I think McCain shouldn't be counted out, and that he may have an "electoral path to victory," as the wonks like to say. But that piece didn't convince me of it. It sounds like more of the same griping about the media being out of touch, and polling being inaccurate. Polling is obviously not bulletproof (far, far from it), but it's at least pretty clear right now that if Obama loses, he will have squandered a lead with just a few days left -- a lead that exists even in Palin's "real America."
But this, from the piece, actually drives me craziest:
"To some Americans — how many is the worry and hope of both campaigns — that sounds suspiciously like Mr. Obama wants to take some of their hard-earned money and give it to others who maybe don’t work as hard. "
Good lord, on the spectrum of small to big government, I think I skew to the small side, but this -- and the recent talk of "socialism" -- is inane. Taking money and giving it to others (and back to yourself) is what taxes do. You can argue about how best to implement the rates, and about how best to use the money, but trying to paint Obama as Robin Hood (based on his currently stated policies) is absurd. Put another way, I can almost guarantee you that I use state highways that are also used by people who work twenty times harder than me (and by those who work less than me). It doesn't keep me up at night.
I can't imagine that anyone works harder than you, John. Your entire posts therefore falls apart.
What interested me about the article was the notion--which I've seen discussed elsewhere--that some large silent bloc of disenfranchised-feeling women who aren't registering in polls at the moment might tip the scale. I don't buy the argument, but I find it intriguing. Because how can Palin fans be disenfranchised? Aren't Republican women pretty franchised, as far as it goes? I saw a roundtable discussion on a newsshow recently (CNN?) which featured a group of women sitting around talking about how much they loved Palin and how, for the first time ever, they felt politically energized.
Again, I find it hard to believe these women a) exist in meaningful numbers b) have had their voices unheard to date. But, we'll see.
Let me again state, though: Good god do I not want Sarah Palin to be president.
You're right, and I didn't mean to sound so strident. It's a problem these days. The issue of women and how their votes turn out will be one of many interesting subplots on election night.
4 comments:
I think McCain shouldn't be counted out, and that he may have an "electoral path to victory," as the wonks like to say. But that piece didn't convince me of it. It sounds like more of the same griping about the media being out of touch, and polling being inaccurate. Polling is obviously not bulletproof (far, far from it), but it's at least pretty clear right now that if Obama loses, he will have squandered a lead with just a few days left -- a lead that exists even in Palin's "real America."
But this, from the piece, actually drives me craziest:
"To some Americans — how many is the worry and hope of both campaigns — that sounds suspiciously like Mr. Obama wants to take some of their hard-earned money and give it to others who maybe don’t work as hard. "
Good lord, on the spectrum of small to big government, I think I skew to the small side, but this -- and the recent talk of "socialism" -- is inane. Taking money and giving it to others (and back to yourself) is what taxes do. You can argue about how best to implement the rates, and about how best to use the money, but trying to paint Obama as Robin Hood (based on his currently stated policies) is absurd. Put another way, I can almost guarantee you that I use state highways that are also used by people who work twenty times harder than me (and by those who work less than me). It doesn't keep me up at night.
I can't imagine that anyone works harder than you, John. Your entire posts therefore falls apart.
What interested me about the article was the notion--which I've seen discussed elsewhere--that some large silent bloc of disenfranchised-feeling women who aren't registering in polls at the moment might tip the scale. I don't buy the argument, but I find it intriguing. Because how can Palin fans be disenfranchised? Aren't Republican women pretty franchised, as far as it goes? I saw a roundtable discussion on a newsshow recently (CNN?) which featured a group of women sitting around talking about how much they loved Palin and how, for the first time ever, they felt politically energized.
Again, I find it hard to believe these women a) exist in meaningful numbers b) have had their voices unheard to date. But, we'll see.
Let me again state, though: Good god do I not want Sarah Palin to be president.
You're right, and I didn't mean to sound so strident. It's a problem these days. The issue of women and how their votes turn out will be one of many interesting subplots on election night.
This election could, quite possibly, drive me to murder. Palin would be a top contender.
Or maybe off the grid. L and I will become left wing AK-47 militia types, squatting in the woods.
Post a Comment