Replies

made the assumption that it was important to everyone else. It wasn't.

Frederich, On the above point, you and I actually agree.

However, whatever would happen to the Homestead Airforce Base was VERY IMPORTANT to the people in FLORIDA, especially those who lived nearby that land -- and, to those who live near or care about the Everglades.

The whole country was not losing sleep over it. But, here in FL, during many protracted and angry legal battles, plenty of FL voters DID lose sleep over it.
It was in a sense a LOCAL issue -- but, it involved FEDERAL land.

So, true, not everyone cared -- however, for you to brush it off, as Al Gore did, to his detriment, would make you appear just as foolish as him. As it turned out, he lost the White House over this issue. :)!

summer,in order for your thesis to be true, you would have to show that there was a massive shift of environmental votes from Al Gore to Ralph Nader, or alternatively, that huge numbers of Gore voters stayed at home.

Let's look at the numbers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/2000/results/whitehouse/

In Florida, Ralph Nader actually did poorer than he did nationwide. Nationally, Nader garnered 2.68% of the vote, while in Florida, Nader earned only about half that many, 1.63%.

That hardly looks like a massive shift of environmental votes from Gore to Nader.

How about the second question, did Florida environmental voters stay home on election day?

Again, the answer is no. Voter turnout in Florida in 2000 was 70%, higher even than 67% recorded in the 1996 election (see http://election.dos.state.fl.us/online/voterpercent.shtml).

Furthermore, in 2000, 400 thousand more votes were cast for Al Gore than were cast for Bill Clinton's during his "Landslide" four years ealier (2,912,253 vs. 2,546,870).

Nope, environmentally minded voters did not stay home on election day 2000, and they did not cast their votes for Ralph Nader. The Everglades airport is a non-issue.