The more I hear Ralph Nader speak, the less I understand what is driving his current presidential bid, apart from getting attention for Ralph Nader. Four years ago, I could buy the argument that his candidacy was about laying groundwork for a viable third party at some point in the future. I thought that campaign was too much about Ralph Nader and not enough about any larger issue…but there was at least a smidgen of logic to his crusade.
This time, I don't get it. There is no real third party here and to the extent he's crusading for the principle of an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans, I think he's doing damage to that cause. In 2000, Nader got 2.74% of the popular vote and zero electoral votes. In most of the recent polls, he's been there or lower…and in most, he's dropping. The Washington Post-ABC News Poll, for instance, had him at 6% in mid-June, 4% in mid-July and now he's at 2%. He could go lower than that. Folks who admire Nader now have the luxury of being for him without causing their second choice candidate, Bush or Kerry, to lose their state. On Election Day, some of them won't take that chance because even if he's down below 1% nationally, we all recall that 2004 was "decided" by a handful of votes.
So what can Nader accomplish by staying in the race? It sure doesn't look like he's going to build on his 2000 total, so a third party candidate will look less viable than ever. So will his own future candidacy. You don't build a career in politics by getting fewer and fewer votes each time you run.
At one point, I thought Nader might aid Kerry by playing Bad Cop, saying things about Bush that the Democratic nominee couldn't lower himself to say. But so far, when Nader gets on TV at all, it's only because they want him to discuss whether or not he'll throw some state into Bush's electoral column and tip the election. No one is interested in what he thinks about the economy or Iraq or Halliburton. His candidacy is only about his candidacy. Even his own website is primarily about getting him on the ballot and denying claims that Republicans are paying his way on in states where they hope he'll hurt Kerry. And every time he denies that he could be a "spoiler," he loses a certain amount of credibility, and that's a bad thing for him to lose. Those who like the guy generally view him as a refreshing change from the old say-anything-to-get-elected politicos, and Nader is starting to sound like one. (A lot of folks also recall him saying there was no difference between Gore and Bush, which now sounds pretty disingenuous. He didn't exactly say that but he sure came close.)
He's not likely to get into the presidential debates, especially if he's polling below 2% nationally when they're configured. He's not going to win any electoral votes or demonstrate that he has any sort of growing constituency. And he's not going to get much news coverage except to make his lame denials that he could conceivably cause Kerry to lose some key state. That he will be a "spoiler" in one or more states seems to me unlikely but if Bush wins and it's close, Nader will not go down in history as the God of Consumer Rights. He'll be the guy whose ego twice pushed him into a race where he helped elect a man he called "the worst president in history." I don't see what positive thing he has a chance to make happen that's worth risking the downside. It's a shame because he once could have made the kind of difference he wanted to make.