Laying Bets: W Will Win

Nathan Newman nathan.newman at
Tue Aug 15 08:06:16 PDT 2000

On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Max Sawicky wrote:

> As I recall, I said after the convention Gore
> would be creaming Bush in two-way polls, but
> the Nader-Buchanan factor made the ultimate
> outcome uncertain.

I doubt Gore will even be ahead of W after the convention and if Gore gets outside the margin or error, I will be surprised.

Actually, I think the Nader vote total is going to be largely unimportant (except in a couple of states). In the end, Nader's highest totals will be in states like California which Gore will win. Nader could throw a few smaller states - say Washington or Vermont - to W, but the midwestern so-called battleground states are not particularly Nader-friendly, so his total is unlikely to be decisive in the electoral college outcome.

It is not Nader's vote totals but the attitude of "it doesn't matter who wins" that he represents that will help move the election to Bush. Buchanan has collapsed not because he has alienated the Perotistas but because the hard-right of the GOP is incredibly jazzed about taking the Presidency and taking over the agencies and the courts. So they have no time for third party games since they are out russling up votes for W.

This is the exact reverse of 1992 when the Right was dicontented with W's dad and supported Pat in the primaries and didn't do much heavy lifting in the fall, while most progressives were so frustrated after Reagan-Bush that they pushed hard for Clinton to win.

In the end, energy and enthusiasm usually decides elections. Clearly, W has unified enthusiasm on the Right so he'll win.

On the other hand, in the decisive Dem House races, there is a lot of enthusiasm and good opportunities, so we will very likely have a Democratically-controlled House to counterbalance Bush. This won't stop his Supreme Court and agency appointments but will help impede the worst of GOP budget and legislative efforts.

-- Nathan Newman

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list