For those who care about the outcome of the next election in the US, here is interesting news:


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3793946/

This seems odd to those of us who have supported Ralph in the past. But many are feeling that the Nader factor put Bush in the White House (although some disagree), along with the Supreme Court. How different things might have been otherwise.

Chandos - Do you know if he had any personal fallout from the 2000 election? I don't mean that Democrats blamed him, but were his pecuniary interests effected? Did anyone, for example, not hire him for a speaking engagement that he otherwise would have had? That would be my initial impression of a reason for him not to run, but it's pure speculation. Based on you linked article, it's not like he lost interest in the process or in running in general.

It is without a doubt that Nader handed the election to Bush. Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Considering that Nader got 2,658,281 votes nationwide, it would seem improbable that he didn't get 538 votes in Florida. Go here (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/08/election.president/)

The same thing can be said for the eight years of the Clinton presidency. I sincerely hope that Bill sends a Christmas card to Ross Perot every year.

Nader, who garnered nearly 3 percent of the national vote in the last presidential election I have always found this statistic highly amsuing. If a political leader in Canada managed to earn only three percent of the vote it would be almost a sure sign that you would never hear his or her name even being considered for running again.

I realize that given voter attitudes getting 3% of the vote in the U.S. is a significant achievement for a third party candidate but it still seems funny to someone from a country that normally has four or five political parties with at least 10% of the national vote.

I would say why bother running an expensive campaign if you have no chance on winning but I guess that changing the attitude of voters must start somewhere.

I would say why bother running an expensive campaign if you have no chance on winning but I guess that changing the attitude of voters must start somewhere. It is more than that. Nader/Sharpton/Kucinich/Perot etc all know they can not win the Presidential election (well, maybe Perot had moments of self delusion). What they can do is use their heaping big platform to help shape the national debate. They can bring issues important to them to the forefront and force the candidates who are real in the sense that they have a real chance of winning to address issues that they may not have otherwise addressed.

This forces the 'real' candidates to take a position and thus incorporate a position on an issue into his or her platform. This sets the stage for real legislation/regulations regarding the issue important to the candidate.

The irony of course is that these fringe candidates need a certain amount of clout and recognition in order to force their issues to the forefront of public conciousness. However, becoming too well liked may conversely affect the 'real' candidate who most closely mirrors their position. $1 to Nader/Perot.

That is the irony of Bush/Perot and Nader/Gore. N

@ Snook

Not really. In the '96 election, even if Bob Dole had taken every one of Ross Perot's votes, he still would've lost to Clinton in the popular vote. He had less than half of Clinton's electoral vote as well.

Bill Jeff
370 Electoral
47,401,185 Popular

Bob Dole
168 Electoral
39,197,469 Popular

Ross Perot
0 Electoral
8,085,294 Popular

Dole, at best, would've had 47,282,763 (150k less, give or take). 96 was much closer, but Bush Sr. was the incumbant then. Then Perot took about half the vote Bush had, a much bigger number than in '96. So maybe it woul've made a difference, but I think Clinton still would have won.

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/results/restable.html

This forces the 'real' candidates to take a position and thus incorporate a position on an issue into his or her platform. This sets the stage for real legislation/regulations regarding the issue important to the candidate.
What, you mean that U.S. elections are actually decided based upon politics and candidates' positions on issues? How bizarre, generally up here we find that all of our main stream politicians are basically the same and we tend to vote for the party that has made the fewest bone headed blunders in recent memory. ;)

DMC - Ralph has been speaking, and to conservatives as well as progressives.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/Nader_020612.html


But I think you are right, he is being more and more marginalized for varying resons. Since 2000 things have not gone well for him. That he won't be running with the Green Party really makes it worse for him, IMO, because that is his base.

But I agree with most everything Laches said. He has been a counterforce on some issues, but the lack of attention he is getting from the media these days is hurting his ability to impact the national debate. I don't think that his decision to split with the Greens will help him there. But without Mr. Nader the Green Party isn't much anyway, IMO.

Even though I have been a long time supporter of Mr. Nader, I will probably be working for Howard Dean this summer. I really think Dean has a good chance to pull it off, but it depends on many things, a lot of which Dean will have no control over. If Ralph does run, it may not be 2000 all over again, because liberals and progressives are starting to unify, mostly because of their dislike for Shrub's policies.

It's almost a no win situation for Mr. Nader this time. He would do better to endorse and work for, as Laches says, "a real candidate" this time. But that is if his ego will allow him to, which I'm not so sure it can.

@DR

You have to remember that the popular vote means nothing. It is all about the electoral college. I seem to recall that Bush I would have won enough states to pull out the victory. However, I may be wrong. :D

In 1992? I don't think so. Bill Jeff had 370 to Bush Sr.'s 168 electoral votes. More than double.

Popular vote (agreed...meaningless) was 45 million for Bill Jeff, 39 million for Bush and almost 20 million for Perot.

I don't know whether Perot cost Bush the 1992 election. According to your link though, had the Perot votes broken ~70% toward Bush (maybe they didn't have to break that high, it's just a random #, the break could have been lower for all I know) Bush would have won the popular vote.

Now, obviously the electoral vote counts. But, the way the electoral system works, you can get a lopsided result that isn't so lopsided. There was a two hundred vote margin in the electoral college. With changing just a few states that could drastically swing one way or the other. I believe only a few states allow the proportional split of electoral votes - the rest say if you win the state you get all of the votes. I notice that the closer the popular vote the closer the electoral vote. If the Perot votes swung to Bush, and he'd won the popular vote by 4-5 million votes, my hunch is the electoral vote would have reflected that. For example, winning Florida nets something like 25 electoral votes. Hypothetically, if the popular vote went from Clinton to Bush due to the Perot votes that means -25 for Clinton and +25 for Bush. That's a 50 vote swing right there from one state. It doesn't take long for those votes to evaporate.

Not that it matters really, I'm just thinking out loud.