Steve, here, Ian's big brother and webmaster. Ian's in Napa for the day and asked me to ask you readers to start a brilliant topic.
I'll start: Last night, the News Hour covered poll numbers that claim the presidential campaign is quite close, but with a large number of undecided voters, anywhere from six to fifteen percent of likely voters. That surprises me, because the two major tickets are so different in personality and policy.
Why are so many voters undecided so late in the campaign? What do they need to see or hear to make a choice?
Posted by sbw at September 8, 2008 11:56 PMi really don't buy it. aside from the small percentage of women who might be pulled in by palin, the indys know who they're voting for, but wouldn't get all of this attention if they just picked a side.
http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=1649Good ol' Scalzi.
I think that a surprising number of Americans don't think the elections matter, that no matter who wins, the fix is in.
Then there are those that don't want to have to think about it until, oh, sometime early in November.
Then there are those who, when interrupted at dinnertime, say "I don't fucking know! Don't bother me mmmkay?"
Then there are those who manage to hold down a job, raise children, drive automobiles, and pay taxes, who couldn't fill in the state names on a blank map of the United States, and can't name either US Senator from their state or their congressman. If they say they are 'undecided' they may have only the foggiest notion of what their choices are.
And it may sound like I have contempt for people like that last category. Maybe a little, but who am I to judge? I had 2 kids go K-12 in my local school district without voting in a single school board election, and I couldn't name you more than 2 people on the board. And those only because they lived in my neighborhood and had kids in my kids' classes.
I guess they need to hear less of Olberman and Matthews.
Hats off to MSNBC for "keeping it real".
It took Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland to name the elephant in the room. I think a LOT (many probably conflicted) "undecided" are hedging because they are really having a hard time with the idea of a black family in the White House. The media rarely goes there... they'd be ripped to pieces if they did. But Westmoreland being a Southern White, could call Obama "uppity" without a qualm.
We are not yet color blind, though I think a majority of Americans feel sincerely that we should be. But for some, especially older people, it's just hard. Same for young people who have been taught to be racist by their parents and/or local culture. It's hard, and I understand it. I hate it, but I understand it.
The good news is that the untutored young mostly find racism stupid and despicable. This army of young people, if they will all get out of the house and vote on Nov. 4, will elect a black man as president.
I truly feel that this nagging reluctance to put an African American in the place of all those white guys is the reason the Obama's numbers just can't peak, even after eight years of abuse by Bush and the majority of Republican.
It means that those of us who want Obama for all the right reasons just need to work harder. The completely colorblind generation is not yet here, but it will come, and this needs to be a beginning.
Ian's mom hit the nail on the head. No one wants to talk about the 6'1", 180 lb. elephant in the room.
To further build on Kent's point about the reasons for why poll numbers reflect the "undecideds" is skewed, I think Obama's support may also be artificially bolstered by people savvy enough not to mention their true feelings when polled or questioned by reporters. Most folks with jobs are smart enough--regardless of what they believe--not to be open and blatant about any racial hangups they may still harbor. You can't be an openly venomous an racist person in today's polite society anymore.
I think there are going to be some shocked people to find out that behind that closed curtains people are going to vote for the white guy on the sole basis of race. I hope I'm wrong. I really do. But I see it on a daily basis in my job and socially and that's why it's hard for me--outside of this small forum--to publicly offer my view and ideas. I'm about as politically neutral in public as Tiger and Michael. I'll engage in a debate with anyone who wants to discuss things intelligently. But when I see trailer trash whites trying to make a distinction between themselves and their trailer trash black neighbors, I shake my head. I know that term (trailer trash) set off a maelstrom last week. My mention of the term is not to stoke those fires but to make this point.
While the greatest trick the devil pulled off may be making people believe he didn't exist . . . the greatest trick the Republicans ever pulled off is making poor whites feel that they're the exact same as their filthy rich cousins and somehow different and BETTER than their equally poor black and hispanic neighbors. Now, that's fine if you implant those beliefs to uplift folks and inspire them to better themselves. It's an entirely different mind fuck if you prey upon that belief and harvest the poor to serve in the Army to fight the wars, to forego training and education and then doom them to repeat the cycle.
