As I understand it, McKinney and Nader did try to have some sort of conversation about a joint ticket, but that fell flat.

Wildly, perhaps Nader is simply being respectful of the party organizers demand for a party member to be their leader and for that leading ticket to represent a woman. Nader hasn’t sought a gender or race identity solution for his running mate. In Matt, Nader has found someone who can carry on his platform of ideas in a manner that resonates with him. Cut them all some slack. Let them campaign and campaign hard.

Steve Z Says:
February 29th, 2008 at 3:45 am
Phil – Why? Don’t the Greens already represent a solid alternative to the Democratic left? … [snip] …

Phil Sawyer answers:

As others have pointed out, it is difficult to know what Ralph Nader and his close advisers are planning at the present time. However, if I were in his shoes, I might be tempted to go my own way too. The situation is this: Mr. Nader does not have to give in to the Green Party (and the Peace and Freedom Party) on everything and those parties do not have to give in to him on everything. There is no problem with people “doing their own thing.”

As an activist in the Peace and Freedom Pary, I have been hoping that Ralph could be my Party’s nominee for president. However, I know how hard it is to convince the Old Gaurd in that Party to be flexible about some things. I have been struggling with them for a long time now.

There is one thing that Ralph Nader should not do and that is to run as an independent candidate (with the exception of in the states where that is the only practical way to get on the ballot). He simply does not have a sufficient base of support in the country to make that a viable option. On the other hand, though, if Ralph and Matt desire to create a new Party that would have a chance to continue for a long time “into the future,” that would be something that could inspire thousands, perhaps millions, of people to get involved with.

The conditions for a Revolution have been in existence for almost the full length of the Bush-Cheney Administration (as I have been writing about for approximately the same length of time). The Revolution has not happened because there has been no mass party of the people to organize the energy and resources available to bring it into reality. So we are left with increasing episodes of madness and mass violence (which is fodder for the bourgeois establishment news media, of course). Therefore things seem to be static (in the progressive change sense). However, things do not remain static and all of the quantitative changes will eventually lead to a major qualitative change: most likely the Republican Party dying on the vine and the people taking control of the country.

The one report I saw on last night’s event, from the GWU student paper, made it seem as if the person who wrote it wasn’t even in the same room as I was. Her analysis, such as it was, was that (don’t laugh) there was none of the enthusiasm that you see at Clinton or Obama rallies. Now there’s a person with a deep and broad knowledge of 3rd party presidential campaigns. She failed to point out the loud cheering and applauding that kept interrupting Nader while he was speaking. She also failed to notice that his 2000 campaign started almost as quietly (when he ended up the campaign speaking at rallies where 15,000 people would pay to get in and then go bonkers once they got there).

Matt Spencer: You had to be at the event to feel the seriousness. These guys are serious as a heart attack. It was quite overwhelming. You could tell that the audience could sense that. It’s a shame there were only a few hundred people there.

As far as the Green Party and local elections goes, they are VERY active at the local level across the country and have built up some very successful local chapters in very unexpected places by doing so. Check out the campaign database at http://www.gp.org. Even here in Virginia, the GP elected three people to local offices last fall and our candidate for Arlington County Board of Supervisors got a vote from 10% of the people who showed up (you can cast two votes for BOS in Arlington, which is one of the most heavily populated counties in the state), not to mention an endorsement from one of the local papers. But you’ll never hear about that kind of stuff in the national media, or even most local media.

But in the majority of states, where independent ballot access is easier than party ballot access, I’m pretty confident Nader will run as an independent. And I don’t imagine his party will nominate very many candidates for other offices.

If building a new party was a goal rather than just an instrument, he would have started before late February.

I agree with your sentiments re: Nader running separate from but not necessarily opposed to the Green Party. I don’t think he is anti-Green in any way, but rather is doing his own thing and wants to avoid the divisiveness that would be inherent in an intraparty challenge to different Green factions (i.e. Cobb-istas, McKinney-ites, etc.)

It is also good to hear that there is energy and activity going on in the Nader/Gonzalez campaign. I would like to hear what they have to say about why they are running and what they hope to accomplish, but have no time for them if they are not planning to take this campaign seriously. There’s a reason why Ralph lost ~90% of his share of the vote between 2000 and 2004. I have a lot of respect for Matt Gonzalez, so maybe this time will be different.

As far as the national prospects for the Green Party, I have to say I am a bit disappointed that the growth at the local level over the last few election cycles seems to be limited to the SF Bay Area and a few smaller jurisdictions in places like Portland, Maine. There’s only so much that you can accomplish as a third party by running for unwinnable offices at the state and federal level. Without growth on the local level it quickly becomes a case of “been there, done that.”

My impression is that the Nader campaign would be forming a party at the national level and not state-by-state placeholders to get around nasty laws, as the Populist Party was. We’ll see.

If he runs as an independent, forming a new party makes sense, as it gets him access to the federal matching funds program and automatic or easier ballot access in certain states (most notably Florida). That doesn’t mean he’s planning to do any serious party building.

In 2004, Nader’s campaign formed the Populist Party in Maryland. It didn’t run any candidates other than Nader. Two years later, it ran only one candidate and endorsed one other. Now it’s gone. I think we’ll see more of the same in a greater number of states in 2008.