From: SearsTimothy at AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [DemocraticLeft] 'NADER FACTOR' IN 2000 ELECTION DOESN'T HOLD UP
To: DemocraticLeft at yahoogroups.com What an awesome collection of non-sequiturs!
The central premise -- that "if Nader was actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change inversely to those of Gore" in pre-election polls -- is simply nonsensical. The only poll that counts is the one on election day -- and never was that more true than in 2000.
The claim that certain polling numbers that show such a correlation don't matter because the results are "statistically insignificant" ignores the fact that in the decisive vote tally in Florida, the difference between Gore and Bush was less than the margin of error in any of the pre-election polls -- so Nader support that was "statistically insignificant" was sufficient to decide the election (or at least allow the Supremes to decide the election).
And as for the complaint that "the same critics who blame Nader for Gore's loss fail to give him credit for narrow Democratic victories in the Senate, such as the one in Washington state" -- I'm sorry, did I miss something? Where were the Greens actively campaigning for Democratic Senate candidates? It sounds like the Greens want to avoid responsibility for the intended consequence of their strategy (the Bush presidency) while trying to take credit for something they did nothing to bring about. And how do "Green existentialists" harmonize their taking credit for "narrow Democratic victories in the Senate" with their campaign to defeat Paul Wellstone this year?
The one portion of this article that is absolutely accurate is the discussion of the disasterous consequences for the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton's presidency. The big shift to the Republicans began in 1994 -- after the Clintons had dropped the ball on universal health care.
In a message dated 08/05/2002 8:01:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, gignetti1 at aol.com writes:
'NADER FACTOR' IN 2000 ELECTION DOESN'T HOLD UP
Undernews, Tuesday, July 30, 2002
The Progressive Review http://prorev.com
'NADER FACTOR' IN 2000 ELECTION DOESN'T HOLD UP
Undernews, Tuesday, July 30, 2002
The Progressive Review http://prorev.com
A STUDY by the Progressive Review of national and
Florida polls during the 2000 election indicates
that Ralph Nader's influence on the final results
was minimal to non-existent.
The Review tested the widely held Democratic
assumption that Nader caused Gore's loss by
checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if
Nader was actually responsible for Gore's
troubles, his tallies would change inversely to
those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do
worse and vice versa.
In fact, the only time any correlation could be
found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2
percentage points - that they were statistically
insignificant. On the other hand when, in
September of 2000, Gore's average poll result
went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only
declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November,
Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but
Nader's only went up 0.8 points.
In the close Florida race, there were similar
results: statistically insignificant correlation
when the Gore tally changed by only one or two
points, but dramatic non-correlation when the
change was bigger. For example, in nine
successive surveys in which Nader pulled only 2
or 3 points, Gore's total varied by 7 points. As
late as two weeks before the election, Gore was
ahead by as much as 7-10 points.
Nationally, the Review's five poll moving average
showed Gore steadily hacking away at Bush's 15
point lead until he was ahead by as much six
points in September. But this lead rapidly
disappeared until Bush was back in a narrow lead
by early October. While Gore eventually won the
popular vote, the election was so close that most
polls projections were still within the standard
margin of error.
(Interestingly, the same critics who blame Nader
for Gore's loss fail to give him credit for
narrow Democratic victories in the Senate, such
as the one in Washington state.)
Since the mythology of the 2000 election shows no
signs of fading, a few other points are worth
noting:
- According to exit polling, those who voted for
Nader were disproportionately under 30,
independent, first time voters, formerly Perot
voters, and of no organized religion. In other
words, many of his voters did not naturally
belong to the Democratic party. In fact, half as
many Republicans as Democrats voted for Nader.
Six percent of independents and 7% of Perot
voters supported Nader while only 2% of Democrats
did.
- The public had a cynical view of both major
candidates with 41% believing that both would say
anything to win votes. Barely half considered
either major candidate honest and trustworthy.
And an astounding 51% had reservations about
their own vote.
- Perhaps the most important, but seldom
mentioned, factor in the outcome was the impact
of the Clinton scandals. 68% of voters thought
Clinton would go down in history more for his
scandals than for his leadership. 44% said that
the scandals were somewhat to very important and
57% thought the country to be on the wrong moral
track.
- In short, the individual who did the most harm
to Gore (aside from himself) was Bill Clinton. If
Gore had distanced himself from the Clinton moral
miasma he would probably be president today.
- Clinton hurt in other ways, most notably in the
damage his administration did to other Democratic
officeholders, again something Democrats don't
want to face. During the Clinton administration,
Democrats lost over 1,200 state legislative
seats. Further, the Democrats lost control of 9
legislatures and for the first time since 1954
the GOP controlled more state legislatures than
the Democrats. In addition, the GOP won almost
more than 40 seats in the House, 8 in the Senate,
11 governorships and 439 Democratic officeholders
switched to the Democratic Party. Only three
Republicans went the other way. In short, the
Clinton administration was a disaster for the
Democrats.
But even if Nader only took one percentage point
away from Gore - the most that can possibly be
claimed - some will say that the Greens should
have known better than to take that risk. In a
way, it comes down to a debate between Democratic
situationists - I am what the polls tell me I
ought to be - and Green existentialists - I am
what I am regardless of the polls. The danger
with the Green existentialist approach is that
you may end up with a Bush (or a Clinton, for
that matter) in the White House. The danger with
the Democratic situationist approach is that you
definitely will. In one case, you give up on
democracy in favor of a 800-pound-gorillacracy;
in the other case you still retain some hope that
things can get better.
Ironically, if Nader had done much better - say
10 or 15 points - we would all be in better shape
since politics tends to follow third party
uprisings when they are powerful enough. In the
most recent case, for example, both the GOP and
Democratic parties still remain in the shadow of
the Perot paradigm. But because Nader didn't do
all that well, the Democrats can muddle along
pretending that it wasn't their fault after all
but some guy they wouldn't even let into the
debate.
Democrats tend to think of Greens as wayward
members of their party, which is why they try to
browbeat them rather than convincing them. In
fact, the Greens have less and less in common
with the Democratic Party - especially since the
latter refuses to stand up against the Bush war,
greedy globalization, and the disintegration of
constitutional government.
There are fortunately exceptions - Cynthia
McKinney, Barbara Lee, and Chellie Pingree (who
is running for the Senate in Maine) among them.
If Paul Wellstone, for example, had followed the
sensible model of these women he'd be more
comfortable today.
But too many Democrats presume they can either
ignore the Greens or hector them back into their
pointless, spiritless, and morally dead confines.
It won't work for the simple reason that, unlike
the Democratic Party, Greens actually believe in
something. And when you believe in something, you
are willing to take a few risks along the way.
- SAM SMITH