A blue paper-mache dog head

Blue dog: Did I cost Gore the election? (Photo: Patti Haskins / Flickr)

A continuation of Part 1, a series that disproves the myth that alternative parties caused the world to come to an end a dozen years ago. It is simply another tribalist ‘veal pen’ authored fairy tale with little to no evidence to back it up, other than “I saw it on TV.”

As Aldous Huxley quipped in Brave New World:

“Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects … totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have by the most eloquent denunciations.”

In this case, the silent inconvenient truth is that hundreds of thousands of Democrats voted for Bush, and against Gore. The Bush Democrats outnumbered all of Nader’s supporters by a 2:1 margin in Florida, and outnumbered the Nader Democrats by a 16:1 margin.

If only 0.3% of these good for nothing Blue Dogs stayed home or, (gasp) even voted for their own party, Gore wins the election.

 

“Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush”
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

Even more embarrassing is that 34% of union members voted for Bush, but only 3% for Nader, per the exit polls.

Again, this is straight from the official Florida exit polls taken in 2000. 16% of those who supported Clinton in 1996 supported Bush. Only 1% of those who supported Clinton in 1996 supported Nader in 2000.

Here’s the chart, again. The first column is the total vote count, and the rest is read left to right:

1996——All—Gore—Bush—Buchanan—Nader
Clinton—46——82——16———0————1
Dole——30——–4——93———0————1
Perot——–7——23——65———1———–10
No vote—12——50——44———0————7

The whale-like effect of the Democrats far outstrip any effect Nader could have hoped to achieve. A slight change in overall Democrat behavior would completely dwarf the statistically insignificant moves Nader would have made, even if his moves were large.

Furthermore, nationally 9 million Democrats voted for Bush, while 1.5 million voted for Nader. Again, why is the focus on Nader, when there were 6 times as many Blue Dog Bush Democrats as Nader Democrats?

Again, if you have any poll data, or hard numbers that refutes this please submit it. Character assasination, “FUCK NADER,” and “NADER IS AN ASSHOLE” do not qualify as hard numbers.

Summing up:

  • The overwhelming constituency that helped Bush win was not Nader’s but the Democrats’. Blue Dog/Bush Democrats in particular. If only 1% of them voted blue or just stayed home, Gore wins easily. But Blue Dog conservative Dems are above reproach & critique, so 3rd party witch hunts were a convenient diversion from this sad fact.
  • Union defectors also far outstripped whatever small influence Nader may have had.
  • Only 1% of Clinton voters supported Nader, while 16% of Clinton voters supported Bush. Nader’s impact was so small, it was statistically insignificant; large changes in Nader’s voting composition would be completely dwarfed by small changes in these other statistically significant factors that were in control by the Democrats.
  • Democrats need to get their own party members to stop voting GOP, or at the very least tell them to stay home if they plan to vote GOP. To ignore this is a recipe for political suicide. They vastly outnumber the small number of third party voters in the electorate.

Sources:

Here is the raw FL exit poll data:

http://www.vrdc.cornell.edu/info4470/projects/~bap63/pdf/florida2000.pdf

http://prorev.com/green2000.htm

http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html