MyDD :: We Can Finally Stop Worrying About Nader

We Can Finally Stop Worrying About Nader

by Chris Bowers, Sat Jun 26, 2004 at 06:27:18 PM EST

Today, the Green Party of the United States, the third largest party in America but possibly the largest political party in the world, nominated David Cobb (G-TX) for President on the second ballot at their national convention. This means that only David Cobb and his Vice-Presidential candidate, Pat LaMarche (G-ME), will be allowed on any Green Party ballot anywhere in the country. Importantly, Cobb has pledged to run a "safe states" campaign, where he will avoid the 10-15 closest swing states and instead focus on reaching the ballot and campaigning for votes in solid red or solid blue territory. With this strategy and far lower name recognition, Cobb will not be a spoiler.

This effectively ends any chance Ralph Nader had to make an impact on the 2004 election. Now, his only route to reaching ballot access is through the Reform party and independent / Republican efforts of his campaign. However, considering his progress to date, do not expect him to have much, if any, success qualifying for ballots. Thus far:

Nader has not achieved ballot access in any state. Even the seven states where the Reform party nomination has supposedly guaranteed his place on the ballot, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina and Texas, are not secured.
As I wrote in an earlier article, Nader has almost no funds with which to work. As of May 31st, Nader had $73,412.61 cash on hand, minus around $24,000 in debts. In May alone, he spent $95,000 in Texas, while only raising $189,555 nationally. In 2000, Nader raised over $8,400,000, more than eight times his current total.
A strong Democratic effort to keep Nader off the ballot in Arizona seems to be working. Expect such efforts to continue in other states.
Nader's activist presence is minimal. His Meetup numbers have grown by less than 200 over the past two months.

It is over for Nader. I will personally be stunned if he makes the ballot in twelve states. He does not have the money for a limited national advertising drive like he had in 2000. There will be no Nader "super-rallies" like in 2000, where he regularly drew crowds exceeding 10,000 people. He has no party support. He has nothing.

From now on, no poll that includes Nader should be taken seriously. Libertarian + Constitution now probably poses a larger threat to Bush than Nader + Cobb poses for Kerry. It is time for everyone in the Democratic Blogosphere to relax their sphincters and allow their blood pressure to drop. It is time we started paying Nader the attention he deserves in this campaign--none. To continue complaining about him would border on mental illness.

As for the Green party, they seem to have acquitted themselves nicely. They will probably face some defection over the nomination of Cobb, but if they had endorsed Nader they would have been destroyed. This will render them marginal, but it does show their willingness to compromise with Democrats, which might guarantee their long term survival. Also, as the case of the New Paltz mayor seems to reveal, when they do manage to sneak in an elected official or two, they are principled and willing to fight for progressive causes.

Nader is over, and the Green party is marginal. You can use the thread below to discuss this topic, or as an open thread if you like. Have a very happy Saturday.

Tags: 3rd Parties (all tags)

Permalink :: 34 Comments :: Post a Comment

Yep, Nader is no more (none / 0)

Thank goodness...I couldn't stand to hear any more of the vicious attacks on the man. Why is it that so many Democrats hated Nader more than Bush, the man actually responsible for the horrible policies of the last three years?

And the Greens found a way out of the mess. Good for them. I expect that they'll continue to grow their ranks--they are the only political party to be growing in the nation (at 27% no less, next closest is the Republican Party at -0.2%). Maybe the Democrats will work with them to enact IRV so that we don't have to worry about spoilers anymore.

Nader should now drop out of the race, and tell his supporters to follow their consciences and vote for Cobb where they can, Kerry if they must.

by zaea on Sat Jun 26, 2004 at 06:55:51 PM EST

Good for the Greens (none / 0)

Glad you did not prove to be hypocrites. I hope Cobb carries Texas!

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Jun 26, 2004 at 07:00:05 PM EST

Greens (1.00 / 1)

When did the Democrats ever compromise with us? F--- you.

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Jun 26, 2004 at 07:19:26 PM EST

Re: Greens (none / 0)

How astute.

