> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari
>
> and every exit poll showed the Reform Party voters split
> >between Clinton and Bush as their second choice, so Perot made
> no difference
> >on the election as far as outcome.
>
> Yet the specter of Perot may have made it easier for the Democrats to turn
> out the vote? Surprised to learn though that Clinton was leading before
> Perot got back in the race. But how far behind was Clinton before
> Perot got
> in the race the first time? Really have no memory of what transpired.
Three-way polling is always somewhat vague. There was a point at the height of the Perot surge in the Spring where Clinton was polling third. One of the reasons Perot pulled out of the race initially (other than his personal paranoid fantasies, which I give more credence to than conspiracy explanations) is that Clinton had surged to a solid lead in the polls by the Democratic Convention.
If Perot did anything, it was hurt the Democrats in the Congress. The Perot voters who would have voted for Clinton probably would have been more likely to vote straight ticket for House and Senate candidates. Once they went for Perot, they were more in play at the Congressional level. There were a number of Democratic Senate candidates who were ahead before Perot jumped back in, but dropped back as the Perot voters moved off straight ticket voting. The fact that Clinton got 49% of the vote rather than the 56-58% he would probably have received cut his coattails quite a bit.
And the 1992 Senate races happen to be on a particularly volatile cycle, these were the class of 1980 and 1986, both years when control of the Senate changed between the parties. So small changes in Clinton coattails made a big difference in a number of extremely close races.
In 1996, Perot's presence in the race probably also contributed to the Dems not taking back the House then for similar coattail-eroding reasons.
But this is all probably too political wonk analysis for you to stomach, so I'll stop there :)
> And I can't really think of any that threw the election one
> >way or the other, except possibly Wallace in 1968 (since most of
> his voters
> >would have gone with Humphrey) but I'd have to recheck the numbers.
>
> Well, why can't Buchanan play a similar role this time. Of course Fulani
> may help him ward off charges of racism as he plays anti
> immigrant populism
> to the hilt to win disaffected Democrats. She certainly isn't there to
> attract black voters.
Well, since he is playing a reverse Wallace role (defecting from the GOP), his role would be a mirror of Wallace, hurting his old party, in this case Bush, to the benefit of the opposite party, in this case the Dem nominee.
Fulani's presence may hurt Buchanan by warding off some racists, a more important constituency for Buchanan then voters bothered by racism. A lot of the rightwingers I follow on lists like freerepublic.com are sneering at Pat's candidacy because of her. Which may decrease the defection from the GOP but won't necessarily increase his vote totals. He does need a good labor-oriented Democrat as VP if he wants serious inroads (ie. an extra 2-4%) from the Dems. I would bet on James Traficant of Ohio (anti-trade, socially conservative, semi-fascist, perfect for Pat) or, if she would go for it (unlikely), Marcy Kaptur.
Buchanan made the alliance with Fulani for a simple reason. Fulani controlled something like 40% of the delegates at the last Reform Party convention. She is the only independent candidate to get on the ballot in all fifty states in recent history. Buchanan needs the Reform Party nomination to get the federal matching funds and without Fulani, he might not get the nomination. In the reality of the Reform Party, Pat can tell Jesse Ventura to kiss his ass, but he has to kiss Fulani's ass or getting the nomination could be hard verging on impossible.
> >In fact, since I have a relatively high faith in the strategic
> intelligence
> >of voters,
>
> I guess Coke is the better product. Chalk it up to voter intelligence.
If folks like Coke better than Pepsi (and I for one do, so [stick out tongue at Rakesh in neah-neah gesture]), then it shows strategic intelligence to vote for Coke, rather than order a nice Chardonnay (or socialist revolution) knowing that this is not going to get Chardonnay (or socialist revolution) delivered, but will make it more likely you end up drinking Pepsi.
Voting is a very specific, very limited political act. It leads to yes-no, outcome-specific results. There are lots of things you can do in between elections to try to make it more likely that different choices have a real chance of being considered, which will change the strategic decisions by voters. I spend most of my time on those political activities- organizing with unions, writing to change public perceptions, grassroots mobilization, etc. - but when voting day comes, I think it is self-indulgent feel-good politics to pretend that most voters are not going to make those strategic "lesser-evil" choices.
One difference between leftists is whether they have contempt for the choices of average folks. I think a good leftist materialist approach is to seek to analyze why those choices are rational for them given present social conditions as the first step to understanding how to change the social conditions so as to make it rational for them to make a different choice. I am not big on false consciousness as the cure-all explanation for why people have not installed socialism and generally think collective action problem explanations along with corporate power are much simpler descriptions.
-- Nathan Newman