You're ovedoing it here. Clearly the Greens have been very poorly organized so far. But a low turnout does not mean they are dead. Indeed, I do think that playing the spoiler (which may not be the case, given the latest numbers I am hearing out of FLA), has given them a lot of attention. Granted, a lot of it has been negative. But, I know that the students in Amnesty International here are almost all pro-Nader, pro-Green. The party has legs. Where it will walk on them is another matter. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Brad DeLong <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 3:52 PM Subject: Re: election demographics
>>From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
>>
>>> Brad gave up on winning a long time ago. "That's the way it is," He
just
>>> wants to slow down the rate of losing. To think of winning is "mad."
>>Right,
>>> Brad? --jks
>>
>>What you don't understand is that things such as voter realignment and
>>movement building are *exogenous variables*, and good economists don't do
>>*exogenous variables*. The best you can expect of them is to support the
>>lesser evil within the immutable iron cage.
>>
>>mark
>>
>
>3% of the vote on your second campaign is not "building a movement."
>It's "being a spoiler."
>
>A movement should have 25% of the vote on its second campaign to be
>healthy. If it has less than 10%, it's dead...
>
>Brad DeLong
>