04/21/2002 Archived Entry: "How I predicted in 2000; How I voted: 1980-2000; a bit on 2004"

There is no such myth as an "unbiased" reporter, and the same with nonpartisan, objective, neutral, and the rest of those descriptive terms that deny value-laden speech. I am anti-Bush, I hope to hell that he loses in 2004. In fact, I am assured he will, but that didn't stop me from forecasting that he'd win in 2000, and predicting his taking of the Presidency. I predicted he'd get the most votes, but lose the EV to Gore. And that then, the rightwing would go hysteria on the nation, successfully "electing" Bush via either EV switches or in a Republican Congress. Cynically speaking, I was narrowly wrong about the things that didn't matter (EV's & votes), but right about the thing that did matter (Bush taking the power of the Presidency).

Covering the 2000 Presidential race, I got NH, NM, and TN wrong in choosing which states would go to whom. NH and NM were excusable. TN was something I, like Gore, did not give enough attention toward. I should have known better, seeing Bush campaigning there during the Democratic Convention and Gore hastily add campaign events there near the end of the campaign. Rove & Bush going after TN was a gutsy move, akin to Gore's going after Florida. I thought both candidates were pretty lacking (too much in the bubble), but that the campaign strategy on both sides was impressive.

I predicted that the Republicans would hold onto control of the House by 3 seats. And I forecasted that the Senate would be 50-50, correctly predicting the winner in every race. I also thought then, and still do, that whichever party won the Presidential election, would, in the long run, be the loser-- getting stuck with holding the bag (the deficit) after the Clinton boom.

I supported McCain in 2000, giving contributions of $100 after each night of his primary wins. I thought he was pretty wishy-washy as far as the social issues went, which was all-right with me. It was with the fiscal issues that I thought he meant well. That "fix the roof while it's sunny" stuff. Anyway, the ballot in 2000 offered me the worst choices ever, I wound up having a blank ballot until 7 PM on election night. Then, after Gore was announced the winner in PA and MI, turned mine in for him, thinking he might need OR alot more then either Nader or Hagelin would, to beat Bush. I tried not to remember that Gore had picked Lieberman for VP, especially when he had Kerry or Edwards to choose from.

I had also lost much of the respect I previously had for Nader. He'd become a bit too egotistically unconventional and unpragmatic, to get my vote again. He'd drove me out of the Green party in September of 2000, with another one of those asinine Gore is not different than Bush remarks. I changed back to Independent, after being a Green for 10 years. I did proudly vote for Nader/LaDuke in '96, even worked on the campaign in Portland, while donating cash to a box a few times. That was the season for Nader to push for 5 percent.

It's kinda bizare (reflecting on my dislike for Gore in 2000), because I, like a lot of folks, decided to vote for Clinton in '92, once he choose Gore as his VP. Gore seemed like an environmentalist then. Even with Nader in the 2000 race, covering up Clinton's blowjob seemed a more important strategy to Gore than was focusing the race on environmental issues. Now, he says he is, that's the way he can beat Bush. 1992 was the only Presidential election I'd ever voted for a winner, enjoying the night of victory in Florida, of all places.

The 2000 choices reminded me alot of 1988, except that the Libertarian candidate this time had a commercial with eggs frying in it. I couldn't stomach the idea of voting for Browne in 2000, nor Dukakis in 1998 for that matter. So I voted for the Republican in 1988. Ha ha, just kidding, he was a Libertarian back then, Ron Paul. Now, he's just another wingnut under DeLay, but back then he had enough of an independent mind to answer my environmental questions with an informed pragmatism. That is something Libertarians usually lack entirely, but Paul has it. The proof is that he figured he'd more likely become a fixture in DC if he'd become a Republican instead of an Independent, a few years ago.

I don't regret any of the votes I've made. I do regret not voting in 1984. I also regret not tagging along with my friends to the Republican convention in New Orleans, it was a heck of a party I heard. I guess I should be thankful, as I might have wound up voting for Reagan, but I doubt it. In 1980, I supported Anderson, but again, did not vote, mainly because I was to young at the time. Even back then, my third party leanings were in full swing.

I probably had a good 3rd Party choice in 1984, and didn't realize it at the time. I certainly did not in 2000. I can sympathize with Ventura, who voted for Hagelin, but I think those TM guys are all a little brainwashed. Ventura was right, he could have whooped Bush & Gore-- there's a nice parallel universe going on somewhere.

2004 has a lot of potential. I'm an early supporter for Howard Dean. I think the Libertarians will have a decent candidate, maybe Clint Eastwood, or Carla Howell. The Greens could get Cornell West, or Jello Briafa. Those two tickets would get some votes. The Reform party has pretty much imploded now, with half likely to follow Ventura's lead into the Independence Party, and the other half to either wilt away, or join the other wingnuts that have bee-hived around the Constitution Party.

As for Bush vs Gore redux. It looks likely now, but probably less so as the election nears. There are alot of historical indicators to choose from. Hayes-Tilden? Gore could, ala Nixon, choose to not run this time. Bush could pull up short, with a Truman-like fade that forces him into early pasture. Should we look toward Jackson, or Bryan, for Gore's historical precedence. Is Adams II, or McKinley, the indicator of Bush? I'm not sure, but I do have a strong intuition that Bush will not be our next President.

In 2000, I forecasted elections with excellent results, irregardless that I've never voted for a Republican in my entire life. I believe that if one is honest with their values, upfront, that an honest evaluation has a higher potential of being forecasted.

Replies: 1 Comment

Good article, Mydd-glad to see that you're an active voter, at least. As for myself, I happen to be a yellow dog Democrat, except for 1980, when I WOULD HAVE voted for Anderson. Of course, being 13 I can't vote yet, but I would have voted Democratic every other time going down to 1912. In 1924 I would have supported LaFollette, and in 1904 I would have supported Roosevelt. To be honest, I probably would vote Democratic going back to Grover Cleveland, Winfield Scott Hancock and Horation Seymour.

Posted by Mr. Liberal @ 04/21/2002 04:23 PM PST