Friday, February 8, 2008
We Could Write for the NYT, Too
Here is what David Brooks had to say. Mirrors much of what we both said about why more educated folk can feel safe to attach themselves to Obama. And we don't even have to get all corny with some fake interview shtick.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Yes. He. Can.
Interesting video. I had read about it but hadn't watched it. Thanks for passing it along.
I hear both of your responses. I think there has been a long-unquenched desire on the left for "the next Kennedy", an inspirational leader who speaks about something bigger than ourselves, takes the high ground and still can win elections. And I think, particularly after 2004, there is a huge swath of this country that just feels completely shut out of the power of decision-making and is ready for that to end. Obama definitely faces the "where's the beef" test vs. both Hillary and McCain. I think he would play up the policy differences more so in the general election, but will have a big hurdle to get over on national security. (BTW, Wes Clark could be a strong Veep contender for either candidate.) But I don't see that translating into a broad suspicions of him as some kind of cult-like leader. We are far too much of a youth-obsessed society for that meme to catch up.
Personally, I'm not getting caught up in the whole Obamania thing. I support him because I think the country's political atmosphere has become too corrosive in ways that are preventing us from finding common sense solutions to pressing problems and also in ways that are detrimental to our democracy and our civic life. Also, I don't know that I'm a believer in the power of any politician to "make us a better people". I think there will always be better and worse angels of our natures, and politicians should be focusing on setting up structures to let the better angels of our natures ultimately prevail, and avoiding appeals to fear and prejudice. I think that Kennedy was more a creature of his times rather than the major shaper of what the 1960's became. (Demographics, economics and the Vietnam War did that.)
BTW, apropos of your concerns, I have a new theory about the split in supporters for Hillary vs. Obama. I'd call it trust. Blacks, young people and higher ed junkies feel like we know Obama because he is one of us. We know where he is coming from and see him as a member of 'our tribe'. To others (Hispanics, Asians, older people, white under $50K earners), he is an unknown newcomer, but they trust Hillary because they have known her for 15 years and have seen what she and Bill have stood for and done.
And if you don't like that theory, here's another one, based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If your basic needs have been taken care of, then you can look for someone to provide less material benefits like uplift and you can afford to take more of a chance. If you're worried about your basic needs, you're not looking to take any chances and want someone who can promise to protect you.
I hear both of your responses. I think there has been a long-unquenched desire on the left for "the next Kennedy", an inspirational leader who speaks about something bigger than ourselves, takes the high ground and still can win elections. And I think, particularly after 2004, there is a huge swath of this country that just feels completely shut out of the power of decision-making and is ready for that to end. Obama definitely faces the "where's the beef" test vs. both Hillary and McCain. I think he would play up the policy differences more so in the general election, but will have a big hurdle to get over on national security. (BTW, Wes Clark could be a strong Veep contender for either candidate.) But I don't see that translating into a broad suspicions of him as some kind of cult-like leader. We are far too much of a youth-obsessed society for that meme to catch up.
Personally, I'm not getting caught up in the whole Obamania thing. I support him because I think the country's political atmosphere has become too corrosive in ways that are preventing us from finding common sense solutions to pressing problems and also in ways that are detrimental to our democracy and our civic life. Also, I don't know that I'm a believer in the power of any politician to "make us a better people". I think there will always be better and worse angels of our natures, and politicians should be focusing on setting up structures to let the better angels of our natures ultimately prevail, and avoiding appeals to fear and prejudice. I think that Kennedy was more a creature of his times rather than the major shaper of what the 1960's became. (Demographics, economics and the Vietnam War did that.)
BTW, apropos of your concerns, I have a new theory about the split in supporters for Hillary vs. Obama. I'd call it trust. Blacks, young people and higher ed junkies feel like we know Obama because he is one of us. We know where he is coming from and see him as a member of 'our tribe'. To others (Hispanics, Asians, older people, white under $50K earners), he is an unknown newcomer, but they trust Hillary because they have known her for 15 years and have seen what she and Bill have stood for and done.
And if you don't like that theory, here's another one, based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If your basic needs have been taken care of, then you can look for someone to provide less material benefits like uplift and you can afford to take more of a chance. If you're worried about your basic needs, you're not looking to take any chances and want someone who can promise to protect you.
Obamania
Don't know if you've seen this video, but I had two opposite reactions to it, one immediately following the other. My first reaction was largely positive. I felt like this video encapsulates exactly how Obama really has captured the spirit of this time -- an amalgam of media and pop culture and politics and public sentiment that is more about mood and aspiration than about politics. This is why he got my vote -- not because I think he will be better, but because he has the potential to make us better. Hokey, I know, but I figured that after the worse administration in American history, perhaps this wasn't a bad risk to take.
My second reaction to the video, however, was much less favorable. Indeed, I suddenly had an urge of suspicion and fear that I hadn't felt before. Suddenly, Obama felt too cultish, too hucksterish. My thoughts even skipped to the Manchurian Candidate. I think the media are beginning to feel this way, too, and, if the drumbeat grows louder, it could definitely take the shine off. We shall see which perspective flowers over the next few days and weeks, but, for the first time, I'm thinking that my second reaction might just be the dominant one.
