Michael Perelman wrote:
Also, I have never heard of any competitive contest where you aim to just get over
the hump. Sounds like a stupid strategy.
The alternative strategy would be to arouse public passion (and
participation!). It has long been my own theory that the DP leadership
would
Well I think that Plato argued it a bit earlier..in The Republic..
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] No Bounce for Kerry
Michael Perelman wrote:
Also, I have
ken hanly wrote:
Well I think that Plato argued it a bit earlier..in The Republic..
:-) Yup. My post was a bit ambiguous -- pronoun reference not clear. I
was thinking primarily of the DP rather than the general principle re a
great Beast. Whether the DP leadership reads Plato or not I do not
So why did Bush, not Kerry, get the bounce?
Tue Aug 3, 7:09 AM ET
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
There was a bounce after last week's Democratic National Convention.
But it went to President Bush, not John Kerry.
Pollsters and strategists are puzzling over Kerry's failure to get a
boost from
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So why did Bush, not Kerry, get the bounce?
Tue Aug 3, 7:09 AM ET
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
There was a bounce after last week's Democratic National Convention.
But it went to President Bush, not John Kerry.
Kerry should lose Licorice the hamster.
Carl
Kerry should lose Licorice the hamster.
Carl
G.O.P. QUESTIONS KERRY'S HAMSTER HEROISM [by Andy Borowitz]
Rodent Story 'Doesn't Add Up,' Mass Email Claims
A mass email from the Republican National Committee is questioning whether or not
Democratic nominee John Kerry actually saved his
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/03/04 12:28 AM
I was struck by the same thing as Michael H. I doubt that they will
reciprocate for
the Dems.
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:24:33AM -0400, Michael Hoover wrote:
related point: tv media abandoned past convention coverage in giving
reps so many opportunities
The strategy guarentees that Kerry will have no coattails.
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:32:47PM -0400, Michael Hoover wrote:
re. dem/kerry strategy, elections are mechanisms of social control,
narrow kerry win
will actually be narrow bush loss, kerry's people think this can happen
with
If there's a great untapped reservoir of leftish populism in the
American masses, why did Kucinich do so badly in the primaries, and
why is Nader now down around 2%?
Doug
Kucinich had no money supporting him; Kerry has an organize (well, well-funded)
party. Gore's support picked up when he did populism, so would Kerry's. All he had
to do was to take Edwards' 2-America's riff a bit further.
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:52:16PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
If
Doug Henwood wrote:
If there's a great untapped reservoir of leftish populism in the
American masses, why did Kucinich do so badly in the primaries...
it may not be populism, but leftist sentiment might be present. its a
media affair involving millions of dollars of course: kucinich was
for the lack of Kerry bounce is that so many
pro-Bush people are hard-core and would never shift. Also,
Krugman's column in today's NY TIMES suggests that the media
did Kerry in.
(BTW, when will PK get back to Ec?)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu
I worked for Kucinich in the Iowa caucuses. Lots of folks that supported
Kerry were way more progressive than Kerry. In particular, they were
against the war. What moved them was the electability issue. They wanted
to back a winner.
I don't claim that this completely answers your question (nor
Devine, James wrote:
Also, Nader is likely falling because of the view that any vote for
Nader is a vote for Bush.
My understanding is that plans are afoot to arrest him and put him on
trial at the Hague for crimes against humanity.
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
no, they're going to put him in the free speech zone in Boston, now that it's no
longer in use.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
I wrote:
Also, Nader is likely falling because of the view that any vote for
Nader is a vote for Bush.
Michael Perelman wrote:
Kucinich had no money supporting him
C'mon - he was in the debates, he was on the road a lot. He should
have done better than, what?, 2% of the primary vote.
Doug
Robert Naiman wrote:
What moved them was the electability issue. They wanted
to back a winner.
This is the popular attitude that disturbs me most, for more than any
other attitude it represents despair at the possibility of people
affecting national policy.
Carrol
Devine, James wrote:
BTW, one reason for the lack of Kerry bounce is that so many
pro-Bush people are hard-core and would never shift. Also,
Krugman's column in today's NY TIMES suggests that the media
did Kerry in.
Cruising the dial after the speech it seemed that all the pundits
pronounced
Carrol Cox wrote:
This is the popular attitude that disturbs me most, for more than any
other attitude it represents despair at the possibility of people
affecting national policy.
The other interesting thing going on is the trivialization of the
campaign, with major statements being made about
-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug
Henwood
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 1:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] No Bounce for Kerry
Devine, James wrote:
BTW, one reason for the lack of Kerry bounce is that so many
pro-Bush people
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/03/04 3:52 PM
If there's a great untapped reservoir of leftish populism in the
American masses, why did Kucinich do so badly in the primaries, and
why is Nader now down around 2%?
Doug
uhhh, who said anything about 'untapped reservoir of leftish populism'
(whatever that
When has a person in the debates been called a vanity candidate before. The singing
schtick was stupid, though.
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 04:32:11PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
Michael Perelman wrote:
Kucinich had no money supporting him
C'mon - he was in the debates, he was on the road a lot.
Devine, James wrote:
alas I missed his speech. I had to work last night.
(I like to watch the candidates' convention speeches
for the same reason I saw Terminator I and II, i.e., to
keep up with popular culture.)
That seems a better motive than most have. :-)
Maillists tend to tell you
I wrote:
alas I missed his speech. I had to work last night.
obviously, I meant that night, i.e., last Thursday night.
More coffee is needed.
I remember Bill C's DP convention speech well. He
clearly came off as intelligent, as opposed to W (in 2000),
who came off as dumb. Both were wrong,
If there's a great untapped reservoir of leftish populism in the
American masses, why did Kucinich do so badly in the primaries,
1. Kucinich is nice, poor, and white.
2. Kucinich is short: 5 feet 7 inches.
3. 93% of Americans are still unsure about how to pronounce his last name.
and why is
No Bounce for Kerry:
http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/08/no-bounce-for-kerry.html.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/02/04 6:22 PM
No Bounce for Kerry:
bounce thing is extremely overrated, has had little relation to
electoral winner, if memory serves, with exception of clinton in 92,
candidates with biggest bounces have lost (and carter almost lost), most
have been dems...
in any event
I was struck by the same thing as Michael H. I doubt that they will reciprocate for
the Dems.
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:24:33AM -0400, Michael Hoover wrote:
related point: tv media abandoned past convention coverage in giving
reps so many opportunities to sprinkle on dem parade...michael
28 matches
Mail list logo
