political catching-up

[anotheranon]

I know I haven't posted anything overtly politically contemplative lately, but this is because I've not been paying as close attention. I've not been watching the debates, mostly because with all the rules involved, I question just how spontaneous the "debating" really is. Also, I think it's highly unlikely at this point that I'm going to change my mind about who to vote for :P (Don't worry - I still plan to watch the Jon Stewart reviews of the debates!)

I talked to my Mom last night, and that the discussion moved to politics is almost a given. Both she and my grandmother are on fire against Bush & Co., and my grandmother even fumed about moving to Canada (she won't, of course, but the fact that an 80+ year old woman who has happily lived in the same ~10 square miles for the past 30 years says something!). Both agree that the upcoming election is the most crucial of their lives, and as both of them have seen far, far more presidential elections than I have, I'm inclined to take them seriously.

They aren't the only ones, I suspect - the sheer number of books out about Bush and his administration are more than I've ever seen about a sitting president, or even a former/historical one. People are interested, people are concerned.

So what I wonder from my isolated liberal vantage point is - who the blazes is going to vote for this yo-yo in November's election? I see the polls, I hear all the stories about people who want to vote for a president they can "have a beer with" (WTF? I want a president who is terrifyingly brilliant and soul-burningly boring, so s/he has nothing better to do than run the country obnoxiously well), but I don't actually know these people.

I do know a couple of very mercenary types who will vote for Dubya under some percieved notion that they'll benefit from his tax cuts, but that's about it. Still, the overwhelming impression I get is that the Kerry election is not a slam dunk. Can someone offer me some insight here?

Comments

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

I sometimes suffer a cynicism not unlike your own, that the majority of people are willfully ignorant and sheep-like - "Muggles", my sister calls them, after HP - and that living with such throngs of unwashed masses it's a wonder we've not devolved into rioting in the streets between Dems and Repubs :P

Fortunately, I have friends, family, and other acquaintances whose very existence reassures me that not everyone in the continental U.S. is a flake, and from talking to them it seems the non-flaky people are going to be voting in droves this year.

I am also starting to suspect that polls are innaccurate, whether they are manipulated or not. Like you've pointed out, phone polls don't catch everyone, and people who fill out online surveys are only likely to come across them by being politically involved/aware already, which is another limitation on the selection sample....

I'm just not completely convinced that Kerry is doing as badly as mainstream media says he is, or that Bush is doing that well.

[ragdoll.livejournal.com]

Thanks to Air America and Democrats.com and a few other outlets, I've learned that not everyone other person in this country is an absolute sheep. After the 2000 election, I really was beginning to wonder. I just don't understand why it seems like half the population give or take is still clueless or maintains that Bush is their guy. It makes no sense.

I do think Kerry is doing better than expected, that the polls are inaccurate (weighted in favour of Republicans, not taking into account the fact taht most young people use cell phones as their main telephone, guessing that even if they did call low income blacks and hispanics about political polls, they wouldn't want to give any answers etc) and that the media is biased in general because they're owned by huge corporations who have a lot to lose if a Democrat gets in.

I'm cautiously optimistic but it's hard these days. LOL