Voting Trends, and some other stuff...
Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has come down out of his great obsidian tower at the Villainschloss and started to think about blogging again. It was a good break from everything. Time was well spent with Mrs. Villain, the Villainettes, as well as the Poet Laureate and Air Marshal. Regrettably, your Maximum Leader was unable to see the Minister of Agriculture or the Foreign Minister. He hopes to see the M of A soon. And wonders if the FM will be visiting the US anytime soon... (BTW, where is the FM? No posts recently. No updates on the Cannibal Trial? No news of wild boar? (See below.) Humm...)
Well, where to start. How about asking the M of A and Air Marshal to play nice about the Python songs/quotes. (Your Maximum Leader did not expect such controversy over the tag-line.) Your Maximum Leader will state that the M of A is almost always funny attempting (after a few drinks) any foreign accent.
Now what? How about with the Minister of Agriculture's last posts on the political affiliation test and Howard Dean? Your Maximum Leader was not surprised at either the results of his test (Libertarian/Republican) or the M of A's (Democratic). He was also not surprised by the M of A's anecdote about black students in Baltimore, MD taking the test and discovering they aligned with Republicans more than they thought. It is sad really that many minority groups are held captive by their "public leaders." Take the example of black Americans. It is your Maximum Leader's belief that without the hardcore group of public figures (like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Kwiesi Mfume, Maxine Watters, and others) slanting heavily Democratic; many blacks would naturally vote their conscience and trend Republican. But they never seem to? Why?
Those fellow bloggers here know that your Maximum Leader has "been a Republican" for a long time. This is not to say that I am a straight party-line man. As many readers of this spot will know, I speak my mind on items and disagree where I feel I need to. I would prefer to self-identify as a "Conservative" rather than a "Republican." They are not one and the same. While I will not delve into this subject at length here, I think most people know that not all Democrats are liberal and not all Republicans are conservative. If you do not... Well, go looking around and you will find some explanation elsewhere. I have voted for Democrats (albeit in smaller numbers) as well as Republicans. (I can say most of the Dems for whom I have voted have been local officials. Though, I did once vote for Chuck Robb for Senator from VA. And while I don't regret my vote in the last VA Governor's race, I will say that our current Dem Governor, Mark Warner, is doing a great job and if I had thought he would have been as good as he is; I would have voted for him.)
While I will not say I am a straight party-line man, I will say that most people are. As we can all hear from pundits like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, about 40% of Americans are Democrats and 40% are Republicans. It is those pesky "independents." Many years ago when your Maximum Leader was an intern on Capitol Hill, a well-known Republican campaign operative said to a group of interns (self included) that the Democrats could run Joseph Stalin and the Republicans could run Adolf Hitler and each would get at least 40% of the vote. It is only 11% that everyone fights for. When you stop and think about this, isn't a bit disturbing? 80% of Americans (roughly) are not going to give much consideration to who gets their vote. Where it gets more disturbing is to contemplate that I may be counted in that 40% that votes for Republicans? I do trend Republican - because ideologically they are closer to where I want the body politc to be. But I don't blindly cast my vote... Like the M of A, I review what the candidates say and then take a decision. But one of the questions I will pose rhetorically is this: "How long does it take to evaluate Candidates?"
I will use myself as an example here. How long did it take me to determine that if I were to vote in Virginia's Democratic primary (which is open since Virginia doesn't require that you register by party); I would be casting my vote for Joe Lieberman? Not long is the answer. (Okay, there is something deep inside me that wants to vote for Al Sharpton. Yes he is an evil man who has incited horrible race-riots; but he is very entertaining.) Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat who shares enough of my own political views that I could vote for him in good conscience. I know this just by a cursory review of what Lieberman is saying on the primary trail. I also can predict some of his positions on items that have not come up on the primary trail, because he has a record that is known to me. The other candidates are speaking what is almost another political language to me. Yes I understand what they are saying. But it is so alien to what I want to hear that I find myself "zoning out" while watching the Democratic Debates on TV. And to be frank, when President Bush speaking at fund raisers or "campaign events" I tend to zone him out too. Because I know what he is going to say, and don't feel I need to listen carefully. (I tend to read remarks on the web or in the newspaper and glean what I need from them.) I admit that I listen to political speeches in the context of what I want to hear, and what I feel the candidate should be saying. I zone out a lot of what is being said. Why? Because it is mindless tripe for which I have no use.
