Potomac Primary-a-Palooza
During Tuesday's "Potomac Primary," reason Associate Editors David Weigel and Michael C. Moynihan, accompanied by reason.tv videographer Dan Hayes, interrogated voters at a Washington, D.C. polling station about who they cast their ballots for and why.
Our unscientific reason.tv exit polling hewed pretty close to the actual results: An overwhelming majority of District voters have converted to the Church of Obama. Almost without exception, our interviewees cited the campaign's message of "hope" and "change" as a decisive factor in choosing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) over Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).
Click above to view a quick-and-dirty compilation of voter perorations on the candidates,
Plus exclusive bonus footage, during which an impassioned Barack supporter reveals the identity of the two most lupine politicians since Romulus and Remus.
Brutum Fulmen | February 14, 2008, 12:36pm | #
Oh, enough already with the "Obama supporters don't know shit about his actual proposals" approach. We get the point. But at any rate, I strongly disagree with the view that there is something wrong with voting based on feeling rather than concrete knowledge of policy positions/accomplishments. (I don't doubt that some understanding of a candidate's general worldview is important, and basing an electoral decision solely on a candidate's public speaking abilities is folly.) First, there is a limit to what one can know about future policy decisions based on a candidate's past accomplishments and current positions. Even the most well-intentioned candidates make fanciful campaign promises, and some make compromises (perish the thought) and/or have good-faith changes of mind on positions once in Office. Furthermore, presidents are constrained institutionally: It's not the president who makes law, it's Congress; and presidents must to a large extent work within existing administrative frameworks, etc. Presidents are also constrained by inability to predict future events. As Ron Paul reminds us, Bush promised in 2000 a "humble foreign policy". Whether Bush's foreign policy became "bold" as a matter of necessary adjustment to a "post-9/11 world", or due to the influence of advisers he chose once in Office, or whether he simply lied as a candidate, I'll refrain from guessing. At any rate, contemplation of Bush's cavalier attitude, or relying on one's general if difficult-to-describe sense of how Bush seems to approach problems, might've given a better sense of how he might react to a national emergency like a 9/11 than would've looking at his specific positions.
Second, presidents have significance in ways that go beyond what they do. (And in an ideal world, presidents, and all politicians, wouldn't do much.) For better or worse, we look to the president's demeanor, atmosphere, personality, to learn something about ourselves as a people, and so do foreigners. We not only want certain things done, we want them done with conformity to certain adverbs ("respectfully" "contemplatively" "earnestly" "bravely" "honestly" "efficiently" "faithfully" etc. etc.)--and many of us (conservatives, hippies, libertarians, whatever) care at least as much about the latter as the former. Tying this back to Obama: Quite aside from the content of Obama's positions (with which I mostly agree, excepting his protectionism), I am impressed that the words that come out of his mouth seem to be the product of sincere and genuine thought that is both pragmatic and other-regarding. Hillary (for me) couldn't be more different. I don't like any of the adjectives that one's tempted to attach to her modus operandi. (Try: "legacy-regarding".)