How Long, How Long? When will 'we' ever learn? Re: startrib letter response to Liza's column on Minn. Greens

Michael Pugliese debsian at pacbell.net
Mon Aug 5 14:15:37 PDT 2002


Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 16:50:53 -0400 (EDT)

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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list