Ralph Nader, McCain's Best Friend

As a liberal Democrat, I read with great dismay that Ralph Nader is launching another independent campaign for president this year, as he did 4 and 8 years ago.  His candidacy will do nothing for him, but may draw enough votes away from the Democratic nominee to help McCain in some states.

So why would Ralph Nader decide to run again, knowing from past experience that he can't possibly win?  Could it be that he owes John McCain a big favor?

I'm sure that Republicans are thrilled about Nader's announcement.  Anything that weakens the Democrats, and might result in us losing a state that we might win without him there, has got to sound good to them.  But apparently McCain has even more interest in Nader's involvement than most.  He has a history of helping Nader.

From writer Joe Conason in Salon.com:  (Conason opinion in Salon for the full article.)  "Four years ago, Republican officials and activists in certain swing states helped gather signatures to gain ballot access for Nader, while several major Republican donors sent generous checks to his campaign. And no Republican spoke out more forthrightly on his behalf than McCain, who in 2004 urged the authorities in Florida to put Nader on the ballot there despite his failure to qualify -- and who sent his own lawyer down to the Sunshine State to fight for Nader in court."

In 2000, Nader's votes in Florida were far more than the "official" vote difference between Bush and Gore.  Had Nader not been on the ballot, the official outcome would likely have been a Gore victory there, and a very different past 7 years for this country.

Could it be that Nader's real agenda here is to repay that favor and help McCain this time?  It takes a lot of time (in states where signatures are required) and money to qualify as an independent on each state's ballot.  I wonder if he'll try to qualify everywhere, or only in the states where his presence is most likely to help McCain?  And I wonder who will be contributing to help him?

Comments

[MSUGeek]

"In 2000, Nader's votes in Florida were far more than the "official" vote difference between Bush and Gore. Had Nader not been on the ballot, the official outcome would likely have been a Gore victory there, and a very different past 7 years for this country."

And the votes that were cast for Buchanan would have made Bush the decisive winner in Florida if they had gone to him (even subtracting the contested Palm Beach County ballots).

And the 19.7 million votes stolen from the Republicans in 1992 by Perot would have meant no Bill Clinton (or Hillary), at least for four years.

And...And...And...

You Go Ralph!!!!!

[Dave Woods]

I have always been leery of blaming Nader for Gore's defeat -- clearly, a Republican Supreme Court handed the election to Florida's state government to do with it what it would. The governor of Florida was Bush's brother, and the woman who was in charge of deciding whether to do recounts and when to certify the election results was Bush's state campaign chair. I don't think I have to allege actual impropriety there since the appearance of it is so offensive as to be criminal in and of itself.

I think Nader had every right to run, though, and the Democrats -- my cousin calls them Scare-dee-crats -- pursued a much too milquetoast campaign that couldn't pull in Nader's supporters. Shame on them.

That said, Nader was and is a moron. Until 2000, almost no one in American history had done more to make the average citizen's life safer, freer, and happier. He was a pinnacle of progress, but in his self-delusion he opened the door for Bush et al to turn back all those clocks.

Let's hope Clinton or Obama can get us back to the future.

[EmersonsZen]

...and if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas...

...and if Algore would have carried his *home state* of Tennessee in 2000, we wouldn't be having this conversation

...and if Algore didn't have the personality of a bag of hammers, he would have won the presidency

...and if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't f*** with them

...and if the libs ever get over the 2000 election, they might be able to move on with their lives

...and if I stop typing this blog, I might be able to go and eat some pizza

BTW--nice post Geek

[Dave Woods]

I am flattered by Emerson's comment because I interpret it as his best shot at a haiku-based post

[EmersonsZen]

...just helping you get in touch with your inner Republican, Dave.

[Ricky]

Al Gore beat Al Gore. Period. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, Republican, Green, whatever, he ran a horrible campaign.

And for some reason John Kerry ran the same horrible campaign 4 years later.

Don't blame Nader because some Americans didn't want to vote for a robot.

[parrot]

as someone once said, we have nothing to fear cept fear itself....and possibly a voting machine here and there

[Aubrey Marron]

Good comments all. There were certainly many factors at play in Florida in 2000.

My main point here is not to question Ralph's right to run as an independent, but to question his motive for doing so. There are plenty of good reasons for a candidate to run as an independent or in an alternative party - to raise issues and help frame the national debate, or to help strengthen a party nationally. But if he is only running with the intent to be a spoiler, that is not a good reason.

[Michael Motta]

What we really need is something along the lines of run-off elections or coalition government in order to solve some of this problem. As Dave Woods hinted at, Democrats try to appeal to the right, and they're not even that much on the left in the first place.

The real void is to the left of the Democratic Party, which globally speaking is centrist, and often even right-center. Since the Democratic Party fails to address that void, we get the Green Party and then Nader as an Independent. Instead of moving their own party to the left and coming closer to offering Americans a left that's comparable to the left in our peer nations, Democrats blame such third party activity for siphoning "their" votes.

It's just as valid to say that the Democrats siphon votes from the Green Party and from Nader as vice versa.

So as far as I'm concerned, if the Democratic Party neglects the left, the left has every prerogative to neglect the Democratic Party.

[H]

Like it or not, politicians use strategy. McCain can contribute to any campaign he wants. In fact, maybe he's trying to help out a little guy who doesn't get big party dollars. Or maybe he liked what Nader had to say in 2004. Dems do the same thing and you must know that...

[Timo Kokko]

With 2.74% of the vote in 2000 dropping to .38% of the vote in 2004, I suspect Nader will be, other than pure comedic value, a total non-factor this year.

[Robby]

Does anyone remember that Gore had the charisma of a tree stump during his 200 campaign? Does anyone realize that he lost his home state of Tennessee? He lost Tennessee, where he went to school, where he was senator... There was no apparent "Nader" factor but in a nation full of amnesia how do we remember such crucial FACTS!