Bush once, but not twice

[KEmperor]

My state was a swing state however. I'm just pointing out your claim of the "closeness of hte election" making it important is rather weak.

I meant in the pointless popular vote.  I didn't feel like hearing the Democratic whining like last time.

[angus]

I am one of those that switched to Bush in 2004.  I voted for Browne in 2000, but due to the importance of foreign policy and the closeness of the election I had to vote for him.

I think that many would-be Badnarik voters may have done the same.   Badnarik ran a close fourth behind nader 397 thousand to 463 thousand votes, but I think you could also say that many would-be nader voters voted for Kerry for the same reason, and I totally disagree with the post which follows yours suggesting people play that soft-state/hard-state game.  I know the talking heads make much ado about it, but most voters don't think in terms like that, they merely vote for the guy they like, unless they think the guy they really don't like might win.

[CheeseWhiz]

Well, while I couldn’t vote either time, I thought Bush was a good guy in 2000.  Then he got a Republican Congress and started doing so much Big Government junk, my parents even thought about voting for Kerry (!)  We couldn’t support Kerry, though, especially since school choice is a big issue for us, so I would have very reluctantly voted for Bush again.

[Speed of Sound]

big 'ol #2

[Max Power]

Both times, but in 2000, I could have cared less. I didn't really care about politics until 2002/2003 when the Iraq war was about to start.

[WalterMitty]

i voted for bush both times.

[© tweed]

I've supported his opponent both times.  2000 hurt much much more, however.

[minionofmidas]

I am one of those that switched to Bush in 2004.  I voted for Browne in 2000, but due to the importance of foreign policy and the closeness of the election I had to vote for him.

I think that many would-be Badnarik voters may have done the same.   Badnarik ran a close fourth behind nader 397 thousand to 463 thousand votes, but I think you could also say that many would-be nader voters voted for Kerry for the same reason, and I totally disagree with the post which follows yours suggesting people play that soft-state/hard-state game.  I know the talking heads make much ado about it, but most voters don't think in terms like that, they merely vote for the guy they like, unless they think the guy they really don't like might win.

Ah, but that was exactly the case in 2000.
Now I don't know about 2004 - okay: I don't see much evidence of the phenomenon in 2004 - but in 2000 obviously hundreds of thousands of Americans did think like that. Just compare what Nader polled at points to what he got a) in close state b) in non-close states, and it's fairly obvious.

[WiseGuy]

Wanted Bush to win both times.  Although, (because I'm mainly an economic conservative) I have been disappointed with many of his policies, he was WAY better then McCain, Gore, or Kerry.  Badnarik come close to beating him, but the combined facts that he wanted to pull out of the War of Terror and that he had no chance at winning and would take away a vote from bush, convinced my parents and me (although I wasn't voting) to back Bush.

[angus]

Lewis, yours is an hypothesis, but not a conclusion.  You offer one possible explanation for Nader doing well in certain areas, but I could offer others.  For example, he nearly came in 2nd in my city behind Gore.  I recall reading in the papers a few days later that the result in the city I was living in was something like 78% Gore, 17% Bush, and 16% Nader.  Something like that.  But I think it had nothing to do with the phenomenon you're suggesting and everything to do with the fact that my area was a very high-density, very blue-collar city.  Bush simply had little appeal, and Nader's messages simply had great appeal.  Gore is one of two candidates who might have won, though, and of the two, he had greater appeal than Bush.  It's like Perot in Idaho in 1992.  Same thing, really.

That said, yes I was specifically referring to 2004 when I made my earlier comment, and I don't think we disagree on that.  And the posts herein seem to support that idea.

Also, I didn't post this earlier, but thanks for the poll data.  I'd thought more probably switched to than from Bush, and that very few switched at all anyway, but it's nice to see some polling data.  Few switched, to be sure, but nevertheless some did.  At least five on this forum poll out of about 40 may not be a representative sample, but it's interesting that even here we have some switchers. 

