Thursday, September 18, 2003
(11:11 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
The Ralph Nader Thing
Many on the left apparently hate Ralph Nader for handing the election to Bush. I'd like to see the stats on this. Are there any states where Gore would have won if he had had Nader's votes? Are there any figures to indicate how many Nader voters were dissatisfied Republicans going for a "screw you" vote? Would all the Nader votes in Florida have tipped the scales? In short: is there any factual basis to the claim that Ralph Nader cost Gore the election, given that Gore still managed to win a clear majority of the popular vote? Maybe the figures do indicate that Nader cost Gore the election -- maybe someone could, you know, actually do the math in order to back up this frequently made claim. The best answer to what cost Gore the election is Bush's ruthlessness, plain and simple.
It would be nice if everyone could remember who the enemy is here -- chances are, it's not Ralph Nader. His platform seems like it was just too far outside of the mainstream for him to be a real spoiler, unlike, say, Ross Perot, who spoke to some very real concerns about the deficit and made that front-and-center of the national agenda. Maybe I'm wrong here -- maybe the figures will turn out to support the knee-jerk Democratic talking point. I'm skeptical, though.
