STALEMATE!

Let's face it: This was a fine campaign, and it is having a terrific
ending. Stalemate at four A.M.!

Early on ("major league, big-time") I called Governor Bush an amateur,
but he proved me wrong. Within the limits of his range, he ran a
professional show, right through to the finish. But then, so did Al
Gore. The Democrat ran as a Democrat, especially on Social Security
and Medicare. Gore picked strong issues, hit them hard, stayed on
message, fought every day. He never looked inept (Mondale '84),
foolish (Dukakis '88), nor did he face the smallest personal scandal
(Clinton '92). His political operation was first-rate.

So what happened? Given the economy, many said, Gore should have won
in a walk. That's nonsense. And Gore wasn't done in by his character
or his debate performance either. This campaign was governed from the
beginning by the open secret of our politics: the ebb and flow of
splinter parties. And of these, in my view, the one that mattered most
was not Nader and the Greens. It was the man almost no one ever
mentioned: Pat Buchanan, and the disappearance of Ross Perot's Reform
Party.

Ross Perot basically gave us Bill Clinton in 1992. In 1996, true, the
Reform Party gained only 8 percent of the vote. But if you return that
8 percent to the big parties-splitting 80 percent for the Republicans
as it apparently did-then you understand why this vote was so tight.
Subtract another three points from Gore to give to Nader, and you not
only get very close to the outcome, you also get very, very close to
the state-by-state vote split.

To be very precise: A simple spread-sheet model based on this theory
predicts every state called as of two A.M., except for West Virginia,
New Hampshire, Arkansas and Louisiana (the last two, a neighborhood
effect). It gives Wisconsin and Oregon to Bush, because of Nader. But
in the end, with Iowa going to Gore, Florida became the story. In
other words, both Gore and Bush knew exactly what they were doing. My
little model gave Florida to Bush. In Florida, too, Nader mattered.
Without him, Al Gore would be President-elect of the United States as
of now. I regret that-and I bet that Nader's voters will come to
regret it, too, if they don't find another 1200 Gore votes. But the
death of Reform mattered more. If Reform had survived, this election
wouldn't have been close.

And so, Pat Buchanan's failure to run a serious campaign raises a
question in my mind. Was that really accidental? I'd like to check
Buchanan's spending reports and find out where he spent all that
money. And let's just see whether we don't have a Bush-Buchanan
make-up session sometime early next year.

As for the Greens-they did not get their 5 percent. They won't get it
next time, either. To my friends in that movement: Quit trying. Apart
from the environment-where Gore's record, dammit, is pretty
good-Nader's voters were motivated above all by the death penalty and
the drug war. These are vital issues-on which the national Democratic
position isn't good. Nader made his point on them.

So what's the solution?

Answer: Form a Green caucus inside the Democratic Party. Hate the
Greens though they may-and with some reason-the national Democrats
need the Greens from now on. The Democrats do work with their
caucuses when they have to. They protect the interests of
minorities, women, and seniors. This is the reason why we still have
a Democratic Party, why we still have affirmative action, why we
still have freedom of choice, why we still have Social Security-for
the time being. Let's build and rebuild that party. Let's not,
please, keep losing elections to the privatizers, executioners, and
the imprisonment lobby.

As for the great stalemate, it did have one clean result. As of
tonight, I am no longer Chairman-designate of the Federal Reserve
Board (Nader Administration). It's been a heavy burden; I am relieved
to lay it down. I'd rather not preside over the coming slowdown.