2008 Primaries Thread

I hate that Romney is pulling his ads in Florida; it seems to open up even more room for a Giuliani win in Florida. And as much of a buffoon as I think Giuliani is (and, therefore, a good matchup in the GE), I'd prefer him not to lead the delegate count after "Tsunami Tuesday" (tho I'd greatly prefer him to McCain).

Rosa Brooks (LA Times) on Bloggingheads.tv: "If the Republican attack machine tries to portray Obama as the 'scary black guy' or the 'scary Muslim guy,' it won't work. We're moving to a place where that's just not attractive to people. The average American is better than that at this point. There has been a cultural sea change in the nation on issues of race."

LOL. Silly pundit. Were it only true.

yeah i think the candidates would do well to (appear to) work under the assumption that race and sex don't matter but the average american is still a dipshit, fuck all that noise. talk radio alone could bury several campaigns under several tons of freeflung shit without even trying.

Daniel, I think that tactic would definitely work for some significant of the population. The question is how much - Obama doesn't need everyone's vote.

"Political scientists have proposed various theories aimed at salvaging some dignity for the democratic process. One is that elections are decided by the ten per cent or so of the electorate who are informed and have coherent political views. In this theory, the votes of the uninformed cancel each other out, since their choices are effectively random: they are flipping a coin. So candidates pitch their appeals to the informed voters, who decide on the merits, and this makes the outcome of an election politically meaningful."

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/07/09/070709crbo_books_menand?currentPage=2

I don't know if this is true, but it has obvious implications for race + sex during the election.

That's obviously a nonsensical theory, and it isn't even the main theory addressed by that article you linked to, it's just used as an example of a theory.

Who the fuck are "the informed" and "the uninformed?" No one knows anything.

Of course that's nowhere near as insulting and arbitrary as the main theory being reviewed in that piece.

it's a huge false assumption that "the uninformed" vote randomly

There was a nice article a couple of months ago – its name and publisher escapes me – that refuted Surowiecki’s “The Wisdom of Crowds” concept on the basis of some new findings. Does anyone remember it? I would love to read it again.

I mean I'm college-educated and read a good amount of campaign coverage from just about every imaginable part of the political spectrum and I try to make sure I have a basic grasp of current foreign policy and economic and social issues, and the fuck if I feel like I'm truly "informed" - especially when it comes to predicting what kind of president a candidate might make.

I really have no idea (about the validity of the article, the theories, etc).

The article does a fine job of taking the "Myth of the Rational Voter" theory apart.

The theory itself is just a typical conservative economist confusing his ideology for objective realtiy.

Bit po'faced to shuffle your feet and call yourself uninformed, Hurting. The standard for being 'informed' is hardly perfect clarity and an ability to predict the future.

If 10% of the voters are informed, that means that 1 in every 10 voters fits the criteria. Probably knowing the different candidates, and understanding their basic policies (etc) would qualify you as informed. Otherwise only 1% of the voterbase would probably be "informed."

xpost Maybe. But also with the use of "informed" there's an assumption of a rational standard - that idea that if voters just knew what I know they'd make they choice I make because that's the rational choice.

the same writer reviewed a book in 2004 that explores the 'shortcut' model more positively

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/08/30/040830crat_atlarge

I guess it's "uninformed" to think you like Ron Paul because of his views on the war while having no idea what he stands for in terms of economic policy and immigration. At the same time, not knowing the specific difference between Obama's and Clinton's healthcare proposals (I'm not sure I do), but I'm not convinced that voting for one or the other nonetheless because of gut feelings about their character is necessarily a bad way to choose.

sorry, last sentence came out garbled but I think it's clear what I meant.

"I like this person better" is not necessarily a worse way to choose a president than "I like this platform better," in other words, and it's certainly not "flipping a coin" in any case.

Hurting, the New Yorker piece wasn't even suggesting that some choices should be privileged over others. Voting for someone because of their welfare platform, while ignoring other policies, is a valid decision. The problem is that only 30% even named an issue to explain their vote, and only 1/5th didn't contradict themselves. (The New Yorker contradiction example is: Anti welfare, but pro the government giving assistance to the poor -- though I don't know why this is a contradiction, you could be pro assistance and anti the current methodology... ANYHOW).

