Measuring the Spoiler effect, 2004

by chadlupkes, Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:04:21 AM EST

On Sunday, February 24th, Ralph Nader jumped into the race for President. I've heard a lot of radio hosts claim or at least imply that he might be a spoiler in the 2008 election. So I did some research.

The table on this Wikia page lists the counties in the 2004 election where the difference between the Democratic Vote and Republican Vote was less than the number of votes for other candidates. I might need to break out how many of those votes were actually for Mr. Nader, since it is a sum of all "other" candidates on the ballot, but let's go with what I have for now.

Please take a look and join me for a short analysis after the jump.

Ok, so let's break down these numbers. There are 63 counties on this list. 33 of these were won by John Kerry, and 30 were won by George Bush. The total number of counties that I have information about is 3113. So, 30/3113 is .009637. Less than 1% of counties were affected by the "spoiler effect" in 2004. The total number of votes that "helped" John Kerry is 21,722. The number of votes that "helped" George Bush is 17,444. So John Kerry was helped more by the "spoiler effect" overall than Bush was.

Still think Nader's candidacy is going to be a problem? I don't.

Tags: 2004 election, George W. Bush, John Kerry, Ralph Nader (all tags)

  • 7 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

7 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Counties are irrelevant

I agree that Nader's candidacy isn't a problem, but your analysis seems meaningless. The Electoral College is based on states (or congressional districts in the case Maine and Nebraska), not counties, so there's no real "helping" going on. And as you say, you're lumping all the third-party candidates together, when most of those votes are not for Nader (Michael Badnarik alone got nearly as many votes as Nader).

by KCinDC 2008-02-26 09:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Counties are irrelevant

Counties are the organizational level in most states that handle elections.  County party organizations are the grassroots backbone at the base of the party.  I don't consider counties to be irrelevent, I think they should be central to the 50 state strategy.  The way we win states is by winning 50%+1 in those states.  And I believe the way we can do that is by building up the county parties, and knowing where our targets are for that infrastructure development.  That's why I'm researching county results.  It's critical to know where we stand, not in terms of votes but in terms of having a party organization that can get those votes.

by chadlupkes 2008-02-26 11:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Measuring the Spoiler effect, 2004

Nader is my plan B. If Hillary does not win this primary, I will vote for him in a heartbeat.

by praxis1 2008-02-26 09:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Measuring the Spoiler effect, 2004

Wow! I got a troll rating stating my political point of view. Just great. Thank you MILiberal.

by praxis1 2008-02-26 09:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Measuring the Spoiler effect, 2004

If I believed he had a chance, I probably would consider it.  He doesn't.  I won't.

by chadlupkes 2008-02-26 11:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Nader is the option for progressives

Some still blame Nader for Gore's loss. I don't. Maybe Gore should have chosen someone other than Leiberman as a running mate. Or maybe Gore should have asked Clinton to be more active in his campaign. Or maybe Gore should have won his home state. Or maybe Gore should have chosen a better campaign manager.

Nader didn't cause Gore to lose the election. Gore lost it on his own.

With Nader in the race, progressives have an option.

by jfoster 2008-02-26 11:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nader is the option for progressives

I don't blame Nader either.  I blame Al Gore for not being himself and listening too much to the beltway consultants.

However, I don't agree that Nader is an option for progressives.  He has no chance of winning.  Zero.  The only positive chance we have of making a difference is by jumping into what we dislike head first.  I'm talking about the political parties.  Platforms are drafted by volunteers.  Decisions are made by members.  The infrastructure we need to make the changes we want is there ready for us to use.  We just have to take it.

by chadlupkes 2008-02-26 11:48AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------