The status of my meth habit is irrelevant to the question at hand.
…although I think it is appropriate to state at this time that James McMurtry’s Choctaw Bingo is likely the best song that will ever be written about meth.
I hate to go through this again, but we have a commenter trying to claim that Nader didn’t throw the election to Bush:
*All votes that Nader received in Florida would have gone to Gore instead;
*The appearance of Nader did not lead to people registering in Florida in order to vote for Gore;
*That Gore would have had the same positions without Nader in the race that he had with Nader in the race, thus meaning that no voters would have shifted from Bush to Gore in the absence of Nader; and
*That the Republicans would not have found a way to steal the Florida election.
The first, and most important, claim is of course transparently wrong; not every single Nader voter would have had to vote for Gore, just enough to throw Florida to Bush. And according to Nader’s own data, this was the case:
Nader is at his slipperiest on the issue of whether his campaign tipped the election to George W. Bush. The evidence that he did so is unambiguous. First, by repeating his charge that there was no significant ideological distance between the two major-party candidates, Nader helped bolster the message of Bush, who sought to blur unpopular Republican positions on key issues. Second, by peeling off substantial blocks of liberals in states such as Oregon, Minnesota and Wisconsin, he forced Al Gore to devote precious time and money to shoring up states that would (if not for Nader) have been safely Democratic, leaving him fewer resources for swing states such as Ohio, Tennessee and Florida. Third, and most directly, Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida. Appearing on a talk show after the election, Nader cited polls that showed that, had he not run, only 38 percent of his voters would have backed Gore versus 25 percent for Bush. Strangely, Nader held up these numbers as a defense against the spoiler charge. Yet the very data cited by Nader, if applied to Florida, shows that he took a net 12,000 votes from Gore — more than enough to hand the state, and the electoral college, to Bush.
So it’s clear that Nader fulfilled the only significant goal of his campaign and threw the election to Bush. The other points made in Nader’s defense are no more persuasive. On #2, if anyone has evidence that Nader’s relentless vilification of Gore and claims that which candidate was elected didn’t matter caused a net positive number of people to register and vote for Gore let’s see it. On #3, 1)again there’s no evidence whatsoever for this having an effect, 2)the states in which an alleged hard turn to the left in Gore’s rhetoric which no Naderite noticed at the time would have been likely to have a net benefit were states Gore won so overwhelmingly minor shifts in rhetoric would have made little difference, and 3)the rhetorical point cuts both ways; how many people did Nader dissuade from voting for Gore with his nonsensical claims that he was indistinguishable from Bush? And on #4, this cannot be known for certain, but we do know that Republicans didn’t steal any other state in which the Dems won a narrow victory. If the Democrats came out ahead in the initial vote count they almost certainly would have held on, especially since the nature of electoral system means that recounts would work in the Democrats’ favor. GOP malfeasance doesn’t let Nader off the hook. And finally, to pre-empt this coming up in comments, the fact that Nader wouldn’t have been able to throw the election to Bush under a more rational electoral system is completely irrelevant to anything.
If Nader doesn’t run, no Bush. It really is that simple.
After publishing what I still think is the most useful review of Liberal Fascism, Dave Neiwert has devoted much of the past several weeks handing Jonah Goldberg his own ass — digging into Pantload’s bogus sources, pointing out his gaping ignorance about the scholarly literature on fascism, and engaging him directly on the substance of the book’s argument (as opposed to — ahem — some people around here, who get their kicks by writing Goldberg fake letters of praise….)
In any event, Orcinus is running a fundraiser at the moment. If Dave and Sarah are semi-regular reads of yours, consider dropping them a few nickels. For chrissakes, if Treason-in-Defense-of-Slavery Yankee can ask his readers to buy him a new grill….
Brighter than Creation’s Dark is finally starting to grow on me. I’ll have a full write up tomorrow or the next day, but until then I leave you with some favorites of mine from Mike Cooley:
So I’ll meet you at the bottom if there really is one
They always told me when you hit it you’ll know it
But I’ve been falling so long it’s like gravity’s gone and I’m just floating- Gravity’s Gone
Well, my daddy didn’t pull out, but he never apologized
Rock and Roll means well, but it can’t help tellin’ young boys lies.- Marry Me
And I ain’t gonna crawl upon no high horse
Cause I got thrown off of one
when I was young and I ain’t no cowboy
so I ain’t going where I don’t belong.- When the Pin Hits the Shell
I got friends in Nashville, or at least they’re folks I know
Nashville is where you go to see if what they said is so- Carl Perkins’ Cadillac
Your Brother was the first-born, got ten fingers and ten toes
And it’s a damn good thing cause
He needs all twenty to keep the closet door closed- Zip City
I just wanted to say thanks to all of LGM’s commenters. You guys really are the best. You could win a knife fight against any group of blog commenters on the intertubes.
