But only very slightly.
The full data is in the current issue of Ballot Access News http://www.ballot-access.org , published by Richard Winger, who is one of the country's leading experts on ballot access issues. The current issue will not be available electronically for another month yet, but you could always be patient or subscribe. (Disclaimer: While I get no money from Ballot Access News, Richard is a friend and does serve on the board of my 527 organization Freedom Ballot Access, which works to improve ballot access and give voters a wider choice in Novembers.
In short, the effort to keep Nader off the ballot appear not to have been advantageous to Democrats. In particular....
- Nader did above his national average in states where the outcome was not in doubt (e.g. Alaska 1.63%, also VT MT NY UT ND WY SD ME RI CT WA KS Nebraska) and did below his national average in states that were in some doubt.
- Within each state, Nader generally did better in counties in which Bush led than counties in which Kerry led, at least in the restricted sense that in 3/4 of all states in which Nader was on the ballot, the county in which he did the best was a county that was more pro-Bush than the state as a whole.
- There was a great effort to keep Nader off the ballot with litigation. There were 18 states with legal challenges, reports Winger, and five successes, including a moot challenge in Virginia (Nader lacked signatures) and successful challenges in AZ, IL OH, and PA. The challenges may have cost resources for Nader, but may also have inspired voters.
As an aside, here in MA the Nader people simply did not have enough signatures, were seriously short of signatures with a week to go, and in the end had a somewhat but not astonishingly low rate of validation of signatures on nominating papers, so Nader was not on the ballot in MA (where he surely would have made no difference).