Reply With Quote
Could be. Third party candidates have hurt GOP candidates before (ie Perot).
Of course, this article was written by an individual with a direct tie to the Kerry camp, so it's not surprising the article has the whiff of wishful thinking.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...vada_to_kerry/
Third party could tilt Nevada to Kerry
By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist | September 28, 2004
LAS VEGAS
FOR THOSE who adore the oddities of politics, this place may be ground zero.
ADVERTISEMENT
In this quirky polity wrestling with the consequences of explosive population growth, it is the Libertarian Party candidate, Mike Bednarik, who is causing the trouble, much more than Ralph Nader.
As the state mirrors the nation in advance of this week's first debate between George Bush and John Kerry, with the president's advantage shrinking to the barely detectable as the chaos in Iraq continues, every vote may count.
For folks on the right who don't like the Bush administration's big government conservatism, be it federal spending or the Patriot Act, Bednarik is a credible, if marginal player in a state where "Leave Me Alone" is a slogan with resonance. With the presidential race either dead even (Democratic view) or showing a tiny Bush lead (Republican view), Bednarik's 3 percent in recent surveys comes into play more than Nader's even smaller numbers.
If it still that tight after the debates "the whole ball game is turnout," said Anne Sheridan, the Kerry campaign director here. And that means that the whole ball game is figuring out how to benefit from the roughly quarter of a million people who have moved to Nevada since Al Gore narrowly lost it. For the Bush surrogates, led by Governor Kenny Guinn and four-term congressman Jim Gibbons, the emphasis is almost entirely on national security themes. Without the more than $30 billion that tourists and gamblers drop here, there is no Nevada, and Al Qaeda has famously cased the place. Few forget that after 9/11 nearly 40,000 people were laid off until business recovered vigorously. Republicans are counting -- almost entirely -- on a strong Bush performance on these issues in the debate this week. More than 15 percent of the adults here are veterans, way beyond the national average.
Without that advantage, he is in deep trouble. This is not only a battleground state, its growth has given it one additional electoral vote (five). Of all the red states that might go blue, none ranks higher than Nevada.
Meanwhile, Democrats need a strong Kerry debate performance to add to the gains in recent days as the reality in Iraq has clashed with Bush's rosy portrayals.
In Anne Sheridan's office, the wall behind her desk has a chart locating the state's National Guard units, a reminder that security is not just a foreign policy issue, but a human one. No state in the country has a higher percentage of its Guard units deployed -- an astonishing 60 percent. As a security matter, that localizes Kerry's claims about the administration's use of a backdoor draft to fight in Iraq, robbing safety and stretching resources.
But it is also a people issue. Kerry may have been received less favorably than Bush during the recent National Guard Association convention, but he got a loud standing ovation with his call to provide National Guardsmen who are deployed with the same benefits as regular military personnel.
What has put Nevada in play politically is kitchen table economics. "People are concerned about what's happening to them right now," said Le ia Reyes, who is Kerry's political director here.
Nevada's population explosion since 2000 is on the heels of a two-thirds rise in the 1990s. The retiree numbers are of course large (11 percent of the adults are above 65), but the major cause is migration from other states, not so much for the always available tourism and construction jobs but for the lower housing costs. Nearly 20 percent of the population is now Latino, and these migrants as well as the entire state is overwhelmingly middle and lower income (the median household income at $44,000 is $5000 below the national figure).
At least a half-million Nevadans have no health insurance and wages have been flat, fueling support for a referendum to raise the minimum wage $1 above the $5.15 an hour federal requirement.
All that, and the state continues to be up in arms against Bush's decision to locate the country's nuclear waste depository in the desert north of here -- tied up in the courts but seen as a character issue that hurts the president after his pledge in 2000 to let science guide his judgment.
Kerry's campaign also benefits from the hard work of Senator Harry Reid, who learned from a squeaker six years ago to take nothing for granted. He is considered a shoo-in against a far-right developer best known for his crusades against gay marriage.
My sense from a quick visit was that if Kerry is credible on national security in the debates, he will win on economic issues. The irony here is that Mike Bednarik could end up holding Bush's key.
Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is [email protected].
Could be. Third party candidates have hurt GOP candidates before (ie Perot).
Of course, this article was written by an individual with a direct tie to the Kerry camp, so it's not surprising the article has the whiff of wishful thinking.
By the same token, it was said that Nader hurt Gore.
Bednarak hasn't got a snowball's chance in of affecting the outcome of this election to the extent that does Nader -- again.
The way I see it, candidates like Nader and Badnarek do not affect elections. They are necessary results of having two major party candidates who are (or appear to be) similar on several issues.
If 5% of the US votes for Ralph Nader, it's not because Ralph Nader ran for President. It's because John Kerry didn't appeal to those voters. Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the 2000 Election. Al Gore cost Al Gore the 2000 Election. You can't assume Nader's voters would have still registered and voted for Al Gore. Many of them may not have voted at all.
The major parties should be doing more to attract those voters rather than attempt to take away their choices through legal procedures and other means.
Last edited by Spurminator; 10-04-2004 at 03:43 PM.
Exactly. Also I find it interesting that some people seem to think that Nader was the 1st presidential candidate to pose such a 'problem' for a major candidate. Makes you wonder if they ever heard of Perot...
Exactly, but Democrats would love to GUILT you into voting for them. ers.
Vote for who most closely represents your views. If it's Nader or the Libertarianwhateverhisnameis then do it. Change doesn't happen by affirming the same old tired crap.
^^
Well put. Couldn't agree more.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
