After the Democratic National Committee ran an ad warning that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Trump, I assessed her spoiler potential at New York:
In a presidential contest so close that every one of the seven battleground states could go either way, the major-party campaigns are spending some of their enormous resources trying to ensure that minor-party candidates don’t snag critical votes. This ad from the Democratic National Committee is indicative of these fears:
Not only does this ad convey the simple message that “a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Trump,” but it includes the reminder that according to the Democratic narrative of the 2016 election, the Green Party candidate was the spoiler who gave Trump his winning margins in the key battleground states whereby he upset Hillary Clinton despite losing the national popular vote.
It’s true that Stein won more votes than Trump’s plurality in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in 2016. So if all of her voters had instead voted for Clinton, Trump would have not become the 45th president and the hinges of political history would have moved in a very different direction. But even though Stein was running distinctly to Clinton’s left and appealing to disgruntled Bernie Sanders primary voters, it’s not 100 percent clear what would have happened had she not run (the Greens, of course, are a regular presence in presidential elections; it’s not as though they were conjured up by Trump in 2016). Some might have actually voted for Trump, and even more might have stayed at home or skipped the presidential ballot line.
The picture is complicated by the presence of an even larger minor-party candidacy in 2016, that of Libertarian Gary Johnson, who won 3 percent of the national presidential vote compared to Stein’s one percent. One academic analysis utilizing exit polls concluded that Clinton would have probably lost even had neither of these minor-party candidates run.
In 2024, Libertarian Chase Oliver is on more state ballots (47) than Stein (39), including all seven battleground states (Stein is on six of them, all but Nevada). Traditionally Libertarians draw a bit more from Republicans than from Democrats (many of them wouldn’t vote for a major-party candidate in any event). But it’s understandably the Greens who worry Democrats, particularly since Stein is counting on defections from Democratic-leaning voters who are unhappy with the Biden-Harris administration’s support for Israel in its war on Gaza. As the Times of Israel reported last month, there are signs Stein’s strategy is working to some extent with Muslim voters:
“A Council on American-Islamic Relations poll released this month showed that in Michigan, home to a large Arab American community, 40 percent of Muslim voters backed the Green Party’s Stein. Republican candidate Donald Trump got 18% with Harris, who is US President Joe Biden’s vice president, trailing at 12%.
“Stein, a Jewish anti-Israel activist, also leads Harris among Muslims in Arizona and Wisconsin, battleground states with sizable Muslim populations where Biden defeated Trump in 2020 by slim margins.”
It’s also worth noting that Stein chose a Muslim (and Black) running mate in California professor Butch Ware.
Any comparisons of her 2024 campaign with her past spoiler role should come with the important observation that non-major-party voting is likely to be much smaller this year than it was in 2016, when fully 5.7 percent of presidential voters opted for someone other than Trump or Clinton. The non-major-party vote dropped to 1.9 percent — a third of the 2016 percentage — in 2020. Earlier this year it looked like independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would push the non-major-party vote even higher than it was eight years ago. But then Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the race, which reduced the “double-hater” vote unhappy with both major-party candidates, followed by Kennedy’s withdrawal and endorsement of Trump showed that particular threat evaporating. Despite his efforts to fold his candidacy into Trump’s in the battleground states, Kennedy is still on the ballot in Michigan and Wisconsin, though it’s anybody’s guess how many voters will exercise that zombie option and who will benefit. Another independent candidate, Cornel West, stayed in the race, but he’s struggled with both funding and ballot access; he’s not on the ballot in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, or Pennsylvania, and he’s competing with Stein for left-bent voters unhappy with Kamala Harris. Unsurprisingly, Republican operatives have helped both Stein and West in their ballot-access efforts.
There are some indications that the non-major-party vote will drop even more than it did earlier this year. A new Pew survey shows that only 12 percent of registered voters who express a preference for a minor-party or independent candidate are “extremely motivated to vote,” and only 27 percent of these voters think it “really matters who wins.” These are not people who will be rushing to the polls in a state of excitement.
It’s hard to find a credible recent national poll showing Stein, Oliver, or West with more than one percent of the vote. But a late-September New York Times-Siena poll of Michigan, with its significant Arab-American and Muslim populations, did show Stein with 2 percent of likely voters. In an extremely close race, even small splinter votes can matter, as the experience of 2000 in Florida will eternally remind Democrats. Had that year’s Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, not appeared on the ballot, it’s pretty likely Al Gore would have been the 43rd president. So anything can happen in what amounts to a presidential jump ball, and you can expect Democrats to continue calling Stein a spoiler while Republicans not-so-quietly wish her well.
OK, OK.
The ‘already voted’ lead for George Bush is a non-issue. Not only do I not trust any sample that small (81 respondents), technically speaking the MOE on those numbers is +/- 11. So, the Bush “lead” breaks down this way:
Bush: 38 to 60
Kerry: 23 to 45
Do you consider that to be a reliable range of voting behavior thus far? Neither do I. Besides, there is no evidence that people who vote early are representative of the population as a whole. Worry about these things at your stomach’s peril.
