Douglas Schoen, a pollster, is the author of “Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System.”
When Ralph Nader announced that he was running for president again last Sunday, commentators and political strategists were quick to express scorn. The announcement itself, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos scoffed that morning, “was the high moment of his campaign.” In the days that followed, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and The Post all described Nader’s decision to run as an ego trip that represented his political “nadir.” Political operatives assured the public that Nader was not to be taken seriously. “People are simply not going to make that mistake again,” said Chris Lehane, former press secretary to Al Gore. Even Charlie Black, a senior adviser to John McCain’s campaign, predicted that Nader would get “less than 1 percent of the vote.”Not so fast.
Nader is undoubtedly a less appealing candidate than he was in 2000, when by winning 97,000 votes in Florida he famously cost Gore the election. But that doesn’t mean 2008 is going to be a repeat of 2004, when Nader attracted a mere 0.038 percent of the popular vote. On the contrary, the circumstances for Nader’s candidacy could hardly be better. The conditions this November will be more favorable to an independent, third-party candidacy than ever before. As a result, Nader stands a real chance of matching or even exceeding his 2000 performance, when he won 2.74 percent of the popular vote.
In short, Ralph Nader’s candidacy and how the other candidates react to it may well determine who the next president will be.
By now it is no secret that a large segment of the public has soured on “Washington.” To denizens of the District, this can seem a childish, naive sentiment. It’s not. What Americans have turned against is the broken two-party system. According to a poll taken last year by the firm I founded, Penn, Schoen & Berland, 61 percent of voters say that having a third-party candidate on the ballot in the presidential race would be beneficial to America. A poll by the Luntz Maslansky Group found that 81 percent of the electorate would consider voting for a third-party candidate.
In 2004, Nader faltered because it was apparent that George W. Bush and John Kerry offered stark alternatives. But 2008 is not 2004. George W. Bush isn’t on the ballot this year. What the public wants is change. Research done by Rasmussen Reports in September shows that Nader’s candidacy is well positioned to capitalize on that desire. In a four-way race, Nader could get 4 percent, considerably more support than he received in 2000. A centrist alternative could do even better, easily attracting 15 to 30 percent of the electorate. Even Ron Paul could receive as much as 8 percent as a libertarian, fourth-party candidate.
But wait, you say. What about Barack Obama? For that matter, doesn’t the emergence of John McCain as the likely Republican nominee prove that the system isn’t all that unresponsive to the desires of independents? Hasn’t their emergence taken the wind out of potential independent candidates’ sails?…
Full Story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902786_pf.html