Seth Stevenson had an item in Slate yesterday about one of everyone’s favorite topics — the presidential election in Florida. It’s a great piece, which I largely agree with, but there was one point in particular that I’d like to share.
Four years ago, Nader garnered 97,000 votes in Florida, which represented about 1.6% of the state’s total. In most states that modest level of support wouldn’t have made much of a difference, but in the Sunshine State in 2000… well, you know the rest.
In any event, Stevenson was weighing various factors in an effort to see which way the state may be leaning this year. When he got to the Nader issue, Stevenson saw a reason for Kerry to be optimistic.
Nader will play less of a role this time. Why? Consider this series of events: I call the Nader campaign in D.C. … and I get a busy signal. I call again … and again get a busy signal. I assume at this point they’re checking e-mail on a dial-up. When I finally get through and ask to reach their Florida campaign headquarters, I’m told, “There isn’t any Florida campaign headquarters. But you can talk to this lady.” I’m given this lady’s name and number. When I call this lady, she says she’s in Connecticut and knows nothing whatsoever about Florida.
[…]
I doubt the Nader campaign becomes a big factor here because there is no Nader campaign here.
Well, that makes me feel a little better. Now all we have to do is worry about Nader playing a destructive role in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, Oregon, Michigan, Iowa, Nevada, Missouri, New Mexico, West Virginia, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.