Reconsidering Nader...

I'm the sort who gets angry at those who think Nader shouldn't run because people will vote for him. The way I imagine it, the fact that people will vote for you is precisely why you should run.

However, I have to say, evidence suggests that Nader's campaign is going wrong.

It's naive of Nader to think he'll actually win 6-8% of the vote, as most polls currently indicate. He was polling 5% in 2000, yet if I remember correctly he won less than 3%. (UPDATE: I remember right - 2.75%)

What's more, it is beginning to strike me as vaguely corrupt that his popular support is too weak to qualify him for many states' ballot-entrance requirements, and so he is now appealing to the cynicism of nervous Conservatives. This is an interesting MTV article about Nader's attempt to hold an independent nominating convention in Portland, Oregon. According to the account:

This time around, the Nader folks wanted to be sure they could turn out 1,000 people, and this led to the first absurdity: Nader on the Lars Larsen show. Now, for those of you not from Oregon, Lars Larsen is our own local Rush Limbaugh — a fiery, bombastic, super-conservative radio personality. Ralph went on the show and appealed to Lars' conservative audience to come out and support his populist liberalism and lend their John Hancocks to his cause. His appearance was followed (surprise, surprise) by an appeal from Lars' guest host for all good conservatives to show up to the event, sign Ralph's petition, and help get him on the ballot as a way to hurt John Kerry's chances in what is expected to be a razor-thin election in Oregon this November.

My argument AGAINST those who believe Nader shouldn't run is that it's autocratic to argue that responsible voting citizens should be deprived of a choice in order to coerce them into supporting a candidate they are otherwise disinclined to support. But it's equally unsavory to manipulate the democratic process to put yourself on the ballot when you don't genuinely possess the popular support required to earn a spot on the ballot.

I really don't have much fear that Nader could sink the campaign. There's no evidence that he will do anywhere near so well as 2000, and those votes which he does collect should never be considered otherwise pledged to any specific candidate.

But his campaign's cynicism is beginning to strike me as something other than "democratic."