Nader wins Peace and Freedom nomination

The Peace and Freedom Party has selected independent candidate Ralph Nader and his runningmate Matt Gonzalez as its 2008 presidential ticket. According to the PFP’s homepage, “Both nominees agree with the fundamentals of the P & F platform and bring with them a strong combination of experience, credibility, and legislative accomplishment.”

According to liveblogging on White Light Black Light, the voting results from the single round of voting was Nader 46, Gloria La Riva 27, Brian Moore 10, Cynthia McKinney 6.

The nomination brings with it a a guaranteed place on the Californian ballot this November. In 2000 as the Green Party nominee, Nader garnered 3.8% with 418,707 votes, an improvement over his 1996 showing of 2.4% with 237,016 votes. By contrast, as a write-in candidate in 2004, he only scored 19,218 votes.

UPDATE: Ballot Access News gives us two historical insights into the Nader nomination:

This is the first time the Peace & Freedom Party has nominated someone who is expected to be on the ballot in a majority of states, in its entire history. That history extends back to 1968.

Nader is the first caucasian male to be the presidential nominee of the Peace & Freedom Party since 1972, when Dr. Benjamin Spock was the party’s nominee.

29 thoughts on “Nader wins Peace and Freedom nomination

  1. rob in cal

    Congrats to Nader. Glad to see Peace and Freedom party using its California base to nominate someone who will actually get national attention. One more anti-war voice on our California ballot. Now if we can only get Keyes off and Baldwin on for the AIP.

  2. Gregg Jocoy

    I am glad Nader won the nomination. I am also glad that Mike Gillis has apparently allowed now that Nader is white in standard parlance and as seen by the American voter. Therefore, as I asserted before, the Green Party has thrice nominated single white male lawyers. Stick that in your “Green Party is anti-white male” pipe and smoke it.

  3. Mike Gillis

    I didn’t notice that. He’s still not white.

    Perception is irrelevant. Only reality is. The world could believe him to be a Klingon or a unicorn, and he’d still be an Arab American.

  4. Sivarticus

    Nader is a Lebanese American, and Gonzalez obviously of Latino lineage. That alone is far more diverse than the black nationalist trash on the GP side, even if their skin color appears “white.” Haven’t heard Nader/Gonzalez running around calling for reparations and apologies for slavery either.

    The only way Black Panther brownshirts will ever get money or an apology from me is if they take it by force. I will not submit quietly to the Apartheid-like regime favored by McKinney and other black nationalists.

  5. Austin Cassidy

    I think that probably seals 1 million votes for Nader. This could be the first election since 1948 where we have two third party candidates who top 1 million votes each. Assuming Barr manages to pull it off.

  6. Trent Hill

    “I didn’t notice that. He’s still not white.

    Perception is irrelevant. Only reality is. The world could believe him to be a Klingon or a unicorn, and he’d still be an Arab American.”

    White? Not exactly–but he isnt Arab American either…

    He’s Greek-Lebanese, not Arab-Lebanese. This is VERY different.
    Just like a Greek-Creton or a Turkish-Creton.

  7. paulie cannoli

    I didn’t notice that. He’s still not white.

    Where do you get your definition of “white”?

    Perception is irrelevant. Only reality is. The world could believe him to be a Klingon or a unicorn, and he’d still be an Arab American.

    Yes, and Arabs are “white”.

  8. paulie cannoli

    Nader is a Lebanese American, and Gonzalez obviously of Latino lineage. That alone is far more diverse….

    ….than the LP and CP tickets. Well, OK, Bob Barr appears to be possibly part “black”, but if it’s actually true, I’m not aware of him ever claiming that part of his heritage.

  9. Fred Church Ortiz Post author

    He’s Greek-Lebanese, not Arab-Lebanese.

    Why’s he have an Arab surname?

  10. Austin Cassidy

    Well, he’s polling near or at double-digits in a number of states.

    If I had to put money on it, I would bet Barr breaks a million. But it’s certainly not a sure thing.

