Nader is only likely to get the absolutely most dissatisfied "progressive" or "leftist" vote and much smaller numbers of it than in 2000. That is the real meaning of the incredible rank and file discipline of the Democrats this year.

As a spoiler candidate he is maxed out once he is on as many ballots as possible, so why give him a platform while two fine gentlemen from Yale have a sporting flutter?

Those Republican Reps and Senators are far more useful in the boonies, talking to constituencies they know well, about what a great leader the President is. By definition, they have proven by election to be liked well enough to be listened to. And, of course, half the Reps and one-third of the Senators have races of their own to run.

Oh... and I did vote Libertarian in 2000. I will not be doing so (at least nationally) in 2004.

My mind's spinning.

At any rate, with all due respect to the good Doctor, I disagree with James that either of his proposed efforts would result in a measurable increase in votes for President Bush. Neither one strikes me as sufficiently critical. But I'm known to be politically naïve at times.

I'm well aware that the GOP's support of Nader is as a spoiler; the point I was trying to make is that it's so transparent I believe it will backfire on them. Doubly, in fact - pushing more Dems to vote for Kerry & giving Repubs a way to say "Bush doesn't really represent me".

Precisely. In the end, that's a tactic that's going to turn off a lot of middle-of-the-road liberal types that would have voted for Nader to stick it to Kerry. Or so the current theory goes, and I think it has legs.

Because he's a candidate of the Left that agrees with the Democrats and disagrees with the Republicans on virtually every issue of public policy?

And, news flash, most of the GOP "support" for Nader is support for a spoiler candidate to siphon votes away from Kerry, not "support" in the sense that they are actually going to vote for him.

Tell me, someone, how Nader isn't a second GOP nominee for President?

Putting him on-stage next to GW will only underline his stature as a "republican lite" (this cycle, anyway... he was a "dem lite" in 2000). I still believe Nader will be the "protest vote" candidate for Repubs who don't want to vote for Bush.