Democratic Sheeple

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 21:53


Amid all the talk of momentum here this weekend, a nagging feeling that a sizable portion of Democrats are sheeple has returned to me. I first felt this way in the 2004 primaries, when my favorite candidate, Howard Dean, saw a large national lead turn into a large national deficit in one week. Even though I am less perturbed by the direction of momentum this time around, why do about one-quarter of all primary voters seem to base their choice on the results of caucuses and primaries in other states? Is there any conceivable way that is a dignified or rational choice? Here are the possible reasons I can think of for people switching their preference based on the results of early state caucuses and primaries:
  • Some Democratic primary voters think Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats the cool kids in the country, and they want to be like them. So, in order to be like the cool kids, aka Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats, these primary voters decide to vote like them.

  • If a Democrat wins Iowa or New Hampshire, to some Democrats that must mean that their friends and co-workers always liked that person, even though their friends and co-workers don't live in Iowa or New Hampshire. So, in order to fit in with their friends and co-workers, they claim they were supporting that candidate all along, too.

OK, I admit those reasons are just insulting snark. Anyway, leaving that detour in the post aside, here are some actual reasons:

  • Democratic primary voters who were not paying close attention to the campaign during 2007 tune in for the first time around the start of the early primaries. Candidates surging to victory are shown smiling while wearing flowing white robes and standing in front of huge crowds of cheerful worshipers while, by way of contrast, the media might as well give out wedgies and noogies to the candidates who lose. So, for people just tuning in, the winners of the early states just look better.

  • Some Democratic primary voters like a candidate, but don't want to vote for him or her if they think he or she can't win the election. They do, after all, want their votes to matter, and so they won't throw those votes away on longshots.

  • Some Democrats don't care about the primary, and just want to support whoever wins in order to beat the Republicans.

These are the basic reasons for momentum, but really, are they any less indicative of the soul-slurping presence of sheeple? The first reason is people just basically falling hook, line and sinker for distorted media coverage. The second makes some sense in a multi-candidate field, but why would anyone think that way about either Obama or Clinton this time around? Those two candidates have been the national leaders for the past year, and the national media has consistently played up an Obama vs. Clinton two-way campaign narrative. As such, if you preferred Obama to Clinton, even if you thought Obama couldn't not defeat Clinton, I fail to see why wouldn't you vote for Obama anyway, since that is the only choice that matters in a two-way primary.

The third reason is pretty much the definition of acting like a bunch of sheeple, although at least it is a rational form of sheeple behavior. I hope that is actually the main cause for momentum among Democratic primary voters, because every other option is not only acting like a bunch of sheeple, but acting like a bunch of irrational sheeple. And yes, before you say anything, I am quite away of how elitist this post is.

Update: For the record, just in case anyone thinks this is bitterness surrounding my favorite candidate (Edwards) it isn't. The idea for this post came when my older brother, an Obama supporter, called Democrats "sheeple" this afternoon when I told him the average bounce for winning Iowa and New Hampshire is a net 33%. And, as I pointed out today, Edwards is actually getting a larger bounce than Obama nationwide, so this isn't about my favorite candidate.

No, this post isn't born out of bitterness. It is born out of elitism, as I noted.

Chris Bowers :: Democratic Sheeple

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Democratic Sheeple | 88 comments
In Obama's case... (4.00 / 5)
Don't know how this fits in historically, but I could see a clearer rational for Obama's current post-Iowa momentum arising not just out of the fact that he won (and was thus crowned a "winner" in national media) but the way that he won; ie many in the party were skeptical of all this talk of generational change, and bringing new people into the process, or of a black man being able to win over white voters, etc. etc.. 

Now that he has accomplished these things in Iowa, that skepticism has been lifted, making one less reason not to vote for that eloquent guy who's talking the big talk that gets everyone so excited.

Absolutely. (0.00 / 0)
You really need to understand the differences between political junkies and ordinary people.  Non-junkies just don't pay that much attention until they have to.  They simply don't find politics as interesting as their jobs, sports, hobbies etc, or maybe they just have to struggle so much to get by that they don't have the time to invest.  Plus, for people who don't pay attention all the time, it is very intimidating.  Some don't want to appear stupid, so they avoid political discussions.  And most importantly, they don't see how politics could actually substantively improve their lives, because pols don't campaign in a way that would make that clear.

Moreover, I think this time around Dems and independents just wanted to be rid of Bush.  They were ok with any of the top three candidates, maybe with many of the lesser ones as well.  The night of the Iowa primary my niece and her husband had dinner with us and she corrected me about my perception of utter apathy on the part of most of my family--it wasn't that they don't care, they just thought any of the Democratic candidates would be ok--they could see some flaws in all of them, but basically they were ok, and they had the general sense any Dem could win this year.  Not so different from you, Chris.

What the early primaries do is help with this sorting process by showing who can win.  That was VERY important this year when people who were favorably disposed to Obama were afraid that white people wouldn't vote for him, particularly in the Midwest.  Iowa showed that they would.  They also show who has the best campaign operation.  Let's face it--it wasn't the Dean scream, it was that he had blown through his millions on crummy ads and didn't understand that committed and organized local people were better than outsiders in silly orange hats.

Finally, once the voting starts, we have something concrete to talk about beyond the navel-gazing of the pundit class, including us.  Real people, with opinions, and real votes.  Other people pay attention, because now it means something.

And with Obama, when they paid attention they saw this incredibly charismatic guy who eas telling them, partiuclarly younger people, that the future could be something besides Bushes and Clintons and egotists endlessly bickering.  Maybe real discussions and real problem solving for a change.  That was very powerful.

