![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was trying hard not to do a politicial post today, but I have failed. I promise to do a cooking post tomorrow (Gerrib's Four-Can Chili) and a writing post (from a suggestion by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jeff_duntemann) over the weekend or Monday. In the meantime, presented for your consideration:
What Do People Want In a President
Voters are not and never will be a monolithic bloc. Having said that, one way to analyze voters is to see where they stand on the "ideology / expertise" continuum. At one end of the continuum you have the voter who decides on a candidate based on their expressed ideology. I would submit these folks tend to be more informed of their candidate's positions, plans and history. The talking head classes call them "high information" voters. They're the folks that regularly watch the cable news channels. Judging by the cable ratings, they are not a majority of voters.
At the other end of the continuum are the voters who pick a candidate based on the candidate's overall "expertise." Consider this example - you feel sick, and so you go visit your doctor. You don't really care what the name of your ailment is. What you do care about is that 1) your doctor has correctly diagnosed the problem and 2) has a plan to cure it. I submit that "expertise" voters are also largely what the talking classes call "low information" voters. These voters read the paper and watch the news, but not obsessively or in great detail. Again, judging by news ratings, these are a majority of voters.
These "expertise" voters are watching the debates, and judging Obama as the winner. They may not agree with Obama's policies in detail, but they think he's got an overall handle on things, or that McCain does not.
An example from the debate last night. McCain dinged Obama for not voting for a free-trade agreement with Colombia, arguing with some passion that it was costing American business a billion dollars a year. Obama replied calmly that he hadn't voted for it because of un-investigated murders of labor leaders in Colombia, and had voted for a Peru free-trade deal that had labor protections. McCain's rebuttal was to sputter about a billion dollars and Hugo Chavez.
That's one place where McCain lost the expertise voter. I consider myself fairly well informed politically, but I admit that I don't know the puts and takes on these agreements. I suspect most Americans don't. It was, however, clear that Obama had thought through the issues. McCain's sputtering about Chavez did not suggest he'd thought about the actual deal, which was even more damaging considering he'd raised the issue in first place. In short, the expertise voter said, "Obama's a smart guy - he'll figure this out."
Things like that exchange will stick in the minds of the expertise voter. What's worse, from McCain's point of view, is that expertise is like trust. It's based on perception, and once lost, hard to regain.
jeff_duntemann) over the weekend or Monday. In the meantime, presented for your consideration:What Do People Want In a President
Voters are not and never will be a monolithic bloc. Having said that, one way to analyze voters is to see where they stand on the "ideology / expertise" continuum. At one end of the continuum you have the voter who decides on a candidate based on their expressed ideology. I would submit these folks tend to be more informed of their candidate's positions, plans and history. The talking head classes call them "high information" voters. They're the folks that regularly watch the cable news channels. Judging by the cable ratings, they are not a majority of voters.
At the other end of the continuum are the voters who pick a candidate based on the candidate's overall "expertise." Consider this example - you feel sick, and so you go visit your doctor. You don't really care what the name of your ailment is. What you do care about is that 1) your doctor has correctly diagnosed the problem and 2) has a plan to cure it. I submit that "expertise" voters are also largely what the talking classes call "low information" voters. These voters read the paper and watch the news, but not obsessively or in great detail. Again, judging by news ratings, these are a majority of voters.
These "expertise" voters are watching the debates, and judging Obama as the winner. They may not agree with Obama's policies in detail, but they think he's got an overall handle on things, or that McCain does not.
An example from the debate last night. McCain dinged Obama for not voting for a free-trade agreement with Colombia, arguing with some passion that it was costing American business a billion dollars a year. Obama replied calmly that he hadn't voted for it because of un-investigated murders of labor leaders in Colombia, and had voted for a Peru free-trade deal that had labor protections. McCain's rebuttal was to sputter about a billion dollars and Hugo Chavez.
That's one place where McCain lost the expertise voter. I consider myself fairly well informed politically, but I admit that I don't know the puts and takes on these agreements. I suspect most Americans don't. It was, however, clear that Obama had thought through the issues. McCain's sputtering about Chavez did not suggest he'd thought about the actual deal, which was even more damaging considering he'd raised the issue in first place. In short, the expertise voter said, "Obama's a smart guy - he'll figure this out."
Things like that exchange will stick in the minds of the expertise voter. What's worse, from McCain's point of view, is that expertise is like trust. It's based on perception, and once lost, hard to regain.
