cw (09/28/82)
Stuart Hollander has an important point that I tried to make as well. Lehrman may have spent $3.5M for his primary victory (though, because of his weak opposition, I suspect much of that money was really pointed toward the general election), but he didn't actually spend it buying already marked ballots to stuff in boxes. Further, I have heard nothing that suggests other corrupt practices. So, the conclusion must be that all those people either a) thought Lehrman was better for them or b) sold their votes. In the first case, the money was well-spent. In the second, it was essentially randomly spent because the cause-and-effect in political advertising just isn't that well understood, no matter which scare mongers you listen to. Further, in the second case it is the voters who were demonstrably venal; we still don't know Lehrman's motives and it is at best distrustful to think that he isn't sincere. Finally, I make the point again: if you, as an intelligent net reader, are so able to see through the media hype, why do you therefore presume that other people are necessarily dumber and unable to do so? That strikes me as one of the few (thought common) cases of culpable elitism. Charles