Turnout Barometers?
Slate has a feature detailing the reasons why nearly every single one of its staff and contributors will vote for Kerry. They are very interesting as an insight into the liberal mind -- many, for instance, seem consumed by hatred for Bush, and, tellingly, many of the women contributors deride book as too "cocky" or "cocksure." Methinks the Alan Alda left just does not like men.
Anyway, what struck me about the responses is that they expose what may turn out to be the Big Myth of 2004, namely, that this is an election that has the whole country excited and committed, and that we will therefore have enormous turnout at the polls. If the responses of these ultra-committed, ultra-tuned-in ultra-liberals is any indication, the odds on the average 24 year-old, never-before-voted, don't-own-property-and-don't-have-kids-so-I-don't-care-about-that-down-ballot-property-tax-referendum-and-couldn't-care-less-about-the-school-board slackers getting their ass off the couch, turning off MTV Real World and going over to the local library (could they find it? they might not be able to find their asses with two hands) is miniscule.
Here are some selections I culled:
Paul Berman: I'm voting for Kerry, with no great belief that he will be a first-rate president.
Daniel Drezner: I've never been less enthused about my choice of major party candidates—it's like being forced to decide whether The Matrix: Reloaded or The Matrix: Revolutions is the better movie…. I've reluctantly decided to back Kerry.
David Greenberg: I'd vote for practically anyone instead of Bush….
Christopher Hitchens: Kerry should be put in the pillory for his inability to hold up on principle under any kind of pressure…. Kerry should get his worst private nightmare and have to report for duty.
Mickey Kaus: I don't expect Kerry to be a successful president in any other respect.
Kathleen Kincaid: On Nov. 2, I will cast my ballot for John Kerry. Is he a strong candidate? No.
Jacob Weisberg: I remain totally unimpressed by John Kerry. Outside of his opposition to the death penalty, I've never seen him demonstrate any real political courage. His baby steps in the direction of reform liberalism during the 1990s were all followed by hasty retreats. His Senate vote against the 1991 Gulf War demonstrates an instinctive aversion to the use of American force, even when it's clearly justified. Kerry's major policy proposals in this campaign range from implausible to ill-conceived. He has no real idea what to do differently in Iraq. His health-care plan costs too much to be practical and conflicts with his commitment to reducing the deficit. At a personal level, he strikes me as the kind of windbag that can only emerge when a naturally pompous and self-regarding person marinates for two decades inside the U.S. Senate. If elected, Kerry would probably be a mediocre, unloved president on the order of Jimmy Carter.
Robert Wright: He's a long way from being the Messiah, but at least he's not the anti-Christ.
Conclusion? These are not the full-throated warblings of a committed movement for Kerry. Mark it down, you heard it hear first: turnout will be lower this year than last time.
Anyway, what struck me about the responses is that they expose what may turn out to be the Big Myth of 2004, namely, that this is an election that has the whole country excited and committed, and that we will therefore have enormous turnout at the polls. If the responses of these ultra-committed, ultra-tuned-in ultra-liberals is any indication, the odds on the average 24 year-old, never-before-voted, don't-own-property-and-don't-have-kids-so-I-don't-care-about-that-down-ballot-property-tax-referendum-and-couldn't-care-less-about-the-school-board slackers getting their ass off the couch, turning off MTV Real World and going over to the local library (could they find it? they might not be able to find their asses with two hands) is miniscule.
Here are some selections I culled:
Paul Berman: I'm voting for Kerry, with no great belief that he will be a first-rate president.
Daniel Drezner: I've never been less enthused about my choice of major party candidates—it's like being forced to decide whether The Matrix: Reloaded or The Matrix: Revolutions is the better movie…. I've reluctantly decided to back Kerry.
David Greenberg: I'd vote for practically anyone instead of Bush….
Christopher Hitchens: Kerry should be put in the pillory for his inability to hold up on principle under any kind of pressure…. Kerry should get his worst private nightmare and have to report for duty.
Mickey Kaus: I don't expect Kerry to be a successful president in any other respect.
Kathleen Kincaid: On Nov. 2, I will cast my ballot for John Kerry. Is he a strong candidate? No.
Jacob Weisberg: I remain totally unimpressed by John Kerry. Outside of his opposition to the death penalty, I've never seen him demonstrate any real political courage. His baby steps in the direction of reform liberalism during the 1990s were all followed by hasty retreats. His Senate vote against the 1991 Gulf War demonstrates an instinctive aversion to the use of American force, even when it's clearly justified. Kerry's major policy proposals in this campaign range from implausible to ill-conceived. He has no real idea what to do differently in Iraq. His health-care plan costs too much to be practical and conflicts with his commitment to reducing the deficit. At a personal level, he strikes me as the kind of windbag that can only emerge when a naturally pompous and self-regarding person marinates for two decades inside the U.S. Senate. If elected, Kerry would probably be a mediocre, unloved president on the order of Jimmy Carter.
Robert Wright: He's a long way from being the Messiah, but at least he's not the anti-Christ.
Conclusion? These are not the full-throated warblings of a committed movement for Kerry. Mark it down, you heard it hear first: turnout will be lower this year than last time.
posted by PDB at 1:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home