What Got Out The Votes?
California appears to have followed a nation-wide trend: more people showed up to vote in yesterday's primary election than have in a long, long time. A surprisingly insipid editorial in today's Los Angeles Times noted the increased participation and offered some reasons for the surge.
It's hard to say what prompted Americans to stop caring about their president, but it might have been Richard Nixon. Voter turnout for presidential elections was north of 60% in the 1960s, but dropped to 55% in 1972 and has never climbed above that mark since. The cynicism may be nearing an end, however; huge turnout in many primary races, including the Super Tuesday contests in California and 23 other states, shows that the nation may finally have gotten over Watergate. As candidates from both parties relentlessly drive home the message that each will be an agent of change in Washington, voters have a glimmer of hope that they're telling the truth. ...
There is undoubtedly more than one explanation for this. Turnout is usually higher when there isn't an incumbent involved, and this is the first time since 1952 when there has been neither a president nor a vice president in the running. This election is also in part a referendum on George W. Bush's leadership -- polls show that large majorities of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.Little wonder that "change" is the 2008 campaign watchword, one that even Republicans are adopting.
Yet more than anything else, it is the candidates themselves who are injecting rare excitement into the contest. On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee entices evangelical Christians, Mitt Romney hopes to be the choice of fiscal conservatives, Ron Paul brings up the libertarian wing, and John McCain ... well, the difficulty in pinpointing his position on the conservative spectrum probably explains his newfound popularity. He pleases many but satisfies few.
The Democrats have far narrower choices -- Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are all-but identical on the issues that matter. Yet it's clear from turnout numbers that the Democrats are far more energized than Republicans, and it isn't hard to see why: Electing either a woman or an African American man to the presidency would be a historic first, and these candidates carry that promise with grace.
While it's hard to dispute that a hunger for change drove people off of their couches to the polls, in the end, that really doesn't say much. Elections are usually about change. What makes this election season different?
The editorialist suggests that the candidates themselves have positioned themselves, each in his or her unique way, as harbingers of change, and then recites a litany of cliches to support that thesis. (Note the implied slam on McCain: that's who the L.A. Times endorsed on the Republican side.) Yet none of the candidates, and I mean NONE, have really talked meaningfully about change. None of the Republicans have dared violate the GOP Eleventh Commandment by pointing out the disasters of eight years of Bush and Company. Surprisingly, neither have the two remaining Democratic candidates, at least not yet.
Was the turnout simply about making history by nominating either a woman or a Black man? I'm sure that entered into it, but not to the extent the editorialist claims.
If the Times editorial board wants to know why so many people showed up, they should simply read the rest of the paper. Here's what I consider to be a more rational explanation:
As for the strong turnout, Danny Pham, 31, a mortgage underwriter from Irvine and a Ron Paul supporter, said a combination of the war, the economy and that "California really matters this time" brought people out. [Emphasis added]
Mr. Pham even got the order right, in my opinion.
The candidates might want to pay attention to those factors, and the sooner the better for all of us.
It's hard to say what prompted Americans to stop caring about their president, but it might have been Richard Nixon. Voter turnout for presidential elections was north of 60% in the 1960s, but dropped to 55% in 1972 and has never climbed above that mark since. The cynicism may be nearing an end, however; huge turnout in many primary races, including the Super Tuesday contests in California and 23 other states, shows that the nation may finally have gotten over Watergate. As candidates from both parties relentlessly drive home the message that each will be an agent of change in Washington, voters have a glimmer of hope that they're telling the truth. ...
There is undoubtedly more than one explanation for this. Turnout is usually higher when there isn't an incumbent involved, and this is the first time since 1952 when there has been neither a president nor a vice president in the running. This election is also in part a referendum on George W. Bush's leadership -- polls show that large majorities of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.Little wonder that "change" is the 2008 campaign watchword, one that even Republicans are adopting.
Yet more than anything else, it is the candidates themselves who are injecting rare excitement into the contest. On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee entices evangelical Christians, Mitt Romney hopes to be the choice of fiscal conservatives, Ron Paul brings up the libertarian wing, and John McCain ... well, the difficulty in pinpointing his position on the conservative spectrum probably explains his newfound popularity. He pleases many but satisfies few.
The Democrats have far narrower choices -- Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are all-but identical on the issues that matter. Yet it's clear from turnout numbers that the Democrats are far more energized than Republicans, and it isn't hard to see why: Electing either a woman or an African American man to the presidency would be a historic first, and these candidates carry that promise with grace.
While it's hard to dispute that a hunger for change drove people off of their couches to the polls, in the end, that really doesn't say much. Elections are usually about change. What makes this election season different?
The editorialist suggests that the candidates themselves have positioned themselves, each in his or her unique way, as harbingers of change, and then recites a litany of cliches to support that thesis. (Note the implied slam on McCain: that's who the L.A. Times endorsed on the Republican side.) Yet none of the candidates, and I mean NONE, have really talked meaningfully about change. None of the Republicans have dared violate the GOP Eleventh Commandment by pointing out the disasters of eight years of Bush and Company. Surprisingly, neither have the two remaining Democratic candidates, at least not yet.
Was the turnout simply about making history by nominating either a woman or a Black man? I'm sure that entered into it, but not to the extent the editorialist claims.
If the Times editorial board wants to know why so many people showed up, they should simply read the rest of the paper. Here's what I consider to be a more rational explanation:
As for the strong turnout, Danny Pham, 31, a mortgage underwriter from Irvine and a Ron Paul supporter, said a combination of the war, the economy and that "California really matters this time" brought people out. [Emphasis added]
Mr. Pham even got the order right, in my opinion.
The candidates might want to pay attention to those factors, and the sooner the better for all of us.
Labels: Election 2008
posted by Diane at 4:05 AM
4 Comments:
"The Democrats have far narrower choices..."
narrower?
Is that even proper?
...more narrow?
they're just skinnier. :-)
Mr Pham is a genius. Now if Harry and Nancy would listen to him...
My kid and I watched the polling results for hours last nite, marvelling at the turnout.
The Democratic turnout, that is. The Republicans, feh.
Post a Comment
<< Home