[minionofmidas]

State Total Vote Gore Bush Nader Other
North Carolina 2,911,262  43.20%  56.03%  0.00%  0.77%
Oklahoma 1,234,229  38.43%  60.31%  0.00%  1.27%
South Dakota 316,269  37.56%  60.30%  0.00%  2.14%
Georgia 2,596,804  42.98%  54.67%  0.52%  1.83%
Mississippi 994,926  40.70%  57.62%  0.82%  0.86%
Indiana 2,199,302  41.01%  56.65%  0.84%  1.50%
Tennessee 2,076,181  47.28%  51.15%  0.95%  0.61%
Alabama 1,672,551  41.59%  56.47%  1.10%  0.85%
Louisiana 1,765,656  44.88%  52.55%  1.16%  1.41%
Arkansas 921,781  45.86%  51.31%  1.46%  1.37%
South Carolina 1,383,777  40.91%  56.83%  1.47%  0.80%
Kentucky 1,544,187  41.37%  56.50%  1.50%  0.62%
Missouri 2,359,892  47.08%  50.42%  1.63%  0.86%
Florida 5,963,110  48.84%  48.85%  1.63%  0.68%
West Virginia 648,124  45.59%  51.92%  1.65%  0.84%
Michigan 4,232,711  51.28%  46.14%  1.99%  0.59%
Pennsylvania 4,913,119  50.60%  46.43%  2.10%  0.87%
Wyoming 218,351  27.70%  67.76%  2.12%  2.43%
Texas 6,407,637  37.98%  59.30%  2.15%  0.57%
Virginia 2,739,447  44.44%  52.47%  2.17%  0.92%
Illinois 4,742,123  54.60%  42.58%  2.19%  0.63%
Iowa 1,315,563  48.54%  48.22%  2.23%  1.01%
Idaho 501,621  27.64%  67.17%  2.45%  2.74%
Nevada 608,970  45.98%  49.52%  2.46%  2.04%
Ohio 4,705,457  46.46%  49.97%  2.50%  1.07%
Delaware 327,622  54.96%  41.90%  2.54%  0.60%
Maryland 2,025,480  56.57%  40.18%  2.65%  0.60%
New Jersey 3,187,226  56.13%  40.29%  2.97%  0.62%
Arizona 1,534,113  44.67%  50.95%  2.98%  1.40%
North Dakota 288,267  33.05%  60.66%  3.29%  3.00%
Kansas 1,072,216  37.24%  58.04%  3.37%  1.35%
Nebraska 697,019  33.25%  62.25%  3.52%  0.98%
New Mexico 598,605  47.91%  47.85%  3.55%  0.69%
New York 6,822,451  60.21%  35.23%  3.58%  0.98%
Wisconsin 2,598,607  47.83%  47.61%  3.62%  0.93%
California 10,965,856  53.45%  41.65%  3.82%  1.08%
New Hampshire 569,081  46.80%  48.07%  3.90%  1.23%
Washington 2,488,745  50.13%  44.56%  4.14%  1.17%
Connecticut 1,459,525  55.91%  38.44%  4.42%  1.23%
Utah 770,754  26.34%  66.83%  4.65%  2.17%
Oregon 1,533,968  46.96%  46.52%  5.04%  1.48%
Minnesota 2,438,685  47.91%  45.50%  5.20%  1.40%
D. C. 201,894  85.16%  8.95%  5.24%  0.65%
Colorado 1,741,365  42.39%  50.75%  5.25%  1.61%
Maine 651,817  49.09%  43.97%  5.70%  1.25%
Hawaii 367,951  55.79%  37.46%  5.88%  0.87%
Montana 410,997  33.36%  58.44%  5.95%  2.25%
Rhode Island 409,112  60.99%  31.91%  6.12%  0.98%
Massachusetts 2,702,984  59.80%  32.50%  6.42%  1.27%
Vermont 294,308  50.63%  40.70%  6.92%  1.75%
Alaska 285,560  27.67%  58.62%  10.07%  3.65%
Total 105,417,258  48.38%  47.87%  2.73%  1.02%

You really think that represents the order of "natural" Nader support? I don't. Nader got way less than he "should" have got in places like Oregon or Minnesota or even Florida, but no less in Alaska or Montana - or Hawaii. At one point he polled something like 14% in Oregon.
He got dramatically less - and Gore dramatically more - in non-close California because it got played up as potentially close state by the Bush campaign late in the campaign. Bush's visit to California may be one of the chief causes of his popular vote defeat.

[minionofmidas]

Lewis, yours is an hypothesis, but not a conclusion. 

Please. A theory.

[angus]

yes, I have no trouble believing that in places like Oklahoma his message holds limited appeal while in places like Massachusetts he'd have a bit more.  One might expect Nader to do well in Elazar's "moralist" regions, worst in "individualist" regions, and in "traditionalist" regions, well among poor black folks, poorly among rich white folks, and among poor white folks Nixon Strategy trumps everything else.  But, essentially, that's exactly what the data you present suggests, rather than this hard/soft state garbage.  There are, of course, some obvious exceptions.  (Alaska and Colorado I have a little trouble accounting for on the basis of Elazar's "political culture" vis-a-vis Nader's message.)  I'm not questioning your data or your motives, only your hypothesis, which isn't really yours, but one that was seared into your brain because you read it about a hundred thousand times.  I suppose if you say something on TV or write it in a newspaper often enough, it becomes the truth. 

[The Constitarian]

   I never supported Bush.  Whenever I see him speak I can tell that he is a horrible leader.  America gets through a lot of its problems with blind confidence, and without a President with the speaking prowess to convince the people that there are no problems and to convince out enemies that they are so pathetic that we laugh at their feeble attempts to bully us, then the United States will start tripping over every minor obstacle that it used to just fly right through.

[minionofmidas]

yes, I have no trouble believing that in places like Oklahoma his message holds limited appeal while in places like Massachusetts he'd have a bit more.  One might expect Nader to do well in Elazar's "moralist" regions, worst in "individualist" regions, and in "traditionalist" regions, well among poor black folks, poorly among rich white folks, and among poor white folks Nixon Strategy trumps everything else.  But, essentially, that's exactly what the data you present suggests, rather than this hard/soft state garbage.  There are, of course, some obvious exceptions.  (Alaska and Colorado I have a little trouble accounting for on the basis of Elazar's "political culture" vis-a-vis Nader's message.)  I'm not questioning your data or your motives, only your hypothesis, which isn't really yours, but one that was seared into your brain because you read it about a hundred thousand times.  I suppose if you say something on TV or write it in a newspaper often enough, it becomes the truth. 

No, it's been mine since before the 2000 election even happened.
And no, Nader didn't do all that well among poor black folks. Well, perhaps marginally better than among poor (not college students - genuinely poor) white folks but that's about it.
Anyways, my point obviously wasn't that Nader's strength was purely a function of the state's closeness (which would indeed not be born out by the data) but that it was partly so (which I'd say is.)

[angus]

No, it's been mine since before the 2000 election even happened.

my apologies.  I think there are some Nader voters who may have voted differently if they had lived in other states, and some Harry Browne voters who would have voted differently if they had lived in other states (I was living in MA at the time and knew lots of Nader and Browne folks, and none of them ever mentioned to me that they'd vote differently if they lived in, say, illinois, even when I asked them, but then I hang around with a fairly strange crowd.)  Anyway, I take your point, and would guess that you could find a few among the several million who voted for third-party candidates in 2000 that might say they'd have voted differently (i.e., for Bush or Gore) if their state was close based on polls.  But I do not think we'll know one way or the other which was the major factor, so I'll contend that it was political culture and political purism, and not political strategy, that explains the result.  And I still contend that the data you present largely bears that out.