« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Is It Just Me?
One of the odder side effects of growing older, along with the wrinkles and creaky bones, is the diminishment of cognitive awareness. Sometimes it seems as if I can no longer rely on my perceptions of the things I see, hear, feel, or think about.
For one thing, I have significant hearing loss in one ear which has led to some very weird interpretations of conversations in groups. Recently, I overheard two men talking at a party and spent several minutes pondering what one meant by saying to the other, "Good luck with your goat." Much later I realized they were talking about boats. Oh well, I wasn't part of the conversation anyway. As a woman, the most obvious example is that I can no longer trust my internal thermostat. My sisters and I used to make fun of our mother for always asking, "is it hot in here or is it me?", but I don't find that funny anymore. Hot, cold, cold, hot, I never know. Power surge my ass.
The point of all this is that I'm no longer sure if I can trust my instincts when it comes to the wider world. I see John McCain on t.v. and I wonder how anyone could possibly vote for the guy. I hear him flip-flop, mumble, titter at lame jokes, and make outrageous statements and I assume the MSM will call him on it. I felt sure that after seven plus years of arguably the worst administration in our history, Americans would turn on the Republicans like rabid weasels.
And yet I see McCain bumper stickers and yard signs, I see the media gush over him and ignore his negatives, and I read polls that show McCain and Obama only a few percentage points apart. I heard a woman being interviewed after the primary, a Democrat and Clinton supporter, who said she will vote for McCain in November. Her choice, she said, had nothing to do with gender, but rather with experience. She had favored Hillary over Obama because of her experience, and that's why she would choose McCain over Obama. When the interviewer pointed out that McCain was on the opposite side of most Democratic issues, she said she wasn't worried about that. She expects we'll have an overwhelming Democratic congress and they'll put the brakes on McCain in regards to social issues. I've heard others express similar views - that we are at war and need someone with military experience. Is the country really going to fall for that again?
Since the vast majority of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, I would expect Obama to win in a landslide. I would expect McCain's numbers, even now, to be in the same neighborhood as Bush's. But I appear to be wrong. So I'm asking you - am I missing something? Is this election going to be close? Is there a chance that McCain could actually win? Or is it just me?
Oh, and good luck with your goat.
Comments (25)
I'm right here with you! I just don't get it. Someone remarked on Hardball last night that McCain's statements were making him sound like a lunatic (this was his hilarious joke about killing Iranians with cigarettes). Only Chris got what she meant.
This guy, even if you forget about Bush -- is feeble and dense as a post! This guy has made jokes and sung songs about bombing a country that the Vice President actually WANTS us to bomb, and people are talking about his wisdom and experience?
Frankly, I think it is a cover for getting away with not being able to pull the lever for a black guy. As to the Hillary supporter who was only voting for her for her experience, and now wants McCain, maybe she won't be able to find her way to the voting booth in November. If she is that dumb, she just might not.
I find all of this very depressing. I am reading Alan Alda's book, Things I heard while talking to myself and one chapter was about how we were all pulling together after 911, and how he hoped it would continue. I have thought often about how Bush squandered international goodwill after that, but I never realized how a wise person who really wanted what is best for our country could have capitalized and built on our feeling of unity after the disaster.
In fact, who could have done worse? And now there are those who really claim to like this clown who jokes about killing and bombing? If Obama loses we are really in deep shit.
July 10, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course there's racism. But that's an easy out for Obama supporters. I've seen several articles comparing exit polling from 2004 with polling data on Obama. Kerry lost the white vote to Bush 58% to 41%. Obama is polling similar to that. So obama is losing the white vote because of racism and Kerry lost it by about the same amount because of what?
You think you have this wonderful candidate, though the bloom is a bit off the rose in these last couple of weeks even among Obama supporters. I think there are two terrible candidates for president this year and I don't want to vote for either of them. You can simply blame it all on racism if it makes you feel better but that doesn't make it true.
July 10, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't mean to imply that if Obama loses it will be because of racism. I was specifically targeting those who claim to be Democrats who will vote for McCain since Hillary didn't win.
No, my sadness about all this is less simplistic than you imply. I think we have two imperfect candidates -- when have we not? But a doddering old fool who jokes about bombing and killing people as opposed to someone with a lithe mind and who possesses the ability to bring disparate people together -- it seems like an obvious choice to me.
The "experience" meme really seems disengenuous considering McCain's behavior, which reminds me of a dopey teenager rather than an elder statesman.
July 10, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dearies, I agree with you. McCain is running a marvellous campaign. The kind that really makes me feel like tuning up the old throat.
Do re me fa so la ti dohhhhh.
July 10, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is the country really going to fall for that again?
Strike the word "again" and replace with "still." The answer is "yes" today, "yes" next year, "yes" for the foreseeable future.
July 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not surprised by where the polls are, and I am an ardent Obama supporter. I said all along that he would be the underdog, and the odds always favored the Republicans keeping the White House. Ever since the Democrats enacted the Civil Rights legislation, the South and border states have been mostly Republican strongholds. Jimmy Carter was an aberration just because of the Nixon ouster, and Ford had never won a single state contest.
