No Nader Effect this year?

[Michael Z]

From politics1.com:

'LEADING GREEN CANDIDATE SEEKS TO AVOID "SPOILER" ROLE. Former Green Party General Counsel Davis Cobb -- the frontrunner for the Green Party's 2004 Presidential nomination -- doesn't want to see his party do anything that would contribute to re-electing President Bush. That's why he's now advocating that the Greens pursue a "Safe States" strategy in 2004. Under that strategy, the Greens will only make an effort this year to win votes in states that are not competitive (i.e., states that won't hurt the Dems chances of winning).'
 - www.politics1.com

The above article reflects a feeling I've had for some time - that there will be no so-called "Nader Effect" this year (ie. a division of the left-wing vote), as those to the left of Bush are united by their wish to see him out of the White House.

Of course it would be unrealistic to say that this automatically spells defeat for GWB, but this time he can't count on his political opponents arguing amongst themselves.

[NHPolitico]

From politics1.com:

'LEADING GREEN CANDIDATE SEEKS TO AVOID "SPOILER" ROLE. Former Green Party General Counsel Davis Cobb -- the frontrunner for the Green Party's 2004 Presidential nomination -- doesn't want to see his party do anything that would contribute to re-electing President Bush. That's why he's now advocating that the Greens pursue a "Safe States" strategy in 2004. Under that strategy, the Greens will only make an effort this year to win votes in states that are not competitive (i.e., states that won't hurt the Dems chances of winning).'
 - www.politics1.com

The above article reflects a feeling I've had for some time - that there will be no so-called "Nader Effect" this year (ie. a division of the left-wing vote), as those to the left of Bush are united by their wish to see him out of the White House.

Of course it would be unrealistic to say that this automatically spells defeat for GWB, but this time he can't count on his political opponents arguing amongst themselves.

I sort of expected some third party candidate this year. I'd like Buchanan to go for it.  He'd be a great president.

[Ben.]

In actual fact Nader did not pursue a “safe state strategy” in 2000 he pushed hard in Florida towards the end of the campaign and in Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Maine where all states where Nader weakened the Dem total and denied Gore solid wins or in the case of NH and FL he cost Gore those states.

As for 2004 Nader has already said on different occasions that he has some sympathy with Kucinich, Dean and Kerry and added to this he is under strong pressure from Green party leaders to not run, instead a lot of pragmatic greens seem to want to get Bush out and run a candidate who will not threaten costing the Democrats the election, so long as the Dem nominee is pro-environmental issues and with Kerry they have a stronger environmental candidate than they would with Dean.

In 2004 the real risk is a Dean run on a Green or independent ticket as a liberal “true believer” I doubt it will happen and sincerely hope it does not…however Dean announcing he will continue on after WI have caused some speculation that perhaps he is looking to an independent run if so he is a monumental fool…

A Dean independent run would attract liberals but the majority of the 20% of Americans who consider themselves liberals would vote ABB and side with the Dem nominee…however combined with some greens he might garner a little less than nadir in 2000…less because the majority of Dems and left leaners will side with the Dem nominee to get Bush out so in the end Dean will be left with a small core vote of disaffected liberals and radicals it could be like a version of Henry Wallace’s Progressive Party from 1948 (then again Wallace eventually left the party when he realised it had been overrun by Communists) but in 1948 Truman still won despite the Dixiecrat defect in addition to Wallace’s run.

If Dean did go Ind…perhaps his fiscal conservatism and social liberalism could allow him to run with Jesse Ventura… “the ultimate tag team”…. joking        

[opebo]

Buchanan is as nutty as Perot.  And he'd never make a president at all, much less a 'great' one.

[Nym90]

Opebo, you and I agree!

This must be a sign of the apocalypse.

[NHPolitico]

Buchanan is as nutty as Perot.  And he'd never make a president at all, much less a 'great' one.

How is Pat nutty?

[NHPolitico]

Opebo, you and I agree!

This must be a sign of the apocalypse.

Then maybe you can tell me how Pat is nutty.

[12th Doctor]

Opebo, you and I agree!

This must be a sign of the apocalypse.

Then maybe you can tell me how Pat is nutty.

Oh, God.  That's worse than my Quayle signature.

NO ON PAT!   NO ON PAT!

[opebo]

Opebo, you and I agree!

This must be a sign of the apocalypse.

Then maybe you can tell me how Pat is nutty.

Ok, I really should apologize for that one - he's nowhere near as bad as Perot.  He's a pretty consistent, intelligent guy.  THough I still think his ideas would make him a terrible president.  I think you and I are very different Republicans NHPolitico.  I think of the soul of the Republican party as being "classical Liberalism'' which of course has nothing to do with American liberalism.  For me free trade, free markets, and capitalism are what makes the US so great.

[NHPolitico]

Opebo, you and I agree!

This must be a sign of the apocalypse.

Then maybe you can tell me how Pat is nutty.

Ok, I really should apologize for that one - he's nowhere near as bad as Perot.  He's a pretty consistent, intelligent guy.  THough I still think his ideas would make him a terrible president.  I think you and I are very different Republicans NHPolitico.  I think of the soul of the Republican party as being "classical Liberalism'' which of course has nothing to do with American liberalism.  For me free trade, free markets, and capitalism are what makes the US so great.

For me, respect for the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and the way our nation was governed by our nation's able founders is what would make the US as great as it once was.

