Will Nader run? will it matter?

[California Dreamer]

Ralph Nader has an exploratory committee that is asking for volunteers and contributions (even though the Green Party is holding primaries without him being a choice)

He has also added his name to a lawsuit filed today to decertify the Commission on Presidential Debates in an effort to get 3rd parties into the debates Read here

So will Nader do it again? and do you think it wil make a difference (eg: allow a candidate to win with less than 50% of the vote?)

[opebo]

Bush can win with a minority of the popular vote again even without Nader.

[© tweed]

I think Nader will run again but not have the impact he had in 2000.  Many of his supporters are going 'Anybody but Bush' and won't vote for him, and, he will run as an independent, so his ballot status in some states will be in question.

[Gustaf]

Bush can win with a minority of the popular vote again even without Nader.

CAN, but probably won't, it seldom happens.

[jravnsbo]

I think Nader will run, but not sure if he will have an impact.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Bush can win with a minority of the popular vote again even without Nader.

CAN, but probably won't, it seldom happens.

However, given the bias of the electoral college towards low population states, and that these states are Bush's electoral strength, it is no freak of nature that a minority PV president was elected in 2000, and could easily happen again in 2004.

As discussed elsewhere, Bush won with only 47.87% of the PV. If he gained even 0.82% of the total vote, it would offset the combined Gore/Nader 2000 margin in FL and, all else held constant, re-elect him, even though he would trail the Dems in the PV 50.3% to 48.7%

If, as frequently suggested here, FL has become more conservative, he could conceivably pull out a win with even less of the PV.

[Gustaf]

Bush can win with a minority of the popular vote again even without Nader.

CAN, but probably won't, it seldom happens.

However, given the bias of the electoral college towards low population states, and that these states are Bush's electoral strength, it is no freak of nature that a minority PV president was elected in 2000, and could easily happen again in 2004.

As discussed elsewhere, Bush won with only 47.87% of the PV. If he gained even 0.82% of the total vote, it would offset the combined Gore/Nader 2000 margin in FL and, all else held constant, re-elect him, even though he would trail the Dems in the PV 50.3% to 48.7%

If, as frequently suggested here, FL has become more conservative, he could conceivably pull out a win with even less of the PV.

My point is that despite fact that the American system definitely makes it likely it tends not to happen. There has been a lot of really close elections throughout history, and only on 2 occasions have a candidate won with a minority of the votes (Harrison in 1888 and Bush in 2000), not counting 1876, since that was due to fraud, otherwise Tilden would've won.

[NHPolitico]

Nader expected to launch new bid for White House

Star Telegram
2.14.04
By Maria Recio
Knight Ridder

WASHINGTON - Oops, Ralph Nader's doing it again.

Almost exactly four years after he announced he would run for president, the former Green Party candidate is poised to declare that he is running again this year, this time as an independent.


Despite a vigorous effort on the part of the left to keep Nader from running and despite his insistence that he's still mulling over his decision, friends, associates and insiders say he is determined to run again.


"I think there's very little doubt," said Micah Sifry, the author of a book on third-party politics and a longtime Nader watcher. "I think he's going to run."


Nader has twice delayed saying whether he would be a candidate, but with the anniversary of his Feb. 21, 2000, announcement coming up, insiders expect the latest declaration next week.


Sifry is part of the campaign to stop Nader from running, which went into high gear last month with an open letter to him in The Nation, a liberal magazine that has been associated with him for 30 years. The letter, signed by the editors, urged him not to run. Nader contributors from 2000, such as Ben Cohen, a co-founder of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, also are organizing "No, Ralph, No" efforts.


At the heart of the anti-Nader effort is the determination to defeat President Bush and the belief that Nader, blamed for tilting the close 2000 election to Bush by siphoning off votes from opponent Al Gore, especially in Florida, could once again play the "spoiler" role.


"The stakes are too high," said Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation. "We feel Bush's defeat is critical."


