Nader's reach won't cut Kerry

Here's the unedited version of a letter I had printed in the Washington Times back in March. The version they printed is here. (If I recall, the major difference was they cut out the part where I asked them to be accountable.) The situation may certainly have changed since then, but I think the overall sloppy statistical analyses are prevalent in papers everywhere. The bigger picture, as it pertains to the presidential race, is this confusion of strategy for fact -- it's usually just an accepted truth that Nader's success is universally bad for Kerry and universally good for Bush, a corollary to the "Nader made Gore lose" train of thought.

To the editor:

I wish to comment on a bit of sloppy analysis that slid its way into Steve Miller's article "Nader campaign gives Bush a boost in polls" (The Washington Times, March 17, 2004). I'm no statistician – and clearly, neither is Mr. Miller – but these results offer few clues as to how many votes Mr. Nader seems to be pulling from any candidate (assuming for the moment that the votes would otherwise be "owed" to some candidate). Mr. Miller compares results in which Mr. Nader was included in the poll questions to results in which he was not, showing a dip in Mr. Kerry's numbers of 5% (the margin of error was 3%).

But his extrapolation includes no discussion of the unpledged voters responding to either question. According to the full poll results, when the question posed mentions only Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush, 1% vote for "Other," 1% said they "Won't vote," and 2% said "Depends." When Mr. Nader is included, the total from those categories was 1%. In other words, Mr. Nader picked up 3% of his 7% total from people uncommitted to either major-party candidate. Given the margin of error, one can only definitively confirm that Mr. Nader drew 1% of voters from Kerry – hardly "cutting a wide swath," to use Mr. Miller's words.

Also missing from Mr. Miller's analysis were the total number of nonvoters polled – pointing out things like 18% of the 1,206 adults polled were not registered voters, or that 29% of everyone polled did not vote in 2000, might have given some perspective on the helpfulness and reliability of questioning this particular group of people. Furthermore, no questions were directly asked of those being polled about Mr. Nader's effect on their votes, which would have been the only sure way to gauge the bearing on Mr. Kerry's support.

Perhaps Mr. Miller did not have space to properly analyze the poll or its results. But to make unqualified statements about "a [continuing] pattern of Mr. Nader dipping into the well of votes Mr. Kerry is expected to secure" is intellectually lazy, bordering on dishonest. This is particularly so when the only evidence given to corroborate that statement is another poll showing Mr. Nader's support among members of his ethnicity in four unnamed states. Considering the headline and focus of this story on Mr. Nader's influence on the race, one would expect some more evidence – indeed, one would expect more of Mr. Miller and this newspaper.

Sincerely,
Mark Zipkin

Stick it to the NYT

To the editor:

The article "Nation's Direction Prompts Voters' Concern, Poll Finds" (March 16) is presumptive discussing Ralph Nader's influence on John Kerry's support, saying Nader's candidacy is "potentially lethal" and implying that Nader's inclusion in the race knocked down Kerry's poll numbers 5% (+/-3%).

But Nader picked up 3 of his 7% from people uncommitted to Kerry. Statistically, Nader could have drawn just 1% from Kerry. And some perspective on who was polled: 18% were not registered voters, 29% did not vote in 2000, and 17% wouldn't commit to voting this November. If these people left Kerry for Nader based on the wording of a question, was Nader really shown "potentially lethal" to Kerry in this poll? In an article pondering many of the complexities affecting the outcome of the presidential race, such unsupported, unqualified assumptions have no place.

Sincerely,

Mark Zipkin

Lone Ranger

To the Editor:

Paul Loeb's column, "Lone Ranger" (February 26th issue), makes some silly and misguided arguments. Loeb claims that Ralph Nader's "core case in announcing his 2004 presidential candidacy" is his right to run. Nader has been forced to justify his decision following demands by a number of politicians and pundits that he stay
out.

