The gender gap in Pew's poll is huge -- 17 points among women in Obama's favor, and only four points among men in McCain's. And Obama has a double-digit lead in the swing states.
Quinnipiac's latest set of swing states polls finds Palin with a net negative impression in several states, including Florida, where she's spent quite a bit of campaign time. The numbers in Florida are stunning, in a sense; there's been a net swing of 13 points in Obama's favor during the past two weeks. He's even competitive among white voters, with McCain besting him by only five points.
I'm happy to see this, not just as an Obama supporter, but frankly, as an American. One of the great mistakes I think we sometimes make is buying the whole "Americans are stupid" case. As someone who frequently feels stupid when either listening to my intellectual betters hold forth, or when reading a great book, I never liked that argument. If people aren't reading or aren't taking an interest in the greater world, the thing to do is to ask questions (Why would that be?) as opposed to making statements (Because they're dumb). It also gives liberals a false comfort--Oh we can't win because our side is more sophisticated--when what we should be doing is working hard on the sale.
But I digress. It's hard not to see some justice in this. I've never believed that bigotry (and that's what the Palin pick is) rewards people in the long-term. But every once in awhile it's nice to see bigotry, ignorance and cravenness punished immediately.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Whether or not McCain loses the election, the Palin nomination is the end-game for the cynicism that has been the life-blood of the GOP for more than 30 years.
I'm a small businessman, a gun owner, a multiple property owner. I'm white, middle class, and (mostly) live in the suburbs. I'm pro-military. I have nothing but contempt for the anti-commerce position of the left.
But I've never voted for a GOP candidate for national office, and even went as far as registering as a democrat in 2004. As much as the GOP might seem to represent my interests, I simply cannot stomach their ongoing cynical appeal.
Maybe now, and finally, with the Palin nomination, the GOP is exposed for the farce that it has been for more than 30 years.
Yes, the question is how to sell these leftwing ideas through constant repetition WITHOUT sucking all their juice out through oversimplification....
Tony can you speak more on what lefty anti-commerce positions piss you off? I'm not being sarcastic. I'd really like to know.
The reaction to the Palin pick is reassuring, but it should be noted that she is an extreme example of anti-intellectualism, more so than Bush. And coming right after Bush as she does, I think the centrist independent voter isn't going to make the same mistake again. It's taken the past eight years and the pick of Palin to knock some sense into the electorate.
What struck me a couple of days ago was the gender gap on Palin--that her negative dive is fueled by a lot of disappointment from women. He could have picked Snowe or Hutchison, but he went with this??? Though if Republican men are willing to vote for her, maybe in 2012 the Dems could just nominate Tina Fey.
Deleted. Sorry Kris. That was flagrant
I'm guessing that for some women Sarah Palin is the annoyingly chirpy beauty pageant contestant who you suspect got hired because of her looks and keeps getting promoted because she belongs to the boss's prayer group, which gives her an opportunity to secretly backbite all the other women in the company out of their hearing....
I disagree with giboy. I, as a woman, am not voting for Palin because she goes against everything I believe in. She is a complete disgrace to women and it seems as if she is a man herself, 110% Anti-feminism. Ever read "Female Chauvinistic Pigs"....?
Gawd, where to start...
I have always felt that while the democrats, if give free regein, would try to tax me and our economy to death, I'm a clever enough guy that I could earn my way out of whatever nonsense they tried to pull.
Also, it's really really hard to kill an economy. For example, dd you know that even as Allied forces were crossing the Rhine, Germany was still making soda pop? I can't fathom that; a nation engaged in a struggle to the death is still able to make soda pop! Ordinary germans still had electricity and hot and cold running water when the Allied tanks rolled in. It's really really hard to kill a modern economy. Since I don't think the democrats are going to engage in a massive military offensive against the US of A, I don't worry too much about my standard of living. As long as I've got electrity and hot and cold running water, I'll be okay
Conversely, I have always figured that the GOP, if give free reign would thrash the constitution and take away my liberty. And hey! Guess what? That's exactly what they did, or at least tried to do in the wake of 9/11. God bless 'em, they tried to do exactly what they had been promising to do for my entire adult life. (Take a moment to think where this country might have gone if the officer corp hadn't revolted on the torture question.)