"We have an extremist administration which misled the nation into war and is undermining democracy," she said in an interview. Referring to Nader's dismissal of his Republican and Democratic opponents in 2000, she said, "It's no longer Bush and Bush Light."


Nader, a citizen activist who has always had a stubborn, contrarian streak, is equally determined to exercise his right to run and to make issues such as anti-corporate power and universal health care central campaign themes.


A spokeswoman for Nader's exploratory campaign, Linda Shade, said, "Nader is in the final stages of making a decision."


Nader, in an interview Feb. 4 on National Public Radio, responded with irritation to the effort to stop him: "It's a marvelous demonstration by liberals, if you will, of censorship. Now mind you, running for political office is every American's right. Running for political office means free-speech exercise; it means exercising the right of petition, the right of assembly. ... To say `Do not run' to anybody is to say, `Do not speak. Do not petition. Do not assemble. Remain silent.' That's just unacceptable, especially coming from people like the editors of The Nation."


Nader is polling volunteers from the 2000 campaign via email asking whether he should run, but his exploratory committee already is examining state ballot-access requirements.


According to Richard Winger of the newsletter Ballot Access News, Nader asked him about the difficulties of getting on ballots as an independent. "It's not as hard as people think," said Winger, who estimates that hiring firms to get the necessary 600,000 signatures nationwide would cost about $1.8 million.


Nader backed out of running as a Green Party candidate in December, largely because the party won't determine what kind of presidential campaign it will run until its June convention in Milwaukee. "That would be too late," he said last year.


The question now is whether Nader, who spent about $8 million on his campaign in 2000, can raise the money and attract supporters to make a difference in the election. So far, donors and activists from 2000 have been scarce, with a proliferation of Web sites such as http://www.repentantnadervoter.com/ urging him not to run and high-profile supporters such as Cohen and filmmaker Michael Moore working against a Nader repeat.


Some Nader advocates had an epiphany after the 2000 election when the outcome was decided by Florida. Bush won the state by 537 votes, defeating Democratic nominee Gore. Democrats say Gore would have won with a small fraction of Nader's voters, who gave Nader 97,488 votes in the state. Nader also arguably cost Gore New Hampshire, where Bush won by 7,211 votes. Nader received 22,198 votes in the Granite State.


Nader always has rejected the spoiler label. "It is not my job to elect my opponents," he has said. And he has some die-hard supporters, even among Greens. "There's an effort among a lot of Greens nationwide to get Nader to run," said Jerry Kann, a New York-based Green Party member. "He's the best spokesperson for our values."
 
 

[opebo]

Bush can win with a minority of the popular vote again even without Nader.

CAN, but probably won't, it seldom happens.

However, given the bias of the electoral college towards low population states, and that these states are Bush's electoral strength, it is no freak of nature that a minority PV president was elected in 2000, and could easily happen again in 2004.

As discussed elsewhere, Bush won with only 47.87% of the PV. If he gained even 0.82% of the total vote, it would offset the combined Gore/Nader 2000 margin in FL and, all else held constant, re-elect him, even though he would trail the Dems in the PV 50.3% to 48.7%

If, as frequently suggested here, FL has become more conservative, he could conceivably pull out a win with even less of the PV.

I'd say its not only conceivable, its fairly likely.  As you said the electoral situations favors it, and Florida has drifted right.  Polarization - ideological, regional, and cultural - makes bigger percentage wins for Kerry in Dem states likely while not necessarily greatly increasing Bush's percentage in Republican bastions.  Net result - if he can hold FL and OH, he wins with even less than 47.8%.

[Gustaf]

Bush can win with a minority of the popular vote again even without Nader.

CAN, but probably won't, it seldom happens.

However, given the bias of the electoral college towards low population states, and that these states are Bush's electoral strength, it is no freak of nature that a minority PV president was elected in 2000, and could easily happen again in 2004.

