The results of Iowa in the Caucuses have me thinking that people don't vote qualifications, but by identity. As an example, the Huckabee Republican win has proven that Evangelicals don't want to vote for someone qualified for an office (who claims he is qualified for anything?), but that they share their particular faith. I would be lying if I didn't say that many Mormons support Romney because he is one of them.
The Democrats will point to Obama and say they are more careful. Yet, Obama is not seen as "black" so much as middle class liberal. He doesn't have as much experience as the other runners, even Edwards. Just as Jesse Jackson had a large following before failing to secure a nomination, it will be surprising if Obama doesn't get large black support. My guess is that his combined appeal to the middle class liberals and identification as black will doom the other Democrat canditates.
There has been talk of having a President that "crosses party lines" or unifies the nation. The truth of the matter is not unification, but identification. Unifying groups is not so important to nomination as looking the most like as many people as possible. Holding similar viewpoints is important to that consideration, but stereotypes are useful in determining trends. A Liberal will be more urban and coastal, while a Conservative will be more rural and Southern.
To secure such a theory, all you have to do is look at state governments. More than likely (with a few outliers) who rules does more than represents the majority, they mirror the electorate. That isn't surprising, and that is also the point.
There are those who might ask where independants fit in. Perhaps they make a difference, but results seem to prove otherwise. All they are looking for is someone more like them. McCain closer to winning in NH than Iowa seems to indicate a more independant electorate, but Hackabee is still strong and gaining ground in the religious Southern states. His traction other places is questionable, but held up by the same religious groupings.
What does that mean for the United States? Probably that business as usual will remain the norm. However, over the years the fracturing has become more heated with deeper lines. The results of this have yet to be determined.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So long as citizens are not interested in weighing multiple (more than two) options on any given issue, at any given time, this sort of fracture will continue.
quote: As an example, the Huckabee Republican win has proven that Evangelicals don't want to vote for someone qualified for an office
I'm not a Huckabee supporter by a long stretch, but I don't see where you're getting this conclusion. He was governor of Arkansas for a decade, longer than Romney was governor of Massachusetts for example. How is Huckabee any less "qualified" for the office of president than the other Republican candidates?
posted
Huckabee is just as qualified as Romney, in my opinion. Am I crazy about Huckabee? No. But I think your perception of this is clouded by your own paritality to Romney.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the most conservatively inclined of the independents probably voted Democrat in this primary to squish Hillary.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: As an example, the Huckabee Republican win has proven that Evangelicals don't want to vote for someone qualified for an office
I'm not a Huckabee supporter by a long stretch, but I don't see where you're getting this conclusion. He was governor of Arkansas for a decade, longer than Romney was governor of Massachusetts for example. How is Huckabee any less "qualified" for the office of president than the other Republican candidates?
--Enigmatic
To expound upon this point: How does it make him any less qualified than, say, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush prior to their elections (no hindsight comments please, just speaking prior-election here).
To me, the President has become a position of identity. They're going to tote their party line in a very predictable fashion, often regardless of what they may have said in the campaign. This is why I made the comment that name and face recognition is much better boon and use of time to candidates than attempting to inform voters as to their positions. I'm thoroughly impressed when a candidate can put forth a plan for health care, or social security, for foreign policy, but in the public eye all that fades and it returns to a battle between cults of personality. Is this all bad? Not really. The President should be someone who can lead by example, who inspires, and in whom the general population can place some amount of trust. That position has been fairly well betrayed lately, so it may change, or it may become more important than ever.
And I agree, so long as every issue breaks down to republican vs democrat, liberal vs conservative, black vs white, and us vs them it's going to be a very fractured (and IMO, broken) system and correspondingly, country.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The results of Iowa in the Caucuses have me thinking that people don't vote qualifications, but by identity.
It's not surprising that voters want their representatives to, well, represent them well, not just govern well.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any given candidate can only represent those who agree with what he or she winds up doing. The rest are goverened.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You also have to play the Media card in this discussion. People vote for Hucklebee. You are the reporter in Iowa who has 12 seconds to explain why people voted for him. "He has a lock on the Evangelical vote." kind of covers it quicker than "Many in Iowa agree with several of his positions on abortion and other conservative lifestyle issues. Further his 12 years as Governor of Arkansas has given him the experience that many are seeking in a candidate. His surge in the polls shows he may have the electability to win against less favorable Democratic naminees, and his wit and humor has won over many."
So they stick with "Evangelical". As it is repeated more often it becomes self-fulfilling. Evangelicals start to see him as the Evangelical candidate. Identity is created.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The evangelical vote pushed him WAY OVER the top. But Huckabee did as well (or close to) as well as Romney in all of the other voter categories.
And a LOT of the support arose from pure voter perception of "cool under pressure"*. Romney looked like he was working, while Huckabee looked like he was having a good ol' time.
* Which I'm sure most people consider a necessary prerequisite for the Presidency.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
