Five weeks after he announced he is running for president again, early polls show Ralph Nader having the same influence on the 2004 election that he had in 2000 – taking just enough votes from the Democratic candidate to ensure a victory for George W. Bush.
Nationally, polls show Nader cutting into the percentage of voters who otherwise would choose Democratic Sen. John Kerry and improving the prospects of re-election for President Bush.
In key states, where mere dozens of votes could change the outcome and swing the electoral vote for president, early polls show Nader taking enough of Kerry’s potential supporters to make it possible for Bush to win the state…
In Florida, where Bush defeated Gore by 537 votes in 2000, and Nader got more than 97,000 votes, or 2 percent, polling shows Kerry at 49 percent, Bush at 43 percent and Nader at 2 percent.
In Wisconsin, where Gore won by 5,708 votes and where Nader got more than 93,000 votes, polling shows Kerry at 46 percent, Bush at 43 and Nader at 4.
In New Hampshire, where Bush won by 7,211 votes and where Nader received 22,198 votes, polling shows Bush at 45 percent, Kerry at 39 and Nader at 8 percent.
In Ohio, where Bush won by 50 percent to 46 percent for Gore, with 3 percent for Nader, polling shows Kerry with 46 percent of the vote, Bush with 44 percent and Nader with 5 percent.
And they say that one man can’t make a difference in America.
Why not just start releasing stray cats at all of his public appearances? He apparenly lives in mortal fear that such creatures will give him leukemia.
And while I could make up sh!+ like that, that information is straight from the skeleton closet.
Dammit, the latest Gallup has it at Kerry 47, Bush 44, Nader 4. While the two “real” candidates are in a virtual tie, it doesn’t appear to me that Nader’s being too much of an effect.
Plus, Ralphie looks like he’s extending an olive branch to John Kerry in the past week. We’ll see. We’ll also see how many states Nader can get on the ballot in.
Since the Chronicle Nation/World page is my brother’s, I’ve already sent him an email pointing these things out…in a brotherly sort of way…;)
Actually, I’d say that proves the point. If Nader wasn’t drawing support away from Kerry, it wouldn’t be a virtual tie.
Don’t get me wrong, the man has every right to run. I just shudder at the possible consequences.[/quote]
Yeah, considering that these polls usually have +/- of 3, they’re essentially tied right now. 4-percent doesn’t sound like much, but it’s literally the difference in Florida again. Remember, Gore lost by less than 1,000 votes there, and Nader got something like 44,000 in the state.
4-percent doesn’t sound like much, but it’s literally the difference in Florida again. Remember, Gore lost by less than 1,000 votes there, and Nader got something like 44,000 in the state.
From the first post of this thread:
In Florida, where Bush defeated Gore by 537 votes in 2000, and Nader got more than 97,000 votes, or 2 percent, polling shows Kerry at 49 percent, Bush at 43 percent and Nader at 2 percent.
So percentage-wise Nader has equal support as he did last time. You’d think those Floridians would learn. On the plus side, Kerry’s lead is greater than the margin of error, and a 6% lead is pretty good…who knows where that will be come November though.
Yep, Perot was huge news from the Media. FAR more media time and coverage than Nader got in 2000. He got 17% of the vote in '92. That’s what? 4x Nader’s effect? (Of course, Perot did draw from the Left as well.) In 1996 Perot was a non-issue because Clinton was way too far ahead of Dole. But he still got decent numbers… I’m remembering 8% but I don’t have proof of that.
Of course, now Lake is going to turn this around and say that the Media doesn’t give Nader enough free press. :wink:
I guess it is just my bad memory. I did not mean that the press did not talk about Perot, they seem to be concern and showing consternation over Nader’s run.
