Here's today's quiz: In the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush carried Florida by the incredibly narrow margin of 537 votes. Was there any state where the winning margin was even smaller?

The answer is yes. Al Gore carried New Mexico by only 366 votes.

The point is that the 2000 election wasn't close just in Florida, it also was close in many other states, including Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Oregon. And the Ralph Nader vote was vastly larger in each of those states than the final margin of difference.

It's too soon to tell whether the 2004 election will be close, but with the country so evenly divided about the Bush presidency, it could well be. And Nader is thinking of running again. Should those of us on the left encourage him to do so?

I'm a huge Nader supporter. I voted for him in 2000 and sent him money. Anyone who has examined his record of public service over the past 35 years would have to admit that he has done more -- or attempted to do more -- for the American people than virtually any other living American.

But it's also true that he tipped the 2000 election to Bush. (Nader, incidentally, still denies this, as do many members of the Green Party. Nader has said to me, "Gore slipped on a dozen banana peels in 2000; I was only one of them." That's all true, but the point is that the "Nader banana peel" was one that only Nader created, and if he hadn't run, Gore would have easily won Florida, where Nader drew 97,288 votes and Gore lost by 537. Without Nader, Gore also would have won New Hampshire, and George W. Bush would be only a historical footnote today.)

A few weeks back, I made about 50 phone calls to members of the Pacific Green Party in Oregon. I asked each of those folks what they would do in 2004 if Nader ran again. Interestingly, they were pretty equally divided into three groups: One-third said they would vote for Nader, "no matter what"; one-third said they wouldn't vote for Nader, "no matter what"; and the final third said they would wait and see if Oregon was "in play," meaning if the seven Oregon electoral votes might well determine the outcome. If so, they would vote for "any Democrat," but not Nader.

Apparently, as Oregon goes on this question so goes the nation, according to the scuttlebutt I hear from around the country. One might ask, "Why all this attention on Nader? Any third-party candidate could tip the balance in 2004." Not likely. In 2000, Nader drew three times as many votes as all the other third-party candidates combined. And if he attracts only one-third as many votes in '04 as he did in '02, it could still be decisive in another close election.

Nader has sent out a letter to his major 2004 contributors, seeking their advice on his 2004 candidacy. (Knowing Nader's integrity, I believe he was honestly seeking input and not just campaign contributions.) My advice to Nader was to not run. There are many ways to promote his issues and the Green Party platform besides another run for president: Raise money for a regular radio or TV show or a nonstop speaking tour or start a grassroots democracy organization. Had he chosen to, he could have received a ton of free air time for many months by running in the Democratic primaries.

But I'm one of the ABB persuasion -- Anybody But Bush -- and so is just about every progressive I know. Maybe we're all overreacting by talking about leaving the country if Bush is re-elected. But the Bush imperial presidency has shaken us down to our heels. This is no longer the country we thought we knew and loved.

So what will Nader do? Stay tuned.

Harry Lonsdale of Sisters, Oregonis a member of the Pacific Green Party.

Copyright 2004 Oregon Live

###