IT FEELS almost like déjà vu: George W. Bush running against a Democratic candidate whose main deficiency may well be his apparent lack of charisma, and also against a third party anti-establishment candidate who appeals to the most liberal voters in the country. While the Democratic candidate may not be Al Gore this time around, regrettably for the Democratic Party, Ralph Nader declared his candidacy for the 2004 presidential election last Sunday. Luckily, however, Nader has decided to run as an independent since the Green party will not support him in his bid. Widely blamed as a highly possible reason for Gore's marginal defeat nearly four years ago, Nader should drop out of the presidential race to avoid a repeat of the 2000 election.
Despite the fact that many would ordinarily commend Nader for his decision to run for office in order to present American voters with another electoral choice and to challenge other candidates on various issues, this is not a good election for Nader to decide to launch a campaign. Although suffering from a less-than-brawny economy, even weaker job market, stagnating war in Iraq and several foreign affairs gaffes that have left the United States in an awkward position vis-à-vis international relations, President George W. Bush remains a strong candidate as an incumbent. Any candidate opposing him will have to garner a huge amount of support in what may be an uphill battle to dethrone him. With Nader in the race, there exists a definite possibility that the 2004 election will be eerily similar to the 2000 election in its outcome.
In the last presidential election, it may well have been Nader's fault that Bush won. Although we will never know if the citizens who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore had Nader not been a candidate, because the race was so close, it is a highly plausible possibility. Even though Nader may disagree with both the Democrats and the Republicans, he should put himself in the position of choosing the lesser of two evils. Since Nader's views align more closely with the Democratic Party, Nader should concede and perhaps consider supporting the Democratic candidate. Otherwise, Nader and his supporters run the risk that, due to their obstinacy, they may end up with a worse president with regard to their views and political positions. Realistically, Nader does not stand a chance of winning the 2004 election. He is starting late in a race that has already been brewing for several months. He will not have the backing of a party, will not have the amounts of money at his disposition that his opponents will have and most importantly, will appeal to only a narrow subsection of American voters. This year's presidential race will most likely be highly contested, and as the 2000 election illustrated, every vote counts. In fact, the only purpose that Nader's campaign may serve is to take votes away from the Democratic candidate and make a Bush victory easier.
When announcing his candidacy, Nader stated that he entered the presidential race to "challenge the two-party duopoly," and because "the liberal intelligentsia has allowed its party to become a captive of corporate interests" ("Nader candidacy discounted, faulted," CNN.com, Feb. 22). While Nader should be applauded for his principled stand, he must become more realistic and practical. According to Prof. Larry Sabato, Nader will probably gain no more than 1 percent of the vote, and may experience backlash from the 2000 election among his constituency from that election.Theoretically, Nader could pursue his agenda through other means which don't involve a presidential campaign, such as appearing in talk shows both on television and on the radio, making speeches and writing articles. Although Nader may see his campaign as a positive factor for promoting his political ideals, it may well become counterproductive if it works to Bush's advantage. Nader is no supporter of Bush, as according to the same CNN article, he likened President Bush to "a giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being," and believes that Bush should be impeached for making some questionable assessments in his decision to go to war in Iraq. Because he will probably not realistically meet his goals for his 2004 campaign, and may likely contribute to a reoccurrence of the 2000 election, Nader should drop out of the 2004 presidential race.
Alex Rosemblat's column appears Wednesday in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at arosemblat@cavalierdaily.com
Read More
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | 5 days agoIt is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
ELJAZZAR: Advising changes are a step toward student success
By Farah Eljazzar | December 10, 2024With the long history of student complaints regarding advising in the College, it is commendable that the University administration is committed to responding to student concerns and prioritizing student academic well-being.
