Originally appeared on my Blew's Clues blog:
can i just say that ...
I tire of people saying that John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin was "cynical," that he was trying to pander to women with this choice. Is he really stupid enough to think that women who were going to vote for Hillary Clinton will now vote for Sarah Palin just because she's a woman? they ask.
That would be no. He's not that stupid. Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are nearly the antithesis of each other. There might be exactly two women in the country who were going to vote for Hillary just because she is a woman who might vote for McCain just because Palin is a woman.
It was not about Palin's being a woman, people, although that's a nice bonus. It was about inspiring those legions among evangelicals who are none too excited about John McCain to actually get out and vote. It's not that evangelicals were going to vote for Obama. It was that they were going to stay home. A Point of View writer captured this nicely last month in The News & Observer:
When Christian conservatives stay homeNews & Observer, The (Raleigh, NC)Editorial/Opinion A9
Thomas Mills Correspondent
Published: August 19, 2008
CARRBORO--Throughout the primary election season, Barack Obama's campaign argued that his nomination would expand the electoral playing field. In particular, they pointed to Southern states, including North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia. Even in states like South Carolina and Mississippi, local political observers have made the case that high African-American turnout could turn their states "blue."
As pollsters, pundits and others make their predictions, African-American turnout has been the focus of arguments and discussions. However, there is another side of the coin. What will turnout be like in the conservative Christian community?
Republican victory in the South has always relied on a substantial get-out-the-vote effort within the evangelical Christian community. This year seems different.
Many of the right rejected John McCain in the primaries, and some swore never to back him. (Remember Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter disparaging the nominee?) Only in the past month have the leaders of the Christian right grudgingly agreed to back McCain -- and still there are holdouts, the most prominent being James Dobson of Focus on the Family.
In addition, a new breed of evangelical leaders, including Rick Warren, has said that it's time to move beyond the social issues that have defined Christian conservatives. Instead, they urge their followers to focus on issues such as global poverty and even environmental concerns. Some in the old guard who stressed morality are either dying off or have lost credibility because of their own moral shortcomings.
The booming Clinton economy of the 1990s allowed the rank-and-file Christian conservatives to focus on issues that had little to do with their daily lives. They voted against choice, against gays, for guns and for prayer in schools. What they got was an ill-planned war, staggering gas prices and a crumbling economy.
This year, many of those voters are likely looking at their pocketbooks, and some may be having buyer's remorse.
I'm not suggesting that large numbers of Christian conservatives are going to rush to the polls to support Obama. And I have the utmost respect for the GOP turnout machinery. However, I am suggesting that this year, voting behavior might be different.
After 20 years of combative politics around social issues, Christian conservatives have made very little progress, and new leaders say it's time to refocus. John McCain has never inspired the community and, until a few weeks ago, was bashed by much of the leadership. Finally, the rank-and-file are predominantly middle- and working-class families who have been hit hard by economic policies promoted by the leaders they helped elect.
I don't think they will come out to vote Barack Obama. I'm just not sure that they will come out at all.
Copyright 2008 by The News & Observer Pub. Co.
That would be no. He's not that stupid. Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are nearly the antithesis of each other. There might be exactly two women in the country who were going to vote for Hillary just because she is a woman who might vote for McCain just because Palin is a woman.
It was not about Palin's being a woman, people, although that's a nice bonus. It was about inspiring those legions among evangelicals who are none too excited about John McCain to actually get out and vote. It's not that evangelicals were going to vote for Obama. It was that they were going to stay home. A Point of View writer captured this nicely last month in The News & Observer:
When Christian conservatives stay homeNews & Observer, The (Raleigh, NC)Editorial/Opinion A9
Thomas Mills Correspondent
Published: August 19, 2008
CARRBORO--Throughout the primary election season, Barack Obama's campaign argued that his nomination would expand the electoral playing field. In particular, they pointed to Southern states, including North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia. Even in states like South Carolina and Mississippi, local political observers have made the case that high African-American turnout could turn their states "blue."
As pollsters, pundits and others make their predictions, African-American turnout has been the focus of arguments and discussions. However, there is another side of the coin. What will turnout be like in the conservative Christian community?
Republican victory in the South has always relied on a substantial get-out-the-vote effort within the evangelical Christian community. This year seems different.
Many of the right rejected John McCain in the primaries, and some swore never to back him. (Remember Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter disparaging the nominee?) Only in the past month have the leaders of the Christian right grudgingly agreed to back McCain -- and still there are holdouts, the most prominent being James Dobson of Focus on the Family.
In addition, a new breed of evangelical leaders, including Rick Warren, has said that it's time to move beyond the social issues that have defined Christian conservatives. Instead, they urge their followers to focus on issues such as global poverty and even environmental concerns. Some in the old guard who stressed morality are either dying off or have lost credibility because of their own moral shortcomings.
The booming Clinton economy of the 1990s allowed the rank-and-file Christian conservatives to focus on issues that had little to do with their daily lives. They voted against choice, against gays, for guns and for prayer in schools. What they got was an ill-planned war, staggering gas prices and a crumbling economy.
This year, many of those voters are likely looking at their pocketbooks, and some may be having buyer's remorse.
I'm not suggesting that large numbers of Christian conservatives are going to rush to the polls to support Obama. And I have the utmost respect for the GOP turnout machinery. However, I am suggesting that this year, voting behavior might be different.
After 20 years of combative politics around social issues, Christian conservatives have made very little progress, and new leaders say it's time to refocus. John McCain has never inspired the community and, until a few weeks ago, was bashed by much of the leadership. Finally, the rank-and-file are predominantly middle- and working-class families who have been hit hard by economic policies promoted by the leaders they helped elect.
I don't think they will come out to vote Barack Obama. I'm just not sure that they will come out at all.
Copyright 2008 by The News & Observer Pub. Co.
No comments:
Post a Comment