Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Gripes about the voting public

So it's a bit extreme for me to say that tonight's results have made me cynical to the whole political process, but I am on my way. I think the most disheartening thing about tonight's results is that Hillary's negative attack ads (mainly the "who do you want to answer the phone at 3 am ad") actually worked. I am so sick of politics of fear. That is so George Bush/Karl Rove, I thought we were done with that. Not to mention I would so much rather have a president who respects diplomacy as the first option answer that phone, than a trigger happy president who is afraid of looking weak on defense and thus would get us into another mess like our current war. Isn't it ironic that the very actions that make you appear strong on national defense and security actually seem to make our country less safe? I don't think Clinton understands this..

But that's not the point. What makes me fed up with the general voting public is exit poll results like those out of Texas. Something like 62% of respondents said they thought Hillary was more qualified to be president, and those who decided in the last 3 days (which includes the debut of that ad) went heavily for Clinton, suggesting the ad worked. That's fine I can deal with that if that's how they felt for good solid reasons. It was the next exit poll that made me lose it, where CNN asked "who do you think unfairly attacked their opponent more?" The results - overwhelmingly people responded, guess who, Mrs. Clinton (like 62-38).

This isn't just true of Texas voters, its true of most voters. People say openly that they hate negative attack ads, that they are sick of them, they are sick of politics of fear, and this is what Obama has been trying to tap into, running a positive campaign about building people up instead of tearing down your opponent (notice how Clinton has run away with the few "scandals" of Obama's past, while Obama hasn't mentioned a SINGLE one of the scandals Hillary was involved in during Bill's years - and there were more than just Whitewater). Obama has stayed positive and apparently was punished for that. People say they hate negative ads, but they work. They say openly "Hillary unfairly attacked Obama" and yet the VERY same attack sways their vote to her. Makes no sense. The logic entirely escapes me.

I despise negative ads. I think if you can't run on your own merits alone you shouldn't be in the race. Anyone can tear down another person, but it takes real character to build everyone else up and focus on your own ideas. The math still looks good for Obama, but I am cynical. I don't know if this country is ready for change like I thought it was...


Nick N. said...

Great points. Agree 100 percent. What a depressing night. I'm having a really hard time getting myself excited about the idea of Hillary as the Dem candidate... let's hope Obama can rebound.

Alex D said...

Hi Devin ... I know I just saw you like an hour ago and will probably talk to you again later today, but I'm listening to NPR and getting all riled up/nervous about the elections so I felt urged to write. So a few things:

I agree 100% about the negative ads too. They're dispicable. But unfortunately, they work. Obamarama has been opposed to using negative ads, trying to rework the way elections take place in the country, and I respect him so so much for that. So should he comprimise some of his morals to help him win the election? Would it be a negative ad for him to start pointing out a few things about Hill ... I mean, regarding the whole 'red phone' ads ... When has Hillary ever really been at that crucial moment in the White House? Wasn't that really her husband? Should Obama go there?

Did you by any chance catch the CBS early show today? (Im guessing no) or read about it? Hillary was on and was asked about a possible Clinton-Obama ticket, you know, those rumors that have been in the background of this election from the start. Everyone still seems to think that a Clinton-Obama ticket is more likely than an Obama-Clinton ... and Hillary certainly was not opposed to this and did not throw away the idea. What are your feelings about this? Numbers do still look good for Obama, but should we worry, as Clinton says, that it's true that Obama has not won a major swing state ('swing' in the general elections in November sense of the word), other than his homestate?

Lastly, at the start of these elections the Democratic party did not seem overly split, it seemed that one side would vote for the other in the November elections. Has this divide between the two groups widened?? Are they starting to hurt eachother? McCain now officially has the Repub nom -- meaning he can start raising money and relax a bit as the Democrats drag the fight out. OR on the other side of the proverbial aisle, is dragging out the Democratic elections GOOD for whichever Dem wins, just because there is much, much less attention being paid to the repubs?

okay, sorry, that was a mini essay. I'll close with this: I really like you're new blog. Im going to have a new one up in a few weeks, with a much clearer focus...we'll see how it goes. chao chao!

Alex D said...

oooo I just reread that and it's fully of typos and grammar errors and Im disgusted with myself...sorry, guess all that political excitment made me type too quickly.