[lbo-talk] Nader, again

[Brad DeLong]

>[Thanks to Sam Smith for digging this up.]
>
>RECOVERED HISTORY
>EVEN AL FROM SAYS IT WASN'T NADER'S FAULT
>
>http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=2919
>
>AL FROM, BLUEPRINT MAGAZINE, JAN 24, 2001 - Proponents of Gore's strategy
>argue that it was aimed at winning support of downscale white working-class
>voters, whom they see as the electorate's critical swing voters. They argue
>that the strategy was a success -- that it produced a "progressive majority"
>if you add the votes won by Ralph Nader to those that Gore won. They
>maintain that Gore lost not because of his populist, big government message
>but because of cultural and moral issues, fueled by resentment of President
>Clinton's behavior and by Gore's own personal shortcomings. I think they're
>wrong on all counts. The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is
>not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would
>have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better
>than he did with Nader in the race.

There's something very weird about Al From, and there is something 
very weird about From's claim that more Nader voters in 2000 would 
have voted for Bush than for Gore had Nader not been in the race. I 
think From is lying--after all, he wants to convince his DLC 
senatorial clients that there are no votes to be gained by going 
left, and I've never thought of Al From as ethically unchallenged.

For other perspectives, take a look at:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Green_Party_supporters_rebuff_criticism+.shtml: 
National exit-poll data show that 30 percent of [Nader] voters would 
have skipped the election if he was not on the ballot. But that data 
also show that 47 percent of Nader voters said they would have 
supported Gore had Nader not been in the race.

http://www.indiancountry.com/article/2710: Reports from exit polling 
data indicate that most of the Nader voters who would have voted for 
someone else said they would have voted for Gore.

http://www.dartreview.com/archives/000120.php: According to 
post-election night analysis by CNN's Bill Schneider, exit polls 
showed that about half of all voters who voted for Nader would have 
voted for Gore.

http://www.arktimes.com/mccord/120100mccord.html: Some believe that 
Nader wanted Bush to win all along, that his goal was to cripple the 
Democratic Party so as to make the Green Party and Ralph Nader more 
powerful in future elections (Nader will be 70 in 2004, by the way). 
It's the old notion that things will have to get worse before they 
get better. After criticizing Gore as part of a do-nothing 
administration in a speech at Chapman University in California, Nader 
said: "If it were a choice between a provocateur and an anesthetizer, 
I'd rather have a provocateur. It would mobilize us."... Two-thirds 
of those who voted for Nader said they would have voted for Gore if 
Nader hadn't been on the ballot.

Perhaps Sam Smith wants to do something serious on this issue?

Brad DeLong