So moving this example along.... Say Joe Lieberman wins the Democratic nomination (which, alas, he will not), would I select him over George Bush? No. It is highly unlikely that I would. It is not because I think Joe Lieberman is any less honourable (or worthy of my vote) than George Bush. (He is probably just as worthy in fact as George Bush.) It is the party affiliation. Ultimately, I know from experience that Joe Lieberman will "tow the party line" when he needs to. And the party line he will tow is not one I generally like. George Bush will, generally, tow the Republican party line - a line that is preferable to me. While this type of empirical analysis is often faulty, what else is there to go on? Would this type of analysis, when done by me in 2000, have predicted that Bush would not have pushed for federal spending cuts? No it wouldn't have. I thought he would have tried to find some federal budget cuts. I thought wrong. Would I expect Joe Lieberman to cut federal programs that I don't like? No I wouldn't. Because although he has spoken against many of them, when push comes to shove he has shown he will do what the majority of his party want.
(Aside: And while not seeking spending cuts is something I would have hoped for from the President, it is the job of the Congress - the Republican Congress - to do the budget. Don't believe me? Read the friggin' Constitution. I never blamed President Reagan for budget deficits in the 1980's, I blamed the Democratic House. (How could anyone blame Reagan? Remember the Dems saying the budget was "DOA" (read: Dead on Arrival) when Reagan sent it. I wondered for a long time why he would bother to send one at all if the Dems just threw it out and did their own.) I didn't give credit to President Clinton for "balancing the budget," but gave the credit to the Republican House. I now blame the current budget - more accurately the lack thereof as many spending bills which should have been finished in September 2003 are still not passed - on the Republican House. The current Republican House has become a lesser version of the Democratic House under Tip O'Neill and Jim Wright. They are almost as spendthrift as the Dems were. It disgusts me. But moving along...)
So what have I discussed here? 1) Most Americans seem to reflexively vote according to their self-described party affiliation. 2) Using myself as an example, I explained that while I feel I don't reflexively vote party line, I evaluate with which candidate I share the most positions; and anticipate candidates will "tow the party line" in areas not expressly stated in a campaign. 3) This attempt to predict future behaviour is a factor in my voting habits trending toward Republicans. My unstated question has been "How many other people perform this type of evaluation?" I believe that I will review candidate's positions and then decide for whom I will vote. But because I have a core set of personal beliefs, this makes my evaluation process fairly short. Do other Americans evaluate candidates like I do? Or is the vote of many others a reflexive party affiliation action?
The Hobbesian in me (that part of me that takes a dim view of human nature) says that most Americans are just too dumb or self-centered to have a set of core political beliefs and thus would prefer the easier path of voting the affiliation their parents and grandparents had. If this is the case, then only 20% of Americans either have a set of core beliefs against which they judge political candidates or 20% are so confused about what they do or don't believe in that they just shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. (And they probably shouldn't be allowed to breed either.)
I would love to have the Big Hominid chime in on this one. He is a fairly apolitical guy. How does he select for whom he would vote? Since most candidates don't detail their position on interreligious dialog (except to say that they love God and express admiration for the beliefs of the church/synagogue/mosque they happen to be visiting), it could be hard to decide. Hummm....
To get to other items of interest....
Have you seen the MoveOn.org ad? It disgusts me. But coming from people who would gladly elect someone who fornicates with goats over George Bush, what else would you expect? (Did you know the Simon Wiesenthal Center condemned the ad?)
HARLOT ALERT! Britney? Married. Annulled. Humm.. Who'da thunk that Britney Spears could give the Dennis Rodman/Carmen Electra marriage the glow of longevity. Also see Mr. Green's comments. They made me laugh.
If this works, I'll do it.
Let's see. Gore endorses Dean and we catch Saddam. Bradley endorses Dean, who's next?
More Mars exploration. Good stuff.
South Korean prostitutes in court! Pimps beware!
Don't visit North Korea. Visit South Korea. (And while there, visit a South Korean prostitute to help defray her legal fees.)
