The Nader Question

I respect Ralph Nader, and recognize his right to run for office. But I join (former) Nader supporters including Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and Nader's two-time running mate Winona LaDuke and ask you to vote for Kerry - at least in swing states.

In this critical 2004 Presidential Election, there are several names on the ballot, but only two men can win: George W. Bush or John F. Kerry. We all know this. Progressives and liberals cannot control what other people do, but we can control what we do - and that brings us to the Nader Question.

It's important to respect Ralph Nader, and recognize his right to run for office any way he likes. He has that right and people have the right to vote for Nader if they want.

This isn't about challenging or denying rights. This is all about asking if it's right for Nader (and his supporters) to work for votes in swing states - as opposed to states where Bush or Kerry have safe leads. I believe it's wrong, especially considering the Nader Legacy. Especially considering the Bush record. You or someone you know may disagree. I hope to change minds, because Nader and his supporters have done so much good for the planet.

Ralph Nader made a career of telling the truth and exposing lies. He served America well, leading and inspiring people to demand better from powerful institutions and - when that failed - working to hold them accountable. Using his example, we should analyze Nader's actions and hold him accountable for them. There are important reasons many well-known Nader supporters including Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and Nader's two-time running mate Winona LaDuke - advocate voting for Kerry - at least in swing states. (See: http://naderwatch.blogspot.com/ for more information.)

First, a few words about the 2000 Election. I believe most 2000 Ralph Nader voters - like almost all Americans - had no idea how close the election would be, much less that the Republicans would obstruct and finally halt the democratic process. Few could have imagined how terribly Bush would abuse his stolen authority. Intelligent, honest people of good will can disagree about the several causes for the 2000 Election debacle. I suggest we focus on the future rather than the past.

Almost all of the 50 States and the District of Columbia have "winner take all" systems. Whoever gains the most popular votes in that state wins all the Electoral Votes apportioned to that state. Florida was an exception in 2000, as we all know. According to the latest Zogby Poll, Bush would carry states with 274 Electoral Votes to Kerry's 264 - a narrow win for Bush if the election were held October 21.

However the state-by-state surveys show Kerry could still win if Nader supporters shift to Kerry, add their votes and maybe a little campaigning, to help beat Bush in several key states with 186 Electoral Votes. More than enough to tip the Electoral College and the election to Kerry. Or else the Nader campaign and its supporters may help Bush hold his narrow lead - or even expand it - ushering in a right wing neo-con hegemony in the Federal and Supreme Courts, and wrecking so much of what Nader and all of us have painstakingly built. Here are the states, their Electoral College representation, and the current margins:

The Zogby Poll shows Bush's lead over Kerry in some states is less than the reported support for Nader. In Colorado, Nader's support is about 3%, more than Bush's 1% lead for that state's 9 Electoral Votes - provided voters there reject a ballot measure which would apportion Electors based on the popular vote. After the last Census, Nevada gained Electoral College representation which now totals 5 votes. Bush leads by 4% there only because Nader's support approaches 6%. If Bush's 3% lead holds up in West Virginia, he'll win 5 votes in the Electoral College, but only if the people comprising Nader's nearly 5% support let Bush win. By shifting to Kerry, would-be Nader voters can take 19 Electoral Votes away from Bush and deliver them to Kerry. That's real political power, but that only scratches the surface.

In several key states, The Zogby Poll shows Nader's support roughly equals Bush's current leads. In Virginia with 13 Electoral Votes in the balance, Bush leads by 3% because Nader's support matches that margin. In Arizona with 10 Electoral Votes at stake, Bush leads by 3% and Nader's support roughly equals that tiny gap. In Arkansas, it's even closer: Bush leads by 2% - about the same as Nader's tally with 6 Electoral Votes up for grabs. In Tennessee - with 11 Electors - Bush enjoys a 2% because Nader attracts about that level of support.

In a stunning, impending deja-vu, Bush is ahead by a mere 1% in Florida, with 27 Electoral Votes - 10% of the 260 needed for victory - at stake. About the same percentage back Nader. We know Florida can swing the election all by itself, but all told, Bush stands to win 67 Electoral Votes from these five states because Nader supporters aren't planning to vote for Kerry.

