Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and stupid

One thing that really annoys me is when Republican hacks get to write editorials in the supposedly dispassionate Financial Times. This wouldn't annoy me as much if they offered Democratic hacks the same opportunity, but it would still annoy me. Today's hackery comes courtesy of Michael Lind:

The era of Republican presidential hegemony that began with Richard Nixon may not be over.

Consider the performance of the Democratic party in contests for the White House since Nixon ran against Hubert Humphrey in 1968. In that period, Democrats have won only three out of 10 presidential elections – Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

And those victories were in highly unusual circumstances. Mr Carter ran against an unelected, appointed vice-president, Gerald Ford, who had angered many Americans when he pardoned Nixon for his Watergate crimes. In 1992 and again in 1996, a slight majority of Americans voted against Mr Clinton, who nevertheless won only because each time third-party candidate Ross Perot siphoned off Republican presidential voters. If not for Watergate and Perot, the Republicans might have enjoyed an uninterrupted string of presidential victories since the late 1960s. [emphasis mine]

Consider the statement in bold. It is wrong. Here is a link that details exactly why it is wrong (you'll have to scroll down). Here are some excerpts from that link:

DIONNE (11/8/92): Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush "margin" without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire...

DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush...

ASSOCIATED PRESS (11/4/92): Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.

Well, there you go. Perot didn't cost Bush the election, he only cost Clinton the clear majority he would have otherwise received.

Add to that the fact that a Democrat won the popular vote in 2000, and you have Dems winning 4 out of 10 since 1968. Not a great record, but light-years away from the shut-out that Lind makes it out to be.

The rest of Lind's column is about how Democrats need to woo white working-class voters back to the party fold in order to secure a lasting majority. That, in my view, is quite correct. But he Dems are a lot closer to doing that than Lind would have us believe.

Do not listen to Republican hacks. And Financial Times, please do not publish their editorials, especially if they contain as much flim-flammery, piffle, and poppycock as this one.