It's like the old Wall Street saying--when the tide goes out, you see who's been swimming naked.  When the votes start to roll in, you see who really has the message and the organization to pull it off, and people get behind that person.  The real problem is that it is all way too compressed so it doesn't happen with enough reflection, and then there will be months of phony war.  But people aren't sheep--they just don't thik politics is as engrossing and entertaining as we do.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Not only is it elitism (0.00 / 0)
It is teenage elitism.  Something you are generally supposed to grow out of after your teenage raging against the world years.

Sorry, but this post reminds me of every libertarian or raging atheist post I have ever seen from people who are generally not older than 19 years.

You might as well call pollsters sheeple for believing that 1000 people can represent much larger demographics.

Pollsters (4.00 / 2)
"You might as well call pollsters sheeple for believing that 1000 people can represent much larger demographics."

Wow. I mean, wow. I mean, um, wow.

Wow.
[ Parent ]
Well Chris (0.00 / 0)
You have sure covered all the bases. All of them!

You have predicted that the history and validity of bounces is very much in play this year - to saying that they won't be as big - to discounting the bounces because of the 'forgotten' delegate counts - to now questioning the validity of bounces and questioning the voter's motives.

Whatever happens - you are right! You really should run for office - you got the right stuff, lol.

[ Parent ]
Or... (0.00 / 0)
You might as well call pollsters sheeple for believing that 1000 people can represent much larger demographics. Or you could be educated enough in the field of statistics to know about concepts like The Law of Large Numbers and The Central Limit Theorem.
[ Parent ]
HTML tags FTL (0.00 / 0)
I really messed up the html tags in that reply...

"Or you could be educated enough in the field of statistics to know about concepts like The Law of Large Numbers and The Central Limit Theorem."

That was my respose...

[ Parent ]
The point (0.00 / 0)
The point is that if you think that the Iowa election sample is worthless and that everyone should just ignore how they vote then you don't understand those concepts.
[ Parent ]
Causation (4.00 / 1)
To be honest, I'm not even sure what you're talking about anymore.

Are you saying that all New Hampshire polls taken prior to January 3rd 2008 were bunk?  If so, why were they bunk?  What polling mistakes did they make?

The fact is that polling showed that the people of New Hampshire had a particular opinion about the candidates up to January 3rd, 2008.  On Januray 4th, 2008 there was a massive shift in their opinion based on what?

There's really only 2 explanations:  That NH polling prior to January 4th 2008 was bunk, or that the outcome of the Iowa primary caused a shift in the opinion of the people of NH.  If the latter is true, then it's a form of groupthink.

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
You actually didn't know what I was talking about in the first place.

If you believe a poll of 1000 people demographically controlled can represent a much larger number then obviously an election can do the same if you control for its demographics.

Thus if you know where you stand in relation to Iowa you can pick your candidate entirely based on Iowa's results. 

Is the state of Iowa sheeple because 1000 people can accurately represent the state when controlled for demographics?  The argument Bowers presented is just as absurd. 

[ Parent ]
Except (4.00 / 1)
that the polling before Iowa was a product of even greater groupthink.  If you read carefully, some pollsters will tell you that (the pollster for Franklin Pierce, for example).

In general all polling before Iowa is pretty useless except for NH, and even that will completely change after Iowa.  This happens in every cycle.

[ Parent ]
Another part of this... (4.00 / 1)
is that the same thing applies to many of the frontrunner's supporters before the primaries start.  Much of Hillary's (and Dean's) support was soft support from folks who just liked to be on the side of the leader, or just were more familiar with the leader in their party's primary because of media coverage.  It seems like being perceived as the "leader" in a primary is worth a good 10 to 15 points...

In fact, this is about the best argument there is against a national primary.

Good point! (0.00 / 0)
The Sheeple phenomenon isn't limited to the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire. Very true!

I also oppose a national primary. I like having early states, I just think the early states should rotate and that there should be more time between the states.

[ Parent ]
Amen (4.00 / 1)
If I could be king for a day, I would mandate the adoption of the 1972 schedule.
[ Parent ]
So much is arbitrary and without logic (4.00 / 2)
Explain Romney winning the Wyoming caucus and still having to deal with the narrative that he's a loser. Sure WY is a small state but so are Iowa and NH. The press almost entirely ignored an entire state caucus in order to keep their narrative alive that Romney was a big loser. Except that he immediately won another contest. I'm no Romney fan but "the narrative" that he is a loser is contradicted by him actually winning one of a finite number of states. Romney is 1-1, Huckabee is 1-1, and every other GOP candidate is 0-2 yet Romney is the loser? The press is the problem. People down the calendar here these narratives and start to believe the "losing" candidates are tainted meat and to be avoided.

I wonder if some more restrictive fairness doctrine during the election season is needed. The press doesn't even pretend to talk about issues anymore. It's "Change vs. Experience", horserace coverage and "the expectations game". I don't blame the people that much. If somebody tells you there is a chance that your milk is bad, it's best not to take a sip. By the time Feb. 5th rolls around voters have had a month solid of being told Candidates X, Y, and Z are sour milk.

John McCain

[ Parent ]
What was the second contest he won? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Romney won the Wyoming GOP caucus (0.00 / 0)
Jan. 3, Iowa: Huckabee 30 delegates, Romney 7 delegates
Jan. 5, Wyo.: Romney 8, delegates, F. Thompson 3 delegates, Hunter 1 delegate

Why is the Romney victory in Wyoming is non-event in the NH narrative?

