Posted on 02/23/2004 12:47:36 PM PST by rightcoast
Using information from the U.S. Election Atlas website, I've analyzed information on Elections 1992, 1996, and 2000. If you look at what a state's tendency is to vote for a third party candidate, and also factor in its votes for Nader as a candidate in either 1996 or 2000, you can at least get a foundation for trying to predict what might happen this year with Ralph Nader running as an independent candidate for the presidency.
Summary:
Nader's 2004 campaign has the very strong potential to critically affect the following states in the presidential election: Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin.
Nader also has the potential to be a factor in the following states: Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
Finally, Nader will play at least a contributing factor into the outcomes of the following states: Arizona, California, Maine, and Washington (state).
I've broken down states by their vote percentage for Nader in the 2000 election. Unless mentioned otherwise, Nader ran as the Green Party candidate.
Less than 1% (GA, IN, MS, NC, OK, SD, TN)
Georgia - 0.52%
Nader ran as a write-in candidate here in 2000. Libertarian candidate Harry Browne (1.40%) received nearly three times his votes. In recent presidential elections, Georgia has voted less enthusiastically than many states for third-party candidates. Nader will not likely be a factor in 2004, as the Bush-Gore spread was 55-43% in 2000.
Indiana - 0.84%
Nader also ran as a write-in candidate here in 2000. Indiana gave fairly strong support to Ross Perot in 1992 (19.77%) and 1996 (10.50%), but stayed split between the two major parties in 2000. Nader won't affect Indiana; it's too wide of a spread (2000: Bush 57%, Gore 41%).
Mississippi - 0.82%
In 2000, Nader ran here as an Independent candidate. Mississippi had relatively tepid support for Perot in 1992 and '96, and Nader won't make any difference here anyway. The state is too right-leaning, and Bush will be building on his 2000 58-41% victory over Gore.
North Carolina, Oklahoma, & South Dakota - N/A
In each of these states, I haven't found any information on votes for Ralph Nader in 2000. I don't think he was on the ballot in any of these states, or perhaps his votes were just statistically insignificant. Regardless, Nader will not affect these states, since they all have wide 2000 victory spreads for Bush over Gore. (NC 56-43%, OK 60-39%, SD 60-38%)
Tennessee - 0.95%
Tennessee gave Nader 0.34% of the vote in 1996, and 0.95% in 2000, both times as an Independent candidate. Nader will be insignificant in the 2004 election for Tennessee, where Bush managed to beat native-son Al Gore 51-47%.
Between 1% and 2% (AL, AR, FL, KY, LA, MI, MO, SC, WV)
Alabama - 1.10%
Nader managed to gain just over 1 percent of the vote when he ran here in 2000 as an Independent candidate. It's doubtful this percentage would change drastically in this conservative state. Nader will not be a factor here due to Bush's foundation of a roughly 57-42% victory over Al Gore.
Arkansas - 1.46%
Nader's 2004 candidacy could be a small factor here, since Bush's 2000 victory (51-46%) over Gore was relatively small for the South. Nader could pull voters away from the Democratic candidate, or at least force the Democrats to actively campaign against a Nader candidacy here, frustrating any efforts for an Arkansas upset for Bush in 2004.
Florida - 1.63%
Despite Nader getting less than his national average vote percentage the 2000 Florida vote, this state is likely to be the one that Nader has the potential to affect the most. Democrats may be forced to funnell critical Florida funds to stop an insurgent Nader campaign here, diverting attention from the real target of Bush and his razor-thin 500-odd vote margin in 2000.
Kentucky - 1.50%
Nader is unlikely to make a difference here, since Bush will be building on a strong 2000 victory (56-41%) over Gore.
Louisiana - 1.16%
Since Bush's 2000 victory (53-45%) over Gore here was relatively modest for the South, Democrats may try to sway Nader voters back into their fold. The problem for the Democrats is that swaying Nader voters (going left) is likely to turn off some Democrat voters in this Southern state, so Nader will not be a likely factor in Louisiana.
Michigan - 1.99%
Nader has a definite potential to frustrate the Democratic presidential campaign in Michigan. In a state where the GOP will be trying to challenge Democrat political dominance, 2000 Nader voters have the potential to keep this race relatively close and competitive. Bush's loss to Gore in 2000 was 46-51%.
Missouri - 1.63%
This state's situation is similar to Michigan's in that it is a battleground state, where votes for Nader pose that much more of a threat to Democrat victory. In 2000, Bush had a close win (50-47%) over Gore. Count this state as one where Nader's impact will be felt.
South Carolina - 1.47%
Nader will not play a factor into this state's campaign, unless a running mate like John Edwards makes it more competitive. Bush has a convincing win (57-41%) over Gore to build on.
West Virginia - 1.65%
This state was a big disappointment for Democrats, and they are sure to take a few shots at Nader's candidacy in this state in an attempt to win back voters for their party. Bush had an upset win (52-56%) over Gore in 2000.