Regarding the YouGov poll, the sample size is higher because its an Internet survey. The Harris Poll also has a large number of respondents for its online poll. I’m really interested to see how the Internet polls do this year, because they’ve shown Kerry in a much stronger position than the telephone polls. Its an apples-to-oranges comparison to the telephone polls, because the data collection and weighting procedures are very different. YouGov has shown consistent leads for Kerry and well under 47% support for Bush. Harris’ online polls have been closer, but Bush support levels have been around 47 as well.
This could be the year of the Internet poll if Kerry wins by the margins that both Harris and Economist are suggesting.
Andy,
On early voting, most states that allow it are Red States. And early voters historically tended Republican. The big exception this year is Florida, where early voting in Broward and Miami – very Democratic – is through the roof. So I wouldn’t pay much attention to early voting nationwide when, with the exception of California, early voting is concentrated in the West and South. No New England state except New Hampshire allows early voting.
Same question here, maybe Ruy can comment the recent Zogby polls. What’s up with these? Michigan going red? That would be devastating.
But it seems not only his polls are volatile. New York Daily News quotes him declaring Kerry the winner while Bob Novak writes that Zogby told him Bush is winning. He explains that away with Kerry picking up 5 percent in Tuesday alone.
Too much coffee? (Or should I have some?)
> WORRISOME DEMOCRACY CORPS POLL INTERNALS
I am also worried about a rumor on NRO’s insufferable “Kerry Spot” website [http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp ]. According to an unnamed “source close to the [Bush] campaign, tuned in to the conversations at the highest levels”, “the last few days have seen a huge burst of momentum in their numbers”. “The internal polls show a significant lead in Florida (outside margin of error) and Arkansas is out of play, with a Bill Clinton visit or without. As for most of the other big ones – Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, internal polls show all too close to call.”
“Michigan is seriously looking like a pickup – Bush and Cheney could be there four times in the last four days.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Let’s hope the ‘wingers are deluding themselves, again. So far, I think the missing Iraqi explosives story has helped Kerry, since the WashTimes story about Russian involvement has been refuted. The public debate during the final week has so far been almost exclusively about “Shrub’s” past mistakes. No worried rumors about the Kerry campaign or anything.
MARCU$
I am puzzled by the Zogby polling. There are huge differences in the poll results of his “interactive” net based polling and these tracking polls which are so volatile. One example is New Mexico where last week Kerry is shown as up by 11% and is now down several points. I don’t believe in those kind of swings in the course of a week. Same with Michigan. His contradictory polling results undermines any sense of conficence in them. Can someone explain this?
1. The Economist Poll is so out of line with other polls as to not be credible; at no time did the Economist poll show Bush with over 45% approval or with any lead of over 1 or 2 points- a result which (like Gallup’s polls showing 10-15 pt Bush lead) is so far out of line with other polls as to be suspicious.
2. The Democracy Corps poll shows that of people who have already voted (8% of electorate) Bush leads 49-34. This means that Kerry can still be ahead by 2 points or so among people voting on 11-2 and still lose the election.
Reading the Economist poll, it is devastating to Bush. Over 3000 samples! And they endorse Kerry, after endorsing Bush the last time (we were in London then, we are here now, taking care of business.
WORRISOME DEMOCRACY CORPS POLL INTERNALS
There now have been a couple times in a row when I have been dissappointed in some of the internals in the Democracy Corps poll. Here are some of my “least favorite results.”
If I am reading the tabs right, about 8% of the sample had already voted. Among that group BUSH had a substantial lead, somewhere around 13% or so. This is bad enough as everything I have been reading (at least in the battleground states) seemed to indicate that it was the Democrats who were voting early.
What makes this result even worse is that this same block of early voters voted for the congressional Democratic Party candidate almost at the same rate as the Republican candidate. I think the Dems were at like -3. This means that Kerry is running about 10% behind the Congressional Democrats in the sample used in the poll. I know that there are a thousand possible rationals why this can be true and not a bad sign for Kerry, but I am uncomfortable with the result.
Also, I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time in a row that more people are getting an increasingly negative feeling about Kerry then about Bush. To clarify what I mean, due I guess to the negative campaigning, voters are becomming more negative about both candidates. However, the rate of increased negative feelings is higher for Kerry then for Bush.
Finally, I didnt like some of the results on personal attributes. Im not referring to the “strong leader” or “better commander in chief” numbers, I expected Bush to have much better numbers there. But I am dissappointed to see Bush do so well on questions like, “he is on our side,” “cares about people like me,” and “in touch with day to day reality (thats not exactly how the question is phrased but you know what I mean)”.
I know that I am “missing the forrest for the trees” in a way as Kerry is up by 3 in the poll. Still, some of that support is soft and I wonder if it will stick in light of some of the Bush attribute numbers.
By the way, Im not one who typically “freaks” at every poll result. Basically, I have been thinking Kerry will win by 3 since the debates. I still do. I am just posting this to see if anyone has some comments.
Do you have any comments on the poll internals? Are they any more reliable than all the others out there? Or should we simply consider them as part of the poll “noise”?