The Numbers
A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.
ARCHIVES
SUBJECT INDEX
RECENT POSTS
- Views on the Terror Trials
- Sarah Palin: Rogue for President?
- Chasing Feathers
- Tomorrow's Elections: An Obama Referendum?
- Schwarzenegger's Nastygram: One in 10 Billion?
- Executive Pay? Cut Away
- Pols, Polls and Pushback
- On Nuclear Iran, Diplomacy and Sanctions are Preferred to Hostilities
- Polling, Politics and Nobels
- The War in Afghanistan: Reassessment, Eight Years On
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Spoilage?
February 25, 2008 11:28 AM
Ralph Nader’s announcement of his latest tilt at the presidency promptly launched a fresh round of the parlor game called “spoiler” – this round arguing that Nader could cost the Democratic nominee the presidency in 2008, as he allegedly did in 2000.
Allegedly is the operative word. Whether Nader indeed cost Al Gore the presidency is less of an open-and-shut case than you might think. And whether we’ll see another storm so perfect that a 2.7 percent candidate can be even accused of tipping the balance is hardly a sure bet.
The spoiler claim goes like this: George W. Bush won Florida in 2000 by 537 votes. Nader had 97,488 there. We can’t be sure how Nader’s Florida supporters would have voted had he not been on the ballot, but in national exit poll data (necessary for a sufficient sample size), 47 percent said they’d have voted for Gore, 21 percent for Bush, and the rest would’ve stayed home. Divide the Nader vote in Florida that way, and inaugurate President Gore.
But wait. If you’re going to say Nader cost Gore a win in Florida, you might have to say the same thing about any of a list of lesser-known possible spoilers. David McReynolds, the Socialist candidate in 2000, got 622 votes in Florida. Give ’em to Gore and he’d have won regardless of Nader. Or give Gore the lion’s share of the Libertarian, Constitution Party or Natural Law Party vote in Florida, and get there that way.
But don't forget Pat Buchanan, the other free-lancer in 2000. He didn’t get enough votes to estimate where they’d have gone otherwise, but if you give all or most of them to Bush, you can do some serious theoretical mayhem. Buchanan got 17,484 votes right there in the Land of the Hanging Chad. And look beyond: In New Mexico, where Gore won by 366 votes, Buchanan got 1,392. In Iowa, Gore won by 4,144; Buchanan got 5,731. In Oregon, Gore won by 6,765, while Buchanan got 7,063 votes. And in Wisconsin, Gore won by 5,708 but Buchanan got 11,471. Give the lion’s share of those Buchanan votes to Bush and the Nader-in-Florida argument just might become irrelevant.
If this isn’t enough fun, start apportioning out the rest of the 2000 vote beyond Florida. Nationally, candidates other than Gore, Bush, Nader and Buchanan got a total of 593,078 votes. Out of whose hide? Go figure. But while you're at it don’t forget that Gore lost his own home state by more than 50,000 votes, raising the entirely plausible suggestion that it was Al Gore who cost Al Gore the 2000 election.
Part of the fascination with third-party candidacies (cue Mike Bloomberg) comes from farther back, 1992, when it’s alleged that Ross Perot tilted the election to Bill Clinton by swiping votes disproportionately from George H.W. Bush. In fact the national exit poll that year found that had Perot not been in the race his supporters would have divided evenly between Clinton and Bush, at 40 percent each; the rest would have supported someone else, or sat it out.
Perot got 19 percent of the national vote in 1992, the second-best showing by any independent in modern times. Nader’s been a different story. In 1996 he got seven-tenths of one percent; in 2000, without Perot as an alternative independent candidate, 2.7 percent; and in 2004 Nader bottomed out at just under four-tenths of one percent, 465,650 votes out of 122,295,345 cast.
With numbers like these, Nader could end up looking less like a spoiler and more like Harold Stassen, who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican presidential nomination in 1948, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992. But the math on that is tough in its own way: The day after tomorrow, Nader turns 74 years old.
February 25, 2008 in 2008 General Election | Permalink | User Comments (32)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Best anaylsis of the 2000 election that I've seen yet. If Gore couldn't beat George Bush with his horrible record in Texas, then who could? And if The Hilliary-Obama bloodsport, slash and burn politics turn off one or the other and half of the Democratic vote protest and stays home in November; I don't believe it will be Ralph Nader to blame for that. If the Democracts are too busy tearing each other down, rather than focusing on the (once again terribly flawed) Republican nominee, (Insaine McCain) then they deserve to lose. Besides it may well be a Ron Paul or Mike Bloomberg, along with Ralph Nader, Hilliary/Obama, and then McCain on the ballot in November. And I just don't see anybody saying that "bigpockets" Mike, shouldn't have the right to run. If you slander Nader or a Ron Paul for going 3rd party, and give Billionaire Mike a free pass and welcome him with open arms, you are nothing but a hypocrite and deserve to be exposed for what you truly are...
Posted by: cba | Feb 25, 2008 12:01:56 PM
People that call third party candidates "spoilers" are the ones with the problem, because they believe democrats and republicans own my vote and are entitled to it when in fact I OWN my vote and it is solely my business how I choose to use it.
Furthermore those of you that vote for the corporate funded candidates (aka democrats and republicans) are the ones "throwing away" your vote. Because you vote for someone who does nothing but serve elite interests while I vote for long term change by support non-corrupt candidates. You think I am there to just desrupt your stupid "winnings" that amount to nothing, but the fact is I intend to replace your whole corrupt system.
In 2000 when I was out stomping for nader I had literally hundreds of people that told me they would have voted for nader but won't because he "just can't win".
You know what people, if you would just vote based on who the best candidate is instead of based on your fear of not being on the winning team, we would have actual positive change in this country.
Why don't you stop being brainwashed thoughtless sheep, and stop focusing on the few of us that have developed braincells and can see the difference between lies and truth.
Posted by: DK | Feb 25, 2008 12:35:28 PM
Third Party candidates might save our wicked system. The little working person of America always got the shaft from the republicans and democrats even as they played on their fears!
Posted by: rockychance | Feb 25, 2008 12:46:10 PM
Is Nadar for preserving the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, or has he been in the back door dancing scene? We have enough shadows all ready running for President, does anybody know his stand with that issue?
Posted by: regionfive | Feb 25, 2008 1:34:23 PM
Personally I wish Ralph Nader would just go away. He hasnt got a chance in H**L and if he takes ANY votes away from Obama he makes our fight harder. I dont think anyone who would vote for him would vote for McCain. Obama is going to be the Dem Nominee and McCain and his ilk are gonna go for the jugular and ...I just wish Nader would stay home. Sigh.
Posted by: activist mom | Feb 25, 2008 2:03:34 PM
Most elections are really choices between two candidates, one of whom is closer to your views than is the other. If you are on the liberal side of politics and vote for a person like Nader as a protest, you are quite probably helping elect the person who does not share your views. That is certainly what happened in 2000. Anyone who doesn't think a Gore Presidency would have been significantly different from the Bush Presidency (e.g., no Iraq War) probably hasn't thought very deeply.
Posted by: virginian | Feb 25, 2008 2:54:05 PM
If you really had any functioning braincells you wouldn't have ensured Bush's election by throwing your vote away on a crazed narcissistic candidate who couldn't get elected dogcatcher and couldn't handle any position even if it was handed to him.
Posted by: anonyq | Feb 25, 2008 4:47:16 PM
Can't we just get Ron Paul to run 3rd party with Nader as his v.p.? Seems all of the Ron Paul votes combined with any that Nader would've drawn would give them some seriously nice numbers.
Posted by: newztixr | Feb 25, 2008 5:26:04 PM
I suggest a Ralf Nadir/Joe Lieberman ticket.
Their slogan could be: "Enough of politics -- let's talk about ME!"
Posted by: Mark | Feb 25, 2008 5:34:57 PM
If this is a so-called "Democratic" year, you liberals have nothing to worry about. But if Nader causes you this much anxiety, your proverbial "firewall" is really made up of nothing more than matches and toothpicks. You guys are in deep, deep trouble.
Posted by: GOPinCalifornia | Feb 25, 2008 6:35:49 PM
Ralph Nader is an American hero & patriot for upholding his constitutional right to run for president against all odds & public outcry. I don't agree with his politics but our political system needs to be constantly challenged by brave people like Nader.
Posted by: Dr. Dave | Feb 25, 2008 6:35:57 PM
Your false bravado fools no one. The country knows full well which party is about to be crushed for its eight years of breathtaking malfeasance and gross incompetence.
