Liz suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value reader offers and events

Click here for the latest Spectator Wine Offers

Does Nader matter?

James Forsyth

Sunday, 24th February 2008

Considering what happened in 2000, it is understandable that Ralph Nader’s entrance into the race is drawing much ink. But it is worth remembering that he also ran in 2004 with minimal impact. Indeed, it seems safe to assume that Nader will be an irrelevance this time round.

In 2000, Nader was helped by the fact that the two main party candidates seemed so similar, a Democratic administration that hadn’t lived up to the hopes of some on the left and a feeling that this was a meaningless election where it was safe to cast a protest vote. This time round, none of these factors apply: it is an obviously consequential election, the Republican and Democratic candidates will offer a clear ideological contrast and the left in America has been united by the Bush presidency.

In 2004, Nader got 0.38 percent of the vote. I’d be surprised if he did not receive a smaller percentage this November.

Previous Back to Americano Next

Blogs: Coffee House | Trading Floor | Clive Davis | Melanie Phillips | Stephen Pollard

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

TGF UKIP

February 24th, 2008 11:25pm

Unfortunately, while Nader may be irrelevant, Ron Paul sure isn't. Given the amount of money he raised and the consistent 5%+ support he got in the Republican primaries, he will almost certainly be a massive negative for McCain if he runs as a Conservative/Libertarian Independent. If Ohio and Texas do mark the end of Hillary, it will be interesting to see how the Democrats paint McCain in the hope of enticing Ron Paul into the contest. It is really amazing how little attention the British Press have paid to what could be an election determining candidacy.

James Forsyth

February 24th, 2008 11:33pm

TGF, Ron Paul has said that he's scaling back his presidential bid to ensure that he holds his house seat. As long as he wins his pirmary there, I'll expect him just to run for Congress. Who knows, though, how he'll spend all that money?

Hal

February 25th, 2008 5:01am

The 2000 Florida recount was a searing experience for many of us in the US. Nader got about 97,000 votes out of 6 million cast in Florida that year. It's been hard to forgive the foolishness of those 97,000, and impossible to forgive Nader's megalomania. The nerve having been rubbed raw, Nader's running in 2004 and again this year induces more than a little anxiety among Democrats.

David Lindsay

February 25th, 2008 6:41pm

Ralph, don't run. Well, not unless the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton after all. Then people who could not bring themselves to vote for the actually preferable John McCain could vote for Nader and still keep out Bush's nearest thing to a continuity candidate, who threatens a full-blown return to the Administration that gave America and the world NAFTA, GATT, the bombing of Yugoslavia to smithereens, the adventures in Somalia and elsewhere, and the spectacular failure to deliver universal healthcare. But Obama is still better than McCain. So if the Democrats nominate Obama, then, please, Ralph, don't run.