« Small Hints on the Election from Small Places | Main | Bush Ads Hurting Kerry in Swing States »
Monday, March 29, 2004
Nader Apparently Getting on Ballot in OR
Posted by DavidNYCThough Oregon clocks in at a 5% margin according to my methodology, Al Gore actually won the state in 2000 by less that 7,000 votes, or barely .5%. Nader took in 5% himself, his third-best swing-state performance. He did better only in MN and CO.
This is of concern because Nader appears poised to get on the ballot quite easily in Oregon, without spending much, if any, money at all. Manny at DKos points us to this article which describes an unusual way in which candidates can seek ballot access: Basically, you get a thousand petition-signers to come to you all at once, rather than the other way around. I'll be curious to see how well this works in practice, though.
As always, I'm not really sure what Nader voters are going to do this time around. The CW says that many (but surely not all) one-time Naderites now hate Bush so much that they're willing to pull the lever for a Dem, and of course I pray that this is true. As a friend pointed out to me, one argument that won't fly this year is that Nader is simply trying to build up the Green Party because, of course, he's running as an independent. I think that may have been a compelling reason for some people (particularly those who were so-called "Nader traders") back in 2000. But I think many people might still find what they think are good reasons to vote Ralph over Kerry.
Ultimately, I still believe that, as Kerry's name recognition grows and he gets on the airwaves in more and more states, Nader's support will flag. And, relating back to Ralph's independent run, he simply won't have a party apparatus to help him out nationwide. Ross Perot could overcome this with his personal fortune, of course. If there are any old-time political hands out there, I'd be curious to know how John Anderson pulled down his 6.6% as an independent back in 1980.
Posted at 10:27 PM in Oregon | Technorati
Comments
Well, I hope that it is fairly easy for Nader to get on the ballot in Oregon. He has too much support not to. And ballot access is an important element to opening up elections in America (and elsewhere of course). And this isn't really a judgement on his decision to run so much as a point of procedure - don't lose the forest in the trees kind of thing.
I do think you are worrying too much about Nader David. Obviously, Democrats shouldn't ignore him, but even Nader himself is far less strident in his campaign rhetoric on the subject. What do you make of this alleged meeting he is to have with Kerry?
stilll debating - do i get up at 5am to watch the Yankees game or just watch it on replay? these are the important decisions in life I'm afraid!
Posted by: seamus at March 29, 2004 11:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Seamus, you're a Yankee fan? I'm revoking your guest posting privileges! :)
Posted by: DavidNYC at March 30, 2004 12:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
As far as Anderson is concerned. I voted for him in '80. I think he got what he got in terms of votes to large extent because of media coverage. I distinctly remember a Time or Newsweek story just a few weeks before the election that was about how Anderson could win the Presidency -- all arcane electioneering but interesting.
I voted for Carter because I was disappointed that Carter wasn't liberal enough -- and I learned my lesson. Protest votes mean nothing except that the other worse party wins. Eight years of Ronald Reagan convinced me never to throw my vote away again. And Ronald was just a warm up to what W is doing to this country.
Boulanger
Posted by: Boulanger at March 30, 2004 10:13 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Thanks for sharing your recollections, Boulanger. What I am most interested in is knowing how Anderson actually got on the ballot. For example, I see that Anderson got on with the Liberal Party line in New York State - a state which otherwise has exceptionally onerous ballot access laws. But it seems to me that he got on the ballot in all 50 states (or at least, almost all). That's a very costly and/or time-consuming process when you aren't backed by a party of some sort, even if it's a small party like the Greens.
Posted by: DavidNYC at March 30, 2004 02:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I don't think the Nader problem can be underestimated. This is going to be a really close election--look how Bush has already pushed up Kerry's unfavorable numbers with negative advertising--and more to come. Nader will probably get help from Republicans, he's already getting money. A link about Nader: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040126&s=ireland
Posted by: Mary at March 30, 2004 02:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Why do I support Ralph Nader and NOT John Kerry. Primarily because Ralph isn't a self serving hypocrite like Kerry.
John Kerry, man of the common folk.... he understands your pain, really... trust him - lol, yeah - right ~
The many homes of Democrat Presidential candidate, John F. Kerry.
Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania ��(Assessed value: $3.7 million)
Ketchum, Idaho ski getaway/vacation home ��(Assessed value: $4.916 million)
Washington, D.C - Georgetown area (assessment: $4.7 million)
Nantucket, Massachusetts waterfront retreat on Brant Point (Assessed value: $9.18 million)
Boston, Massachusetts ��- Beacon Hill home (Assessed value: $6.9)
Oh, and he sold this estate in Italy to George Clooney, just before announcing his running for president. ��I guess he thought it might not sit well with the common man. ��($7.8 million)
Other foreign property ownership by John Kerry is unknown... because he denied repeated requests for this information.
Class warfare is not right, but neither is being a hypocrite. ��This man wants to be president, while claiming that he relates to Joe-6-pack and the common man.
Posted by: Mark Bennett at June 7, 2004 06:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
So, Bush is guilty of the same elitist nonsense. Bush is a silver spooned brat too, it's just that he does a better job of playing his background down. Bush knows how to talk like a commoner to the common man. He knows how to push their buttons. Just because Bush is a better actor than Kerry, it doesn't make him any less of an elitist at heart. Bush does, after all, represent the elitist of elites in America. The super-wealthy. That's why we're in Iraq after all.
Posted by: Rock_nj at June 7, 2004 06:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Posted by: link- at August 28, 2004 03:32 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment