As for Clinton's following with the public, if Gore had a major strategic blunder, it was failing to take credit for the eight years of job growth under Clinton-Gore. It was bizarre-- Gore felt that in order to distance himself from Monica, he had to distance himself from the whole economic policy. stupid.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com> To: "lbo-talk" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:02 PM Subject: [lbo-talk] Nader, again
[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. ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk