(Because somebody called me this morning and woke me up at the ungodly hour of 8:30am on the first day I’ve had to sleep late in three weeks) I watched Meet the Press this morning and heard Ralph Nader announce that he is running for president. Nader, who will celebrate his 74th birthday next week, has no doubt been planning this run for a while. His website, which he mentioned several times in the interview, is up, and includes a significant amount of content, including a comparison of his stands on the issues versus those of the other candidates.
Much noise has been made about Nader’s effect on the 2000 election. But this ain’t 2000. As the result, I doubt if Nader will have any negligible effect on the election. Nader’s appeal just isn’t what it was in 2000.
Nader receives .1% of the vote, if lucky. He is yesterday’s news and I question the journalistic standards of wasting air time on MTP to give him a forum to spout. Bad choice by Timmee and NBC.
His ridiculous comparisons of our screwed up system to the parliamentary systems of Europe are a self defeating argument. We do not have to build a coalition of smaller parties to achieve the 50% threshold to form a government.
Posted by Newport News Dem | Sunday, February 24, 2008, 2:33 pmMy husband dubbed Nader the Harold Stassen of this era.
I remember when Ralph Nader was a serious and extremely respected crusader who took on the auto issue on life saving issues. It’s sad that he is destined to end his legacy as a spoiler and the punch line of late night jokes.
Posted by Anonymous Is A Woman | Sunday, February 24, 2008, 5:05 pmWhile I seriously doubt Nader will have a strong effect on this election, the last thing I would do is count him out. Friendly advice from someone on the other side; don’t ignore him. Perot in ’92 and Nader in ’00 should be enough proof to show that third party candidates can swing elections, and while Nader is known because of that fateful election in 2000, he could still be seen as an alternative voice to the Democrat’s nominee (in fact, I’ve already heard one person say he is going to vote for Nader).
Posted by CR UVa | Sunday, February 24, 2008, 6:28 pmOh, I’m not counting him out. And I’ve read a couple of posts around the net today in which people said they would vote for him.
Posted by vjp | Sunday, February 24, 2008, 6:37 pmCR UVa….
I think if your did some research, you would discover Perot did not change the outcome of the ’92 election. That s if you believe the results of the exit polls of 15,000 voters. This is just more anti-Clinton urban legend brought to you by the people who loathe Bill and Hillary.
Posted by Newport News Dem | Sunday, February 24, 2008, 7:10 pm“I doubt if Nader will have any negligible effect on the election.”
The double negative is a bit confusing. Do you think his effect will be negligible, or do you doubt it will be negligible?
Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Sunday, February 24, 2008, 10:42 pmYes, NND, we all know how accurate those polls are.
Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Sunday, February 24, 2008, 10:44 pmMouse:
I understand today’s right wing is anti-science and reason, but I would be willing to hypothesis that exit polls of 15,000 voters might have a skosh more gravitas on this issue than that which is pulled from your arse.
Posted by Newport News Dem | Monday, February 25, 2008, 5:32 pmI was only remarking on the FACT that the polls have missed just about every call this primary season, and many more before that. I also suggest that the poster of such a comment post a link to the research, so that we can see for ourselves.
Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Monday, February 25, 2008, 8:21 pmhttp://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml
DIONNE (11/8/92): Ross Perot’s presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.
The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot’s absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.
And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush “margin” without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.
The VRS polled more than 15,000 voters. On November 12, Dionne provided more details about Perot voters:
DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush.
An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.
Posted by Newport News Dem | Monday, February 25, 2008, 10:09 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992
Perot’s almost 19% of the popular vote made him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Some conservative analysts believe that Perot acted as a spoiler in the election, primarily drawing votes away from Bush and allowing Clinton to win many states with less than a majority of votes. However, exit polling indicated that Perot voters would have split their votes fairly evenly between Clinton and Bush had Perot not been in the race, and an analysis by FairVote – Center for Voting and Democracy suggested that, while Bush would have won more electoral votes with Perot out of the race, he would not have gained enough to reverse Clinton’s victory. [1]
Posted by Newport News Dem | Monday, February 25, 2008, 10:15 pmThe link you provided gave no mention of the 15,000 people from the exit polling. Where are you getting your data?
I’ve searched the FairVote site, but not found any reference to the exit polls. All I see is analysis of the presidential races before and after. No, I am not going to pay for a NYT article, either. I doubt seriously that they actually give a proper article reference.
Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Monday, February 25, 2008, 10:54 pmPerot’s Voters Would Have Split In a Two-Way Race
ASSOCIATED PRESS (11/4/92): Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.
The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates.
What was te VRS exit poll, from E J Dionne in theWAPO
The VRS polled more than 15,000 voters. On November 12, Dionne provided more details about Perot voters:
DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush.
An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.
Posted by Newport News Dem | Tuesday, February 26, 2008, 12:15 amTopics at a Glance Dataset Abstract
http://roperweb.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/roperweb/Catalog40/Catalog40.htx;start=TopSummary_Link?Archno=USVRS1992-NATELEC
Title Voter Research and Surveys: National Election Day Exit Poll, 1992
[Study# USVRS1992-NATELEC]
Survey Firm Voter Research & Surveys
Survey Sponsor ABC News/CBS News/NBC News/CNN
Field Dates November 3, 1992
Sample Exiting Voters
Sample Size 15,490
Variables 114
Posted by Newport News Dem | Tuesday, February 26, 2008, 12:18 amHere is your fair vote link;
http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm
Money quote…..
Analysis: Perotís vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bushís victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry, particularly before some of the partisan shifts that took place later in the 1990s ñ Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257. But such a result obviously would have made the race a good deal closer.
Posted by Newport News Dem | Tuesday, February 26, 2008, 12:25 am