Ross Perot was the main factor in defeating Bush One. Therefore, under normal circumstances; Republicans are hard to beat. Does anyone honestly believe that being the first African American nominee gives Obama a special appeal with those voters who usually end up voting Republican. I do not. I have always seen it as a uphill battle, and still do.
One last point. Start to take the polls seriously after Labor day, when both tickets are set, the conventions are over, and people start to really focus on what is at stake.
Everything will have to fall almost perfectly in place for Obama to win. This is a Republican country except when they have run it into the ditch. After a Democratic tow driver pulls them out of the ditch, the country reverts to their old Republican supporting habits.
Until Democrats can crack the South, the Republicans will always start the marathon with a ten mile head start.
July 10, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Liam, I always appreciate your posts and comments. I also love your analogy of the Dems bringing in the tow truck. But if any Republican administration has run the country into a ditch, it's this one. Shouldn't Obama being driving that tow truck now? Shouldn't we all recognize the need to hire Obama to drive that truck?
July 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
KZ, yes they should, but you know that the Republicans are going to try and scare the pants of the voters, and try to convince them that Obama is not a tow driver, but is instead a scary car jacker. You know how they thrive on keeping the voters paralyzed by irrational fear. It is all that they have.
By the way; with fuel prices so high, I am looking into purchasing a Sail Goat.
July 10, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well good luck with that!
July 10, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many things are wrong in your comment, but the most glaring is that the majority of voters will have made up their minds before Labor Day. Why you think Obama is campaigning strenuously now and GOP professionals worry that McCain is spinning his wheels?
July 10, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The undecided now are the ones that are going to decide the election. They always do, and they do not make up their minds until after labor day, and usually after the debates have been held. The late breakers decide elections, and not the current poll figures. I though you understood how elections are decided and when. Did you not learn anything from how so many critical primary states were fought over the most fiercely in the days before the votes were cast.
You need to study the results of the new Pew poll, and take stock of the number of undecided, and of the much greater number of voters who say that they are not committed to their current choice, and could end up switching. That is the very essence of an electorate that is currently not locked in, so you are dead wrong.
July 10, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
". . . . This is a Republican country except when they have run it into the ditch."
I'm not buying that: Republicans are a minority; they can't win on their actual platform -- it is consistently rejected -- so they have to lie about what they are actually about doing.
"After a Democratic tow driver pulls them out of the ditch, the country reverts to their old Republican supporting habits."
False. The Republicans take control, keep it for ten years, are seen for what they are and thrown out, and the Democrats take control for the next generation.
The Democrats are accused of being "weak on defense" -- even though most Democrats served in the military, and very few Republicans did. The actual difference is that the Repbulcians pour money into military hardware, and the Democrats put the money into domestic spending.
It is ignorance of history -- full and political -- and civics which cause the electorate to be confused about who to believe -- and thus who to vote for.
Some would say otherwise about me as to being a kind of "goat," but I'm in fact not tall enough to be over 18.
July 10, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do know how long " a generation" is I hope. When was the last time Democrats ruled the White House for such a length of time. You are just talking in circles, and still coming out with the same conclusion that I had. You are making a distinction without a difference. Since Republicans have controlled the Presidency for 7 out of the last ten terms of office, the reason why the voters elected them, is just you doing a lot of meaningless circle talking. They elected a Republican President, seven out of the last ten elections, and the only elected Carter, because they were mad at Ford for pardoning Nixon, and Ross Perot destroyed George Herbert Walker Bush's chance to win reelection.
The Democrats scraped out three out of ten wins, and each was under fluke conditions. No matter what you say, the results show that Republicans have dominated the White House for the vast majority of the past forty years, and they who hold the White House, hold most of the power.
July 10, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find your analysis very simplistic. I think it silly to point to one reason for Ford's loss to Carter, just as I find it simplistic to blame Gore's loss on Nader. Election losses are always much more complex than that.
There were many articles looking at perot's effect on the election and most I read at the time said that he drew equally from both Bush and Clinton, some even claiming he drew more votes from Clinton than Bush. A quick search of "perot clinton bush 'exit poll'" and I easily found this quote from a NY Times article,
"the impact of Mr. Perot's supporters on the campaign's outcome appears to have been minimal. If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush."
As for your contention that democratic wins were the result of flukes, the same contention could be made about some of the republican wins. It was certainly a fluke when LBJ, leading in the polls to be renominated, decided not to run for re-election just before a primary he was heavily favored to win. Humphrey was not able to announce his candidacy until late in April and was further disadvantaged by a southern democrat, Wallace, running as an independent, winning 5 states, and possibly flipping some others into Nixon's column.
Its certainly unusual for a sitting president to be challenged for renomination as Kennedy challenged Carter. While he may not have won re-election anyway due to the Iranian hostage crisis that could reasonable be called a fluke as well.
