Re: [pf] Nader on The Connection today (NPR)

by Sharon Flesher

19 December 2000 03:35 UTC

Molly wrote:
> This was disputed on The Connection -- Unfortunately I can't recall the
> numbers, but apparently if all the registered Democrats who voted for
> Bush had voted for Gore (or simply not voted), Gore would have won
> Florida easily. Instead, because he didn't adequately control the
> Democratic base (in either direction), he lost the state.

Technically, this is right. According to the Florida exit poll numbers
(http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/FL/P000.html) 13% of registered
Democrats voted for Bush while 8% of registered Republicans voted for Gore.
But in the same exit poll, 19% of voters identified themselves as liberal,
compared to 31% self-identified as conservative and 50% as moderate. So
since conservatives outnumber liberals, you might expect the conservative
candidate to pull more votes than the liberal. Incidentally, the polls show
the two split the moderate vote (51 Gore, 46 Bush), but Gore lost only 17%
of the liberal vote to Bush (extremely puzzling that anyone who considers
him/herself a liberal would vote for Bush), while Bush lost 21% of the
conservative vote to Gore (not as puzzling considering the concerns across
the spectrum on Bush's ability to handle the job). So, from that yardstick,
Gore may have done a better job of holding his base than Bush.

The old political junkie in me just won't quit, even though I've tried to
bury it under 2 feet of northern Michigan snow. One other point I would like
to make is in response to Betsy's comments about low voter turnout. I've yet
to be convinced that low turnout is due to voters believing they had "no
choice" or being "turned off" by the two major parties. I guess this
argument doesn't make sense to me because presidential elections usually
yield the highest voter turnout of all elections. Of course, because so many
other races are decided that day, it's hard to determine how much of the
turnout is due to the presidential contest. Still, better than 50% of
registered voters show up for a presidential election, while a local school
millage issue in which voters are deciding whether or not to tax themselves
might be lucky to get a 10% turnout. I'm convinced that low turnout is more
a result of laziness, time constraints, lack of interest and other
distractions than disgust at the offerings.

Did Nader's campaign boost voter turnout as many claimed it would? I can't
find any final numbers; I don't recall hearing that turnout was up this
year. I'm wondering why, if so many of the non-voters were just waiting for
a candidate they could get behind, they didn't respond to Michael Moore's
exhortations to turn out for Nader.

Sharon