    I’d say 1.5 million for Nader and 1.1 million for Barr right now. But that’s a total guess on my part.

  11. paulie cannoli

    I don’t see polling at this stage as very relevant. The $billion(s) and heavy publicity guns have not yet been unveiled to scare people about the two major party candidates and herd them into voting for one or the other.

    Obamanation/ New Yorker magazine cover style propaganda against Obama, and war nut, will make abortion illegal, etc., against McCain.

    Barr’s $1-2 million or so will not make a dent against all that. Badnarik was polling 5% in the states where he was organized enough to do polling, and it was closer to the election.

    In 2004, the LP had many more members, many more candidates, more money, and better organization than it has now. It looks like Barr will raise about the same amount of money as Badnarik, except that it will be less as a percentage of all the campaign spending, since the D and R are spending a lot more this year.

    Badnarik had his detractors within the LP, but not nearly to the extent that Barr does. Consider that 46% of the delegates voted for a candidate who felt her differences with Barr were so great that she could not be on the same ticket with him, and 48% voted for a VP candidate who was calling Barr, Barr campaign manager Russ Verney, and convention keynote speaker Richard Viguerie “part of a hostile takeover of the LP” a week earlier on his radio show.

  12. Fred Church Ortiz Post author

    I’d say Barr & Nader both get “around” a million. I can’t guess how they place. Anywhere from 700Gs to 1.2. But I also think we’re headed for big turnout, and with the lower end of that ceiling likelier both will stay below 1%.

    Badnarik was polling 5% in the states where he was organized enough to do polling, and it was closer to the election.

    What states was he organized enough to do polling?

  13. Lance Brown

    paulie,

    Badnarik never polled as high as Barr is. And more importantly, Badnarik’s campaign was hopelessly attention-deprived. I also think that there was a big enthusiasm gap for Badnarik among Libertarians , not because of his positions, but because his campaign was so obviously not going to be taken seriously, or break out in any major way.

    The difference is that Barr stands to get a lot of coverage (and, just as importantly, a lot of incidental mentions) – way more than any LP candidate in the past 20 years, or any LP candidate period, more likely. Things will still be slanted enormously against him, but he will have much more of a fair chance at exposure to voters than our past candidates.

    He doubtless won’t do as much as he could with that exposure (he already hasn’t), but even if he just auto-looped what he’s been saying so far, he’s bound to draw considerably more support than we’ve seen in recent LP runs. Despite his handful of–well, not my hands, but someone with bigger hands…their hand full of–bad positions, he delivers a lot of his freedom message with admirable tenacity. If someone is worried about a creeping police/surveillance state, and the erosion of the Constitution, Bob Barr should be a pretty attractive option, given the choices. And a lot of people are pretty worried about that.

    The biggest difference between Barr’s campaign and the others is that he has a real opportunity to get serious main-stage style coverage. I’m not saying he’ll pull it off, but he has the genuine opportunity. Bob Barr could end up on the cover of Time, Newsweek, etc. And virtually any candidate with a message of freedom (and freedom from the political status quo) who got that level of exposure would be bound to get record-setting Libertarian vote totals. Even Bob Barr.

    He could also piss it away and have his numbers falter and then fall off. But I think it’s just as reasonable to expect that his campaign will develop a respectable body of support. Whether Libertarians like it or not. ;-)

  14. paulie cannoli

    Badnarik never polled as high as Barr is.

    Did they poll in July? I think not, but I could be wrong.


    And more importantly, Badnarik’s campaign was hopelessly attention-deprived.

    Browne’s < ahref="http://www.harrybrowne.org/2000/medialist.htm">wasn’t.

    I also think that there was a big enthusiasm gap for Badnarik among Libertarians , not because of his positions, but because his campaign was so obviously not going to be taken seriously, or break out in any major way.

    Yet he was able to get as many votes, approximately, as Harry Browne, who suffered no such enthusiasm or attention gap.

