[CUGreens] Nader: To Spoil or not to Spoil?

[Klocke Brian V <klockeb@sobek.colorado.edu>]

Big Money Politics Rules: the Gore-ing of Green Politics


As the US Presidential elections draw closer and the Bush/Gore gap in the
poll remains a statistical dead heat, the attacks on candidate Ralph Nader
and the Green Party grow more concerted, more vociferous and more
vitriolic.

Let's explore some possible reasons why Bush might win this election.
First off, he has not only outspent the Gore campaign by $54 Million, but
he has spent more than any Presidential candidate in history. 

From http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/index/AllCands.htm
Candidate	Raised		Federal Funds	Spent		Cash Left
George W. Bush 	$180,838,183 	$67,560,000	$135,878,022 	$44,960,159 
Al Gore 	$131,689,725 	$83,016,084	$81,556,437 	$52,674,474 
Pat Buchanan 	$29,029,149 	$4,022,172	$21,262,343 	$41,903 
Ralph Nader 	$4,796,791 	$278,628	$4,346,976 	$617,879 
Harry Browne 	$1,659,823 	$0		$1,663,744 	$21,947 

Secondly, almost all polls show the Republican candidate gaining more from
the nationally televised debates than Al Gore. Thirdly, the Republican
party has not publicly attacked nor alienated through public policy, a
crucial component of their party's support, the political right wing. 

The same cannot be said of Al Gore's campaign. A slew of press releases
have been forwarded and a blitz of articles have been printed in the last
few weeks, and increasing as the election draws nearer, that attempt to
discredit Ralph Nader and to blame him for Al Gore being behind in the
polls. This pre-election scapeoating is led by the Monsanto corporation's
head lobbyist, Toby Moffet (see "Toby Moffett: An Old Hand For Greens
Shifts Allegiance To Gore," by Andre Vasquez, Sunday, September 3, 2000 in
the Boston Globe-http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/090300-04.htm).
Monsanto is not only a supporter of Gore but one of the largest
multinational agricultural corporations now famous for their
evironmentally damaging "Round-Up Ready Soybeans" and the genetically
engineered "Terminator" seed corn. The new mantra of the Gore campaign is
not, "A vote for Gore is a vote for the best of America," but "A vote for
Nader is a vote for Bush". This scapegoating tactic of playing on people's
fears rather than their hopes just might work, or it may backfire.

Perhaps it is Gore who is throwing the election to Bush. To read an
entertaining and provocative article providing this argument, see "Will
Gore Throw the Election to Bush?" by Robert W. McChesney (a
Journalism/Mass Media studies professor), from the October 26, 2000
Madison Capital Times, at http://www.commondreams.org/views/102600-107.htm
and  see "Nader Hasn't Hurt Gore; Gore Has," - at
http://www.commondreams.org/views/102600-104.htm
		
"Yeah, but let's be real," you may be saying, if Nader wasn't running,
wouldn't his supporters vote for Gore, and isn't he pulling progressive
Democrats away from Al Gore in swarms? Won't Ralph Nader take electoral
votes away from Al Gore on election day? Isn't Ralph Nader's support
greater than the margin between Gore and Bush?! The answers may not be as
certain as you may be led to believe. Consider the following: ABCNEWS.com,
10/26/00 reports ("At Last Minute, Nader Backers May Bail by Gary Langer")
that with Nader and Buchanan in the race, Bush is leading Gore by 3%,
however, without Buchanan and Nader in the race, polls show Bush would win
by 2%, meaning obviously, the outcome would not be any different! The same
story also reports that swing voters (who may change their vote on
election day) and undecided voters account for a whopping 12% of likely
voters, far beyond Nader's consistent and lately waning support at a
miniscule 3-5% in the polls, which is a smaller percentage than the rest
of the vote that does not support Bush or Gore. It seems like the Gore
campaign, in addition to alienated voters, should actually be more
pre-occupied with undecided voters and Buchanan voters.

Most recent polls 
ABC/Washington Post - 10/25/00
Gore	Bush	Nader	Buchanan + Undecided
44	48	4		5

Gallup/CNN/USA Today - 10/25/00
Gore	Bush	Nader	Buchanan + Undecided
42	49	3		6

Reuters/MSNBC Tracking Poll - 10/26/00
Gore	Bush	Nader	Buchanan + Undecided
45	43	4		8

But what about the 7 so-called, "swing states" (Maine, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin)? Gore is winning in
3 of these states, in 3 more, the gap Gore is behind Bush is from 0-3%,
well within the margin of error of all polls. In the 7th state, Gore is
behind 5% and Nader is polling at 6%. Again given margin of error, the
possible Nader effect (if at all) is negligible.

What is more important to consider is that, given our winner-take-all
electoral system, Nader will not take ANY electoral college votes away
from Gore, because at 3-6%, he will not win any states and will not be
enough to affect with certainty Gore's margin from Bush. But there is an
even more compelling reason why Nader will not "pull" droves of Gore
supporters. Just who are Nader supporters? First and foremost, they are
Green Party members and political progressives who did not vote Democrat
in the last election but voted for Nader or voted for the socialist
candidates. The MAJORITY of Nader voters did not vote for a Democrat in
the last election! Nader supporters also include some former Ross Perot
and John McCain supporters. Barbara Ehrenreich, citing a recent
Reuters/MSNBC poll, reports that only 25% of Nader supporters are normally
Democratic voters. (See "Third Party, Mainstream Hopes" in the Thursday,
October 26, 2000 edition of the New York Times, at
http://www.commondreams.org/views/102600-101.htm) 

For a deeper understanding of the socio-political dynamics in this year's
electoral Presidential race it is crucial that we explore some possible
reasons that Gore is behind in the polls and may lose the election. Many
respected progressive political analysts believe Gore has failed to
satisfy those concerned about issues of social and economic injustice.
They argue that he has ignored those who are concerned about unfair trade,
unfair labor laws, lack of universal health care, the growing divide
between rich and poor, lack of gay marriage, the criminalization of males
of color at alarming rates, the attack on the poor and welfare, the failed
war on drugs, the increased militarization of policing, the runaway
military budget, the bombing of more countries than any other
administration in history (Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq), and
a host of other social problems.  ) 

In addition, they mention that he, unlike Nader has failed to capture the
youth vote, which was a significant component of Clinton's 1992 successful
bid for the White House (see "Bush, Gore fail to win attention of the
young: Turnout expected to drop further" By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff ,
10/23/2000, at 
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Bush_Gore_fail_to_win_attention_of_the_young+.shtml).
In 1972, 50% of 18-24 yr. Olds voted, in 1996 only 32% did - it is
predicted to be lower in this election. Gore's advisors realize this and
have made a calculated gamble to ignore this segment of the population
and, like Bush, have focused on winning a much bigger voting block,
"seniors".

Yet the largest potential voting block of all that Gore fails to capture
is the one that includes the MAJORITY OF VOTERS that are disenchanted with
the electoral process. In the 1996 election,
51% of voters said, in effect, "none of the above," this percentage is
predicted to increase to almost 60% in this election. The majority of
eligible voters are fed up with the two party autocracy that rules US
politics today. Ralph Nader, for years has been known as, depending upon
who you are asking, public enemy number one, or the citizen advocate
crusader. Electoral support for Nader is a sign of increasing alienation
from the status quo of big money politics. 

The Green Party offers an alternative vision, one that is based on the
following key values:
			o Social Justice
            		o Community-Based Economics
            		o Nonviolence
            		o Decentralization
			o Future Focus/Sustainability
            		o Feminism
            		o Personal and Global Responsibility
            		o Respect for Diversity
            		o Grassroots Democracy
            		o Ecological Wisdom
The Green Party is building a progressive grassroots movement to implement
these values. Part of this vision is gaining political power. The goal of
Ralph Nader's campaign is threefold; to bring issues supporting these
values into the political discourse, to move the Democratic Party back to
its roots of supporting the disenfranchised of our country, and to obtain
5% of the popular vote in this election in order to qualify for millions
of federally matching funds in order to have an even bigger impact in the
next Presidential election. Please do not silence your hopes for a better
world, if you support the values above, vote green and vote Nader/LaDuke
2000. We can't afford any more time, cultures or planets to waste!

By Brian Klocke
Freelance Reporter
10/27/00


Brian Klocke

"Let us make the risk of peace and not impose the risk of war upon the
world"
--
# To unsubscribe, send a message to cugreens-request@flwyd.dhs.org with the
# word unsubscribe in the body.  For assistance, mail tstone@flwyd.dhs.org