The Nader Factor In '04

By David Paul Kuhn,
CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer

However, before Republicans gloat over the news, the political scuttlebutt is that Nader may choose not to contest Kerry in key battleground states. This means that the Nader candidacy could be more symbolic than spoiler.

But such was not the talk today in the more than hour long meeting between Kerry and Nader. They were cordial. They shook hands for the cameras. Nader did his best to smile. Kerry was the consummate statesman. Diplomacy ruled the day.

A Kerry aide close to the talks said Kerry asked Nader not to judge him by "people who preceded me," explaining to Nader that "I have been with you on a range of issues" for three decades.

Although implied, Kerry did not explicitly ask Nader to bow out of the race. He did not tell Nader that leftist voters will likely be drained from backing Kerry if Nader remains a candidate. He did not say, Mr. Nader, you are helping Mr. Bush. Though, Kerry did emphasize to Nader that "the way to beat George Bush is for me to be elected president."

Nader made his case for the presidential debates to include more than just the Democratic and Republican nominee. He also insisted to Kerry that by running for president he is assisting Kerry by providing a sharper contrast with President Bush.

None of that is consolation to Democrats. As Nader fights to get on ballots – he should make the ballots in at least 45 states, say experts – he only needs to turn one state from blue to red to cost Kerry the election.

"I don't think he is going to get a fraction of what he got last time. But the thing about it is that if he got 2 percent of what he did get, it still would have made the difference in Florida," said Charles Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "He could still make the difference in this election."

He did make the difference in the last. Vice President Al Gore would have won the 2000 election if Nader was off the ballot in either Florida or New Hampshire. Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida; George W. Bush won the state by 537. Nader got 22,198 votes New Hampshire; Mr. Bush won the state by 7,211 votes.

The kicker, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's supporters would have voted for Al Gore while 21 percent would have voted for Mr. Bush.

But even if Nader gets on the ballot of every state he can and moves away from Kerry by defining himself as the anti-war candidate, which he began to do this month, there is still a question whether Nader will steal as many voters percentage wise – meaning those that vote for Nader but would have supported Kerry – as was the case in 2000 with Gore.

"A different set of people are voting for Nader this time," said Richard Winger, an expert on ballot access and follows voter trends. "All the people who are standard liberal Democrats or standard anti-war people or people who just can't stand Bush, they all understand that this is an extremely close race and the way to get rid of Bush is to vote for Kerry."

Nader is legally contesting restrictions in Texas to get on the state's 2004 presidential ballot. Winger expects Nader to win the case because Texas law has "a double discrimination built in" and similar cases have been ruled as unconstitutional.

Texas law allows a minor party candidate to turn in thousands fewer signatures than an independent candidate. The minor party candidate has until May 24 to gain those signatures while independent presidential candidates had only until May 10. Nader is running as an independent candidate although he has so far picked up the backing of the Reform Party.

Kerry won't win President Bush's home state of Texas, whether Nader gets on the ballot or not. But since Nader has poured huge amounts of his resources into winning the case, his campaign believes a victory will be of great symbolic value for the third-party movement.

The Reform Party backing, which claims – optimistically – 1 million members, has guaranteed Nader access to at least seven state ballots, including the battleground states of Michigan and Florida.

Founded by billionaire H. Ross Perot in 1992, the Reform Party has historically been more of the political right than left. Perot ran on the party's ticket in 1992 and 1996. In the 2000 presidential election the party nominated conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan.

The earning of the Reform Party nomination last week may serve as an early indicator that Nader's supporters in 2004 will not be the same as those in 2000.

"You show me someone who is left of center and I am going to show you someone that despises George Bush," Cook said. "And someone that despises George Bush is probably, at least the vast majority of them, not going to throw their votes away for somebody that can't win."

A recent CNN/Time poll found that 49 percent of likely voters said that they would vote for Kerry, 44 percent for Mr. Bush and 6 percent for Nader.

Though whether that 6 percent will vote 2 to 1 for a Democrat as in 2000, if Nader were not on the ticket, is unclear. But worth noting is that the voting ballots of Election Day will list several more third-party alternatives than Nader. Consequentially, the current polling may over represent Nader's true weight with voters.

Indicators are that even if Nader holds's 6 percent of the vote, which means real political power in 2004, it may come more from the political right than in 2000. This goes beyond the Reform Party's support. More likely it is due, experts say, to the political left's determination to win the White House from Mr. Bush.

Democrats are united as they have rarely been before. Little illustrates this better than Kerry stumping this week with his once rival former Gov. Howard Dean, who has come to embody the left of the Democratic Party.

"I look at where third party candidates do well and they generally do better when running against someone with similar philosophical background," said Lawrence Jacobs, an expert in third parties at the University of Minnesota. "The very meeting between Kerry and Nader means Nader might be supporting other strategies like he may decide not to go to swing states and put a knife in the back of the Democrats."