    And raise as much money as Barr – slightly more so far, in fact. Not a good sign for Barr, I’m sad to say.

    The difference is that Barr stands to get a lot of coverage (and, just as importantly, a lot of incidental mentions) – way more than any LP candidate in the past 20 years, or any LP candidate period, more likely. Things will still be slanted enormously against him, but he will have much more of a fair chance at exposure to voters than our past candidates.

    Because he is a past Congressman? So was Ron Paul when he ran in 1988. So is Cynthia McKinney this year.

    The biggest difference between Barr’s campaign and the others is that he has a real opportunity to get serious main-stage style coverage. I’m not saying he’ll pull it off, but he has the genuine opportunity. Bob Barr could end up on the cover of Time, Newsweek, etc.

    I don’t see him doing anything that would merit that. Major media generally don’t care to mention campaigns that are not taking off on their own: raising tens of millions off dollars, polling in the debate inclusion range, etc.

    Even if they do, it’s no guarantee of success. Buchanan in 2000 was all over the media, had an eight figure war chest, 40 years in the public eye, and a party that had a sitting Governor and a party that polled over 8% for potus the previous time. Ended up in the same ballparks as Browne.

    Nader was certainly well known in 2004, and many people were (and are) concerned about corporate rapacity. Yet, he ended up in the same ballparks too.

    But I think it’s just as reasonable to expect that his campaign will develop a respectable body of support. Whether Libertarians like it or not.

    I’d like him to, despite whatever misgivings I have about him. I just don’t see him doing it. Something might change, of course. But if I had to bet, I’d go with proven results.

  15. Austin Cassidy

    Barr is polling at 6-7% in Georgia. If that becomes 3% on election day, it’s still good for about 100k votes.

  16. Sivarticus

    2004 was not a good year for third parties. 2000 wasn’t the best either. It seems like these elections with razor thin margins can only hurt third parties from both sides of the political spectrum (and Libertarians). The biggest indicator of success for Barr or Nader may well be how the race looks in October.

    If either Obama or McCain is knocking the other one to the floor, then dissatisfied voters will probably be more likely to vote for someone closer to their views instead of a “lesser evil” candidate. I still believe 2004 was the worst of it, though. Both Bush and Kerry used apocalyptic campaigning to make the other one seem like the anti-Christ. I just don’t see it as full blown in 2008. McCain is too dumb to do it effectively, and Obama will want to maintain his squeaky clean change image as long as he can.

    Still, the best thing for third parties is a climate where the election already appears decided before the votes are cast. Then there will be no reason for fence riders not to vote third party if it looks like a foregone conclusion.

  17. paulie cannoli

    If that becomes 3% on election day, it’s still good for about 100k votes.

    Key word, if.

    2004 was not a good year for third parties. 2000 wasn’t the best either. It seems like these elections with razor thin margins can only hurt third parties from both sides of the political spectrum (and Libertarians). The biggest indicator of success for Barr or Nader may well be how the race looks in October.

    Quite possibly.

    If either Obama or McCain is knocking the other one to the floor, then dissatisfied voters will probably be more likely to vote for someone closer to their views instead of a “lesser evil” candidate.

    ’88 and ’92 were not especially close, neither was ’96. That did not translates into tons of votes for the LP in any of those years…or for any third party or independent in ’88.

    still believe 2004 was the worst of it, though. Both Bush and Kerry used apocalyptic campaigning to make the other one seem like the anti-Christ. I just don’t see it as full blown in 2008.

    Yet.

    McCain is too dumb to do it effectively, and Obama will want to maintain his squeaky clean change image as long as he can.

    Never fret, they have supporters and surrogates who are smarter, with no image to worry over.

  18. Lance Brown

    paulie,

    While it’s true that Browne got more media than Badnarik, he was still very attention-deprived, when compared to the main candidates, or even when compared to Bob Barr.