It's one thing for the press to pick and choose personality traits as more or less interesting but these are delegates and states that we are talking about. The press narrative of the campaign has superceded the actual binding elements of said campaign, ie, the holding of elections and the rewarding of delegates.

John McCain

[ Parent ]
Oh (4.00 / 1)
Your wording made it seem like there were somehow two of them.

"The press almost entirely ignored an entire state caucus in order to keep their narrative alive that Romney was a big loser. Except that he immediately won another contest."

[ Parent ]
How likely is there to be change on which states when... (0.00 / 0)
Both of Detroit's dailies have endorsed McCain.  McCain beat Bush in the Michigan primary in 00? 04?  Given MI long, long economic downturn and a Dem. gov. that makes milquetoast look spicy, I think McCain is poised to take Michigan.  Since I have no vote in the Democratic primary, I think I'm going to cross over and vote for Ron Paul.  After all there is some poetic justice in that. 
[ Parent ]
early states (0.00 / 0)
I have a lot of thoughts about the early states, and power they wield and the money they rake in each cycle because of historical status quo.  In short, I would recommend a primary that rotated among small states, chosen by proportiom of voters from the previouz cycle with the highest proportion of voters,,, ij  ok enough  for a threorytl,.,.
[ Parent ]
chantix to quit smoking (0.00 / 0)
chhris... have you tried chantix?  i could hook you up if yuo need itll just saying.. later
[ Parent ]
though i might add (0.00 / 0)
perhaps an actual national primary would cause people to pay more attention and be less likely to just give their support to the frontrunner...

I don't know, does anyone think Obama and Edwards would have been able to pass Hillary in a national primary as they did in Iowa?

[ Parent ]
Not a chance in hell (0.00 / 0)
Well, maybe Obama would've had a chance in hell, something like 5%.
[ Parent ]
Don't Forget The Media (4.00 / 1)
who purposely changes who gets covered and the narrative just to create a horse race and create a new story.

Remember it was the 'corportate' media that made 2000 a close race and then did the same to Kerry in 2004.

If they just reported and didn't meddle there would be 3901 more US soldiers alive today and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

[ Parent ]
Oh, that can't be right! (4.00 / 1)

NBC didn't actually report that Edwards finished third in IA behind Clinton.....

No, no, no.....

Yer just one of those DFHs who doesn't 'fit in'!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Sheeple? (0.00 / 0)
I'm a little shocked at this post. 

Basically, you need to get over the idea that people aren't who you want them to be; they don't think like you want them to, either.

If you really believe this, then I think you have a persistent fundamental belief that *everything* can be quantified and figured out.  It cannot! Life is not that way.  (I wish it were, politics would be easier.)  I could think of 10 other bullets to add to your 2nd section.  You did not capture the universe, there.

On a related note, it's amazing how much blog discourse degenerates into knowitallism/blowhardism.  Not that I'm accusing you of that tone, Chris -- just many posters all over the sphere -- but this is a big big disconnect between the over-intellectualized web activists and those less so.


... (4.00 / 1)
The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the tracts which favor that theory.

- Thomas Jefferson

[ Parent ]
Maturity (0.00 / 0)
"Basically, you need to get over the idea that people aren't who you want them to be; they don't think like you want them to, either."

I've known this for a long time, but no matter how old I get, somehow I can't shake the feeling that they should act the way I expect them too.

Its immaturity. I'm well aware of that.
[ Parent ]
Hey! (4.00 / 1)

The progressives of the 1890s and early 1990s believed that if 'the people' were too ignorant to understand their, the progressive movement's, plans to improve their lot that they'd just educate them to that fact. They'd change their minds! Goodness what a concept!

That's why we have public schools. Something the ReichWing understands very well which is why 'home schooling' is such a big issue with them. Problem now is that after decades of dumbing down we now have a populace that can only stare at you with their mouths open if you say:

Voltaire

Thoreau

Burke

Hume

Locke

But they'll perk up if you say:

Patriots

Bulls

Diamondbacks

Cold Play

It never ceases to amaze me the ideas that people hold about what actually happened in our country's history. They essentially have no idea.

Lately you see a lot of bumperstickers saying, 'I support unions. The folks that brought you the weekend!' Do you think you'd need to have a bumpersticker to remind the French what Bastille Day is about?

I think not.

So all you PC folks out there that want to give Chris grief for his 'sheeple' label need to understand that...

Yes, there are millions of American voters who can be quite accurately described by that word.

Whether you like to think so or not.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
voltaire? (0.00 / 0)
I agree with you nearly completely, but if you think that a large pct of the US population ever knew who Voltaire, Thoreau, etc. were, you're mistaken.  Europe, maybe. 
[ Parent ]
whatever the causes (0.00 / 0)
the system does NOT have to be designed to capitalize on it. Each primary and caucus could be mandated by the party to be at least 2 weeks apart. candidates would enjoy momentum, but not overwhelmingly, and each state's voters could at least enjoy the benefit of the same amount of time. To me, this should also include a Labor Day start date for on the ground and airwaves campaigning, no matter who goes first in January. Screw Harkin's steak fry, and everything else.
I suppose some of us are sheeple (0.00 / 0)
because we're not good looking enough to get jobs making shit up on blogs all day.
So sensitive... (4.00 / 2)
...the Obamaites!
[ Parent ]
Tiny sample of ordinary voters (4.00 / 1)
As it happens, I'm spending this week among Democratic voters (family) who I think are far more representative of Dem voters than I am.

