Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
Posts: 13,431
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2008, 06:05:01 AM » |
|
Someone sent me a message asking for further clarification of my point. Let me paraphrase my reply.
It is silly to think numbers like these set in stone, because while people know plenty about John McCain and Hillary Clinton already, few are viewing these elections in partisan terms right now. McCain's lofty numbers in Massachusetts and Hillary's similar numbers in Kansas are built on the political equivalent of a house of cards: independents who usually vote for the other party who have yet to seriously consider the candidates and the meaning of said candidates' victories.
This is the same thing that happened early in 2000. Bush had strong numbers in places like New Jersey and New England early on. They disappeared once the campaign seriously began.
People are making snap judgements based on low information personality assessments, or based on an "ideal" Clinton versus an "ideal" McCain, where the voters' imaginations define the issues. Neither of these two judgements will hold up over time as this general election campaign begins in earnest. McCain, his surrogates, and the media have not yet made the arguement as to why Hillary Clinton is wrong for the country in terms that these typical Republican-voting independents in Kansas will appreciate. Likewise, Massachusetts independent voters are thinking about what a strong commander in chief McCain will make or about how much better McCain would be than Bush, having yet to consider things like what a McCain presidency will mean for the Supreme Court.
As the GENERAL election campaign begins, peoples' underlying partisanships will begin to come out, and Massachusetts will move back towards Hillary > 20%. Kansas will do the same, but towards McCain > 20%.
|
