The Presidential Campaign - Derision 2008
Putting your finger on the pulse of the electorate isn't a difficult thing to do, yet so far the punditry has been missing the mark far and wide. There is talk of excitement for this historical campaign, and an accentuation of the positive and clear differences that these candidates bring to the table. There is talk of a desire for the two far wings to come together in some hyper-bipartisanship where we can all sit around and sing "Kumbaya" and the work of the country will finally get done. Change from Obama, Change from McCain and a bit of change left in all of our retirement accounts.
This campaign has evolved (or devolved) from where the pundits sit. At the end of the conventions, there was positive energy coming out of both the Democratic and Republican parties - a bounce in the polls for both tickets, and then the numbers froze up again as "too close to call". No matter how hard either candidate tried, they could not make the sale to the Independents and the Undecideds. Now those on either of the far wings have always thought the Indy / Uns were mush-brains with no convictions and who were incapable of making a decision. It is becoming ever clearer in this election cycle that these voters are the only ones aware that they are being sold a bill of goods with regard to the candidates, and their carefully managed campaigns. The debates produced (so far) no bold policy initiatives, or even something interesting to discuss at the water cooler. The questions (as pointed out by subscriber SoonerShankle) in debate #1 were the same as in debate #2, and the VP debate. Very canned answers were delivered to very canned questions in a way that does great disservice to an electorate that is engaged this time.
And now comes the dirty little secret - the Indy / Uns are starting to influence the marginally committed. The true believers for either side remain so, but for many of those lukewarm supporters of McCain and Obama (yes, Obama also has lukewarm supporters - Bill & Hillary, Jesse Jackson to name a few...) questions are starting to be asked. Questions like - What happened to talking about the issues (in more than the canned soundbite)? What happened to that "high road"? How do you plan to accomplish what you want to do, and specifically how ?- not in mumbo-jumbo vague promises to trim a dollar's worth of fat, or to soak the rich people. What else besides the wars and Wall street? There's education, healthcare, energy, infrastructure, and the deficit? Anything more than a soundbite on this stuff? And hey, was that Wall Street bailout REALLY necessary? The comments from both sides reflect either a doubt that it was necessary, or an outrage that we can find $700 billion to ease the troubles of the nation's bankers, but HeadStart goes begging for money.
That's what the pundits are missing - the outrage, on both sides. It happens in almost every election, but face it, until recently a 40% turnout at the polls was exceptional. This year, with interest peaked so high, and with an expected voter turnout of better than 70%, people are actually paying attention to the ineffectiveness of Congress (still hovering at about 9% approval), the President (at about 30% depending on the poll) and the candidate's themselves, who are doing a poor job in educating the public on their stands and programs. Voters are mad as hell right now, because the work of the people is NOT being done in Washington, and the candidates are not answering the electorate's questions with any degree of satisfaction. To look at the comments on most articles on TPP, there is a growing groundswell of those who will be voting who feel that they care about the issues more than any of the candidates. Party faithful are keeping their fingers crossed hoping for the best if their man wins, and the vast majority of the public is losing hope in advance of the election that they are being dealt with in an honest and adult manner. More than anything else - the average voter is feeling patronized - the candidate says some magic words and he gets your vote on a "trust me". The problem is that more and more of the electorate are feeling less and less trust for the candidates precisely because of this mutually shared campaign "strategy".
This is a historic chance for both candidates to inspire us to that "more perfect Union" that Abraham Lincoln conjured. Our fear is that those who seek to be our leaders are not leaders, but fearful little men who rely wholly on pollsters and handlers rather than on self-respect and a respect for the American people. A tarnished halo will not deliver the White House to Obama, any more than a "crazy ivan" will give it to McCain. It's time for the candidates to step up, or the American people may step aside, handing the "winner" the most Phyrric of victories - an electorate that no longer cares. Common Sense would dictate.
