Would a Nader run in 2004 snatch FL away from the Dems again???
Posted on 06/21/2002 10:16:52 AM PDT by summer
Would a Nader run in 2004 snatch FL away from the Dems again???
Friday, June 21, 2002
Nader to be in Portland; might run again for office
Press Herald Staff Reporter,
Copyright © 2001 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
PORTLAND - Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate turned Green Party presidential candidate who has been accused by some Democrats of being a spoiler in the 2000 election, is apologizing to no one.
In fact, the well-known political activist, who will make an appearance in Portland at the end of the month, is considering another presidential run in two years.
"Let's see who the candidates are. It's too early to say what I'm going to do," the 68-year-old Nader said in an interview Wednesday from Washington, D.C. "I will wait to decide until after the 2002 elections."
In the 2000 presidential election, Nader received 3 percent of the national vote. He did well enough in several states to tip them from Al Gore to George W. Bush. Nader needed 5 percent of the national vote to qualify his Green Party for federal campaign funds in the 2004 elections.
Nader is due in Portland for a "People Have the Power Rally" on June 29 at the Cumberland County Civic Center, a rally he says is not designed to promote his own political fortunes.
"These rallies are strictly civic rallies," Nader said. "They are not political rallies."
Among activists, it may be a distinction without a difference. Nader's life work has been grass-roots political organizing, and at an age when most people are reducing their professional pursuits, Nader sounds like he's just warming up.
Nader gained national attention in November 1965 with the publication of his national best-selling book, "Unsafe At Any Speed." The book chronicled what Nader argued was the unsafe engineering and design of America's cars. The first chapter, which dealt with the Corvair, is particularly well known because that car was then so popular.
Nader grew up in Connecticut, and went to Princeton as an undergraduate and then Harvard Law School.
"I grew up in New England, and when you grow up in Connecticut, Maine is the great woods and seashore," Nader said. "And by the way, I was taught by Maine teachers. They used to migrate to Connecticut to teach elementary school."
Nader said he has been to Maine 15 to 20 times in his life. He now lives in Washington, D.C.
The DemocRAT Party has totally betrayed you.
What might that be - that the NBA & NBC are in a conspiracy?
It is not true, but any observer of the media has to be aware that the media thinks Nader defeated the Democratic candidate for Presdident in 2000. Prior to 2000 the media was certain that 3rd party candidates hurt Republicans. Thank God and Ross Perot for Bill Clinton, they preyed. No! I do not mean prayed ..... And to the media God is just another name for the New York Times ... but I digress.
In 2000 the Media thinks the third parties help went the other way. The vaunted Pat Buchanan, unnoted heir to the Perot party vote, let the air out of his baloon and crashed. Braun, Brown or Browne or what ever the Libertarian candidate is refered to by Drug officers, did nothing at the polls.
At the end of NOVEMBER and or DECEMBER 2000 (GASP) our media was convinced that Naders 2.7 percent was more destructive to the Democrat candidate than Andersons 6.6 percent was destructive to Reagan in 1980.
In the 2004 election Nader couldn't get covered by the media if the alternative was dead air and a blank screen. And speaking of Al Gore he will get lots of positive coverage in 2004.
Nader will be in the 1 percent or less category. Years later people will ask did Nader run in 2004? The answer is NO .... but he jogged a little. Nader will get on some ballots and collect some money, but Clinton's new dog will get more coverage in 2004 than Nader.
Hillary will be gracious and friendly. In fact, she will probably offer to have Ted Kennedy drive him in a Corvair with Firestone tires to any campaign sites for a debate.
That is a huge falacy. Most peole could not understand how a Lee Harvey Oswald could try to kill General Walker and then 2 weeks later kill John Kennedy. To most people Kennedy was the 180 degree opposite of Walker. But to the leftist there is no difference worth noting. To the far left the difference between Gore and Bush is none. The Greenies would not vote for Gore any more than they would vote for Bush. They will vote for Nader.
It is like the right wing Bush Bashers on FR. They did not vote for Bush. If there is no far right candidate to vote for, they will not vote. Bush is too far to the left for them, just as Gore is too far to the right for the Naderites.
There is about 3 percent that makes up the the left and 3 percent that make up the far right. They only agree on one point. They agree there is zero difference between any Democrat and any Repubican.
Both parties dismiss them. They pretty much cancel out. Gore will never get the vote of the left and the opposite specturm on the far right will never vote for Bush.
A third party candidate has to appear to appeal to the center to get above 3 percent. That is what Ross did and in 1992 and 1996. That is what Anderson did in 1980. Third parties that appeal to the center could get enough to have close to 30 percent of the vote. What is needed for a third party to get close to 30 percent are unlikeable Democratic and Republican candidates, and an appealing centerist. That would do it. But 3rd parties from the left and right only do well when they have a cult personality to lead them. When the cult leader goes, the party goes too.
The only other time is when a major party changes its position on a controversial issue. Thus when the Democrats changed from the party of Segregation to the party of Civil rights, a George Wallace emerged to gain the support of the those who had been segregationist Democrats.
Take that type situation out of the calculus and 3rd parties have to come from the center. That is not Nader. He is not a factor. He does not hurt Democrats. He will not be a factor in 2004 or 2008.
The people posting that here are the Libertarian, Buchanan types. They are way over represented on this site.
There was lots of grumbling in 1954. Ike was just too damned leftist was what the Taft supporters were saying.
When the choice in 1956 was Ike or Stevenson they pulled the switch for Ike.
Democrats complain constantly about Gore, but they will vote for him in 2004. Democrats in California are very angry with Davis. But they will vote for him this fall. Candidates don't lose teh base .. They lose the center. The baees are vocal the center is not. All natioal races are won by he who wins the center. The base is NEVER a problem.
The name of the game nation wide is the center. That is not true in all states. Democrats in California, Washington state, or in Mass don't need anything except most Democrats. However,nationwide both parties need at least half the center.
People who play to their base get defeated. Bush has been playing to the center for two years. Tommy Daschle has been playing to his base. We will see what the center does this fall.
The center's vote is up for grabs. It isn't guaranteed. And so the politicians pander to the center.
The base's vote is assured. Politicians ignore the base.
There a lesson to be learned somewhere in there....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.