2008: The Year of the Change Vote...Whatever That Is.
Every election is about change -- to do it, or to not. In 2004 there was even a Vote for Change music tour (to benefit MoveOn.org).
But 2008 may be looked back on as the year the "Change" vote became as significant as the "Black" vote and the "Christian" vote. Significant enough that the "change" vote is actually being polled and picked apart and analyzed by the media and politicos.
But does anybody really know what change is?
With the President's approval rating at 33 percent, clearly most Americans think change is the opposite of George Bush.
However, with the Democratic-controlled congress's approval rating at 23 percent, just being a Democrat may not constitute the right change for enough voters. This would blunt the obvious change that, say, Senators Obama and Clinton would bring to the table. Which might be too much change for some.
And I'm not talking about white men.
Obama still trails in the aforementioned "Black" vote, and I can't tell you how often in my travels -- most recently covering the Democratic debate in Las Vegas -- how many women have told me that America is just not ready to elect a female president.
Interesting...
Since, in 2004, female voters made up 54 percent of the population, 55 percent of registered voters and 60 percent of the electorate.
Maybe Michelle Obama meant women and not blacks when she talked about voters who will one day "wake up and get it."
And wouldn't a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control Republican president like Giuliani be a seismic shift for America (America outside of California)? Not to mention Ron Paul who's, like, a one man political inversion.
The big change among Republicans? Fred Thompson's doing worse now that he's in the race than when he was the great white hope.
With sixteen candidates still in the field it's impossible to say what change really is. All we know for sure is that the next president will at least in name be different.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Put up a Margret Thacher type Women and she would have the vote of every white conservative man or any of several conservative black males and they would also get the conservative white male vote.
Liberals love to say a conservative white male would never vote for a women or a black, but this ignores history. We have elected several.
What will never vote for is a LIBERAL black or women. Because they bring with them all things Liberal...
John,
Almost everyone wants change, but Hilary represents a realistic opportunity to make it happen. She has a life-long record of being able to unite antagonists and move policy forward. I love Obama and Edwards. In fact, you can count on my vote for any Democratic candidate for President, but just saying something outrageous for the sake of winning the nomination is not going to make it so. Hilary is cautious because she has to be. She expects and will win the nomination as well as the Presidency in 2008 and work with Republicans to change what dubya has done in the past 7 years.
No one who is paying attention thinks electing more Republicans will change anything other than extending the Iraqi war and tax cuts for the rich.
How do YOU spell change? I spell it I-M-P-E-A-C-H! Otherwise it's just more hooey.
Democratic Senator is positively HIGH on change! In fact, after being awakened from a nap by a brainstorm last week at a strategy meeting, the eighty year old six term senator from California cleverly suggested that the way to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, was to run a military man against him, the much beloved Col. Sanders.
Neither party, for all the corporate types that donate and advise these people, has any notion about management. Example: here in the Bay Area there are 6 investigations going on re: the recent oil spill in S.F. Bay, 6, count 'em! The only people who haven't come to do their own investigations are Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd and Donald Duck. Their low ratings are too high as far as I'm concerned.
Howard Dean introduce a useful distinction: "a democratic wing of the Democratic party".
The problem is that 80% of the Democratic Party became essentially republican in regards to the war, National dept, torture, corporate interests, privacy etc. People like H.Clinton, Feinstein, Schumer and many others side with the Republicans and doom this Congress to failure.
Mr. Ridley, I think you made an excellent point and quite astute. Even though I don't always agree with you, I think you always see both sides of the issues, and that is brilliant in this day an age.
you're quote: "And wouldn't a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control Republican president like Giuliani be a seismic shift for America (America outside of California)? Not to mention Ron Paul who's, like, a one man political inversion.
I think Giuliani's appeal (towards a Republican and even a Conservative Democrat) is broad based and mainstream as America "wants to be right now" coupled with his alleged 9/11 resume, you have a home run, sort of speak.
Notice that Pat Robertson is no dummy, and probably thought "the heck with my alleged morals, I'll be strategic with this vote" and it might work for Giuliani,
But the idea to vote for a politician out of strategy WILL NOT work for Hillary Clinton, because there are too many holes to plug in that dingy.
But let me tell you this, IF had a choice to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Giuliani, I would vote for Giuliani and not because of 9/11. I think Clinton and Giuliani are the same in many aspects not including Senators of the SAME STATE but he seems that he will get more things done, and have a hell of a lot more people questioning what he does -which is a good thing.
The political process in America truly has become a two wings of the same bird.
I see no difference between Hillary and Guilani. The both pander and they both really don't belong in the White House. Neither one of them has the courage of their convictions.
Mitt is a war monger and is firmly behind a weapons based America engaged in never ending war in order to appease his supporters in the Christian Right who think Jebus really meant to kill and destroy everyone not thinkging like them and NOT make peace and get along with everyone.
I'd love to see Dennis or Ron get the nod just to finally see a shake up in how things are done.
Right now other posters have gotten the point. We are simply voting for the same people who keep things totally screwed up. We are terrified of voting in people who don't seem like the same old safe idiots we have in office.
As well this whole "gotcha" crap from the press and enemies of each party is only lowering the standards of what we look for in a candidate.
While you folks debate what change is all about, Obama is showing the folks in Iowa. He's pulling ahead fast. And the strange thing is that republicans are switching parties to vote for him. NOW THAT'S CHANGE.
Change is just another word for nothing left to lose.
John,
Good post. I believe change is what you want it to be. For me,as a voter, it is about foreign policy that works and healthcare. I believe that change is not what the press thinks it is....but the change I feel in this election is at the very heart of each voter and what is important to them....fo
ridley lives in the greenzone.
.
It always come down to selecting the least repulsive option that has the best chance to win. That is why democracy is fundamentally flawed as implemented (in the US at least): people don't/can't vote their conscience, yet the system assumes they do.
I suppose that would be true if you could equate the so-called Democratic leadership with the majority of the Democratic Party.
Take a look at the Nafta expansion into Peru for instance. The house passed the measure with only a minority of Democrats siding with a majority of Republicans, and so the big-money interests, as always, won out.
The Bushies keep pointing to the low approval rating of Congress as an indicator that people actually approve of Republicans.
Not true.
We Democrats don't have a problem with our Party ... just the way it's being run.
John,
Comparing Congressional approval to Presidential approval is the same as comparing apples to horse apples.
Loading comments…
Posted November 20, 2007 | 12:38 PM (EST)