Ralph Nader in 2008?
February 17th 2007 21:58
Ralph Nader, who ran for president in 1996, 2000, and 2004, hints that he may run again in 2008 -- especially if Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination.
This is bad news for the Democrats -- and especially bad news for Hillary. Nader leans to the liberal side, so his presence in the race would almost certainly take votes from a Democratic candidate. How many votes? It probably wouldn't be many. He got less than 1% of the vote in 1996 and wasn't a factor. In 2000, however, he got almost 3% of vote. Because the 2000 election was decided by a paper-thin margin, he definitely impacted the outcome. Had his votes gone to the Dem candidate, Al Gore would've easily won. Then, in 2004, Nader received less than 1% of the vote. Even though Bush beat Kerry by a small margin, Nader's votes didn't make the difference.
So now Nader is talking about running again in 2008. Will a Nader candidacy make a difference? Possibly. If the race is especially tight, then even the smallest number of votes for Nader could push the election to the GOP candidate. I think most anti-GOP voters have figured out that a vote for Nader is a vote for the GOP, so I doubt that Nader would gain much traction. Still, if it's a tight race, he could be a significant factor.
I think it's especially interesting that he has targeted Hillary with his comments. She is the last person that I want to see in the White House, so I'm pleased with this position. Still, what is the rationale behind Nader's comments? Here's what he had to say about Hillary:
Ouch.
Even Nader knows he doesn't have a chance of winning the presidency. It would be ironic, though, if he ran in 2008 just to thwart Hillary, because the Clintons have also been helped in the past by a third party candidate. In 1992, Ross Perot may have taken enough votes from Bush 41 to throw the election to Bill. I don't recall Bill or Hillary encouraging Perot to stay out of the race back then. So any negative comments from Hillary about third party candidates in 2008 would be sheer hypocrisy.
I guess we'll have to see how this plays out. I'm not a big Ralph Nader fan and I doubt he would make a difference if he runs, but anything that can keep the Hillamonster out of the White House would be fine by me.
This is bad news for the Democrats -- and especially bad news for Hillary. Nader leans to the liberal side, so his presence in the race would almost certainly take votes from a Democratic candidate. How many votes? It probably wouldn't be many. He got less than 1% of the vote in 1996 and wasn't a factor. In 2000, however, he got almost 3% of vote. Because the 2000 election was decided by a paper-thin margin, he definitely impacted the outcome. Had his votes gone to the Dem candidate, Al Gore would've easily won. Then, in 2004, Nader received less than 1% of the vote. Even though Bush beat Kerry by a small margin, Nader's votes didn't make the difference.
So now Nader is talking about running again in 2008. Will a Nader candidacy make a difference? Possibly. If the race is especially tight, then even the smallest number of votes for Nader could push the election to the GOP candidate. I think most anti-GOP voters have figured out that a vote for Nader is a vote for the GOP, so I doubt that Nader would gain much traction. Still, if it's a tight race, he could be a significant factor.
I think it's especially interesting that he has targeted Hillary with his comments. She is the last person that I want to see in the White House, so I'm pleased with this position. Still, what is the rationale behind Nader's comments? Here's what he had to say about Hillary:
"She's just another bad version of (former President) Bill Clinton,'' Nader told KGO radio host Ronn Owens in San Francisco.
Asked to describe Clinton, a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination a year in advance of the primaries, Nader said: "Flatters, panders, coasting, front-runner, looking for a coronation, not taking on the huge waste in the military budget as a member of the Armed Services commission, never going after the corporate crimes against pensions, against workers. ... She has no political fortitude.''
Asked to describe Clinton, a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination a year in advance of the primaries, Nader said: "Flatters, panders, coasting, front-runner, looking for a coronation, not taking on the huge waste in the military budget as a member of the Armed Services commission, never going after the corporate crimes against pensions, against workers. ... She has no political fortitude.''
Ouch.
Even Nader knows he doesn't have a chance of winning the presidency. It would be ironic, though, if he ran in 2008 just to thwart Hillary, because the Clintons have also been helped in the past by a third party candidate. In 1992, Ross Perot may have taken enough votes from Bush 41 to throw the election to Bill. I don't recall Bill or Hillary encouraging Perot to stay out of the race back then. So any negative comments from Hillary about third party candidates in 2008 would be sheer hypocrisy.
I guess we'll have to see how this plays out. I'm not a big Ralph Nader fan and I doubt he would make a difference if he runs, but anything that can keep the Hillamonster out of the White House would be fine by me.
| 55 |
| Vote |
