Laying Bets: W Will Win

kelley kwalker2 at
Tue Aug 15 10:13:30 PDT 2000

At 11:42 AM 8/15/00 -0500, Steve Perry wrote:
>doug: and where do they differ appreciably
>in their proposed programs of capital

well, i won't likely vote, not sure. i used to always because i disagree with chuck that it's better to say nothing, particularly if you might tend to lodge a dem vote. i mean, for pity's sake, whether we like it or not, MOST people will perceive a difference. they may say, rationally, that they know that there is no difference. however, i think that in people's guts they think there's a difference, or should be. you align yourself with dems or repubs if you're suzy winecooler because you have been brought up to believe that the dems stand for something, typically. it isn't simply that you vote each and every time because you have a real choice be/t candidates necessarily.

we know that the republican party almost always invariable works blatantly in the service of the wealthy, that people who identify with the repubs do so, often, because they want to be seen as "that kind of person" and because they sometimes denounce what they think dems are for. in popular wisdom, dems stand for catering to special "cultural" interests--wimminz, fags, ethnics, union fat cats, etc </mocking parody>.

anyway, it seems to me that those kinds of distinctions still motivate people in their identifications with a party. perhaps i'm wrong. i mean, why else has gush been running about ranting on about "compassion" if he's not trying to reverse that sentiment that the repukes are cold hearted bastards who toss babies out of incubators and make people pick themselves up by their own dental floss bootstraps even when their plight is clearly not their fault. (heh. couldn't resist!)

that sense that such a tack was necessary came from, i guess, poll watching and focus group tracking, from people registering that they might be a little fed up with the fact that the repuke's policies didn't actually work terribly well and they did more harm than good. etc. i don't know.

but i do think that even if WE think that there are no sig differences, it does matter what the people who vote think and the vote tally is one way of measuring that. not a perfect indicator, of course, but a way of getting a sense of how people are feeling about a decision that those who vote think is important.

somehow or other, i think that matters, for us, for the long term. if they turn out in numbers for shits like buchanan or nadar or whomever. that matters. if they don't, that matters. if the vote is really close, that matters.

bleating about how similar they are seems to me to be s.o.s.d.d what the heck is new?

i don't especially feel that anything that hinges on who gets elected. but i'm not Jack Scotchenwater. Jack Scothenwater thinks it matters what party he votes for even if the real live actual candidates are shits or not. he has a sense that there is a party and its supposed to stand for something.

scattered thoughts


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list