Apparently Ralph Nader has formed an exploratory presidential committee. If the committee is going to do anything other than explore the depths of Nader’s narcissism, it might have a tough time.
I’d have a lot more respect for him if he made a concerted effort to make this point—and endeavored to either galvanize a vibrant third party or progressivize the Democratic party—in between elections, instead of popping up once every four years to indulge a vanity campaign. Why isn’t Ralph Nader doing for electoral reform what Al Gore is doing for the environment? He lacks focus. It’s one non-profit start-up after the other, instead of a slow and steady campaign
And honestly, Nader has *got* to know that he is not ever going to win and that by running he is drawing votes from a candidate who, while not perfect, has a real shot of winning and would be a whole helluva lot better than whomever the GOP is propping up. Certainly if he didn’t know that before 2000, he’s got to know it now.
Not to belabor the point, but there’s some nonsense going on in this comment thread regarding the Florida primary. The content of the nonsense appears to be the argument that, regardless of the delegate situation, the Florida result represents a true enough picture of the preferences of the Florida electorate. In particular, aimai:
Florida voters could and did turn out in record numbers to cast protest votes for all three candidates in the hope that their votes *would* ultimately count. I just don’t see that “campaigning” or “not campaigning” made any difference at all in such a hotly contested and noisy election. What’s your evidence that people who wanted to vote for obama didn’t turn out for this non race? What poll shows a depressed turnout because of the no campaigning rule?
This spurred me to do a bit of what the kids like to call “research” and “arithmetic”, which produced the following:
Reps as % of Dems: 82%
Reps as % of Dems: 84%
Reps as % of Dems: 114%
And that excludes Iowa and Nevada, where turnout is much harder to measure, but in which literally everyone agrees that the Democratic turnout vastly exceeded the Republican. So I’d say, yes, the evidence does pretty conclusively demonstrate that either a)campaigning, or b)the presence of actual delegates has a strong effect on turnout. Strangely, a large number of campaigning politicians seem to agree with this conclusion; they seem to think that the presence of a candidate, the mobilization of his or her political organization, and the spending of tremendous amounts of money on advertising could affect whether people vote and who they vote for. Who knew?
Now, you can make the argument that the Florida Democratic result would have been the same if the candidates had been allowed to campaign, but in doing so you’re making a claim that would need to climb several rungs of plausibility to reach the level of “evidence-free assertion”. In the absence of a campaign from any of the candidates, the Florida result was almost inevitably going to reflect the greater name recognition of Hillary Clinton; indeed, she held similar leads in other states before the actual campaign began.
Dana and Tom have good posts. To expand on one of Tom’s points, I think Edwards is a lesson in the perils in trying to become president from the Senate, especially from something other than an incredibly safe seat. He built up a bunch of votes that contradicted his current positions, and he had to leave early because he couldn’t risk losing.
I believed at the time — and still do — that had the Iowa caucus in 2004 been held two weeks later 1)Edwards would have won, 2)he would likely have won the nomination, and 3)this would have been the best outcome (although whether he would have beaten Bush, who knows.) As Steve says, in this year he never had a chance given the competition but had a salutary effect on the race.
. . . Mr. Trend discovers that Cheney shares his birthday with Phil Collins. And I’ll simply note the *cough* coincidence that Gandhi was assassinated on Cheney’s 7th birthday, while the VP’s 65th birthday cache included the corpse of Coretta Scott King.
There was no Florida Democratic primary. Although the high turnout in a non-primary was heartening for Democratic prospects in November, the results are wholly meaningless as there was no campaign and no delegates at stake. Changing the rules ex post facto and claiming delegates for a specific candidate would be unambiguous electoral fraud. And whether the disenfranchisement of Florida Democrats for violating party rules was justified or not, it was agreed to in advance by every Democratic campaign — including the one now trying to pretend that a real election was held. Seating delegates for a particular candidate would not enfranchise Florida Democrats, since they still would not have had the opportunity to vote in a real contested election with actual stakes. The only actual remedy for the party’s decision would be to hold a real competitive primary at a later date, period.
… UPDATE BY ROB: This is the Clinton campaign manager reacting to the initial decision to exclude the Florida and Michigan delegates: “We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.” So no, this isn’t about the Clinton campaign fighting the DNC to empower the benighted masses in Michigan and Florida; the campaign supported the DNC’s decision up to the point it became in their interest to want to change the rules. Also see Ezra.