RLB
This campaign has evolved (or devolved) from where the pundits sit. At the end of the conventions, there was positive energy coming out of both the Democratic and Republican parties - a bounce in the polls for both tickets, and then the numbers froze up again as "too close to call". No matter how hard either candidate tried, they could not make the sale to the Independents and the Undecideds. Now those on either of the far wings have always thought the Indy / Uns were mush-brains with no convictions and who were incapable of making a decision. It is becoming ever clearer in this election cycle that these voters are the only ones aware that they are being sold a bill of goods with regard to the candidates, and their carefully managed campaigns. The debates produced (so far) no bold policy initiatives, or even something interesting to discuss at the water cooler. The questions (as pointed out by subscriber SoonerShankle) in debate #1 were the same as in debate #2, and the VP debate. Very canned answers were delivered to very canned questions in a way that does great disservice to an electorate that is engaged this time.
And now comes the dirty little secret - the Indy / Uns are starting to influence the marginally committed. The true believers for either side remain so, but for many of those lukewarm supporters of McCain and Obama (yes, Obama also has lukewarm supporters - Bill & Hillary, Jesse Jackson to name a few...) questions are starting to be asked. Questions like - What happened to talking about the issues (in more than the canned soundbite)? What happened to that "high road"? How do you plan to accomplish what you want to do, and specifically how ?- not in mumbo-jumbo vague promises to trim a dollar's worth of fat, or to soak the rich people. What else besides the wars and Wall street? There's education, healthcare, energy, infrastructure, and the deficit? Anything more than a soundbite on this stuff? And hey, was that Wall Street bailout REALLY necessary? The comments from both sides reflect either a doubt that it was necessary, or an outrage that we can find $700 billion to ease the troubles of the nation's bankers, but HeadStart goes begging for money.
That's what the pundits are missing - the outrage, on both sides. It happens in almost every election, but face it, until recently a 40% turnout at the polls was exceptional. This year, with interest peaked so high, and with an expected voter turnout of better than 70%, people are actually paying attention to the ineffectiveness of Congress (still hovering at about 9% approval), the President (at about 30% depending on the poll) and the candidate's themselves, who are doing a poor job in educating the public on their stands and programs. Voters are mad as hell right now, because the work of the people is NOT being done in Washington, and the candidates are not answering the electorate's questions with any degree of satisfaction. To look at the comments on most articles on TPP, there is a growing groundswell of those who will be voting who feel that they care about the issues more than any of the candidates. Party faithful are keeping their fingers crossed hoping for the best if their man wins, and the vast majority of the public is losing hope in advance of the election that they are being dealt with in an honest and adult manner. More than anything else - the average voter is feeling patronized - the candidate says some magic words and he gets your vote on a "trust me". The problem is that more and more of the electorate are feeling less and less trust for the candidates precisely because of this mutually shared campaign "strategy".
This is a historic chance for both candidates to inspire us to that "more perfect Union" that Abraham Lincoln conjured. Our fear is that those who seek to be our leaders are not leaders, but fearful little men who rely wholly on pollsters and handlers rather than on self-respect and a respect for the American people. A tarnished halo will not deliver the White House to Obama, any more than a "crazy ivan" will give it to McCain. It's time for the candidates to step up, or the American people may step aside, handing the "winner" the most Phyrric of victories - an electorate that no longer cares. Common Sense would dictate.
RLB
Amen -preach it brother! Preach it!
Reply to this
Outrage is a pretty good word for it - I'm not feeling the love for either one at this point, and there's no viable 3rd party to send a message with. Barr and Nader combined don't add up to a whole percentage point. This would be the opposite of a Burger King election. These are your choices, no substitutions - you can't have it your way.
Reply to this
I'm not sure about outrage - I think it's more about disappointment. This election has been billed as the most "important" ever, and we have been given a "historic" choice, but the candidates are just falling away from their carefully created image. It's sort of like when you book a vacation to some far away resort paradise, and when you actually get there, the place is sort of a dump. I guess no real human being could live up to the packaging, but it's disappointing anyway. Neither of these two men is superman, and neither is going to snap his fingers and change things.
