Our previous electoral discussion was based on Zogby polling data, with a minimum of political analysis. Let’s look at similar electoral breakdown, only this time relying upon analytical forecasts from the widely respected Cook Political Report, and incorporating the impact of Ralph Nader.
Charlie Cook published his research on this in the New York TImes yesterday — next to Paul Krugman’s chart (which Brad DeLong first published a few weeks ago). I suspect the chart so mesmerized readers that they may have overlooked Cook’s article. That would be a shame, because Cook lays out some very interesting thoughts on the November election:
A look at current polls in the context of the 2000 state by state election results show that an independent Nader candidacy will impact the outcome of this election.
While Cook agrees with the conventional wisdom that Nader will get far fewer votes than the 2.7% of the electorate he received four years ago — the race between President Bush and John Kerry may very well be so close that “even a declawed Ralph Nader could tip the election to the incumbent.”
In 2000, Green Party nominee Nader cost Al Gore Florida and New Hampshire — either of which would have given the vice president a victory. National polls that add Nader to the mix put the race at a statistical dead heat, or give the president a narrow edge. (AP and Ipsos Public Affairs: Bush 46%, Kerry 45%, Nader 6%). Even if Nader garners only a third of his prior support, he could tilt the election.
GOP has holds 23 states with 200 electoral votes; the Democrats can probably count on 11 states and the District of Columbia for 168 votes.
16 states are “in play” where, based upon the 2000 results and the electoral map, Nader could shift the balance in favor of the incumbent.
Don’t assume its just Florida and New Hampshire. There were 5 additional states that Gore barely won in 2000, where the margin of victory was less than Nader’s votes:
Projected Impact of Nader on Close States, 2004
|State||2000 Margin of Victory||Nader’s Vote Count||Electoral Votes|
In addition, in several states the margin of victory for either Bush or Gore was only a little more than Nader’s totals. The margin of victory in Washington state (and its 11 electoral votes) for Gore was a little more than Nader’s votes — 139,000 lead to Nader’s 103,000 votes. The margin in Missouri (11 electoral votes) for Bush was 79,000, while Nader had 38,500 votes. Similar result in Ohio (21 electoral votes) — Bush won by 165,000 votes, and Nader garnered 118,000.
Cook concludes: “Make no mistake: Nader will probably earn fewer votes than last time, but he still could make the difference.”
UPDATE: This chart gets updated regularly; The most recent version is here
You can also see other related post (including addtional polls and electoral vote analysis) here
The Next Nader Effect
NYTimes, March 9, 2004
(Charlie Cook is editor of the Cook Political Report and a political analyst for National Journal)
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.