After HRC disqualfied herself with the Annie Oakley nonsense and the "hard working white Americans" I was ready to vote for BHO with something resembling enthusiasm. Mostly it looked to be (yet another) vote against the GOP, but at least this time I was voting against torture, suspension of habius corpus, unitary executive power; you know the BIG issues that go to the core of what it means to be free. (Before that I just voted against them because the GOP just wanted to put me in jail, take away my house and property, and leave my wife and children destitute.)
So there I am, all ready to vote for BHO, and what do he say? "Windfall profit tax!" Mutherfuck! Windfall mutherfucking profit tax? Hey zoos criso, and fuck me bllind. What the fuck is a "windfall profit tax?"
If I buy Qualcom at $5 and it goes to $100, is that a WINDFALL PROFIT? If my wife buys Apple at $12 and it goes to $240, is that a muther fucking windfall profit. You gonna lay some extra juicy tax on my ass cause I bought something when it was cheap and now it's expensive?
See, what you got me started on?
Anyway, that just a small example. A windfall profit tax on oil co profits is a terrible stupid idea for a about a million reasons, and that was only compounded by the idea of giving the proceeds of that tax BACK to the people who bought the overpriced oil in th first place. I can't think of a better way to encourage over consumption that by stripping the oil companies of the lawful profits and giving those monies back to the asshole idiots who are driviing around solo in vehicles that get 20mpg.
Anyway, that's the highly caffinated, slightly agitated version. I've worked for myself my whole life, and every other time the democrats pop off on money, I have to ask myself, "Have any of these assholes ever once, in their entire life, had to make payroll?" I don't think so.
Of course that's a pretty fucking good reason to vote against McCain. Mutherufcker's been on the government tit since he was wet behind the ears. Comstock to McCain: Get a fucken job!
Voters aren't dumb. They have been lied to and pandered to for a very long time. All the while, most of them have had to work longer hours with fewer and fewer benefits just to provide for their families. I think anyone who has the time and energy to educate him or herself about politics and the issues of our day is privileged. And any of those privileged people deserve to be denigrated as liberal elitists if they think that we are facing problems simply because "Americans are stupid." Democracies need to work for the masses. And if they don't work, it's the system, not the people.
off topic, but it seems this Gwen Ifill author/moderator situation is being played up a lot today. I keep hearing that Palin will not be treated fairly by somebody who is "in the tank" for Obama. The funny thing is that nobody seems to be able to describe what unfair treatment actually is... is it being asked tough questions? or being told when your time is up? Any thoughts?
Nikolai,
Yeah, you're right. Its the main headline over at Drudge right now. Can't they at least let the woman moderate the debate before they try ripping her to shreds. I highly doubt Gwen Ifill is going to be bullied by these tactics...
I'm guessing that for some women Sarah Palin is the annoyingly chirpy beauty pageant contestant who you suspect got hired because of her looks and keeps getting promoted because she belongs to the boss's prayer group, which gives her an opportunity to secretly backbite all the other women in the company out of their hearing....
I just don't get this line of thinking. Sure, it's annoying that serious women like Hutchinson or Dole were passed over for a chirpy beauty pageant queen. But most women I know, myself included, don't think Palin was picked because she's pretty. This just makes the eyeroll more pronounced.
Her negatives are high with women because she started as a gimmick, and then we found out she's stupid too boot, which makes the gimmick even more obvious.
I think the question you should be asking instead is why is gap so close with MEN? Perhaps her looks are more relevant in that discussion (?).
One of the great mistakes I think we sometimes make is buying the whole "Americans are stupid" case.
Holy fucking shit are you serious? More than 15% of the (legitimate) national vote twice went to George Bush, Jr. Yes people are stupid, Americans included. Stop making excuses for them.
I think its safe to say that if Sarah Palin looked like Olympia Snowe, she would not have been chosen as John McCain's running mate. I don't think that's too terribly important because if she looked like Olympia Snowe, she probably wouldn't have been elected Governor of Alaska, or even Mayor of Wasilla. Its the whole package- female, pretty, religious freak, etc. Obama has certainly been helped by his looks as well. Luckily, he also happens to read.
Deleted. Provide proof, or don't put out a charge like that.
americans have been dumb, or at least, they have voted as though they were dumb, very often in their past.
the last 30 years have been a reflection of that ignorance and the willingness of americans to vote dumb and to allow their own bigotry and prejudices to trump the making of intelligent, well-reasoned choices.
reagan started it, perfected the recipe, and republicans have been serving that same stew, with americans stupidly consuming it, ever since.
i remember clearly when reagan declared war on everyday americans, workers and the middle class, by firing the nation's air traffic controllers in an action that was probably illegal but was certainly extraordinarily dangerous. suddenly, the entire country's air traffic control system was in jeopardy, simply because he wanted to crush a union and send a message.
though the action should have been the end of any support from union workers and even anyone who flew - whose flights were now going to be extraordinarily unsafe, because of that rash, political action - but instead, white americans allowed reagan to appeal to their worst and most bigoted instincts, and they gave him almost unparalleled support, while he regaled them with fictions about welfare queens driving cadillacs.
the success of reagan was a direct reflection of the general ignorance of american voters.
the continued success of republicans, who have peddled the same, discredited economic philosophy because it panders to the worst, most shortsighted, most selfish, ignorant instincts of american voters cannot be ignored.
if american voters were not stupid, would we, alone in the western industrialized world, still be arguing about the need for universal health care?
if american voters were not stupid, would any voter ever vote for anyone who tried to peddle the voodoo economics that have been disasterous for this country's economic health?
if american voters were not stupid, would they even question the need for strong tax policy that prevented companies from sending their jobs overseees?
there are many, many more examples, but the conclusion cannot be ignored: we are in the middle of this crisis, americans are in dire straits in many other areas, because they have voted in a dumb, ignorant, uninformed and bigoted way that has allowed unethical and unprincipled politicians to cater to those worst instincts.
wishing it were not so is not going to make that unfortunate history go away.
I like Tony. In my opinion government should exist for six reasons:
0. Monopolize force
1. Provide a market framework ("rules of the road")
2. Regulate market failure (e.g., labor market discrimination, total meltdown of the financial system)
3. Provide public goods (e.g., parks, defense, education, roads)
4. Regulate market externalities (e.g., air pollution)
5. Provide a social safety net (e.g., unemployment insurance, medicare, job training etc.)
Reasonable people can argue within these parameters (and perhaps others) about how much government is necessary, and there are good arguments on both the right and the left on all these issues. Personally, I lose it when lefties go outside the box and argue against markets in general, like the Naomi Klein-reflexively anti-free trade crowd. Of course, at least lefties let you know where they are, as opposed to so-called righties who preside over the biggest expansions in government and spending in history while simultaneously limiting individual liberties they claim to hold so dear.
if american voters were not stupid, would we, alone in the western industrialized world, still be arguing about the need for universal health care?
if american voters were not stupid, would any voter ever vote for anyone who tried to peddle the voodoo economics that have been disasterous for this country's economic health?
if american voters were not stupid, would they even question the need for strong tax policy that prevented companies from sending their jobs overseees?
there are many, many more examples
You should dig up some more examples then, because in each case, universal healthcare, economic policy and free movement of labor, there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the issues.
It's simply not the case that believing that national healthcare is a bad idea is the same thing as believing the Earth is flat.
American's aren't any stupider than people elsewhere. We don't get enough math/science in our education, but even without that, we do alright.
It would appear that the latest Time poll bears out what we are seeing in the Pew and Q. polls. Radical swings to Obama after the Palin pick has sunk in.
Even though I live in the Live-and-Die-Republican-South, I sincerely hope that we are going to see a thirty-year swing to Liberal (or progressive) dominated politics for the next thirty. I have a great deal in common with Tony, but the impact of so-called "Conservative" policies on my business are much more harmful than those of any liberal. I am damned sick and tired of seeing so many people living on the street, kids going hungry, scholls falling apart and, especially, WAR. If putting some of those to rest for a while is going to cost me another 10% on my tax rate, I will gladly pay it. In the long run, I will be much better off.
