Well, let’s not sprain our arms patting ourselves on the back. Information isn’t the only thing that differs from the rest of the electorate- blog readers are demographically different from the population and the libertarian roots of the internet are pretty well known, for a start.

As for the Democrats- I agree that rational readers of Instapundit should be voting for the most conservative candidate of the three- Senator Clinton. But surely you’ve noticed over the last 16 years that the right isn’t entirely rational about the subject.

This poll is pretty useless when it comes to the general population. Fred Thompson who? Few even know who he is, much less what he stands for. Damn shame, but Thompson didn’t show up in time.

Completely different story on the Democratic side. All three candidates well known. The poll looks more realistic from a general population standpoint.

I don’t even consider the donks when looking at who I vote for, as long as the looney left controls the party power.
With the GOP candidates, there are things that concern me about all of them, as well as many strengths that most of them have.
As for Fred, I don’t like his record in the Senate on McCain-Feingold, or on gun rights issues. Some of his recent memory lapses have been a little disturbing, too.
Mike worries me on his understanding of the threat to our national security, and the GWOT, as well as his inability to say no to a donk controlled state legislature. At least he is strong on social issues and gun rights, and does have the endorsement of the founder of the Minutemen.
McCain, he needs to just go away.
It’s unfortunate that there is no perfect candidate. Regardless, whoever wins the GOP nomination gets my vote, unless McCain wins, then I will have to make a soul-searching decision as to whether I will vote at all.

dianne,

i respectfully disagree on thompson. i feel he’s been consistently the strongest gop candidate. i’ m hoping republicans do the smart thing and start supporting him, instead of letting the media hold our hands nominating mccain, huck, rudy, or mitt.

that “didn’t show up in time” rap is pollster-analyst jargon for i’m too busy to do research on another legitimate contender. after all, what has he done lately that he wasn’t doing since november?yeah he had a strong showing in the sc debate, but he handed huck his ass over the issues, not pandering.

isn’t bipartisan politics just another method of oversimplifying until we can narrow the field for the materialistic consumer whose too busy to make more informed decisions than a or b? yin and yang? right and left? liberal/ conservative? elephant/ donkey? red/ blue…? the media seems to favor squeezing out the candidates with legit merrits who want to talk issues in favor of having a two man(woman)real-world like cast of drama queens to duke it out for pop culture- enthused america. i’m not saying you or i or even preston; i’m talking john q here.

the fact is, once dennace the menace and edwards concede, this has been actualized on the left while the right is still benefiting from the discussion of issues and ideas from 5 or 6 brains. the libs have their dream main event, a black guy vs. a woman, neither one of which was the most qualified . i can see the headlines already : WHO DO DEMOCRATS LIKE BETTER, WOMEN OR BLACKS? don’t laugh; exit polls seem to support this thinking.

though gop candidates still seem to want to talk issues, the ny slimes is doing it’s best to water it all down for us idiots. i was feeling solid in endorsing tancredo, the media ignored him cause he wouldn’t shoot fireworks out of his ass during a debate, and no hype= no campaign loot. now the msm figures it can help nix duncan hunter. he hasn’t even been mentioned since deking their asses into free coverage and then announcing he wouldn’t quit.

in my opinion tancredo and hunter were 1-2; thompson will be 3 and then i’ll end up voting for 4, 5, 6,or 7 unless republicans wake up. the reason it looks like 4,5,6, or 7 is because the media envisions the winner being the guy from 9/11, or the war hero, or the guy with the biggest bank account, or the guy with the huge glowing cross in the background of his add (and we all know that about sums up consevatives, defense, war, money, and religion).

as n2l suggests, i think there are pros and cons with each. i too am curious about his support of mc/fein but i can live with that. thompson is the guy that occasionally offends, stands by his record, says what he believes, and dances to his own tune. exactly what we need in a leader!

Honestly, with all of the sermonizing we hear from the right about the horrors of a culture of victimization, I’m reading an awful lot about how the big, bad media is ganging up on the good candidates.

I think I’ve established my media critic bona fides already so don’t take it as a defense of the media’s political coverage when I say the problems are more systemic than NBC and Fox deciding who the ‘worthy’ candidates are. If you don’t want candidates being judged by their fundraising prowess before a single vote is cast or even one debate has aired, why not support an electoral system that does not privilege fundraising ability over policy making? Or maybe support an electoral system such as alternative voting if you feel that the media drives ‘electability’ narratives to scare voters away from their preferred candidates.

