what state could nader cost kerry more damage?

[World Order]

From the battleground states, Nadar is already becoming a major player. I am of the believe that this election will be close simple because this country is polarised. take last nights speech, dems said it didnt tell us nothing new bar the abu ghraib being demolished, while republicans say how reassuring bush was and of his plan. Nadar i think will play major roles in Oregon, Maine, Florida and Wisconsin. But the serious damage i think could be in Wisconsin. if bush wins wisconsin, kerry has to win ohio and pennslyvania. I think kerry needs to have a long chat with nadar and test the water on how much he hates the bush administration.

[millwx]

I admit, this is really a wild guess, but simply based on Nader's comments, I don't think he'll hurt Kerry.  Not because he won't pull support away from Kerry... he would.  Rather, I suspect... since he's only praised Kerry and bashed Bush... I think he's trying to energize far left wingers (many who don't vote at all).  He will then drop out and endorse Kerry... The goal being, to bring new voters in and THEN convince them to cast their vote for Kerry.

One key indication that I could be WRONG... Nader is fighting awfully hard to get on the ballots of various states.  If this were all just some grand scheme, as I suggest, why would he even care if he were on the ballots?  In fact, if I were right, he'd rather NOT be... after all, some people might vote for him anyway, as long as he's on the ballot (yes, if he backs out early enough, his name can be removed... but why fight so hard to get on in the first place?).

So, I may well be dead wrong, and I'm also not much into "conspiracy theories".  But given Nader's rhetoric and the pressure against him to drop out (even by some former supporters), I can't help but suspect that Nader is waging a leftist surrogate battle to bring in support for Kerry.  So, in short, I may well be off the wall here, but I suspect Nader to have no impact.

[millwx]

The deadline for submitting signatures on petition for ballot status in Texas was yesterday (May 24).

Actually, the deadline in Texas has passed.  May 10th was the deadline in Texas.  Nader was required to submit 64,000 signatures.  He failed.  He submitted, roughly, 50,000.  Because of complex, stringent ballot requirements for 3rd party candidates in Texas, Nader is suing.  (This was one of my reasons for the point about how hard he's trying to get on the ballots... He failed in Texas, so now he's suing!)

[millwx]

May 24 was the deadline for independent candidacy filing. The signature requirement was 64,077.

You do certainly seem to know what you're talking about :-) ...because you're correct on the specific signature requirement (I just rounded down for simplicity).  So, I don't know why the discrepancy in the date.  However, I just did a web search and found various news articles on this and a website dedicated to getting Nader the necessary signatures.  The deadline was, indeed, May 10th.  And Nader submitted about 55,000 signatures.  Odd.

[© tweed]

Wisconsin

[Ben.]

I reject the idea that Nader is going to be a big factor this fall... he has no real funds and a tiny staff and until the Reform Party (which decided this not at a convention but in a "phone in" LOL) endorsed him he was having trouble getting on many ballots... it looks like even with the Reform Party endorsement he will not be allowed on the Florida ballot (a party needs a convention apparently to get its nominees on the ballot)... I think Nader is gona find it hard to get on many states ballots...

But in the unlikely, but certainly not impossible, scenario where he gets on all 50 ballots... then I'd say Wisconsin and New Hampshire.  

[WalterMitty]

nader will be a non-factor.

if he is on the ballot in oregon, im sure the dems will blame nader for kerry's loss of the state.

[Spin Police]

I think Nader is far less a factor than many think, and may indeed even have a positive effect for Kerry.

As the "fringe" candidate (and I do not mean that as a person, Nader is a serious man, with a serious message) Nader can say things that Kerry simply cannot.

These things that Nader says will be dutifully reported by the press, and thus indirectly make the Kerry case.

Secondly, Nader can serve to energize the political left.  

Kerry will no doubt continue to present himself as a center hugging DLC Democrat, just as Bush will try to present himself as a center hugging Compassionate conservative, and hence he cannot serve up the "red meat" that might bump a few on the left out of their chairs and into the ballot box on election day.

I also think Nader's absolute vote count will be pretty low.

Typically there is always about a 1.5% "none of the above" vote for who ever is NOT the Democrat or GOP candidate, it could be Smith, or Jones, or in this vcase Nader.

