Comments on: Ralph Nader got over 700,000 votes

By: Sivarticus

Sivarticus — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:13:33 +0000

Whiny Democrats have done the worst damage to all third parties since 2000. I think in the minds of many who came to hate Bush, Nader the “spoiler” came to symbolize all third parties, and is thus something to be avoided for most people for fear of electing the “greater evil.” Continued Democratic fearmongering has almost finished off what was left of the Greens (seemingly the only third party with momentum around 2000). Meanwhile, wherever they fail, they continue to bitch about parties that aren’t even that close to them in ideology, like the Independence Party here in Minnesota. You should’ve heard them bawling over Barkley and IPMN Congressional candidates. I’m convinced that Democrats are the greatest threat to third parties right now, especially since they have more power after the latest election, though I don’t know what to do about it.

By: Mike Gillis

Mike Gillis — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:37:34 +0000

Dave,

You also don’t take into account the much-changed political landscape for third parties since 1996.

In 1996, we hadn’t had 8 years of anti-Nader/third party propaganda and we were in the middle of Ross Perot’s second run for office.

Also during the 90s, we saw a number of independent governors elected, plus the Ventura win and other factors that showed an electorate far more open to voting against the duopoly.

It was easy for even a well-known draft candidate like Nader to ride that wave without really trying.

And it’s worth mentioning that even a draft campaign like Nader ’96 outperformed every third party campaign aside from Perot’s.

Post-2000, even after all of the smears and the lawsuits and the one-sided and well financed attacks against Nader he STILL beat Barr, McKinney and other well-known third party candidates by a large margin.

And he beat all other third party candidates in 2004, despite being thrown off of ballots and sued into debt by political opponents and denied the CA ballot among others.

90% of his poor performance is totally out of his control, as there is a ceiling for third party vote totals after such a big anti-third party backlash after the 2000 election.

In the current political environment, only a billionaire capable of buying their own TV ads and infomercials can break through that ceiling.

I don’t think a majority of the blame for the low vote total for Nader, Barr and others is to be lain on the candidates or their campaigns.

I think that the environment is just so incredible hostile to third parties at this time that they simply wouldn’t have been able to do much better unless they’d been allowed to debate the major parties on television.

Had Nader run this campaign in 1996, his vote total would be far higher. Likewise with Barr.

The fact that Nader can top 700,000 and beat other third parties, despite having his name specifically dragged through the mud by Democratic zombies for eight years, is an accomplishment.

The vote totals for any third party campaign wasn’t what I hoped it would be, but comparing this to 1996 is just apples and oranges.

The LP BARELY topped their 1996 numbers in this election, and did so with a far better known candidate who raised more money and got more media.

By: Catholic Trotskyist

Catholic Trotskyist — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:23:54 +0000

Yes, I agree with Joseph again, Nader is pathetic, and did pathetically. But this was for the good of the country.

By: richardwinger

richardwinger — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:23:15 +0000

Nader will break 100,000 in California when all the votes are counted.

By: daveweigel

daveweigel — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:42:16 +0000

It’s pretty lousy when you consider that Nader was on 46 ballots + DC this time and roughly two dozen ballots in 1996. Twelve years ago he won 25,070 votes in Colorado. This year he won 12,542 votes. Twelve years ago he won 237,016 votes in California, and this year he didn’t even break 100,000. Despite spending more money and hiring more staff, he’s simply growing less and less popular. His 0.55% of the national vote is down from 0.71% in 1996.

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:32:40 +0000

So could Brian Moore. He had registered write-in status in a lot of states, unlike other Socialists.

By: Ross Levin

Ross Levin — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:26:24 +0000

One of the socialists – Roger Calero – could break 10,000 votes.

By: richardwinger

richardwinger — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:11:46 +0000

I don’t agree that it’s “pathetic” compared to his past returns. It is his 2nd highest vote total ever.

By: Libertarian Joseph

Libertarian Joseph — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:42:10 +0000

Still a pathetic tally when you compare to his past performances.