My second reaction to the video, however, was much less favorable. Indeed, I suddenly had an urge of suspicion and fear that I hadn't felt before. Suddenly, Obama felt too cultish, too hucksterish. My thoughts even skipped to the Manchurian Candidate. I think the media are beginning to feel this way, too, and, if the drumbeat grows louder, it could definitely take the shine off. We shall see which perspective flowers over the next few days and weeks, but, for the first time, I'm thinking that my second reaction might just be the dominant one.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Start flexing those toes
I love the news about how motivated the Dem base is compared to the GOP, but I think that recent history has shown that Presidential elections are much more about personalities than parties. McCain will have broad appeal across independents, and I don't know how much concerns about his conservative cred will suppress GOP turnout, especially if the alternative is Hillary. The vote will be about the future, and we're not running against Bush this time.
Re: the class splits in the Dems, that's very interesting. I think that Obama is running more of an "intellectual" appeal. Plus, there has been some commentary that lower-middle class voters have a greater identification with the Clintons and their struggles and attacks they have sustained. Plus, racism can play a part in the primaries as well as in the general.
Re: the class splits in the Dems, that's very interesting. I think that Obama is running more of an "intellectual" appeal. Plus, there has been some commentary that lower-middle class voters have a greater identification with the Clintons and their struggles and attacks they have sustained. Plus, racism can play a part in the primaries as well as in the general.
Tanned, rested and ready
Thx for providing the impetus for reviving the blog!
I hope you're right. Hillary/Obama would clearly be the dream ticket. Hard to say how it would go down. I'd have to think that Obama would prefer not to be asked. I think he would chafe under Clinton for 8 years, and while it may be the dream ticket for an election, I don't see them working well together. But, if Hillary asks, I think he has to say yes. Interesting to ponder whether she would ask. It reminds me of 2000 and Gore, in that Hillary will have to decide whether it's more important to win or to do what she wants.
But I'm more concerned about nastiness precluding this and tarnishing them both. I don't see big policy differences between them, and if it's not quite about character, it's about tarnishing each other with the brushes of 'too inexperienced' vs. 'more of the same'. I don't see future debates being that illuminating, and we'll have to deal with moderators continually baiting them.
I will take a look at those exit polls and get back with my thoughts. One comment (re: IA, actually) that I thought was right on is that Obama is doing well in places with almost no blacks or with blacks making up a majority of Dems, but not with the in between states. This would track with the belief that white-black tensions are higher when the races are actually in contact with each other. It's a lot easier to not be prejudiced in theory than in practice.
I hope you're right. Hillary/Obama would clearly be the dream ticket. Hard to say how it would go down. I'd have to think that Obama would prefer not to be asked. I think he would chafe under Clinton for 8 years, and while it may be the dream ticket for an election, I don't see them working well together. But, if Hillary asks, I think he has to say yes. Interesting to ponder whether she would ask. It reminds me of 2000 and Gore, in that Hillary will have to decide whether it's more important to win or to do what she wants.
But I'm more concerned about nastiness precluding this and tarnishing them both. I don't see big policy differences between them, and if it's not quite about character, it's about tarnishing each other with the brushes of 'too inexperienced' vs. 'more of the same'. I don't see future debates being that illuminating, and we'll have to deal with moderators continually baiting them.
I will take a look at those exit polls and get back with my thoughts. One comment (re: IA, actually) that I thought was right on is that Obama is doing well in places with almost no blacks or with blacks making up a majority of Dems, but not with the in between states. This would track with the belief that white-black tensions are higher when the races are actually in contact with each other. It's a lot easier to not be prejudiced in theory than in practice.
And Another Thing...
This is why I continue to remain pretty upbeat about the Dems prospects in the fall. Even if there is a lot of dirt thrown during the general, the GOP is suffering voter fatigue, the Dems are enjoying a resurgence. The dirt will hurt both candidates and might suppress turnout, but the Dems are starting so far ahead of the GOP that they have some room to lose voters and still come out ahead. Even if McCain is able to peel away some independent votes, I think the Dem base is sufficiently strong -- and, frankly, McCain's sufficiently weak -- that I am not terribly worried. I know in politics anything can happen and this is why I continue to keep my fingers crossed. But, as I've noted before, I don't see the need, as I have in the last two elections, to cross my toes, as well.
One More Observation
A quick scan of some exit polls on the Dem side reveals that Obama consistently pulls in a majority of college graduates and Hillary a majority of non-college graduates. My own little theory on this gap -- which, coming from someone with a postgraduate degree, might come across as patronizing and for that I apologize -- is that those who feel more comfortable with the nuances of policy (read: more educated class) are more willing to accept someone who speaks in less specific, but posits a larger theme to tie together his views. Those who are less comfortable with the details of policy are more eager to put their trust in someone who has a very deep knowledge of the ins and outs of the policy maze. Thoughts?
