As to Joanna's point - I am not denying what you saw, but how representative was your observation? A few hundred activists do not make much of a difference unless they represent a broader trend - but there does not seem to be much evidence of a broader trend.
Alan: I did not argue that all voters were subject to "magic rationality" but a big chunk - enough to sway the election one way or the other. There are considerable number of people who would vote democrat or republican no matter what, but there is also a considerable number that will sway, depending which way the wind is blowing. My argument pertains to the second group. As I said, these people tend to respond by "punishing" the party in power if things do not go well. This I think explains electoral victory of Obama, as well as the outcome of 2010 elections outside the democratic strongholds. As far as I can tell, the non-voting population is a mirror image of the voting population (the old Clower & Piven claim notwithstanding.) On average, mobilizing non-voters will not sway the elections beyond a few local changes one way or the other. The liberal/progressive "silent majority" is a myth which left wing intellectuals believe without being able to prove it.
Wojtek
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 6, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
>
>>
>> ...So from that point of view, I do not see much evidence of the supposed
>>
>> dissatisfaction of liberals who voted for Obama. Some were dissatisfied,
>> to
>> be sure, but I do not think it made enough difference on the national
>> level
>> to sway the election results...
>>
>
> You're looking at it from the wrong point of view (actually two wrong
> points of view--you also adopt the viewpoint of Gilbert's Private Willis
> when you treat the words "liberal" and "conservative" as fixed attributes of
> persons). You are looking at 2010 *voters* when you should be looking at
> nonvoters--the 2008 Obamites who in 2010 "voted with their sitzfleisch" and
> thereby dumped the dumbos.
>
>
> I am reasonably certain that had the economy visibly improved, democrats
>> would have maintained their majorities, Mr. Obama notwithstanding.
>>
>> The fact is that "the economy" (expressed in the stock-market averages
> and bank profits) visibly improved while "the economy" (expressed in
> employment prospects) simply stagnated. If "the economy" was a reason to
> vote for one gang or the other, those for whom "the economy" improved would
> have massively financed and supported the dumbos. The opposite, you will
> see if you look, was the case.
>
>
>
> Shane Mage
>
> "All things are an equal exchange for fire and fire for all things,
> as goods are for gold and gold for goods."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr, 90
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>