Nice try though. Your "whistling past the graveyard" was quite amusing!
Posted by: Mark | Feb 25, 2008 6:50:45 PM
I remember watching in after the general elections of 2000, Ralph Nader was being interviewed and asked what his plans were in the Independent party. Ralph Nader said LOUD AND CLEAR that he is a Republican, that he was always a Republican, that he will always be a Republican. Ralph Nader said that he couldn't help it if the Independents and Democrats were DUMB enough to vote for him. --Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!--
Posted by: Angie | Feb 25, 2008 7:36:27 PM
Against Clinton, Nader would be an effective spoiler. Against Obama, who has a legion of supporters who are younger and couldn't pick Nader out of a line up with Alan Alda, Nader becomes more of a non factor.
Posted by: Russ G | Feb 25, 2008 8:03:05 PM
Of course Ralph has some better ideas than current candidates -- I have a lot more of them than he has, and nobody will vote for me either, though I didn't write doom on our industrial system by condemning the only cars that might have kept our streets from being filled with Hondas and Toyotas.
None of the three possible presidents has in fact told the truth about immigration or hideous "Defense" budgets or addressed the huge Bush fiscal and trade deficits -- which are worse than those of any developing nation, and would put any into IMF shock. But then neither has Nader.
We're coming up on an Ohio primary where nothing anyone promises can come true because all those jobs have already been sent to Southeast Asia.
I'm supporting Obama, because I think he alone can grasp the crisis and rally the people against it. On the other hand, if elected, he may have to confront an uncontainable depression, as Hoover did.
What can you do but hope?
Posted by: obelix | Feb 25, 2008 8:29:47 PM
sigh. I just cant believe anyone would vote for nader. I mean...why throw your vote away and harm the country's chances of not having to cope with another moron republican? I just cant believe it. I hope you're right RussG...I hope you're right.
Posted by: activist mom | Feb 25, 2008 9:37:17 PM
activist mom,
Do you really believe that voting for a democrat creates change? I have a hard time understanding how ANYONE who looks beyond what they "say" can not see that they are just corrupt corporate slaves just like the republicans.
On just economics alone, the democrats supported Forming the WTO, support NAFTA and CAFTA, giving tax breaks to corporations that outsource.
They make big claims about being "for the people" but when it comes to actually voting for positive change that would help those people they do the opposite.
Which is why Obama has obstained from voting on legislation over and over and over again that could help people, and yet you believe him that he represents some great change.
You can criticise my vote all you want, but I vote for long term change, while you vote for a short term "win" that will result in no change.
When you wake up and join us, then perhaps we will actually get some work done.
What are you waiting for?
Posted by: DK | Feb 25, 2008 9:54:14 PM
anonyq,
The reason third party candidates *can't win* is because the two corporate funded parties keep legitimate competition out, all the while brainwashing people like you with corporate advertising that you are voting for some great change.
You just keep sitting there voting for undemocratic elite interests - thinking you are so smart while you are just a dumb sheep being led to the slaughter.
Why don't you wake up and stop worrying about who can "win" and start realizing what you are giving up by not demanding a real democratic election?
Posted by: dk | Feb 25, 2008 10:08:37 PM
For those intent upon voting for Nader, consider doing what I did in 2000: be a "Nader trader." I wanted to support Nader, but as I live in a swing state (Iowa) I didn't want to risk throwing the race to Bush. So, I got in touch with a Gore-supporting friend in Indiana (a state whose outcome was almost certain) and made a deal: I voted for Gore in exchange for my friend's promise to vote for Nader. That way I made my voice heard without electoral risk.
Posted by: Matt | Feb 25, 2008 10:10:15 PM
Nader has every right to run. But a hero and a patriot??? I don't think so. Nader is unbelievably egotistical and interested only in publicity. I admired him many years ago when he actually stood for something. But no longer.
Anyone can play with the numbers and lie with statistics, but the simple truth is: Nader siphoned off enough votes in 2000 to deprive Gore of a clearcut victory in Florida. This allowed Katherine Harris and later the US Supreme Court to anoint Bush the winner even though Gore most likely had more votes.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and the ilk have brought this country to the brink of disaster. If you want more of the same, go ahead and vote for Nader.
Posted by: Randy | Feb 25, 2008 10:25:13 PM
Post a comment