Nader will get a bunch of this vote, but it not "for" Nader, or indeed at any body's expense disproportionately.

Most of Nader's vote melted away in 2000 by election day, I can't imagine this year being a lot different, except he is on fewer ballots and will get even less votes.

Strangely, I expect a lot of the .4% who voted Buchanan may go to Nader on the protectionism issue.  

They say that if you go far enough right you end up on the left and also the other way around.  

I think Buchanan and Nader are a match made in heaven is that respect.

Both are anti-war, anti trade, and anti-big companies.

[pieman]

I tend to agree that Nader is likely to be less of a factor this year.

His one very real possibility is if he goes after the anti-war vote.

Kerry is very vulnerable on the left of his current Iraq position.

Although probably not the most likely, Nader may cost Kerry significant votes here in Minnesota. Independent candidates do better here than in most states.  

[emergingDmajority1]

Nader could make things tough on Kerry in Washington, if he's on the ballot there

[Giant Saguaro]

I'm not sure that he's going to be much of a factor or what he's even up to, but if he's on the ballot, I think he could possibly hurt Kerry in Oregon, Washington, Florida, and possibly Wisconsin or Michigan, provided these states are close enough for him to hurt Kerry. In the end, it depends on how much and how hard he campaigns. But I'm betting against him being a big factor right now.

[opebo]

Oregon.

[Lunar]

2000 Results
Red States > 5%
Blue States > 3%

[??????????]

I am all for third party candidates running for office. I hope one day one will get elected. And I strongly think if a good candidate comes up one WILL be elected within the next 4 cycles. Nader is a pawn of the Democrat party though. He is not serious about becoming president and I strongly believe he is put out there by the DNC or other groups to hurt Republicans.

[Mort from NewYawk]

I have a feeling that Kerry, maybe Gore and other Democratic heavy hitters are taking Nader very seriously after 2000, and playing him beautifully.

Perhaps, like Gore, his job will be to keep the vocal anti-Bush and anti-war crowd in the election, then throw Kerry his support late in the campaign, perhaps in exchange for a Cabinet position (Health and Human Services)?

[MODU]

StateRights,

The only way we will be able to get a solid third candidate into the office is with two years of campaigning, and the development of real party values.  Right now, both the Democrats and Republicans have shifted back to their extreme Left and Right sides.  A third party that can actually compete in this arena would be one that sits well with the moderates of these two parties.  That whole "Conservative Liberal" concept from the 90's is probably the best way to describe it.

Once the party's core beliefs are established, the word needs to get out to the public.  Don't wait for the campaign year to begin either.  Start right after the midterm elections, and spend 6 months just promoting and explaining the party.  

After that, begin identifying potential candidates that fit the party's mold and start their debates early.  As soon as one candidate is determined, start campaigning him in the news with photo-ops and radio spots.  Cheap form of advertising.  Once the Republicans and/or Democrats begin their primaries, have the third party run his TV spots as a sign of equal strength against the other two parties.  This way, but the time the Democrats and Republicans have begun settling on their picks, the thrid party candidate will be well established in the arena and ready for the debates come the fall.

I would love to see us finally break out of this 2-party trap we are currently in.  There is no way the majority of the populous can be "represented" by a choice of two people whom are polor opposites.  A third party can break up this deadlock and provide true balance to the playing field.

[ilikeverin]

Here's a good idea: Start local.

That way you can build up a good base... if you start national (for instance, with a split in leadership, kind of what happened to the Reform Party), then you're pretty much doomed... all your momentum is from that.  If you start local (like the Progressive Party of Vermont), at a mayor's election, for instance, than slowly work up your momentum, you'll probably be more successful in the long run.

Yes, I've heard this before, but I can't cite it because I don't remember where I heard it.

Just my $.02.

[Mort from NewYawk]

StateRights,

The only way we will be able to get a solid third candidate into the office is with two years of campaigning, and the development of real party values.  Right now, both the Democrats and Republicans have shifted back to their extreme Left and Right sides.  A third party that can actually compete in this arena would be one that sits well with the moderates of these two parties.  That whole "Conservative Liberal" concept from the 90's is probably the best way to describe it.

Once the party's core beliefs are established, the word needs to get out to the public.  Don't wait for the campaign year to begin either.  Start right after the midterm elections, and spend 6 months just promoting and explaining the party.  

After that, begin identifying potential candidates that fit the party's mold and start their debates early.  As soon as one candidate is determined, start campaigning him in the news with photo-ops and radio spots.  Cheap form of advertising.  Once the Republicans and/or Democrats begin their primaries, have the third party run his TV spots as a sign of equal strength against the other two parties.  This way, but the time the Democrats and Republicans have begun settling on their picks, the thrid party candidate will be well established in the arena and ready for the debates come the fall.

I would love to see us finally break out of this 2-party trap we are currently in.  There is no way the majority of the populous can be "represented" by a choice of two people whom are polor opposites.  A third party can break up this deadlock and provide true balance to the playing field.

MODU, well said.

I am a lifelong Democrat who has voted Republican for President in more recent elections, when the Democrat was a relic of the past, a classic 60's liberal. Kerry is clearly out of this wing of the party, which has inexplicably taken control again after having so much success with the more moderate stance of Clinton.

I knew a year ago that I would support no Democrat except Lieberman. I will vote for George Bush because he is the right man for the world situation today, but I dislike the social and class agendas, as well as the frequent secretiveness that the Republicans often bring to power.

I would support the Democrats again if they could get out of their post-Vietnam malaise on foreign policy, but if they don't, I would like nothing more than a new center party that has a backbone in foreign policy, a head in fiscal policy, and a heart in social policy.

[MODU]

In all seriousness, I've often wondered what went into creating a political party.  I've done a lot of research on independent candidates, and have discovered at least 40 different political parties.  Most of these are parties about one or two specific issues, and not really a serious national party.

But to create one that could actually compete on a national level would be a real interesting (and possible fun) challege.  Take the best of the two dominant parties, and identify the moderate middle.  That alone would take at least two months due to the wide spectrum which the two parties cover.  And then, to make sure that there are no conflict-of-interests between the moderate view points (like you wouldn't want to be an isolationist nation yet be pro free trade).  And last, but not least, obtain funding so you can launch the party.

Maybe when I win the lottery.  hahaha

[??????????]

StateRights,

The only way we will be able to get a solid third candidate into the office is with two years of campaigning, and the development of real party values.  Right now, both the Democrats and Republicans have shifted back to their extreme Left and Right sides.  A third party that can actually compete in this arena would be one that sits well with the moderates of these two parties.  That whole "Conservative Liberal" concept from the 90's is probably the best way to describe it.

Once the party's core beliefs are established, the word needs to get out to the public.  Don't wait for the campaign year to begin either.  Start right after the midterm elections, and spend 6 months just promoting and explaining the party.  

After that, begin identifying potential candidates that fit the party's mold and start their debates early.  As soon as one candidate is determined, start campaigning him in the news with photo-ops and radio spots.  Cheap form of advertising.  Once the Republicans and/or Democrats begin their primaries, have the third party run his TV spots as a sign of equal strength against the other two parties.  This way, but the time the Democrats and Republicans have begun settling on their picks, the thrid party candidate will be well established in the arena and ready for the debates come the fall.

I would love to see us finally break out of this 2-party trap we are currently in.  There is no way the majority of the populous can be "represented" by a choice of two people whom are polor opposites.  A third party can break up this deadlock and provide true balance to the playing field.

I agree with your idea here. The only problem is that until both parties accept a third party candidate into the debates it will be very hard for a third party candidate to garner support.

[??????????]

StateRights,

The only way we will be able to get a solid third candidate into the office is with two years of campaigning, and the development of real party values.  Right now, both the Democrats and Republicans have shifted back to their extreme Left and Right sides.  A third party that can actually compete in this arena would be one that sits well with the moderates of these two parties.  That whole "Conservative Liberal" concept from the 90's is probably the best way to describe it.

Once the party's core beliefs are established, the word needs to get out to the public.  Don't wait for the campaign year to begin either.  Start right after the midterm elections, and spend 6 months just promoting and explaining the party.  

