Greens Back for More

|

The Green Party decided informally this weekend to run a candidate in the 2004 presidential election, thus moving on from the "should we be spoilers again?" debate, according to the Washington Post. Here's how it went down:

[P]articipants said ? they were asked to stand in different parts of the room depending on how they felt about the presidential race.

Those who wanted a presidential candidate who would run the strongest possible campaign were asked to stand in one area. Those who wanted someone who would run only in areas where electoral votes would not be pulled from the Democratic presidential candidate stood in another. Those who wanted to skip the race altogether and, instead, support the Democratic candidate stood in yet another. [?]

The overwhelming majority of those present supported joining the race, according to several participants.

No word yet from Ralph Nader.

For information about potential candidates from just about every political party you could name, this website is pretty good.

NEXT: Insult to Injury

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I find it interesting that they’ve already pre-judged their “second favorite” candidate to be the democrat, which belies their claim to be anything other than simply the far-left wing of the DP as well as Nadar’s claim (the basis of which received skewering by Welch) to not have been the spoiler for Gore 2000.

    Personally I think option 2 and especially option 3 make the most sense for the Greens, but then, there’s plenty of other advocacy groups out there making endorsements, who needs one more anyway?

  2. Oooh, I’m all atwitter. There was some AP Story about how it might be Cynthia McKinney, or LaRouche, or Buchanan, or John Cusack, or a Che Guevara t-shirt or something or other. I can’t remember exactly

  3. …But think about it from the Greens’ perspective. If you want to move a major party, what better way to do it than by costing them elections so they have to co-opt your issues in order to win again?

    Obviously with John Kerry likely to beat Howard Dean, things haven’t improved much from the Green point of view.

  4. Sandy,

    Well sure, that’s one theory (move the Dems toward the left by costing them votes otherwise). Only thing is history and the numbers all demonstrate the futility of such a strategy. That said, I’m sure that from the Greens’ perspective what they’re doing makes sense, why would they do it otherwise? I say that it doesn’t make sense, and it’s a refusal to accept the frustrations of reality as it is that likely prevents the Greens from seeing this.

  5. John Kerry is just as green (small g) as Howard Dean. But the Greens seem more intersted in style than substance anyone, so the above comment probably holds.

  6. It will be *very* interesting if Dean ends up somehow winning the primary, after riling up the party’s lefty grassroots. Imagine then if Nader still runs, and the Dean-Bush race is close (okay, that’s about 12 ifs, but still) … the Great Progressive Civil War would be a spectacle indeed. The last six weeks of 2000 featured some choice mud slung Ralph’s way by the most leftist wing of the DP … attempts by San Francisco lesbian pols to out him, Bobby Kennedy Jr. sliming his environmental cred, black leaders smacking him around for being indifferent to racism, NOW leaders saying he’s been “absent” on feminism issues….

  7. and in his cave, rove is smiling

    so dem candidate has to face a $200M +++ opponent, while protecting his left flank from 100k illiterate DMB loving college students…

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    now if only bush would cut spending, it would be great

  8. “now if only bush would cut spending…”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  9. I seem to remember a certain party who lost after Buchanan and Perot undermined its run for Pres. They came back two years later (’94) and ran a very populist, on message campaign and took the House for the first time in 50 years. ‘Course, they blew it again two years later, but Perot’s draw was largely nil.

    I think the Green’s strategy could work (in pulling the Dems to the left), and, judging by Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, it has begun to work. Just not enough. Now if they goal is to actually get a liberal government in place, their goal is not going to be served by pulling the Democrats away from the center. But that’s a different goal than moving the Dems to the left and re-energizing the voice of the left in politics.

  10. I don’t think Perot can be described as “pulling the Republicans to the right,” which would be necessary for the analogy to work.

  11. Matt, I expect the Greens without or without Nadar to not even reach the whopping 2 1/2% they managed last time regardless of who the Democratic candidate is. Such is the fate of almost all third parties, they make one splash (sometimes big, sometimes not so big) and then they fade. But if Dean is the candidate, I bet the Greens will receive so few votes that even their potential for being spoilers will be negligent–again, with or without Ralph. Of course, they don’t have to have any effect on the real world to cause enough flapping on the Left to make for a nice spectacle….

  12. I could respect the Greens if they’d “Act Locally,” like their literature advises. The Green Party candidate should be used to get people to events where they can hear the candidate for county commissioner speak, and get the press to cover the event.

    Ditto for the LP, BTW.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.