Now, excuse me while I go vote early!
why does every other industrialized nation have some form of national healthcare, if its such a bad idea, if it is even debatable?
on the contrary, i think the realities,the facts of the modern world indicate clearly that the arguments against that type of program deserve to be put into the "flat earth" category.
why do we spend so much more, and get so much less than any other nation?
our problem with health care is probably the best example of americans allowing themselves to be manipulated, because of their ignorance.
another example of american stupidity?
grenada.
the ridiculous "war" against a tiny, tiny country, to rescue supposedly endangered americans, coincidentally exactly at a time when ronald reagan needed to distract americans from more damaging news.
americans fell for it, hook, line and sinker.
there are plenty more....
Donovong,
The delicious irony is that the GOP has walked us right into the sort of debt-ridden, socialized clusterfuck they've always warned the Dems would give us. Did anyone else read "The United States of France" on Time.com
I buy the "Americans are stupid" bit. At least a certain percentage of us are. Right now Bush's approval ratings are about 30%. Lowest of any president in history. But it still means that there are about 30% of my fellow Americans who still think he's okay. What does it take to be that out to lunch?
Just because Palin is polling badly does not mean she is the cause of the poll shift. It's the economy that's causing the poll shift. Do you think people threw out the Hoover administration because they liked FDR's take on Prohibition?
I think Palin is an idiotic and pathetic disaster and unfit to lead, but if the economy were humming along and everyone was getting rich, she'd be elected VP in about two seconds.
Of course the old saying "Americans are stupid" is totally wrong. We are now in the age of information; anything we want to know is only a click away.
Of course, Republicans are still worshipping Reagan, so certainly they're not aware that times really have changed.
I you want to know what Alaskans think about their fist vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, see this Fairleigh Dickinson University poll at http://publicmind.fdu.edu/veepstakes
another example of american stupidity?
defense spending.
despite the fact that dwight eisenhower warned against exactly this possibility, we have now been taken over by the military industrial complex.
we spend ungodly amounts of money on weapons systems that are completely and totally unnecessary, but every american politician - including obama - realizes that if he ever spoke truth to the american people and told them that they were wasting vast, incredible amounts of money on useless, sometimes antiquated, often redundant weapons, that politician could kiss his career good-bye.
so american politicians cater to the insane insecurity and stupidity of the american populace and they continue to spend most of our tax dollars on the military.
this is too easy...
One of the great mistakes I think we sometimes make is buying the whole "Americans are stupid" case.
Can someone please tell Bill Maher? I love his show, and I love his guests, and I love the discussion, but every time he trots out his, "American are retards" line I want to hit him. I can tolerate his "Religions are stupid" beliefs (and I use the word tolerate in the political sense; I disagree but it's his belief and none of my business), but his constant bashing of the intelligence and capability of the American people, besides being insulting seems wildly counterproductive. He plays right into the "liberal elite" stereotype, it's guaranteed to get people's backs up, and I don't see what value or benefit it accrues to anyone.
And people re-electing Bush or opposing healthcare are not proof of stupidity: they are proof of people choosing one narrative (w/r/t healthcare, concocted of equal parts fear, hope, distrust of government and belief in individual freedom and entrepreneurial accumen) over another. The fact that the GOP has always been better salesmen doesn't mean the American people are dumbasses.
"The fact that the GOP has always been better salesmen doesn't mean the American people are dumbasses."
well...how about this: the fact that majorities of americans believed, despite the fact that everyone in authority acknowledged the opposite, that saddam hussein was involved in 9/11 long after the invasion?
if that isn't stunningly stupid, i don't know what is.
If you all really believe that Americans are truly that stupid, then you should be arguing against our democratic system. Why would any government let "stupid" people have a say? I'm not ready to give up on democracy.
Tony and TW--about McCain and universal health care and being at the govt "tit":
You may know his immediate family, and also his mom(dependent of a former admiral) receive tax payer funded DOD health care. This means free drugs (no co-pay, including free over the counter drugs such as tylenol, vitamins and cough syrup) free lab tests, free physical therapy, free xrays, free surgery, free doctor visits, free hospitalization, free surgery, etc etc. No forms to fill out, no insurance arguments, no worrying about the medicare drug plan "donut".....
When asked about this by the Des Moines register he said something like "you don't have to be an astronaut to know space"--huh?
DOD care is what govt funded health care would look like, and despite the bad press about Walter Reed (which was about out of hospital housing, and not the care itself) DOD care is actually a pretty amazing benefit.