Maybe that's a bit extreme - I just mean the first is a bit underrated and the second a bit overrated. (xpost to self)

I think one of the problems with "I like that person better" is that you rely on MSM to evaluate the person's personality. What % of people are actually watching speeches? With policy, ideally, you can take the quotes that people have said and analyze them. Personalities are so touch and go, tho.

Fair point. I need to fucking go to bed. Night all.

xp yeah i'm not sure how much even the 'shortcut' model controls for whatever media filters contribute to building a given voter's impressions on candidates. perhaps i should read the book.

Is HRC still promising new spelling rules and jobs?

http://images.google.com/images?q=%22new+jobs+for+tommorrow%22&

We made up a great Democratic National Debates Drinking Game -

Every time a candidate says the word "change," take a shot. Every time Bill Richardson says the words "I'm the only one up here who..." take two shots.

You'll be rip roaring drunk in ten minutes.

lol camille paglia hate hillary http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/01/10/hillary/?source=whitelist

At this point Paglia is the academic version of Maureen Dowd.

not even

Bill Richardson's problem is that he looks like Horatio Sanz. Who could live down the comparison to one of this century's greatest monsters?

xp: more Dowds, more Paglias, fewer Rodhams, plz

Richardson can go back to saying "maricon" on Imus now.

John Kerry Endorses Obama

^beginning of the end^

Rosa Brooks (LA Times) on Bloggingheads.tv: "If the Republican attack machine tries to portray Obama as the 'scary black guy' or the 'scary Muslim guy,' it won't work. We're moving to a place where that's just not attractive to people. The average American is better than that at this point. There has been a cultural sea change in the nation on issues of race."

LOL. Silly pundit. Were it only true.

-- Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, January 9, 2008 8:52 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link
_________________________________________________________________________

Wow. So, I've had conversations with three women in the past 24 hours, all probably 30-45 years old, all strangers (one a friend of a friend, two others in a coffee shop when we turned to watch CNN at the same time) -- all of whom have some crazy skepicism about Obama because he toured with Oprah, and concern that somehow that means that he'll be representing African-American interests over American interests if he's elected. One today said to me that she didn't know why any white people were out stumping for him like Oprah is. The one was last said she knew how angry African-Americans were about slavery and how if one was in office you don't know what he would really do. (I tried pointing out that Larry David stumped for him yesterday, tried asking them if there is any African-American who they thought would not act this was -- Hallie Berry was the only one she could come up with.) Just weird, naive, racist stuff from these professional (thought not intellectual) women.

-- Eazy, Tuesday, January 8, 2008 3:45 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Link

Mind, this was in Chicago. Guess what they're saying down in North Carolina?

Guess what they're saying down in North Carolina?

http://bunchofpants.com/images/blogimages/oprah.jpg

haha

I'm not saying, btw, that Obama can't win. Far from it. He can win (in fact, he's far more likely to win than HRC). But the idea that Obama won't be the target of aggressive -- and at least somewhat successful -- whisper campaigns ("He's Black! He's a Muslim who will turn the country over to Islamofacists!") is fantasy.

it may be fantasy to think that these campaigns will be whispered, if he gets the democratic nomination.

I have no reason to suspect the pattern of every campaign being worse than the last since 1980 will be broken.

darraghmac OTM. I am actually terrified about that the latent nastiness that I suspect is bubbling under the surface for many of my fellow countrymen will spew forth should Obama get the nomination. Just warning everyone to brace themselves.

You're right.

He can win (in fact, he's far more likely to win than HRC). But the idea that Obama won't be the target of aggressive -- and at least somewhat successful -- whisper right-wing campaigns ("He's Black! He's a Muslim who will turn the country over to Islamofacists!") is fantasy.

Fixed.

Rich fuck prepares to buy a spot on the ballot:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0802,robbins,78813,2.html

Also, Obama's people would do best to underplay Kerry's support. Don't need that drama.

I find it hard to believe Bloomberg would enter unless he wanted to spoil it for someone. I can't imagine he thinks he'd win.

more adverts- what could we substitute for gunboats or wolves this time? an obama lookalike in a towel with a scimitar? sounds like a bruckheimer shoe in

i can see bloomberg pulling support away from romney's mainstream business base in the republican party, possibly stealing away from Hillary's older, centrist base.

bloomy just wants to raise his profile so he can get a cabinet spot or run for congress or some such shit

could backfire tho - i cant see him having any appeal nationally

Bloomie doesn't strike me as a collaborator. or as much of anything but a CEO.