Enthusiasm Gap

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this observation from MSNBC's first read, but it sure is interesting: "Yesterday, we spent some time with the so-called second tier on the Dem side. The most striking thing: the crowd sizes. Biden and Richardson seem to get similar crowds as the GOP front-runners." Along the same lines, it seems to me that undecided progressives tend to be undecided because they see merit to more than one candidate (often including some affection for at least one out of the Biden/Dodd/Richardson tier) whereas undecided conservatives tend to be lamenting their poor options.

Again, I don't know exactly what the upshot of this dynamic is, but it seems like a noteworthy turn of events. Along the same lines, what you see on the Democratic side is basically people with similar ideas arguing about who's best situated to put those ideas into practice. On the Republican side, you have people arguing over their ideological bona fides. It's as if Democrats are trying to pick a leader who'll get things done, while conservatives just want to find a sacrificial lamb who doesn't call the orthodoxy into question.

Comments

Objectively, the Democratic candidates aren't very good. They only look good compared to the GOP candidates.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 2, 2008 12:44 AM

what you see on the Democratic side is basically people with similar ideas

Well, they have similar ideas on substance, though a bit more variation than commonly supposed. But they have very different ideas about how politics and government work, resulting in very different management and leadership styles. When it comes to actually enacting policy, those are differences that matter almost as much as the substantive differences among Republicans do. Regardless of substantive similarities, it's not a tough choice between the fighter, the incrementalist triangulator, and the RNC talking-point spewing capitulator.

Posted by R Johnston | January 2, 2008 1:11 AM

R Johnston -- yes, I agree, it's not a tough choice between the proven progressive with the unifying message, the ceaseless panderer I cannot trust, and the born-again populist angry at the world.

As clear as my primary choice is, though, I'm much happier being in our position than theirs. Even the least appealing of our candidates is a thousand times better than what is available from the other side.

Posted by cms | January 2, 2008 1:40 AM

The Republicans just loooved George Bush in 2000, and loved him even more in 2004. I don't even try to understand such people, or listen to them trying to explain themselves.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 2, 2008 2:18 AM

"Objectively, the Democratic candidates aren't very good. They only look good compared to the GOP candidates.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 2, 2008 12:44 AM"

Coming from Steve Sailer, this is a compliment. If he actually liked any of the Dems, I would be worried.

Posted by Reality Man | January 2, 2008 2:53 AM

I imagine you're right, Sailer. As far as I can tell, none of the Democratic candidates would appeal to brazenly bigoted conservative. You're probably going to have to look at the "party of Reagan" for what you want.

Posted by ben | January 2, 2008 4:36 AM

Oh, and the Repubs don't need to love their candidate. They're a party that is fueled by fear and anger. They just have to fear/hate the Dem candidate (and their plans to allow the Mexican terrorists to gay-marry them and raise taxes) enough to unify the base. A freakin cardboard box would get a lot of (R) votes if it was run against Hillary (but they'll probably find things they don't like about the other candidates too).

Posted by Ben | January 2, 2008 4:43 AM

I have just created a pictorial-based graph of Hillary Clinton's recent meteoric rise in wealth. Any Obama and Edwards supporters here might want to check it out and help spread the link

The link
http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html

Posted by Onslow Memling | January 2, 2008 7:51 AM

FWIW, the Democratic 'second tier' candidates also are far more interesting and accomplished as speakers than any of the Republicans, among whom the dull are only outnumbered by the weird. Even if I had no intention of voting for him, I'd turn out to hear Biden or Richardson say a few words.

Posted by rickhavoc | January 2, 2008 8:22 AM

MY-

You're living in a dream world. First, any link-or any comment-from MSNBC concerning the confining nature of the GOP is like hearing it from, well, this site. Grain of salt...Objectivity is as distant as a passing star.

So let's cut to the chase, shall we. The truth is, no candidate from either party, with the possible exception of Barack, has anything close to unique appeal, special merit (or what I'd call latent virtue.) This ain't Kennedy's offspring, nor Lincoln's. There's a dozen candidates for a reason-there's a dozen question marks.

Moreover, the policies you hear being espoused by any of the candidates are nothing more than window dressing, being forever subject to change; to wit: does anyone think a given "Iraq-withdrawal" policy wouldn't shift in a moment's notice? Insofar as who's "situated to put those ideas into practice," I would hope you'd allow the predicate that a democratic congress ought to be able-in theory-to facilitate that for any of their candidates.

The limit-test polemic as to whom the GOP chooses makes for great blog reading, but has no basis in reality when the polls open. Reagan died a long time ago, and Richard Viguerie is old news, if he was ever news at all.

I give you George Bush, twice elected, to prove the point.

Posted by resh | January 2, 2008 8:45 AM

Matt's post pretty well describes me. I'd say I'm not so much undecided as "pleased with my options." I have some slight preferences, but I can't much influence the outcome of the election given the realities of electoral math, and I'll be delighted to support whichever Dem takes the nomination.

I'll also note that the first few comments very nicely illustrate the Rorschach theory of this election:

fighter, incrementalist triangulator, RNC talking-point spewing capitulator, proven progressive with the unifying message, ceaseless panderer I cannot trust, the born-again populist angry at the world

Uh huh.

Posted by Adam | January 2, 2008 8:55 AM

I'm just waiting until the next Karl Rove discovers that gay culturally Muslim Mexican atheists are the key demographic that Republicans have to get to stay viable.

Posted by Reality Man | January 2, 2008 9:44 AM

no candidate from either party...has anything close to unique appeal, special merit (or what I'd call latent virtue.) This ain't Kennedy's offspring, nor Lincoln's.

What in the world do Kennedy and Lincoln have to do with each other?

Rorschach theory of this election:
....the born-again populist angry at the world

AKA 'projection'. How anybody could otherwise get the idea that Edwards is angry with the world is a mystery. I'd submit that if you are the slightest bit liberal and aren't angry with the course of American politics, you've been out to lunch for 25 years.

In fact, this is really my only problem with Obama - I get the feeling he wants to sidestep some quite warranted, and therefore requisite anger. 'Anger' is not the politically correct word, so how about 'indignation'? I don't think indignation is really optional at this point, both from a practical POV as well as from a mental-hygiene one. This attempt to gloss-over reminds me a bit of the conservative approach to US racism: 'yes, racism was bad, but it's ALL OVER NOW and in the ancient past; of course we're a completely color-blind society nowadays'. I think you have to work through things, whether on a personal or nation-level. Just winning an election isn't enough. The US is not 90s South Africa or 1950s Germany, but you still need both Truth *and* Reconciliation.

What might at one time have been a national tendency toward big-heartedness or post-war cohesion seems these days to manifest more as a neurotic desire to avoid conflict, even healthy conflict, at all costs. This abiding neurotic echo from the old liberal-consensus (and beyond) has been a key to GOP power in the last 25-30 years. People tolerate Coulter-types and find Rush L. entertaining - and take mediocrities like Gingrich seriously - because, even if they're wrong, they fight, they're 'feisty', etc. Edwards/Krugman have a real, substantive point here (and Edwards not just from a short-term tactical viewpoint): you don't reconcile before you've hashed it out. This may not seem entirely fair to Obama fans, but...come on. This is a rhetorical contest. Point-Edwards on this one.

I would be thrilled to vote for Obama for president if he is our nominee, but I think he's not ready the way Edwards is.

So, I guess I'm happy with the Dem choices, compared to many past cycles. But I don't see it as a 'wash'. It's not subtle to me who the clearly best candidate of the three is.

On the GOP side, there's always McCain, who might still end up being more formidible than he's thought to be now. We need to have our ducks in a row for any eventuality. Nominate the candidate who has a 'vertically integrated', well-developed rhetoric/theory and will hit the ground running.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 2, 2008 10:22 AM

Well, Republicans have jobs and families and lives to live, so of course fewer Republicans come to events for Republican candidates. Republicans can read as well, so there's less need for orality in campaigning. And Republicans, not being fascists, have campaign events that are a little bit less charged and exciting than Democrats.

As for the merits of the parties' undecided voters, and the candidates: any party in which some number have "affection" (meaning desire for the election of) for someone like Dodd--a career drunken senator who is sitting in his father's seat and who is running for president so he can have something to tell his kids about when they're older--is a strange and irrational place, and not obviously a party in which voters are focused on who will "get things done." (Richardson and Biden are worse, as it happens, but I won't get in to that.) (I have some "affection" for all of the candidates, including Dodd, but I'm a big-hearted sort, and that's quite a bit different from saying I want someone to be the next president.)

Posted by Thomas | January 2, 2008 10:30 AM

BTW, amid all these lofty meta-assesments of the deepest character and moral worth of the Dems, I'd remind that All Politics is Local in a temporal sense, too. Kennedy wasn't 'Kennedy' (nor Lincoln 'Lincoln', nor certainly Truman 'Truman') at the time. In their moments, they were merely politicians rising to challenges or not. Nobody knows exactly what's going to happen. All I can really ask of a candidate is that they at least understand the moment they're in, and have a program for it I agree with. I'm happy to let good politicians be politicians rather than having to be pre-iconic.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 2, 2008 10:36 AM

What might at one time have been a national tendency toward big-heartedness or post-war cohesion seems these days to manifest more as a neurotic desire to avoid conflict, even healthy conflict, at all costs.

I hate to quote Sully, but he has noted that arguing about politics is a popular pastime in the UK. In my experience it's the same for France. However, in this country we still avoid it. OTOH, taking about religion and sex in public was once considered equally crass and we seem to have dropped those prohibitions.

I find myself flip-flopping between candidates because I like all of them, however every time I make the mistake of straying over to Sully's site, I come away a Hillary supporter.

Posted by J Bean | January 2, 2008 11:02 AM