[WS:] It is a good strategy not because it is getting wide popular support, but because it intimidates moderates, who are a majority. If a weaker party wants to win concessions from a stronger party, playing by rational rules will not get it anywhere, because the stronger party will prevail.. But if the weaker party intimidates the stronger party by showing that it is nuts and will go ballistic even if it is going to loose, thus inflicting significant damage on the stronger party, they chances are that the stronger party will try to avoid confrontation.
The so-called TP plays that game very skillfully. I wish that the left segments of the DP did the same.
Wojtek
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Sean Andrews <cultstud76 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:32, Eric Beck <ersatzdog at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mitt Romney opposed Perry's positions and pointed out that Perry's in-state tuition for illegal aliens law was forcing Texans to pay approximately $100,000 in tax monies to support each of the current 16,000 illegal immigrants in Texas colleges.
>>
>> Which is .002% of the state's annual budget.
>>
>> I'm happy for Perry's campaign to come off the rails, but this is
>> entirely the wrong way.
>
> Agreed.
>
> On the other hand, this was one of the few things that made him seem
> halfway reasonable. That this doesn't pass the TP test (i.e. a
> perfectly clean asshole)...
>
> ...well, wait, I was going to say it should show middle of the road
> voters just how insanely retrograde the TP is. But then I realized
> people should know that by now and yet they still keep winning. Turns
> out many of my compatriots like icky, retrograde xenophobia. So it's
> icky, but it may actually be a pretty good strategy.
>
> Sorry to equivocate while everyone's looking. US politics made me do it.
>
> s
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>