Why Nader may cost Kerry the Election

[dolstein]

I want to respond to an argument that I have seen made many times on DU, and one I expect to see made by Nader apologists in the months the come. The argument goes this way -- "Nader isn't taking votes away from Kerry. These votes aren't Kerry's to have. He has to earn them. Kerry's problem is that he isn't running on the issues Nader is running on. If he ran on a Nader platform, he wouldn't have to worry about Nader "taking" votes from him."

Ok, here's the problem. Nader isn't running to win. Kerry is. Nader can run on whatever platform he feels like, for the simple reason that he doesn't care whether or not he gets more than 5% of the vote. Once you accept 5% as a goal, running on a left-wing platform makes a lot of sense. You identify a very small voting block -- e.g., frustrated left-wingers -- and you put out a platforum that appeals to them.

John Kerry doesn't have that luxury. He's running to win. For him, maximizing his vote means getting 50%+, not 5%. So he has to take into account the impact his positions have on his total share of the vote. Sure, he could adopt a Nader agenda. But where will that get him? It won't get him the White House, for starters. The fact is, even if he adopted the Nader agenda wholesale, many, possibly most, of the Nader voters still wouldn't vote for him. According to exit polls in 2000, half of Nader's support in the 2000 election were committed third party voters. These people would not vote for a major party candidate under any circumstaces. Now some DU'ers would argue: "but the reason these people won't vote for a major party candidate is because they don't like what the major parties have to offer. If a major party candidate started talking like a third party candidate, these people would support them." There are a few problems with this argument, however. For one thing, Nader would still be in the race. There is no way Kerry is going to outflank Nader on the left. If Kerry moves to the left, what's to keep Nader from moving even FURTHER to the left? Plus, Kerry is still tained goods. Even if he starts talking like Nader, he's still running as a Democrat, and his ties to the Democratic establishment go back decades. In short, these die hard thirty party candidate simply aren't going to buy Kerry as a Nader convert.

And not only would a sudden shift to the left not be likely to generate a substantial increase in support from the Nader voters, it would hurt him among moderates and independents. Those that take his new positions seriously will dismiss him for being too far outside the mainstream. Those that don't take his new positions seriously will dismiss him as a crass and desperate opportunist.

Ok, I can hear the arguments from the Nader crowd: "why do you insist on treating this as a zero sum game? Half the registered voters don't even bother to go to the polls on election day. There's a goldmine of votes out there just waiting to be harvested by a forceful and unabashedly liberal voice." Here's my response. First of all, there is ZERO evidence that non-voters are any more liberal than voters. In fact, non-voters tend to be less interested in politics, less ideologically motivated, than registered voters. Die-hard liberals, like die-hard coservatives, already turn out in strong numbers. Second, if this argument is true, then why didn't these people turn out in large numbers for Nader in 2000? According to exit polls, only 1 in 4 Nader votes wouldn't have voted at all if Nader weren't on the ballot. Assuming these people were responding to Nader's platform rather than his celebrity, that means Nader inceased turnout by a whopping 1%. Ok, some people would say that Nader's a bad example, because his candidacy was never seen as viable. So what about Dean? Dean was clearly seen as a viable candidate. He was leading in the polls at the start of the year. He had more money. He had the big name endorsements. He went out of his way to court the Nader voters. But the votes just didn't materialize.

The sad fact is that Kerry is limited in what he can do to respond to the Nader challenge from the left. And there will be some votes going to Nader that would otherwise be going to Kerry. Not a lot, but perhaps as many as 1%, possibly higher if Nader runs an aggressively anti-war campaign. And there isn't a heck of a lot Kerry can do about it. And in a very close election, that 1% can make a big difference.

[Catch22Dem]

1. Good post

Very thoughtful. And great point here:
"Ok, here's the problem. Nader isn't running to win. Kerry is."

What a dick. Nuck Fader!!!!!!

[CubsFan1982]

2. Now is not the time

to make a protest vote. Any other election, I would welcome a third party candidate to enter mix, but this is not the election to do it. I think this election is the gatepost between democracy and fascism. The Nader voters, if they cause Kerry to lose, will have no one to blame but themselves.

[dolstein]

4. They don't see it that way

Look, we've already been through this once before. The thousands of Nader voters in Florida had to have known that the election was very close, both nationwide and in Florida. They voted for Nader anyway. I would expect most of them to do the same thing again. I've read a lot of posts from Nader voters on DU, and very few of them have expressed any remorse over their decision. Indeed, we're beginning to hear many of the same criticisms that these people made about Gore in 2000. Kerry's too cautious. He's too corporate. He isn't a real liberal. I really wouldn't be surprised if we have a repeat of 2000.

[Dagaz]

10. It'll be the anti war vote

Anyone who is voting on principal against the war has only one place to turn. I'll be voting for Kerry but I like the fact that he'll press on in Iraq. A lot of people don't agree and might have trouble voting for another pro war candidate.

[NutritionFacts]

29. Simple solution

have Kerry pick a liberal VP. Problem solved, election won.

[dolstein]

43. Election won? Indeed -- by Bush.

Kerry is already perceived as too liberal by a large portion of the electorate, including many swing voters. And the fact is, Kerry is one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate. There's no getting around that. Furthermore, it would be difficult to find any Democrat with national stature who is more liberal than Kerry. Howard Dean certainly TALKS more liberal than Kerry, but his record as governor was more moderate. Besides, it doesn't exactly seem wise to have a ticket consisting of two liberal New Englanders. Sorry, but I fail to see who choosing a more liberal running mate would increase Kerry's share of the vote. Any Nader voters who gravitate towards Kerry would be offsent by at least as many swing voters who move over to Bush.

[blondeatlast]

18. Welcome to DU, fellow Cubbie!

:toast:

"... this election is the gatepost between democracy and fascism."

So true, friend.

[Old and In the Way]

3. Very true.

I imagine the far right wing was freaking out with Bush in 2000 when he was moderating his position to be viable with the moderate middle. Boy, have they been rewarded for hanging in with him.

[dolstein]

6. Exactly -- if Bush can pull the bait and switch, why not Kerry?

I think people -- especially those on the left -- need to cut Kerry some slack and let him say whatever he needs to say to get elected.

[Mel]

15. that's what I'm hoping for

we elect Kerry, he works for us we hold his feet to the fire.
I really don't think Nader is going to pull the amount of votes he did last election.

One other thing Howard Zinn was on AAR "The Majority Report" and this is what he said "with Bush we have NO ledge to stand on, with Kerry we have a ledge to stand on and we work from there" makes perfect sense!

If *Bush gets the WH we are screwed, hell we already are but the gates of hell will open wide if we have to endure four more years of *!

[ulysses]

16. there was a time

when Dems had the kind of trust from me that let me cut them some slack during the election cycle. That ended around the time of the 1996 welfare "reform" act.

[Old and In the Way]

25. So because of welfare reform, you have to stop and think

about whether to vote for Kerry or Bush?

OK...

[ulysses]

31. no.

In large part because of welfare reform, I don't necessarily trust my party's presidential candidate to remember to switch after he baits.

[blondeatlast]

19. Republican Fascist DLC apologist! Demanding we march lock-step!

//sarcasm off

[dsc]

45. because it only works once

The one and only reason that Bush is in this race at all is that he has 9/11 and the war on terror. He was in the toilet in the days before the attack.

[lancdem]

5. You make some very good points

There is some good news, though: Apparently Nader is having a hard time getting on ballots.

[dolstein]

11. Yep, I've been following that.

However, I'm still hearing talk of Nader running on the Reform Party or Green Party line. In certain states, there are still third parties that have automatic ballot access, and Nader would be more than happy to enter into a marriage of convenience. Hell, he was more than happy to accept the Green Party's nomination in 2000 despite the fact that he really hadn't had anything to do with the party before then.

[fudge stripe cookays]

14. He's also been more than happy to accept Republican money to do it. n/t

[salonghorn70]

7. Great Post

I like what Kerry said in the primaries. "Send America a President, not a message."

[TheFarseer]

8. I'm not sure he'll be a factor

he's 0-2 getting on the ballot. He couldn't get on the ballot in Oregon and today failed to get on in Texas. Will that 5% still vote for him if he's not on the ballot?

[dolstein]

13. Nader still has a few options

It isn't easy to get on the ballot as a true independent candidate. I think that what Nader will try to do is utilize a patchwork of third parties in various states that have automatic access to the ballot.

[NutritionFacts]

30. Texas doesn't matter

and is not surprising.

He can't really hurt Kerry in Texas, as Texas is already lost. Further, Texas is so conservative it's no wonder he can't get on the ballot.

Look at if he gets on ballots in states like NY, CA, MA, etc to see the problem.

[TheFarseer]

33. Texas is so conservative

it has 16 Republican reps and 16 Democratic reps

[iamjoy]

9. It Is a Zero Sum Game

Nader laments the two party system our country has. Well that is pretty pitiful that with 300 million people there are only 2 major political parties, sometimes controlled by the same interests....

Nader sometimes acts as if he doesn't realize this is a winner take all electoral collage system.

If it so bothered Nader, he should have spent the past three years campaigning against the electoral college.

For every step to the left Kerry takes to try and win an apathetic or Nader leaning Liberal, he risks losing a moderate to Bush. And be further painted as a waffler/flip-flopper by the GOP.

[bluestateguy]

12. If you vote for Nader you deserve to get drafted into Baby Bush's Army

There. I just said it.

[blondeatlast]

21. While the rest of us get escorted into Gitmo. nt

[Rowdyboy]

17. Thank you for your words

I just wish logic meant something to the idiots that vote for Nader. But it didn't in 2000 and it won't in 2004. Not only should we not count on them (Nader supporters), but we should expect them to fight us just as hard as Bush

[Westegg]

20. Nice summation. Smart and helpful. Thanks. (n/t)

[GOPBasher]

22. Great post! But just one thing.

I agree with everything you said. However, I don't see why Kerry doesn't go left on the issues where it *is* politically popular. As just one example, he doesn't talk much about the minimum wage. I know he supports an increase in it, but he doesn't talk about it much. This doesn't make sense to me. A good 80% of the country agrees with raising the minimum wage. I mean, you can go to the left in the instances when it certainly is the politically popular stance.

[mike_c]

23. So you're saying that Nader can afford to run an honest...

...campaign and Kerry can't? That Nader can oppose the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq but Kerry can't afford to be that forthright? That Nader has the luxury of condemning the corporatization of government but that Kerry is forced to tee up for the rich dudes behind the curtain? That Nader, who doesn't really need to worry about losing can speak truth to power while Kerry is constrained mumbling political platitudes?

Do you see anything wrong with this picture at all?

[Sparkly]

26. I don't see anything at all honest about Nader

or his campaign. He's not making honest proposals that could honestly get passed in Congress. He's not making an honest bid for the White House. He's not being honest about the effect of his campaign on the things he claims to care about -- which leads me to believe he's not being honest about what he claims to care about.

[HFishbine]

44. Mike_C

There's your answer. (I took it as a "yes.")

[ulysses]

24. here's a problem.

Sure, he could adopt a Nader agenda. But where will that get him? It won't get him the White House, for starters.

Those who are asking him to adopt a "Nader agenda" wholesale are few, much as you might like to paint the left as a bunch of radicals.

Then, this has always been the blind spot, hasn't it?

[Sparkly]

27. Who's "left?"

Nader??!! Not hardly.

[fujiyama]

28. Very true

Atleast last time, he had a somewhat convincing (not to me, but to some) rational of wanting to build the green paty as a viable third party.

This time, he has no such reason. He's not even running as the green party candidate.

He's running, simply to try to fuck Kerry over. Plain and simple - this time it is so blatantly obvious he's doing this to take votes from him.

Of course, take a look at Nader's new friends and contributors - Grover Norquist and Ben Stien.

What an honest man that Ralph is! :eyes:

[bklyncowgirl]

32. Kerry can't shift left on issues but can choose a VP who's acceptable to..

Antiwar voters.

If you believe the opinion polls, voters see Kerry as a flip flopper already. If he shifts positions again in order to counter Nader, he's be handing the Bush campeign a hammer to pound him with.

Kerry should choose a vice presidential candidate who was against the Iraq war from the beginning.

Of those being mentioned as being on the list, Wes Clark and Bob Graham come to mind as being both antiwar and Southern. Howard Dean (who is not as far as I know on any list) might be more attractive to potential Nader voters than the other two but two New England liberals could be a turnoff to voters from battleground states. If Nader gets the Green and/or Reform nomination, maybe Dean should be reconsidered.

An antiwar VP candidate sends a strong message without forcing the candidate to change position.

[CTLawGuy]

34. we should have nominated someone

exactly like Bush...

that way we would win 100% of the vote.

It would have been fool proof.