As a blog with a stylized boar's head in the logo, we should report more news about boar's. Lucky there is some. Is your Maximum Leader the only one a bit disturbed reading this to learn that there are potentially thousands of wild 300lb boars living in the Berlin Metro area?
And finally, Go Packers!
Carry on.
Well, where to start. How about asking the M of A and Air Marshal to play nice about the Python songs/quotes. (Your Maximum Leader did not expect such controversy over the tag-line.) Your Maximum Leader will state that the M of A is almost always funny attempting (after a few drinks) any foreign accent.
Now what? How about with the Minister of Agriculture's last posts on the political affiliation test and Howard Dean? Your Maximum Leader was not surprised at either the results of his test (Libertarian/Republican) or the M of A's (Democratic). He was also not surprised by the M of A's anecdote about black students in Baltimore, MD taking the test and discovering they aligned with Republicans more than they thought. It is sad really that many minority groups are held captive by their "public leaders." Take the example of black Americans. It is your Maximum Leader's belief that without the hardcore group of public figures (like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Kwiesi Mfume, Maxine Watters, and others) slanting heavily Democratic; many blacks would naturally vote their conscience and trend Republican. But they never seem to? Why?
Those fellow bloggers here know that your Maximum Leader has "been a Republican" for a long time. This is not to say that I am a straight party-line man. As many readers of this spot will know, I speak my mind on items and disagree where I feel I need to. I would prefer to self-identify as a "Conservative" rather than a "Republican." They are not one and the same. While I will not delve into this subject at length here, I think most people know that not all Democrats are liberal and not all Republicans are conservative. If you do not... Well, go looking around and you will find some explanation elsewhere. I have voted for Democrats (albeit in smaller numbers) as well as Republicans. (I can say most of the Dems for whom I have voted have been local officials. Though, I did once vote for Chuck Robb for Senator from VA. And while I don't regret my vote in the last VA Governor's race, I will say that our current Dem Governor, Mark Warner, is doing a great job and if I had thought he would have been as good as he is; I would have voted for him.)
While I will not say I am a straight party-line man, I will say that most people are. As we can all hear from pundits like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, about 40% of Americans are Democrats and 40% are Republicans. It is those pesky "independents." Many years ago when your Maximum Leader was an intern on Capitol Hill, a well-known Republican campaign operative said to a group of interns (self included) that the Democrats could run Joseph Stalin and the Republicans could run Adolf Hitler and each would get at least 40% of the vote. It is only 11% that everyone fights for. When you stop and think about this, isn't a bit disturbing? 80% of Americans (roughly) are not going to give much consideration to who gets their vote. Where it gets more disturbing is to contemplate that I may be counted in that 40% that votes for Republicans? I do trend Republican - because ideologically they are closer to where I want the body politc to be. But I don't blindly cast my vote... Like the M of A, I review what the candidates say and then take a decision. But one of the questions I will pose rhetorically is this: "How long does it take to evaluate Candidates?"
I will use myself as an example here. How long did it take me to determine that if I were to vote in Virginia's Democratic primary (which is open since Virginia doesn't require that you register by party); I would be casting my vote for Joe Lieberman? Not long is the answer. (Okay, there is something deep inside me that wants to vote for Al Sharpton. Yes he is an evil man who has incited horrible race-riots; but he is very entertaining.) Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat who shares enough of my own political views that I could vote for him in good conscience. I know this just by a cursory review of what Lieberman is saying on the primary trail. I also can predict some of his positions on items that have not come up on the primary trail, because he has a record that is known to me. The other candidates are speaking what is almost another political language to me. Yes I understand what they are saying. But it is so alien to what I want to hear that I find myself "zoning out" while watching the Democratic Debates on TV. And to be frank, when President Bush speaking at fund raisers or "campaign events" I tend to zone him out too. Because I know what he is going to say, and don't feel I need to listen carefully. (I tend to read remarks on the web or in the newspaper and glean what I need from them.) I admit that I listen to political speeches in the context of what I want to hear, and what I feel the candidate should be saying. I zone out a lot of what is being said. Why? Because it is mindless tripe for which I have no use.
