Press covers Nader announcement badly
Ralph Nader’s February 24 announcement that he will run for president as an independent in 2008 has received extensive coverage, but that coverage is of poor quality. See this article as an example. To see the appearance itself, see here.
The real news is that Nader is not seeking the Green Party nomination. That decision will delay his ability to qualify for primary season matching funds. One cannot apply for primary season matching funds unless one says he or she is seeking the nomination of some party that is on the ballot in at least two states. In 2004, Nader said he was seeking the nomination of the Reform Party, and on that basis did receive matching funds. This year, at this point, Nader cannot say he is seeking the nomination of any political party (unless he again says he is seeking the Reform Party nomination, which is most unlikely, given its disarray).
The other problem with media coverage of Nader’s announcement, is that none of it mentions the evidence that his 2004 run did not injure John Kerry. See this. For a more detailed analysis, see here. Yet we have the same old assumptions that Nader will injure the Democrats in 2008, with no look at what actually happened in 2004.
February 24th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
If your argument is that Nader is so insignificant that he doesn’t “injure” the Democrats with his run, then why is he bothering? I thought the point was that he would injured the Democrats. I thought he wanted to be president. If he doesn’t, he should not run. People will vote for him who would otherwise vote for someone else, so obviously he is diverting votes to himself for what appears again to be purely selfish reasons. Is this the only way he can get press coverage? That’s sad. Maybe he should try doing a podcast or a radio show like other people who want to get a message across. There are ways of getting your message out to the public without running for president. He could write a book. He could start a radio show. He could guest host on radio shows. He could do interviews. Thousands of podcasters would love to interview him (me included).
Why won’t he support grassroots journalists instead? Why this insistence on running for president?
When running for president, the whole point is to win. If he doesn’t want to win, he’s got no business running. We are getting a little bit tired of this.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Ditto.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Where did Nader say he would not seek the Green nomination? He was pretty vague in saying that he would run for president and that it is important to have third parties in the race because they have a history of brining important issues to the national stage. He didn’t seem to elaborate one way or the other if he is seeking the Green nomination or not. He won the Green Primary in California so is he going to seek the Green endorsement rather than nomination or what?
February 24th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Infact according to his website’s statement he has yet to announce whether he will seek the Green nomination and that he will work on that issue in the next several months.
http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/02/24/green-agenda/
February 24th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
well, im not going to vote for him, and im a green. we need to be talking about a movement, which would require a party, or a coalition of parties (please dont take that as a miles proposal). a independent running without building a organization that has legs outside of the person is not a movement, its a publicity stunt. nader would make a great VP but not as its top candidate. im voting for Mckinney.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
The major downside to not seeking the Green nomination is that it harms the Green Party’s efforts to move into the mainstream. It divides activists. It makes united action among diverse left organizations less likely. In 2000, Nader said he was running to build a party. We see how hollow that assertion was now.
No wonder Republicans give Nader money.
Arguably, we don’t need more “Independents” in American politics. What we need is parties and organizations that help engage people and bringing them together to solve problems based on shared values and principles.
If Nader wants to make a meaningful contribution to third party politics, he should pick a party (Reform, Green, whatever) and stick with it.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
http://www.borowitzreport.com/
February 24th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
RELAX, the Green Party Convention is not until May. Then you will see Nader seeking the nomination.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Jonathan,
I really do hope that is the case but Mr. Nader it seems must act soon if he wishes to take the remaining Green caucuses and conventions after the Maine convention McKinney should have the lead on the delegate count.
February 24th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
What do you expect?
Just want to comment also that, I’m sick of hearing Nader blamed for the failures of the Dems! Tim Russert brought it up again.
I’m no friend of the Green’s or Nader’s policy views, for that matter, but excoriating him for the Dem’s shortcomings is irresponsible and, frankly, very un-American. What authority allows anyone to prioritize one party or candidate over another? The Democrats and the Republicans are not America, there just happen to be Americans who are Democrats or Republicans. Keep that straight.
I hope Ralph Nader can give an intelligently fulfilling alternative to the abjectly vapid, feel-good liberalism of Barack Obama.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
FYI: the Green Party Presidential Nominating Convention is July 10-13 in Chicago (not May).
I am still waiting to hear if Nader will be seeking the GP nomination or not. Laine is correct – the taxpayer funded green primaries are over. The remaining states will select delegates largely by caucuses, conventions, or internal ballots (or a combination of the three). There is a big difference between someone picking a Green ballot and selecting who to vote for versus Green Party organizers and activists who will probably have the majority influence at caucuses and conventions. I think this group leans towards McKinney by 2-1. If Nader is going to seek the GP nomination he is going to have to reach out to Green Party bureaucrats and party people and make his case.
2004 proved that no one is ‘crowned’ by the Greens, there is no birthright to the nomination. You have to at least ask for it, and at best work for it.
February 24th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I agree with Shelly. Nader is obsessed with himself and his hero image. Go away, Ralph.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:08 am
BillTx: “Go away, Ralph.” I can’t count how many times I’ve seen that in blogs the last few days. What a creative response to Nader’s candidacy. Is that the best that Democrats who don’t want anyone interfering with their viscerally adolescent hatred of all Republicans can come up with? If you don’t like the fact that Ralph Nader is running for president, then don’t vote for him. It’s that simple. Would it be ok for someone else who’s famous and likely to attract support to run, or is it just Ralph Nader in particular who annoys you? I have my own serious criticisms of Ralph, and I’ve told them to his face, but I would never tell him or anybody else not to run for office.
Shelly: What on earth is someone doing on a website called Third Party Watch who thinks that the one and only reason to run for president is to win? What third party candidate for president has EVER run with the intention of winning? Have you ever heard of Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas, Robert LaFollette? Have you ever heard of the Socialist Party? If you enjoy having weekends, you can thank them, since they’re responsible for providing them to you, over sixty-five years ago, even though they never got more than 3% of the vote for president. I think you need to brush up a bit on the history of 3rd party presidential campaigns in America, a subject Ralph Nader knows far more about than any of his critics.
“When running for president, the whole point is to win.”
This isn’t even the case with MAJOR party candidates: Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, etc. etc. Should they go away, too? Are elections just a zero sum game? If so, what was the point of voting for George McGovern in 1972 instead of Benjamin Spock (the People’s Party candidate), or for Walter Mondale in 1984 instead of Barry Commoner (the Citizens Party candidate)? Neither McGovern nor Mondale had a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected president, so why were they running, and what was the point of voting for them instead of Spock or Commoner?
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, there is the slimmest possibility that there could be other reasons to run for president?
“There are ways of getting your message out to the public without running for president.”
Ralph has addressed this I don’t know how many times over the last eight years. Plenty of his speeches are available on YouTube and elsewhere on the ‘net. Listen and learn, or, as a person far wiser than me once said, first seek to understand, then seek to be understood. In any event, why should Nader or anybody else be excluded from the electoral arena? Do you think all 3rd party candidates should pack it in, or just Ralph Nader?
Do you really think that just “getting your message out” is equivalent to being a direct participant in the rough & tumble of a campaign for public office, in the debates, in the candidate forums? Do you think the majority of Americans who want to be given the choice of alternative candidates, whether or not they think they can win, should be deprived of that choice simply because you don’t like Ralph Nader?
To make Shelly happy, I propose that this domain name be changed from “thirdpartywatch.com” to “onlycandidateswhohavearealisticchanceofbeingelectedexceptforpeoplelikegeorgemcgovernandwaltermondale.com” How about it?
July 25th, 2008 at 11:19 am
boat glass look right greed joke watch university all