They are faithful members of the electorate, never miss an election. They know the names of the candidates and that the issues are the war, Bush, a stagnant economy, and access to health care. They don't have much idea what the differences are among the candidates -- several suspect Kucinich might speak for them, but they know he doesn't have a chance. They know of no reason to hate any of the others. They'll vote for the Dem nominee in the fall, whoever wins the nod.

Obama gets great media from Iowa; he seems to represent youth and a new day after a dismal 7 years. So they will mostly go with him. Are they sheeple, or simply not political junkies?

Can it happen here?

Are they sheeple, or simply not political junkies? (0.00 / 0)
A fine question. I'm not entirely sure of the answer to that one. I guess it is a matter of perspective on how much you think someone should pay attention to politics. But that does seem to be one of the main tensions in play.
[ Parent ]
Two other possibilities: (0.00 / 0)
1) Since the vast majority of the country doesn't ever see any of the candidates in person (or even very often on TV for any extended period of time), we might be inclined to put stock in the judgment of those who have.  If I hadn't read Matt Stoller's piece here before the Iowa caucuses, I wouldn't have really known that Clinton's events were depressingly dull.  I pay a lot of attention to the primary, but -- not living near Iowa -- I just didn't have access to that information... 

2) Lots of people tune in for the speeches after Iowa.  Based on the speeches given after Iowa, it is not hard to figure out why Obama's support has risen 10 or 15 percent in New Hampshire, and why Clinton has stagnated. 

 

Another Possibility (0.00 / 0)
Suppose there's a candidate you dislike a lot running in the primary, and several you kind of like.

The moment one of the ones you sort of like gets a victory or two, it's perfectly rational to throw in with that candidate, as a proven winner seems a likelier bet to continue to win (and thus prevent the person you dislike from getting the nomination) than someone who has so far been unable to bring home a victory.

[ Parent ]
What was Senator Changes margin of victory.... (4.00 / 2)

............in IA in actual numbers.

Hmmmmm 7% times 220,000 is that right? Say it's close..

15,400 is what I come up with.

So the narrative that's been spun by all an sundry so far is this Obama runs table in IA and NH and NV and the voters of CA and FL fall in line like good little sheep and he gets to go up against McCain/HuckaBee! in the GE.

I'm with the Great Orange Satan.....

That's just plain nuts. The Sheeple stampede because of the votes of such a small about of people you couldn't make  decent sized town out of them!

Like I said last week...

Baaaaaaa.........Baaaaaaaaa.....Baaa.......Baaaaaaaaaa........

Get ready for President McCain folks 'cause here he comes.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

It was around 19,000 (0.00 / 0)
But that is deceptive in delegate counts in which he only won by one delegate. Obama didn't win every precinct and some of the ones he did win were not by a landslide.
[ Parent ]
JIm Jones (0.00 / 0)
If you get a chance read Robert Cialdini's book: Influence: The Science of Persuasion

It explains how humans have developed a herd mentality as a survival mechanism.
It also has some frightening insight in how easy it is to manipulate people.

Very Good Book (4.00 / 1)
And that is exactly what Obama is doing is manipulating people by pulling their emotional strings.

He talks about peoples inclusion in the government but in reality there is nothing more that he can give anyone that the constitution doesn't already provide. So it is all emotional rhetoric. Empty promises that if people thought about with a clear head is something that they would reject. Who wants to be manipulated?

He kind of reminds me of a good car salesman. Tugs at your emotions so you buy today and makes you think you are getting a good deal until you get home and see that you got screwed but it is too late to do anything.

[ Parent ]
In this specific case... (4.00 / 5)
  ...I think what's happening is that Democratic primary voters are coming to a belated realization that Hillary Clinton does not HAVE to be the nominee.

  All through 2007, just about every local Democrat I know had the attitude of "well, I guess it's going to be Hillary, might as well get used to it". Sure, everyone knew about Obama and Edwards and the others, but so many people I know had internalized the "inevitability" thing that the other candidates seemed irrelevant. Really, outside of beltway insiders there are precious few Democrats who were gung-ho passionate about Hillary Clinton the way Dean or Obama or Edwards inspired passion. It was more about resignation.

  With Obama's success in Iowa shattering Hillary's "inevitability" armor, a primary electorate who was already predisposed to support someone other than Hillary now has "permission" to do so. Yes, this is sheeple thinking, but I think it helps explain Obama's dramatic surge -- many Democrats have finally found a non-Hillary candidate they're comfortable with, which is what they wanted all along.

  That's just the way people are. It's not elitist to point out a very normal human behavior. People like to have their choices validated by others.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

competence rather than inevitability (0.00 / 0)
I think it is more that people trusted hillary enough that they didn't want to deal with an unknown.

However after the unknown defeats hillary in Iowa now people believe that Obama has the ability to win.

Likewise Dean represented the opposite with his poor organization.  People liked Dean, but if he can't run a winning campaign when he is ahead in the polls how can we trust him to run a country?

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I'd agree. But add that Obama wore the spotlight well; (0.00 / 0)
his victory speech was very good. I felt a surge of excitement about him as a likely future president, even though I'm still an Edwards supporter. 
[ Parent ]
two notes (4.00 / 3)
1.  I think a lot of this, Chris, stems from a difference in views you and I have had for months -- you think that policy views are a primary determinant of voter preferences; I've always thought it was much more personal, emotional and impulsive (i.e., "who do I like and trust?").