:eyes:

[kodi]

35. nadir on c-span did what kerry won't. ie., tell the truth about bush

i am not a nadirite, and dislike intensely the man and his ego, but, yes, nadir might just well cost kerry the election because nadir is speaking the cold unvarnished truth about the busheviks.

kerry is not doing that. he is participating in the kabuki theatre of mainstream american politics that leaves unmentioned the real problems we have in america with the rich and connected setting one set of rules for themselves and another for the rest of us.

and like orwell's animal farm, this is the core rot that will bring down our republic.

the original post was a good analysis of the horse race, but like kerry's present campaign has little to do with addressing the rot that infects our nation.

and as much as i hate to say this, at least nadir is addressing this issue and kerry is not.

if kerry is serious about wanting us on the hard left to invest ourselves with him, he might revisit the campaign themes of john edwards, dennis kucinich, and al sharpton, who at least recognized the dichotomy of the rich versus the rest of us in the land.

until kerry does, he is widely different than bush about things that matter only in that he will appoint pro-choice federal judges....which btw for many is alone sufficient to vote for him.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. I am not even tempted to vote for Nader, but

like one of the posters above, I cannot see why Kerry won't even throw bones to or send signals to the left in the same way that Bush sent signals to the right wing of his party.

Raising the minimum wage is popular. Making health care available to all is popular. Affordable housing is a great unmet need which in some parts of the country affects everyone who isn't actually rich. Putting blue collar people to work through repairing and expanding the nation's infrastructure would be popular, would have a "trickle up" effect on the entire economy, and could even bring some of the current non-voters back into the Democratic camp.

None of these are "radical" notions, and none of them impinge on anyone's moral or religious beliefs, but they've been off the radar for a while.

If I were one of Kerry's advisors, I'd tell him to run on these ideas, not on Al Gore-ish generalities.

[Sparkly]

38. Are you seriously not aware

of Kerry's stand on issues like minimum wage and health care? He's done much more than "throw bones or send signals." Please visit http://www.johnkerry.com. These are issues Democrats have fought for -- while Nader has done nothing, zero, zip, nada, for them. I don't even know why these issues are even remotely associated with Nader.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. He needs to emphasize this more often and

come up with a health care policy that doesn't sound like the second coming of Clinton's confusing health care policy.

He needs to take control of his message. I'm seeing too much caution on his part, as if there's an unspoken, "If it's all right with you" at the end of every assertion.

(And I know that Nader doesn't have policies on these issues, but it's the perception that Kerry doesn't have them that is helping Nader.)

[Sparkly]

40. I'd suggest that we counter any such misperception

rather than further it. Kerry's been all over health care lately.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/10/kerry.health.ap/index.html

[DU GrovelBot]

## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 12:16:37PM EDT, Tuesday, May 11, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
5 days,
11 hours,
43 minutes, and
23 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[HFishbine]

37. I appreciate the thought you put into your post

but I think you went a little too far in setting up a scenerio where Kerry and Nader are competing for voters "to the left." I think that's an oversimplification which obscures just how effective Kerry could be in stealing potential Nader voters without diminishing returns in the middle.

If one were to look instead at specific issues, instead of the less-informitive label of "left," one can see that there are indeed opportunities for Kerry, if he'll stand up. Two issues come to mind. The first is trade. A major Nader-voter issue, it is also one of great concern to the middle, especially those who live in states devestated by manufacturing job losses. Kerry could loudly articulate a sane policy on trade that would appeal to Nader voters and the middle alike.

The Patriot Act and the errosion of civil liberties is another example of an issue where Kerry could appeal to Nader voters and centerists alike by adopting a clear and strong position.

It will do Kerry more good to examine the issues that attract voters to Nader rather than worrying about whether he is moving to the left too much. Just take some principles stands.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zorra]

42. I am hoping that Nader eventually urges his supporters

to back John Kerry.

Let's face it, Nader is intelligent enough to know what is at stake in November. He knows that Bu$h and the neo-cons are fascists, and an imminent threat to retaining our democracy, and to the security of the entire world. He knows that JK is the only candidate that can beat Bu$h.

Nader knows that he is not going to win, and he knows that his candidacy may damage JK's chances of being elected. So hopefully, his candidacy is all about message, and he will drop out of the race.

If he does not, it leads me to two possible conclusions:

Either his ego is so big that he does not care about the permanent damage that a continued Bu$h residency will cause to our nation and the world, or he is a republican plant.