While one might easily gauge Nader's zealous response to those who demand "Ralph, don't run" an overreaction, it is laughable for a serious observer to suggest it is the foundation for his run.Nader's platform is (not surprisingly) very similar to his platform of four years ago, with the exception that now he bears the additional burden of explaining why he is not personally responsible for all of the ills he seeks to overcome. It includes, as Loeb hints, his mission to remind Americans that we are bound together by our citizenship and our consumerism. But Loeb's analogy is strained when he claims Nader's run now depends upon "fixating on his own absolute right to do whatever he chooses." Nader's activist causes have always involved his leadership and began with a small group of supporters, including all of his victories. He has gone and will go it alone to defend what he believes is the common good, regardless of what popular opinion says. To encourage a man of Nader's experience to do anything different is a pointless and wrong-headed exercise.

Can Loeb really believe that a man so ostracized from the political mainstream in 2000 that he was barred physically even from attending presidential debates as an audience member ought to be deterred because he seems unwanted?

As to Loeb's claim that Nader can raise awareness for issues he supports in arenas outside the presidential race, Loeb clearly hasn't been noticing the attention he and his fellow media pundits are paying to Nader's candidacy in the past week.

It would be nice to see as many stories focusing on other candidates so driven by their egos that they are willing to modify "beliefs" or misconstrue voting records for short-term political popularity.

Mark Zipkin
Somerville, New Jersey

Come Ride in My Corvair!

There seem to be fundamental misunderstandings about Ralph Nader's arguments claiming he was not at "fault" for Al Gore's loss in the 2000 presidential election, many of which were furthered in Knute Berger's article "Come Ride in My Corvair!" (Seattle Weekly, Feb 25-Mar 2). Though Berger claims Nader's justifications were "warped," he in fact does the warping.

As Berger mentions, Nader is at most "partly responsible for Gore's defeat." But Berger adopts the tone of many who make the leap from "partly responsible" to "devil incarnate." While it is fair to argue Gore would have won if Nader hadn't run, it is as fair to argue Gore could have won by any number of small campaign changes. The only way to write Nader off as a "spoiler" is to assume Gore was entitled to the White House, and was unfairly robbed. While this may be much easier for partisan Democrats to swallow (rather than accepting responsibility for a campaign and candidate that alienated its base), it is unfortunately a shallow and self-defeating perspective.

Berger also brings up the assertion popularly attributed to Nader that there "was no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties." Nader himself never said that, but did point out major similarities between parties and the willingness of elected Democrats to capitulate to conservative principals when enough special interest money or political pressure was applied. Nader continues to promote this belief today, not the bastardized oversimplification that Berger presents.

There's more mischaracterization when Berger mentions Nader's point about aiding the election of Democrats at local and state levels in 2000. Nader brought people to the polls who wound up casting votes for Democrats, as Greens were not on the ballot for most positions nationwide; his point in explaining this was not to argue that Democrats ain't so bad after all, just to counter the common claim that a vote for Nader was a vote for Republicans. This was not a secret admission that Nader truly believes there are mammoth differences between the two parties on all issues, just a reasonable argument against those claiming Nader's campaign ultimately helped only Republicans. (This argument is meaningless if one accepts Nader's argument about the similarities between major parties anyway, but seems more about correcting a logical contradiction than making a political point.)

Despite Berger's claims that the "rationales for his candidacy... seem to be about Ralph," Nader's runs for president – past and current – seem less about ego or vanity than most other presidential candidates. Nader is aware that he personifies a political movement concerned with new ideas and Americans who have largely been marginalized by the major parties. Democrats who craft their campaigns to appeal to moderates need to know they can't have it both ways – no party should feel "owed" a voting block while eschewing an ideology aimed elsewhere. To claim that Nader is acting out of ego while major party nominees are today grandstanding in support of their "principles" – based on political expediency and political tilt of their momentary audience – is intellectually dishonest and extremely demoralizing.

Partisan Democrats, and some sympathizers in the press, can and will continue to vilify Nader for their own ends, and in the short run it will probably be successful in gaining the support of the left to oust the purported menace of Four More Years. Mainstream pundits have long been successful in writing off different perspectives and their supporters as extreme or crazy, and their efforts to trade the oil king for the ketchup king will likely succeed. But in the long-term – the time frame Nader has always been considering – a liberal movement will embrace the ideas and motives he puts forth today.