As for the two-party system- it was here for 200 years before television so I think it’s fair to say that you can’t blame it on the short attention span of Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper’s hair.

Adam, actually it was known as McCain-Feingold-Thompson, for most of it’s legislative life.
It has always troubled me.
Also, some of his comments in recent weeks and months, that showed some serious memory lapses. He was unaware his home state had suspended lethal injections while the Supreme Court review is in progress; he referred to Russia as the Soviet Union, which ended long before he entered the Senate; he claimed that Judge Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court came in a donk controlled Senate. What is really troubling about this is, not only is it not true, he was the ‘marshal’ for Judge Roberts as he went through the Senate confirmation hearings.
Should the donks select a young, energetic Obambi, and he runs against tottering candidates like Fred or John, I don’t think the outcome will be in our favor. To me the donks are at least, if not more so, the single biggest threat to our national security, than the Islamonazis.

the media gives free undeserved coverage to lots of solid candidates too. i’m not suggesting that their ganging up on anyone but i am saying that their largely liberal bias encourages the dumbing down of news. they’ll regurgitate stupid fucking oneliners, perpetuate inaccurate and unsubstantiated stereotypes, and constantly favor fluff over substance all for ratings. are blitzer and cooper a part of that; fuck yeah, they trade shifts spearheading the effort with olberman/matthews and springer/oprah. hell, oreilly rides that train too when he covers brittney spears every night.

how politically correct(nice) of you to mention “nbc and fox” because we all know that these contrasting sources represent an accurate portrayal of the wide spectrum of msm coverage available. if you bother to read between the lines, you may see that i was suggesting that we, as americans, only fall victim to the media when we allow ourselves to. not being as prone to conspiracy theories as many liberals, i would again like to reiterate that i’m not suggesting that the media is making a collective effort to “scare voters”.

“why not support an electoral system that does not privilege fundraising ability over policy making?”
i do but that isn’t what we have. as for “alternative voting”, which correct me if i’m wrong, is basically a ranked ballet runoff, that’s not the answer. it’s more complicated for voters than the current system, which we seem to struggle to master. it would more frequently encourage insincere votes and it would be much more time consuming and likely more expensive.

i don’t have a problem with a 2 party system and i only implied that it is intended to boil political agendas down to about as bare as they can be…but we do seem to vote in america like even that’s too complicated, especially on the left. tell me, what percentage of democratic women are voting hillary; what percentage of democratic blacks are voting obama? i suppose you think those numbers only reflect real support for a candidates platform?

ps – you didn’t tell me what you thought of my super bowl picks. i thought you wanted to talk football?

There are too many topics here to really go into depth, but…

they’ll regurgitate stupid fucking oneliners, perpetuate inaccurate and unsubstantiated stereotypes, and constantly favor fluff over substance all for ratings
I agree with all of that. Yet what do you propose to do about it? Recall that the airwaves are publicly owned- wouldn’t it be wise for the Republicans to put aside corporatism for just a second and demand that the networks act on the public behalf with their news coverage?

how politically correct(nice) of you to mention “nbc and fox”
Don ‘t believe that I think this represents the spectrum of political thought in America- it’s just all we’ve got. I don’t want to get into it but if we’re counting on Jack Welch’s baby to provide the ‘liberal’ side of the news we’re going to be disappointed. (As an aside, over the course of the last two weeks the Sunday morning shows have featured 4 Democrats and SIXTEEN Republicans- F-in’ Liberal Media!)

As for identity politics. As, I suppose, a white man it is easy for you to have an idealized vision of politics stripped down to the ideas presented. (In fact, I would argue that you vote your identity in opposition to [in your opinion] latte-sippin’, volvo-drivin’, sushi-eatin’ liberals.) But it is totally rational for a woman or an African-American to see candidates that look like them and understand if that candidate becomes the leader of the Free World those voters may receive benefits beyond what happens in the Oval Office as long-held stereotypes have to confront the reality of a powerful woman or black man.

As for alternative voting- it’s done throughout the world. Americans aren’t any stupider than other voters.

As for the Super Bowl- I guess that’s the safe pick though I would give a larger spread. But I’d like to see the Giants continue their run.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you, Adam. I’m a political junkie and consider myself informed on the candidates and the issues, but that’s not the case with the “general population”. As my sister informed me over a heated political debate a few weeks back, neither she nor most people she knows, have the time to dig out all the information I had used in my arguments. In all fairness, I’m retired and I do have more time than she does to follow the debates but I also WANT to do so. I know Fred Thompson’s positions and I like them but in my opinion, he waited too long to get his message out. Maybe he can do it in SC, but I doubt it.

“what do you propose to do about it?”
cast informed votes

“…wouldn’t it be wise for the Republicans to put aside corporatism for just a second and demand that the networks act on the public
behalf with their news coverage?”
how about americans stop watching and listening to trash and eventually it will go away, kind of like air america and jon stewarts first 25 shows.

“I don’t want to get into it but…’
then don’t.

“over the course of the last two weeks the Sunday morning shows have featured 4 Democrats and SIXTEEN Republicans- ”
gee, if only the “last 2 weeks of sunday morning shows” accurately depicted what tends to be on, you may have been on to something.

actually, i have an occasional latte, my mom drives a volvo but tends to be quite conservative, and i eat sushi weekly. you do have me labled pretty accurately on the “opposition to liberals” thing though .you also “suppose” incorrectly that i’m simply a “white man”; i’m of multiple ethnicities, but that’s irrelevant because this isn’t a personal issue.

but back to the point, voting for people simply because they look like you, is not “rational”. “….long-held stereotypes have to confront the reality of a powerful woman or black man” kind of pegs my bullshit meter into the red though. are you suggesting that there have never been powerful black men or women?

“As for alternative voting- it’s done throughout the world. Americans aren’t any stupider than other voters.”
i agree completely but that still doesn’t address any of the potential downfalls i discussed previously. that said, the problem isn’t our current system; it’s a lack of participation in it, as anon eludes to. so stupider? no. lazier? perhaps. instead of looking to the rest of the world for answers, how about we try to realize our own unique problem and address it?

are you from new york/jersey? “their run” is 2 in a row. the giants may squeak passed green bay on the road but it would be a miracle for them not to get creamed in foxborough. don’t sleep on the packers.

cast informed votes
I think your complaint was with the media, not the voters: their largely liberal bias encourages the dumbing down of news

how about americans stop watching and listening to trash and eventually it will go away,
They are public airwaves, they belong to us; we can determine how they are used. Your solution is no solution.

then don’t.
What’s your problem?

are you suggesting that there have never been powerful black men or women?
I’m suggesting that African Americans and women have and continue to be discriminated in the workplace. It is not an unreasonable assumption to make that a competent performance by Clinton or Obama will reduce that discrimination.

problem isn’t our current system; it’s a lack of participation
That’s exactly the problem that alternative voting systems address by allowing people to cast votes for ideologically agreeable candidates with “throwing their votes away”.

Yeah- I’m not a huge Giants fan but I’m sympathetic to a local team done good. In the end I want a good game, and Packers/Patriots is probably a better game.

That should read without “throwing their votes away”.

Wow so much to comment on, feel overwhelmed.
1. anyone today that does not know about a candidates positions is either lazy or just does not care which I would call stupid.
2. I like Fred, but I just don’t think he will play nationally. He is not exciting and as I hate to say it that does count. In this day and age you have to have a spark to catch and grab someones attention away from the buffet lines and reality TV.
3. Wow there will be less discrimination in the work place if a woman or black gets to be president? Really? Man, kudos on being so optimistic. I don’t think it will change jack on discrimination. It has always existed and always will. It is a dog chasing his tail to think that we will EVER live in a color blind society. Yeah it can get better, but come on people will always judge others and look down on some, it is encoded into human DNA. that is how we evolved by recognizing differences and fearing what is different. That’ why people hate change, it takes you out of your comfort zone.
4. I think if the repubs want to win, it has to be Romney. This guy is the complete package. Has actual business skills, the strongest on stopping the illegal flood we are drowning in, for lower taxes, strong on military, strong on the economy and wants to help keep jobs here by rebuilding manufacturing, strong on healthcare without taking it over, he is a good family man with strong values. Yes he has problems, but WHO does not??? All the rest are WAY weaker than this guy. Just listen to what he says, his voting record. Don’t listen to the talking heads.
5. the two party system sucks. we have NOT always had 2 parties. it is the dems and repubs playing ping pong that we the people are getting screwed. they just flip flop every few years, get behind closed doors then do what they want and screw the rest. If we had 3,4,5 parties it would be exponentially harder for them to get all those parties on the same page. I completely think the 2 party system is horrible. Why do you think the dems and repubs don’t want a 3rd party and try hard to keep them out of the debates or off ballots??? Cause then we would have another option other than the two do-nothing choices we have now.
6. Are Americans stupid? NO. but we have gotten lazy and distracted by all our toys. Of course to anyone with open eyes realizes….that is exactly where the elite want us. Distracted, fat, and in a sugar coma. Because a distracted, fat populous is much easier to control than one who is lean and mean and has laser focus on these empty suits. Of course the laws, judges, and left leaning media does NOT help. Those with weak minds are easily influenced by the herd mentality and what the talking haircuts have to say. I could care less who is leading in the polls or who has momentum or who cooper Anderson is for…who gives a damn. I like who I think will save this sinking ship. We are in big deep trouble, this is not some academic conversation. We are in BIG trouble so the smart people who pay attention better do their research on voting records and think HARD about whom they vote for .
8. This election is the most important election in decades, we better make the right choice…not the popular choice. This is not high school.

