... for what my gut says on this. Certainly the turn out is going to be monstrously larger then in the 2004 presidential election. That historically favors the challenging Party, not the incumbent. And certainly in the House & Senate that will be true. However, I think there has got to be increased numbers of traditional (dare I say conservative) voters that make a showing in larger numbers in order to prevent the most radically left candidate in history from ascending to the most powerful position in the country (and the world for that matter).
And let me add this: I watched Obama vote with his young daughter by his side in Chicago's South Side today. And he looked almost teary eyed afterwards, describing it as "a very special experience." Now, as we are all fathers, we can imagine how swelling with pride he must have been to have his (she looks 11 or so) daughter peek into his voting screen and see her father's name there for President of the United States. Not to mention the historical racial aspects. My point is this - we (traditional Democrats and conservative Republicans) are going to need, in this hyper media-communication age, someone with this guy's amount of personal charisma (which he is dripping with) if we are to prosecute our message effectively to the American electorate. And that's NO MATTER who wins today. Reagan set the communication/likability standard for a generation and Obama has perhaps upped the ante.
This guy is like Darth Vader - all the Jedi skills in the galaxy, but has opted for a Sith-like ideology (& I avoided the obvious racial "dark/light" verbal overtones there, I might add). NOW - where is our Luke?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
In the sleepy little town of Vancleave
Well if it means anything, my wife and I waited for over 30 mins to vote at the vancleave community center. I didn't realize we had that many people that actually lived up here. Monster turn out, now we get to wait and see. My curiosity isn't so much CIC as much as it is SECDEF.
... and I just got in...
I stood in line with 48 other people in front of me (I counted them) beginning at 4:30 PM. The line took just about 15 minutes to get me to the booths, and it was over as fast as that. All done.
Recall that I gave some attendance figures from the '06 election? I was on an election committee (Committee Chairman, actually!) and I still have many of the turn-out figures for both '06 and '04. For the last Presidential election, my precinct had 487 people show up to vote, and in '06 it was a whopping 88.
Today, with 3.5 hours of voting left to go, I was number 984!
If the Tunkhannock II Precinct of Wyoming County, PA can nearly double its voter turn out this year, and this is indicative of the ENTIRE nation... then McCain is in a lot of trouble...
Recall that I gave some attendance figures from the '06 election? I was on an election committee (Committee Chairman, actually!) and I still have many of the turn-out figures for both '06 and '04. For the last Presidential election, my precinct had 487 people show up to vote, and in '06 it was a whopping 88.
Today, with 3.5 hours of voting left to go, I was number 984!
If the Tunkhannock II Precinct of Wyoming County, PA can nearly double its voter turn out this year, and this is indicative of the ENTIRE nation... then McCain is in a lot of trouble...
Heading out now ...
I just wanted to make a quick observation. If the Democrat Party had nominated a center left Democrat, even Hillary (who's not nearly center left as her husband), this wouldn't even be a close race via the unpopularity of Bush and the sinking GOP brand name. Look what is happening in the House and Senate - it's not even going to be close, it's going to be a Democrat tidle wave. Hell, even that ridiculous, poor satirist that was on SNL for about 5 minutes, Al Franken, has a real shot at winning in MN. So why so close for the presidential race? The Battleground Poll (very respected and accurate in terms of the last 2 presidential cycles) opened it up today showing Obama with a razor thin 1.7% lead nationally for the last 5 days. The reason is Obama, not McCain. This is a result of putting up an unvetted extremely leftist candidate - thus this election will be a referendum on him, and no one else.
Huh...
It would appear to be a rather stunning turn-out here in NEPA too... the Bund's #1 "drinking buddy" called me to say that I had better hope the lines are down by the END of work, because the lines BEFORE work made him 90 minutes late this morning!
In 2006, MY polling station had 88 voters turn out... pretty pathetic, even for a borough with only 2600 people in it. Our Bund-buddy was number 161 by 8:30 AM!!! Very nearly double in the first two hours.
THIS is why the polls don't really matter, EITHER way... there are so many people that don't typically vote VOTING that the numbers are sure to be skewed. It could, truly, be anyone's election.
I'm avoiding the news until AFTER I vote at about 5 PM... and I'll post again then, too.
In 2006, MY polling station had 88 voters turn out... pretty pathetic, even for a borough with only 2600 people in it. Our Bund-buddy was number 161 by 8:30 AM!!! Very nearly double in the first two hours.
THIS is why the polls don't really matter, EITHER way... there are so many people that don't typically vote VOTING that the numbers are sure to be skewed. It could, truly, be anyone's election.
I'm avoiding the news until AFTER I vote at about 5 PM... and I'll post again then, too.
I haven't voted yet....
...but DAMN!
My precinct voting HQ is the West End Biloxi Library. It's a nice sleepy little part of a mid sized town, granted on a road with nasty traffic, but where is there NOT traffic in post storm Biloxi?
So my ex-wife calls me at 7:20. Polls open at 7. She was there at 7 because work for her starts at 8. She estimated her place in line at 80. The line snaked outside the library almost three quarters of a block.
Last time I voted ('06) I went after picking the kids up from school and was #147. My ex was #120 at 7:55 when she finally got to a booth.
I dropped the kids off at 8:20 like normal and drove by the library, thinking I'd pull in and vote. The line was a full block long and getting longer. I'm hoping this is the before work crowd and when I get back over that way around 10:30 or perhaps 2 PM the line will be a bit shorter, and there will be a parking space.
Talk about turnout!
My precinct voting HQ is the West End Biloxi Library. It's a nice sleepy little part of a mid sized town, granted on a road with nasty traffic, but where is there NOT traffic in post storm Biloxi?
So my ex-wife calls me at 7:20. Polls open at 7. She was there at 7 because work for her starts at 8. She estimated her place in line at 80. The line snaked outside the library almost three quarters of a block.
Last time I voted ('06) I went after picking the kids up from school and was #147. My ex was #120 at 7:55 when she finally got to a booth.
I dropped the kids off at 8:20 like normal and drove by the library, thinking I'd pull in and vote. The line was a full block long and getting longer. I'm hoping this is the before work crowd and when I get back over that way around 10:30 or perhaps 2 PM the line will be a bit shorter, and there will be a parking space.
Talk about turnout!
Monday, November 3, 2008
The politics of change...
In less than 24 hours, I will be walking out of my local polling station here in NEPA after having voted in what truly could be one of the most important elections in the last 200 years.
The phone is ringing nearly twice a day with recorded calls to "get out and vote" from both sides. Local papers, the TV, radio... even the talk at the neighborhood pub is almost exclusively about the election.
This has prompted me to think of just WHY this election is so important to so many people.
Race? in 1876, the Republican Party offered Fredrick Douglas a spot on the ticket (which he refused). Since that time, there have been no fewer than 17 African American candidates for President... but none have won the primary of a major party until now (and NO, Jackson wasn't even close!). In fact, there are TWO African American candidates this year... Obama and McKinney (Green Party).
I won't go so far as to suggest that discrimination is dead in this country. I know it is not. However, I am convinced that at a national level we can confidently state as a society that "racism" is dead. 99% of the people voting for McCain are doing so because they don't like Obama's politics... not the color of his skin. 99% of those supporting Obama are doing so because the DO like his politics... not that he is a black man running in a white man's world. Sure, Obama has played the "race card"... but who wouldn't? If it gets him votes, who cares? This is, after all, America! It's his skin, let him sell it if he wants... I'm sure it will gain him 7 to 12 percentage points in places like New Orleans, Detroit, LA or Philly. ALL candidates sell themselves to the people they are talking to... otherwise NO ONE would ever win an election, would they?
If not race, then what? One can't label it as "politics" can they? Isn't that a bit redundant?
In the last century, we saw at least two, maybe three, MAJOR shifts in national attitude reflected in a Presidential election: 1932, 1980 and (my maybe-vote) 1960. In each of these elections, the nation chose to follow a "different" path, and to reject calls to uphold and support the "status quo".
1932 saw FDR promise a "return on investment" in the Federal Government, and a change from the "laissez faire" attitude of lawmakers towards the most vital and impacting aspects of our economy. His promises and his actions won him an unparalleled 4 terms, and kept a Democrat in the White House for an entire generation, and defined a political ideology for the next 50 years.
In 1960, we saw a very tender "junior Senator" win an election with the promise of a "new generation" of leadership. His election showed that the "promise" of a candidate... the potential a candidate has... is a MEASURABLE aspect of his (or her) appeal to voters. Much of America was enthralled at the prospect of a President that would front the concerns and hopes of a NEW generation while still appealing to the "old guard". Few Presidents have had the polarizing effect JFK had on the American political landscape, and fewer still have seen the tragedy of radical reaction to those effects, either.
1980 brought an end to nearly 50 years of stagnant and failing foreign policy traditions. No longer would the US be content with "containing" Communism, we would now actively work to show the world that it MUST eventually fail, while OUR system only got stronger. Reagan brought "pride" back to the table... it was okay to be enthusiastic about being an American. It was just fine to encourage your children to look forward to the future. There was nothing inevitable about the "Cold War" except the outcome... and the American people had lived under the specter of WWIII for far too long, always wondering when the bombs would start to fall. He made being financially ambitious "cool" (why ELSE would anyone watch Family Ties for 7 years?) and brought the counter to the "counter-culture" into the forefront of American society.
While I am fairly sure that my grandparents saw FDR as the end of the American dream, I KNOW my mother saw Reagan as the same thing... and neither was true.
