Democrat Ralph Nader

JoeMulk

Banned
I was watching "An Unreasonable Man" the documentary on the life of Ralph Nader and it was mentioned that McGovern asked him to be considered to be on the shortlist of VP picks in 72. He didn't accept because he wanted to remain independent but suppose that he did? Obviously it would have no impact on the 72 election...a McGovern/Nader ticket would do about as well as a McGovern/Shriver ticket did OTL but it does put him in the position of being inside the Democratic Party. Maybe in 76 as a popular national figure he runs a grassroots campaign and wins the nomination and we get a Nader/Carter ticket. At that point he probably could have been elected since he was a very popular national figure then.

Obviously given Nader's personality and charachter him accepting the VP slot is ASB but still...
 

Thande

Donor
While doing research on satirical portrayals of Jimmy Carter's presidency by reading MAD magazine from that era, I was surprised to learn that Nader was already a household name: he seems to have been regarded as a tinfoil hat type obsessed with regulating things.
 
Too far to the left to apply to the mainstream. Particularly once you get into the 80s, when the New Democrat model emerges. Carter appealed as a Christian Democrat with a clean image who could bring the country beyond the scandal and polarization of the Watergate era. Nader isn't that type; he's a strident warrior.

In the end I couldn't see him advancing beyond a principled party anchor in a solid Democrat House district in Connecticut. Don't know if Connecticut would allow him to move up to the Senate - it is the state that has regularly elected and re-elected Joe Lieberman after all. If so though, or if he were to start his career in Vermont, I could see him maintaining some stature in the Senate as a mix of Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold.
 
I was watching "An Unreasonable Man" the documentary on the life of Ralph Nader and it was mentioned that McGovern asked him to be considered to be on the shortlist of VP picks in 72. [. . .] Maybe in 76 as a popular national figure he runs a grassroots campaign and wins the nomination and we get a Nader/Carter ticket. At that point he probably could have been elected since he was a very popular national figure then. Obviously given Nader's personality and charachter him accepting the VP slot is ASB but still...

He was never a "popular national figure" and would stand no chance of winning the presidency in '76 (and very little chance of winning the Democratic nomination that or any year). He is far to left wing to be a viable candidate.


While doing research on satirical portrayals of Jimmy Carter's presidency by reading MAD magazine from that era, I was surprised to learn that Nader was already a household name: he seems to have been regarded as a tinfoil hat type obsessed with regulating things.

Yes, his was a household name. :mad: He killed the Corvair!
 

Technocrat

Banned
You have to remember, Mr.Roastbeef, that the electorate never chose nor trended to the New Democrats, it was as much as internal party coup as the New Left. So it's not an inevitability at all. Speaking of which, had he been elected McGovern would have probably fared about as well as Carter - the first DLC appointee to the White House more or less, given the opportunity presented by Nixon and their coup over the party - did.

Speed the grassroots campaign of ex-hippies (the New Left electorate, that George McGovern was popular with, as opposed to the internal faction of the party establishment that held that name and staged the coup that resulted in the DLC Thermidore Reaction) up by four years, avoid the actual party establishment New Left taking over, avoid the DLC counter response, get McGovern as a darkhorse winner in the Democratic primary to beat Ford and become an ATL version of Carter. This time at least when people refer to an ineffective leftist one-termer, it'll be an actual leftist (well, center-leftist at least; after all he was a WWII veteran with pretty mild policies) and not center-right Carter.

McGovern runs for reelection, switches out VP's (selects Nader) - loses reelection. Nader comes off looking good though and has become an assumptive possible primary entry for all Democratic presidential primaries until he becomes too old to be very viable.
 
Last edited:
You have to remember, Mr.Roastbeef, that the electorate never chose nor trended to the New Democrats, it was as much as internal party coup as the New Left. So it's not an inevitability at all.

The only "New Democrat" ever nominated for the presidency won after his party spent 12 years out of said office.
 
In modern American politics the role of VP is to be an attack dog. Going after the opposition while the POTUS stands above the fray. Some of the more cynical among us would argue that many of the VPs are individuals who should not be within shouting distance of any real power as a deterrence to assassination. Seems that Nader could fit this role.
 

Technocrat

Banned
The only "New Democrat" ever nominated for the presidency won after his party spent 12 years out of said office.

Carter was the first DLC pick, and he was sure successful :rolleyes:

Clinton actually did the work and got in by winning support, not through a reactionary counter-revolt within the party.
 
He is too far left to win a national election. if remains a loyal Democrat and does not run as independent in 2000, then Gore wins.
 
Carter wasn't a DLCer. The Democratic Leadership Council was not even formed until 1985.

Not in the literal sense but rather in the ideological. RB tends to dub every centrist Democrat as a DLCer, which I often disagree with. In this case I see Carter as more of a traditional moderate politician whose focus was on cutting inflation and balancing the budget. I affiliate the DLC with more of a "radical center" outlook, looking for pragmatic solutions and bringing both sides to the table. That's why I withhold the DLC label for the likes of Clinton, Bobby Kennedy, and various other bipartisian pragmatist democrats.
 
Not in the literal sense but rather in the ideological. RB tends to dub every centrist Democrat as a DLCer, which I often disagree with. In this case I see Carter as more of a traditional moderate politician whose focus was on cutting inflation and balancing the budget. I affiliate the DLC with more of a "radical center" outlook, looking for pragmatic solutions and bringing both sides to the table. That's why I withhold the DLC label for the likes of Clinton, Bobby Kennedy, and various other bipartisian pragmatist democrats.

I thought for sure that RB had argued that Carter did not fit the DLC mold anyway.
 

Technocrat

Banned
Rogue called Carter DLC, I had just referred to him as "easily scapegoated Moderate exhibit A" so to speak; and ever since I arrived at these boards everyone acts like Rogue is an expert on center-right to right politicos, soooo...

And I would hardly lump Bobby Kennedy with Bill Clinton. Comparing a conservative from a stereotypically liberal background and a liberal from a stereotypically conservative background is not accurate - we're talking about a right to center right liberal conservative versus a center-right to center reformist/populist.
 
Top