Footnote to the preceding

Back on December 7, I considered what was then the possibility of a Nader presidential campaign. After first running down why the "Bush is Nader's fault" line is utter nonsense and noting some of what Nader and the Greens accomplished in 2000, I concluded:

All that said, do I think Ralph Nader should run for President in 2004?

No.

Not because of anything that's been said about him but frankly because it will be said again. That is, a Nader run would be divisive among progressives to the point of being disruptive.... Frankly, a Nader run in 2004 would be a tactical mistake that could do more to weaken the Left than to strengthen it. So, no, Ralph, don't run.

It seems exactly that prediction has been borne out. But it's wise to keep in mind that my prediction actually had two parts: First, Nader's decision to run and second, the reaction to it. Those who now declare they "fucking hate" Nader and consider his supporters "delusional" and guilty of "betrayal" of the "left" (as if John Kerry was its best representative) could not control the first part, but they are entirely responsible for the second.

Footnote to the Footnote: I also predicted on February 22 that Nader would have a negligible effect on the race.

[S]o much of the left side of the spectrum is focused on Anybody But Bush that I can't see him (or any other leftist third party or independent candidate) getting much support from there from anyone except the genuinely ideologically committed who otherwise likely wouldn't vote at all.

We won't know the accuracy of that prediction until after November 2, but for now I stand by it. The claim that Nader is hurting Kerry is not, as far as I can tell, based on anything beyond sheer speculation and stretching poll results far beyond what their margins of error would allow.