I am still NOT voting for Obama, but I won't fall into despair if he wins. There is the distinct possibility that the man could win as many as 45 states (unlikely, I know... but the possibility does exist). There are enough "mainstream conservative Americans" out there who are JUST as pissed off at the Bush Administration as the liberals... and this could have a kind of "reverse Bradley effect"... people that say they want values and security, but are willing to vote for change when the curtain is drawn.
If this does turn into a landslide, then that might be for the best. Let's see the clear "mandate" rather than the divided nation that 2000 showed us. Force the Democrats to produce SOMETHING that can be measured and scrutinized by the people when they next go to the polls to determine if these are the people they want representing them in Washington. If McCain were to win, then it would only be by the barest of margins... and he would then have to pander to the Left for the next four years because he would KNOW that enough people were voting that way to impact the midterms and the '12 elections... something EVERY President must face.
The phone is ringing nearly twice a day with recorded calls to "get out and vote" from both sides. Local papers, the TV, radio... even the talk at the neighborhood pub is almost exclusively about the election.
This has prompted me to think of just WHY this election is so important to so many people.
Race? in 1876, the Republican Party offered Fredrick Douglas a spot on the ticket (which he refused). Since that time, there have been no fewer than 17 African American candidates for President... but none have won the primary of a major party until now (and NO, Jackson wasn't even close!). In fact, there are TWO African American candidates this year... Obama and McKinney (Green Party).
I won't go so far as to suggest that discrimination is dead in this country. I know it is not. However, I am convinced that at a national level we can confidently state as a society that "racism" is dead. 99% of the people voting for McCain are doing so because they don't like Obama's politics... not the color of his skin. 99% of those supporting Obama are doing so because the DO like his politics... not that he is a black man running in a white man's world. Sure, Obama has played the "race card"... but who wouldn't? If it gets him votes, who cares? This is, after all, America! It's his skin, let him sell it if he wants... I'm sure it will gain him 7 to 12 percentage points in places like New Orleans, Detroit, LA or Philly. ALL candidates sell themselves to the people they are talking to... otherwise NO ONE would ever win an election, would they?
If not race, then what? One can't label it as "politics" can they? Isn't that a bit redundant?
In the last century, we saw at least two, maybe three, MAJOR shifts in national attitude reflected in a Presidential election: 1932, 1980 and (my maybe-vote) 1960. In each of these elections, the nation chose to follow a "different" path, and to reject calls to uphold and support the "status quo".
1932 saw FDR promise a "return on investment" in the Federal Government, and a change from the "laissez faire" attitude of lawmakers towards the most vital and impacting aspects of our economy. His promises and his actions won him an unparalleled 4 terms, and kept a Democrat in the White House for an entire generation, and defined a political ideology for the next 50 years.
In 1960, we saw a very tender "junior Senator" win an election with the promise of a "new generation" of leadership. His election showed that the "promise" of a candidate... the potential a candidate has... is a MEASURABLE aspect of his (or her) appeal to voters. Much of America was enthralled at the prospect of a President that would front the concerns and hopes of a NEW generation while still appealing to the "old guard". Few Presidents have had the polarizing effect JFK had on the American political landscape, and fewer still have seen the tragedy of radical reaction to those effects, either.
1980 brought an end to nearly 50 years of stagnant and failing foreign policy traditions. No longer would the US be content with "containing" Communism, we would now actively work to show the world that it MUST eventually fail, while OUR system only got stronger. Reagan brought "pride" back to the table... it was okay to be enthusiastic about being an American. It was just fine to encourage your children to look forward to the future. There was nothing inevitable about the "Cold War" except the outcome... and the American people had lived under the specter of WWIII for far too long, always wondering when the bombs would start to fall. He made being financially ambitious "cool" (why ELSE would anyone watch Family Ties for 7 years?) and brought the counter to the "counter-culture" into the forefront of American society.
While I am fairly sure that my grandparents saw FDR as the end of the American dream, I KNOW my mother saw Reagan as the same thing... and neither was true.
I am still NOT voting for Obama, but I won't fall into despair if he wins. There is the distinct possibility that the man could win as many as 45 states (unlikely, I know... but the possibility does exist). There are enough "mainstream conservative Americans" out there who are JUST as pissed off at the Bush Administration as the liberals... and this could have a kind of "reverse Bradley effect"... people that say they want values and security, but are willing to vote for change when the curtain is drawn.
If this does turn into a landslide, then that might be for the best. Let's see the clear "mandate" rather than the divided nation that 2000 showed us. Force the Democrats to produce SOMETHING that can be measured and scrutinized by the people when they next go to the polls to determine if these are the people they want representing them in Washington. If McCain were to win, then it would only be by the barest of margins... and he would then have to pander to the Left for the next four years because he would KNOW that enough people were voting that way to impact the midterms and the '12 elections... something EVERY President must face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
