While I was sitting at the Stewart-Newburgh terminal last Monday morning, I saw on the television that Ralph Nader has once again thrown his hat into the presidential ring. At first I thought of it as another Quixotic campaign by this consumer advocate the 70s forgot, but then I got to thinking about the 2000 election, and how some accused Nader of siphoning enough votes off of Gore to sway the election (even though the statistics never backed up this claim). In 2004, Nader's presidential campaign had lost a lot of tractions because of this perception.But today, would anyone support Nader for president. I mean, isn't the guy a modern day Pat Paulsen?
Not if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Party nomination for president.
Even if Clinton carries both Ohio and Texas this Tuesday and then later gets Pennsylvania, she will not gain enough of a margin of victory to make a difference between hers and Barack Obama's delegate count. Since the Democratic party splits their delegates proportionally, in Ohio the most Clinton can hope for, considering recent polls is a +5 delegate advantage. Consider the fact that Obama and Clinton are in a dead heat in Texas, and that Texas uses a combination primary-caucus system (Obama does well in caucuses), and expect, at best, a wash or an advantage of less than +5 delegates. So, realistically, the best Clinton can hope for is to close the delegate gap of around 100 behind Obama down to 90. Expecting a slim margin of victory, can Clinton make two slim wins justify hanging on until the Pennsylvania primary next month?
And then there are Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Indiana, North Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota to consider. Smaller states where Obama has been picking up by 15-20% margins. Any gains she makes in Texas, Ohio, or PA will be erased by these smaller primaries.
By the time of the convention, if Clinton is still in the race behind Obama by about the same (or more) amount of delegates, her only hope to victory will be to appeal to the superdelegates and Edwards (who has yet to determine which candidate to support with his 26 delegates). If the Democratic Convention ends up cancelling out the will of the people and instead lets the party 'elders' decide Clinton is the better nominee, it will demoralize and injure the Democratic Party.
And here's where Nader steps in, just in time to remind the disenchanted Obamaniacs and leftists that Clinton is 'Republican-Lite', just as he did to Gore back in 2000. The hurt Nader could put on Clinton's popular support will not cause her to lose states like California or New York, but it could mean losing Ohio, Missouri, and Florida, and catapult McCain into the White House.
Before the Nader equation, party elders might have been considering supporting Clinton despite her poor showing in the primary. With Nader, their need to win in 2009 will overweigh their support for the Clinton family.
Maybe Nader isn't just another Don Quiote this time around. Maybe his campaign is a shrewd play to ensure Obama wins the Democratic Nomination....
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Nader is no Pat Paulsen! BIG DIFFERENCE.
http://www.paulsen.com
I do think that Nader did ensure that Bush was elected in Florida rather than Gore. That is not to excuse the Gore campaign of some poor tactical decisions in the 2000 race. This is also not to count out a GOP that kept the last years of the Clinton Administration in a constant defense against impeachment. But Nader is a fool to see in our system, it is often better to back the lesser of the evils. You can't tell me that even in 2000 there wasn't a world of difference between Gore and Bush.
Nader was a non-element in 2004 and I expect that will be the case in 2008 as well. Unless.... ....as you sugest, HRC gets the nomination. Then, yes, the large number of people who hate her and her brand of business-as-usual corporate politics will find another candidate. nader would benefit, but McCain would benefit the most...
...so we should all vote for Obama! Simplest solution to the problem.
I think the fact that Obama is winning big is the real reason Bloomberg is not running. If he did run, he would be like Ross Perot - and let a candiate win with a plurality - could be Clinton, could be McCain. But with Obama, we needn't worry.
Post a Comment