The fuzzy math of Nader and polls.

[Liberal Veteran]

Nader got 2.7 percent of the popular vote in 2000.

So now Nader is polling between 3-6 percent in most polls.

That figure should give most pause.

Think about it. The left has pretty washed its hands of him and he has no party backing him, so they aren't voting for him. The right is championing his place on the ballot in most places, but they aren't voting for him, they are just trying to siphon votes off the left from Kerry (the theory apparently being that Bush is running such a great campaign, he can't win without splitting the left).

It seems highly unlikely that Nader is going to get anything close to 1 percent this time around, and yet the he keeps polling at 3-6 percent?

Does anyone really trust these polls that place his support HIGHER than it was in the last election?

[mopinko]

1. what was he polling at this time in 2000?

anyway, he will only be on the ballot in a handful of states. and his ballot troubles ought to speak louder than polls.

[progdonkey]

2. MoE

Nader is usually within or just outside the margin of error on most polls. The MoE is usually around +-3.5% to 4% so it's possible he actually has no real votes to his credit (of course, that could also mean he's polling up to 10%, but come on...).

[Massacure]

3. People say they will vote for him and then the elections roll around

Only to change their mind.

[no name no slogan]

9. That's exactly what happens

Polls are notoriously inaccurate when it comes to third party candidates.

In Minnesota's gubernatorial race in 1998, all the polls showed Norm Coleman (R) ahead of Skip Humphrey (DFL) by 3-5%, with Jesse Ventura (IP) close behind Humphrey. Guess what? Many of them were terribly suprised when Ventura beat both Skippy and Normie by >5%.

Nader may have support in the 3-6% range, but most of those polls also have a margin of error in the 3% range, too. In effect, that means Nader may have as little as 0% or as much as 9%.

Then, factor in the fact that he won't be on as many ballots this year as in 2000. In 2000 he appeared on many ballots as the Green Party's candidate. This year, without party backing, he has to get his name on the ballots by himself-- a very difficult job, as Oregon and Arizona have proven.

IMHO I just don't understand what all the fuss is about Nader this year. He won't go anywhere, and has very little popular support. Democrats are better off working on the 4-5% of Dems who voted for GeeDubya in 2000 than worrying about a few Nader supporters.

[creeksneakers2]

4. Nader spams college students

He tells them if they don't vote Nader, they'll be drafted, things like that. Most Nader voters are first timers.

[NWHarkness]

5. What's so special about Nader?

The Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates will have ballot access in more states than he will, ands are likely to draw as many votes.

So why do the pollsters and pundits keep giving him so much free publicity? It couldn't be because the others will draw votes away from the Republicans, could it?

[Philostopher]

8. Because people know who he is.

I can't name the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate, and I'm an admitted politics junkie -- there are plenty of people out there who aren't junkies who can identify Nader, but who may not even know there are other independent or other-party candidates. That's why he gets so much press -- because people know who he is.

[AP]

6. Nader had something like 10 or 11% this far out in 2000 IIRC.

If he follows that trend, he's dropping down to .9 to 1.8%

[Euphen]

7. According to this chart Nader had about 3% at this point,

not much higher than what he received.

[AP]

12. Here's what I was thinking of:

Here's a study I read a long time ago. Lots of interesting stuff in it.

...
Among voters, over 90% of people who rated Buchanan or Nader highest did not vote for


them. Not only is this large percentage astonishing, but more than a third of those who preferred


Nader surprisingly chose Bush rather than Gore.

...
It is noteworthy that abstention rates were highest among Nader preferrers. The strength


of support for a chosen presidential candidate was also weakest for Nader. Nader voters say they


felt less enthusiastic about their choice than did people who voted for one of the other three


candidates. The percentage of NES respondents saying they “felt strongly� was 74% for Gore,


79% for Bush, and even 83% for Buchanan, but only 64% for Nader. The fact that so many of


those who ranked Nader first abstained suggests that they were not particularly fond of any of the


candidates. Those who voted for Nader probably felt tepid toward all of the candidates running


and were only willing to cast protest votes because the anti-establishment Greens happen to be


on the ballot. This might explain why apparently not many Nader voters regret their decisions.


Only 1 in 10 Nader voters say they wish they could change their vote after knowing how close


the election was (Jackman 2000). Given the perversity of the election result shown above, it is


simply remarkable that 90% would pick Nader again even knowing that Bush – often their third


or fourth ranked choice – would be elected president.

