Wow, 47% of Nader voters - DeWrong fails to say anything about the tiny percentage that actually voted for Nader. Doesn't compare at all to the massive swing vote.
Now, if there was an actual MASS prog constituancy out there - the result of years of consistent work by an independent progressive left party with objective presence on the political scene (hence a transformed scene) who had learned not to give a squat who the Dems ran except as it affects the overall balance of forces - _then_ a Dem fake left would make sense, since there would be something to get. But only the likes of Jesse Ventura has been able to pull in masses of disaffected, alienated potential voters, which shows you can't assume any progressive content to the non-vote.
-Brad Mayer
Message: 2 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:22:38 -0700 To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org From: Brad DeLong <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Nader, again Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>[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: