Really People?

[hsifeng]

http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/

Look, Obama isn't my first (second or third) choice....but McCAIN people? Really? How is this suddenly a 'break even' poll?

Comments

[docryder.livejournal.com]

Not sudden, not universal. Each day he shows results from a couple of news outlets and a couple of states. The news outlets are showing Obama leading by a small margin, and the numbers haven't changed significantly in all the days he has listed.

A lot of people are still of the opinion that Americans are so disgusted with Bush that they'll vote for anyone else. Thing is, many voters have been convinced that McCain will be significantly different from Bush, and thus will vote for him.

McCain is using the GOP Think Tank machine to manipulate how he is perceived by the public How example, the use of the word "elite." This is a lot of the "Ignore the man behind the curtain!" kind of obfuscation, but Dubya used it successfully four years ago, as did his father and Reagan. Can't speak to 2000, as the voters did not decide that election, but it seems that ths kind of manipulation succeeded that time, too.

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

While the GOP's use of 'think tanks' is crappy, "We'll choose what the members of our party should think about, and how they should think about it, and then we will tell them"; the Democratic ideal of 'grassroots' doesn't seem to work very effectively in the massively Federalized system that our country promotes and that most Dems think is the key to fixing our social ills (Big Government = Big Socialized Assistance To Those In Need).

Grassroots movements work better in de-centralized systems where local politics have a larger effect on social outcomes. Of course, that also meant that you could end up with a Texas where no one was allowed to be gay, non-Christian, or richer than a member of the Bush clan. *rolls eyes* So don’t live in Texas.

If the Dems are going to get my wholehearted support, they need to start acting like something other then the 'nice' Republicans: There is only a sliver the distinguish the two parties from each other any more – and that is not much of a choice in my opinion.

[docryder.livejournal.com]

I'm slowly becoming disgusted with "my party." I'm registered Democratic, but I see some of the shit that's going on (like Nicole Parra getting shit on, and shit flinging back by backing Danny Gilmore, a Right Wing nutjob), and I'm saying "Maybe it's time to get more neutral..." Unfortunately, the alternatives are so fringeworthy as to not even be viable options, so I stick with the only viable alternative to the Republicans, and that ain't the Libertarians.

What the Think Tanks really do for the Republicans is they study language and popular meanings and the current Zeitgeist, then figure out how to manipulate language to manipulate the duller majority of society. They aren't just telling the party how to think; they're teaching them to manipulate and twist language (like what I posted a while back about the usage of the word "elite"). It goes somewhat deeper than just giving marching orders.

As to Big Government = Socialization, it's the fact that the government and many of us out here in the public aren't looking to change our world view enough. The New Deal worked for about 20 years. Once the 1960s hit, things started breaking down. New social programs are needed, with new ways of looking at them, but Liberals and Progressives are still looking at that era, 60 years later, and think what we need is a "New 'New Deal'", rather than look for modern answers like a secular version of Bush's "faith-based initiative," which seems to be essentially what your "grassroots"/decentralized aid idea is.

Yeah, I'm not as committed to some ideals as I used to be, even a few months ago...

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

What worries me it that 'two party thinking' (ie. I have to be with Party A because I don't like Party B and Party C isn't big enough) is exactly what got us here: If we all believe and act like there are only two options, there there *are* only two options. If we all went with whatever kooky party really defined who we are, then we'd have a multiparty system. If we got really diverse then we'd end up with political candidates that couldn't use 'talking points' because they wouldn't have enough of a 'base' to pander to. How nice would that be?

Yeah, it's hard to imagine where we are now - but it works well enough in other countries. Sure, various smaller parties glom together to get bigger initiatives passed, and there are compromises that they make in the process - but their core constituency is knitted to their political ideology in a way that most disassociated Dems and Repubs in our country aren't: Here they are just voting as they always have.

[docryder.livejournal.com]

For the two-party system to shift to a multi-party system, the parties outside of the Big Two have to curb some of their nuttier policy planks. For example, Libertarianism. The Libertarian party promotes even less government than Small Government Conservatives. As much as people say they want that, they also want to feel safe in their beds, and they realize that requires money in the form of taxes. Armies and police, etc., are what the American people want. They are afraid of a government that doesn't have the money to support these things. Libertarian dismantling of the government (including the military and police) terrifies most people, even Small Government Conservatives.

I believe the problem is more that the 13th Amendment has changed since 1875. Prior to that, the wording made clear that lobbying is bribery, and thus accepting said is treason. Now, they've had to make new "ethics" laws that include so many loopholes that the ABC Evening News has had reports on how much money Obama's supposedly "small contributor money only" campaign is really a joke. We'll see the same reported next week of the Republican convention and campaign.

Eliminate lobbyists and the money going around, and you might have politicians who actually are in it to serve the public.

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

I disagree with the argument against a multi-party system being predicated on the 'toning down' of alternate party choices. While you are no doubt correct that some of the nuttier platform statements of *any* party dissuade people from wanting that party to have enough power to dismantle our government structure and rebuild it in their own image: I would counter by saying that the *more* parties you have, the *less* likely it is that any one can gain a majority, thereby gaining the power to make those sort of radical changes possible.

By having - lets say - five parties, each with it’s own strong base and support system, you would manage to get more than two sides on any given debate. Compromises would be more than just ‘he said, she said’ affairs with only two (supposedly) polar opposite viewpoints to choose from.

Furthermore, I think multiparty systems would be much harder for lobbyists (those bastards) to operate in. If you have only two sides to bribe, I mean, “contribute to” then you have a much cheaper (relatively) lobby cost.

And yes, I fucking hate lobbyists: Fuck you assholes for buying off this countries political process. And fuck career politicians for taking the checks all the way to the bank. In the Bahamas of course….

[docryder.livejournal.com]

The oddball policy planks of the smaller parties scare Americans because they only see issues as black or white. So, if the smaller parties get in, they will have total control (from the average American's point of view). Thus, a two-party system works, because it plays to the "Black Hats vs. White Hats" mentality the average person has.

Your argument for multiple parties (too much for the lobbyists to bribe) is the exactly why the lobbyists work against it. It costs them less to manipulate two-parties. So they spend lots of money to promote a two-party system as well as manipulate those parties.

[sstormwatch.livejournal.com]

I wish I knew, but we've also seen how polls can be badly skewed by the time it comes to actually vote.

[shadowd1.livejournal.com]

you look at polls?

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

Your dad was the one who pointed it out to me...

[shadowd1.livejournal.com]

tell dad to stop looking at polls unless he wants to get depressed ;-)

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

*chuckle*

[shadowd1.livejournal.com]

you know, this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7581611.stm) probably explains the polls better than anyone could. last two times it was jesusland vs sane people; i foresee this time around being bigots-r-us vs everyone else.

*sigh*

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

*head desk*

[sstormwatch.livejournal.com]

Ok, gave it some thought after watching last night's convention coverage of Michelle Obama, and Sen. Kennedy.

Barack Obama is literally the face of change, and it scares the conservatives to their very core. As this nifty garden book I just got from the library basically stated (and what I learned many times in various business classes), people are scared of change, because it might be a bad thing, so they would rather just do what they think is working, even if it doesn't work very well. Or as I said to Rob last night, "better the devil you know...", and so they would rather have McCain, the devil they believe they know, even if he does continue the Bush legacy, because at least they know that "works" (even badly).

Obama promises a change, and the future actually might be a better world. But that is a scary thing to contemplate for half the population.

Sad, huh?

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

Amusingly enough, I don't really trust that Obama is going to be a 'force of change' - although it makes for good campaign rhetoric. That is actually one of the reasons I am lessthantrilled with him as the 'liberal' voice of America.

With any luck, I will get to see if I am wrong. Without any luck, I'll end up with McCain.

[sstormwatch.livejournal.com]

Ah, but Obama doesn't have to actually do any changing for the people to be afraid. My point is, and racist it will sound, but he is a man of COLOR (even tho he is half "white" like me), and that alone is too much change for some people. I heard similar things being said about how Hillary would not be voted in by them simply because she was a *Woman* (and they thought of her as a bitch or worse)!!

I don't know if he will actually produce the changes he talks about, but as I see it, the current "status quo" is not something I want to continue.

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

I see your point, and I agree with you. My boss's husband (who is a Peruvian immigrant) tells her frequently that the US can’t brag about being a ‘democracy’ until they actually elect someone who isn’t an upper class white male to the Presidency. You’d think we would have managed it in over 200 years….*rolls eyes*

[docryder.livejournal.com]

I've seen or heard that "200 years of so-called 'democracy' and it's still rich white men" a lot lately.

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

I think Obama's Team seriously misjudged their VP candidate: I think a lot of Dems (quite a number of them women - we do make up more than 50% of the adult public in this country) expected Hillary Clinton. One of my bosses at work says her hard-core Dem daughter isn't going to vote because she thinks Hillary should be in the White House.

Partnering with a 'rich white guy' helps to 'balance' his ticket, but it screws the ideology.

[docryder.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, having two candidates that white male working class voters (still the biggest block of voters, by population) can't identify with might kill the campaign as well. It amounts to a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Some voters, any way they went, were to be lost.

As to women voters, Hillary really couldn't count on that block, as women change their voting style as they age and marry and reproduce. On average, their voting becomes more and more conservative as they move through these stages. And as our country ages, that means more of the female vote will actually likely go to McCain.

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that Hillary was strong in both her female and elderly demographics – stronger than Obama. While I don’t really care who he picks as a running mate, and I do understand that he would loose some folks either way (although I am not convinced that anyone knows enough about the composition of the ‘swing’ voters to judge that accurately, and pissing off part of your core – female Dems – just seems like a stupid risk), I think Hillary was a stronger candidate and partner that Biden will be. To be blunt, I think Clinton may have been passed over because she was unlikely to be a ‘quite’ VP and may have overshadowed her Pres more than would have been comfortable.

[docryder.livejournal.com]

I think the "Quiet VP" is exactly why she was passed over. The Clintons are known as controlling and manipulative. This was a deliberate act to curtail their power.

However, I also think Biden may surprise some people. He's surprised me already.

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

Had to share:

[docryder.livejournal.com]

Thanks! :-D