On February 24th, Ralph Nader announced his Presidential Candidacy. I didn’t post it here but I made comments on other sites saying that this was going to be a positive for the Republicans. I made the argument that the ideologicals of the left were likely going to look for an alternative when their particular candidate (either Hillary or Barack) ultimately was flamed. I was heartily pooh poohed at the time being told that the 2000 impact of Nader was a once in a lifetime event and that he wouldn’t amount to more than a raindrop in the ocean in 2008.
Zogby International released a poll on 3/15 that has not received any airtime on a rather interesting item. In that poll, where they find McCain beating either Clinton or Obama, they have Nader receiving 5% – 6% of the vote. I guess folks were right when they said 2004 was a one time event, Nader only received 2.7% of the vote in that election!
5%, not much you say? Generally you’d be correct if we elected President’s on a purely popular vote but we elect them essentially, state by state. A quick peak under the historical numbers show some pretty interesting possibilities.
The following chart shows the states in 2004 that John Kerry won with less than a 5% margin and Nader’s percent of vote in those same states from the 2000 election:
|
State
|
2004 Winning Margin |
2000 Nader % |
| Michigan |
3.4% |
2.0% |
| Minnesota |
3.5% |
5.2% |
| New Hampshire |
1.4% |
3.9% |
| Oregon |
4.2% |
5.1% |
| Pennsylvania |
2.5% |
2.1% |
| Wisconsin |
.4% |
3.6% |
Assuming Nader could do again as well as 2000 and that he pulls predominantly from Democrats, this could mean that Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and maybe even Oregon come into play. Some of this is starting show as Rasmussen has released polls showing that McCain has pulled within the margin of error in both Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Take one more twist and assume that Nader did in fact nearly double is vote percentage from 2000 and that it was distributed across the states in the same way that it was in 2000. Those numbers would look like this:
|
State
|
2004 Winning Margin |
Adjusted, 2000 Nader % |
| Hawaii |
8.7% |
10.9% |
| Maine |
9.0% |
10.6% |
| Michigan |
3.4% |
3.7% |
| Minnesota |
3.5% |
9.7% |
| New Hampshire |
1.4% |
7.3% |
| Oregon |
4.2% |
9.4% |
| Pennsylvania |
2.5% |
3.9% |
| Washington |
7.2% |
7.7% |
| Wisconsin |
.4% |
6.7% |
This would now have the potential to put 7 states in play.
OK, we don’t know how this is going to play out. However, I’m willing to bet that the longer Obama and Clinton beat on each other, the more likely it will be that those who are on the losing side will want to find an alternative way to express themselves This should be especially true if this is decided at the convention and there is little time to adjust. (Hey all you we “I’ll never vote for McCain” folks, remember how that feels?)
OK, it’s early yet and we don’t know how this will play out. My point is now, as it was when he entered the race, Nader will impact this race and it will be a negative for the Democrats.
If you’re still not convinced consider this; it was likely Ralph Nader who caused George Bush to win the 2000 election. Florida was decided by approximately 540 votes. Nader received 97,488 votes . Who do you think those votes would have gone to? Do you still think Nader can’t impact the 2008 election?
Loading ...