...
Nearly 30% of Nader voters and more than 40% of Buchanan


voters would have abstained without their candidates’ in the race. About half of Nader’s votes


would have gone to Gore, the perceived next-best candidate. Surprisingly, Buchanan’s brigade


would have switched to Gore as least as much as it lined up behind Bush.
...
These voters presumably turned out for one of the major


party candidates because a minor party candidate reminded them about the importance of voting


or threatened their candidates’ victory. Without Buchanan or Nader in the race to make things


interesting, they would have abstained. The percentages of Bush and Gore voters who would


have behaved this way are small as a percentage, since most would have voted in a two-way race


as well, but they are many in number. Using the same method as above, I estimate that turnout


for the Bush and Gore would have fallen by a similar 1.3 points, for a total (direct and indirect)


turnout effect of about 2.5 points.

...

Buchanan has a negligible effect on turnout, but Nader in contrast appears to have


increased voter participation directly.

...

Just a few hundred


votes separated Bush from Gore, yet Nader received nearly 100,000 votes. If even a small


fraction of his voters had chosen Gore instead, the Democrats would have won the presidency.


11


In fact, Buchanan and six even more obscure minor party candidates each received more votes


than Bush’s margin of victory. Together they account for 250 times the mere 537 votes that


distinguished Bush and Gore in the end. Though Nader’s absence might have given Gore a clear


Florida win, the absence of a number of right-wing minor party candidates from Buchanan to


Hagelin to Browne might have allowed for a clear Bush victory.

...






http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:f2g4KqlyMmUJ:wc.wustl.edu/workingpapers/Burden.pdf+Nader+preferrers&hl=en

[fujiyama]

10. It really doesn't matter

what % he gets nationally.

It just matters in a few key states. As we all know all too well now, is that it really matters WHERE he gets the votes. Of course it can be argued that no state should be considered safe for either campaign. I agree with that. That's why the safe state strategy shouldn't even be considered this time. There are just too many avenues for fraud for the republicans to use (DIEBOLD being the most likely). At the same time, there are a couple states we know Kerry simply will NOT win: TX, MS, AL, ID, UT, MT, NE, KS, ND, SD, AK. There is simply no chance in hell Kerry'll win these states...

It can be argued he tipped two states over for Bush (FL and NH). He came close to tipping several more -- WI, OR, IA, NM, and to a lesser extent, MN.

This year will hinge on those few states and a few more -- OH, and possibly several southern/border states like AR, MO, and maybe VA and NC.

His appeal seems to be greatest in those states where there is an active liberal community -- Portland, OR; Madison, WI; to name two examples. Of course, even states that shouldn't have been as close as they were (FL) were tipped because of the republican fraud. What's fascinating about OR and WI is that if you look at Dukakis's margin of victory in those states, it is almost exactly the same combined total of Gore's and Nader's votes in those states. It's really amazing how consistant the voting trends are in those states. It's harder to judge it with Clinton's two elections, because of the Perot factor. Unlike Nader, Perot was a candidate with a much broader appeal.

Democrats should indeed try to stop him from getting ballot access in swing states. It would be stupid not to.

Yet, in the end, I don't see him getting the same support he got in '00. It just doesn't make sense. Can anyone imagine a significant number of Gore voters defecting to Nader? More likely Bush will grab more, because he's frightened so many with his frequent cries of "terraism".

[LimpingLib]

11. Quickly.

He was getting as high as 8% in the fall last time but endless chants from elite Democrats caused those who were going to vote for him to throw their votes away at Gore (if you add people in who prefered nader but never indicated support then he would have been aat around 30% based on polls). Plus his not making the debates killed him.

Second dont think all supporters are Democratic voters. Polls show Nader took 47% that would have voted Gore, 21% that would have voted Bush and 32% that would not have voted for either.

Now,my opinion. I dont think Nader cares for polls except for debate requirments(he knows Ventura was only at 7% till he was in debates and his support mushroomed) but our nation is ull of lousey loosers and cowards on the left so he knows he wont get enough support. He is only on the ballot in about 20 states.Nader will keep trying to give progressive voters a voice never the less. It would be irresponsible of him to just throw away our desires and dreams. Canada had some brave pliticians and (unlike the USA) some full assed progressives that ignored the "wasted vote" bs and voted 20% for the progressive 3rd party which in th winner take all elections won about 8% of seats and now the people control the balance of power in Canada.

I think its just disgusting that every European nation has center-left and left canidates in nearly every district (winner take all too)yet you almost never hear people complainning about more choices. I think the difference is that the average liberal voter in our country has the intelligence of the average freeper unlike other countrys.Its sad. No wonder those countrys center left partys do just as well as ours. Even in our country polls show that at least 20% of Nader voters are new voters , come to think of it add 20% to our horrible 50% election year turnout and we hit the average of other nations turnouts of 70%.Diference is their progressive partys get the chance to determine the balance of power in the nation and make things happen UNLIKE us looser cry babys here.Anyway most Nader voters wouldnt vote for Kerry or Gore and polls prove it.Let them have their choice.Heck let Gore and Kerry voters have a choice damn it!!!