Calm down kids - we have a common enemy
I know this is a little late but I've been thinking quite a bit about
both Obama and Clinton supporters' claims that they'll vote for McCain
if their preferred candidate does not get the nomination. I'm hoping
that Josh is right and that people will calm down, eventually voting for
the Democrat when they realize the enormous differences between the Dem
and Teflon John.
But do you think, as that settles out, there might be another reason to expect a second mini-surge toward the Democratic candidate? Hear me out: From the beginning of the campaign, the Democratic race has gotten FAR more media attention than the Republican race. Even as we've narrowed the field down to two candidates, you can argue that McCain has been playing second (third? fourth?) fiddle to the Democratic contenders, thereby amplifying the media's tendency not to focus on his blunders, misstatements, "plans," etc.
What happens when things settle down on the Democratic side though?
I think that what we're seeing now is a symptom of the fact that most voters don't follow this horse race every day. They remember McCain from 2000, feel that in hindsight he would have been a better President than Bush, have vague recollections of him being a bipartisan maverick that truly represents the middle ground. A lot of them don't realize that, in the meantime, he's cozied up to the agents of intolerance, he now supports tax cuts that he himself opposed, he was against torture before he was for it, he freely admits to knowing nothing about economics, and he offers a dangerous foreign policy that may indeed make Bush's seem tolerable.
In short: are your "average" American voters, who are only starting to tune into the campaign, going to turn on the debates this fall, hear the words coming out of McCain's mouth, and ask themselves "What the hell happened to this guy?" Are his approval ratings and competitive numbers due to the fact that he's lost in the media narrative right now? And that as soon as people start to look at him a bit more closely, they'll realize that he's not who he once was?
Just a thought.
But do you think, as that settles out, there might be another reason to expect a second mini-surge toward the Democratic candidate? Hear me out: From the beginning of the campaign, the Democratic race has gotten FAR more media attention than the Republican race. Even as we've narrowed the field down to two candidates, you can argue that McCain has been playing second (third? fourth?) fiddle to the Democratic contenders, thereby amplifying the media's tendency not to focus on his blunders, misstatements, "plans," etc.
What happens when things settle down on the Democratic side though?
I think that what we're seeing now is a symptom of the fact that most voters don't follow this horse race every day. They remember McCain from 2000, feel that in hindsight he would have been a better President than Bush, have vague recollections of him being a bipartisan maverick that truly represents the middle ground. A lot of them don't realize that, in the meantime, he's cozied up to the agents of intolerance, he now supports tax cuts that he himself opposed, he was against torture before he was for it, he freely admits to knowing nothing about economics, and he offers a dangerous foreign policy that may indeed make Bush's seem tolerable.
In short: are your "average" American voters, who are only starting to tune into the campaign, going to turn on the debates this fall, hear the words coming out of McCain's mouth, and ask themselves "What the hell happened to this guy?" Are his approval ratings and competitive numbers due to the fact that he's lost in the media narrative right now? And that as soon as people start to look at him a bit more closely, they'll realize that he's not who he once was?
Just a thought.
Advertisement





Darn right we have a common enemy - Greg Sargent. Everyone knows that he is a shameless hack whose bias for ______ (fill in blank with scumbag opposing candidate of your choice) could not be more obvious.
March 27, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That you're not willing to acknowledge that his bias is strongly pro-Sinbad* only proves that you're in on the plot Greg Delassus. Or should I say Greg Sargent?
*Not that there's anything wrong with that.
March 27, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't disagree with you more. Greg Sargent's media blackout on Sinbad is irrefutable proof that he's trying to bury this national hero. He's as anti-Sinbad as they come and, therefore, he must be destroyed. After we eat.. either here or at the next place. I'm cool with whatever Sinbad decides.
March 27, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is so anti-comedian.
March 27, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"we have a common enemy"
Of course. The Judean People's Front.
March 27, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll. The People's Front of Judea is obviously the group we must remove from the face of the Earth. The Judean People's Front shows us the way to do so.
Brian/Sinbad '08
March 27, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is my thesis really so bad that this became a Sinbad thread with the first comment? Yikes.
March 28, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink