February 22, 2004
Will Nader run? Today's the day.
Most people remember Ralph Nader as that guy who ran for president against Al Gore and George W. Bush in the messiest presidential election in our nation’s history. Nader was the Green Party candidate “outsider”, who ultimately only managed to garner a few percentage points in each state, but somehow may have made the difference in key states by drawing Democratic-leaning voters’ votes from Gore in seminal states like Florida.
Well, the latest buzz around the nation — television, the Internet, news radio, and elsewhere — is whether Ralph Nader will announce he is throwing his hat in the ring to run as an Independent candidate for president on Sunday morning’s “Meet the Press”. In a moment, we will look at who thinks Nader’s in and who thinks Nader’s out. But just before we look at that, I will offer my educated guess of what will happen: Ralph Nader will, in a number of hours, announce he will indeed enter the race.
Am I psychic? Do I have an anonymous inside source into the Nader camp? No, it is none of those things. I am just making this reasonable guess based on the way Nader has been speaking about his decision to enter the race, how his announcement has been hyped, and the way a part of his explanatory committee website is worded. (For the record, while I may agree with some of Nader's policies, I have to oppose the idea of him running in such an important election year, when it is almost impossible for him to win.)
The sheer number of television interviews Nader has done in the last week or so hyping the decision seems to point out that Nader will be running for president. Also, I've picked up almost a faceitious attempt to throw in "that is, if I decide to run" at the end of each paragraph he has said about why it would be a good idea, in his estimation, for him to run.
And then there's the Nader website. The front page which formerly just asked for people's opinions on whether or not he should run has been replaced with a separate request for people to volunteer in case he decides to run. And then there's the donate page, which is set up just like the pages of the Democratic presidential candidates, with a limit of $2000 to comply with campaign finance laws and the like. Just the request for money points to the idea that Nader will try a run for president. This all may simply be an attempt to garner national attention for Nader's platform, but all of this preparation leads me to think there are larger motives.
What they think.
You've read how I see things going Sunday morning, now let's what other notables are saying...
The Nation: "For the good of the country, the many causes you've championed and for your own good name -- don't run for president this year."
DNC Spokeswoman: "We would hope that he does not run, and have conveyed that message to him. We would be disappointed were he to announce his candidacy."
Wash. Post reporters Brian Faler and Paul Farhi: "Nader has said that if he runs (and you have to think he will, or "Meet the Press" would not be booking him) it would be as an independent rather than as a Green."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D): "I think the role at this point that he plays is a similar role to what he played last time, and that's a spoiler."
DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe: "I don't want Ralph Nader's legacy that he got George Bush for eight years in this country. I'm urging everybody to talk to Ralph Nader. I'd love him to take a role with our party, to energize people, to get out there and get the message out."
Fox News Channel: "Members of the Republican and Democratic parties can breathe a sigh of relief this year -- even with the announcement by Ralph Nader that he is going to run as a third-party presidential candidate, analysts say it is unlikely a spoiler will upset this year's outcome."
Nader spokeswoman Linda Schade: "Schade declined to say what the decision would be, but the prominent staging of his announcement, following months of active fund-raising, suggests Nader, who turns 70 next week, is ready to take his progressive agenda directly to the voters, despite Democratic grumblings that he would only be helping Bush secure another term."
So there you have it, plus there are loads of 2000 Nader voters urging him not to run. We'll all find out what Nader has decided soon on "Meet the Press" and then all the analysis on what his decision means for the race will begin (or hasn't it before the fact already?). This situation definitely illustrates the schism developing between the two major parties and the "third party". Let's see what Nader has to say.
Posted by Anthony at February 22, 2004 03:45 AMAnthony:
One point of clarification for you. The reason that Nader had to go over to asking for donations and volunteers is because when he solicited opinions he had the Democrats spam his survey and render it useless. I believe he is asking for volunteers as his way of determining real support. Donations for an exploratory campaign, are always solicited early and regardless to finance the exploration. There is no issue there.
I volunteered for Nader as soon as I heard that the Democrats had been doing dirty tricks on him by undermining his polling efforts.
The Democrats could have avoided this Nader run, if it happens. (I agree it will and I hope that it will happen.)
In the past three years the Democrats have done none of the simple and basic party building things to bring back to the Party the disaffected and disenfranchised voters that gave the Republicans their real advantage in 2000. Instead the Democrats pick a standard bearer like Kerry who has made a career of promoting the right wing of the Democratic Party. Yes the right wing. Kerry is just another Democratic Leadership Council Republican wanna-be. John Kerry…Drug Warrior
Dianne Feinstein should be honest with America and join the Republican party where her perspective and philosophy would be more compatible with party philosophy.
Posted by: Pat Rogers at February 22, 2004 07:07 AMAnthony, you were right. He’s running.
Interestingly, he’s not running as a Green candidate - he’s running as simply Ralph Nader.
