"we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them"

[Jim Lane]

66. Trading speculations here....

In one of your scenarios, Kerry wins in 2004 but the Greens get 5%. I see that as a very unlikely combination. A Green total of as much as 5% makes it tough for a Democrat to win. Just for comparison, in the official totals for 2004, Bush beat Kerry by about 2.5% of the popular vote.

Granted, much of the Green total in your scenario is in safely blue states. Kerry could conceivably win the Presidency even though, with his margin in places like California eroded by the Greens, he loses the popular vote to Bush.

For the long run, I agree with your observation that the Green Party has fallen into obscurity and irrelevance. I see that as a good thing, though. With the institutional factors that shore up the dominance of the two major parties, the existence of a strong Green Party (Getting Republicans Elected Every November) would do more harm than good. Let the Greens run their candidates in the Democratic primaries instead.

That would also be an improvement on the "gambit" strategy you mention. If Nader runs in the general election but campaigns only in safe states, he still loses some blue-state and red-state voters who like him but who want to vote against Bush, and he still picks up some votes in swing states from people who don't focus on the realities. Therefore, the contrast wouldn't be all that sharp. A better way for him to demonstrate the strength of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party would have been for him to run in the primaries. He probably couldn't have denied Gore the nomination, but I'll bet his vote total would have been higher. He would also have reaped a host of other advantages, such as using his debates with Gore and Bradley to popularize and legitimize progressive ideas, and helping to build a network of activists within the Democratic Party who could then help good candidates for many offices for years to come.