As discussed elsewhere, Bush won with only 47.87% of the PV. If he gained even 0.82% of the total vote, it would offset the combined Gore/Nader 2000 margin in FL and, all else held constant, re-elect him, even though he would trail the Dems in the PV 50.3% to 48.7%

If, as frequently suggested here, FL has become more conservative, he could conceivably pull out a win with even less of the PV.

I'd say its not only conceivable, its fairly likely.  As you said the electoral situations favors it, and Florida has drifted right.  Polarization - ideological, regional, and cultural - makes bigger percentage wins for Kerry in Dem states likely while not necessarily greatly increasing Bush's percentage in Republican bastions.  Net result - if he can hold FL and OH, he wins with even less than 47.8%.

It often seems likely, but for some reason still seldom happens. I think it'll be the same this time, I doubt Bush will have the fluke of winning with 0.005% in a key state again...

[opebo]

Bush can win with a minority of the popular vote again even without Nader.

CAN, but probably won't, it seldom happens.

However, given the bias of the electoral college towards low population states, and that these states are Bush's electoral strength, it is no freak of nature that a minority PV president was elected in 2000, and could easily happen again in 2004.

As discussed elsewhere, Bush won with only 47.87% of the PV. If he gained even 0.82% of the total vote, it would offset the combined Gore/Nader 2000 margin in FL and, all else held constant, re-elect him, even though he would trail the Dems in the PV 50.3% to 48.7%

If, as frequently suggested here, FL has become more conservative, he could conceivably pull out a win with even less of the PV.

I'd say its not only conceivable, its fairly likely.  As you said the electoral situations favors it, and Florida has drifted right.  Polarization - ideological, regional, and cultural - makes bigger percentage wins for Kerry in Dem states likely while not necessarily greatly increasing Bush's percentage in Republican bastions.  Net result - if he can hold FL and OH, he wins with even less than 47.8%.

It often seems likely, but for some reason still seldom happens. I think it'll be the same this time, I doubt Bush will have the fluke of winning with 0.005% in a key state again...

Oh I agree that its unlikely any state will be quite as close as FL again, though we could have some like NM, IA, OR.  I just mean that the national popular vote percentage Bush gets may be lower and yet a win.

[Gustaf]

Bush can win with a minority of the popular vote again even without Nader.

CAN, but probably won't, it seldom happens.

However, given the bias of the electoral college towards low population states, and that these states are Bush's electoral strength, it is no freak of nature that a minority PV president was elected in 2000, and could easily happen again in 2004.

As discussed elsewhere, Bush won with only 47.87% of the PV. If he gained even 0.82% of the total vote, it would offset the combined Gore/Nader 2000 margin in FL and, all else held constant, re-elect him, even though he would trail the Dems in the PV 50.3% to 48.7%

If, as frequently suggested here, FL has become more conservative, he could conceivably pull out a win with even less of the PV.

I'd say its not only conceivable, its fairly likely.  As you said the electoral situations favors it, and Florida has drifted right.  Polarization - ideological, regional, and cultural - makes bigger percentage wins for Kerry in Dem states likely while not necessarily greatly increasing Bush's percentage in Republican bastions.  Net result - if he can hold FL and OH, he wins with even less than 47.8%.

It often seems likely, but for some reason still seldom happens. I think it'll be the same this time, I doubt Bush will have the fluke of winning with 0.005% in a key state again...

Oh I agree that its unlikely any state will be quite as close as FL again, though we could have some like NM, IA, OR.  I just mean that the national popular vote percentage Bush gets may be lower and yet a win.

Yes, it could happen. But I somehow don't think it will, usually the EC gives a clear win for one side, and that side is usually the PV winner, if for nothing else, the fact that they get a media boost and the bandwagon effect.

[agcatter]

The cultural divide is such that the red states seem solid red and the blue states solid blue.  It would take a really huge issue to move any of these states away from where their centers of gravity take them on social issues.  Only a handful of states are moveable from where they came down in 2000.

NH, Ohio, W Virginia on the Rep side might be in play.  I don't think Florida this time.

Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, with Oregon and Pa. outide possibilities from the other side.

That's it.  Bush is not going to crack California or Illinois and Kerry isn't going to take an Arkansas or Indiana.  The two sides are almost set in stone.

[Gustaf]

The cultural divide is such that the red states seem solid red and the blue states solid blue.  It would take a really huge issue to move any of these states away from where their centers of gravity take them on social issues.  Only a handful of states are moveable from where they came down in 2000.

NH, Ohio, W Virginia on the Rep side might be in play.  I don't think Florida this time.

Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, with Oregon and Pa. outide possibilities from the other side.

That's it.  Bush is not going to crack California or Illinois and Kerry isn't going to take an Arkansas or Indiana.  The two sides are almost set in stone.

You never know...there can always be a surprise state. Overall, I agree though. But I think it depends on what strategy kerry chooses. If goes for the South-West I think AZ, NV and CO would be in play, or whatever. Bush would have the advantage, but I think these are possible pickups for the Dems. The other GOP states seem lost right now though.

[MarkDel]

I would be very surprised if Nader ran again.  I think the pressure on him from left wingers not to run will be too great. If he does run, Bush will win a second term with EASE, but I don't believe Nader would do it again.

[© tweed]

I would be very surprised if Nader ran again.  I think the pressure on him from left wingers not to run will be too great. If he does run, Bush will win a second term with EASE, but I don't believe Nader would do it again.

Roy Moore would more than cancel out Nader.

I actually think if the Greens nominate someone that nobody ever heard of, the nobody would get more votes than Nader would have.

[StevenNick]

Bush can win with a minority of the popular vote again even without Nader.

Nobody has actually won a majority of the popular vote in a presidential election since George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis in 1988.  Interesting factoid, I think.

[© tweed]

Yep, three straight elections with under 50%.  It's shows the closely divided nation we've got on our hands...the center-rights and the rights.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually it's because there was a strong 3rd party candidate in 1992 and 1996.

[© tweed]

Actually it's because there was a strong 3rd party candidate in 1992 and 1996.

Not really the case in 2000 though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's because 2000 was extremly close

[Esteban Manuel]

I don't think that Nader can be an important factor in November, cause the "key" states that are "tos" and the democrats can win (Nevada, N.M, Tennesse...) are states with a historical trend of republican vote and in wich the greens are very weak ... under the current circunstances i think that this little percentage of votes will vote "anyone but Bush".

Maybe Nader will run but is less probable that this really matters.

[Ben.]

Firstly it looks like he’ll run “Politics 1” and “The Hedgehog Report” are both saying that it looks that way…

But he’s running as an independent and as such he’ll have to get his name on the ballots in other states by himself this time… without a firm organisation he seems doomed most Nader supporters are the liberal voters most angry with the Bush administration and while I am sure a few will plum for Nader again must will be solidly “ABB”… I would strongly doubt that Nader will get on the ballot in many states, raise much money or do even half as well as he did in 2000… the guy just seems to me to be a complete egotist… But then again I am a Dem and from my point of view he cost us the election…

[opebo]

Firstly it looks like he’ll run “Politics 1” and “The Hedgehog Report” are both saying that it looks that way…

But he’s running as an independent and as such he’ll have to get his name on the ballots in other states by himself this time… without a firm organisation he seems doomed most Nader supporters are the liberal voters most angry with the Bush administration and while I am sure a few will plum for Nader again must will be solidly “ABB”… I would strongly doubt that Nader will get on the ballot in many states, raise much money or do even half as well as he did in 2000… the guy just seems to me to be a complete egotist… But then again I am a Dem and from my point of view he cost us the election…

Perhaps he's a Republican shill?  You know he's a millionaire.. a bit suspicious.

[emergingDmajority1]

reports are coming out that nader is close to announcing his candidacy as an independent. But one he sees people react with a groan and a yawn, Ralph will abandon his bid before the election. He won't stick it out.