Those observing the 2000 presidential campaign agreed that Ralph Nader could not win the presidency but disagreed about his actual strategy. Many Democrats contended that he was playing the role of “spoiler” in an attempt to attract attention or affect the election outcome. Others argued that he was trying to earn 5% of the popular vote to secure matching funds for the Green Party in the next presidential election. Count models find that Nader's travel schedule, unlike Gore's, was unresponsive to the closeness of the major-party race. Nader's appearances were driven primarily by opportunities for attracting a large number of voters, suggesting that earning 5% was indeed a central campaign goal. Data on television advertising produce a parallel result. This finding resolves an ongoing debate about Nader in particular, but also points to broader differences between major and minor-party campaign strategies.
Abraham, Y. (2000, November 8). Unrepentant Nader targets 2004. Boston Globe, p. A32-A32.
2.
Al Gore in the home stretch. (2000, November 3). The New York Times, p. A30-A30.
3.
Aldrich, J. H. (1980). Before the convention. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
Althaus, S. L., Nardulli, P. F.,& Shaw, D. R. (2002). Candidate appearances in presidential elections, 1972-2000. Political Communication, 19, 49-72.
5.
Bai, M. (2000, October 23). A maverick gets his moment. Newsweek, 136,41-41.
6.
Bartels, L. M. (1985). Resource allocation in a presidential campaign. Journal of Politics, 47, 928-936.
7.
Bibby, J. F.,& Maisel, L. S. (2003). Two parties—or more? The American party system(2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview.
8.
Black, E., & Black, M. (1992). The vital South: How presidents are elected. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
Brams, S. J.,& Davis, M. D. (1974). The 3/2s rule in presidential campaigning. American Political Science Review, 68, 386-407.
10.
Burden, B. C. (2003). Minor parties in the 2000 presidential election. In H. F. Weisberg & C. Wilcox (Eds.), Models of voting in presidential elections: The 2000 election(pp. 206-227). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
Calling all swing states. (2000, November 20). Newsweek, 136, 110-110.
12.
Campbell, A. L. (2002). Self-interest, social security, and the distinctive participation patterns of senior citizens. American Political Science Review, 96, 565-574.
13.
Cannon, A. (2000, October 30). Nader's glad he might be the spoiler. U.S. News& World Report, 129, 26-26.
14.
Chait, J. (2000, November 20). Fall guy. The New Republic, 223, 42-42.
15.
Chait, J. (2004, March 8). Make you ralph. The New Republic, 230, 10-10.
16.
Colantoni, C. S., Levesque, T. J.,& Ordeshook, P. C. (1975). Campaign resource allocation under the Electoral College. American Political Science Review, 69, 141-154.
17.
Collett, C., & Hansen, J. R. (2002). Sharing the spoils: Ralph Nader, the Green Party, and the elections of 2000. In P. S. Herrnson& J. C. Green (Eds.), Multiparty politics in America(2nd ed., pp. 125-144). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
18.
Corrado, A. (2002). Financing the 2000 presidential general election. In D. B. Magleby (Ed.), Financing the 2000 election, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
19.
Crowley, M. (2000, October 30). Altered states. The New Republic, p. 18-18.
20.
Goldstein, K., Franz, M.,& Ridout, T. (2002). Political advertising in 2000. [Dataset.]Madison: The Department of Political Science at The University of Wisconsin-Madison and The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
21.
Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2002). Lessons learned: campaign advertising in the 2000 elections. Political Communication, 19, 5-28.
22.
Hagen, M. G., Johnston, R., & Jamieson, K. H. (2002, August/September). Effects of the 2000 presidential campaign. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
23.
Hansen, J. M. (1985). The political economy of group membership. American Political Science Review, 79, 79-96.
24.
Herr, J. P. (2002). The impact of candidate appearances in the 1996 election. Journal of Politics, 64, 904-913.
25.
Heston wins 3rd term as president of NRA. (2000, May 23). St. Louis Post-Dispatch p. A12-A12.
26.
Hillygus, D. S. (2002). Stand by your man? Assessing the strategic behavior of Nader supporters in election 2000. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
27.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
King, G., Tomz, M.,& Wittenberg, J. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 341-355.
29.
Magee, C. S. P. (2003). Third-party candidates and the 2000 presidential election. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 574-595.
30.
Magnusson, P. (2000, November 20). The punishing price of Nader's passion. Business Week, 3708-3708.
31.
Martin, J. (2002). Nader: Crusader, spoiler, icon. New York: Basic Books.
32.
Milbank, D. (2000, September 5). Nader's politics of the disconnect. Washington Post, p. C1-C1.
33.
Miller, J. M. (2000). Threats and opportunities as motivators of political activism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
34.
Nader, R. (2002). Crashing the party: How to tell the truth and still run for president. New York: St. Martin's Press.
35.
Nader rejects concerns about role as spoiler. (2000, October 26). Baltimore Sun. p. 1a-1a.
36.
Quindlen, A. (2000, April 28). Nader and the push for purity. Newsweek, 135, 64-64.
37.
Rosenstone, S. J., Behr, R. L., & Lazarus, E. H. (1996). Third parties in America: Citizen response to major party failure(2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
Shatzkin, K. (2003, February 8). ACLU rises on conservative tide. Baltimore Sun, p. 1A-1A.
39.
Shaw, D. R. (1999a). The effect of TV ads and candidate appearances on statewide presidential votes, 1988-96. American Political Science Review, 93, 345-361.
40.
Shaw, D. R. (1999b). The methods behind the madness: Presidential electoral college strategies, 1988-1996. Journal of Politics, 93, 345-361.
41.
Sifry, M. L. (2002). Spoiling for a fight: Third-party politics in America. New York: Routledge.
42.
Slevin, P. (2000, November 8). Green Party's Nader is unlikely to hit 5% vote. The Washington Post, p. A34-A34.
43.
Strmberg, D. (2002). Optimal campaigning in presidential elections: The probability of being Florida. Unpublished manuscript, Stockholm University, Institute for International Economic Studies, Stockholm, Sweden.
44.
West, D. (1983). Constituencies and travel allocations in the 1980 presidential campaign. American Journal of Political Science, 27, 515-529.
