'The logic of US elections is quite simple: the liberals and progressives cannot carry any national election because there are far too few of them. If the Democrats want to win, they must attract a sufficient share of an essentially conservative population.'
I distrust an argument whose premise is that the people are too stupid to make the right choice.
First off, we don't know what the result will be. The view that the country will vote Bush is fatalistic.
Secondly, Kerry, not the voters, is the problem. He is equivocal. Hating flip-flops is not a weakness on the electorate's part. It is a strength. Being a flip flop is a weakness.
A muscular opposition to Bush is what is called for. That put's a real choice before the voters. As it is, it feels like choosing between someone who knows what he wants, and someone who does not.
Granted a lot of people vote with their gut and not their heart, then you can see why Kerry should be struggling.
The war record thing just stinks. Why crawl to your opponents like that? Kerry just shifted the whole centre ground of the election to the right. Not surprising that he cannot keep the initiative.
Anyway, that's what it looks like from over here.
Reminds me of those arguments about Margaret Thatcher's supposed special appeal to the upwardly mobile proles. It was all a big excuse for the failures of the left to put an inspiring alternative. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20040909/962bf774/attachment.htm>