2.  Sen. Obama gave a damn good speech Thursday night, and America was paying attention.

My sentiments exactly (4.00 / 1)
Chris, I'm a fan, but I think Adam's got it right here.  There's no doubt that a large portion of American voters are "sheeple," but they aren't limited to supporting any one candidate.  If you really want your mind blown, watch this Luntz focus group on TPM. Talk about sheeple!

http://talkingpoints...

Anyway, this seems like one of those posts that you won't really look back fondly on.  The participation of sheeple in politics is nothing new, and your post seems born more out of frustration with JRE's woes than any reasonable observation.  As noted by others, there are other, more logical reasons to see Clinton's support drop and Obama's rise after Iowa.  That you don't recognize or acknowledge them makes this post look like good old fashioned venting, and not something worth getting everyone all riled up.

[ Parent ]
For the record (0.00 / 0)
"The participation of sheeple in politics is nothing new, and your post seems born more out of frustration with JRE's woes than any reasonable observation"

The idea for this post came when my older brother, an Obama supporter, called Democrats "sheeple" when I told him the average bounce for winning Iowa and New Hampshire is a net 33%. And, as I pointed out today, Edwards is actually getting a larger bounce than Obama nationwide, so this isn't about my favorite candidate.
[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
I know number one is true, I just can't seem to internalize it for some reason. I know you are right about this--I've seen endless amounts of data to support it--but it is just hard for me to believe it. I think I might have analytical junkie blindness.
[ Parent ]
You'd rather it not be true (0.00 / 0)
Because you care about policy.  And I care about policy.  So there's always going to be a part of us that *wants* it to be about policy difference, because we'd prefer to imagine a world in which voters reason that way as opposed to using tools that are less quantifiable and less easy for us to analyze. 

But this was never going to be a race about whether individual mandates were required in health care reform, or the speed of withdrawal from Iraq.  It's about leadership, and whether voters want to go back to the Clinton years or not.

[ Parent ]
So all one has to do is give a good speech (0.00 / 0)
But then isn'g that how we ended up with Bush? People felt he was better without bothering to find out what was behind the compassionate conservative rhectoric. I don't know how that means theya ren't steeple. Let's talk Bush again- one of the most stunning moments for me personally- and yes I knew better than to expect more but I expected it anyway- was when one woman said she was voting for Bush because he was a good man. What the fuck does that mean? I have no clue. 7 years later, I wish someone could go back to her to ask if she still feels that way. That's the problem with feelings.
[ Parent ]
Much of the force (4.00 / 2)
behind bounces is changing perceptions about electability.

In 2004 most of Kerry's margin came from the 35% who said ability to win was more important than than the issues (IIRC Kerry won that 35% by 40 points).

Let's look at the WMUR poll. 

http://i.a.cnn.net/c...

In September, people believed Clinton was the most electable candidate by 54-13.  The last two nights of polling show Obama now leads this question 42-31.  In September Clinton led 43-21 overall: she now trails 39-29, and increadible swing. 

In October the pollster for Franklin Pierce noted that Hillary's strength had two sources:
1.  The sense that she was inevitable
2.  The sense that she could win.

I wrote a comment about it at the time to hightlight how important this was, and that it meant that Hillary's lead was based on very little.  I was ignored, but the Franklin Pierce pollster was right.

At some point in the future there is a world where people understand how primaries really work.  I don't think more than a thousand people in the World really understand it now. 

Some facts surrounding this MO (4.00 / 1)
Hillary had a lot of I want to vote for the winner support because she was inevitable.

Logical now that she isn't inevitable that she starts loosing it.  She also ran on experience, but if her experience was such an asset, why couldn't she use it to beat Obama.  So a lot of her rational rings hallow after she looses.  She also claimed to be most electable, also rings hallow when you loose.

Edwards, has been in Iowa for four years.  He was a one state man.  The states demographics are most advantages to Edwards. so now that he can't win this state he is clearly is not a viable candidate.

As for Obama, his victory supports a lot of his arguemtns for himself.  That he can appeal to a vast swath of the American public, that he can turn those people out to vote.  Certainly Iowa demographics are representative of the Nation, but Obama should have had the least advantage from them, and he won any way.

There are lots of logical reasons for this, but i see you rather than look at that, chose to call everyone stupid for not making the choice you would have.

One of your worst posts to date.  Makes me wonder are you so concerned with being right that you are going to work against Obama? just to say i told you so?

Seriously i hope we see and end to the stupid posts bashing Obama, based on the fact that he says crisis, or whatever the hell else the idiot bloggers constructed to call him conservative.  Your spin didn't work you were wrong.  Admit it and move on.

The amazing thing is.... (4.00 / 2)
....that even here in 'pollster' country folks are stuck in the groove of the record that says, 'Clinton most electable...Obama most electable...' over and over again when polls show that Edwards is still the most electable when the nation is viewed as a whole and the sample is given actual head to head matchups.

It's now wonder then that the voters who are spending less time on studying this think the same. Which might....just might have something to do with why there have only been three Democratic Presidential wins since LBJ.

Oh shit! I forgot to allow for how great the Republican President's have done in office during that time! Nixon, Ford....yeah, well, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. Hell of a job these men have done.

And the Democrats couldn't beat any of 'em. Well, Bush I....

That's record to be proud of I say!

Proud.

Kos is right. This is nuts.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Hillary was "inevitable" only because the (0.00 / 0)
press gave her that label.  When they decided to change the meme, the sheeple followed.  I'm sick of it.  From what I've seen the past few days, the liberal blogosphere isn't a whole lot better that the Tweetys of the world.  I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but the final straw for me was when TPM's Election Central quoted a Frank Luntz focus group to slam Hillary.  Frank Luntz, for Pete's sake!
"Sheeple" (0.00 / 0)
Never mind the elitism, just don't use that word.  It's a tired cliche and needs go away.  Just say "sheep" or something.

