Laying Bets: W Will Win

Rob Schaap rws at
Wed Aug 16 01:40:16 PDT 2000

G'day Nathan,

>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.

These polls don't mean jack-shit, do they? A day after Dubya's non-speech, he was riding seventeen points clear. By the beginning of this convention the gap was about eleven. There are always five or six-point jumps to be had out of a convention, but rarely does 90% of that survive the week. So I reckon Gore is an honest seven or eight points down. America will interrupt proceedings in September for the purposes of watching its performance-enhancing drugs defeat those of all comers. So Gore's got October to make a difference. The only chance he's got is the Octoberness of Octobers - bed-wetting month for stockholders. If something happens, the electorate will stick to the devil it knows rather than blame it, I submit. And if something does happen, Dubya is gonna have to answer questions about current affairs and urgent strategies, which should be worth another few points to the Gore camp.

Bush is so ridiculously unimpressive a performer on those rare occasions when substance enters the conversation that I simply cannot bring myself to believe he's gonna get there. And if circumstances don't force him to expose himself thus, well, I reckon the Dems should make it their one-and-only mission in life between now and November. Sheer terror at the prospect of having this bloke near a red button should then move a few non-voters to make for a booth, I reckon. As Hitler noted, it's hard to unite people FOR anything, but AGAINST something, well, that's easier.

Cheers, Rob (Gore 4/6; Bush 5/4)

>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