CNN-inside Politics analysis of Nader vote in 2000

Of Nader voters that year, 30% would have refused to vote had he not been running. Of the rest, 48% would have voted for Gore, 22% would have voted for Bush.

Nader drew 2,883,000 votes in 2000.
70% of that is 2,181,000 who would have voted
48% would equal 968,700 more votes for Gore
22% would equal 444,000 extra for Bush

Gore would have emerged with another 525,000 votes to add to the 550,000 plurality he already had.

There is no way he could have been denied the White House with a plurality of 1,070,000. No way.

Yet on Inside Politics Nader pretends to believe that he will draw mostly votes from angry Republicans and conservatives.

Nader, in the 1970's and 80's represented something other than Nader. Now, he's just a disingenuous liar. What a waste.

on edit: This is my obligatory "I hate Nader" thread.

And my thoughts on the mental capacity of his cult-like followers is well known. When I see Ralph, I think of "Do" and "Ti".

-- Allen

That anyone who would have voted for Bush chose Nader over him. I can see Gore and Nader, but Bush and Nader?

What exactly did Nader appeal to in Bush supporters?

This pothead who just kept babbling on that Gore was a "liar". He just wanted his pot to be legal and for his taxes to be low. He said he would have voted for Bush if Nader was not in the race.

What kind of idiot would waver between Bush and Nader?

what evil lurks in the heart of men.

(doing my best Tommy Chong impersonation.)

-- Allen

In the past I have run these numbers on Florida and New Hampshire. MAYBE Bush still wins in New Hasmpshire. We don't know how those numbers break down regionally. It would have been close enough for a recount, or within the margin of error, but in Florida the evidence is unmistakable: Gore would have won, and the Republicans would not have been able to steal it.

If 1/10--one-TENTH--of the total number of Nader voters in Florida alone--totalling up to around 33,000; so 1/10 would be 3300--would have voted instead for Al Gore...well, we wouldn't be worrying about hanging chads, Sept. 11, 2001, massive deficits, pension-robbing, lack of ability to get cheaper prescription drugs, a major recession, Iraq...well, I guess we ALL get the picture! :shrug:

All I can say is...

Go to HELL, Ralphie Boy! :mad:

:kick:

B-)

Bush, behind by about 2500-3000 would have demanded a hand-recount. The case would have eventually ended up in the Supreme Court, which would have ruled (whatever the situation ended up being) in Bush's favor.

The exit polling in 2000 conducted by Voter News Service and CNN contradticts these claims. In a two-man race Gore would have received 48% of the vote and Bush 49%. (2% would not have voted.)

http://www.udel.edu/poscir/road/course/exitpollsindex.html

votes, but loses over all?

Only way data makes sense is if Bush beat Gore in popular vote - and he didn't.


Below is the data referred to - with 4% of Gore votes not voting for Gore in a 2 man race, while only 2% of the Bush voters would not have voted for Bush in a 2 man race.

Without Nader in 2% say they would not have voted - but they are not the Nader 2 % (only 31% are from Nader votes) - they are pulled from Gore and Bush in the main!


Vote in Two-Way Race
All
Gore
Bush
Buchanan
Nader

Gore
48 %
96 %
1 %
0 %
2 %

Bush
49 %
2 %
96 %
0 %
1 %

Would Not Have Voted
2 %
23 %
27 %
9 %
31 %

"A two-man race," as the question was phrased, also excluldes Buchanan and other third party candidates.

Nader got 22,000 there.
22,000 minus 30% = 16,000
Give Gore 10,000 more and Bush 5,000
Gore only nets 5,000
Bush had a 6,000 vote margin on Gore.
His margin of victory in NH might n\have been under 1,000 but it still wasn't enough.

Now about Florida....

:-)

That is why you must ski Vermont!

:-)