Jeffrey Fisher on 9 Nov 2000 23:40:16 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Energy, Elections, and the Internet

yes, gore lost votes to nader. no question. i've argued about this so much that i can't
recall now whether or not i've quoted the exit polls that suggest nader votes would have
gone (nationally) 40% to gore, 40% to no one, and about 20% to bush. that's what i was
seeing tuesday night. that doesn't speak to the results in specific states.

but that's not my argument. sure if you just wipe nader out and tally the votes, that puts
more votes in gore's column.

my argument is that bush cut into gore's support as much as or more than nader. exit polls
show that bush disrupted the clinton coalition rather the same way that clinton brought
back the reagan democrats to beat bush. i'm suggesting that perhaps gore made some
strategic errors, but those are all getting lost in the cries of nader nader nader.

what i really object to is foisting moral (or strategic) responsibility for a bush victory
onto nader and his supporters when the evidence makes it quite plain that there were other
factors that were at least as important. the truth is that gore didn't lose just the 2
million votes that went to nader: he also lost every one of the 48million that went to
bush. nader votes account for something like 4% of the votes gore didn't get nationally.
are you telling me none of those other 48million were potential gore voters? that is
patently false -- if someone voted for clinton twice, she is certainly a target for a gore
vote, but he lost millions of those votes.


Law wrote:

> Some number of people voted for Nader as a protest, who would have
> voted for Gore. So, Gore lost some votes to Nader. I think this is
> confirmed by interviews and polls. Would you like to continue to argue
> this is not true?
> Arguing that Gore *should* have done better against Bush is specious.
> It amounts to saying that Gore should have saved Nader voters from the
> consequences of their vote.
> Open your eyes to the fact that the US is so evenly divided between
> Gore and Bush. This gives Nader supporters unprecedented sway. And,
> they misused it. I agreed with much of Nader's platform, but I am
> bitterly disappointed that he is not interested in progress, only
> contention. Perhaps that was his attraction.
> Maybe I'm getting concerned about nothing, the election is not over.
> Jim
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
> > my argument is not that without a landslide gore is a failure. the argument is that
> > gore lost a lot of constituencies he quite arguably should have won, and he lost
> > them to bush. your only response to this is that the "significantly worse" prospect
> > of a bush administration somehow leads to the conclusion that "nader supporters need
> > to face" the fact that they did damage to gore.

jeff fisher
O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O
"I am the brand name. When all things began, the brand name already
was. The brand name dwelt with God, and what God was, the brand
name was. The brand name, then, was with God at the beginning, and
through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without
him." - Philip K. Dick
O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O

Nettime-bold mailing list