BECAUSE OF THE CONTINUED
SLANDER OF RALPH NADER by
Democrats in deep denial, we went back and looked at the actual
poll results in the last months of the 2000 campaign. The chart
above shows the change in the average poll percentage from month
to month. You will note that except between July and August during
a period of minimal change, there was no correlation between
Bush's percentage change and that of Nader.
From the Progressive
Review 's Undernews July 2002
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.
During almost all of 2000,
Bush led Gore with the major acception of a month-long period
following the Democratic convention. During this high point for
Gore, Nader was pulling a running average of 2-4% in the polls.
While it is true that during October, Nader began pulling a running
average of 6% at a time when Gore was fading, Gore continued
to lose ground even as Nader's support dropped to its final 3%.
In other words, despite the help of defectors from Nader, Gore
did worse.
Further, as Michael Eisencher
reported in Z Magazine, 20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of
all self- identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters,
44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000
per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31%
of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush.
(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.
- Gore even lost his home
state of Tennessee. This is like flunking a political breathalizer
test.
- 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 45 seats in the House, 7 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
KEVIN ZEESE, LETTER TO WASH POST - George Will repeats the liberal myth that Ralph
Nader -- rather than George W. Bush -- cost Al Gore the 2000
election. The facts show otherwise:
o Sixty-two percent of Nader's voters were
Republicans, independents, third-party voters and nonvoters.
o Had Nader not run, Bush would have won
by more in Florida. CNN's exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent
and Gore at 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical
Nader-less Florida race.
o Gore lost his home state of Tennessee,
Bill Clinton's Arkansas and traditionally Democratic West Virginia;
with any one of these, Gore would have won.
o Nine million Democrats voted for Bush,
and less than half of the 3 million Nader voters were Democrats.
o Ninety thousand African Americans were
illegally and intentionally stricken from the voter rolls in
Florida under the guise of felon disenfranchisement.
o The 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision stopped
the vote counting that favored a Gore victory.
EMILY PRZEKWAS - More
than 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for George
Bush and over half of the registered Democrats there did not
vote at all.
Every one of the eight third-party presidential
candidates in Florida received more than the 543 votes cited
as the deciding factor in the election.
On some discarded ballots, voters both
filled in the bubble for their candidate and wrote the candidate's
name in the write-in-space. If these had been included in the
count, Gore would have had a net gain of 662 votes, enough to
win the election.
In the highly Democratic county of Palm
Beach, an abnormally large number of votes were cast for the
conservative candidate Pat Buchanan. Buchanan himself estimated
that as many as 95% of these 3,500 votes were Gore's because
of the faulty "butterfly" ballot. [6]
According to exit polls, over half of the
Nader voters would have stayed home, 25% would have voted for
Gore, and 15% would have voted for Bush. The rest would have
voted for another third party candidate.