Nathan Newman wrote:
>So, for the rest of LBO folks who so confidently predicted a Gore win given
>the economy et al, how do you explain the closeness of the race in the end?
-Decline of party? Gore's distancing himself from Clinton? His dismal -personality and campaign? It was really quite an achievement to lose -that election - one for the record books, in fact.
Yes, but why couldn't you factor that into your model? Gore's pathetic campaigning was obvious and the reason I cited for Bush's likely victory.
And here's the interesting thing- despite all the analysis on this list about how Clinton's DLC-style governing pacified and demoralized progressive forces, the one reason Gore came close to winning was the massive mobilization of union and black voters. And all of that has happened in the context of the upsurge in anti-globalization protests and inner-city challenges to racism and police brutality.
The reason I was so supportive of Gore winning (even if skeptical of success) is that a simple loss by him would not have been interpreted by most progressive folks as a repudiation of DLCism but as a demoralizing defeat by the Right. However, the result we got is in some ways the best of all worlds from a purely subjective perspective of mobilizing outrage and activism; folks feel we won the election, but had it stolen by elite forces of reaction, thereby giving many folks the confidence of broad-based support for progressive values and a hate figure - the Rehnquist Court, far nastier than Shrub - to focus that outrage.
So to go out on a limb very early (although hardly off historical guesses, of course), we now have a Fuck-You vote mobilizing for 2002 that should propel at minium at least 5 Dem Senators and 20 new House Dems into office, the latter despite some automatic losses due to redistricting. And in a context of upsurge in non-electoral organizing, that majority could actually translate into real social legislation or at least veto fights with the Shrub that could define the 2004 election on a much more radical set of issues.
-- Nathan Newman