[Marxism] The election, region, ideology, etc.

[David Walters <dwalters@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Lou Paulsen, i think. His observation is spot-on. It's
sort of amazing 50+ Americans did what they did, but they did. Even
where I work in "liberal" San Francisco, my blue-collar fellow workers
were pretty split down the middle. It's clear the economy, such as it
was an issue, was *not* an issue that Republican propaganda about Kerry
as a "leader" was slowly winning them over. I'd even bet that had the
campaign lasted another month, more working class people would of voted
for Bush.

Take a look at W. Va. a state with a higher unemployment rate and
generally lower standard of living than Ohio, and, generally more
working class, albeit a more 'small town' and rural like working class,
like in 2000, they went for Bush. It's a state that overwhelmingly
supports the Prez in his war, as well. I think that was the key
issue...people felt a lot more comfortable with Bush than the peceived
flip-flopping of Kerry. The issues, such as they were defined by the
Democrats, had nothing to with the war, or the economy, but
abstractions  like 'taking our country back', the 'economy' generally,
but not specifically, and so.

As for Nader, I think his campaign failed to make any headway anywhere,
having just poised as a "left of the Demcocrats" progressive. Nothing
will come out of his campaign either, neither a party nor a 'movement'
so many here were calling for.

David Walters
===========
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism