Dems

[Tom Lehman]

In a way it's sort of funny to look back at 1972 and draw conclusions based on
different geo-political perspectives.  The only really national overview or
common shared experience is as seen on TV.  And if you remember the 1972
Democrat convention was a pretty botched affair from a TV reality---although an
improvement over the 1968 convention.

Personally, I've never been a convetioneer.  Some people live and die for
conventions,  you know get out of town for a few days, get away from the old
lady or the old man or the kids, drink, raise hell and maybe get lucky.  This
is generally what conventions are all about for 90% of the people in
attendence.  The other 10% of the people are the pros or those that think they
are pros and they have either got to be there or be square.

Somehow I just don't see myself getting on Gore's Chattanooga Choo Choo,
although I might be tempted.

Your email pal,

Tom L.

Doug Henwood wrote:


> Brad De Long wrote:
>
> >They are the same question: the second is a consequence of the first. If
> >McGovern or McGovernite candidates had won national elections, there would
> >have been no significant desire to make sure that they didn't win
> >primaries...
>
> A principled party would take a loss in the short term in the hope of
> building a majority over the long term. But the Dems aren't a principled
> party.
>
> Doug