Quotes of the Day

So Ralph Nader's running again.

What does that mean? Anyone who offers a prediction about an election this early is a fool. John Kerry once seemed inevitable, then Howard Dean came along and seemed like the certain Democratic nominee. Now Kerry has reclaimed his air of inevitability. Things change. Still, I think a few things are likely:

Nader's numbers will decline. Historically, third-party candidates fade on their second try. Ross Perot went from 19% of the vote in 1992 to 8% in 1996.  Norman Thomas, the legendary Socialist candidate in 1928, dropped from 2.5% that year to less than one percent in 1932, and he continued to fade through 1948. That reflects the delcine of socialism in America, but also boredom with Thomas. This time, Nader's not only old news—he's resented. There are enough Democrats who are angry at Nader for having cost them the 2000 election that it's going to be hard to get them back to the polls. Besides, the sheer novelty of third-party candidates fades after time. They get less free media and seem less intriguing. And Nader may have a tough time getting on the ballot. He's declining the Green Party route, preferring to run as an independent this time.

Trade gets on the agenda. Nader's candidacy puts trade and corporate responsibility on the national agenda. Of course with outsourcing and a swelling trade deficit, the issue was already in play, but Nader's critique of the current trade regimen—he'd abolish the WTO, repeal NAFTA and start again—will highlight the issue even further. With both Bush and Kerry being pro-NAFTA, there is plenty of room for Nader to run.

He could still throw the election. When two guys sling mud at each other, people sometimes like the third guy. As the Bush-Kerry race engages, there are bound to be voters who say, "a pox on both your houses."  And one more thing to consider: Are those progressives Howard Dean brought into the political process going to stay home, vote for John Kerry, or be pulled toward Nader?

Nader could fade and still throw the election. He only got 2.7 percent of the vote in 2000, but his tallies in New Hampshire and Florida were greater than Bush's margin of victory. It wouldn't take a huge draw of Democrats to tip another close state this time. A senior Bush adviser told TIME this week that their private estimates are that 2/3 of Nader voters would have stayed home had he not run in 2000. Virtually all of the remaining 1/3 were drawn from the ranks of Democrats. If that analysis is right, then a minuscule number of the votes in 2000 were Democrats who would have voted for Gore had Nader not been in the race. But that minuscule amount in Florida and New Hampshire might have made all the difference to Gore.

• Matthew Cooper
• What Ralph Nader's candidacy could mean for the election