The pundantic (oh yeah, that's right) fallout of that debate is one of the weirdest things I've ever witnessed.
In the Blue Corner:
Polling Data from Mediacurves.
Other polls.
And an article from the Huffington Post.
Although this is certainly not a comprehensive list of sources, it does, i think, a good job at representing the majority opinion of those who believe Biden won.
In the Red Corner:
and Drudge's poll.
This is also coupled with the ancedotal evidence of my viewing party (about 20 white male and female independent voters).
Ditto for Palin.
There has been a lot of stuff flying in the past few hours since the debate, however at least one thing, I think, is clear.
No one votes for vp and everyone now remembers this.
Gov Palin has undoubtedly energized the conservative base, while even attracting a few independent white women voters. Her place in the campaign could have been a game changer, and in many ways it did a lot to shift the overarching narrative of the past few weeks media cycle. However, the focus of this debate, but its very definition, shifted the tunnel vision of the American attention span squarely onto McCain and Obama.
That said though, I feel it would be disingenuous not to mention the visceral displeasure I felt when Gov. Palin obviously dodged questions. And that, in my mind, makes this whole aftermath even weirder. After looking at some of the conservative opinion and hearing my own audience, I couldn't help but believe that we had watched a different debate.
I don't think that this was hostile media bias, or even party loyalty. There was something deeper afoot. There is almost a surreal sense of connection that many have with Gov Palin that transcends any form of rhetoric I can imagine. It is almost a subliminal craving. I'm honestly not quite sure how to begin parsing it, so here's my best shot.
The Kindergarden line got a lot of smiles. It was a feel good moment, reminding us of both her small town heritage and the value our nation places on democracy. There was something more though in her line about "extra credit" that I found telling. Why is it extra credit to follow a presidential campaign? Sure, I know she was talking about pre-schoolers, but hear me out for a second. Why?
I think this line taps deeply into the psyche of the regular, Joe Six Pack, American bystander. Average investment and interest in a presidential campaign is pretty darn low. We've seen how roughly 1/5 to 2/5 voters, vote for a candidate who is either contrary to their beliefs or branded with their favorite color. Yet, even then in 2004, the highest ever turnout, only produced about 120 million voters. That's a little more than 1/3 of the country.
Gov. Palin's answers were cliched, bumper sticker swan songs, when they were coherent. But that unengaged, yet compassion and smart mouthed tone, is darn close to the American public's own unengaged, almost anti-interest in the affairs of state.
I hate to burst the bubble of this course, maybe I've become too cynical and cranky, but people just don't really care that much who leads them. And my vote counts as much as theirs does. Yet, I see it as my civic duty, for many though, we must remember, it is merely extra credit.
7 comments:
Matt, I think it's a little weird that you're balancing polling (esp since two of the polls, the CBS + CNN ones, are fairly reputable) with anecdotal evidence, self-selected online Republican polls (AOL + Drudge) and the National Review. Is this a case where "reality has a liberal bias?"
Also, you're extrapolating a lot from a viewing party you had in (presumably Georgia?) a Red State. It would be like me making conclusions about America from a Viewing Party in NYC. There is a whole lot of America out there.
(Not to belabor the point, but I looked up Drudge's poll from the McCain/Obama debate, and he polled McCain at 73% over Obama.)
Well, I might as well pile on: ". . . .while even attracting a few independent white women voters." Polling data I've seen show her losing female voters. Evidence for this?
But as to your larger point: you are not the average voter. And it is "late deciders" who are most likely to finally make a decision based on style, temperament, likability, etc. This should, perhaps, not be terribly surprising: most people who follow politcs and policy made their decision long, long ago. And the closer we get to election day, the less "rational" will be the factors that push the undecideds one way or another. Thus the widespread expectation that the McCain campaign will launch an aggressive character assault on Obama -- it's probably, from a strategic perspective, their best shot now.
We have been focusing a lot on the effects that the VP nominees will have on the election, but in the past we have argued that the VP choice does not have more than 2-3% of an effect. Do you all think that this year will be different because of the types of running mates chosen?
1. Steve, It'll probably be the same as every other year. People are going to vote for Obama or McCain.
2. Mordy, you're absolutely right to take me to task for using non-reputable polls and anecdotal evidence. There's a reason I did that, which I'll be posting on sometime before class.
3. Dr. Pimpare, here http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mccain-closes-gap-women-voters
It's a bit old. But it seemed like a good poll.
Going to have to do better, my friend: "The Lifetime Television/Every Woman Counts campaign poll of 534 American women likely to vote was conducted September 11 to 15, and has a margin of error of 4.4 percent." One poll (even if the sample were of better size) is a data point, not data. . . . Can you find some trendlines, say pre-Palin, imemediate post-Palin, and now? Check Nate Silver, or some of the polling resources on Crankydoc's.
Post a Comment