George:

I don't want to either make too much or too little of Nader's candidacy.

On the one hand, ANY distraction from a "Vote Democratic to Beat Bush" message is a problem; to that extent, I am distressed by Nader's candidacy.

On the other hand, he will not have the support of the Green Party this time. That means two things. First, in some states, the Green Party candidate qualifies automatically for the ballot because of past success. If Nader runs as an independent, he will have to qualify for the ballot in every state in the nation. In many states, that is not easy to do. Second, some people voted for Nader out of a sense that if they did so, it would strengthen the Green Party, either by making it easier for them to get their candidate on the ballot or to help them qualify for federal funds. neither rationale will apply this year.

More importantly, though, I know of almost no one who still believes that there is no difference between the two major parties. The last three years have made a believer out of folks like Michael Moore; Moore was downright scornful of Gore in 2000, and supported Nader; this time he came out in favor of Wesley Clark, for goodness' sake, thinking he was the best person to beat Bush.

Anyone who still thinks there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats need look no further than John Ashcroft. Does anyone seriously think that if Al Gore had been appointing an Attorney General, we would have gotten someone like Ashcroft? Or look at Bush's recess appointments to the federal judiciary -- William Pryor, who wants to overrule Roe v. Wade, and Charles Pickering, with a long pro-segregation record.

There were 8 states in 2000 in which the margin of victory for one candidate over the other was less than the vote total for Ralph Nader. Florida and New Hampshire went for Bush by less than the Nader total; Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin went for Gore by less than the Nader total.

If Nader is abandoned by even half of the people who supported him in 2000, then the Ralph Nader effect recedes to equal the Pat Buchanan effect, or the Harry Browne effect, or the John Hagelin effect (all of whom also got more votes in Florida than Bush's margin of victory).

I suspect that most folks understand that Nader's campaign this time will be an exercise in ego, not in politics. Yes, Ralph Nader will drain away some votes. But not as many as last time.

Lloyd Snook (electronic mail, February 22, 2004)