His family could afford care anywhere, yet his mom choses to get govt funded care at Navy Med Center Bethesda--why is this not appropriate for everyone else?? The reason DOD care is good and cost effective is we don't pay for the paperwork overhead of the insurance companies--but they are a huge and important lobby, so doubt either side of the aisle will take them on....
Americans are pretty stupid and uninformed. There are any number of studies that show this to be the case when comparing American knowledge levels to those of other industrialized nations.
The mistake that liberals make is believing that ONLY conservatives are stupid, when in fact, American stupidity cuts across party lines and class lines.
Yeah Frankie, Knoh basically makes my point. If Americans are stupid than it's time, in the words of Elaine Brown, to get guns and be men. If this country is really that stupid than God Help Us All, because democracy really is just a delusion.
I've never believed that bigotry (and that's what the Palin pick is) rewards people in the long-term. But every once in awhile it's nice to see bigotry, ignorance and cravenness punished immediately. – from 09/30/08 Does Sarah Palin serve the purpose of entertaining the people who follow Nascar?
In the long-term is there a long-term?
Can President Obama avoid war with Iran? Is the U.S.A. the new Ottoman Empire? Is democracy usually more a hope than a reality?
Surveying U.S. history, one is hard-pressed to find presidential decisions as monumentally ill-informed and counterproductive as the decision to invade and occupy Iraq; however, a decision to go to war against Iran would arguably surpass the Iraq war as the worst foreign policy decision ever made by an American president. ~ Richard Norton, professor of international relations at Boston University
America ... [is going] down the tubes, and the worst part is nobody knows it. They're all in denial, patting themselves on the back, as the Titanic heads for the iceberg full speed ahead. ~ Intel's Andy Grove
The U.S. has routinely destroyed democracy throughout the globe while its leaders spout words about spreading democracy.”
“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism....
“I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
“During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.” – Major-General Smedley Butler, 1933.
The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it. ~ Edward Dowling, editor and priest 1941
The preceding quotations are from thescribblersweb.com
Do Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney tell us part of the truth that we desperately need to know? McKinney announced her resignation from the Democratic Party on Mar. 17, 2007, at an anti-war rally in front of the Pentagon: "As an American of conscience, I hereby declare my independence from every bomb dropped, every threat leveled, every civil liberties rollback, every child killed, every veteran maimed, every man tortured. And I sadly declare my independence from the leaders who let it happen," McKinney said.
One of the US House votes in 2007 to authorise funding for the US occupation of Iraq passed by only one vote, McKinney said during the interview. "Had I been there, it would have failed," she noted, seeing as how her Democratic replacement in Congress, Rep. Hank Johnson, voted to continue funding the war.
"The war party, which has two wings, Democratic and Republican--The Democratic wing counted their votes. They got rid of a sure 'no' vote and ensured war funding," McKinney said.
Is the U.S.A. government rapidly headed to an official false front with a Pablo Escobar back-office in which paranoia is truly the new optimism?
As McKinney put it in a 1996 interview with the Progressive, "African Americans have always known that a little bit of paranoia was healthy for us."
Do we need to know more about the amoral, thieving, multinational corporations and those super-rich people who are the primary beneficiaries?
Does Senator Obama represent strength on imperial bread and moderation on military circuses? Does Senator McCain represent moderation on imperial bread and strength on military circuses? Is the overseas U.S. empire founded in 1898 now foundering in a sea of imperial overreach and financial swindling?
If we don't have any history, we'll live our lives believing what we're taught in school, that America is a beacon for democracy and freedom in the world. – Howard Zinn, Terrorism and War, Chapt. 3, A Peaceful Nation? – available at mindfully.org
When will the American public wake up and realize that both the U.S.A. and Mexico are controlled by mega-thieves who follow the path blazed by James Stillman and Porfirio Diaz?
Who was Porfirio Diaz? (from en.wikipedia.org ):
In 1874 he was elected to Congress from Veracruz. That year Lerdo de Tejada's government faced civil and military unrest, and offered Díaz the position of ambassador to Germany, which he refused. In 1875 Díaz traveled to New Orleans and Brownsville, Texas, to plan a rebellion (see American businessman James Stillman), which was launched in Ojitlan, Oaxaca on January 10, 1876, as the Plan de Tuxtepec.
