E-Mail This Article to a Friend Power broker (continued)
	Who likes Ralph? A POLL BY the Associated Press released March 5 found that 46 percent of respondents favored George W. Bush for president, 45 percent supported US Senator John Kerry, and six percent liked Ralph Nader. The same level of support for Nader was also found in a poll released March 9 by Investor’s Business Daily. In that poll, however, respondents favored Kerry over Bush 44 percent to 41 percent. The best information in the IBD poll, though, was the breakdown of support for each candidate according to 17 variables, ranging from lifestyle (affluent, retired, city dweller, upscale, mobile, etc.) to ideology (conservative, moderate, or liberal). So where is support for Nader the strongest? In the Northeast (where 10 percent of respondents said they would vote for him); with voters under age 24 (12 percent); with voters earning less than $30,000 a year (nine percent); among independents (14 percent); among upscale households (12 percent); with young mobile adults (10 percent); with white men (nine percent); with black men (eight percent); and with those who opposed the war in Iraq (11 percent). — Susan Ryan-Vollmar

IF NADER remains an independent candidate, meanwhile, it’s almost certain his presence in the race will hurt the Green nominee. Consider the issue of ballot access. To run a presidential candidate in the 27 states where their party lacks ballot status, the Greens need to gather about 250,000 signatures. With 300,000 registered Greens nationwide, they should be able to do it — but if Green volunteers flock to the Nader camp, the job gets a whole lot harder. Nader and the Green nominee may offer dovetailing messages to the public — but for precisely that reason, they’ll be drawing on the same pool of progressive activists in the run-up to November. "At this time, it does look like a competition, no question about it," McMillan says of the ballot-access push.

A similar dynamic could be at work on Election Day. In some states, including Massachusetts, the Greens may not retain ballot status in 2006 if their 2004 presidential nominee receives less than a certain percentage of the vote. (The method of retaining ballot status varies from state to state. In general, though, a strong showing by a party’s presidential candidate is often the easiest option.) Even if Nader were the Green nominee, the Greens might lose a few of their 23 state-ballot lines. But with Nader competing with a lesser-known Green candidate for votes, the attrition could be much more dramatic.

Some Greens downplay these defection scenarios. "I interact with Greens all over the country, and I know they’re gearing up to place a Green nominee on the ballot," USGP co-chair Ben Manski says. But Manski may be overly optimistic. Camejo, for example, argues that Nader deserves the Greens’ backing even if he’s not their nominee. "If Ralph Nader wants to run as an independent for whatever reason, I can see some legitimacy in that," Camejo says. "And I think he’s been under attack. So I think it’s crucial the Greens show support for him."

If enough Greens agree, the integrity of the USGP, an eight-year-old umbrella organization formerly known as the Association of State Green Parties, could be in jeopardy. While Greens strive for consensus through decentralized decision-making, they also accept the need for some top-down direction. Consequently, state Green parties are obligated to run whichever candidate secures the USGP nomination. But there’s already talk that this requirement might be a casualty of Nader’s 2004 campaign. At June’s USGP convention, Camejo hopes the national party will urge state parties to back whichever candidate they choose: "Why not let all Greens go to work?" he asks. "Let those who want to [do so] work with Nader, and those who want to work with David Cobb work with David Cobb." Other Greens, however, worry that if this doesn’t happen, some state parties will flout the rules by throwing their ballot lines and human capital to Nader, of their own volition or at his request. This wouldn’t destroy the Green movement. But it could create some serious turbulence for a party that’s grown from 100,000 to 300,000 since 1992. "Divisiveness for a young party is not helpful," says Green-Rainbow co-chair Grace Ross.

Whether this happens may be up to Nader. "It would only be a concern if Ralph Nader makes it a concern," Manski says. "It will really be up to him whether he seeks the support of the national party as a whole [or] seeks the support of individual Green parties, or whether he says, ‘I’m an independent, and I’m not going to bother the Greens.’ It is entirely in his hands which one he pursues."

SINCE NADER’S first Green run in 1996, his reputation among the Green Party faithful has acquired a schizophrenic tinge. They’ve been disappointed by his unwillingness to register as a Green, his reluctance to share donor and volunteer lists, and his preference for maintaining his own autonomous campaign organization instead of operating within the national Green framework. At the same time, most Greens realize they owe Nader a debt of gratitude. His 2000 run "put us on the map as a political party," John Rensenbrink says.

For now, Greens who didn’t want Nader to run this year and Greens who feel jilted by his decision seem to agree on one thing: even when they’re criticizing Nader, they can’t help singing his praises. But if the worst-case scenarios attached to his independent candidacy pan out, even the Greens — most of whom are the last ones willing to defend Nader after the 2000 election debacle — may turn on him. During the 2000 campaign, this shift would have been hard to imagine. Now it’s not so difficult.

Adam Reilly can be reached at areilly[a]phx.com