Why did Nader do much better in 2000 than in 1996?

[Bo]

I would have excepted that in 1996, when Clinton's reelection was essentially guaranteed and when many liberals were dissatisfied with his centrism and policies, Nader would have received a lot of votes. Yet he received much less than 1% in that election. In contrast, in 2000, when it was a close race right until the end, almost 3% of voters voted for Nader despite the fact that their votes were much more likely to influence and/or alter the final outcome than in 1996. My question is: why didn't Nader do much better in 1996 than in 2000, considering that many liberals had a "free pass" to vote for Nader in 1996 with a very small chance of altering the election result?

[Derek]

He was a 4th party candidate and no one knew him yet. In 2000 he became popular cuz he did much better than expected. Alot of ppl who voted for him would've voted for Bush without the drunk driving story.

[perdedor]

Probably something to do with ballot access and Gore's general lack of appeal. Wasn't Nader polling at 7-8% at one point during that cycle?

[Derek]

Yea I think I remember him polling as high as 8-9% as well. Plus being a 4th party candidate isn't helpful. Ralph Nader reminds me of Ron Paul for some reason.

[izixs]

From what I remember the media sorta bolstered Perot in '96 and then did the same job in '00. Not really for any good reason other than to let people know that people who were unhappy with the choices were thinking of voting for some random yahoo and wasn't that funny?

[Derek]

You'd think that Perot voters would've voted for Dole because if they were happy with Clinton they would've voted for him.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Besides, Kentucky didn't even put Nader on the ballot in 1996, so we weren't allowed to vote for him.

[Derek]

I don't think Kentucky's Nader votes made a whole much difference.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I don't think Kentucky's Nader votes made a whole much difference.

Clinton would have lost Kentucky if Nader was on the ballot. And he would have deserved it too, after his school uniform garbage.

[Derek]

That's true, I meant if Nader was on the ballot in KY, how does that make him do better than in 2000?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

That's true, I meant if Nader was on the ballot in KY, how does that make him do better than in 2000?

Because Clinton was running so far to the right.

[Smash255]

He was a 4th party candidate and no one knew him yet. In 2000 he became popular cuz he did much better than expected. Alot of ppl who voted for him would've voted for Bush without the drunk driving story.

In 2000 Nader voters would have broke 5-2 for Gore over Bush.

[Bo]

That's true, I meant if Nader was on the ballot in KY, how does that make him do better than in 2000?

Because Clinton was running so far to the right.

So was Gore.

[WillK]

My memory is that there was less confidence that Clinton's reelection was assured than you suggest. 

[Bo]

My memory is that there was less confidence that Clinton's reelection was assured than you suggest. 

Still, the polls have showed Clinton leading by relatively large margins since February 1996.




In contrast to 2000, where the polls have always showed a close race.



And I'm pretty sure most voters look at the polls.

[hcallega]

Clinton was more charismatic and had higher appeal to liberals than Gore. Gore also lacked the power of incumbancy, at least in regards to liberal voters as he couldn't point to anything he did in office (FMLA, Gays in the Military)

[Bo]

Clinton was more charismatic and had higher appeal to liberals than Gore. Gore also lacked the power of incumbancy, at least in regards to liberal voters as he couldn't point to anything he did in office (FMLA, Gays in the Military)

Weren't Clinton and Gore the same on the issues, though? And didn't Clinton and Gore say that they were both responsible for the achievements of the Clinton administration?

[Derek]

I'm telling you it's because he was a 4th party candidate and not a 3rd party candidate in 1996.

[JoeyJoeJoe]

He wasn't totally unknown.  Maybe some people read his books, or remember hmi from that one time in the 70s when he hosted Saturday Night Live.

[Derek]

That too. ^^

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Because Ross Perot, that year he took a fair amount of the Liberal leaning vote (AND the conservative leaning vote as well).  Maybe if he wasn't so popular, or if he had been out of the race, Nader could have gotten some of those ballots.  Plus Nader didn't have the same name recognition at that time, which also hurt him.

[Yelnoc]

I wonder what would have happened if Perot chose Nader as his running mate in 1996.

[The Mikado]

You guys are forgetting a very important fact: Nader did next-to-no campaigning this year, and, really, next to nothing in general other than assenting to have his name on the ballot, while in 2000, he was actively and aggressively campaigning nationwide.

[Cubby]

In 2000 Nader got a lot of attention when he wasn't included in the televised debates. Although he must have been doing well before the debates if people thought he should be included.

Clinton was more charismatic and had higher appeal to liberals than Gore.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

True. Gore was boring as a candidate and as a person.

[Dr. Cynic]

Ross Perot's prescense in 1996 and Ralph Nader's extra coverage in 2000.