At this point Gore is ahead by 200,000 in the popular vote but apparently set to lose the electoral college, with Nader votes in Florida and a few other places clearly making the difference.
So, would a Naderized Gore have done better? The big difference in states between 1996 and 2000 is the Ohio Valley plus a few outliers like Missouri, Tennessee, and Arkansas. In all those states that switched the main issues were ones where Gore was perceived to be too far left, i.e. guns, coal, tobacco. The only issue where he might have gained might have been by being protectionist, which might have gotten him Ohio and West Virginia and Missouri. But then, Washington, Iowa, Minnesota and some other places might have gone to Bush at best a wash.
BTW, this is the first election since 1944 in which one candidate has taken all the states of the Old Confederacy (assuming Florida does eventually go for Bush). What will get any of them back in the Dem column? Naderizing? I doubt it, unfortunately. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 6:25 PM Subject: RE: election demographics
>. . . Is potentially squandered, you mean. Time will tell in any case. If
>Gore loses by a huge gap, then it'll be impossible to blame the Greens; if
>Gore loses in a squeaker, yes, there will be hell to pay. . . .
>
>
>Hell to pay for who? If the Greens tip the election
>to Bush, and the Dems turn in anger to the Greens,
>the Green answer is simple: How'd you like them
>apples? If you don't respond to our criticisms,
>we'll do it again, only better. Chew on that.
>
>mbs
>
>
>
>