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun Jun 27, 2004 at 05:44:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Greens (none / 0)

In San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors, 9 of 11 of whom are Democrats, elected their one Green member, Matt Gonzalez, President of the Board. So one of the most politically prominent Green politicians achieved his position through the support of his Democratic colleagues.

Progressive Democratic voters were instrumental in the institution of IRV voting in San Francisco, long a goal of the Greens.

In SF, Greens and progressive Democrats have been able to work together to achieve common goals.

by Anonymous Citizen on Mon Jun 28, 2004 at 12:18:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

in hawaii (none / 0)

in the early 90s when Keiko Bonk was green party council member on big island in hawaii, during her second term there was a 4-4 D-R split, and the democrats compromised with her, giving her the chair of the council in exchange for caucusing with them. in this case, they were forced to do it, but they did. just one example, but you asked when ever, well there is one i know of. (fyi, i was maui county green party co-chair at the time).

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Jun 26, 2004 at 07:42:26 PM EST

Could someone please explain re: Florida (none / 0)

In another post, MYDD writes that one of the few states Nader has ballot access in is Florida. In the 2000 election, Florida was officially decided by less than 2000 votes. Meanwhile, Nader collected over 90,000 votes in that state.

If it (unlikely) comes down to one state again, and that state is Florida, couldn't Nader spoil it again?

What am I missing?

by Teddy T on Sat Jun 26, 2004 at 08:27:55 PM EST

Re: Could someone please explain re: Florida (none / 0)

If Nader is only on the ballot in a few states, he will receive no media coverage, raise no money, and not have the ability to rake in nearly the same amount of votes he received last time in whatever two or three states he is on hte ballot.

by Chris Bowers on Sat Jun 26, 2004 at 11:11:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Could someone please explain re: Florida (none / 0)

Don't worry about the folks who voted for Nader in Florida. The ones that the Kerry team needs to focus on is the 12% of registered Democrats that voted for Bush last time around--they represented far far more votes than Nader's total or those illegally purged from the voter roles.

by zaea on Mon Jun 28, 2004 at 06:16:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Still worried about Oregon (none / 0)

The results from the Nader OR 'caucus' today aren't out. If he gets 1000 signatures (which he failed to get the first time around) - mostly from GOP people recruited for the caucus - he could be a danger to Kerry in Oregon.

I'm hoping the left of Kerry protest vote goes to the Greens, not Nader, since the Greens candidate has said he won't campaign in swing states.

"Pay any price, bear any burden"

by JimPortlandOR on Sat Jun 26, 2004 at 08:44:38 PM EST

Re: Still worried about Oregon (none / 0)

FYI, Nader got about 1,100 signatures at his Oregon rally yesterday, but it seems to be doubtful that he will get 1,000 valid signatures out of that total. We won't know for at least a couple more weeks.

link

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun Jun 27, 2004 at 02:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is awesome news (4.00 / 0)

The center-left needs to focus on the real enemy. Nov. 3rd, after we've beaten back the thugs, we can resume our squabbling. Until then, eyes on the prize.

by Conventional Wisdom on Sat Jun 26, 2004 at 08:55:16 PM EST

Greens & Democrats (none / 0)

So long as we have the winner take all system of elections, the Greens and Democrats will be at each other. The Greens appeal to a lot of voters who would not otherwise vote Democratic: those who are down with their issues, those who reject the two dominant parties. But in order to grow, the Greens are going to have to poach voters who are now voting Democratic. This means that the two parties are not going to be buddies and that Greens will most often be pointing out the short-comings of the Democrats (the unsuitability of Republicans being so manifestly evident).

That said, this year is certainly one of those moments when we all ought to be reaching out. The Greens refusal to nominate Nader, while probably grounded in more than one reason, was certainly animated by the desire to assist in the removal of BushCo. For the Democrats, that's a helping hand, one that might prove to be decisive. It would take a cold cold heart not to extend some kind of return favor.

