Michael Moore's wee voters
We only lost by three and a half million!

-- Michael Moore

There we go again.

The word "we" has an ugly habit of sneaking its way into political discussions, with an almost hypnotic tendency to induce people of good will (or people who don't enjoy debating) to imagine themselves in the same ideological group as whoever is using the "we" to claim that those in agreement with them have a right to dominate the larger group. In Moore's case, he's talking about some 55 million people. But in this piece, he repeatedly uses the "we" word to refer to himself and "young people" as a sort of combined Michael Moore "slacker" phenomenon:

From the beginning, I believed that young adults and "slackers" would rise up in this election. As we began our slacker tour in Syracuse's football stadium on September 20, we could tell that this election would be like no other. It was no longer uncool to talk politics like it was five or ten years ago. Now, you were considered a loser if you didn't know what was going on in the world.

After speaking to the 10,000 gathered in Syracuse, we went on to hold rallies in 63 cities, mostly on campuses. Every night the events were packed, with anywhere from 5,000 to 15,000 people showing up. We registered thousands to vote and got tens of thousands more to sign up to volunteer with Move On, ACT, the College Dems and other groups like Vote Mob and the League of Pissed Off Voters. We reached perhaps a half-million people in person and millions more on local TV and radio in those 63 cities (all but three of them in swing states).

Moore's slackers are now "we" and "we" have cause to rejoice. Because, Moore claims, there was a "landslide" (54%-46%, according to the Boston Globe), and "we" led it.

Let's see, the young people (the "slackers") were 17% of the total vote.

54% of 17% is just over 9%.

That's "we"?

What I'd like to know is how many of the 54% of the 17% are really Moore's slackers? Does he really speak for them? For the sake of argument, let's assume he speaks for a large number of them. Does this make Moore's "we" ones the "base" of the Democratic Party? Some would argue that it does.

But who benefits from having Michael Moore's "we" slackers as the base of the Democratic Party? The Democrats? Here's Mark Steyn:

The Michael Mooronification of the Democratic Party proved a fatal error. Moore is the chief promoter of what's now the received opinion of Bush among the condescending Left -- Chimpy Bushitler the World's Dumbest Fascist. There are some takers for this view, but not enough. By running a campaign fuelled by Moore's caricature of Bush, the Democrats were doomed to defeat.
Moore can yell about "his" millions all he wants, and while I think he inflates his own view of his power, there's no denying that the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party has become a powerful force in American politics. A mean-spirited, ugly, divisive force, but a force nonetheless.

Yet there's a serious problem with any static analysis.

Looking at Moore's voters as a bloc, one might be able to come up with a serious estimate of hard numbers (i.e. exactly how many voters did Michael Moore directly cause to go to the polls and vote?) But such a static analysis does NOT answer a more vexing question for the Democratic Party: exactly how many voters did Michael Moore directly cause to go to the polls and vote for the other side?

To answer that, you'd have to ask people who voted for Bush.

(I might start by asking the 46% of the young voters for Bush what they think.)

ADDITIONAL QUESTION: Is 54% to 46% a landslide?

I'm not sure what definition Moore is using, but this one seems reasonable to me:

landslide - an overwhelming victory in an election. Of recent U.S. presidential elections, those in 1980, 1984, and 1988 can be considered landslides, because the Democratic candidates carried only a few states in each case, and were thus "buried" under a landslide.
Examples of landslides in the recent election would be McCain over Starky or Obama over Keyes.

UPDATE: Via Glenn Reynolds, here's London's Daily Telegraph, with a different take than Moore:

....if John Kerry's strategists feel like slitting anyone's throat right now, it is Mr Moore's.

This was supposed to be the victory that the podgy sage of Flint, Michigan, delivered for the Democrats by winding up students into paroxysms of anti-Bush rage and propelling them into the polling booths. In the event, he achieved the first but not the second objective. The proportion of young voters did not increase on Tuesday. In the gleeful words of one anti-Moore website, "pot-smoking slackers are still pot-smoking slackers": they meant to vote Kerry but, like, couldn't get out of bed in time.

But isn't it possible they might have helped others, by negative example?

MORE: As I just said in a comment to this excellent post,

There must be a mathematical formula of diminishing returns in there somewhere. The more extreme the extremes, the more the extremes repel the non-extremes. They drive away more people than their numbers bring in. Thus, Michael Moore can draw a crowd -- and simultaneously drive twice as many voters into the opposite camp.
Wish I knew something about statistics and math!

posted by Eric on 11.08.04 at 09:18 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1696






Comments

I thought Moore supported Nader. Anyway, guys, when are you going to talk about values. Isn't this the "Classical Values" blog? It sounds more like the, "Debunking the Sore Losers' Face-Saving Rants" blog these days.

bink   ·  November 8, 2004 12:04 PM

After speaking to the 10,000 gathered in Syracuse, we went on to hold rallies in 63 cities

Any idea of what he was paid for speaking?

The speech at George Mason Univ was going to be $35,000. At Cal State San Marcos going to be around $25,000; Penn State going to be $15,000; UN-Reno going to be $33,000; Univ of Arizona going to be $25,000.

conelrad   ·  November 8, 2004 12:47 PM

Bink, I thought I'd had TOO MANY posts on values recently. If Moore caused as many people to vote for Bush as I suspect, he's a Republican dream -- and a nightmare for Democrats. Moore as a sore loser? My point is that he shouldn't even be in such a position.

Eric Scheie   ·  November 8, 2004 02:01 PM

Moore is the ueber sore loser. It is his raison d'etre. Give him a winning battle and he'll turn his back on it. :) I actually didn't see that Seven-Eleven film of his, or whatever. I find him to be clownish and a bit repellent. Sad that he became the "face of the left" for Middle Americans. Who gave him that position?

bink   ·  November 8, 2004 03:39 PM

Dear Eric:

You said it. Moore (a.k.a., Lord Pork Pork, as Dean Esmay calls him) is a dream come true for the Republicans. Believing his own logic, you would think he was working for Karl Rove.

I just hope he doesn't get involved in the struggle for same-sex marriage, or at least not on our side. If he does, we'll probably get not only a Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment but a Federal Anti-"Sodomy" Amendment, and they'll re-open Devil's Island!

Fortunately, given his Marxist premises, he probably thinks the whole issue is just a distraction from the "real" issue, i.e., economic equality.

Wrong. And you CANNOT write too many posts about values.



December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits