(This is a partisan post. If reading a pro-Democratic post will hurt your feelings, please skip this one)
A lot of people have said that I'm too optimistic. They point to 2000 and 2004 as examples of close elections that were lost at the last minute. I don't disagree with that broad criticism. I do think that it's vitally important that that we continue to work on GOTV efforts, voter registration, etc. And I do agree that given the chance, the Republican party will do whatever it can to pull off a victory, even if it means disenfranchising millions of legal voters. These are very real issues.
Unfortunately, I frequently talk to people who make comments like "I like Obama, but why bother to vote? The Republicans will just steal the election anyway". The idea that the Republicans don't need to steal their vote if they just give it to them doesn't seem to cross their minds.
A healthy dose of skepticism is absolutely necessary, but so is a healthy dose of optimism. If people don't believe that a victory is possible, then they won't bother to vote.
Of course, being too optimistic can lead to the same effect, but some of you seem to WAY overestimate the amount of traffic this site gets if you think that my optimism will somehow bring down the Obama candidacy (for the record, I get somewhere around 1200 visitors a day. Presumably most of them are just as obsessed with this election as I am, so I doubt that my optimism will cause many of them to stay home on election day).
There are plenty of websites, magazines, TV news shows, etc. devoted to making people more pessimistic, but with this website, I wanted to inject just a small touch of optimism into the race. We do need to work on GOTV efforts, but put your focus on GOTV for down-ticket races. We have a very real possibility of taking 60 seats in the senate, for example. Work on GOTV in states that we will not win. Even if Obama wins, the margin of his popular-vote victory is a factor on just what he can get accomplished, and even if we can't win a state, increased democratic turnout is a good thing for the Dems. And work on GOTV for Obama in your home state. Even if you live in the bluest of blue states, higher Democratic turnout is in your long-term best interest, for all of the above reasons.
But as you do this GOTV work, remember... We WILL win this election. I get tired of some of the new-agey mumbo-jumbo that many on the left like to throw around, but one thing that I do agree with is that if you don't believe in something, it probably won't happen. If you believe the Republicans will steal the election, then they probably will... But if you believe that the Dems will have a decisive vitcory and send Ms. Hockeymom back to Alaska where she will be removed from office on a corruption charge, then that will probably happen instead.
Sorry to be so long-winded... Bonus points if you read the whole thing!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
In Defense of Optimism! - a good post.
The latest chart and polls seem to support your optimistic take on things. You may be one step ahead of the curve. We may look back and say, "By early October it was obvious to all that an Obama win was inevitable." On the other hand… --OK, I won't say it.
For a case study of the contagious effects of pessimism, please turn to the business page -- IF YOU DARE!!
Political campaigns, like stocks, currency, the future itself are held up or projected into existence by hope and belief. Imagine the era when the abolition of slavery was considered a ridiculous point of view by 97% of the population. No hope, no change. Likewise, didn't all those people building fallout shelters in the basement make nuclear war more likely? (That may a counter-example: there was a big chunk of unwarranted optimism in their generally pessimistic post-nuclear future-construct as they emerged from the fallout shelters after 14 days to build a new world, whereas in reality they would have been slowly broiled alive en masse.)
Particularly if you are exposed to pessimistic people, you respond with optimism. That might explain why your readers respond with a dash of skepticism, too. There's a dialectic going.
Readers also expect an "on the other hand" and gestures at assuming multiple perspectives. I can see that you may violate reader expectations, but it's your site. Once you have established your voice people just accept that that is you, as with Nate Silver's pro-Obama position or e-v.c's more careful very slightly Democratic lean.
I think you make a good argument for your view. You lost me with the Republicans, tho. I think Dick Cheney will remain evil even if I begin to expect good things of him. Diebold (with a new name) will try to steal elections even if I trust them not to.
I hope you're right. Maybe Clinton's mark of 375 is the one to beat now, not 270.
Just keep on doing what you're doing. Every return visitor must enjoy your site. Thanks!
After watching the debate last night, it is hard to believe that anyone would vote for McCain. He did not mention education, got slammed on energy (i.e., forgot conservation), got slammed on health care (i.e., insurance companies will flock to least regulated state), got slammed on Bin Laden (i.e., bomb, bomb Iran), and wandered around the stage when Obama was talking like a nervous goat.
That said, "faith" in the stability and rationality of undecided or newly decided voters is not my strong suit. I believe Obama has the advantage. And yes, my family is involved in registering voters through the county Democratic Headquarters. BUT, this is a huge poker game, and we are all in -- education, environment, health care, preventing World War III, and retirement. Even our holding what looks to be the equivalent of a heart flush, I must step away from the table and cover my eyes.
Lest we forget, "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!"
On the undecided:
http://tinyurl.com/undecided08
why *are* democrats pessimistic? why this fear of having elections "stolen" from us? we lost a really close race in 2000, and it was only because the supreme court leaned republican that we didn't end up with a victory there. a once-in-a-lifetime spectacle like that shouldn't put us off our feed too much, should it? i think we were genuinely surprised when kerry lost in 2004, but should we have been? kerry, god bless him, was never able to connect with the middle class. so the fact that we couldn't come up with a winning candidate should not make us pessimistic, either.
it's a great feeling to have a candidate who not only represents our viewpoint but is likable and electable. it was bound to happen at some point, but it's especially timely now that bush's disapproval ratings are the highest of any president in history.
there is cause to be optimistic.
In a poker game, if you are dealt a hand that gave you an 89% chance of winning 100 times, and you bet $1 each time, you are rational of being optimistic that you will win about $89, plus or minus (or at least leave with more than you came with).
Consider, however, you only could play one hand with an 89% chance of winning. And you don't bet $1, but you bet your retirement, house, job, kid's college education, and more on that one hand. There is an 11% chance that you will lose almost everything. Is optimism warranted? I'm not sure.
Basically what the odds tell us is that if we held the election 1000 times, Obama would win 890 times. However, McCain would win 110 times. Which one of those simulations will become reality?
As the odds get higher, and the number of chances to "play the game" is low, it gets less rational to be optimistic. If the airline told me that their planes crash only 11% of the time, I am not sure how optimistic I would be on any particular flight.
That last analogy has a big flaw... In this poker game, you have a gun to your head forcing you to bet your house, your life savings, etc... Since you have no choice in the matter, you have just as much reason to be optimistic as if you were betting $1.
No, the analogy holds because I have a choice. I can move to Finland.
Post a Comment