I'm not sure what would be appropriate. The Democrats, for the reasons noted above, are not interested in the long-term growth of the Green Party.

by James Earl on Sat Jun 26, 2004 at 09:09:57 PM EST

Poaching (none / 0)

"So long as we have the winner take all system of elections, the Greens and Democrats will be at each other. The Greens appeal to a lot of voters who would not otherwise vote Democratic: those who are down with their issues, those who reject the two dominant parties. But in order to grow, the Greens are going to have to poach voters who are now voting Democratic."

There is a HUGE problem with this analysis. This assumes that there are a set number of votes. However, only 50% of the electorate is voting. That means that the real problem is turning people out to vote. Nader could have taken 10% heck 15% and Gore still would have won if Gore had gotten his folks out. That's why the Florida "ethnic voter cleansing" debacle was so important. Kathleen Harris lost Florida with her "cleansing" of the voting roles, not Nader. Get your facts straight.

But it is not just Florida. Nationally, the reason why the Dems lost in 2000 is that the poor didn't vote like in 1992. According to the polls taken during the 2000 election there are two polarized groups within income distribution. The lowest 20% generally splits Dems 60% Repubs 32% and other 8%. The highest 20% generally splits Dems 40% Repubs 55% other 5%. The remaining 3 groups are close but the lower and middle tend to go Democratic barely. If the poor vote in numbers equal to the rich, the Dems win. If the poor don't vote, the Repubs win.

In 1992, the distribution of votes across the income classes was fairly even and it was the highest turnout in memory. The poor were promised health care and other needed programs and went overwhelmingly for the Dems. Perot split the moderates, which generally go 50/50 so he had less impact then people like to attribute.

In 2000, the distribution of votes across the income classes was very unequal. The lowest 20% accounted for only 7% of the votes. The highest 20% had risen to 24%. What this means is that the biggest supporters of the Dems didn't show up.

The reason that Gore lost is not because Nader stole his votes. It's because the income group that was his strongest supporters, the lowest 20%, didn't show up to vote.

And this spooks me. I hear Dems talking about feeling the pain of the middle class. If they want there biggest supporters to show up, they are going to have to start talking about issues that effect the poor. One way to start would be health care for all, not juest Grandma and Grandpa.

Charles

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun Jun 27, 2004 at 04:54:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poaching (none / 0)

The reason that Gore lost is not because Nader stole his votes. It's because the income group that was his strongest supporters, the lowest 20%, didn't show up to vote.

I realize that this is the best that Nader supporters can do, but it's based on poor logic. There was, of course, no single cause for Gore's loss; there were many. That is always the case in elections, which is why candidates and parties work so hard to win every possible vote. When the margin of victory is slim (or, as in 2000, actually within the margin of error), there will always be innumerable opportunities to second guess the losing campaign.

The question for Nader supporters is not whether Gore made mistakes, but rather how Nader's 2000 candidacy affected the result. Did Nader help Bush or hurt him? The question answers itself: but for Nader's ill-fated decision to compete in battleground states, George W Bush would not be President today.

Perhaps Nader supporters think that Bush's victory was a reasonable price to pay for some other benefits their votes produced for the progressive cause. If so, I would like to hear what those benefits might be. I'd like Mr. Nader to tell me how votes for him in Florida in 2000 furthered any of the causes he has spent his life trying to advance.

by josueencuentro on Sun Jun 27, 2004 at 10:45:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Greens & Democrats (none / 0)

I'm not sure what would be appropriate. The Democrats, for the reasons noted above, are not interested in the long-term growth of the Green Party.

two ideas:

1)Support local Green candidates where you can

2) when a Green party volunteer (and no, Cobb won't have the $$$ to hire signature collectors, most likely) approaches you, sign the petition instead of running the other way.

by Anonymous Citizen on Mon Jun 28, 2004 at 12:38:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

instant runoff voting (none / 0)

as cobb just emphasized on c-span during the convention rally, one solution to problem with the election system is instant runoff voting. Learn more:

fairvote.org/irv/

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Jun 26, 2004 at 11:01:06 PM EST

Fuck Ralph Nader (none / 0)

Ralph Nader will continue to work to do everything in his power to help elect George W. Bush. The Greens should be strongly applauded for avoiding any dalliance with this insane turncoat.

It's time for all Ralph Nader supporters to wake the fuck up and see what this man is about. In his single-minded quest to destroy the Democratic Party, he has sunk to the incredibly low level of actively helping to re-elect the worst and most dangerous president of all time.

Why do I hate Ralph Nader more than George Bush? George Bush has never claimed to care about progressive goals. Nader has. He is a loathsome and deluded hypocrite, who has succeeded in dividing the left side of the US political spectrum at the time in history when it most needs to be united. THAT'S why I detest him so much. If he dropped dead, I would stand up and applaud. Good fucking riddance.

Maybe it's time for Nader supporters to think about what's going to happen to this country if Nader succeeds in helping to re-elect Bush. What's going to happen to the Supreme Court, the environment, workers rights, women's rights, the Constitution? Is casting a symbolic (and selfish) vote for Ralph Nader somehow more important than all these things?

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun Jun 27, 2004 at 01:31:25 PM EST

Re: We Can Finally Stop Worrying About Nader (none / 0)

Nader has not achieved ballot access in any state. Even the seven states where the Reform party nomination has supposedly guaranteed his place on the ballot, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina and Texas, are not secured.

Wait, I thought he was guaranteed access in those seven states as the Reform Party nominee. Could he lose his place on their ballots? How?

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun Jun 27, 2004 at 02:26:02 PM EST

Different states have different rules... (none / 0)

and the only one of the 7 for which I've heard about the details of the potential problem is Florida. The rules there apparently say that a candidate selected at a national party's convention gets on the ballot. The Reform Party nominated Nader during a conference call rather than holding an actual convention, and there's some uncertainty regarding whether this counts.

There might be similar issues in the other 6 states, or entirely different issues, or no problems at all for Nader there; I just don't know. The other 6 aren't nearly as important as Florida, though-- Colorado is the only one that even might be a swing state in the Presidential election.

by David on Sun Jun 27, 2004 at 04:54:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We Can Finally Stop Worrying About Nader (1.00 / 1)

When has the Green Party mustered enough electoral clout to make negotiating and compromising with them necessary? F___ yourself.

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun Jun 27, 2004 at 03:26:29 PM EST

Re: We Can Finally Stop Worrying About Nader (none / 0)

I don't argue against the claim that Nader is irrelavent, but even so, he's going to be more of a third party factor than anyother party. Let's face it, the Constitutional Party picked about as dull a candidate as possible, the Libertarian Party, out of three choices, chose the dullest of the three, leaving one choice (russo) that would have had a chance at 3-5 percent. So, though Nader isn't going to do as well as he did in '00 (though it's probably debatable), he is going to do better than any other third party choice.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Jun 27, 2004 at 07:36:58 PM EST

Re: We Can Finally Stop Worrying About Nader (4.00 / 0)

True, but only IF he manages to get on the ballot anywhere. I have serious doubts about his ability to do that. Obviously, if he ain't on the ballot, he ain't getting votes.

by Chris Bowers on Sun Jun 27, 2004 at 08:38:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We Can Finally Stop Worrying About Nader (none / 0)

True enough. It's ironic, at a time when there is less partisan inclination among voters, and more openess to a 3rd party, that 2004 will offer the least of althernatives in a long time.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Jun 27, 2004 at 11:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If "dull" was the only factor (none / 0)

considered by voters, Kerry would never have taken the Democratic Nomination.

I don't know about elsewhere, but in Wisconsin, the order of finish will be D,R,L,G, Nader. Having an actual Party organization on the ground makes a difference.

The 4th Amendment: It's not just for dope dealers anymore.

by benmasel on Mon Jun 28, 2004 at 03:14:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nader downplays defeat (none / 0)

Reminiscent of the insane knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", arrogant jerk Nader says his defeat his no big deal, and that it's the Green Pary's loss that they didn't side with him.

See Wapo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10480-2004Jun27.html

Maybe Nader is conferring with his Rethuglican friends about his ballot and fundraising problems.

