(no subject)

[rivka]

If you've been worried that flocks of alienated Clinton supporters will vote for McCain - and a lot of people on my friends list have been posting worried stuff about this - you might find this Frank Rich column reassuring.

Now, there’s no question that men played a big role in Mrs. Clinton’s narrow loss, starting with Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Mark Penn. And the evidence of misogyny in the press and elsewhere is irrefutable, even if it was not the determinative factor in the race. But the notion that all female Clinton supporters became “angry white women” once their candidate lost — to the hysterical extreme where even lifelong Democrats would desert their own party en masse — is itself a sexist stereotype. That’s why some of the same talking heads and Republican operatives who gleefully insulted Mrs. Clinton are now peddling this fable on such flimsy anecdotal evidence.

The fictional scenario of mobs of crazed women defecting to Mr. McCain is just one subplot of the master narrative that has consumed our politics for months. The larger plot has it that the Democratic Party is hopelessly divided, and that only a ticket containing Mrs. Clinton in either slot could retain the loyalty of white male bowlers and other constituencies who tended to prefer her to Mr. Obama in the primaries.

This is reality turned upside down. It’s the Democrats who are largely united and the Republicans who are at one another’s throats.

Rich points out that Obama is currently leading McCain among female voters by 13 to 19 points - much better than either Kerry or Gore did among women, in the final event.

Incidentally, Amanda Marcotte asks herself where all these feminists-for-McCain might be coming from. It's a good question to consider before you give them much of your energy.

Comments

[edschweppe.livejournal.com]

I'm hoping that most of the real people [1] talking like that are working through the "anger" phase of Kübler-Ross' five stages of grief.

[1] as opposed to GOP sockpuppets

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

*shrug* They may not end up voting for McCain. But a LOT Of Hillary supporters (I didn't notice a particular trend in gender) were threatening to jump ship the week after the final primaries. It happened.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

I can't be bothered to even consider that thwarted Hillary fans would turn to McCain out of spite - IMHO anyone following this race so early and intensely has GOT to realize that going with a completely different party just because you don't like the Dem candidate is....stupid.

But then, I think that people engage in this kind of emotional reasoning for asinine reasons, but I hope I'm wrong in this case.

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

did you read amanda marcotte's post on the subject? she makes a good point that for at least some of them, it's not emotional reasoning, not any more than the rioters in florida were there for emotional reasons...

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

Touche - I hadn't read the article when I commented, but I have now. Given the antics in FL in 2000, plants seem like VERY reasonable.

[windypoint.livejournal.com]

I can understand seeing it this way if the system was like Australia's, with compulsory voting... people have to make a decision even when they are feeling solidly cheesed off at everyone and therefore protest votes can be largish. But in a system like the USA, where people are free to just skip voting altogether? The people who are involved enough to feel personally annoyed are also going to be involved enough to not want to vote Republican. They'll either just stay home or they'll vote for Obama.

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

Well, the thing about the Austrailan system--or rather how the balloting's done--is that they can vote "none of above".

I'm not sure how well I'll be able to explain this, but as I understand it all the major parties are listed in top part of the ballot, with the 'minor' parties in the bottom section, so voting "below the line" is a possibility. (And, I think, it helps them that they've got more than two choices...)

A few years back there was a "thingie" (I forget the term) on the ballot for our going to "Instant Run-off" (which is similar to how the Aussie system is set up) which passed, but I don't recall hearing anything recently about it.

[windypoint.livejournal.com]

Voting "none of the above" by deliberately exhausting one's preferences before every candidate has been numbered in order is firmly discouraged... it is still possible to do it, but telling people to do it can get you locked up, as happened to Albert Langer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Langer

And the above the line and below the line thing is just for the Senate, where candidates can run to seventy or more and the ballot paper sometimes takes on the dimensions of a small table runner. ALL the candidates are listed below the line under the name of their party, whereas only a square for each party is provided above the line. If you decide to vote above the line you mark only one box, and your preferences are distributed as per the preferences that party has previously told the electoral commission they are recommending to their voters. If you decide to vote below the line, you number all the candidates in whatever order you wish.

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

I guess this is just proof that there's nothing like an American with secondhand knowledge spouting off... ;-)

Jessie Ventura's been muttering about running for Senate against Al Franken & Norm Coleman, and he's been putting it as a kind of 'Vote No To Either Of 'Em" rather than a serious run (although I think it wouldn't such a bad thing if he really did run...). I've often thought there should be a "None of the above" option on ballots, as does Ventura, but neither of us have figured out what happens if "NOB" wins...

[redbird]

Or, depending on where they are, they may vote Libertarian or Socialist Workers or Prohibitionist, not because they actually sympathize with those aims but just to say "Neither of them, damn it!" and then stay to vote for candidates for Congress or town council or tax assessor. Or, if there are only Obama and McCain on the ballot, people may write in their mother or Mickey Mouse or Clark Kent--or, yes, Clinton or Huckabee or Ron Paul.

[I expect to be presented with nine or ten parties in November, and seven or so candidates (one of the minor parties can be counted on to endorse the Republican, and another the Democrat, for president); the Socialist Workers Party, for example, never gets a lot of votes, but they're organized enough to keep getting candidates on the ballot.]

[wild-irises.livejournal.com]

My comment on this subject, repeated frequently, is "It's June. I'm only interested in what they say in October."

But where they are coming from is a most interesting question, and thank you for raising it.