On NBC's Meet the Press this morning, Ralph Nader announced that he is running for President on the Independent ticket.

 

It happened about 5 seconds ago, so I don't have a source link for you.

 

 

Does this hurt the Dems like it did Al Gore when Bush got elected?

It hurts Ralph Nader more. He's spent all his relevancy now.

It is really sad to see people throw money into a race like this just to be a spoiler. I suppose if anyone could have done it, it would have been Bloomberg, but even then, it probably would have been a longshot. I think the Dems will still pull it out.

 

According to this page, the Nader factor in 2004 was already just about nil, having received about 1% of the vote across the board.

 

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

 

Back in 2000, his share was more substantial. I would say that he has pretty much been relegated to being a nuisance.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45950-2000Nov8?language=printer

 

Voter.com/Battleground: Bush 46, Gore 41, Nader 4, Buchanan * = BUSH +5

(After undecided voters are apportioned to the candidates, the estimates are Bush 50, Gore 45)

The Washington Post: Bush 48, Gore 45, Nader 3, Buchanan 1 = BUSH +3

ABC: Bush 48, Gore 45, Nader 3, Buchanan 1 = BUSH +3

NBC/Wall Street Journal: Bush 47, Gore 44, Nader 3, Buchanan 2 = BUSH +3

Pew Research Center: Bush 45, Gore 43, Nader 4, Buchanan * = BUSH +2

(with undecided voters: Bush 49, Gore 47)

CNN/USA Today/Gallup: Bush 48, Gore 46, Nader 4, Buchanan 1 = BUSH +2

CBS: Gore 45, Bush 44, Nader 4, Buchanan 1 = GORE +1

MSNBC/Reuters: Gore 48, Bush 46, Nader 5, Buchanan * = GORE +2

It hurts Ralph Nader more. He's spent all his relevancy now.

 

What relevancy? If he had any he spent it all years ago.

 

The answer to the OP question (IMO) is no. Obama isn't a candidate, he's a "movement", and as such, way too big for this sort of distraction to matter. In fact there's exit polling to back this up -- the defections of Hillary voters suggests that they're done with this and ready to get on with the face-off with McCain.

I must say this, though, If it's a faceoff between Hillary and McCain, third party candidates are going to look a lot more attractive to the anti-war left crowd, economic conservatives and the religious right.

What relevancy? If he had any he spent it all years ago.

 

I guess that should have been "*by now."

 

I must say this, though, If it's a faceoff between Hillary and McCain, third party candidates are going to look a lot more attractive to the anti-war left crowd, economic conservatives and the religious right.

 

Neither Nader nor Bloomberg are particular darlings of any of those, though.

Plus, he is only taking campaign contributions from individuals. So you know that his warchest will be minimal.

I don't know, but, should we care?

 

I'm pretty sure that this is already known, but hasn't he been running for president since, like, ever? And in each of those times, hasn't he always got much less than 1% of the vote?

 

 

Just my two cents.

Here's a clip of the show I reference in the OP... i.e. his "actual announcement:"

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzJBnvDeC4Q