Difficult to See Nader Run as Anything More than Vanity.
I really like Raplh Nader and I thought he was very entertaining in 2000. He said alot of things that were true (and not true) and he was a great foil to Bush and Gore. That said, I think the electorate on the Left has learned its lesson from 2000. There is indeed something worse than the establishment candidate.
It's hard to see Ralph getting on the ballots this time around, however, let alone getting votes. Dean was the story of 2003-2004. It looks awfully presumptuous to declare yourself the candidate who will disturb the 2 party system--when you've been doing very, very little over the last 4 years in comparison to someone like Dean.
Nader's decision to run is really an outrage, then, in 2004. It is vain, and egotistical. He has no organization and no one is asking him to run. It's really quite sad and pathetic, actually.
By the way, it's not "proven" that Nader caused Gore to lose in 2000. Again, I must re-state that I thought it was refreshing to have him in the race in 2000. But, all of the analysis which asserts Nader caused Bush to lose fails. A common mis-conception is, for example, that in states where the margin of Gore's loss was smaller than the percentage Nader recieved, it is therefore "proven" Nader caused Gore to lose that State. This statistical nonsense can be dismantled all sorts of ways: one begins with the 50% turnout in the electorate as one fact that demolishes such an "analysis", and then you move on to the myriad questionable assumptions, like "all Nader voters would be Gore voters."
No one has "proven" that Nader caused Gore to lose. No real analysis of the exit data exists.
In 2004 however "everything" has changed. Nader is setting himself to be hated and reviled--or worse, ignored. Everybody "gets" his message already. But now its Ralph himself who seems like the worst person to be delivering that message.
Nader: another out of touch candidate from Washington DC, whose finger could not be further from "the pulse." |
