BY DAN
KENNEDY
Serving the reality-based community since 2002.
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Measuring the Buchanan
effect. Boston Globe columnist (and Nader voter) Alex Beam
writes today that Pat Buchanan may have hurt George W. Bush in the
2000 presidential election at least as much as Ralph Nader hurt Al
Gore.
Writes
Beam: "Big Media, with its
hopelessly liberal tilt, doesn't yammer on about Patrick Buchanan's
candidacy, which siphoned off 17,000 votes in the disputed 2000
Florida election. Why not? Because in the view of liberal
editorialists, Buchanan siphoned off votes from the right candidate,
i.e. George Bush. Dandy for him!"
It's an argument I've heard before.
In its most fully developed form, the theory goes so far as to assert
that Buchanan actually cost Bush more electoral votes than Nader did
Gore, even though, nationally, Nader beat Buchanan by a margin of
about 2.78 million to 450,000.
Well, based on Media Log's quickie
analysis, it's just not true. As David Rosenbaum reports
in today's New York Times, Nader voters favored Gore over Bush
by a wide margin. Thus, it can confidently be said that Nader cost
Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire. And in states where
Buchanan would appear to have been a factor, that's only because
Nader was on the ballot as well.
Let's look at Florida, which, as we
all know, Bush won by just 537 votes. Buchanan received 17,356 votes.
Even if you adjust for the infamous butterfly ballots, it's
reasonable to assume that most of those votes would have gone to
Bush. So Buchanan helped Gore, right? Well, yes. But Nader got 96,837
votes. Remove Nader and Buchanan from the ballot, and Gore
would have won Florida handily. Same with New Hampshire. Bush won by
7282 votes, far less than the 22,156 that Nader received, thus
costing Gore the state's three electoral votes. Factor in Buchanan's
2603, and nothing changes.
But what about states that Gore won
by fewer votes than Buchanan received? There were three: Wisconsin,
Iowa, and New Mexico. But the same logic holds. In Wisconsin, Gore
beat Bush by 5396 votes, fewer than the 11,379 that Buchanan
received. But Nader won 93,553 votes. Again, remove both Nader and
Buchanan, and Gore would have won by an even greater margin. In New
Mexico, which Gore won by just 366 votes, Nader beat Buchanan by
21,251 to 1392. In Iowa, which Gore won by 4130 votes, Nader beat
Buchanan by 29,352 to 5731.
The only reasonable conclusion that
can be drawn is that Nader absolutely croaked Gore, whereas Buchanan
had only a mild negative effect on Bush.
A few caveats: I'm oversimplifying.
I did this quickly, and relied on Election
Night numbers from CNN.com.
The final tally was slightly different, although it should not affect
my findings. Also, I'm not counting other third-party candidates. In
particular, Libertarian Party nominee Harry Browne did better than
Buchanan in some states, including New Hampshire. But even if you
assign all of Browne's votes to Bush - no sure thing, given such
Libertarian stands as an end to drug prohibition - Gore still would
have carried New Hampshire had Nader not run. (That said, it's
possible that Browne and Buchanan together carried Gore to victory in
Oregon.)
In Salon, Eric Boehlert
reports
that progressives are deserting Nader in droves. They should. The
Buchanan theorists are just plain wrong. Nader really did cost Gore
the presidency in 2000, and he could do so again.
posted at 9:18 AM |
|
link
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