After appointing himself president on November 28, 1876, he served one term and then stepped down in favor of his hand-picked successor Manuel González, one of his underlings. The four-year period that followed was marked by corruption and official incompetence, so that when Díaz stepped up in the next election he was a welcome replacement, and there was no remembrance of his "No Re-election" slogan. During this period the Mexican underground political newspapers spread the new ironic slogan for the Porfirian times, based on the slogan "Sufragio Efectivo, No Reelección" (Effective suffrage, no re-election) and changed it to "Sufragio Efectivo No, Reelección" (No effective suffrage, Re-election). In any case Díaz had the constitution amended, first to allow two terms in office, and then to remove all restrictions on re-election.
He maintained power through manipulation of votes, but also through simple violence and assassination of his opponents, who consequently were few in number. He was a cunning politician and knew very well how to manipulate people to his advantage. A phrase used to describe the order of his rule was "Pan, o palo" ("bread, or the stick")[1], meaning that one could either accept what was given willingly, or face harsh consequences. From 1892 onwards Díaz's perennial opponent was the eccentric Nicolás Zúñiga y Miranda, who lost every election but always claimed fraud and considered himself to be the legitimately elected president of Mexico.
James Jewett Stillman (June 09, 1850 – March 15, 1918) was a noted American businessman who invested in land, banking, and railroads in New York, Texas, and Mexico. The son of Elizabeth Pamela Stillman (neé Goodrich) and Charles Stillman, James Stillman was born in Brownsville, Texas. Charles Stillman had significant business interests which James acquired in 1872. He expanded those to control of sixteen Texas banks and a significant land holdings in the Rio Grande Valley, particularly Corpus Christi and Kerrville, Texas. Along with W. H. Harriman, Jacob Henry Schiff and William Rockefeller he controlled the most important Texas railroads (including the Texas and Pacific Railroad, the Southern Pacific Railroad, the International-Great Northern Railroad, the Union Pacific Southern Railway, the St. Louis, Brownsville and Mexico Railway, and the Mexican National Railroad) and the National City Bank of New York.
In 1876 Stillman supported Porfirio Díaz's overthrow of the government of Mexico by the Revolution of Tuxtepec.
He is considered to have been one of the 100 wealthiest Americans, having left an enormous fortune.[1] His oldest son James Alexander Stillman also served as president of National City Bank of New York. Stillman was related to even greater wealth by marriage; his two daughters (Sarah Elizabeth Stillman and Isabel Goodrich Stillman) married the sons (William Goodsell Rockefeller and Percy Avery Rockefeller respectively) of business associate and friend, and senior executive of Standard Oil William Rockefeller. His grandson James Stillman Rockefeller served as president of National City from 1952 to 1959 and chairman from 1959 to 1967.
How many of us know much about history and what is really going on now?
This sounds like a case of the post hoc, ergo prompter hoc fallacy. The financial crisis has been driving the polls over the last two weeks, not Sarah Palin.
t-nc,
i don't think the solution need be anywhere near that extreme.
i think a few small, doable, but significant changes in our political system would radically alter the dynamic in this country and force greater participation. and therefore, make it much more difficult for americans to maintain their stupid posture.
first, eliminate the electoral college.
i think that small change alone would dramatically energize americans and motivate them to become more engaged and educated.
now, because of the antiquated and anti-democratic electoral college, most americans know that their votes don't really matter.
typically, no more than a handful of states in any presidential election really matter. everyone realizes that fact. so voters in the vast majority of the country understand that they do not have to be engaged because their individual votes don't really matter. if the president was elected by popular vote, i believe it would totally change the level of engagement of most americans, because their votes would finally matter.
this would, in turn, have all sorts of positive benefits, as americans would necessarily become more engaged and educated and sophisticated about our country, its issues - both locally and on the national level - and the rest of the world.
and, most importantly, our dismal educational system will finally be addressed.
i grew up in an era when high school students wrote bad "revolutionary" poetry, quoted huey newton and chaiman mao and frantz fanon and talked in romantic ways about taking up guns.
no thanks.
but i do believe that there are specific changes that we can make that can have a dramatic impact.
but the first step is simply recognizing that americans have been uniquely stupid as they have gone about their business over the last few decades.
