The difference between pundits and voters

Mike Smithson tweets this poll, showing that even Tories hate and fear the possibility of another Republican presidency:

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/264720136831901696/

Stian Westlake remarks that this isn’t true of Tory pundits:

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 on "The difference between pundits and voters"



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.