> He will lend gravitas if people think he *has* any gravitas to lend. But
> he seems to be becoming more a figure of fun and derision, if not
> contempt, among everyone but his core fans. He claims that he will be
> able to attract a lot of disgruntled Republicans, etc. Well, we shall
> see about that.
The Democrats want to see him become a figure of fun and derision. The liberal bloggers will undoubtedly make every effort to throw mud at Nader. But Nader's reputation is more solid among average Americans.
> As for "helping the Dems hammer the Bush regime," I doubt that they need
> any help in that department. After all, the slow drop in the
> unemployment rate, the Bush guy's statement that outsourcing is a good
> thing, etc., are already big themes in both Kerry's and Edwards'
> speeches. They're already hammering W as hard as they can.
They are now, but just wait until the DLC tells them to swing to "the center." Although that may not happen as fully now that Nader is running.
As I said, I
> don't expect either one of them, if he became President, would do
> anything significant to help the working class. The best we can hope is
> that they would be somewhat less disastrous for workers than Bush has
> been. But I don't see what Nader could contribute to the campaign, given
> that he is neither a principled anti-capitalist nor a very effective
> campaigner, IMHO. And this time, he's on his own, without even a third
> party to support him.
If you want to pursue a goal of politics that is less disastrous to workers, then you should invest your time and resources into direct action, not lesser-of-two-evil electoral politics. My first experience with politics was the Mondale-Ferrao campaign of 1984. It's been nothing but lesser-of-two-evil politics for the left since then.
Nader is not a radical anti-capitalist, but his views do provide an entry point to that universe for the average working American who knows that something is wrong but can't put their finger on it.
And people have to get over this stuff about having a third party to support Nader. Perot did well because a grassroots network sprouted up to support him. I'm sure that Green Party and progressive activists will be really pissed when Nader does well despite their sanctimonious advice about how to do things correctly.
> The bottom line is: how many votes will he get in November? I think he
> will be down to his core fan base, which is probably a lot smaller than
> the support he had in 2000. Everyone else will want to be sure than 2000
> won't be repeated, so, like it or not, they'll vote Democratic. That may
> be an overly simplistic view of the situation, but some times politics
> gets real simple.
Sorry, but politics isn't that simple. Odds are that Nader will do better than 2000 and the Democrats will defeat Bush. The polls simply underestimate the amount of anti-Bush hostility that is out there. And as I've pointed out, Nader will draw support from people who aren't part of the ABB crowd.
And then in fours years we can have an Anybody But Kerry movement!
Chuck0