The truthiness of this has been blown way out of proportion for far too long. It’s so bad even 3rd party supporters even believe it. I’d like to just dispense with this nonsense once and for all, and be done with it.

Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader (Stephen C Webster / Flickr)

As the Obama vultures come out from hiding as November approaches, two of the few reasons they have for supporting Mr. Obama are the Supreme Court (which is BS too, but I digress), and that an alternative candidate will supposedly cause the Republican to win, as evidenced by 2000. We need to do away with the falsehoods that allow the latter argument to still be said without shame or embarrasment.

This is the first of a series that will disprove this myth; a myth that can be debunked in a myriad of ways. I hope this info helps Firedogs in their efforts to keep other progressives from voting for their own oppressors, and will let people vote their conscience guilt free this fall.

From journalist Tony Schinella:

In Florida, CNN’s exit polling showed Nader taking the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent. Nader also took 4 percent of the independent vote. At the same time, 13 percent of registered Democrats voted for Bush! Again, Gore couldn’t hold his own base and because of this, he lost. The Democrats don’t say one word about the fact that 13 percent of their own party members voted for Bush.

In fact, by a huge margin, the people who voted for Nader were not ex-Democrats, but ex-Reform Party voters who supported Ross Perot. These people 1) vote third party or stay at home, 2) won’t vote for a D or R regardless, and 3) are conservatives not liberals.

When asked who they voted for in 1996, 1 percent of Nader’s voters said they voted for Bill Clinton, 1 percent said they voted for Bob Dole, and 10 percent said they voted for Ross Perot.

Here is the chart:

1996——All—Gore—Bush—Buchanan—Nader
Clinton—46——82——16———0————1
Dole——30——–4——93———0————1
Perot——–7——23——65———1———–10
No vote—12——50——44———0————7

Again, Nader’s support did not come from Democratic supporters. They were mainly non-voters and ex-Perot supporters, most of whom were conservatives who supported Bush anyway. Not only that, Nader took from Democrats and Republicans equally: one measly percent.

Further:

Perot voters trend conservative. In fact, by a 3 to 1 margin, Perot voters in Florida went with Bush. So, with Nader taking equally from voters who cast votes for Clinton as they did from Dole, and then 10 percent previously voting for Perot being split on a 3 to 1 margin to Bush, that shows that if Nader had not been in the race, the majority of those voters would have gone to Bush, by a 7 to 4 margin.

So not only does the data show that Nader did not cost Bush Florida, he took votes away from Bush. Again, this is reiterated as fact by CNN’s own exit poll.

Had Nader not run, Bush would have won by more in Florida. CNN’s exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent and Gore at 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical Nader-less Florida race.

Even further, according to exit polls, only 25% of Nader supporters would have voted for Gore had Nader not run. Over half of the Nader voters would have stayed home, and the rest would have voted for Bush or another third party candidate.

Summing up:

  • Nader took votes equally from Ds and Rs
  • The amount taken was minuscule, and balanced each other out
  • The party who suffered the most was the Reform Party, by a factor of 10, compared to Gore
  • Reform Party voters tend to vote GOP, so Nader actually took votes from Bush, not Gore, and is reflected in CNN’s own exit poll.
  • Nader supporters couldn’t stand Gore, and never would have voted for him anyway, much like Anderson/Stein/Stewart 3rd party voters would rather stay home than touch Obama with a 10-foot pole.
  • Likewise, CNN’s own data shows that Gore would have lost by 2% if Nader had not run.

Now, does anyone have any actual poll data or hard numbers that refutes this?

Does anyone have any research or data that disproves CNN’s data which shows that Gore would have lost had Nader not run?

Do Markos Moulitsas, Jennifer Granholm, or Rachel Maddow have a retort to this? All I hear is this myth that is presented as fact, simply because people heard it on TV.

There is absolutely no evidence that justifies this myth, and if you have any evidence please submit it.

Here are the sources:

Raw FL exit poll data:
http://www.vrdc.cornell.edu/info4470/projects/~bap63/pdf/florida2000.pdf

Tony Schinella Report:
http://politizine.blogspot.com/2004/02/debunking-myth-ralph-nader-didnt-cost.html

Progressive Review report
http://prorev.com/green2000.htm

Matthew Jones of USC’s Political Science Department:
http://www.disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/

ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/02/spoilage/

 

Parts 2 & 3 will have even more analysis of actual poll data, as opposed to more Democrat fear-mongering.