All arguments that his candidacy helps build an alternative to the two-party system now fall flat since he’s not offering any alternative besides Ralph Nader - no party, no movement, no coalitions.
I actually like the long-term idea of there being a Green party in our country, a party that can form coalitions with the Democrats to more easily defeat Republicans on key issues, but which can split from the Democrats when there is key disagreement (much like caucuses do in the Congress now). Because of his association with the Greens, Nader actually had an ounce of sympathy from me. But now he’s lost it. More than ever I stand by my contention that his campaign is a vanity project and not a true, reasoned strategy for making America better.
Anyway, my guess is that his candidacy won’t make as much of a difference now - loyal Greens won’t feel any special need to vote for him since supporting him doesn’t help the party anyway.
Here’s something to think about: Ralph Nader will likely siphon votes away from whoever the Green party candidate is this year. What Ralph Nader did to the Democrats in 2000 he will do to the Greens in 2004. He’s worse than I thought.
-Cf
He’s running.
Nader is basically irrelevant. No one but a true believer is going to vote for him this time. I would be shocked if he got one percent of the votes.
He may actually help the Dems a tiny bit by getting the Dem base even more PO’ed.
So, he’s decided to run. I have a lot of respect for Nader, but this decision is stripping that away quickly. Perhaps he will only try to get on the ballot in states that are heavily Republican… I hope to god that he’s got something like that planned. If so, I’d give him my vote, since it’s unlikely we’ll swing Georgia.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at February 22, 2004 11:16 AMThe Democrats have created a political void in America for Nader to fill. There is a lot to learn and Ralph is administering some tough love.
As long as the Democrats refuse to do the kind of party building that has been necessary since long before 2000 they will get the same results in 2004.
It is the Democrats who are turning their backs on the voters leaving voters the Independent or third party alternative.
You can’t spend three years eleven months and twenty nine days slapping people up side their heads and one day expecting their vote.
Don’t expect me to vote for someone who ardently opposes what I passionately believe in.
Posted by: Pat Rogers at February 22, 2004 11:53 AM“Don’t expect me to vote for someone who ardently opposes what I passionately believe in.”
Pat, it doesn’t have to be that simple. In fact, you *CAN* vote for someone who has differing views from you. I’m not happy about Kerry… in fact, I passionately disagree with him on trade practices. But that doesn’t mean that I would even *consider* voting for anyone but Kerry. For me, it’s far more important to protect my civil liberties. Pursuant to that, Bush must be removed from the White House. So despite my misgivings, I will vote Kerry.
Also, I don’t think it’s wrong from the Dems to expect us to hand over our votes… they are absolutely right in this case: it’s a survival thing.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at February 22, 2004 12:22 PMGaelen:
I survived Nixon. I survived Reagan. I will survive Bush.
Kerry is part of the problem as far as I am concerned. In fact I expect him to do in the future what he has done in the past, mouth liberalism while leaping over reasoned heads to get his butt to the right of the Democratic Party on civil rights and human rights.
He supports the repression, suppression and mass disenfranchisement of millions of Americans. He has built a career on this. Even if I were still a Democrat I would find it almost impossible to vote for Kerry.
Posted by: Pat Rogers at February 22, 2004 12:43 PM“”After careful thought and my desire to retire our supremely selected president, I’ve decided to run as an independent candidate for president…”
Um… isn’t that statement a complete falicy? By running he’s only increasing the odds that we’re stuck with Bush for 4 more years! There is absolutely no way that Nader could possibly win the election. Even if he had a somewhat large base of supporters (say the former Deaniacs) he just doesn’t have the political party infrastructure that plays a huge part in mobilizing voters, promoting candidates and raising funds.
I’ve said here before I’d love to see a system that allows for candidates from more that two parties to have a legitmate chance in elections. But to start at the top of the heap makes no sense. Build support from the ground up, winning local and state elections. Build up that infrastructure necessary to compete on a national level.
The Democrats are partly responsible. Why they didn’t reach out to Nader to create a coalition to defeat Bush is beyond me.
Posted by: blipsman at February 22, 2004 04:14 PMGaelen:
Not so fast, Gaelen. You can still vote for Edwards. I believe that Nader would drop out if Edwards got the nom. Nader spoke guardedly but favorably of Edwards’candidacy this morning. Edwards represents the future and Kerry the past. Edwards is someone open to new ideas and Ralph would be an important voice that he would listen to. Edwards is bucking the system in an energetic and positive way. And while he is right of where I stand on most things, I feel he represents the majority of Americans. And he speaks for those of us who want to see change in the party without blood in the streets. The time of the warrior is over. The time of the wise men/women is about to begin. I hope, I hope, I hope.
I really like edwards i agree with the kerry being a big insider, but he is better than bush, as far as Nader I actually agree with him on many issues but he will NOT win and he will certainly give the election to Bush, this is why Nader must be defeated as much as Bush because he is a help mate to Bush’s reelection. In any event I will vote for Edwards
Posted by: laurie lang at February 23, 2004 11:35 PM
