At first, the official response to Ralph Nader's fourth-party candidacy for president was to ignore it, on the assumption that the public would do the same. The voters, however, have a different idea -- and now that Nader has polled at 8 percent nationally, raised $1 million, campaigned in all fifty states, gotten on the ballot in thirty states (with more to come), and been nominated in Denver by a serious and enthusiastic group of Green Party delegates from all across America, backed by the most comprehensive, detailed, and intelligent platform of any of the candidates, the conveyors of conventional wisdom have begun to take notice.

What is the effect of Ralph Nader's candidacy? Here's one outcome -- a higher voter turnout, as Nader raises critical issues like global trade and the rising rich/poor gap, issues that would otherwise be ignored. Here's another result -- a higher non-right-wing vote, as young voters, Perot voters, and disaffected union members are given a serious option to support.

In fact, I would make the case that win or lose, Ralph Nader's campaign will boost turnout and progressive votes, providing the extra margin of victory needed for progressives to finally take back the House; to install Dick Gephardt as Speaker, David Bonior as Majority Leader, and John Conyers as Judiciary Chair; and to shut down Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, and the rest of the leftover Gingrich wrecking crew.

I am talking here about the battle for the U.S. House of Representatives, a fight that has been fought to a virtual standstill for three straight elections, where less than 40,000 additional voters could have prevented Newt Gingrich from ever coming to power in 1994, where only a six-seat margin makes the difference, where the Republican versus Democratic vote in 1998 came out to 49 percent to 48.5 percent for the House races. A boost in progressive turnout could easily make the difference in enough contested districts to take back the House -- especially this year, when we face the prospect of two uninspiring major party candidates, and up to 100 million non-voters.

Consider the most recent Field Poll from California, which showed Gore ahead of Bush by 46 percen to 35 percent, while Nader ran ahead of Buchanan by 7 percent to 2 percent. This means that in the many contested House races in California -- almost enough to retake the House in that one state, including the open Campbell seat (CA-15), the hotly-contested Rogan seat (CA-27), the Kuykendall/Harman rematch in CA-36, the surprising Horn/Schippske contest in CA-38, and the toss-up San Diego seat of Brian Bilbray (CA-49) -- a down-ballot Democrat could be as far ahead as a 16 percent lead, courtesy of Gore's 11 percent lead over Bush plus Nader's 5 percent lead over Buchanan! This statewide 16 percent lead exceeds Clinton's large 13 percent margin of victory in both 1996 and 1998!

(And these Nader votes are even more vital in other districts around the country, if Gore is unable to come back from his current deficit against Bush.)

Or consider the hotly-contested open seat in Lansing, Michigan. Is it so hard to imagine that Ralph Nader would inspire a larger student turnout in one of the biggest campuses in the country, while also bringing to the polls UAW members disgusted with Gore's support of NAFTA and PNTR for China?

We believe Nader will provide a boost in these districts -- and many others like them -- among alienated voters unlikely to respond to the Gore campaign's "New Democrat" mantras. This is especially true in an electorate made up of more than half non-voters. Start with college voters, interested in sweatshops, Nike, the WTO, and globalization; consider the Perot '92 voters, most of whom stayed home in '96; add in progressives who have become so disgusted with the rightward slide of the Democratic Party that they've given up voting, and McCain voters not sure if they can support Pat Robertson's GOP, but fierce in their commitment to reform in Washington; and then add on all the Teamsters, Autoworkers, and Steelworkers who have watched their jobs get sent overseas at the behest of Wall Street.

In addition, I believe the Nader campaign has the best chance to attract the Perot '96 voters. Think about it -- in 1996, a year when Bill Clinton led by a substantial margin from start to finish, and ended up winning by an 8 percent margin -- over 8 million voters went to the polls to vote for Ross Perot rather than one of the two major party candidates, even knowing he was not going to win!

Now consider: if 8 million Perot voters still went to the polls in '96, but would not pick Clinton over Dole, how likely are any of these voters to pick Gore over Bush or Buchanan? I'd say, not very likely. And if these 8 million Perot '96 voters cast their presidential votes for Bush or Buchanan, how likely are they to support the more progressive candidate for Congress? Again, not too likely. Yet if these 8 million voters start with Nader, they are much more likely to cast their down-ballot votes against the right-wing Wall Street apologists running for Congress.

These voters mean that the Nader campaign will add both to the pool and to the vote share of progressive voters, which benefits down-ballot progressive Democrats, and makes retaking the House much more likely. This is good news for progressives.

In so many of the contested districts, who would benefit? The answer: the Democratic candidate, new Speaker Dick Gephardt, and new Majority Leader David Bonior, should Nader voters in each of these districts provide the margin of victory to finally end the Gingrich Era once and for all. This is a likely possibility -- after all, in 1994, 1996, and 1998, literally a handful of votes in just a handful of races made the difference between Gingrich and Gephardt. And this time it would also mean new Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Veterans Chair Lane Evans, and other key progressive chairs including Nydia Velasquez, George Miller, David Obey, and Henry Waxman.

Ralph Nader's potential for growth in this election year is still very strong, as he alone tills the formerly fertile -- and now largely abandoned-fields of progressive politics. Will the voters respond to a candidate who is serious about core environmental and labor rights in trade agreements; who is serious about national health insurance; who is serious about taking on corporate commercial culture and power; who has the integrity to be trusted on campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, and voting reforms; who is willing to take on both corporate money and corporate power to protect our children from being turned into spectators and passive consumers of commodities; and who means it when he takes a stand for labor law reform? I believe the answer is yes, and in larger numbers than any of the conventional wisdom crowd could have ever imagined when Ralph Nader announced his candidacy in February.

And to the extent that we are right about the potential for a surprisingly strong Nader vote -- a vote which is already polling far better than the conventional wisdom predicted -- then one thing is certain: Ralph Nader is helping Dick Gephardt, David Bonior, and John Conyers take back the House.

Steve Cobble is a strategist with the Nader campaign and the former political director of the National Rainbow Coalition.

© 1999-2000 The Florence Fund

###