By the way, don't forget to vote in my meta-poll in the sidebar.
The results of the last poll, which asked if Sarah Palin would help or hurt John McCain's chances: Voters were almost evenly divided, with 52 percent saying she'd help him and 48 percent predicting that she'd hurt him.
I think after a brief bump, she hurt him. If McCain had picked someone with more experience and more moderation, he would still have kept his more conservative supporters (who would not have voted for Obama even if he really did walk on water); and he would not have alienated the undecideds and others who found her to be, to put it kindly, not quite ready for prime-time.
Anyway, thanks for voting.
Showing posts with label poll. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poll. Show all posts
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
What's Missing From the GOP
A few comments on the GOP convention:
1. This interesting perspective from Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post echoes one of my original concerns about McCain's campaign: there is no talk about the economy, or creating jobs, or balancing the budget, or what to do about the 37.3 million Americans that are living in poverty. (That's 12.5 percent of Americans overall, and 18 percent of our children.)
2. Meyerson also observes that "this year's GOP convention is almost shockingly--un-Americanly--white." He doesn't cite his source for this opinion--is it based on what he sees at the convention on TV? Or is there something more substantial backing it up? I don't know, and he doesn't say.
But even if his point is merely based upon his own observation of a sea of white faces on the convention floor, dotted with an occasional brown one--why would the GOP convention look that way? It's true that white Americans comprise about 2/3 of the population--but the Census Bureau projects that that is changing quickly. By 2042, minorities are expected to become the majority of the population. (Will non-whites still be referred to as minorities at that point?)
Is the Republican Party ignoring minorities? Are they unable to craft a platform that appeals to people who are not white? If I were a Republican in this presidential election season, I would be embarrassed about it. I'd be embarrassed because diversity is not just a liberal agenda item--it's a cultural reality. Not reflecting reality is a form of denial, and denial is not a sustainable position.
3. I would be remiss if I did not mention McCain's choice for veep, Sarah Palin. When I first heard the news, I thought it was a brilliant move. Choosing a woman gives him, at least superficially, a broader appeal. Palin rounds out the ticket just by virtue of the fact that she's a woman, and I think it's likely that that will be enough for some voters. Add to that the fact that she's more conservative than McCain, and is vocal opponent of abortion, and she definitely bumps him up in the polls.
This recent article in the Financial Times posits that the choice of Palin was shrewd because McCain's team had calculated that they were "on track to lose the election." They are taking a chance on Sarah Palin because she is the social conservative they need to shepherd the John Birchers back into the fold.
But, as Mr. Peevie noted, it does not appear that she will add much depth to policy discussions, as Joe Biden will. In spite of what Mr. Crook says in the FT article, I think the Dems will now be triple-dog-daring McCain to bring up the experience issue again during the campaign. Not to mention the foreign policy issue, national defense, and the war in Iraq.
Check out the poll to the right, and please take a moment to vote.
1. This interesting perspective from Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post echoes one of my original concerns about McCain's campaign: there is no talk about the economy, or creating jobs, or balancing the budget, or what to do about the 37.3 million Americans that are living in poverty. (That's 12.5 percent of Americans overall, and 18 percent of our children.)
2. Meyerson also observes that "this year's GOP convention is almost shockingly--un-Americanly--white." He doesn't cite his source for this opinion--is it based on what he sees at the convention on TV? Or is there something more substantial backing it up? I don't know, and he doesn't say.
But even if his point is merely based upon his own observation of a sea of white faces on the convention floor, dotted with an occasional brown one--why would the GOP convention look that way? It's true that white Americans comprise about 2/3 of the population--but the Census Bureau projects that that is changing quickly. By 2042, minorities are expected to become the majority of the population. (Will non-whites still be referred to as minorities at that point?)
Is the Republican Party ignoring minorities? Are they unable to craft a platform that appeals to people who are not white? If I were a Republican in this presidential election season, I would be embarrassed about it. I'd be embarrassed because diversity is not just a liberal agenda item--it's a cultural reality. Not reflecting reality is a form of denial, and denial is not a sustainable position.
3. I would be remiss if I did not mention McCain's choice for veep, Sarah Palin. When I first heard the news, I thought it was a brilliant move. Choosing a woman gives him, at least superficially, a broader appeal. Palin rounds out the ticket just by virtue of the fact that she's a woman, and I think it's likely that that will be enough for some voters. Add to that the fact that she's more conservative than McCain, and is vocal opponent of abortion, and she definitely bumps him up in the polls.
This recent article in the Financial Times posits that the choice of Palin was shrewd because McCain's team had calculated that they were "on track to lose the election." They are taking a chance on Sarah Palin because she is the social conservative they need to shepherd the John Birchers back into the fold.
But, as Mr. Peevie noted, it does not appear that she will add much depth to policy discussions, as Joe Biden will. In spite of what Mr. Crook says in the FT article, I think the Dems will now be triple-dog-daring McCain to bring up the experience issue again during the campaign. Not to mention the foreign policy issue, national defense, and the war in Iraq.
Check out the poll to the right, and please take a moment to vote.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Anti-Climactic? Not to me.
Do you feel the energy of this historic moment, when the first black candidate claims the nomination of a major party in a presidential election?
Or are you feeling blasè, because you've been hearing the predictions for months now? Here's what Slate's Today's Papers said this morning:
That is a hilarious line from Howard Kurtz about Hillary being charred around the edges--but I, for one, am not a bit indifferent or bored with this moment.
Maybe I'm naive in my expectations; perhaps I'll click back to this post in two or three years and feel embarrassed about my optimism. Maybe I'll come to regret it, like I did in the second half of the Clinton presidency. But it feels good to be behind a candidate because I actually think he'll be good for our country.
It's been a long time since I've voted for a candidate in a presidential election for a more optimistic reason than "he's the lesser of two evils." Know what I mean?
But now the question is, can Obama beat McCain? Put your preferences aside for a moment. What's your prediction for the outcome of the general election in November? Can an Obama ticket defeat a McCain ticket? Would the VP choice possibly change your mind about this?
I put up a poll to the right. Be a pal, and take a moment to vote, won't you?
Or are you feeling blasè, because you've been hearing the predictions for months now? Here's what Slate's Today's Papers said this morning:
The papers all assure us this is a historic moment, but if
you're feeling like it's all rather anticlimactic, don't worry, because you're not alone. "That's the thing about today's prediction-driven media culture," writes the Post's Howard Kurtz. "If a thousand pundits declare that Hillary is toast, then by the time she is charred around the edges it hardly seems like news." There's been so much talk about Obama's delegate lead that when he finally claimed the nomination yesterday, the news seemed to be greeted with yawns. "We're not even limping," a media analyst said, "we're just dragging across the finish line, and everyone says, 'Oh, okay, whatever.' It feels redundant."
That is a hilarious line from Howard Kurtz about Hillary being charred around the edges--but I, for one, am not a bit indifferent or bored with this moment.
Maybe I'm naive in my expectations; perhaps I'll click back to this post in two or three years and feel embarrassed about my optimism. Maybe I'll come to regret it, like I did in the second half of the Clinton presidency. But it feels good to be behind a candidate because I actually think he'll be good for our country.
It's been a long time since I've voted for a candidate in a presidential election for a more optimistic reason than "he's the lesser of two evils." Know what I mean?
But now the question is, can Obama beat McCain? Put your preferences aside for a moment. What's your prediction for the outcome of the general election in November? Can an Obama ticket defeat a McCain ticket? Would the VP choice possibly change your mind about this?
I put up a poll to the right. Be a pal, and take a moment to vote, won't you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
