Max Sawicky wrote:
>4. The Greens don't have many blacks, but I predict that will
>change.
The NYT/CBS poll in today's paper has Nader's black support at 4%,
right in line with the national average. (This is a "likely voter"
poll.) Men are 6% for Ralph, and women at 4%. Given that the gender
gap usually has women favoring the more leftish candidate, this is
exactly the reverse of what it should be. But, the gender gap between
Bush & Gore is surprisingly narrow (don't have the paper here, and
the numbers aren't on their website, otherwise I'd quote numbers). In
'96, women voted 54/38 for Clinton over Dole; now, Gore's advantage
is just a couple of points. Does this mean the Roe v Wade tactic
isn't working?
>8. Nader doesn't use speechwriters, and he should. But he
>did well enough. Needless to say, his appeal is content-driven.
His appeal, especially to young, and Noam Chomsky's status as a youth
cult figure, is a pretty cheering antidote to the claim that the
masses are superficial and dumb. Polls and anecdote show the
electorate massively alienated by the debased level of campaign
discourse coming from the major parties. I don't think the stupidity
of the public culture is bubbling up from below; it's oozing downward
from the cultural and political elite.
>10. There was plenty of emphasis on what next, after the election.
>This is where the action is. Tomorrow, I'm looking up the Green
>Party.
Yup. If Ralph's campaign means anything, it's as the beginning of a
movement, not a race for president. Though if it gives the DLC
nighmares, so much the better.
Doug
