Dems

Tom Lehman uswa12 at lorainccc.edu
Tue May 4 08:51:31 PDT 1999


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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list