He keeps saying he hasn’t decided yet but won’t rule it out – especially if Hillary Clinton gets the Dem nomination.
Here’s a recent interview with Nader and with Henriette Mantel, director of An Unreasonable Man, a documentary about him.
He cost Gore the Election in 2000, so it could matter.
One of his soundbites in An Unreasonable Man:
Even if the winner is not particularly liberal, like Hillary, I think the candidates and the DNC will do a better job of reaching out to progressives than they did in 2008. That would make Nader much less relevant even in a close election, and he had his one big year anyway. To me, the Republicans might actually be more at risk from a spoiler this time around.
Like who?
I don’t know; you may have noticed I’m not a member of the religious right. But I’m sure you’ve heard the speculation that the presumptive favorites don’t really satisfy that part of the party. If McCain, Giuliani or Romney wins the nomination and can’t lock up their support, maybe a culture warrior, Pat Buchanan-type runs a third party campaign and siphons off a few votes in crucial states. I do think that Democrats more or less have their issues in order right now, and the Republicans have some big potential divisions - Iraq is the big one, illegal immigration - Bush’s ideas on that issue seemed more popular with Democrats - being another.
I think Nader’s impact will be less. Many voters like myself, ended up regretting voting for Nader in 2000. I ended up voting for a much less worthy candidate than Gore in 2004, Kerry. I think Greens are just going to vote for the democrat this time and hope for better service from them. It seems like they are prepared to treat Global Warming seriously and this will satisfy most though not all Greens.
Of course, if the Dem candidate makes the gaff of bring up the Bogey Man, I mean expansion of nuclear power , then the Green Party candidate might suck of some vital votes.
Marley23, I think the RR will probably not cause problems in 2008. They will probably take their lumps with a lesser candidate like McCain or Giuliani and not split the ticket and put horrors of horrors Clinton or Obama in power. I still hope we reach the point that it is McCain or Giuliani on the Republican side. It could be Newt, Jeb or Brownback which is a frightening scenario.
Jim
Yes it will matter. It was horrible last time.
He says that the Dems and Reps are fighting for the same money from the same high rollers, and thus will never again support the working people. That’s true. But it’s so much more true for the Reps than the Dems that his party doesn’t do the working class any favors by playing the spoiler.
Eh, I disagree. To the degree that the religious right overlaps with the racist/sexist vote (there is not a perfect correspondence), some of those people will see a party that nominates an Affirmative Action candidate as a doomed lost cause that can be ignored rather than a horror to be strongly opposed.
On the other hand, a lot of working-class pro-lifers are going to like Barack as much as McCain or Giuliani on their hot-button issues, & then it comes down to economic policy & foreign policy. Giuliani/McCain will have some credibility in the latter, but Obama will have some appeal on both economic & foreign issues, due to his efforts for nuclear non-proliferation. And with Bob Casey, Jr. in the Senate & Harry Reid as its majority leader, a great pro-life argument of the 1990’s–that the Dems were intolerant of pro-life opinion while the GOP was a big tent–has broken down.
As for Hillary, it’s not clear how the vote broke down in the Perotified elections, but apparently Perot largely drew secular reformers, the religious right stuck largely with the GOP, & the Clintons drew a lot of moderates & liberals. Supposing that a mix of pro-outsider types & balanced-budget/responsible-government types were important to Perot’s numbers, it’s enlightening to note that some of those were suckered into following Bush with “Don’t mess with Texas,” but now they’re rationally turning into Jon Tester Democrats. A lot of them would vote for Bill Richardson, once they are exposed to him, & some would vote for Hillary.
So while a core of “lifelong Republicans” & some diehard social conservatives will stick with the GOP, the libertarians & swing voters, including some bastions of Reagan’s support, are already in the Dem’s camp. The GOP primary is almost a sideshow, unless guys like Brownback can motivate enough of their bases to be excited enough about the party again that they stay with the GOP after Brownback (or whoever) falls out of the running.
A year later, it looks like we may get our answer: He’s scheduled to appear on Meet the Press this coming Sunday. :gulp:
He will run but he will be irrelevant. I can’t imagine many people voting for a tired, one trick pony like Nader over Obama.
Nader just wants the news coverage. He wants his minute of coverage when he gets arrested trying to crash the debate. He wants some time on the Sunday talk shows when they’re short on guests that week.
That’s it exactly. In 2000, Nader was more exciting that Gore by virtue of having a pulse. But compared to Obama?
Sorry, but the charismatic idealistic outsider role has already been taken.
He’ll run because of his massive ego. It won’t matter, I don’t think as many people will be as quick to waste their votes this time around. Has Nader beaten Harold Stassen’s record yet?
Nope. Stassen ran (for the Pub presidential nomination, never as an independent) nine times. Nader has only made four bids so far.
It would really hurt Hillary. The polls show that places like Oregon will be tough for her versus McCain (he has a lead right now). It would also hurt Obama, but less.
What it will do is totally destroy the green party. Much of their base is on college campuses, who are right now totally for Obama. Some students might switch, but most will just find themselves hating Ralph Nader in a way they didn’t in 2000.
I once (in 2000, I think) had a chance to ask a question of Nader at a local rally – “As a leader of the Green Party,” would he support pro-third-party reforms such as proportional representation, instant-runoff voting, etc.? He endorsed the idea but prefaced his remarks with, “I’m not a leader of the Green Party, by the way.” And really, I guess he never has been; he was simply a famous name they invited to run on their ticket.
Good point. Those who support the green party can hope that people will make the distinction better than I did.
Hating Nader? Or laughing at him? Nader will remind them of a 35 year old going to a frat party and still trying to pick up 18 year olds and drink beer from a funnel.
A small item in the local paper today says Nader will be on Meet the Press tomorrow, and “long-time associates say they think” he will announce.
Maybe he’s going for Stassen’s record.
I’m not so sure that he runs just because of his ego. I think he just really strongly believes there should be someone on the ballot that has his ideals, to measure how the voting populace feels.