How could it be that, with Obama's double digit lead in the polls going into Tuesday's primaries, he ended up losing the state? Three possibilities are suspect, all strange:
- Hillary's "human moment" (see it on youtube) turned the tide overnight. Admired by some, derided as "Nixonian self-pity" by others, when you parse out the sub-populations it does appear possible that she truly moved women to suddenly change their vote. A pollster has shown that the discrepancy between earlier polls and the final result is concentrated in the group of educated women voters. I guess it's not too crazy to imagine that these ladies suddenly felt some gender solidarity and voted with their hearts. I guess that wouldn't be too terrible, either.
- But what if she didn't really win? In a developing story, questions are being raised about significant discrepancies between machine-counted and hand-counted votes—more than enough to have changed the result. For now it's just a blogosphere conspiracy, but if there's even a kernel of truth to it we should all fear for American democracy. N.H. was, after all, using the infamous Diebold Accuvote© system. I'm glad, at least, the machines were decertified in Colorado.
- And finally, a pundit has demonstrated how the order of candidates on the primary ballots probably had a 3% effect. Apparently the order had historically been randomized precinct to precinct, but this time was uniform and alphabetical, with Clinton near the top of the ballot statewide. Hey, now that's not fair!
Bottom line: those crazy granite heads...!
Edit (Thursday):
Mom raises a
very interesting point in the comments about race and gender in the
election—worth a lot of thought and discussion. One of my reactions happens
to be in the form of yet another strange possibility that should be added to
the list above. This possibility is a bit disturbing, but it's common enough to
have a name (the Bradley
effect): it is the phenomenon of people claiming they would vote
for a black candidate in public polls but, in the privacy of a voting booth,
would not (and do not). If that's what happened, well, let's just say I'd
rather be called a cheese head than a granite head. If it messes with your
head like it does mine, check out the Reverse
Bradley Effect and the Reverse Bradley Effect Variation (holy race and
gender, Batman).
8 comments:
I've declared since before anyone knew of Barak Obama, that a black man would be president before a woman. I still think it is true. As one looks through history, blacks have received political clout ahead of women. Despite our National Rhetoric, this county's citizens remain gender biased. That "human moment" of Hillary's will come back to bite her should she get the nomination or seek any leadership position. The macho majority out there are waiting to point out how a woman is too emotional to handle the job. The Daily Show had clips of several leaders, include George Herbert Walker, in tears but that cuts no ice. They had good reason. New Hampshire is independent and reflects nothing. I have spoken.
MoMster
If a white Iowa can vote for a black man, he has great chances. New York and California will be easy.
I'd guess you're right about California. I remember seeing "Obama 2008" bumper stickers there back in 2006. But NY is Clintonland. We'll all find out together on Supertuesday, Feb 5...!
I'm going to have to back MoMster on this one, at least with respect to representations of power in the U.S. still being deeply tied to masculinity. That it is now commonplace to elect ex-athletes, bodybuilders, tough-guy actors, and even "wrestlers," all with limited education and skills, to the highest political posts in the country suggests that we resilently and stupidly expect political "strength" to manifest itself in the body of the politician itself in the most cliched ways imaginable. This stubborn gender fantasy decidedly works to the detriment of our nation, making our boasts of enlightened freedom and equality appear comparatively dim (or dim-witted) with respect to those "second"-world nations for whom women in key leadership positions is old news.
Nevertheless, one should be cautious, I think, before generalizing anything about the progress of African Americans based on Obama's successes. Over the last decade, from what I recall, the real wages and educational attainment of blacks in this country--particularly black males--has either decreased or stagnated. Those of women have increased dramatically (though parity in most areas is still yet to be achieved). By almost all indices of social success and status--wages, health, education, property, etc--(white) women on average are doing far better than African Americans. This suggests, perhaps oddly, that part of Obama's success is attributable to the nation's desire to prove to itself, despite all these clear social indicators of racial disenfranchisement, that 1) they are not race-conscious and subsequently, 2) black people are fundamentally responsible for their own subjugation. This kind of dual motivation is actually pretty common historically, and is well indicated in this presidential race by the fact that "race" repeatedly and anxiously returns to the campaign rhetoric but only so that everyone (including Obama) can disavow it as having no legitimacy in any political discussion.
In sum (good god, academics *are* preposterously long-wineded), it seems as if broad claims of either race or gender as *the* exclusive deprivileged identity are overstated, suggesting that one needs to attend to their complex intersections in a given and specific context. With respect to this presidential run, though, I'd agree that the balance tips towards a raced male over a white female.
I mean, if that's okay with your Mom...
--Cousin Jer
Whoa! Comment-O-Ramma! Looks like Mom is the Queen. Big score with comments from 'Cuz, glad to see that.
The individual psyche is what's it's all about. The ego and fear. When I look at a person at a distance, looking for power (office) or not, I make judgments based on who I am and how much of me I see in them. I don't think I'm very different from every other person on the planet. So I believe that most people make judgments in a similar manner.
The more you know (education) about the yourself, the world, and others the better judgments you make and the better actions will follow. If you think you know and you are wrong (idiots and ignorants) the worse your judgments and the more fatal your actions. Idiots are bad, ignorants will hopefully learn, we are all ignorant to some degree in many things.
Once the majority of humans understand that it's the psyche that makes that person and not a vagina, penis, or pigment I think we'll all make better choices and move in a more positive direction.
As proof of the amazing ability of humans to change I would like to submit that cousin Martin (from the Paulson side) has stated that he may even vote for the vagina (that's an attempt at humor, not crudeness) this time! Yes, believe it!
Oh well, I'm giving a test and have to attend to m students now.
e
Oh yea, Comment-O-Ramma indeed.
Jerry: brilliant comments! You must visit more often! Not at all "long-winded," but in fact concise statements of what I think is really going on here. Your comments ring true.
On gender: "...we resiliently and stupidly expect political 'strength' to manifest itself in the body of the politician itself in the most cliched ways imaginable."
Yes! Politics is exactly that: a battle of clichés. It is inconceivable for a candidate to run without some cliched alter-ego out front for the cameras. It's sad sad sad. But it is precisely a cliché, otherwise the ignernt masses couldn't get their heads around the candidates (or exercise anything but their most apathetic reflexes). At some level it's inevitable: we cannot all be economic and foreign policy experts enough to discriminate between the various "plans." But does it have to fall to the lowest common denominator? We sure end up looking dumb when seen from outside our borders (if only that were our worst problem).
And on race: "part of Obama's success is attributable to the nation's desire to prove to itself..."
This seems to me to be where the "Bradley effect" (mentioned in the post) is likely to play a role. I could see folks mouthing their pride in elevating a black man to the highest office, but then balking in the voting booth. The Clinton apparatus appears to understand this, and has no qualms with exploiting it.
Erik: Sure, in a perfect world we'd judge each other on some true, inner self. But would you be willing to give up your penis-pigment? And are your serious about Martin voting for Hillary? Whoa.
Wow. This is getting good.
Points well taken:
1. Masculine world - real men cry, women fake it
2. We see (and vote) ourselves - only if we are existentialists like e.
3. We are media mania - that's why we choose the superficials (i.e. athletes, actors, wrestlers). This also is pulled by the money crowd who buy the media. Thus, money buys elections. Have you seen the new book "How to Rig an Election"?
4. Yes women may have gained monetarily faster than blacks but it's a pacifier to keep them in their place. Give them money (to spend) but never real power.
6. True, one good man does not equate to making a generalization to all. GO BO
MoMster
Post a Comment