General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why is it *my* #%^*ing fault? [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Please reread my post. I expressly stated that not all Nader voters would have voted for Gore. Many of them would indeed have found some other dimwitted way to make themselves irrelevant. The only ones who matter are those who, without Nader on the ballot, would have voted for Bush or for Gore.
My recollection of Nader's polling is that the percentage of Nader voters who said they would have voted for Gore minus the percentage of Nader voters who said they would have voted for Bush was about 13%. I think in real life it would have been much higher. The polling was done around the time of the election, when the Naderites were ticked at the Democrats after months of hostility. If Nader had announced in 1999 that he wasn't running, the net gain to Gore would have been far more than 13% of Nader's actual total. Still, even at 13%, it would have been enough to swing Florida (because there were limits to how much vote-stealing even Florida Republicans can do). At a realistically higher percentage it would have been enough to swing New Hampshire, too. Either state would have given Gore the White House.