Between 2.0 and 2.49% (ID, IL, IA, NV, PA, TX, VA, WY)
Idaho - 2.45%
Although Nader received an impressive amount of votes here for a write-in candidate, it's hard to take Nader's campaign seriously in a state which voted so decisively for Bush (67-28%) over Gore in 2000.
Illinois - 2.19%
Nader may face some Democrat animosity in this state, but his campaign isn't likely to tip the scales in favor of Bush, who suffered a decisive loss (43-55%) to Gore here in 2000.
Iowa - 2.23%
Like Florida (but without the large electoral vote prize), Iowa is sure to be a state where Nader's candidacy will demand attention. Bush lost narrowly (48.22 - 48.54%) to Gore here in 2000, so the Democrats can't afford many repeat Nader voters.
Nevada - 2.46%
This was a fairly close race in 2000, where Bush won (49.5 - 46%) over Gore. Democrats certainly want Nader's voters here back into their fold, in their efforts to win this state in 2004. Keep an eye on this state and Nader's progress here.
Pennsylvania - 2.10%
This will be a battleground state in 2004, and Democrats will certainly attempt to win over Nader voters in efforts to build on their defeat of Bush (47-51%) by Gore in 2000. Nader won't be quite as much of a factor here as in Florida, Iowa, or Nevada, but it's a state that merits attention.
Texas - 2.15%
This is Bush country, so talk of Nader's candidacy would be purely academic. Bush won (59-38%) over Gore here in 2000.
Virginia - 2.17%
Nader won't be much of a factor here, as the Democrats will need to climb more than 2 percentage points to avenge Bush's victory (52-44%) over Gore in 2000.
Wyoming - 2.12
This is arguably (and statistically) bigger Bush country than even Texas. Bush won (68-28%) over Gore in 2000, and will win again here in 2004. Nader doesn't play into it.
Between 2.5 and 3% (AZ, DE, MD, NJ, OH)
Arizona - 2.98%
Nader may be a factor here, since Democrats will try to turn around Bush's victory (51-45%) over Gore in 2000. Swaying 3 percentage points back to the Democrats would be a good step in trying to win this state, although they probably won't prove successful.
Delaware - 2.54%
Nader won't play into the race here, as Bush is very unlikely to turn around the loss (42-55%) he suffered here by Gore in 2000.
Maryland - 2.65%
Bush had a decisive loss (40-57%) here to Gore in 2000, and Nader voters won't make up the difference, and so he won't be a factor here.
New Jersey - 2.97%
Nader ran here as an Independent candidate in 2000, and also as a Green Party candidate in 1996, where he won 1.06% of the state's vote. Nader won't be a factor in this state, though, because Bush's loss (40-56%) is too large to overcome. Bush will lose this state again in 2004.
Ohio - 2.50%
This is definitely a state to watch in terms of Nader's candidacy. Bush's victory (50 - 46.5%) here over Gore in 2000 was narrow enough to make it a battleground in 2004. Democrats want those Nader 2000 voters, and they want them bad.
Between 3 and 4% (CA, KS, NE, NH, NM, NY, ND, WI)
California - 3.82%
California could possibly swing to the Republicans (but it's a long shot), so Democrats may try to woo some of the Nader voters back "home". Bush lost decisively (41-53%) to Gore in 2000, so Nader won't be a large factor, but he could play a role.
Kansas - 3.37%
Nader ran here in 2000 as an Independent candidate, but won't make a difference in 2004. Bush won with a commanding victory (58-37%) over Gore and will win again.
Nebraska - 3.52%
Like in Kansas, Bush won here handily (62-33%) over Gore and will win again. Nader's candidacy won't play into it.
New Hampshire - 3.90%
This is a state where Nader will play a big factor. With Democrats fielding a New Englander in John Kerry, they will want to take the opportunity to reverse Bush's win (48-47%) over Gore in 2000. The nearly 4 percent of Nader voters will be prime targets for the Democrats.
New Mexico - 3.55%
In a state where Bush just narrowily lost (47.85 - 47.91%) to Gore in 2000, Democrats will need to squeeze out every vote they can get. High on the list will be this state's Nader voters, who also gave him 2.38% on the Green Party ticket in 1996.
New York - 3.58%
Some feel that Bush can turn around this loss (35-60%) to Gore in 2000, in light of 9/11. This will be a daunting task, though, and Nader voters aren't going to factor in decisively into the outcome.
North Dakota - 3.29%
Nader ran here in 2000 as an Independent candidate. Regardless of his voters' ballot decisions, Bush has a large victory (61-33%) over Gore from 2000, and he will carry this state again.
Wisconsin - 3.62%
Wisconsin was very close in 2000, where Bush lost narrowly (47.61 - 47.83%) to Gore. This will be a state to watch very closely in terms of Nader's candidacy, because he also won 1.31% of the vote here in 1996, as an Independent candidate. An interesting side factor is that Pat Buchanan won 0.44% here in 2000, also as an Independent candidate.
