NADER, VOTER VOLATILITY AND THE ARAB AMERICAN VOTE

Washington Watch

March 20, 2000

Dr. James J. Zogby ©

President

Arab American Institute

After spending a combined total of $250 million in the U.S. primary elections, the results are now in. Republicans and Democrats have chosen their nominees to run for the Presidency. The story, however, is far from over, since there are strong signs of voter uneasiness lurking under the surface of American politics.

This is not a new phenomenon. It is the same reason that one-half of voters have not voted in recent presidential elections. It is the reason that billionaire Ross Perot, running as an Independent in 1996, garnered almost 20 percent of the total vote. It is the same phenomenon that accounts for a professional wrestler, Jesse Ventura, beating the major party candidates for the governorship of Minnesota. And it is this same alienation and uneasiness that helped maverick Senator John McCain win so many votes and media attention in this year’s Republican primary elections.

Now that two legendary names in U.S. politics (Bush and Gore) have won the Republican and Democratic nominations for 2000, many voters are still expressing dissatisfaction with the system of politics and with the candidates who won with this system.

Consider the following:

· A recent poll in Time magazine showed that 33 percent of all registered voters are dissatisfied with the two major party nominees;

· When Newsweek asked voters their preference for President and inserted the name of the defeated Republican candidate, John McCain, as one of the choices—the results were Bush 35 percent, McCain 32 percent and Al Gore 28 percent!

McCain won the support of almost 30 percent of all Republican and Democratic votes and over 40 percent of all independents;

· Another, soon to be released poll that factors Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, and Ross Perot into the contest, shows that more than one-fourth of all voters would give strong consideration to voting for each of the two, if given the chance.

In a real sense, the 2000 election, while still eight months away, is still in a highly volatile state.

When the Republican and Democratic candidates are placed head to head, some early polls show Democrat Al Gore ahead by a few points, others show Republican Governor George W. Bush slightly ahead. In reality, however, the 2000 contest will feature at least four serious candidates: Bush, Gore, a Reform Party candidate and the Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader. In such a four-person contest, the picture becomes quite cloudy.

For almost a generation, Nader, a proud Arab American, has been the U.S.’s leading advocate for consumer protection, auto safety, healthcare reform and environmental safeguards. He is a virtual legend, with a substantial and devoted following.

Nader ran for President in 1996 as the Green Party candidate. He was a reluctant candidate. He agreed only to place his name on the ballot in order to give the party a standard bearer. He pledged not to campaign or to raise or spend any money on behalf of his candidacy. Nevertheless, in the handful of states where the Green Party was on the ballot, Nader’s name alone attracted 700,000 voters. In California, he drew almost 2.5 percent of the vote. This year in Californian’s open primary, despite the fact that Nader’s name was not even on the ballot, over 100,000 voters wrote in his name—a testimony to his strong grass roots support.

Nader has pledged to run a fall campaign. He is now actively raising money, speaking at campaign rallies across the United States and planning the strategy to hire staff and organize a national grass roots campaign.

The Green Party has, in a number of western states become a viable political force. By polling 15 percent of the total vote in some congressional elections in 1998, with lesser-known names on the ballot, the Greens have altered the outcome of a number of congressional races.

This year, Nader’s Green Party and the Reform Party candidate (which may be conservative TV commentator Pat Buchanan or party founder Perot himself) will make a major issue of the negative impact that many voters feel free trade has had on their local economies. The exporting of U.S. jobs overseas and the lowering of worldwide environmental standards and workers’ rights has become a major concern –though it has not yet found a champion in electoral politics. A recent poll, for example, showed that 60 percent felt that free trade had hurt their communities. It is this mood that the Greens and the Reform Party will seek to exploit.

Given this volatility of the electorate and the fact that two well-funded and well organized alternatives will be competing against the Republican and Democratic nominees in November, it is reasonable to expect some surprises as the 2000 election unfolds.

Firstly, it will be fascinating to see how Bush and Gore respond, both to this situation, and to their own perceived weaknesses, with their choices for vice presidential running mates. If Bush can convince former General Colin Powell to join his campaign or if he can make peace with John McCain—two very unlikely scenarios—such a combination could excite voter interest and help compensate for what some feel are Bush’s shortcomings.

Similarly, if the Democratic nominee Al Gore can buttress his candidacy with, as one political commentator suggested, a seasoned statesman of integrity like former Senator George Mitchell, this would offer considerable help to Gore’s effort.

But even with the addition of dramatic choices as vice-presidential candidates, there will still be the reality that there will be two other parties on the ballot that can take as few as 15 percent or as much as 25 percent of the total vote away from the Republican and Democratic candidates.

Since winning the Presidency is a state by state contest, where the candidates must win enough individual states to garner one-half of the total electoral votes (which are apportioned to each state based on their population), it is important to observe just how competitive two additional candidates can make the overall race.

In 1992, Ross Perot ran against the Democratic and Republican nominee. That year, Perot won 19 percent of the overall vote. In 1996, he won eight percent. Many observers feel that while Perot won no state electoral votes in either contest, his presence in the race in 1992, hurt President George Bush’s reelection effort. In at least 10 states, Clinton won by less than 5 percent of the vote—Perot’s voters may have been decisive.

Averaging the results from the last two elections shows that the outcomes in four states were decided by less than five percent of the vote—accounting for 175 electoral votes—almost one-third of the total.

It is almost certain that neither the Green Party or Reform Party can win in 2000. (Although if Senator John McCain runs, as some polls are showing, he would be a very competitive candidate.) But it is equally certain that their presence on the ballot, given the continuing problem of voter alienation can influence the outcome—depending on whether they draw their voters from the Republican or the Democratic candidates.

What all of this means is that the 2000 presidential election, unless shaken up by some dramatic and unexpected events, may very well be extraordinarily close and highly volatile. In this environment a switch of one or two percent of the votes in an individual state may be critical. Small organized groups, like Arab Americans, are taking note of this fact and are assessing how best to maximize their efforts. In Michigan, where Arab Americans can count for as much as four percent of the vote or in other key states where Arab Americans can be two percent—their role, though small will be important this year.

In 2000, every vote and every group will count.

For comments or information, contact jzogby@arab-aai.org> or <aai@aaiusa.org>