Just what we need...elect the president by popular, direct vote...just like on American Idol. We could vote via the internet and from our cell phones, too! Neat!
Don't get it twisted....
I just watched the Couric-Palin bit that included the question about her magazine choices.... aside from that flub, she sounded fairly confident & knowledgeable on the other topics, esp. abortion & global-warming. So, I'm not so sure we can count her out too quickly.
In addition, reading some conservative blogs, a lot of people are saying that the McCain camp is purposely allowing these mishaps, so that she'll shine that much more in tomorrow's debate. Of course, that could just be an attempt to comfort themselves, as the McCain campaign is deteriorating faster than the ozone layer.
of course, rightwingers don't want elections decided in a democratic fashion.
they love the fact that small, typically white populations retain an inordinate amount of power because of the electoral college.
which was put into place to impact elections in exactly that fashion.
sure, let's keep a system that is designed to empower small numbers of white folks.
at the expense of growing numbers of black and brown people.
Sorry, Frankie that is just wrong. The electoral college system was not put in place to impact elections by giving inordinate power to white people...there was nobody in this country but white people and slaves who couldn't vote when the electoral college was put into place.
How exactly does the electoral college, which gives overwhelmingly more power to high population states which are mostly blue, empower a small number of 'white folks at the expense of growing numbers of black and brown folks'
Please educate me.
ii think the realities,the facts of the modern world indicate clearly that the arguments against that type of program deserve to be put into the "flat earth" category.
why do we spend so much more, and get so much less than any other nation?
our problem with health care is probably the best example of americans allowing themselves to be manipulated, because of their ignorance.
See, here you're making multiple statements which I think you believe are all equivalent.
One statement: We get much less for our healthcare dollar than other industrialized nations is unambiguously true, but it doesn't imply that believing non-governmental approaches to improving that metric are necessarily wrong.
Another statement: health care is probably the best example of americans allowing themselves to be manipulated, because of their ignorance. is arguable, but let's stipulate that it's true. I still don't see how that implies that people who are educated on healthcare matters, but still not for universal healthcare are necessarily wrong.
Your last statement: i think the realities,the facts of the modern world indicate clearly that the arguments against that type of program deserve to be put into the "flat earth" category. is just a Palinesque, content-free assertion.
I don't want to hijack this thread to argue healthcare policy, but you haven't said anything that even remotely convinces me that the US not having national healthcare = Americans are stupid.
DOD care is what govt funded health care would look like, and despite the bad press about Walter Reed (which was about out of hospital housing, and not the care itself) DOD care is actually a pretty amazing benefit.
I'm actually for universal healthcare--Phillip Longman's article "The Best Care Anywhere" lays out some very compelling reasons to support not just single payer, but government sponsored care.
I just don't think not buying into those reasons means you're de facto stupid.
TW Andrews,
frankly, if you cannot see how the health care debacle in this country reflects the manner in which americans allow themselves to be manipulated, via their ignorance and stupidiy, i'm sorry.
frankly - no pun intended - it simply isn't worth any energy trying to explain that fact.
some things, while not quite self-evident, are pretty damn obvious.
libertarian,
i'll qualify my previous statement to indicate that "privileged" white folks were the intended beneficiaries of the electoral college. and they continue to enjoy that outsized advantage today.
and your analysis that the electoral college benefits large states stands logic on its head and stand contrary to any analysis i've ever seen.
sparsely populated states like montana and wyoming and utah and north and south dakota and alaska enjoy an outsized amount of power due to the electoral college because of their electoral votes.
it is not a coincidence that all of these states have been voting republican for decades.
CA, 55, Blue
TX, 34, Red
NY, 31, Blue
FL, 27, Red/swing
PA, 21, Blue/swing
IL, 21, Blue
OH, 20, Swing
MI, 17, Blue
All the Western states you mention have 3-5 electoral votes, mostly 3s. A majority of the states with the most electoral college votes are Blue. I actually think the elctoral college is a very fair system that doesn't disenfranchise anyone, but I could make a good case that the voters of the Western states you mention are actually the ones who are disenfranchised, because they have a lot less pull and a lot more territory.
Since the electoral college system was put into place long before the Western states entered the union, I don't think there is any "concidence" or conspiracy, the Western states vote Republican because they identify more with small government/self sufficiency.
I think that when we start tinkering with the Constitution to "modernize" it, we're on very shaky ground. As a conservative of the if it isn't broke, don't fix it school of thought, I would not want to tamper with it.
your argument makes no sense.
a state like montana has 3 electoral votes, while it has a population of less than a million people.
a state like new york has almost 20 million people, though it has only 31 electoral votes.
california has almost 35 million people, though it has only 55 electoral votes.
shouldn't new york have 60 votes if it has 20 times the population of montana?
shouldn't california have over 100 votes, if those electoral votes are allocated with the same formula applied to montana?
any analysis shows the same trend.
larger, mostly democratic states are disadvantaged, relative to smaller, mostly republican, states.
millions of those democratic votes are essentially wasted, because of this undemocratic system.
simple math.
As far as Palin goes, the whole idea that Biden has to "not be too mean" is incredibly sexist anyway. The whole spin on this thing appaears to be that if she does not roll on the floor, drooling and speaking in tongues, she will win the debate. (actually that might get more religious right votes!)
There is also the effort to label Biden as "gaffe-prone". Hmm, he's given about 90 press conferences, Palin one. How many "gaffes" do you think she would make in 90?
Of course Palin is hurting the ticket. When she can be compared to a sixth grader it's not good:
http://stonecipher.typepad.com/the_stonecipher_report/2008/10/is-sarah-palin.html
About Ifill as moderator: for the same reason that Sarah Palin has a right to speak her piece to Katie Couric and be judged accordingly, Gwen Ifill deserves to do her job and face any consequences that may come her way.
Assuming she would be foolish enough to use the opportunity to try to skew the debate results, being above reproach and letting Palin continue to show her true colors is the best thing Ifill could do for Obama.
When someone disagrees with a conservative, the conservative says he/she is unpatriotic.
When someone disagrees with a liberal, the liberal says he/she is stupid or retarded (Bill Maher).
Neither of those statements is very pretty, and actually neither is true.
Just like liberals love their country, and are patriotic, so conservatives can choose to disagree with liberal holy grails like affirmative action and universal health care without being imbeciles.
It is called a difference of opinion.
As long as people don't start throwing around nasty names and accusations, i'm cool with it, even if i don't agree.
But calling names don't make no one no friends, and That, my fellow liberals, is why Obama stands there at debates and does not attack, but acts like a gentleman.
He is, my friends, turning the other cheek.
Or if you prefer Gandhi, you must be the change you wish to see in the world. Barack has that lesson down.
We should not allow conservatives to lie about us.
We should be rightfully proud of liberal accomplishments.
But engaging in an argument with somone screaming obscenities at you only brings you down to that level.
Tony-- I feel you, man, on the tax stuff. But we have to be ready to roll with Obama, the good with the bad. No man is perfect, and we have a lot of time left to argue our sides.
Tony, you are a pretty disgusting guy. Is that a porn site you run?
Sarah,
John McCain has made you famous. Everybody knows your name. BUT, We don't know YOU.
We see you trying to parrott your handlers, but it's as if you have no mind of your own.
How can you mean what you say when you do not know, in debth what you are parroting about?
That is an issue with me. I am dissapointed in you.
I have tried to find reason to vote Republican as always, but I can not for the life of me do it..I had my hopes on you. You let me down.
Our country is crumbling under Bush's terms. On his watch and McCain has been on his side most of the time in agreement. I was wrong hoping you would make any difference at all..delusional is the word.
It's hard to believe that ANYONE is falling for the emperor with no clothes (Bush, Cheney, McCain, and especially Palin). All flash, no substance, all of them. They know how to talk in generalities, but if you actually ask a question that you can't bulls**t your way out of, they speak gibberish. McCain doesn't speak nonsense, but he is an angry, small man who thinks he has a RIGHT to the white house. Palin is an uninformed, incredibly uncurious, right-wing extremist, stone-cold danger. The fact that some people still support the McCain Palin ticket just shows that you can fool some people ALL OF THE TIME. InCREDIBLE!!!!
Yes Mr Comstock, you really are quite terrible. Ever so.