The fickle finger of politics
Dr Fuji Kamikase
July 10, 2000
The fickle finger of politics
For eight years now, Democrats have pointed to the polls as
proof that their opinions are sanctified. Polls show that most
Americans supported Bill Clinton, they crowed. Polls show that
most Americans opposed impeachment. A White House aide once
proudly referred me to a poll that found that most Americans
think oral sex isn't really sex. Thus, the Dems -- many of
them Beltway elites with no love for the common man -- have
constructed a world in which polls have become the highest
moral authority in America. If the American people think It,
they have argued, then, it is unassailable.
So, now that Texas Guv George W. Bush has maintained his lead
in almost every major national poll, what can the poll-
boosters say?
Will they too vote for Bush since every recent national poll
indicates that most voters support him?
Have they now decided that Veep Al Gore was a craven
contribution squeezer, since only 23 percent of respondents
told the CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll that Gore did nothing
wrong?
Gallup and Fox News/Opinion Dynamics polls now show that
Americans now approve of the House vote to impeach President
Clinton.
Does this mean House Republicans were right to impeach after
all? Does this mean I was right all along?
After being on the losing side of polls, I can't take gleeful
satisfaction in the GOP's newfound popularity. I taste no
delicious victory. Instead, I wonder at the fickle finger of
politics.
I can't enjoy the news, because I see little evidence that the
public supports Bush because of his position on the issues.
It's true, the latest CNN/Gallup poll shows Bush garnering 50
percent of the vote, with Gore at 38 percent and Nader at 6
percent. But why? How do voters go from supporting Clinton
overwhelming after he won re-election in 1996 to supporting
Bush comfortably in 2000?
How do voters go from supporting Bush to supporting Clinton to
supporting Bush?
This makes the public appear more fickle than it is. The
majority of voters remains faithfully Republican or Democrat,
but there is a large pool of swing voters -- maybe 25 percent,
maybe one-third, maybe a quarter of voters, depending on whom
you ask -- who know no such loyalty. Swing voters also tend to
follow the news less than partisan voters. It is these people
who will choose the next president.
GOP strategist and pollster Arnie Steinberg suggests there is
no point asking swing voters which issue drives them to
support Bush. For such voters, gut feelings about candidates
rule. But since it is not "socially acceptable" for them to
say that they voted for the person they most liked, Steinberg
noted, swing voters pick a particular issue as the rationale
for their vote.
So, it seems this sea change is largely a function of
personality -- or Gore's lack thereof. I won't say it is
wholly unreasonable for people to consider personality when
they cast their votes. Folks have to ask themselves to whom
they'd rather listen for four years. This year's top options
are the aggressively phony Gore and the cheerfully packaged
Bush.
Hmmmmmm, four years of Gore's preaching and pandering? Or four
years of folksy plain talk? You don't have to burn too many
bulbs figuring out that one.
"I think you're seeing sort of an anti-Gore vote for anybody
who would be running against Gore," said Steinberg. "Secondly,
there seems to be a vote for Bush because he's proposing lots
of things. He seems to be the man of the hour and has an
agenda. That's the perception. As opposed to a specific voter
endorsement of one policy, maybe with the notable exception of
Social Security." (Steinberg noted that polls now show that
voters think Bush would do a better job with the entitlement
program, and this is significant, because polls usually have
found the public more likely to trust Democrats with the
program.)
Otherwise, it's all impressionism. Nice guys finish first.
One could say that it doesn't matter why Bush wins. Once he is
in office, he'll nominate Supreme Court justices and set the
tone -- and hopefully substance -- of political debate. Yet,
if he wins and Washington decides that Bush won mainly because
he isn't Gore, Bush may have no mandate other than partially
privatizing Social Security. He will have a tough job selling
other priorities to a Congress that isn't sure what to make of
what the voters want. And since the savvy pol charts his
course by divining what voters want, what will Washington do?
Wait for a new poll? What else?
©2000 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/debrasaunders/ds000710.shtm
l
God Bless America
Fuji -- A proud Clinton hater.
"What's the best thing to ever come out of Arkansas?" I-40.
(T- 195 days until eviction and delousing the White House!)
la...@rightwingers.net
>For eight years now, Democrats have pointed to the polls as
>proof that their opinions are sanctified.
>So, now that Texas Guv George W. Bush has maintained his lead
>in almost every major national poll, what can the poll-
>boosters say?
That for 60 years, the candidate leading in June-July hasn't won
cyeager
<la...@rightwingers.net> wrote in message
news:396a95e1...@169.132.11.12...
Dr Fuji Kamikase
rosell19's obviously been smoking some
bad stuff. If Gore wins it will be only the
second time that a vice president has won
a presidential election in 211-years.
God Bless America