But I understand your frustration.  It's disappointing when I see ostensible liberals making voting choices on trivial criteria. 

Other Reasons (0.00 / 0)
I'm trying to think of some other, non-insulting reasons, that may explain election momentum.  These are off the top of my head.

1.  A change in perception of whose viable. 

2.  Candidates drop out or seem less viable and their supporters become up for grabs.

3.  A winner might attract people to vote for him\her that weren't planning on voting before.

4.  The inverse of 2.  A loss might cause supporters to lose motivation to work or even bother voting if they think they're going to lose anyways.

What do you think?

Our Dime Understanding the U.S. Budget

you're right this is an elitist post-- (0.00 / 0)
and incredibly arrogant, not to mention inconsistent with Dean supporters where supposed to believe in.  I seem to remember there being a pretty big participatory ethic to Dean's rhetoric. Things change.  I suppose your the philosopher-king we're all supposed to be taking our cues from now? 

What mistifies me about the non-journalist blogosphere establishment who trace their linage back to Dean is that it wouldn't be difficult to argue that the Dean's candidacy and rhetoric were every bit as nebulous as Obama's.  Obama is just obviously a more intelligent and charismatic figure than Dean, who doesn't feel the need to suck up to the vastly overrated influence you guys think you have.

The Politics of Bruno S.

Yes, but no (0.00 / 0)
Obama is just obviously a more intelligent and charismatic figure than Dean
Dean's a pretty bright guy as well, and by all accounts a bit of a wonk.  I think you're correct that Obama's movement is a reincarnation of Dean's, but not in every way, and not with all the same people (indeed with many new people).
[ Parent ]
Groupthink (0.00 / 0)
This goes way, way beyodn politics.  You can find people talking about groupthink (or some other phrase with more positive connotations) in all kind of fields: economics, sociology, evolutionary biology, etc.

Humans are just hard-wired to act this way.  I believe it was Richard Dawkins who said that as organisms, we simply do not have the time to process all of the information we are bombarded with.  Our brains have evolved to make shortcuts.  In particular, our brains engage in groupthink.  If you think in terms of game theory and evolution, then the strategy of doing the same thing as the group is quite a robust one.  At worst, you do no worse than most other members of the group.

And again, you see this in any fields where humans are involved.  It's why you see Dot Com market bubbles.  It's why you see lynch mobs.  It's why you see organized religion. (it can lead to positive outcomes as well, of course, I'm obviously focussing on the negative).

I hate sports and I hate sports analogies even more, but I ran't resist one.  I notice that every year right after the Superbowl or World Series, that 90%+ of all sports fans are wearing paraphenalia or the team that won.  Not only that, you'll probably be surprised to learn that said person has always been a fan of that winning team.

ssshhh (0.00 / 0)
human nature doesn't apply to politics. See the post above calling it arogant to point it out.
[ Parent ]
Democratic primary voters are less informed than GOP primary voters. (4.00 / 1)
That's clear.  In that sense, yes, many Dem primary voters are sheeple.  In this day and age it will only get worse because we lack attention spans and like our homework done by someone else.  We base even our tastes on what the masses tell us, e.g., Britney, Paris, Lohan, etc.

Democrats I guess are lazier and more into voting trends (ironic that mark penn wrote a book about microtrends.  i read it.  he should have seen this coming), whereas Republicans hardly ever give Iowa as much power as WE give it.

85% of our nominees since 1976 have won Iowa.  That's ridiculous.

I seriously DO believe that the AVERAGE (obviously us here on the blogs are the exception) Democratic primary voters is indeed less informed on where the candidates in their party stand than the AVERAGE Republican primary voter.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

What About the GOP? (0.00 / 0)
85% of our nominees since 1976 have won Iowa.  That's ridiculous.

What's the number for the GOP?

[ Parent ]
I'd be interested to know this also... (4.00 / 1)

.............but does it really matter?

Our nominees lose the GE. The Rethugs win.

So like Kos sez, 'This is nuts!'

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
The only GOPers (0.00 / 0)
to win Iowa and not win the nod were Papa Bush in 1980 and Bob Dole in 1988.  So I guess that is 6/8 or 75%.

I actually think the Dems are the same with Dick Gephardt winning in 1988 and Tom Harkin in 1992 (though this was uncontested).

[ Parent ]
Fewer elections for GOP (4.00 / 1)
The GOP did not hold caucuses in Iowa in 1984 (Reagan)and 2004 (Bush) and 1992 (Bush I).  We did not hold Iowa caucuses in 1996(Clinton).  Democrats who won in Iowa went on to win in 5 out of 6 election cycles (83%); Republicans won in 3 of 5 (60% with Dole in 1996 an Iowa winner but media loser for a 26% to 23% win over Pat Buchanan).

Iowa determines the democratic nominee; Iowa and New Hampshire determine the Republican nominee.

This would seem to predict that Obama is the Democratic nominee already and that IMO the winner of the NH primary (Romney or McCain) will likely be the Republican nominee (the establishment/money party candidate always wins and it sure isn't Mike Huckabee).

One interesting caveat is what I call Harkin's Rule.  The caucus or primary or straw poll only count if the media says they count.  Harkin won 76.8% of the vote in 1992 but it was a net negative (perhaps) as he did not spend as much time campaigning in NH and beyond.  The other candidates after an initial spin around the dance floor decided to skip Iowa and Harkin did not get nearly the bounce from the biggest blowout in the history of the caucuses.