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun Jun 27, 2004 at 10:51:15 PM EST

The Green Party in 2004 and beyond (5.00 / 0)

I disagree with one thing here. The Green Party (GP) suffered a serious rupture over Cobb, and that rupture may be fatal. There's plenty of bad blood on all sides, and with a nonentity like Cobb running, Greens will be lucky to get 1% of the national vote. And that will cause the GP to drop off national radar, maybe permanently.

Re: a safe states strategy - Why would anyone vote for a candidate who doesn't even believe in his own candidacy?

PS I'm a past co-coordinator of the Green Party of LA County although not active in the GP now; can't see voting for a passive nonentity like Cobb, can no longer stomach Nader after discovering he's trying to get on ballots by teaming up with the extreme right - so I'll (reluctantly) vote for Kerry. (And a reluctant vote counts as much as an enthusiastic vote.)

My blog will have detailed posts on both Nader and Cobb this Monday and Tuesday.

by bobmorris60 on Mon Jun 28, 2004 at 12:10:09 AM EST

Re: We Can Finally Stop Worrying About Nader (none / 0)

This means that only David Cobb and his Vice-Presidential candidate, Pat LaMarche (G-ME), will be allowed on any Green Party ballot anywhere in the country.

Not quite. Ballot lines technically belong to the State Parties. In theory, State Green Parties could still notify the Secretary of State or Elections Board that Nader's their candidate. From gossip I picked up at the GP Convention, this could happen in Michigan and california.

The 4th Amendment: It's not just for dope dealers anymore.

by benmasel on Mon Jun 28, 2004 at 03:04:37 AM EST

Re: We Can Finally Stop Worrying About Nader (none / 0)

Not too likely, since those same state parties would thereby void their agreement with the national Green Party. Not only would they be automatically kicked out of the party, they would also alienate themselves from the GP movement.

From what I understand, the national party now owns the name "Green Party" after the FEC declared ASGP the national party a few years back. I'm not positive, but it seems that those states would have to reorganize under a new name.

by zaea on Mon Jun 28, 2004 at 06:24:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Vote for Trade (none / 0)

I live in Massachusetts - and if Kerry does not carry the Bay State, then the game is over anyway.

Here is my good faith offer:

Are you someone living in a swing state who wants to vote Green or Nader, but doesn't want to give the election to Bush? Contact me and I will trade my vote for yours. Think about it - a Green vote in Kerry's home state is more of an attention getter than one in Ohio or Florida.

tito at the core 4 dot com

by Tito on Mon Jun 28, 2004 at 12:54:25 PM EST

Nader is no Progressive (none / 0)

Hey Chis,

If it's a conversation you want, calling people who disagree with you mentally ill is no way to forward it.

Certainly Bush and his atrocious behavior are mainly responsible for the deflating Nader bubble (contrary to some Nader partisans in 2000, by the way, who seemed to relish the prospect of fishing in troubled waters). But another factor is the dawning realization, driven by relentless exposure, that Nader is no progressive.

Many people sympathetic to Nader (all of those I know) have viewed him as a progressive counterweight to Democratic 'business as usual', so it's appropriate and effective to continue outing him as no such thing.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Jun 30, 2004 at 10:20:17 AM EST

in the booth (none / 0)

Fortunately...i think it is still true...that when entering the voting booth, one can make a choice, in privacy, free from the pollsters, analysts and strong-armers.
A lifetime of actions and service to this country speaks more than years of "what ---ev---ahhhh" fits the polling soundbyte.

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun Jul 11, 2004 at 03:39:19 PM EST

No good Saturday ,seeing these! (none / 0)

iraqbodycount.org/
Who voted for this worthless "police action?"
That's what should be at the top of your brain,when you consider voting this time. Dismantle the go along to get along rubberstamp
u.s.congress, and let the new leader wave in the political wind, a while. Don't worry about aid and comfort to his enemies. He made them,not I!farthest inckling from bushes' thought when he hired controlled demolition to waste the Trade Towers into rubble. The 3000 Americans must be added to body counts' civilian casualties!

by northwest on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 05:57:56 PM EST

Correction: (none / 0)

http://iracbodycount.org/

by northwest on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 06:19:43 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.