>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gordon Fitch" <gcf at panix.com>
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>
>
>>Reich's analysis seems incorrect to me. The application of
>>more sophisticated technology should enable one to do more
>>with less. If the aim were to get voters excited about the
>>election and the candidates, advanced marketing techniques
>>could be expected to use fairly modest resources to create
>>passionate responses, leading to an unstable electorate and
>>the likelihood of landslides and upsets.
>
>That's assuming that marketing really creates desire and is such a good tool
>for manipulation. What marketing in its modern form most allows is finding
>the marginal consumers/voters who are least passionate about their
>preferences and subtly move them to an alternative.
Well, as the old public opinion saying goes, we can't tell people what to think, but we can tell them what to think about. So the public doesn't really care about either major candidate - are there really any passionate Bush or Gore supporters? - but the whole process does serve to set the bounds of acceptable discourse. The NYT edit the other day chided Nader for spoiling the pure up-or-down choice between Bush and Gore; he threatens to spoil the show.l
Doug