    Second, you’re wrong to claim there was no enthusiasm gap for Browne in 2000. Within the LP, Browne’s campaign was operating under the burden of a dramatic supposed scandal.

    You’re clearly reaching for reasons to be pessimistic about Barr. See your citing of Nader 2004, but not Nader 2000, and your ignoring the fact that the Reform Party was a shattered mess when Buchanan was on its ticket. (Not to mention he had already run two failed campaigns for prez, and was regarded as racist and anti-semitic by many.) Obviously, if you’re looking for examples of how a campaign can succeed, it’s less than helpful to cite only campaigns that failed.

    We have examples of “renegade” candidates who caught fire and achieved a notable level of success (I’m thinking Perot, Nader, and Ventura). Barr is not as much of a known public quantity as those three, and so it makes sense that his campaign would start off more slowly. (Ventura’s campaign was not even in the ballpark really until he got a fair shot at speaking to voters, partly for the same reason.) But the media takes Barr relatively seriously…

    Because he is a past Congressman? So was Ron Paul when he ran in 1988. So is Cynthia McKinney this year.

    First, Ron Paul got the third highest LP prez vote total so far – and almost twice the total from 4 years earlier. So it seems likely that his past in Congress did help him get more exposure and success.

    Second, it’s not just that Barr is a former congressman. You can see that by the fact that he has gotten far better press than McKinney so far (and, I suspecting, than Ron Paul in 1988). The key is that Barr has standing in the media’s eye. They know him and have had a friendly relationship with him; they have reported on him over and over and over (before he ran for prez); he was a key figure in one of the top news stories of the previous decade; when in Congress, he wasn’t just a member, he was a leader; since leaving Congress, he has been a relatively loud voice against the administration…and so on. He has established media clout, and within the news industry, has nearly 100% name recognition. And as much as some members of the media may have had an overall negative impression of him before 2008, he is undercutting that significantly by playing against type. (In contrast with McKinney, who seems to be trapped in the media box she was put in during her last years in Congress.)

    All his faults not withstanding, I think it takes a bit of willful blindness to think that Barr doesn’t have a very good chance of outperforming most if not all previous LP presidential runs when it comes to vote totals.

  19. Morgan Wick

    Barr is also benefiting from the Ron Paul campaign more than McKinney, because Paul ran as a Republican, the Greens are seen as “the Democrats only more so”, and Paul’s ’88 run got some play among Paul supporters and made the Libertarian Party more likely to be their default stop in the general election by default. That, and the image and message of the Libertarian Party is a cleaner anti-Bush message than that of the Greens. More people are concerned about Bush’s abuses of power and shredding of the Constitution than his disdain for the environment.

    McKinney is also suffering from the fact that McCain is more likely to have votes leached from him than Obama. I saw one poll on the Olbermann show that suggested that when Barr and Nader were added, Obama’s vote total remained virtually unchanged (I didn’t catch the exact numbers). The conventional wisdom has long been that Barr would take votes away from McCain, but Ralph “stole the election for Bush in the first place” Nader? Attracting votes from the Republican?

    Don’t be surprised if Baldwin manages to out-poll McKinney in November, both by having more appeal to Republicans and more credibility to Paulites. Her only hope may be trying to appeal to Hillary voters who distrust Obama and who really wanted to vote for the first woman president, but I don’t know how many of those there are left or how credible they would find McKinney.

  20. Austin Cassidy

    I dunno. I think if Baldwin fails to get on the ballot in California and the nomination of Alan Keyes holds up in court, then there’s no chance he’ll beat McKinney.

  21. Sivarticus

    I think Baldwin, with or without California, easily surpasses McKinney. Now that Nader is on in CA, I expect the Greens to perform even worse in the state than they did in 2004. How many Naderites and disgruntled lefties voted Cobb simply because he was the left choice on the ballot last time around?

    If Nader’s massive win in the California primary back the spring is any indication, even most of the GP’s registered members in California will vote for him over black nationalist McFreaky.

Leave a Reply