My mistake, I peeked

Well hell like the boys in Love's Labor's Lost I broke my vow of abstinence. I peeked. I left it muted, but there was Sen. McCain, looking imperial and probably barking jingoistically but I wanted (needed) no confirmation of that. Then came a Matthew Yglesias tweet about a "cranky deranged warmonger." Yep. And then Rachel Maddow was looking super wound up so I unmuted the damn thing and therein lay my mistake. What she said ruined my whole evening, something about having a "really robust debate" in this country about foreign policy etc etc.

A debate among whom? The persuadable portion of the electorate is maybe 3 percent, and they're scattered throughout 50 states, only five or six of which are critical to the presidential election. The political math begins to read like quantum physics. We've got Bob in Ohio on whom the Obama and Romney campaigns are spending tens of millions to force a final goddamn decision and then there's Louise in Florida and Jack in Iowa and that's about it. A billion bucks later and no minds change and we'll have a vote. And Obama will win, because he's already leading in most swing states and voters aren't changing their minds.

So there's an underlying contentment within me. I'm not panicked. Romney is doomed. On the other hand it really would have been pleasant to have had a "really robust debate" in this country about something, before the levers came down. But it's not going to happen. Instead we'll get two more months of Mitt Romney's remorselessly perfidious lies. And if those lies get him close? It'll be even worse next time.

Comments

[majii]

I've avoided watching the GOP Convention and all news networks since it began. I have no need to hear the seemingly endless repetition of "You didn't build that, " Obama abolished the work requirement in the welfare law,""Obama cut $716 Billion in Medicare" lies, or the endless lies about how wildly the current president has been spending, how much of a failure he's been, or how he is responsible for the entire deficit. Enough is enough. I have an extreme aversion to liars and hypocrites, and the GOP Convention is packed wall-to wall with them.

[SueMe]

I couldn't agree more, Majii! I think I may vote early this year and never turn on the tv until the day Obama takes the oath for his second term.

[Robert Lipscomb]

PM seems to touch upon a fundamental truth, then abandon it. Most voters have long (many years) decided whether they align with Democrats or Republicans. About every 40 years, an issue arises that creates an opportunity for a major shift.

Most (I believe this is still true) voters vote by proxy through people who actually go vote. For whatever reason, they choose to not become policy wonks and rightfully conclude they should not vote.

Then there is the mish-mash of "independents" and "persuadables". Even the DC pundits have caught on to the fact that most "independents" are not independent. That leaves the "persuadables".

Really? What is left to learn about Democrats or Republicans or Obama or Romney or Biden or Ryan that will result in a Eureka! moment and persuade a persuadable to vote for a specific candidate or party?

This gets us to the "I vote for the guy and not the party" concept. As much as we wonks would like to think that current policy issues are de facto the most important issues for the next four years, that might or might not be true. Who knew in 2000 that the single most important question in that election would be, "Would you lie to get us into an unnecessary war?" I'm pretty sure it never came up.

In 2000, the persuadables were correct that voting for the man should have been a primary criterion, but they were wrong to frame it in "Would you like `to have a beer with him?"

Maybe the persuadables should spend the next two months considering whether they want to "vote for the man" if the man is willing to say anything and lie through his pearly white teeth to become president.

[Peter G]

I need a little educated perspective. Those voters classified as independents are a diverse bunch. Some far to the left and some far to the right. But just who are these "persuadable" voters? The differences between the policies of the Republican and Democrats have varied over the arc of American history. Sometimes the gulf is wider than at other times and this, it should be obvious to all, is one of those times. The distinction could not be clearer. How on earth can you be persuadable if you know anything or have been paying attention? Can it truly be that the American system of government is designed to be directed by an elite group of profoundly ignorant people?

[Robert Lipscomb]

@Peter G: The term, "persuadable voters", seems to be a new convention for this cycle. It appears to be an attempt to filter out those people who are truly indepent from from those who are genuinely right or left but like to call themselves independent.

Way back in the 70's when I was in college, my good friend from Lebanon continually teased me because I thought there was so much difference between our political parties. He assured me that in Europe, parties ranged far and wide, in comparison to the U.S.

I suppose that was true back then. Recent political scientific analysis seems to document a recent large deviation from that historic norm. There is now an atypically large chasm between the values and visions of the parties.

My guess is that today's "persuadables" are the same people who take 20 minutes to order off the menu board at McDonald's.

[Peter G]

I see Robert. I've stood behind them then. There are worse things in the world I suppose. One of them would be standing in line behind a whole bus load of senior citizens on a day trip at one of out ubiquitous highway Tim Horton coffee shops. While each one repeats exactly the same questions the person in front of them asked about the nut content of the various donuts on display. There, one day, go I. Aging sucks.