Interesting Times, Indeed
Last night I heard the faint cries of our lonely blog page, "Why do you ignore me so? Why does no one take me seriously?" Oh, wait. I think that was Mike Huckabee.
In any event, I thought that this discussion deserved to be preserved in a format other than e-mail. So, here is what Eric wrote: "This is rapidly becoming an illustration of the putative Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times." This is going to drag on for a while. (While you can make a case that keeping the Dems in the spotlight longer is a plus for us, I see more downside to upside of stretching our conflict out. Not every debate is going to be the lovefest that the last one was, and the media loves conflict.)One reflection and one request. The reflection is how odd it seems that the margins of victory in different states were so wide on both sides. Besides CT and MO, every other state seemed to have a 10+ pt gap. Any theories? (Besides the racial one which does seem to explain the deep Southern results.) Was there an explicit strategy on Clinton's side to go after the big states and by Obama to go after the smaller ones? Didn't see any coverage of this beforehand.The request is to send along any consolidated exit polling that you find. I'll be very curious to see the racial/gender/age vote splits, either national or state-by-state."
And here is my response:
I think the drawn out campaign is good for the Dems. They have both gotten sharper and smarter by riffing off each other. I also think that there is still overwhelmingly positive feelings about both and the more that the media show them, the more voters realize that there is a better way. Another consequence, I believe, is that a drawn out contest will likely push Hillary -- if she is the ultimate winner -- to pull in Obama as the VP, which I think would be a very positive development. Typically, you don't want your VP candidate to outshine you, but I do think it could work in this case. In a sense, Obama would help to offset Bill's looming shadow by demonstrating that a Hillary administration is something totally new from her husband's.
As for the large margins of victory, I simply cannot explain the phenomenon. (The GOP experienced a similar thing, even with a three-man race!) Perhaps this is a question for Malcolm Gladwell. After all, it does seem to be a case of reaching a "tipping point" that just pushed an overwhelming majority to vote with a certain candidate. For me, the strangest contrast is that Hillary won TN by 30 points, but lost MN by 30. I think this Super Tuesday and this whole primary season has bestowed political scientists with a huge gift. I could imagine whole careers being built on this one election. The exit polls (which are available here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660890/) give a good place to start the analysis.
So, what next? Does the Dem campaign get nastier? Signs are there that it will. (See the fight over health care.) At the same time, perhaps this is my Panglossian view, but I do think that even if it turns nasty, both candidates will be able to maintain a general perception that they are fighting over policy, not character -- unlike the GOP -- and this will ultimately serve the party well. We shall see.
In any event, I thought that this discussion deserved to be preserved in a format other than e-mail. So, here is what Eric wrote: "This is rapidly becoming an illustration of the putative Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times." This is going to drag on for a while. (While you can make a case that keeping the Dems in the spotlight longer is a plus for us, I see more downside to upside of stretching our conflict out. Not every debate is going to be the lovefest that the last one was, and the media loves conflict.)One reflection and one request. The reflection is how odd it seems that the margins of victory in different states were so wide on both sides. Besides CT and MO, every other state seemed to have a 10+ pt gap. Any theories? (Besides the racial one which does seem to explain the deep Southern results.) Was there an explicit strategy on Clinton's side to go after the big states and by Obama to go after the smaller ones? Didn't see any coverage of this beforehand.The request is to send along any consolidated exit polling that you find. I'll be very curious to see the racial/gender/age vote splits, either national or state-by-state."
And here is my response:
I think the drawn out campaign is good for the Dems. They have both gotten sharper and smarter by riffing off each other. I also think that there is still overwhelmingly positive feelings about both and the more that the media show them, the more voters realize that there is a better way. Another consequence, I believe, is that a drawn out contest will likely push Hillary -- if she is the ultimate winner -- to pull in Obama as the VP, which I think would be a very positive development. Typically, you don't want your VP candidate to outshine you, but I do think it could work in this case. In a sense, Obama would help to offset Bill's looming shadow by demonstrating that a Hillary administration is something totally new from her husband's.
As for the large margins of victory, I simply cannot explain the phenomenon. (The GOP experienced a similar thing, even with a three-man race!) Perhaps this is a question for Malcolm Gladwell. After all, it does seem to be a case of reaching a "tipping point" that just pushed an overwhelming majority to vote with a certain candidate. For me, the strangest contrast is that Hillary won TN by 30 points, but lost MN by 30. I think this Super Tuesday and this whole primary season has bestowed political scientists with a huge gift. I could imagine whole careers being built on this one election. The exit polls (which are available here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660890/) give a good place to start the analysis.
So, what next? Does the Dem campaign get nastier? Signs are there that it will. (See the fight over health care.) At the same time, perhaps this is my Panglossian view, but I do think that even if it turns nasty, both candidates will be able to maintain a general perception that they are fighting over policy, not character -- unlike the GOP -- and this will ultimately serve the party well. We shall see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)