Reply to this
McCain has been going out of his way to prove that he's a bit unhinged - he's been flailing around like a fish out of water. Obama has been calm and steady though, and I'm not seeig is messag in soundbites - maybe because I've taken the time to read his positions at his website. You've got to do some of the work yourselves people. Expecting to be spoon fed til you're satisfied is just lazy.
Reply to this
Well, I hadn't been paying much attention until the banking crisis hit - my bank went down and my retirement pretty much went up in flames.I'm still not sure exactly what the government did, but my situation is stabilizing and on the rise. Anyhow, I'm paying attention now, and I have been to the websites, and there are clear and different positions there, but not much of that is coming through on the news or the debates. McCain seems to have a better handle on national security and energy, Obama is better on the domestic stuff, and I'm still not clear on who is better for the economy. I'm not angry or disappointed - just confused.
Reply to this
I interview job candidates for a living, and if I had to decide on the way these two gentlemen present themselves and argue their case, I would keep looking elsewhere. Reading the white papers is one thing - that would count as resume, and action plan. The dealing in a public setting (debates, running the campaign, news coverage) is the interview process. While both candidates propose fairly well thought out action plans, both are blowing the interview - not answering direct questions, diverting attention, slandering the competition, hiding behind safe answers or irrelevancies... Interview counts as heavily as resume or action plan with me, and I'm not satisfied with either top of the ticket up to now. Neither candidate is giving me enough on interview for me to be comfortable in choosing between them. I'm not sure the process can be addressed to fix that, but it's my sticking point this time.
Reply to this
The argument here is style versus substance, and no one can really argue about style winning out at least the last 4 presidential elections. Twice a good ol' boy with limited skills took down candidates with vastly more substance (Kerry and Gore). Before that a Governor for life from a backwater state took down a career diplomat and sitting President, as well as one of the most experienced Senators ever. Style matters - maybe too much, and maybe the candidates have noticed this and are just overplaying to it. Obama is trying "cool and collected", McCain is trying "decisive". In the age of TV and no attention span, this may be what we are stuck with.
Reply to this
Hate to say it but I'm in local politics outside of Baltimore, and most City Council races have more pizzazz than this Presidential marathon. Maybe because it's gone on so long that we are overfamiliar with the candidates and the issues, and maybe the winner wins by playing safe and dealing in soundbites. I know that the people most driven crazy here (besides the voters) are Sarah Palin (who was expecting something at least as challenging as a mayoral race) and Joe Biden (who must be chafing against his leash). No one ever said that democracy had to be pretty - only the candidates.
Reply to this
Wouldn't have used the word outrage, but yeah, that does describe it pretty well. The over and over sound bites repeated at every possible opportunity gives me the feel of being talked down to. I understand the issues, and would like to know how the candidates would specifically address them. Just chanting "Taxes Bad" or "Regulation Good" is not a policy - it's a platitude. Hillary promised a conversation, respected the voters, and pretty much delivered on it. She's sitting it out at home now. Romney had detailed economic plans and probably would have been miles ahead of the banking crisis - now he's cheerleading for McCain. I don't know - obviously we wound up with who got the most votes - but we nowhere came up with the most qualified. Maybe that's why we get this simplistic campaigning - since it's the maximum of what the candidates understand, they assume it's all we can understand.
Reply to this
There's the point right there. The candidates left standing wound up with the most votes - and they are continuing the strategy that got them to where they are. MSM reports a possible 70% turnout for the election this year, and how much of that is because a black man is one of the nominees. Detailed policy papers are what we are looking for - what is the majority of the country looking for? Let's see - "American Idol", "Wife Swap" and "Dancing with the Stars" are top of the TV. Remakes of kiddie cartoons are the top of the Box Office, and NASCAR is chic (It's watching traffic move!!!). The Star outsells the NY Times, and Lindsay Lohan gets more primetime news coverage than the genocide in Darfur. Maybe we have to trust the policy papers, because it seem the only way anyone can get elected is to dumb dowm the campaigning. Mencken was right - you can't go broke underestimating the taste of the American people.
