Why Nader is doing so high in polls

[ButterflyBlood]

A guy on another forum posted this, he claims to have worked in the polling business before, whether that's true or not this sounds pretty accurate:

Actually, Nader getting 8% is an artifact of a very loose voter screen (this poll is REGISTERED voters not likely voters)

Notice how in the good polls (Gallup & Battleground for example) including Nader changes things by "about" 1 point in Bush's favor?

(Nader getting 1% seems "about" right IMHO) while in some polls including Nader changes things by 3 or 4%.. ?

the reason is very simple..

One very useful question that a few of the better polling firms use is something called the "unaided ballot," where the person is asked who they are going to vote for, but not given any names to pick from, ie the person has to volunteer an answer..

This is a cheap and dirty way to guage real candidate support. A lot of people when given a list will kinda sorta pick a candidate, but in reality are undecided, not motivated, informed, or aware enough to vote...

Lets be rational here, if you cannot, unaided, actually name the candidate you are going to vote for, how "likely" a voter are you really...?

This is why Nader polls 5 or 6% - those people who are so tuned out the cannot even name Kerry or Bush as their candidate when presented with a list of three names will randomly pick Nader just so they have an answer to the question...

Registered voter polls including waaaaaay too many people as being "likely" - Turnout in 2000 was about 54.7%, the folks who know what they are doing think that 2004 might barely hit 60%

It is by virtue of including a bunch of tuned out folks in the poll that Nader gets 6%

If there is a "big" gap between the result with and without Nader, the poll is just simple casting too wide a net and letting a lot of tuned out people who won't actually vote.

Nader will net out costing Kerry maybe 1% or so, unless Bush has it "in the bag" on election day when a bunch of Deaniacs may protest vote for Nader.

[still_one]

1. His biggest contributions are coming from republicans

[On the Road]

Maybe Some of the Poll Responses are From Republicans, Too

Strengthen the enemy of my enemy. Just like strategic voting.

[eumesmo]

14. This is no doubt true.

I know Republicans who say they would answer polls saying they are for Nader.

[On the Road]

2. Dupe - Deleted

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Bull.

His contributions are coming from disgruntled Democrats who have been betrayed again.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Becuase for some of us it's our one chance to check off Nader's name

since we know we can't in November.

[napi21]

4. I agree with Butterflyblood. I've been polled a number of times

and Zogby seems sto do a fair job. Lots of others phrase their questions to get the result they're looking for.

[Larkspur]

5. I always love how they blame Deaniacs for voting Nader and hurting Kerry

Some of these Deaniacs are not Democrats. Some are Independents, Libertarians, Republicans, as well as Greens who did vote Nader in 2000. These folks most likely would have been against Kerry regardless if Dean had come on the scene or not.

If Kerry loses to Bush, it will be most likely because Bush stole the election. Bush's contributors have too much invested in this corrupt regime to lose power.

[WI_DEM]

6. Some Dean supporters were Nader voters in '00

so it is not surprising that some of them will vote for Nader. But the vast majority of Dean supporters I know are going to either reluctantly or happily vote for Kerry--to get rid of Bush.

[Jacobin]

7. Anti-war vote

Kerry blew it with his IWR.

I know quite a few people who simply WILL NOT vote for anyone who supported the illegal invasion.

I swore I wouldn't vote for him after IWR, but I'm holding my nose and will do so anyway for domestic issue's sake

[shimmergal]

19. Bush would have invaded Iraq even without the IWR.

That's perfectly clear from O'Neill, Clarke, Woodward, and several other books. Cheney and Bush were both obsessed with the idea of war in Iraq. If the rumors are true, they even ignored Saddam's 11th-hour offer of "unconditional surrender", because they wanted a WAR!
(Little boys who thought it would all be a game--that's what they remind me of.)

So don't be too rough on Kerry about his vote. Sure, I too wish he'd voted the other way, but it wouldn't have made any practical difference.

In politics, the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

[Capn Sunshine]

8. You know, Nader resonating AT ALL

should be reason enough to examine what the party is not doing or could be doing that Nader is...there is an underlying blame for this and it belongs at OUR doorstep.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Love that $hrub pin in your sig!

[Kanary]

11. Finally, a voice of reason!

Yes, let's look in the mirror, and see what needs to be done differently.

Beats the heck out of bashing those who aren't enthusiastic for Kerry....... like bashing 'em is going to change their minds.

Thanks for saying what needed to be said!

Kanary

[JHBowden]

10. War, possibly NAFTA, bitter primary nt

eom

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demosincebirth]

18. We move too far...

to the left and will be lucky to elect 100 congressmen and senators

[cheezus]

13. It's Nader. It's not just polls where he's high

[eumesmo]

15. There's disagreement

regarding whether Nader takes votes away from Kerry or not. There are those who think those who vote for Nader would not vote for either Kerry or Bush, but would either vote for some other 3rd party candidate or not vote. IMO it's likely Nader will hurt Kerry a little bit, but not enough to matter unless the given state is very, very close.

[Lexingtonian]

16. seems reasonable

Though there's an easier explanation.

Truly 'likely' voters (read: those who actually do) seem to split about 48% Kerry, 44% Bush, 2-3% Nader, and 4-6% Undecided pretty consistently.

The 'registered' voter polls all seem to come up in the neighborhood of 44% Bush, 40% Kerry, 6% Nader, and 10% Undecided.

Assuming 'likely' voters to be ~50% of 'registered' voters, it's easy to figure out that 'unlikely' voters (read: nonvoters) split approximately this way: 44% Bush, 32% Kerry, 10% Nader, and 14% Undecided.

But fooling around with what non-voters think or say is basically absurd. Many of them are sick or incapacitated by youth or work, and if actual voters seem poorly informed, as a group this bunch is really out to sea. They seem to have opinions, but the Kerry and Bush numbers they reflect only look remarkably like the American political environment (32% hardcore Democratic families and workplaces, 32% hardcore Republican families and workplaces- Bush getting the latter + the number that bring Bush up to his Approval Rating percentage (12%)).

So a 'registered voter' poll is pretty much a way to inflate support numbers for an incumbent who is not doing well, but not too badly. And a way to inflate the numbers of offbeat political candidates with high name recognition.

[Nicholas_J]

17. Nader is really not dfoing so well in the polls

WHen you lok at some national polls, he hits 6 percent. But the state polls show a differnt story, whith Nader hitting 2 or 3 percent in the more than half of the states that have done polls and doing less well in states that he did the best in in 2000.

[elperromagico]

21. I see Nader getting a percentage similar to his '96 percentages.

Nader's "no difference between the two candidates" argument still has some degree of merit, but not nearly as much as it did in 2000, when neither Gore nor Bush had been President. To a certain extent, they were both unknown quantities.

Now we've had Bush for four years, and there's very little mystery as to what he'll be like for the next four years. For that reason alone, Nader's "no difference" argument has less weight, IMHO.