The difference between pundits and voters
Mike Smithson tweets this poll, showing that even Tories hate and fear the possibility of another Republican presidency:
Just one in nine CON voters wants a Mitt Romney victory.. See YouGov detail twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…
— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) November 3, 2012
Stian Westlake remarks that this isn’t true of Tory pundits:
Funny that 8 out of 9 UK conservatives want Romney to lose, but most UK conservative pundits want him to win. twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…
— Stian Westlake (@stianwestlake) November 3, 2012
There is a simple explanation. Pundits can take part in the integrated north Atlantic market for bullshit, crossing the seas like Andrew Roberts and Niall Ferguson to tap the wingnut-welfare budget. Ordinary Tory voters don’t have this option because they aren’t pundits and are of no interest to wingnut-welfare funders.
Now, obviously the Republicans might lose. In fact, it is even probable that they’re going to lose. But this doesn’t for a moment argue against my point. Costly signalling is the organising principle here. I demonstrate that I am loyal by deliberately subjecting myself to the pain of looking a fool on election day, like a Shia devote flogging himself bloody on Ashura.
Anyone can be a loyal supporter when the team is winning, and back in 2002 most of them tried. But the real value is the people who show up when you are losing.
2 comments