Estimate the breakdown of support for other candidates if Nader hadn't run

[Joe Republic]

If Ralph Nader hadn't run in 2000, and the Green party didn't field an alternative ticket, estimate the percentage breakdown of how his 2,883,105 voters would have voted instead.

For the sake of simplicity, these are the options:


Would not have voted:
Gore/Lieberman (Dem):
Bush/Cheney (Rep):
Buchanan/Foster (Ref):
Browne/Olivier (Lib):
Phillips/Frazier (Con):
Others:

[DownWithTheLeft]

They would not have voted most likely or another 3rd party

[jokerman]

Enough would have voted for Gore to give him the election, I can confidantly say.

[Joe Republic]

Here's my estimation:

Would not have voted: 28%
Gore/Lieberman (Dem): 50%
Bush/Cheney (Rep): 8%
Buchanan/Foster (Ref): 5%
Browne/Olivier (Lib): 6%
Phillips/Frazier (Con): 2%
Others: 1%

[Boris]

Enough would have voted for Gore to give him the election, I can confidantly say.

Easily. I'm sure that out of the 97,488 Nader voters in Florida, at least 538 would have voted for Al Gore.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I'd guess that about 50% wouldn't have voted, 25% would have voted Gore, and about 25% are anti-establishment types who vote, but would never support a major party candidate, and would have split their votes among other 3rd party candidates

[Mesu]

Would not have voted: 40%
Gore/Lieberman (Dem): 40%
Bush/Cheney (Rep): 2%
Buchanan/Foster (Ref): 7%
Browne/Olivier (Lib): 4%
Phillips/Frazier (Con): 4%
Others:3%

Of course I base that off of absolutely nothing.

The swings states would  be adjusted for a lower Gore/lieberman %

Enough would have voted for Gore to give him the election, I can confidantly say.

Easily. I'm sure that out of the 97,488 Nader voters in Florida, at least 538 would have voted for Al Gore.

Sure but its not like Gore didn't actually had enough votes to win florida...

I would be interested to see would if Gore could have won if he included Nader in the debates(since he was the incumbant he might've had more choice in the matter). He would be the most moderate candidate there without trying. Also he could ease some Nader voters concerns about him.

[adam]

Wouldn't have voted: 22%
Gore/Lieberman: 47%
Bush/Cheney: 5%%
Browne/Oliver: 9%
Buchanun/Foster: 7%
Other: 12%

[Angel of Death]

I recall CNN having run a poll addressing this. I believe it was 60% for Gore and 10% for Bush with the remainder not voting, i.e. a 50% net gain for Gore.

[°Leprechaun]

Nader no more cost Gore the election in 2000 than he cost Kerry the election in 2004. Why people continue to have such animosity towards Nader and the Green party is strange to say the least. You don't see any similar animosity to Buchanan, Perot or the Libertarian party; if they were any logic behind the hatred towards the Greens and/or towards Nader, why is there not any animosity towards other third parties?
The reality is that the Nader haters are 100% emotion and 0% logic:

http://votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=3

The number of people who chose not to vote in Florida in 2000 outnumber the Nader voters by a 60 to 1 margin. It is unfortunate that the Nader haters ignore the non voters, because, if they had their way and third parties were kept of the ballot, the number of non voters would increase. If we are not given real choices why should we vote?

The Nader haters don't seem concerned about the 562 people who voted for the Socialist Workers party candidate. Do any of you Nader haters even know who that person is? When are you going to start complaining about how the Socialist Workers party was the *real* spoiler in 2000?

Blaming Nader makes about as much sense as blaming any of the seven candidates who also got votes.

Did it ever occur to any of you Nader haters that Joe Lieberman may have cost Gore enough votes to tip the election to Bush? Did it ever occur to you that it might make more sense to blame Bush, who got 30 times as many votes as Nader? Gee, I guess I am going out on a limb, but maybe Gore himself may have had something to do with why Gore lost.

Or maybe, if you really need a scapegoat, why not blame Pluto's position in the sky; I am sure that had more to do with why Gore lost than the relatively low per cent of people who voted for Nader.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I think that Nadar did affect the outcome of support in NH. In FL it could be argued though, with the butterfly ballots and the Pat Buchannan votes, it could of been different but that remains to be seen.

[Smash255]

I remember reading somewhere that 50% would have voted Gore, 20% Bush, 30% wouldn't have voted or another 3rd party.

[DownWithTheLeft]

All this shows about Democrats getting angry is that hate freedom and the rights of other parties

[Alcon]

All this shows about Democrats getting angry is that hate freedom and the rights of other parties

Huh?

[Boris]

All this shows about Democrats getting angry is that hate freedom and the rights of other parties

Do you speak English?

[DownWithTheLeft]

All this shows about Democrats getting angry is that hate freedom and the rights of other parties

Huh?

I realized I made a mistake that was awful but I was wayyyy to lazy to correct it figuring no one actually read these threads

[12th Doctor]

Here is a better question?  Why is it that, in a Democracy, the Democrats are so obsessed with the fact that Nader stole "Gore's votes".  They aren't Gore's votes.  They are the people who voted's votes to do with as they please.


Would you guys just shut the Hell up already?  We got over Perot in 92.


This isn't even to mention the fact, for the 90th time, that Bush would have run a different kind of campaign if Nader hadn't shown up at 6% in the pre-election polls, so there is no telling how that would have changed things.  I highly doubt he would have spent that week long, multi-million dollar swing tour at the begining fo the campaign on a trainride through California, for instance.