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
- In Afghanistan Decision, Risks Abound
- 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
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.
Great job summing up Florida 2000, and it was enlightening to read the finer points re other states and candidates. Totally agree re Nader as the new Stassen.
If Obama is the Democratic nominee, he will attract the lion's share of the "change" vote, holding third party candidates to very low levels and possibly discouraging Bloomberg from running. In any case, if Bloomberg does run, he will blanket the country with ads for months on end, and make everybody sick of hearing about the election....and still he won't win. Mike, give it up, give that itchy billion to charity already...
Posted by: WJ | Feb 26, 2008 5:23:58 AM
Nader, whats that, is it like a bananna? Get off the stage we know now your a Republican plant!
Posted by: Demo Rules | Feb 26, 2008 7:31:54 AM
I see the radioamerica crowd hit this story too! moveon=socialism
Nadar wants a third party. Why would anyone be against that? Oh yea I forgot The two partys want full control over OUR money. Each year they spend millions trying to keep their power over you. Wake up a third party is good for US "We the people" remember? this was a free country.
Posted by: ftec | Feb 26, 2008 7:41:58 AM
The reason Demacrats would worry is that;
"PEOPLE ARE VOTING AGAINST CLINTON NOT FOR OBAMA".........
Posted by: ftec | Feb 26, 2008 7:44:11 AM
Ralph Nadar probably cost Al Gore the election and secured the margin of victory for George W. "Scrub" Bush, who is probably the most incompetent and certainly the most inarticulate sober president in American history. After that contribution to Western Civilization, Ralph Nadar could not command enough votes to spoil cabbage...jt
Posted by: Joey Tranchina | Feb 26, 2008 7:52:46 AM
Angie: That's an interesting and probably accurate analysis... well said too...jt
Posted by: Joey Tranchina | Feb 26, 2008 8:00:36 AM
ftec; You really don't know what you're talking about. I'm not even sure you want to know what you are talking about because even the must cursory analysis of Obama's supporters shows a level of enthusiasm that has not been seen in America for decades. Got any extra anti-Hillary votes? We'll take them too...jt
Posted by: Joey Tranchina | Feb 26, 2008 8:04:56 AM
Complete red herring argument. Making the contention that Nader "spoiled" the election for Gore is not saying anything about any other third party candidates. It is not the same thing as saying "third party candidates spoiled the election for Gore," which is what the author turned his article to address, but I've never heard anyone claim. In fact, the author verified the (granted, over-simplified) assertion that Nader did spoil it for Gore in the third paragraph!
Posted by: WC | Feb 26, 2008 10:45:50 AM
JT,
Regarding: "cursory analysis of Obama's supporters shows a level of enthusiasm that has not been seen in America for decades".
And that is the problem - people like you have enthusiasm for a smooth talking, corporate funded sob that promises great change while having a record of non-change, instead of supporting legitamate third party candidates that are not corrupt.
Why if you and so many others want change, do you only support the system of Institutionalized corruption instead of supporting the real people that represent real change?
Does it feel good to fool yourself?
Posted by: dk | Feb 26, 2008 12:11:12 PM
DK, I am totally with your point of view. Anyone who doesn't do their homework on who and what they are voting for are fools. I think Ron Paul and Ralph Nader both have excellent points that most americans would agree with. I'm having trouble deciding between the two of them, who I like more. Who knows there may be yet another candidate that is even better. I've mostly voted my conscience in the past and the one time I did'nt I regret it. I'm hoping every American will stop and consider other options before they just vote for a dem or rep candidate. Real choices exists!
Posted by: midwestfarmgal | Feb 26, 2008 3:13:59 PM
Said it in a different forum, but those of you who think Obama or any Dem will win by a landslide are delusional. He probably will win, but in the past 40 years name me one Dem president who has won by a landslide? I could name a few Repubs, but Dems who win the presidency don't win by landslides, they win with one or two states to spare. Start looking at the electoral votes and it will again come down to a few states like Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Colorado, Virginia, even Oregon and neither candidate is going to take anything like 40 states and even 60-65% of the electoral votes.
Posted by: steve | Feb 28, 2008 7:56:40 AM
Seriously let this be the last post. I supported Nader before in 2000, but not anymore. His politics are not Republican, but they are way old. I think we just need to ignore him, thus the no more posts suggestions. RIP.
Posted by: JR | Mar 4, 2008 7:31:14 PM
Post a comment