press,

“I think your complaint was with the media, not the voters”
you think incorrectly. “their largely liberal bias encourages the dumbing down of news” is an issue for folks to overcome, but i’m not complaining.

“Your solution is no solution.”
wrong again; i just think if people want change, they should stop endorsing shit.

“What’s your problem?”
you say “i don’t want to get into it…”but then you get into it. if you want to discuss something, by all means.

“African Americans and women have and continue to be discriminated in the workplace.”
i assume you meant discriminated against and there isn’t an adult alive who hasn’t discriminated and been discriminated against. please go easy on the victimology.
“a competent performance by Clinton or Obama will reduce that discrimination.”
are we talking sanctioned bias, personal bias, or both? by your logic it’s reasonable to assume that a competent performance by bush2 and/or clinton1 would reduce discrimination against people with a southern twangy accent. can you provide proof?

“That’s exactly the problem ”
wrong a final time (at least until you retort). you misquoted me. i didn’t say:
“problem isn’t our current system; it’s a lack of participation”
i said: it’s a lack of participation in it (the current system)…

Man, kudos on being so optimistic. I don’t think it will change jack on discrimination.

Marc- Well, of course it doesn’t change everything but take a look at an example outside of politics. When Jackie Robinson broke into the Major Leagues African Americans in many different sports began to reap benefits. From a different perspective, when Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France many Americans suddenly saw new horizons in the sport. It’s not like they didn’t know they could ride fast on a bicycle before but the limits of possibility expanded.

Adam- your prescriptions simply don’t fit your diagnosis. Just look at your first post where you repeatedly rail against the dysfunctional systems of media and electoral politics. Then you propose individual change. Do you really need me to point out that this isn’t going to improve anything?

Conservative doesn’t have to be a synonym for impotent.

and my world is oversimplified?
for the final time, since you again misconstrued, my diagnosis is that the general public appears lacking in the motivation department, yet not in the loud mouth “why doesn’t the government save us” department.
my “prescription” since you assumed incorrectly is to encourage accountability and personal responsibility among the masses, not drown us in legislation and expand government to accomodate the apparent laziness. please feel free to quote where i recommended large scale immediate changes to the media and/or electoral politics.
“Do you really need me to point out that this(individual change) isn’t going to improve anything?”
i need nothing from you; we can agree to disagree here.

“Conservative doesn’t have to be a synonym for impotent.”
agreed; nor sedentary, dormant, anti-change, or laissez fair, as you often misunderstand.
it should, however, be synonymous with patient and cautious.

on the other end of the spectrum, liberal doesn’t have to be synonymous with victimized!

i need nothing from you

You must be a real pleasure to be around. I’m thinking: Ignatius J. Reilly?

i had to dump him into the wiki, but i’m surprised how close you are. a few drastic differences but dead on otherwise. are you recommending the book?

I haven’t read it in 15 or 20 years but it was the funniest book I’d ever read at the time.

Henh…Ignatius J. Reilly, haven’t heard that name in a while.
This is funny, and I could see Adam doing this.
Ignatius J. Reilly responds to an African spam email.

Too bad the Boethian era ended so feebly.

If you haven’t made up your mind yet who to choose/vote for maybe this helps:

http://www.electoralcompass.com/

Discover your position in the political landscape for the 2008 USA presidential election.

Dutch initiative, English version