After that, begin identifying potential candidates that fit the party's mold and start their debates early.  As soon as one candidate is determined, start campaigning him in the news with photo-ops and radio spots.  Cheap form of advertising.  Once the Republicans and/or Democrats begin their primaries, have the third party run his TV spots as a sign of equal strength against the other two parties.  This way, but the time the Democrats and Republicans have begun settling on their picks, the thrid party candidate will be well established in the arena and ready for the debates come the fall.

I would love to see us finally break out of this 2-party trap we are currently in.  There is no way the majority of the populous can be "represented" by a choice of two people whom are polor opposites.  A third party can break up this deadlock and provide true balance to the playing field.

MODU, well said.

I am a lifelong Democrat who has voted Republican for President in more recent elections, when the Democrat was a relic of the past, a classic 60's liberal. Kerry is clearly out of this wing of the party, which has inexplicably taken control again after having so much success with the more moderate stance of Clinton.

I knew a year ago that I would support no Democrat except Lieberman. I will vote for George Bush because he is the right man for the world situation today, but I dislike the social and class agendas, as well as the frequent secretiveness that the Republicans often bring to power.

I would support the Democrats again if they could get out of their post-Vietnam malaise on foreign policy, but if they don't, I would like nothing more than a new center party that has a backbone in foreign policy, a head in fiscal policy, and a heart in social policy.

Another fine post Mort. And I agree with you on this post vietnam malaise problem. It will be a great day in this country when we get most of those who either served in Vietnam or lived to protest it are to old to run for office. I hope I don't catch heat for it but that's how I feel.

[Fritz]

Remember Ross Perot?

[TeePee4Prez]

I have a feeling that Kerry, maybe Gore and other Democratic heavy hitters are taking Nader very seriously after 2000, and playing him beautifully.

Perhaps, like Gore, his job will be to keep the vocal anti-Bush and anti-war crowd in the election, then throw Kerry his support late in the campaign, perhaps in exchange for a Cabinet position (Health and Human Services)?

I actually thought of that idea as well.

[California Dreamer]

Nader was a factor in 6 states in 2000
In two states he had more votes than Bush's margin of victory
New Hampshire
Florida

And in 5 other states that Gore won narrowly with under 50% he could have easily tipped it the other way:
Oregon
New Mexico
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota

He got 2.5% in Ohio last time...even half that could easily tip the balance back to Bush. Look at Iowa, Nader got 2.25% and Gore only won by 0.31

Nader is a huge factor for Kerry cause it forces him to shore up his position politically on the left at the cost of votes in the middle. Plus it forces Kerry to spend more money in states that should be safer which is money he could spend in PA, OH and FL (which themselves can be swung to Bush in a close election)

In the end...if this election is close, then Bush will win if Nader even gets 1%-2%

[muon2]

I admit, this is really a wild guess, but simply based on Nader's comments, I don't think he'll hurt Kerry.  Not because he won't pull support away from Kerry... he would.  Rather, I suspect... since he's only praised Kerry and bashed Bush... I think he's trying to energize far left wingers (many who don't vote at all).  He will then drop out and endorse Kerry... The goal being, to bring new voters in and THEN convince them to cast their vote for Kerry.

One key indication that I could be WRONG... Nader is fighting awfully hard to get on the ballots of various states.  If this were all just some grand scheme, as I suggest, why would he even care if he were on the ballots?  In fact, if I were right, he'd rather NOT be... after all, some people might vote for him anyway, as long as he's on the ballot (yes, if he backs out early enough, his name can be removed... but why fight so hard to get on in the first place?).

So, I may well be dead wrong, and I'm also not much into "conspiracy theories".  But given Nader's rhetoric and the pressure against him to drop out (even by some former supporters), I can't help but suspect that Nader is waging a leftist surrogate battle to bring in support for Kerry.  So, in short, I may well be off the wall here, but I suspect Nader to have no impact.

I was listening to Karen Tumulty of Time on the radio this morning. She made it pretty clear that he won't drop out, and won't backdown. She recently had an
article based on a lengthy interview of Nader. Many of your sugeestions were also brought forth in questions to her, but she seemed pretty convinced that Nader sees Kerry's race as Kerry's race alone, and he'll make his own race.