Between 4 and 5% (CT, UT, WA)
Connecticut - 4.42%
Nader isn't likely to be much of a factor here, unless he can play up his native-son roots. Bush lost decisively here (39-56%) to Gore in 2000, and the presence of New Englander John Kerry is likely to stop Bush from gaining any traction here.
Utah - 4.65%
Nader won't be deciding anything here, as Bush had a commanding win here (67-26%) over Gore in 2000. Bush will win again.
Washington - 4.14%
This state was relatively close in 2000, with Bush losing (44.5 - 50%) to Gore. Washington trends liberal, so Bush isn't a large danger here, but if Nader can command votes with his "lefter-than-left" campaign, the Democrats could be in for an upset, so they'll be paying attention to his efforts here. Washington gave Nader's Independent candidacy 2.68% of the vote in 1996.
More than 5 percent (AK, CO, DC, HI, ME, MA, MN, MT, OR, RI, VT)
Alaska - 10.07%
Despite getting his largest state vote percentage here in 2000, Nader won't be a factor in Alaska. Bush won (59-28%) over Gore in 2000, and will win again.
Colorado - 5.25%
Nader will be a factor here in 2004, as Bush won here (51-42%) over Gore, and any attempts by Democrats to reclaim this state must go through the 5-plus percentage of Nader voters he had in 2000.
Washington, D.C. - 5.24%
Nader won't be deciding anything here. Bush had an obvious loss here (9-85%) in 2000 and will lose again in 2004.
Hawaii - 5.88%
This state is like D.C.'s vote, but to a lesser degree. Bush lost (38-56%) to Gore in 2000 and will lose again to the Democrat candidate in 2004.
Maine - 5.70%
On the face of it, it looks like Nader could be a factor here. Bush lost by a five-point margin (44-49%) to Gore in 2000, and Nader's own 5+ point margin in 2000 is cause for concern if Republicans try to mount an agressive campaign here. Nader also won 2.52% of the vote here as a Green Party candidate in 1996. Despite all this, New Englander John Kerry's presence on the Democrat ticket could frustrate any Republican efforts to win this state.
Massachusetts - 6.42%
Nader had a fairly impressive vote tally here in 2000, but Bush lost by too much (33-60%) to Gore to catch up, and Massachusetts will certainly be voting for John Kerry.
Minnesota - 5.20%
This is a state to watch Nader's campaign. Bush lost (45.5 - 48%) a close race to Gore in 2000, and Republicans are sure to mount an agressive campaign here. Democrats will want to convince Nader 2000 voters to vote Democrat, but they will also have to contend with the fact that Minnesota gave 1.14% of the vote to Nader as a Green Party candidate in 1996. Also interesting is that the state gave Reform Party candidate 0.91% of the vote in 2000.
Montana - 5.95%
Nader won't be a factor here, since Bush won decisively (58-33%) over Gore in 2000, and will win again. As a side note, Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan received 1.39% of this state's vote in 2000.
Oregon - 5.04%
Nader (who ran on the Pacific Green Party ticket in 2000) will be a decisive factor in this state, since Bush just barely lost (46.52 - 46.96%) here to Gore in 2000. Democrats will want to lure in Nader voters, especially with such a relatively large number of them. Nader also won a unusually large 3.59% of the state's vote in 1996 on the Pacific Party ticket.
Rhode Island - 6.12%
Nader had a good showing here in 2000, and also took 1.55% of the state's vote in 1996, also on the Green Party ticket. Despite this, Nader won't be a factor, since this state handed Bush a heavy loss (32-61%) in 2000. Bush will lose again in 2004.
Vermont - 6.92%
This state also gave Nader 2.16% of the vote on the Green Coalition Party ticket in 1996. As long as Dean gives his support to Kerry and enough voters follow him, Vermont is sure to make Nader a non-factor in this state. Bush lost (41-51%) to Gore in 2000, and will almost certainly lose again to New Englander John Kerry.
In any case, the Democrats are looking at TWO challenges from the left: Nader and the Greens.
Their party is siding with a hyper-wealthy elitist, a self-admitted war criminal, a corporate leech, and a consummate establishment insider.
All this greases the skids for a Nader movement. The Dean experience may have created a monster that cannot be appeased by the likes of John Kerry.
Highly probable, IMO. But even if Nader does run, his impact isn't likely to have the effect that it did in 2000: after all, how many of the loony-left Kool-Aid drinkers are going to waste their vote on Nader AGAIN, now that they know how eeeeeeevil G.W. Bush is?
It was one thing to cast a 'protest' vote in 2000, when the nutbuckets figured Gore could win on his own (with a healthy dose of the always-reliable Massive Democratic Vote Fraud), but they can't chance another ultra-close finish.
That factor, plus the difficulty of gaining ballot access as an Independent in many states, means Nader probably gets less than 1% nationwide. Could he get enough in some state (Minnesota? Maine? New Mexico?) to shift the state from blue to red? Possibly so, but the people who are celebrating Nader being in the race as if it means a certain reelection victory for Dubya are delusional.
I'm glad Nader's in there, but there's a good chance that he'll either chicken out or be a non-factor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.