Could Ralph Nader be the Democrats’ spoiler – again?

Loathed by some Democrats for siphoning off liberal votes in the 2000 Gore-Bush contest, Ralph Nader has announced he is once again to run as a third party candidate for president. The left-wing consumer advocate, who ran as the Green Party nominee in 2000 and as an independent in 2004, declared on NBC's Meet the Press that he was running as a representative of those marginalised by Republican and Democratic policies.

Pledging to "shift the power from the few to the many," Nader attacked the top presidential contenders as too close to big business.

Most people were disenchanted with the main parties due to the prolonged conflict in Iraq and sputtering economy, he said. Meanwhile corporate tax cuts and other business-friendly policies under the Bush administration had left many lower- and middle-class people with heavy debt, he added.

"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized, disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine/Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bungling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."

Though Nader took just 2.7 per cent of the popular vote in the 2000 election, he has been blamed for tipping the hotly-disputed, razor-thin contest in the Republicans' favour. In Florida, where George W. Bush's 500 vote margin won him the White House, Nader took 97,000 votes, the majority of which would have presumably otherwise gone to the Democrats.

However Nader has roundly dismissed the spoiler claims, saying that is the Democratic Party's own fault if it loses votes because it is refusing to address "major injustices" suffered by Americans. "I’m sick of this political bigotry here. They’ve sold off the US government to big business. And they accuse others of being spoilers. That is grotesque," he said.

He suggested that this time, his candidacy would not tip the race to the Republicans because following the Iraq debacle the electorate would not vote for a "pro-war John McCain."

His rivals also downplayed his potential impact.

Clinton called Nader’s decision"a passing fancy" and lamented that he had"prevented Al Gore from being the greatest president we could have had and I think that’s really unfortunate."

Obama appeared to accept Nader's long-time argument that no party has an automatic right to certain votes, saying that the onus was on the Democrats "to be so compelling that a few percentage of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference."

Meanwhile Tim Pawlenty, the Republican Governor of Minnesota currently being touted as a possible vice presidential partner for McCain, said Nader’s entry might "unsettle the Democratic race, to some small degree."

"I don’t think it’s going to be a big factor, but it will be a small factor," he said.

He might be thinking of Nader as an antidote to McCain's age problem - with his 74th birthday on Wednesday, the left-winger might be the one candidate that can make the 71-year-old Republican look youthful.

-

Comments

[The Director]

Nader's entry to the two party system is good for democracy , it gives people a choice if they want to vote for none of the above.
I think that he will do well. Overall I think John McCain would win.

[Bruce Northwood]

Ralph is running again for the ultimate ego stroke. It's time for Ralph to accept the fact that his time is long past and he is irrelevant.

[Jim McCreary]

I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004 not because I really liked him as a candidate but simply as a way of voting "none of the above." The problem was that neither the Democrats or Republicans offered a candidate that I could vote for and I chose to not just ignore the election. I wonder how much of Nader's vote was like mine.

[Richard Ruiz]

Although it may be forever fashionable to blame Nader for Al Gores 2000 Florida defeat, the fact is Al Gore could not win his home state of Tenn. If Gore had been able to win his OWN STATE, the Florida outcome would not have mattered at all.

[sft]

At the end of the day, what Nader really cares about is Nader. Period.

[Daphne Kenward]

I can not understand why Mr Nader wants to run at this late stage in a campaign. I think some one is paying him to do it, to ensure a Republican Wins, by splitting the votes, and independents, may well vote for Nader, but why run if you have no chance of winning? unless some one is paying him to put a spanner in the works. If anybody is tied to big business he should be running against Republicans, but he is doing it to the Democrats. The same could be said for Ron |Paul the same of Huckabee. Most who saw there was no point packed it in. Huckabee May have a small chance if McCain, womanising pass catches up on him. The unfortunate thing For Obama & Clinton, I thought it was President & Vice President, but I do not see that happening now, they represent the same party but Clinton is not uniting the electorate towards her, because if Obama Supporters would not support her in the real election in November, and they switch to Nader or McCain. Clinton will not win either. The attacks is one thing it is how cool you handle it, you can disagree without being disagreeable. She can cry and win the support of old women, will she represent them when she gets into office? I doubt it, its a ploy to get the sympathy vote. It is so important to get out of this war in Iraq, for the whole world to save us from Recession on a global scale, Before Bush Oil prices was 20$ per barrel, now it is 100 US$ per barrel. America is a Bankrupt country and the way this worthless US Dollar being spent on the campaign it is as if the Dollar is out of Fashion.

[Nicholas]

Well thanks Mr Nader. If it hadn't been for you we might have been spared the Bush years and the Iraq War.

[larry]

If the democrats would not have to tried to change the constitution, and not messed with the 2nd amendment to the constitution. Gore would have been President in 2000 and relected in 2004. the actions of the demoicrats is what put Bush in the White House and they have no one to blame but themselves. Some people are slow learners. the demacrats were as far out of touch with the american people reguarding the constitution as
Bush is with the Iraq war.

[Jacob]

Nader... come on, seriously? If you're in it for yourself, you should have realized a long time ago it wasn't going to work... O.O

[Bullseye]

He is so out of the loop. This has been is wasting his time. He would serve us better if he was to feed the pidgeons in the park. Any park is okay. Have at it.

[afgailGail]

Nader will not be much of a factor. In 2000 he jumped infront to the Green Party parade and declared himself the leader of a movement . His contention that there was no difference between Gore and Bush II has proven so disasterously wrong that nobody will support him. The media will treat him like they do Dennis Kucinich, perhaps minimally interesting, but irrelevant and not newsworthy.

[Hugo van Randwyck]

If he says what he means about the environment, maybe Hannah could ask him his opinion on this suggestion.
Would he support petrol rising from approx $3 a gallon to $6 gradually over a number of years?
Tax/refund suggestion:
1) Incrementally add a tax to fossil fuels, every month (E.g. $0.10 a gallon of petrol, every month).
2) Collect the tax into a separate fund, every month (approx 10 billion gallons * $1.20, after 12 months = $12 billion).
3) Divide the amount by the number of Americans over 18, every month. (approx 240 million, so $50 per person).
4) Send everybody over 18, a monthly refund cheque, every month, to spend freely ($50 per person per month, or $600 annualised).
This uses: price signal, free enterprise, freedom of choice. This could lead to: more fuel efficient cars/trucks, lower oil imports, more business investment, new technologies, increased productivity, more products for exporting to $6 a gallon markets, more jobs.

[chadsolo]

What kind of loaded reporting and poll is this? Nader did nothing to spoil Gore's Greatest Election Ever! In Oregon he scored a few percentage points maybe, but Gore still won the state, which gave Gore the Electoral votes, right, so what kind of waste of time is this crap? Gore won the POPULAR vote and would have won the ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE- had the election not been stolen by a STUPID Supreme Court decision. Wake Up DIPS. Find your own Game to play cause none of yall are good at theirs
...