It is unlikely that Ralph Nader will have any real impact on the US Presidential election this year.

The obstacles against Nader are considerable. Historically, Americans have been unwilling to vote for third party candidates. The relative strength and popularity within the party base of the Democratic candidates this year means there are few votes available for Nader to pick up. Perhaps most importantly, many Democrats still have raw memories of how Nader played a spoiler role in the 2000 election by taking votes that likely would have gone to Al Gore and thus allowing George W. Bush to win by a hair's breadth in Florida (or by Supreme Court caveat, depending on who you ask).

Let's first consider the history of third party candidates. In the history of the United States, no third party candidate has ever won the presidency. Ever. We can virtually rule out altogether the possibility that Nader might win. But it's not just that third party candidates have never won; it's also that they have rarely had any impact whatsoever. The two most successful third party candidates were Theodore Roosevelt and Ross Perot. In both cases, the candidates only succeeded in acting as spoilers, respectively allowing Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton to win (Roosevelt had won years earlier at the age of 42 on the Republican ticket). Unlike Nader in 2000 or 2004, Roosevelt and Perot won significant shares (more than 15%) of the overall vote. Nader's previous "success" as a spoiler was due more to the tightness of the race between Gore and Bush - his overall share of the vote in 2000 was 2.74%, and even less in 2004. In the nation's history, and in Nader's personal political history, there is little to indicate he could act as a spoiler this time around.

Secondly, we need to consider the relative strength of the Democratic field (among Democratic-leaning votes, in any case) this time around. The 2008 Democratic primary campaign is widely regarded as one of the most closely fought in history. Strikingly, polls show the closeness of the race is due to the fact that Democratic voters overwhelmingly like BOTH Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as candidates. This would seem to indicate that there is little room for Nader to pick up votes among the left-leaning voters he has historically appealed to. They are already taken this time around.

Lastly, Democratic voters, even those who agree on substance with Nader, have never forgiven him for playing the spoiler in 2000. Exit polls in 2004 showed this resentment accounted for the fact that Nader received less than 1% of the vote that year. A quick survey of the Democratic blogosphere shows that his recent announcement of a 2008 candidacy was met with widespread boos and hisses from his target audience. There is no reason to believe Democratic voters have forgotten the (pereceived, at least) role Nader played in handing the White House to Bush.

Given all of these factors, it is difficult to see any way that Nader could play even so much as a spoiler's role this time around. History is against him, a strong Democratic party nominee (whether Clinton or Obama) will be against him, and the voters have never forgiven him for his role in previous elections. He will most likely win only a smattering of votes, and the chances are slim indeed that his total votes will be greater than the margin of victory between the Democratic and Republican nominees this year.

Learn more about this author, Theodore Mobius.
Click here to send author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about US elections 2008: What impact will Ralph Nader's candidacy have on the presidential race??
We want to hear your view. Write now!