Reply to this
Thought the movie "Idiocracy" was supposed to be a spoof or satire - I didn't realize it was a documentary... How far we have fallen...
Reply to this
All of this equality will be the death of us - maybe the founders had it right, you needed to be a landowner in good standing to vote back in the day. That would eliminate most of the riff-raff. The TV standard could be that if 60 Minutes shows up at your doorstep, you get to vote - if it's the crew from Cops - no way.
Reply to this
Looks like lately the crew from Cops has been showing up on a bunch of Congressmen's front steps - along with the crew from 60 Minutes. More arguments against the incumbents. Hey wasn't all of this supposed to change when the Republicans got flushed out of their majority in 2006? Talk about going from bad to worse.
Reply to this
Okay, so a lot of people don't pay attention, and maybe all of the interest this time is shallowing out the debate, but I'd think it would be good for the country if more people got involved. If you engage and participate in the process, then you are a part of the outcome. You really do have a stake in it then.
Reply to this
This is that "slippery slope" in a lot of ways. An educated electorate would be good to get the most possible participation from. America, in general, does not constitute an educated electorate. For every person who actually picks up a newspaper and reads about the issues or the candidates, there are ten people who's idea of reading is picking up the TV Guide. There are still way to many people out there who think that Obama is a Muslim, and that McCain doesn't know how to work a computer. Sound bites are the Jedi mind trick of political campaigning - and unfortunately, it is quantity and not quality of the vote that matters in the end. A bunch of people pulling a lever for no other reason than they liked the guy's commercial is not what the founders had in mind. Unfortunately, there's no way to force people to actually study for an election - which is why we often get results that are less than ideal.
Reply to this
It has historically been this way in America. It was where the smoke-filled rooms at the nominating committees came from. Before popular primaries, the nominees were selected by the party elders ion both sides, which usually brought us 2 candidates for President that were at least marginally qualified for the job. Leaving it to the professionals was thought to be the smart thing to do for generations. It is only through television, and the American people demanding a say in the nomination process (and helped enormously by Nixon jiggering around in 1972) that brought us into our current situation. Now, rather than qualifications and a resume capable of running the world's last superpower, we have a maddening popularity contest where the most TV savvy usually wins. In some cases TV savvy turns out to have political savvy (as in Reagan and Clinton) but mostly we wind up with varying degrees of inept. I would like to see a hybrid of the old style politics where party elders nominate candidates to run for the nomination, and popular election gets a winner for the nomination. Then the two nominees can duke it out in November. This "anybody who wants to run raise your hand" system is very counter-productive, and generally produces poor results.
Reply to this
Talk about romancing the old days - there's reasons we do things the way we do now. Some shining examples of party politics nominees were Harding, McKinley, Grant, Pierce, WH Harrison, Coolige and Hoover - mediocre at best, and Hoover still is a legend of failure.
The truth is that most Presidents were not memorable, and very few were great. We might want a Lincoln every time, but the truth is we rarely need one. Unless a fairly ordinary citizen - like McCain or Obama (or W or Bubba before him) can do the job, we might as well pack in the Constitution and go for a monarchy. I'm happy picking my own President, even if I'm not always happy about the quality of candidate.
Reply to this
If we want to improve the quality of the candidates, then we really need to improve the quality of the electorate. People who don't know how the system works are doomed to fail by it. Civics and Government classes fell out of favor in the 70's and we now have a generation of voters with no clue as to their rights or responsibilities, or even the most simple idea of how our form of government works. All this is to them is American Idol - Washington. Find a cool candidate and vote for your favorite. If only they could text it in. Even voters of my generation have spent so long not participating (thanks to the excesses of the boomers overparticipating) that their knowledge of the process, and the position of President is not in keeping with reality. They say you change society by replacing it, one person at a time - now is a good time to start, and a good way is to squeeze civics back in between those 3 R's at school.
Reply to this