Question Re: Nader's "Vote-Stealing"

[Mr Manifesto]

Was reading Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/) which was discussing latest Newsweek poll figures. It said:

Bush 42 (45)
Kerry 46 (43)
Nader 4 (5)
Undec. 8 (7)

Without Nader, Kerry leads Bush 50 - 43.


Now, how does he figure this? Certainly there wouldn't be any Republican voters preferring Nader, but surely some of the undecided voters (or people who wouldn't have voted at all, not wanting to choose between two parties that are fairly similar) would be voting Nader? Anyone know where this conclusion is drawn from?

[Renfield]

Nader's numbers seem very high to me. He only got about 2 percent of the vote last time, and he has much less support this time around. Alot of the big supporters who helped make him a factor last time have joined the Dem's to get rid of Bush.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Renfield
Nader's numbers seem very high to me. He only got about 2 percent of the vote last time, and he has much less support this time around. Alot of the big supporters who helped make him a factor last time have joined the Dem's to get rid of Bush.

I think he's being even more optimistic than that. This time around, he's also running as an independent, rather than for a fringe but at least recognizable party.

Jeremy

[Jocko]

I think that any poll showing Nader getting more than .01% is indicative of the responders' lack of seriousness and should be ignored.

You're right about Nader sharing the Dem crowd, but he got 2.7% of the popular vote last go-around and from what I hear, he won't even qualify to be on most states' ballots this time because of his late entry, lack of party affiliation, and just generally being a crazed maniac.

[subgenius]

I heard Nader justifying his existence by saying this time he was offering issues that might appeal to disaffected Bushies.
Interesting.

Since he thinks Bush is the greater of two evils, any other tactic is obviously insane.

[corplinx]

Kerry voters are voting against something. At least Ralph Nader has a draw other than not being Bush.

[michaellee]

Do third party candidates play a factor in the outcome of presidential elections? If so, which of the two major parties is impacted negatively the most?

From the 1980 election through the 2000 election, 2 campaigns were affected by third party candidates. Most notably was the 92 election, which saw Ross Perot give the presidency to Clinton on a silver platter. Perot received 19% of the vote or 19.7 million votes, while Bush tallied 39.1 million, Clinton received 44.9 million to win by 5.8 million votes. Clinton was elected while receiving just 43% of the popular vote. Perot also ran in 1996, and while receiving 8 million votes, it is unclear if the outcome would have been any different without him on the ballot.

While most people still gripe how "Bush stole the election" from Gore in 2000, my investigation suggests otherwise. Looking at the election results state by state, there were 8 states that ended up being decided by a number of votes that was less than 50 percent of the total of all third party candidate votes cast. Bush won 2 of these states, Gore won 6.

These eight states counted for 80 electoral votes, Gore(51), Bush(29). If we give the losing candidate in each state 55% of the third party votes, the result is that Bush gains 16 more electoral votes even though he would lose Florida. The third party candidates in the 2000 election almost cost Bush the win, and even though a presidential election will probably never be as close as in 2000, up to this point third parties appear to only hurt the Republicans, and help the Democrats.

Nader has and will be an absolute non factor in the upcoming election. Unless all of the third party candidates combined receive a large enough % of the total vote, like when Perot ran.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Renfield
Nader's numbers seem very high to me. He only got about 2 percent of the vote last time, and he has much less support this time around. Alot of the big supporters who helped make him a factor last time have joined the Dem's to get rid of Bush.

Nader also ditched the Green Party, which means there's no chance in hell I'm voting for him.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Nader also ditched the Green Party, which means there's no chance in hell I'm voting for him.

I'm not sure what you mean... are you implying he's more or less insane than 4 years ago? Is being a party-sanctioned loony better than being a freelance loony?

You may as well vote for him, he's got the same chances he did 4 years ago.

[gnome]

I'm done with Nader, frankly... if he can't see the simple truth of the electoral situation and act within it... instead of just saying "it shouldn't be that way" and stubbornly taking counter-productive action... he'd be crap as a President. The President has to deal with and work within bogus situations all the time--to be a good President, you have to be able to.