[opebo]

Opebo, you and I agree!

This must be a sign of the apocalypse.

Then maybe you can tell me how Pat is nutty.

Ok, I really should apologize for that one - he's nowhere near as bad as Perot.  He's a pretty consistent, intelligent guy.  THough I still think his ideas would make him a terrible president.  I think you and I are very different Republicans NHPolitico.  I think of the soul of the Republican party as being "classical Liberalism'' which of course has nothing to do with American liberalism.  For me free trade, free markets, and capitalism are what makes the US so great.

For me, respect for the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and the way our nation was governed by our nation's able founders is what would make the US as great as it once was.

I think there's some common ground there - I see the Constitution as the ideals of the Enlightenment formed into a workable government.  But the purpose of that goverment - to preserve individual freedom - seems to me to require a hefty dose of economic freedom, in other words Classical liberalism.  

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Jefferson was an Agrarian-Liberal, BTW.

[Gustaf]

Opebo, you and I agree!

This must be a sign of the apocalypse.

Then maybe you can tell me how Pat is nutty.

Ok, I really should apologize for that one - he's nowhere near as bad as Perot.  He's a pretty consistent, intelligent guy.  THough I still think his ideas would make him a terrible president.  I think you and I are very different Republicans NHPolitico.  I think of the soul of the Republican party as being "classical Liberalism'' which of course has nothing to do with American liberalism.  For me free trade, free markets, and capitalism are what makes the US so great.

You're a classic liberal? That is actually a bit of a surprise.

[Nym90]

But economic freedom for the wealthy results in less equality of income, which results in less freedom for the lower classes. In a capitalist society, money=freedom to a certain extent, and so more equality can produce more freedom for many people, not less. The freedom to spend your money however you see fit doesn't do you much good if you don't have much to spend.

My point is that there are different ways of looking at the old "equality vs. freedom" debate on economic issues.

[Gustaf]

But economic freedom for the wealthy results in less equality of income, which results in less freedom for the lower classes. In a capitalist society, money=freedom to a certain extent, and so more equality can produce more freedom for many people, not less. The freedom to spend your money however you see fit doesn't do you much good if you don't have much to spend.

My point is that there are different ways of looking at the old "equality vs. freedom" debate on economic issues.

Freedom means freedom to make priorities, not necessarily freedom to do whatever you want. In fact, pretty much never freedom to do what you want.

[Nym90]

True, there are different types of freedom. My point still stands though, that lower taxes and less regulation on business does not necessarily increase freedom. Greater freedom for some people can result in less freedom for others.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Getting back to the Nader effect -

The following, taken from Daves's stats, shows the 2000 election as Gore and Nader (the anti-Bush vote) vs. Bush (sorry for the wavy lines).

I don't make the assumption that Gore + Nader vs. Bush is a fair starting point for evaluating Kerry vs. Bush.

BUT I think it's a useful exercise to ask the question, "How many Gore and Nader votes does BUSH need to win BACK to ensure victory?

        Bush        Gore     Nader   Gore+ Nader  Margin       
VA   52.47%   44.44%   2.17%   46.60%   5.87%
WV   51.92%   45.59%   1.65%   47.24%   4.67%
AK   51.31%   45.86%   1.46%   47.32%   3.99%
AZ   50.95%   44.67%   2.98%   47.65%   3.30%
CO   50.75%   42.39%   5.25%   47.64%   3.11%
TN   51.15%   47.28%   0.95%   48.24%   2.91%
MO   50.42%   47.08%   1.63%   48.72%   1.71%
NV   49.52%   45.98%   2.46%   48.44%   1.08%
OH   49.97%   46.46%   2.50%   48.97%   1.00%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL   48.85%   48.84%   1.63%   50.47%   1.63%
IA   48.22%   48.54%   2.23%   50.77%   2.55%
NH   48.07%   46.80%   3.90%   50.70%   2.63%
NM   47.85%   47.91%   3.55%   51.46%   3.61%
WS   47.61%   47.83%   3.62%   51.45%   3.84%
OR   46.52%   46.96%   5.04%   52.00%   5.48%
PA   46.43%   50.60%   2.10%   52.70%   6.27%
MI   46.14%   51.28%   1.99%   53.27%   7.12%
MN   45.50%   47.91%   5.20%   53.10%   7.60%
WA   44.56%   50.13%   4.14%   54.27%   9.72%
               
U.S.   47.87%   48.38%   2.73%   51.12%   3.25%


An initial look at the stats might give encouragement to the Democrats:

In 2000, Gore + Nader would have taken NH and FL, and also brought up the margin in what were the toss-up states of IA, WS, NM and OR.

On the republican side, OH, NV, and MO were each under a 2% margin.

But consider that the "anti-Bush" overall victory is 51.12% to 47.87% - a margin of 3.25%. Does Bush need to take back all of that to win?

Assuming the same variation of states in 2004 from the national margins, it seems to me that Bush simply needs to take back 0.82% percent of the total vote from Gore and Nader voters to split the difference in FL and win. He would again be a minority President with a 50.3% to 48.7% loss in the popular vote.

A 1.93% swing of the total vote from Gore/Nader to Bush would give Bush the edge in the popular vote, and add IA, NH, NM and WS.

However, OR and MN (each with Nader totals greater than 5%) would still be out of reach.