July 10, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are still in denial. The Republicans controlled the Presidency for 70% of the last forty years. That is reality. Face it. If we do not accept that, and figure out a new approach, it will not change.
Facts are facts, and yes they may be the simple truth, but that trumps your denial complex.
July 11, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not in denial. I know who won and who lost every presidential election in my life time and many of the elections that preceded my birth. Who won would be the one fact you have and our only area of agreement.
The rest of your post is foolish spin to explain your one fact or factually incorrect. I noticed you didn't address a single point I brought up.
What I find most pathetic is your use of a republican meme. It was republicans who spread the meme that Bush lost to Clinton because of Perot. Whether you've latched onto it out of Clinton hatred or your Clinton hatred comes from buying into the republican propaganda is a question only you could answer. But for anyone who read the analysis at the time its clear your "facts" are wrong.
You might start educating yourself by researching that and the other points I brought up. If after doing some reading you disagree with my points that might be a good time to respond to them. Telling me I'm in denial is not a rational argument, its an act of desperation by someone who has been effectively challenged and has no solid intellectual rebuttal.
July 11, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You pull that Clinton hatred crap out of your ass, and then claim that you want to have a reasoned discussion.
What happen in the 1994 elections exposed how weak Bill Clinton was. We Democrats have got to stop deluding ourselves. Ross Perot mortally wounded Bush One, and without that having happened it is highly unlikely that the voters would have elected Bill Clinton.
We stilll have an uphill battle, because of the Republican lock on the South. You can keep on pretending that is not the case, but NIxon did not develop the southern strategy, and Regan etc continue to nurture it on just as a whim. They know that it has been money in the bank for them. We are still struggling to make any kind of a dent in that base.
That is why guys like Regan can obtain a landslide, and Democrats can not. That is still the case in 2008. I am working hard to get Obama elected, but I am not in the business of lying to myself about the difficult task at hand.
July 11, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home in his absence on the ballot.
July 11, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you are right in identifying race as a primary factor. Too many of us in the ol' USA still can't quite make the leap of entrusting the White House to a non-white person.
July 10, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
ps - love your humor - good luck with your goat, too!
July 10, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain & the GOP make the argument that they're going to start drilling straight away and they downplay how long it will take for that to actually produce results, so that they're the ones who actually appear to be offering some hope on oil prices in the future. Whereas Obama doesn't. I'm talking image here - and perception is everything in politics.
Obama talks about taxing the oil companies more - and the talking point is that they'll just pass that tax on in higher prices.
According to the Pew study, only 47% of Americans believe climate change is man made. Obama talks about switching cars to lower emissions tech - if you're on a lower/average income, would you think you could afford to buy a new car?
Obama talks about raising taxes on businesses - McCain emphasises the impact on small business and says they'll have to lay off staff and argues that he'll lower small business' taxes - ergo, they'll employ more people?
If you care about jobs, which argument impresses you most? (If you're one of the more than 60% of people who think it's the economy, stupid...)
Capital gains: he'll argue that revenue has always gone down when they're raised - he'll even cite the Clinton experience - and he'll frighten all the middle class into nightmare visions of their retirement plans going down the tube.
The only arguments I can see that Obama has going for him unequivocally at the moment are healthcare and education.
And the campaign proper hasn't even started yet. The attack ads are going to make Kerry's run seem like a dream. Add to that that the media, with the exception of Cafferty & MSNBC, seems to be joined at the hip to their beloved `maverick`...
And in the last weeks of the campaign, if it seems close, expect perhaps the most powerful emotive argument of all - America's beloved separation of powers.
If all the polls are still showing that the Congressional Dems are going to cream it, how more important than ever will it be for John McCain to be America's last heroic stand against the far left taking over his beloved country and delivering it into the untried hands of a suntanned Jimmy Carter?
(My only hope is that the MSM will actually start to rethink McCain and that the Democratic campaign
will be so appalled by the polls that they really retool & sharpen their message.)
July 10, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm looking forward to the debates. I can't imagine McCain holding up when he has to actually think on his feet. A town-hall thing is fine because he can spout rehearsed platitudes and not get any follow-up questions when he doesn't answer the first one.
Oh, I guess he could do that in a regular debate as well, judging from the last ones, but at least he will look like the old coot he is next to Barack.
I wish they'd ask him a question about computers; like
"How do you do a blockquote in html, Senator?" That would surely get him mad!
July 10, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one explanation: McCain is apparently outspending him 3-1 on ads.
I think we've been coasting on expectations of fundraising success. I know I stopped donating after the primary was over. Started again today.
July 10, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just you. But I worry about how few of us there might be... The election in 2000 was bad enough, but I was utterly stunned in disbelief by the number of Americans that voted for Bush in 2004. Have enough voters gotten wiser since then?
July 11, 2008 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of us are trying to counter the McCain coddling of the MSM. Please check this out if you're interested in being part of the counter-movement.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/sudden-citizens-action-against.php
July 11, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment