Slate Staff Prefer Obama Over McCain By 55-1 Margin

Slate:

Today, Slate's staff and contributors reveal how they're voting in next week's presidential election. This continues a tradition we began in 2000 and repeated in 2004. It will come as little surprise to many of our readers--and certainly as no surprise to Sarah "Media Elite" Palin--that Barack Obama won Slate in a landslide. In capturing 55 of our 57 votes, with 1 to McCain and 1 to Libertarian Bob Barr, Obama won an even bigger Slate majority than Al Gore in 2000 (29 of 37 votes) or John Kerry in 2004 (46 of 52 votes). Incidentally, this is a voluntary project: Our staff and contributors can reveal how they voted, but they are not required to.

Why did Obama win the swing state of Slate? Like Mike and Jacob before me, I don't think a candidate's Slate victory reflects a bias that has corrupted the magazine during the campaign. There are obvious reasons why Slate would lean heavily toward Obama: Most of our staff and contributors live in extremely Democratic cities on the East and West Coast. (It's worth noting that our lone McCain voter, Deputy Managing Editor Rachael Larimore, lives in Ohio.) Slate's voters tend to skew young, and all polls show younger voters favoring the Democrat. Also, a significant number of former Slate contributors, among them Austan Goolsbee, Jason Furman, and Phil Carter, are now advising Obama. It's understandable that our affection for them and respect for their views may be accruing to Obama. (He's taking Jason and Austan's advice on the economy? Then he must be pretty smart.) And, finally, we are journalists.

Read the whole story: Slate

Comments

[Liberty2008]

Why doesn't SLATE tell us how the "suits" in their organization are voting? The Republican owners are the ultimate decision makers. We found this out in the run-up to the war in Iraq, when, for example, Phil Donohue's show was canceled, in spite of being MSNBC's highest-rated show, because his anti-war guests were unpopular with MSNBC's "suits" (the widely published memo said it was inconvenient for the face of MSNBC to be anti-war when other networks were waving the flag). It was the "suits" who authorized the covert propagandizing of the American people via "independent" media analysts sent by the Pentagon to sell the war on TV. Reporters don't make decisions about whether the facts they uncover actually get published, or make it onto the airways, so, their political views are ultimately irrelevant. I would like to hear how the decision makers are voting.

[steamboat]

Why is this news? Everybody knows the mainstream media is biased towards the 'left. And not open-minded or fair.

[VladdyTrout]

Ah hah! At least one news outlet is not afraid to admit a liberal bias! If this is the case then all media, with the exception of America's one true God given news channel FOX, are liberal! Exposed!

End sarcasm! LOL

[SEQUOIABISON]

Not surprising, but who was the one idiot?? Must be related to a republican.

Obama/Biden

[uheardme]

Weekly Standard employees prefer McCain to Obama by 99 to 1. Big deal, this stuff means nothing. Folks, do not forget to vote, this election is tighter than you think.

[avicenna]

Well, on a slightly unrelated vote - international scientists were also polled as to who they prefer as the American President, and if scientists ruled the world - 86% of them strongly favoured Obama to 6% for McCain (8% were split among independents - Nader and Ron Paul). Science also appears to have an elitist agenda with a Liberal bias (most are unashamed socialists - freely spreading their knowldege around).

[noblechaos]

I followed Slate closely in 2000 and 2004 - they got my hopes up only to be stomped on election day.

I hope they're right in '08.

[gretchenart]

guess they can safely change their name to slant with the letters leaning left.

[Pistolopera]

Of course they're all supporting Obama - They all have IQ's above the single digits ...

BEST OBAMA VIDEO EVER:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN_UsOHpKjM

[night owl]

PistolOpera, don't plug your own video.

[bob8788]

Slate is in the tank for obama

http://barackobamacans.blogspot.com/2008/10/folks-john-mccain-is-losing-and-his-not.html

[KarlaElisa]

So....it would appear Slate has a couple of tokens working for them.

[MajorKong]

To be fair, if there is a "liberal media" Slate would probably fit the definition.

[truthyguy]

It continues to astound me how people from Ohio, like Slate's Deputy Managing Editor Rachael Larimore, support McCain or any republican given that Ohio is one of the states that has been decimated by Bush & Company's policies and the policies of the incompetent republican governor who was thrown out recently. They lose jobs to outsourcing, lose industry to foreign competition, have no health care, have lousy schools, the public retirement system was robbed by republican insiders, pollution is everywhere, the youth are being forced to join the army to serve in Iraq just to get money for college and foreclosures are rampant. Yet people like Larimore still vote republican. Don't they ever learn? What does it take to wake them up to the facts?

[sonoffestus]

It tells you alot about the fine folks of OH.

[PepeLepew]

Hey, the homepage headline on this is backward!

[ElBruce]

THE TANK! THEY'RE IN IT!!!1!

Actually, the tank is expanding at an exponential rate to include most of the known universe at this point.