Yes, this is entirely sweeping and assumes a lot of general stereotypes. I'm not focusing on all of the exceptions. I liken it more to fandom and how some folks would be willing to see Carolina lose just to see dook lose, too. I don't get that, but I fear that's how the election will turn out in the fall. Some people will cut off their "knows" to spite their "fates".
Paging Mr Bradley...Mr Bradley.
And yes, GFWD, there is a name for the concept that you're describing, too. The white ruling classes in the South in the 18th and 19th centuries perfected it successfully, for the most part...it's called "white racial solidarity" by many historians and historiographers.If Obama wins NC, I'll dry hump that tobacco goddess statue on the state capitol grounds in a banana hammock.
Take that for what it's worth.
Ian and Kent's mom rules!
And, Ian, wow, thanks for the big props on yesterday's post.
Yes, Chip, you know me.
And, hi Jack. ;)
Mom and GFWD have the racial angle covered-
Until the Palin pick I was an undecided independent. Why?
As the campaign rolls on we see the following:
1) Both have now come out for expanded drilling. To try and avoid being a hypocrite, I agree with this. Status: no difference.
2) Both agree on the Freddie and Fannie bailout. I disagree with this. All managers should be criminally indicted. Status: no difference.
3) Both agree on a GM/Ford bailout. I disagree. American mediocrity or FAIL rewarded.
Status: No difference.4) National health care. Medicaid is now technically insolvent. Either of them will have to deal with it one way or another and it will be a messy conclusion, dictated by insurance and provider industries. Neither will write one word of the law. It already is nationalized so it will ba a variation of the existing. Status: No difference.
5) McCain would avoid the abortion issue, Obama is pro-choice. True effect; no difference. Addition of Palin and her base, tip of the balance for me to Obama.
6) Iraq. McCain ran his mouth and I believe was shoring up his right wing credentials for the pre-primary run-up. Does not have a record of hawkishness, any more than Hillary anyway. Obama's position is well known. True effect; the deal is going to wind down regardless, with the practical effect of no difference.
7) McCain hates the neocons, so does Obama. Without Palin: no difference.
Issues I'm thinking about:
Securing energy resources: Already pretty much accomplished by China, OPEC and Russia. Too bad for us. Candidates are wise not to address it outside of our territory. Neither will establish a policy of travel rationing, a true socialized market solution.
Alternative energy and research: Tax credits and subsidies as long as households are limited in usage. You might be able to heat water and pop popcorn at the same time, but not if I were in charge. Unaddressed by the candidates in a practical and meaningful way.
The Fed: control inflation. This would hurt alot. President can sway/beg the Fed. Too politically unpopular for either candidate to address. Would generate massive depression, I don't really want the candidates to address this either, frankly.
Guns: The Supreme court pretty much just settled this question. The permitting process should be complicated, the ownership is a given.
Smart: Both are smart. Urban, x-er smart or old school smart. Pick your preference.
Both candidates are totally slaves to the machine. Special interests rule the country. Except for a couple of late term decisions by Bush I, no one has truly upset the philosophy of the machine in modern history. Well, sometimes, but not much...
National debt: too far gone to wrap your mind around, the best either candidate could do is manage it on a year by year basis. Taxes will have to go up regardless.
Neither has come out with the new National Strategic Passenger Rail Network...
Philosophically and psychologically the differences are astounding, but I truly can't see a radical change on the American scene if either is elected. Things they might take credit for are mostly going to need addressing one way or the other and the momentum on these issues is probably already moving to a known destination.
Until Palin brought the Bush elements back into play I could have easily remained undecided until the last debate and possibly still flipped a coin at that point.
FreshPaul, will the violation of the statue--should Obama win--be out of sheer joy or out of complete anger?
Will the banana hammock be a thong?
Is there any chance "FreshPaul" is a pseudonym and you're actually a hot woman like Caroline and "banana hammock" is a euphemism for thong bikini?
Either way, if Obama wins, methinks there should be a photo of that statue violation placed on this blog.
And, if there should be any other spontaneous acts of joy (and/or anger) which involve scantily or no-clad readers in various public spots following this election, please send the pics to Ian for posting.
“I think that a surprising number of Americans don't think the elections matter, that no matter who wins, the fix is in.”
Perhaps not so much that the fix is in but rather a cynicism that neither candidate/party wants to/is able to meaningfully address America’s problems.
“Then there are those that don't want to have to think about it until, oh, sometime early in November.”Some truth to that I suppose. Admittedly I don’t pay a lot of attention until the primaries are over for a number of reasons. It allows for time for the candidates to be vetted, time to exhaust all those skeletons, red herrings, and boogymen that distract rather than inform, time to see how the candidates weather the day-to-day storms and fickle electorate, and time to see which positions the candidates hold firm on and which they are willing to compromise on. Yes, there is a time and place for both and in some cases prior track record ought not always be the harbinger of future choices (i.e., former community organizers, small town mayors, governors, and even senators serve a different constituency than the president which means that sometimes an appropriate advocacy in one context is not always appropriate in another). I also like to see which issues are really priorities for the candidates - i.e. practically speaking, does it really matter if a candidate formally agrees with me on an issue if he/she has to refer back to a position paper to recall where they stand? Finally, because a number of my core beliefs would be considered “conservative” and others “liberal”, ultimately I’m likely going to end up having to do some mental calculus where no answer is going to be completely satisfying and who ever really wants to make such difficult decisions before the last minute? I might even pray about it, but fear not Jack, I’m not waiting for the pope to tell me what to do.
“Then there are those who, when interrupted at dinnertime, say "I don't fucking know! Don't bother me mmmkay?"Man, I HATE being bugged at home no matter how well-meaning the caller. If I really care about the issues I’m perfectly capable of educating myself by seeking out both biased and unbiased sources of information on my own time and my own terms. It’s kind of like TV: I may want to check out a show the network would like me to see but I want to do it when I want and without being subjected to the canned commercials and promos. Thank goodness for my DVR :).
“I think a LOT (many probably conflicted) "undecided" are hedging because they are really having a hard time with the idea of a black family in the White House. The media rarely goes there... they'd be ripped to pieces if they did.”I too suspect that this will ultimately become a major factor in a close election. It probably does show up a bit in the number of undecideds but it’s also going to skew the numbers currently in the democrat column in ways that will be difficult to accurately measure. What’s more, this has the real potential to further inflate the disconnect between exit poll results and reported vote totals on election day. We already operate in a period of great voter mistrust and conspiracy theories and the fact that a percentage or so of voters will vote against Obama because of the color of his skin while saying something different to a reporter so as to avoid appearing racist… you do the math.
I agree our society is not yet color blind, but I question whether it is truly stupid or despicable to have race influence one's vote. Polling indicates something like 99% of African-American voters plan to vote for Obama. That's some serious consistency. No doubt a far lower percentage of Causcasian voters are going to vote for McCain.
If I enact that deed on the tobacco goddess statue, it will be out of pleasantly shocked surprise that Obama could win NC and my current pessimism that he actually will. It would be surprised glee that could drive me to such an act.
FreshPaul is a pseudonym, but I'm not a woman of any sort, nor do I actually own any such (under)garments. It would be perfect if I could get a pair screen printed with Uncle Jesse's face on the bum in honour of the occasion.
A picture of such an act will be posted all up in here, should Obama win the Old North State, rest assured.
After I do that, I'll drink up all the Hennessy you've got on your shelf.
It doesn't surprise me that there would be so many undecideds at this stage. Plenty of people pay no attention to politics. And by "pay no attention" I mean don't know the first thing about either candidate. They'll be lucky if someone reminds them when election day arrives. One thing's for sure, the youth vote won't show up, as usual. It's the only political prediction you can take to the bank.
If Obama loses it won't be because of racism, though I'm sure that's the reason we'll be given. (Colin Powell probably could've become President a couple of elections ago if he had wanted to run.)
I finally almost agree with an entire Matt's post. I think I'll hit the sack.
