Sorry for not blogging more during this convention. However, it looks like there’s more than enough reporting on the convention to go around. Especially from the bloggers.
This week of the Convention has made me think a good deal about what it’s going to take to change undecided minds in November, and what people are looking for in a candidate or platform.
Ruy Teixiera has a post where he argues that the only way Bush can win is if he retains his massive support in the White Working Class (WWC). Ruy notes that Clinton’s victories in 92 and 96 were due, in large part, to the WWC defecting (many of them Reagan Democrats, no doubt) back to the Democratic fold to vote for Clinton.
Elsewhere on the web, people are wondering how Clinton’s free trade stances could have gotten him so much of the WWC vote. I think it’s pretty simple. The WWC, perhaps more than any other constituent group, is prone to act according to the Gut Reaction Theory, first posited on DeskJockeys. This theory says that most voters have a gut reaction to a candidate, which trumps all other policy details about the platform. Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush all succeed in attracting Gut Reaction voters.
Kerry will have a hard time attracting the WWC, because his Gut Reaction Quotient is relatively low. The WWC vote doesn’t hinge on NAFTA, welfare, or anything remotely policy-oriented. It’s all about the gut.
Speaking of gut reactions, Barak Obama was, indeed, wonderful to listen to. It’s a pleasure hearing a Democrat use the phrase “I believe that we have a righteous wind at our backs.” Gave me chills.
Now Playing: Episode 349
Troops needed in Afghanistan end up in Iraq, Obama punts on the FISA bill, and finally: the Supremes rule on the 2nd amendment.
Links Mentioned: The hunt for Bin Laden … the new Army Iraq report … the FISA bill … the Prof references Chinua Achebe and The Lives of Others … the Genarlow Wilson aftermath.
True, Coulter would have been well served by remembering that fleeing Beirut in 1982 had some effect, but she’s such an easy target, why bother?
You can read the USA Today editors’ in situ comments on the column here:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4610
“IS THIS SARCASM; I DON’T GET IT.” Sort of sounds like a real uptight teacher . . .
I think you missed the point of the article. It seemed like a light-hearted Republican viewpoint at the opposing convention.
Separately, I would argue that Eisenhower did not get us into the Mideast mess, but America’s support of Israel did. The only problem the U.S. has is that there is no oil in the promised land, so delas have to be made. I’ll wait until there is a clear divide between Republcians in SUVs and Democrats on segways before I believe that either political party will solve U.S. problems in the Mideast. At least you can argue that Bush gets his oil at whoelsale prices, poor Heinz has to purchase jet fuel at retail.
Love the show.