driving him further away from the center.
The "two flanks" are left and lefter?
posted on 02.22.2004 3:19 PM6
Remember Joe, how you thought Wesley Clark was going to come from behind? I think you're wrong here too. You're over-thinking this thing.
re: protest votes -- that's the thing about protest votes - they're always irrational and the type of people who might vote for nader aren't exactly paragons of logic. He'll still get votes!
re: Kerry the Centrist -- If Kerry is portrayed as a centrist it won't be due to Nader. Nader's concerns are so out there that he doesn't even fall on the same continuum. Kerry gets plenty of help from the mainstream press in order to play the centrist and Nader isn't going to make any difference.
re: Bush from Two Flanks - The people that would support Nader would never be Bush supporters under any circumstances, but some of them would've been Kerry supporters. Therefore, it's only one flank not two.
re: Bringing em to the polls - Democrats don't need any help in activating their base. If they aren't energized by their hatred of Bush already, Nader isn't going to be able to do it.
Let's hope your predictions about Nader go as well as your predictions about Wesley Clark - or Bush could very well be in trouble.
-Jim.
7
German: Um...what?
T.: I agree. D'oh. I did it again...
Kevin: That is the shortest comment I have ever seen you make.
Mark: Um, yeah. That leaves the third flank(?) open. (Bush has a big flank.)
J.D.: Ouch. In my defense, I made the claim about Clark when everyone was sure that Dean was the nominee.
--Irrational voters:I don't think 2% of his voters were irrational. I think that were sure Gore had it in the bag.
--Centrist: It can't hurt.
--Flank: Okay, sheesh, there both on the left flank. Still he will have to answer all the stuff that Nader will bring up that Kerry wouldn't dare touch. That will be a distraction.
--Polls: Sure it will. For four years Nader has been seen as the "spoiler." If you were a Democrat in Florida would you take the chance by not going out to vote?
posted on 02.22.2004 4:59 PM8
Joe, I hope this will be another one of those cases where I can say, "I told you so". Time will tell if he's the "Termi-Nader" for Kerry. (Yes, it's corny and people are really sick of Schwarzenegger lines but I just couldn't resist.)
-Jim.
9
Nader is only a problem for Bush because Bush is a nonentity.
Agile pragmatism cannot beat even irrational principle.
Bush at least hinted at conservatism, but is proving worse than the losing Dole in being the candidate of complete compromise.
posted on 02.22.2004 9:57 PM10
Joe, I have to disagree with you.
1. Gore lost in 2000: you make this sound like a problem for Bush because Nader may run. But the result you postulate - people voting for Kerry instead of Nader rather than register a "protest vote" - would arguably happen even whether Nader was around or not. This was, in fact, the entire DNC position in support of then-frontrunner Dean two months ago: that Gore lost not because Nader was around, but because Gore wasn't enough like Nader to make Nader a non-issue. No matter what, if Kerry draws all of Gore's votes and Nader's, it could be problematic for Bush: Nader's candidacy won't help or hurt him on that front.
It makes Kerry look like a centrist. Interesting notion, but I think ultimately flawed. Kerry isn't Gore; he won't be able to claim quite the same stake to the middle ground (let's be honest here: the knock on Gore in 2000 was frequently that he sounded much like Bush).
Bush gets attacked on two fronts. It would hurt if the attacks were coming from a true second front, but that isn't what we have here. We have one front, and two opposing generals. Kerry's problem will be how to co-opt enough of Nader's supporters to help him; Bush isn't likely to get those votes anyway.
Nader will bring them to the polls: Bring who? The angry Dean voters? This appears contradictory to your first point: namely, that nobody's going to vote for Nader because they'll vote for Kerry in order not to split the vote. If that's true, how will Nader get them to the polls? "Oh, I really love Nader, but now that I'm here in the booth I'm going to vote Kerry all the way?" The only way Nader could "bring out the vote" for Kerry would be a Kerry-Nader ticket; since that isn't happening, I can't see Nader's candidacy as a real threat to any votes Bush might otherwise receive.
I think that on this front the conventional wisdom is far more accurate. It'd be like suggesting that Ross Perot's 92 bid hurt Clinton as much as it did Bush. No matter what Nader says he'll do, ultimately he will be forced by what comes out of his mouth to highlight distinctions between himself and both "mainstream" candidates. More, Kerry will be forced to try to appeal to Nader's voters by adopting a bit more leftist rhetoric, and I wonder if Nader won't be forced back into his "Democrats and Republicans are both bad" mode.
The only likely constituency Nader has to draw on are the "angry left" voters. He doesn't have a broad constiuency; he doesn't even have Perot's "angry and not gonna take it" vote that at least cut slightly into Clinton's numbers. Kerry's concern will be how to move far enough left to placate potential Nader voters without alienating too many centrist Gore votes. Bush's problem will be beating Kerry.
posted on 02.23.2004 11:00 AM11
I reject the notion that Kerry is in the middle ground between Bush and Nader. Assuming Kerry wins the nomination, he would be the most liberal nominee EVER.
Nader won't even show up on the radar screens across the South, which will go overwhelmingly and unanimously for Bush. He might do enough damage, though, in an Ohio, a Missouri, or (dare we say it?) California to give Bush a landslide, or at least force Kerry to spend additional time and resources there.
No, Bush can only be helped by Nader. Get him on the ticket, get him in the debates, get him funding.
BTW, I predicted in earlier posts that it would be Kerry and Edwards, and that Edwards would be a more difficult opponent than Kerry. I'm right on this one, too.
posted on 02.23.2004 11:19 AM13
I believe joe is correct: nader will _help_ the democratic nominee. he will bring people out who were apathetic or dont want to support either party. I dont agree with the centrist idea because nader wont get enough attention to balance the other side of the see-saw vs bush. that said, I do think he'll make kerry lean a little left in policy promises although I'm sure Kerry will continue to paint 'centrist face'.
Kevin I hope more people think like you. get ralph into the debates. the more voices the better. I dont think there are many people who are particularly pleased with the state of the country at the moment. so, in general, who cares who you support? the guy can obviously ignite debate and if living wages, universal health care and the end of corporate corruption are 'are too out there' for you, that's fine but at least he'll make the two hopefuls actually say something. I'm a conservative and I dont think his ideas are too far out there. For instance, I haven't really noticed other candidates actively encouraging people to regularly participate in government - to become civically active. I also dont see any candidates that have done for the community at large a quarter of what mr nader's done for consumer protection, workers rights, child safety... I'm this guy has been working his ass of for years. you can hate him and think he's a whack job and disapprove of specific points and actions but you can hardly deny his record. he actually does the stuff he's talking about. I cant say the same for bush and certainly not for kerry.
fwiw, exit polls last year showed that nader's 2000 vote was 25% registered republicans. bush is obviously not a well loved man. Here's a letter Nader sent to Bush asking why Mr Bush was so far out of alignment with the stated platform of the Republican Party of Texas. It includes many pieces directly from the official stated platform.
http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=6
I have a feeling this is an issue he intends to bring up many times in the next few months.
Interesting discussion.
Will
posted on 02.26.2004 6:52 AM