When Obama first burst onto the political scene, he was heralded as the person who could bring the political parties together. One piece of evidence for this was the appearance of Obamacons, i.e., conservative Republicans who voiced support for Obama. Since the conventions, a second subset of voters has emerged: McCainocrats, i.e., Democrats (mostly conservative, I believe) who have voiced support for McCain. It was theorized that the Obamacons would be on board throughout the election, giving Obama an easy victory. It has also been theorized that the McCainocrats will swing the election McCain's way. In the end, I think these groups will not have much of an effect. In other words, it will be a wash, or the groups will disappear, having returned to their respective parties. Even if such groups survive the campaign, I think that what they will do in the privacy of the voting booth will not reflect what they are saying publicly. There is also strong but mostly unvoiced fears among the Democrats that the Bradley effect* will come into play this election. I would hope this is not the case, but Dick Polman believes it will happen.
*The Bradley effect: It appeared that Bradley had an easy win his U.S. Senate contest despite his race (African American). The final round of polls showed him winning comfortably, but in the end he lost. This was attributed to voters telling pollsters that they supported Bradley (not wanting to appear racially biased), but when these voters actually voted, they voted the other way.
4 comments:
I too hope that the Bradley effect is not real. Not because I will be voting for Obama, but rather because I want us to be past such racism.
Loyality to party varies from party member to party member.
It is tough to know how undecideds will vote once in the booth. The novelty of voting for a black man may work in Obama's favor...just as the Bradley effect may be true. However, I think a great many people are anxious to prove to themselves and to others that they harbor no judgment based on race and that if they see the candidates as roughly equal (apparently, no one in our family at least on this blog has that dilemma),
they may choose the novelty.
Who knows.
But this begs a great question, how many of us have actually crossed lines to vote for someone on the 'other side'. I have. The last time was for Lt Governor Shurtleff here in Utah in the last election.
I have not crossed over to vote very often, but I have voted for judges who I think were Democrats (party affiliation is not marked on ballots for judges).
Also, I voted for a third party candidate for Congress. (Hallelujah that Cannon is out!)
If I lived in Maryland, I would have voted for Michael Steele (who lost). If I lived in Oklahoma, I would have voted for R.C. Watts (who won). If I lived in Pennsylvania, I would have voted for Lynn Swann (who lost). In other words, I haven't had the chance to vote for an African American, but I would if he/she espoused my political views.
I would vote for Condy Rice if she were to run. As we all know she is black and a woman so race and gender have nothing to do with it for me at this point. I can't say that she is a minority anymore though. The most recent cencus (sp) dispells that myth.
Maybe my comment was confusing, I didn't mean how many crossed party lines while considering race. I just meant how many had crossed party lines. Sorry.
Post a Comment