As it stands, Kerry would lose in some close states even if all current Nader supporters shifted to Kerry, according to Zogby. However, trends and hard work from anti-Bush Democrats, Greens, Independents and others could change these states from Bush Red to Kerry Blue - provided Nader supporters help. Missouri has 11 votes in the Electoral College, and Bush leads there by 3% - but if 2% of the voters move toward Kerry, Nader supporters (at about 1%) could decide that race. A similar situation faces North Carolina voters who will choose 15 Electors. Bush leads by 4% - about double Nader's support. Still, Kerry could beat Bush in one or both of these states - and win the election - if Nader voters help Kerry vie for these 26 Electoral Votes.

Kerry leads narrowly in Iowa (7 EV), Michigan (17 EV), Minnesota (10 EV), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Pennsylvania (21) and Wisconsin (10). However, Kerry could lose all of them as Nader's support keeps 74 Electoral Votes in play. Each of those states could make a decisive difference and thereby empower the extreme right wing, or else deny Bush four more years. Nader supporters could be the ultimate "swing state voters" and deny Bush - or Kerry - up to 74 total Electoral Votes from these 7 states.

Much of this is speculation of course, but we can look at Oregon as a guide. There, with Nader off the ballot, Kerry's lead over Bush surged from 4% in August to 13% in the latest Zogby Poll. If those who plan to vote for Nader in other close states actively support Kerry, they can make all the difference by helping to deny Bush and Cheney four more years in power. If they vote for Nader, the opposite might happen. (All polling data from: Zogby Interactive Presidential Battleground Poll - A Report by Fritz Wenzel - Senior Political Writer, October 20, 2004: http://www.zogby.com/Oct20-report.htm.)

While not all potential Nader voters would automatically shift to Kerry if Nader weren't running, about half would and only about a quarter would vote for Bush. This point is moot, however, because no one can control what Nader does except Nader himself and Nader vows not drop out of the race. Still, if you plan to vote for Nader in one of these states, you can reconsider and vote for Kerry. If you know someone who plans to support Nader, you can share this with them.

Back in the Sixties, people struggling for a better world said, "If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem." The least we can do - as veterans and beneficiaries of those struggles - is work for solutions, not add to the problem. We owe it to ourselves and our planet to borrow from the Hippocratic Oath and "do no harm." I respect Ralph Nader, and recognize his right to run for office, to campaign in swing states and attack John Kerry and thereby help Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Norton, Cho, and the rest stay in power. I think it's wrong for Nader (and his supporters) to help the right this way.

I did not support Kerry during the primaries and I understand it's not Ralph Nader's fault Kerry ran a flawed campaign, said some stupid things, and cast some bad votes. We all know about John Kerry's imperfections. We also know his qualifications and temperament far surpass Bush's in every possible way. He's spoken truth to power all his life. As a young man, Kerry helped lead the Vietnam Era protest movement. Unlike Bush, he knows the moral and human costs of war.

While not perfect, Kerry's decades-long voting record on Civil Rights, Equal Rights, the Environment, Education, and so much more made him among the most enlightened members of Congress. He busted the CIA-Iran-Contra connection and the BCCI scandal, exposing thugs and torturers. In every one of these struggles and more, Bush, Cheney, their appointees and allies fought on the other side.

In 2000, perhaps, the picture was too cloudy for some, but this time there is no excuse. By now, we all know what Bush and Cheney want, what they're capable of doing to us, and the full contours of their lust for destruction. Already, they're intimidating voters, cheating, and otherwise trying to steal the election again. It's time to take a stand against their fascism, even if doing so involves making common cause with Kerry - someone who is not our ideal candidate.

All Americans of good will must do all they can to cast Bush and his cabal of power-mad, reactionary neo-cons and theo-cons out of power. Once Kerry is in office, we can and will hold his feet to the fire and demand he serve the public - not the corporate - interest. But first we must remove Bush and Cheney. The alternative is too stark, too obvious, and too important to ignore.

This election, all moderates, liberals, progressives, and true conservatives must and should unite in revulsion against the Bush Occupation, consigning it to the trash heap of history, before it's too late. We may not get another chance.

Send this article to a friend Printer-Friendly Version

More articles by this author, Mike Hersh

Political commentary and analysis by Mike Hersh.

MikeHersh invites you to reproduce, reprint or broadcast any of his material at his site, provided you identify the source as MikeHersh.com. All Internet and email summaries, excerpts or other written reproductions must include this blurb and a link to http://www.MikeHersh.com.