So moving this example along.... Say Joe Lieberman wins the Democratic nomination (which, alas, he will not), would I select him over George Bush? No. It is highly unlikely that I would. It is not because I think Joe Lieberman is any less honourable (or worthy of my vote) than George Bush. (He is probably just as worthy in fact as George Bush.) It is the party affiliation. Ultimately, I know from experience that Joe Lieberman will "tow the party line" when he needs to. And the party line he will tow is not one I generally like. George Bush will, generally, tow the Republican party line - a line that is preferable to me. While this type of empirical analysis is often faulty, what else is there to go on? Would this type of analysis, when done by me in 2000, have predicted that Bush would not have pushed for federal spending cuts? No it wouldn't have. I thought he would have tried to find some federal budget cuts. I thought wrong. Would I expect Joe Lieberman to cut federal programs that I don't like? No I wouldn't. Because although he has spoken against many of them, when push comes to shove he has shown he will do what the majority of his party want.
(Aside: And while not seeking spending cuts is something I would have hoped for from the President, it is the job of the Congress - the Republican Congress - to do the budget. Don't believe me? Read the friggin' Constitution. I never blamed President Reagan for budget deficits in the 1980's, I blamed the Democratic House. (How could anyone blame Reagan? Remember the Dems saying the budget was "DOA" (read: Dead on Arrival) when Reagan sent it. I wondered for a long time why he would bother to send one at all if the Dems just threw it out and did their own.) I didn't give credit to President Clinton for "balancing the budget," but gave the credit to the Republican House. I now blame the current budget - more accurately the lack thereof as many spending bills which should have been finished in September 2003 are still not passed - on the Republican House. The current Republican House has become a lesser version of the Democratic House under Tip O'Neill and Jim Wright. They are almost as spendthrift as the Dems were. It disgusts me. But moving along...)
So what have I discussed here? 1) Most Americans seem to reflexively vote according to their self-described party affiliation. 2) Using myself as an example, I explained that while I feel I don't reflexively vote party line, I evaluate with which candidate I share the most positions; and anticipate candidates will "tow the party line" in areas not expressly stated in a campaign. 3) This attempt to predict future behaviour is a factor in my voting habits trending toward Republicans. My unstated question has been "How many other people perform this type of evaluation?" I believe that I will review candidate's positions and then decide for whom I will vote. But because I have a core set of personal beliefs, this makes my evaluation process fairly short. Do other Americans evaluate candidates like I do? Or is the vote of many others a reflexive party affiliation action?
The Hobbesian in me (that part of me that takes a dim view of human nature) says that most Americans are just too dumb or self-centered to have a set of core political beliefs and thus would prefer the easier path of voting the affiliation their parents and grandparents had. If this is the case, then only 20% of Americans either have a set of core beliefs against which they judge political candidates or 20% are so confused about what they do or don't believe in that they just shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. (And they probably shouldn't be allowed to breed either.)
I would love to have the Big Hominid chime in on this one. He is a fairly apolitical guy. How does he select for whom he would vote? Since most candidates don't detail their position on interreligious dialog (except to say that they love God and express admiration for the beliefs of the church/synagogue/mosque they happen to be visiting), it could be hard to decide. Hummm....
To get to other items of interest....
Have you seen the MoveOn.org ad? It disgusts me. But coming from people who would gladly elect someone who fornicates with goats over George Bush, what else would you expect? (Did you know the Simon Wiesenthal Center condemned the ad?)
HARLOT ALERT! Britney? Married. Annulled. Humm.. Who'da thunk that Britney Spears could give the Dennis Rodman/Carmen Electra marriage the glow of longevity. Also see Mr. Green's comments. They made me laugh.
If this works, I'll do it.
Let's see. Gore endorses Dean and we catch Saddam. Bradley endorses Dean, who's next?
More Mars exploration. Good stuff.
South Korean prostitutes in court! Pimps beware!
Don't visit North Korea. Visit South Korea. (And while there, visit a South Korean prostitute to help defray her legal fees.)
As a blog with a stylized boar's head in the logo, we should report more news about boar's. Lucky there is some. Is your Maximum Leader the only one a bit disturbed reading this to learn that there are potentially thousands of wild 300lb boars living in the Berlin Metro area?
And finally, Go Packers!
Carry on.
posted by The Maximum Leader at 1/06/2004 05:15:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home