Reminder: Most voters HAVE NO CLUE
Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:54:30 AM PDT
On a Yahoo Games chat board just now, the kind of random "conversation" that pops up all the time:
"Looks like the Repubs have chosen McCain"
"He's better than Obama, but worse than Clinton"
My first reaction = "Excuse me?" Is there really anyone in the political world, of any stripe, who would rank their Presidential preferences (1) Hillary Clinton, (2) John McCain, (3) Barack Obama?
But then I come back to the most basic axiom that we should never lose sight of throughout our discussions and theorizing on these matters: Most voters have absolutely no clue what is really going on in politics.
An even more disturbing example came yesterday, when my moderate-conservative brother and his wife were visiting. They follow the horse-race of the primaries probably more than the average voter. They both revealed that they would consider voting for Obama in the general election if he is nominated, although they would also consider McCain. Fine, much of the country is probably going to be on that fence. They wouldn't consider Hillary, however: too unlikeable or something. Fine, that's also typical. (They're also sick of Bush, having supported him in the past, which is also a reassuring trend.)
But then came the kicker. The guy they were really excited by, and were disappointed that he dropped out, was Fred Thompson! He was the one candidate they could have really gotten behind.
Again, my (unexpressed) reaction: "Um, excuse me??"
You see, a huge percentage of voters simply DO NOT pay attention to things like ideology, consistency on issues, even party affiliation, especially when it comes to Presidential politics. They vote based on the "feeling" that a candidate gives them, his/her image and style, and of course, whatever key sound bites or gaff or moment comes to define that candidate in the media ("I was for it before I was against it"; the "scream"; "Gore invented the Internet"; "There you go again"; etc.)
I can't claim to understand all the thoughts underlying any particular group of voters' subconscious decision process. In the case of my brother and his wife, I think it may be as simple as: "Thompson seemed like a kind of Reaganesque father figure, he would bring some maturity and sense to the White House. But if he's not around, well maybe it is time after all to elect one of those unfortunate black folk to be President, and Obama is so clean-cut after all. Not that Hillary, though: she's so shrill and deceptive, I wouldn't want to have to look at her for the next four years. McCain? Well, he does talk straight, but what about that whole illegal immigration thing? Hmm. I wonder who'll win American Gladiator this week."
Similar disjointed connections percolate throughout the electorate, and it is those politicians and their machines that are best able to manipulate, anticipate, and respond to the undercurrents of public sentiment, irrational and unpredictable as it can be, who will be most successful, especially at the Presidential level. This is why we can call both Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan geniuses. In the case of GW Bush, and of so many other politicians of recent eras, particularly Republicans, the winning mantra has been to play only on fears and suspicions, recognizing how easily the public can be scared into voting even against their own interests and better judgment. But in the absence of a looming Soviet or Al Qaeda boogie man, the subtle trends and influences, and images and moments, that will determine our next President will be very difficult to pinpoint.
Where do "we" fit in, the political junkies populating progressive blogs, arguing among ourselves over largely irrelevant absurdities like whether Barack "snubbed" Hillary or Clinton deviously "played the race card", when we should know full well that not one whiff of such nonsense makes it into the minds of voters who will actually decide this election? I think, collectively, we actually can have a minor influence on the framing of public perceptions, especially awareness of the big-picture, such as the rampant corruption and incompetence in the Bush administration and the Republican Party. The more we hammer away at such frames, the more likely they are to penetrate a few layers down into the uninformed and disinterested masses.
And that's the real downside of the campaign infighting that has infested this place, and the Democratic Party. By denigrating our own candidates, we give life to memes that will fester and grow among the general electorate, and come back to haunt us in November. Fortunately, for the moment, the Republicans are caught up in their own internecine battles, so there may be a standoff in terms of perceptions of the future, damaged nominees.
But if the Republicans do settle quickly on McCain, which appears more likely than the prospect of the Democrats soon resolving their nomination in either direction, and if our intra-party warfare continues unabated through March and April and May, the net effect could be devastating, regardless of whether Hillary or Barack wins in the end. Those faceless millions who, today, may be on the fence between a theoretical McCain and Obama or Clinton may find themselves leaning ever more toward the Republican, who will be mending fences and sharpening his swords, maliciously agreeing with every attack that both Democrats helpfully unleash on each other, doing his dirty work for him.
Permalink | 14 comments