IN THE CLOSELY divided U.S. electorate, a meaningful percentage of progressive voters are torn about whom they should vote for in this year's presidential election. Ralph Nader offers positions on the issues far closer to their hearts. But this year, for nearly all progressives, one issue supersedes all others: beating George W. Bush.

Removing Bush has become such a universal and passionate goal for progressives that a rather amazing transformation has occurred. In 2000, Nader ran primarily on the now-famous "Tweedledum and Tweedledee" argument: that there was no significant difference between Bush and Democrat Al Gore. With that position no longer viable in the face of four stunning years of Bush, Nader has adopted a dramatically different campaign premise.

He says this time around he'll help beat Bush.

Nader has made this assertion at every opportunity, rationalizing his 2004 campaign by saying that he'll open "a second front" against the president and that he'll attract "conservative voters who are furious at Bush." On CNN's Inside Politics, he went so far as to say, "Very few of my votes will come from Democrats."

It's readily apparent why Nader has adopted this claim: he has little choice. The popular fury at Bush among his natural constituency requires such a stand. But is Nader's claim true?

In a word, no.

We have just completed a study, "Poll Watch 04," of every poll since Nader's announcement that measures Bush and Kerry head-to-head and Bush, Kerry, and Nader in a three-way race. The results are overwhelming and clear.

Of the 37 polls reviewed, 32 show Nader hurting Kerry, while 1 shows Nader hurting Bush (by a scant 1 percent in a Fox News poll). Four show no effect.

Faced with such overwhelming and objective evidence, Nader should stop making what must be called, at best, the disingenuous claim that he'll help beat Bush. The truth is quite the opposite.

Nader's continued use of the claim that he'll help beat Bush would call into question the very foundation of Nader's remarkable career in public life: his honesty. It's one thing to engage in wishful thinking, or even in the inevitable exaggerations of advocacy. But when do exaggerations become deceit? In a person running for president, is the "big lie" simply to be expected, or with Nader, were we supposed to expect something better? With the facts now absolutely clear, we ask Nader to stop misleading his followers.

The polling data in our study, and the single-digit voter percentages involved, take on a unique stature due to the unprecedented condition of the American electorate. We're closely divided as rarely before in our history. The outcome of the 2004 presidential election will come down to very small percentages in a small number of "battleground" states. Under such circumstances, for Nader to pick off progressive voters under the false pretense that he's helping defeat Bush is an act of considerable political cynicism.

Indeed, in our study, state-specific polls show Nader flipping New Jersey and Pennsylvania from Kerry to Bush and causing an 8 percent swing among the large Arab American vote in four critical states. The Associated Press has reported that Nader could swing six states from Kerry to Bush.

At www.dontvoteralph.net, we'll update the "Poll Watch 04" study from now until the election. There you can also find the name, source, and URL for every poll in our study. In short, if Nader is telling the truth and is helping beat Bush, you can find out there. If he's not, you'll know that too.

But after 37 polls, we believe the jury is in, and the verdict is clear. Sadly, Nader's essential claim for 2004 is another of the big lies of the 2004 campaign.

John Pearce is the creator of www.ralphdontrun.net and the successor site, www.dontvoteralph.net.

Email John Pearce.