Similarly, the Iowa Straw Poill clearly established George W. Bush as the heavy front runner and presumptive nominee for President.  In 2008, Romney was badly hurt by the straw poll:  the media decided that what mattered was second place, not first.  the winner of the death cage match between Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee was the choice of the religious right; the loser went home.  Huckabee edged Brownback; Brownback quit; and Huckabee rode the moentum to an easy caucus win.  The medis decided whether the straw poll mattered and how it mattered.

Of course, yesterday Mitt Romney won caucuses in Wyoming.  Ignored.  In the past, primaries in DC and delaware lacked the media seal and were meaningless.  Will the Michigan and Florida results on the Democratic side be meaningless?  The Nevada results?  Check in with the medis.  They are the ones who decide.

But right now, just pencil in Obama as the nominee on the Democratic side and Huckabee as one of the GOP finalists with the other to be selected tomorrow.

Footnote: Obama's margin over edwards was bigger than Kerry'sin 2004 or Gephardt's in 1988.  Only candidates in a two person race (Gore, Mondale, Carter 1980) or Carter 1976 had a bigger win than Obama (excluding Harkin, of course) on the Democratic side.  This was a huge margin of victory by Iowa standards, folks.

[ Parent ]
Great post, dude. A lot of good information in there!!! (0.00 / 0)


For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
That's dumb. (0.00 / 0)
Watch this video and get back to me. 

http://talkingpoints...

Both parties have fat tailed distributions of informed voters!

[ Parent ]
I hope somebody sends Doughy Pantload a link to this post (0.00 / 0)

Sheeple? Really? (0.00 / 0)
Although a discussion of the dynamics of group think in relation to primary voting is interesting, can we PLEASE not use the word "sheeple"? It's incredibly insulting and reductive.
Sheeple may be insulting (0.00 / 0)
but that's just too bad because it also happens to be true.  I remember being so mad in '04 about what happened to Dean that I didn't vote for Kerry.  Not that it would have mattered in my state.

I thought it must be a one time thing because surely democratic primary voters wouldn't be that dumb again, but here we go one more time.  I swear the average primary voter doesn't have a clue what any of the candidates positions are on the issues.  Maybe they don't care or are just too lazy, or busy, to learn.

Either way, if the democrats let Iowa decide another nominee, I'm done with the party.  I'm embarrassed to have been associated with it up to now.

Today, I donated to both the Clinton and McCain campaigns in the probably vain hope that I might have at least one candidate that I actually respect in the race for a change.

Help me to understand... (0.00 / 0)
why you, who, by implication, have a firm grasp of the candidates' positions, are looking forward to voting for *either* Clinton or McCain.
[ Parent ]
Delete my fucking account Obama! (0.00 / 0)
Seriously, are you kidding? Was this comment satire? Bravo.
[ Parent ]
McCain does not deserve respect (0.00 / 0)
Why, exactly, do you respect McCain? His willingness to kiss George Bush's ass? His unwavering commitment to keeping this mess of a war going? The fawning media coverage back in 2000 that painted him as a maverick rather than as the hardcore conservative he actually is?

I'll admit that he's the most eloquent opponent of torture that the Republicans can field, but that's faint praise at best.

[ Parent ]
For myself.... (0.00 / 0)
Before Iowa, I was leaning towards Obama but basically resigned to Clinton.  By the time the results starting coming in I was hugely excited.  I honestly had no idea I cared that much.

But I think the real reason is Democratic primaries tend to pit a safe, establishment candidate against a rebel-rouser.  Seeing a rebel-rouser (Dean, Obama) win or lose dramatically changes your opinion of the safety of such a pick.  Pit to safe candidates against each other and I doubt you'd see nearly the same effect.  If Edwards beat Clinton (yes, he did, you know what I mean) I doubt you would see quite the same effect.

(I'll let others look at the data to see if my guess is correct.)

Good point (0.00 / 0)
but I think you mean "rabble-rouser"
[ Parent ]
But Rebel-rousers always win South Carolina! (0.00 / 0)
/
[ Parent ]
HAHAHA....good one! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I can't help but be impressed by Obama's (0.00 / 0)
ground game in that he did turn out the younger demographic.

The problem for me is: What does he plan to do with it? Lieberman had quite a cadres of 'youth supporters' in his campaign against Lamont as many here will recall.

It's not a good thing that there is so much disagreement about Obama's true intentions. Not because disagreement is a bad thing, I would be the last to argue that, but rather because this is so because Obama wants it that way.

I've got more than a few miles on me and I'm just not going to take a candidate for President of the United States on trust. Nope. Ain't gonna happen.

I'm down with a candidate who is prepared to tell his allies and his enemies just exactly where he's coming from.

Like this man:

You want Democrat....Here's what it looks like, pal.

Anything else is....

...dishonest in a way that is unacceptable even according to the rather flexible mores of politics.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

But thats rather the point (4.00 / 1)
he attracted young voters who have no fucking clue beyond their emotions what  politics is. i mean sure they can look it up in history books or listen to the old folks- but its not experience. no amount of smarts trumpets that. but it takes years to realize that.
[ Parent ]
thanks chris....... (0.00 / 1)
you are a true asshole....

in a league with mark penn....

congratulations!

so in 2004 (4.00 / 2)
when voters did the same thing to Dean- would it have been an asshole statement to point out that they did it to Dean due to sheepish behavior. I count myself among those sheeps buying into the dominant narrative. The idea that we are immune to such influences makes you either naive or crazy. Either way, Bowers maybe an asshole- but not for pointing out human nature.
[ Parent ]
My take on Obama... (0.00 / 0)
This is an excerpt from my a comment I posted in Matt's thread about Obama running a general election. (here: http://openleft.com/...)