If Obama loses due to racists, it will be racist Democrats that cost him.
shit, that's right, I forgot that racism in the US ended in 1865 when the 13th Amendment sailed through (has Mississippi ratified it yet?).my b.
To answer Steve's question, is it really "so late" in the campaign that decisions need to be made? I mean, the GOP convention has been over less than a week, and the Democrat convention less than two weeks. Should there not be a general campaign, or should we just vote at the conclusion of the conventions?
I find it interesting that when Obama was up 8-9 points, no one mentioned race. But now that it's essentially tied, all of the sudden the elephant in the room is visible.
I am not so naive as to think race is not an issue. Certainly there are people all over, not just in Appalachia or even in NC (although the statue-molesting might be fun to see) who are not going to pull the lever simply because Obama is black. But will there be more people who will not pull the lever for him simply because there is a "D" after his name?
Is it beyond the point of reason to assume that Obama's numbers were so high they had nowhere to go but down? Is it also possible that, upon further review, potential voters are choosing not to support Obama? Why does McCain inching closer trigger a whisper that it HAS to be racially motivated?
So we can simply play the parlor game, would a white candidate with Obama's background and experience - say John Edwards, who for all intents and purposes mirrors Obama's personality and credentials but who actually completed a Senate term - have a lead at this point? I don't think so.
Paul makes a good point - in the article linked above, Polman says "He (Obama) has to bond somehow with blue-collar whites", which he is not going to do when he says in a DEMOCRATIC primary that people of that ilk cling to guns and religion. That, as much as race, will contribute to Obama's lack of traction.
shit, that's right, I forgot that racism in the US ended in 1865 when the 13th Amendment sailed through (has Mississippi ratified it yet?).
No, but the word is that Judge Scalia is reconsidering his vote in Dredd Scott.
i love this song.
“To answer Steve's question, is it really "so late" in the campaign that decisions need to be made? I mean, the GOP convention has been over less than a week, and the Democrat convention less than two weeks. Should there not be a general campaign, or should we just vote at the conclusion of the conventions?”
I agree. But then again nobody seems to have patience for any process to play itself out anymore whether it’s picking a president or waiting a couple of weeks on some college b-ball players to decide on going pro.
“I find it interesting that when Obama was up 8-9 points, no one mentioned race. But now that it's essentially tied, all of the sudden the elephant in the room is visible.”Funny, seems like I hear mention of Obama’s race just about every day, though in fairness I’ve also come to learn that Palin is a woman.
But maybe it’s also something to the effect that if Obama were up by 8-9 points, 1-3%* of voters misleading their intentions wouldn’t matter. If it’s neck-and-neck then even a small % of votes could be enough to swing things.
*BTW, I have no idea what the real numbers look like.
“I am not so naive as to think race is not an issue. Certainly there are people all over, not just in Appalachia or even in NC (although the statue-molesting might be fun to see) who are not going to pull the lever simply because Obama is black. But will there be more people who will not pull the lever for him simply because there is a "D" after his name?”While I’d never advocate voting party lines regardless of candidate quality, I’m not ready to equate voting on the basis of skin color with voting for a political party on the basis of a set of governing principles they historically espouse.
“Is it beyond the point of reason to assume that Obama's numbers were so high they had nowhere to go but down? Is it also possible that, upon further review, potential voters are choosing not to support Obama? Why does McCain inching closer trigger a whisper that it HAS to be racially motivated?”I’m not sure anybody was arguing that McCain inching closer HAS to be racially motivated. Look, those who are clearly voting for/or against a candidate on the basis of race are probably locked in on one side or another – they affect where the poll numbers start but they’re probably not causing them to move significantly going forward. Further the people I was talking about were a concern precisely because their true intentions were NOT being accurately reflected in the polls so again, I’m not suggesting that they are currently causing the poll numbers to move at this point either.
That's an interesting point made by Freshpaul -- it will be racist democrats and independents who will lose this for Obama (should he lose). I think a white guy would be up 15 or 20 points on sleepy McCain at this point, who has pretty much sold out everything I ever admired him for.