What Percentage Of The Popular Vote Will Nader Get In 2004?

[THUNDER HANDS]

If he got 2.8% four years ago, what do you suppose he'd get this time around?

I say he ends up with .7 % of the popular vote, which is a quarter (if my remeadial math skills are correct) of his total last time.

That shouldn't be too damaging to Kerry.

But what do you think?

Overall I say Nader's vote totals will be directly connected to whatever the polls are showing a day or two before the election. If Kerry is running 7-8 points up in the polls, Ralph could pull in a few thousand more votes from people who won't believe they are throwing the election to him.

But if Kerry is trailing in the polls by 7-8 points, Nader folk might figure the Dem is going to lose anyway and vote for Ralph.

But if the polling remains close - less than 5 points on either side, than I think Nader could be damaged by people who don't want to give Bush 4 more years.

And that's what I think is going to happen. Kerry and Bush will poll neck-and-neck through the summer, and Kerry will probably have a 2-3 point lead on Bush going into that first Tuesday in November.

[Florida_Geek]

1. Other than Jeb and Goodhair in Texas

would both probably give him a free pass to get on the ballot, he has to get on the ballot in 48 other states without a party behind him.

[John_H]

2. Math. With. Ralllllllllllph!

Let's start him out with the 2.7 percent he got with the Green organization behind him, even though its probably to generous to assume he bigins 04 with that many voters. Then subtract the following

--The number of Nader voters who now understand that the indistinguishable shtick was utter BS

--The large number of likely nader voters who live in states we're already going to win in a walk.

--The smaller number who live in states we'll probably lose in a walk

--The number of Nader voters who wouldn't vote Dem ever, erver, ever....wahhhhh.

I'd bet result is a very very very very small number.

We should though do everything we can to make sure Nader get's no votes.

[boxster]

3. I'm guessing about half of his 2000 results.

1.5% or less.

[onehandle]

4. Depends on how much the media whores play him.

That could go either way. It could increase his numbers, or drop them if he is reported as the "spoiler of the 2000 election".

Either way, I still say he won't be a factor.

Nice to see that Freeps are still tagging our polls.

[mdmc]

6. I bet he receives 3%

That the Greens keep their 2000 voters at 1.5%.

The thing is, these are folks that don't vote.

[Monte Carlo]

5. Nader does not have near the support and momentum that he did in 2000.

In 2000, he had a liberal voting bloc that was turned off by Clinton and his legacy and relatively unafraid of the GOP.

This time, he's running without the Greens, without Michael Moore, without the popular momentum, and WITH the threat of 4 more years of Bush. He will not break 1%.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Nader is totally inconsequential in 2004

The only way to get rid of Bush is by supporting the Democratic Party. The more reason why we must fight to ensure the Democrats don't nominate a loser in Boston.

[Monte Carlo]

15. In the vote tallies, sure.

It's the fact that he will force the Democratic Party to defend themselves on two fronts. It's just another variable.

The Democrats won't nominate a loser in Boston. Both Kerry and Edwards have that spark.

[onehandle]

8. You got it. nt

[pmbryant]

9. Absolutely correct. All this Nader fuss is much ado about nothing.

Very few will vote for him. Those that do would never be a Kerry or Edwards vote under any circumstance anyway.

I doubt he'll get half the support he got last time, and under 1% total is a very strong possibility.

Buchanan-esque numbers for Nader in 2004.

Peter

[Monte Carlo]

13. My concern is that his results won't automatically be miniscule.

If the Democratic Party were to spend no time and money against Nader's campaign, he could sneak up on them and grab a more significant chunk of the more liberal vote.

But they won't just ignore him, they'll expend resources to make sure that Nader stays as small as possible, resources that, quite frankly, could be better used against the GOP.

[Cornus]

10. I agree

i know several people who voted for Nader in 2000 (including me!). None of us would even consider voting for him this time around. I suspect his total % will be way less than 1%.

[Monte Carlo]

14. I voted for Nader in 2000, not again.

I remember my head ringing with a lot of the slogans about energizing the base, bringing in new voters, bringing change to the party and the system in 2000 during the Nader campaign. After my little bubble burst, I've come to realize that the most noble principles in the world don't mean jack without the power to enact them and defend them.

[peaches2003]

11. The popular vote doesn't matter

Doesn't matter how much of the popular vote he gets. All that matters is that his small vote could throw one or 2 states to Bush and give him the electoral vote. This is what happened in Florida and New Hampshire in 2000. His tiny % of votes cut into Gore's and threw those 2 states to Bush and gave him the electoral college vote.

If the Supreme Court had allowed another count in FL that might have changed the picture, but bottom line is that Nader can change the electoral college vote even if he is on the ballot in only a very few states.

[liberal72]

12. Dean neutralized Nader

Because of Dean's campaign and representing the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" he brought a lot of Nader voters from 2000 back to the Dem side. If Dean had not run and the candidates continued to bow down to Bush and not stand up against him, the Nader story would be bigger. Remember, James Carville and Begala are saying that Dean gave the Dems what they really needed: a backbone.

[Monte Carlo]

16. Well said.

Frankly, I heard a lot of the campaign themes of Nader in 2000 echo in Dean's campaign in 2004. Dean provided within the party what Nader tried (and is trying) to provide outside of the party: an outlet and a lot of honesty in politics.

[Rowdyboy]

17. From 2.8% down to .3%...Only 1 in 10 of those who supported him in 2000

will make the same mistake. Most people have better sense.