Anecdotal evidence from last week's elections indicated that there was a huge turnout. A number of e-mails I received told of unprecedented lines at the ballots. Andrew Sullivan posted a long series of reports from his readers about the unprecedented lines they'd all stood in before voting. All in all this created the ambiance of a national catharsis.
Well, it certainly was an important event, historic too, but the total of voters was apparently unaffected. That mass turn-out? It didn't happen. Not when you look at the overall numbers.
I expect it did happen at some places, or at some hours of the day. This, conflated with the fervent wish of the observers to be seeing it, created that strong impression. But impressions, even when they go on to become accepted wisdom, aren't always true.
FROM CAROL HERMAN
ReplyDeleteWell, who is so good at math that they see numbers, and think all numbers are the same?
True. In 2004, it was the democrats turn to put up a stinking candidate. Why? John Kerry "promised" his wife was so rich, the democrats didn't have to worry about "money." (Then? Theresa came to the donk tent, after her husband lost; and wanted $3 million returned to her.) Whatever.
Sometimes? You just can't compare.
2004 ushered in a big win for Dubya. But being Dubya, he just squandered his opportunities.
McCain? If you really want to look at numbers, you'd see that during the primaries he didn't earn such a high score. Probably? Because a lot of GOP identified members, stayed home. (Or? Perhaps, following Rush Limbaugh's suggestion; became temporary democrats ... especially down south ... Where Obama carried a strong repeal of Hillary's voters) ... With the thinking being? Well, lots of people who aren't Black, wouldn't vote for the Black man. And, that would boost McCain's chances of winning.
Some stinking crystal ball that was!
Obama, by the way, did better than Dubya did ... by about a million more votes. And, Dubya did fine in 2004.
What's worth watching? Obama is a gifted politician. It's possible, with this national run of his, that he's familiarized himself with the "inner workings" of the democratic party's machinery.
Are there things worth watching? Only if you're curious.
Me? I'm curious to see if Bill Clinton's people ALL sail into his Executive Mansion. Where, Rahm Emanuel actually is a friend from Chicago politics!
So, what about Jamie Gorlick, for AG? (Attorney General.)
This will probably indicate a thing or two about Obama's thinking. Since he has a lot of loyalists; who helped him win. And, the "most money" is on Governor Janet Napolitano. Who was an experienced prosecutor, before running and winning her governor's post.
Poltics is always a balance between talent; coming from those who worked their kiesters off. And, those who "want jobs."
If you know anything about Abraham Lincoln, then you'd know he spent considerable time finding Federal jobs for his supporters.
Lincoln discovered that you can't get elected to the presidency, without a very dependable core of workers. Who then receive Federal jobs when you win.
See? This trurth is not limited to Israeli politics. It's a fact of life.
But be aware, there are lots more good candidates than there are top slots. Decisions. Decisions.
Also, it was FDR's strength to know how the democratic party's apparatus worked! He got elected to four terms. And, like no other president, left his mark on DC.
Obama's election shows him to be the winnah of "CHANGE." Now? Can he be as good as FDR?
Everyone, by now, knows that Dubya just blew it. And, not just his legacy; but the whole big elephant. Wiped out.