It sums of my feelings about the Obama momentum question and also addresses other issues brought up in this thread but is in no way meant to be an insult to any writers on this or any other site.

"The reality is that Obama probably agrees with the vast majority of the issues of most concern to netroots bloggers but at the same time he wanted to keep them at a safe arms length so as to not frighten away the independents and sensible Republican general election voters. Many bloggers [b]arrogantly[/b] supposed their support was absolutely crucial to Obama's primary candidacy when in fact he didn't need blogger endorsements at all. I'm thinking about writing a diary about this topic.

Obama is now poised and well positioned to become the Golden Boy of politics. The young honest inspirational groundbreaking and most transformational Presidential candidate of the past many decades. After his primary campaign, now barreling forward with the moment of a freight train, finishes trouncing the onslaught that is the Clinton Machine Obama will have officially become The Golden Boy© and as such will be untouchable. He has already received the Golden Touch of Oprah and in the near future he will take on his own aura of invincibility. He will be so beloved that the Republican slime machine will actually work in reverse, causing more and more people to vote for Obama.

2008 will be an historic election and I predict Obama will receive over 60% of the popular vote. After this is achieved the corporate media and you guys will all be gushing about how important and huge a moment and breakthrough this is for America. Obama will have so much teflon making him impervious to Republican attacks that he will make John Gotti jealous. These are my predictions about the Obama campaign, and so far I've had a pretty good predictin' record. (P.S. I suspect Huckabee will probably be Obama's general election adversary)

I hate to say I told you so but frankly I've been telling everyone I know this was going to happen. I'm sure many of you probably disagree especially about the teflon part and think that the Republican slime machine will be effective against Obama. All I can say to you is watch and pay attention. Hopefully you will all come around and jump on the Obama bandwagon soon because its gonna be a wild and wonderful ride ;) I predict by the time this is over and done with Obama will be one of the most respected Presidents of all time and bring the sort of dignity back to that office which has been missing for so long. Dignity that will even garner the respect of Republicans."

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

Pollster may push too hard (0.00 / 0)
On one hand I think that you are 100% correct. On the other I wonder if the pollsters don't contribute to this by pushing people to choose a candidate long before they have made up their mind. Responding to pollsters it may be easier to go with conventional wisdom--and that explains the huge soft support and wide swings.
If Peoples Is Sheeples (0.00 / 0)
The real question is why a bunch of bright elitists, with all their deep thoughts and mathematical poll-watching, can figure out how to get the flock to move the way they want them to?

Too dumb to to take direction?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

If Peoples Is Sheeples (4.00 / 1)
The real question is why a bunch of bright elitists, with all their deep thoughts and mathematical poll-watching, can't figure out how to get the flock to move the way they want them to?

Too dumb to to take direction?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

It's the Electablility, Stupid (0.00 / 0)
I can't believe how few people are willing to assume that the changing electoral landscape is a legitimate reason to alter a voting choice.

Suppose, for example, you really like Edwards, are lukewarm towards Clinton, and really think Obama would be a disaster. You buy into a couple MSM articles you read that say Hillary can't be beat in Iowa, and a few articles touting Edwards organization there making him a strong darkhorse. You don't look too closely because you like Edwards.

Thinking Obama's probably going to lose in Iowa, when a pollster calls you, you say "Edwards!"

Then Obama creams everybody. Oh crap! Disaster appears to be in the offing! Now it's REALLY important to get behind someone, ANYONE who can challenge Obama. So next time a pollster calls, you say, "sigh. Hillary."

Now whatever calculus people used to make their decision, it's obvious that the electability factor has changed. A week ago, Clinton was invulnerable. People made their decisions accordingly. Now she's on the ropes, and Obama is on the verge of locking up the nomination.

This obviously changes the math. Not changing course based on reality wouldn't merely be stupid, it would be REPUBLICAN.

I don't get why this isn't clear to everyone.

Honestly, I think Chris is just blowing off steam here because his job makes him so close to it-- I'm just surprised at how people are reading it the same way.

C'mon Folks. Cicero is rolling around off his catafalque: "Cui Bono?" (0.00 / 0)
The people who profit most from the current system are the owners of the corpoRat media in the effected States.

The rich fuckers in Iowa and NH are now ROLLING in dough.

And nothing's gonna change the system. Politicians would rather lose a limb than alter the circumstances under which THEY were elected.

It's the narrative (0.00 / 0)
So the effect of any change in rankings is magnified: there's the reaction, and then the reaction to the reaction. It's not a conscious decision: "Hey, more people like Obama, I'll do the same thing" (for most people it isn't, anyway). It's unconscious: Obama wins, so all the media narrative is about why Obama won, which naturally tends to focus on positive aspects. You hear more positive stuff about the guy, you start to like him more. If you've been on the fence, suddenly victory seems within grasp, which encourages you more to jump in. On the other hand, if you liked the other guys, maybe you start to think they're a lost cause, and what's the point supporting a lost cause? (After all, we are Democrats and not Greens.)

Everybody likes a winner. That's a human instinct, going back to the days when men used to piss on trees to mark their territory (or something like that). Anybody who's been in a campaign of any sort will tell you how it feels to win. This is what our reptile brains crave.

No, I do not weep at the world — I am too busy sharpening my oyster knife.
    Zora Neale Hurston

Democratic Sheeple | 88 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox