[lbo-talk] lbo-talk Digest, Vol 1123, Issue 4

brad bauerly bbauerly at gmail.com
Thu Feb 4 20:09:48 PST 2010



>
>
> You can make all the impressionistic arguments you like but you're
> wrong. E.g.:
>
> http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
>
> share of vote for Obama by size of place
>
> big cities 70%
> small cities 59
> suburbs 50
> small towns 45
> rural areas 45
>
> OK, I was wrong. But I still find it more interesting to look at places
like Vermont and ask what is right about it than to look for what is wrong with places like Kansas.


>
> >Yeah, that's been posted three times now. What about what he wrote a day
> or
> >two before that? It was, if I remember correctly, quite disparaging.
>
>
>
> Your question was why people should listen to someone disparaging
> them. That's not the context for what Michael wrote. He gave a
> descriptive account of what he's observed and it was posted here to
> give info about the lay of the land to people who are interested in change.
>
> That's not disparaging, that's critique. How else should we proceed?
>
Fair enough. I guess I muddled all the posts together into one big attack on the rural. I have also been to a lot of places, not nearly as many as Michael, and have a different lay of the land and a critique of the urban (didn't someone write something about the divide between the country and city once?). My original post was based on this.

The whole discussion kind of misses the point though doesn't it. I mean who really gives a rats ass who votes for the Dems. Is that supposed to be some indicator of heightened socialist leaning potential? Do Democratic voters have a more general disregard for capitalism than Republicans? Or are we kind of falling for the good cop, bad cop routine?

Brad



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list