An explanation, perhaps, of why so many people were rubes when it came to Obama:
…in 2008 nobody had direct experience with Barack Obama. He was the man from nowhere. We had no a posteriori way of judging him. But in 2008 a very large number of people saw Barack Obama stumping on the stage. Interestingly, many saw him exactly as Peretz, Brooks, and Noonan did: a fairly competent politician who might be left of center but whose policies and likely actions would fall well within the mainstream and bounds of rational behavior. But others saw him right off as a huckster. Neither group could quite explain to the other why what they saw was the “true Obama.” Why did two different sets of people see the same Obama images and come to different conclusions?
The reason I think is prior collateral information, or experience. It would be interesting to study whether the same group of people who tended to view Barack Obama unfavorably in 2008 also saw John Edwards as a sharper. There was something about Edwards’ hair, the unnatural emphasis with which he delivered his messages, some oleaginous quality that hung about him that, like the burglar example in the Amazon review, stirred memories of something unpleasant in the viewer.
But these unpleasant memories were largely absent in middle class, college educated, white America. These were nice people. They didn’t routinely associate with the con-men, hucksters, pawnshop brokers, and street corner grifters. To them the perfect hair, the nice suit, and the emphatic speech were simply proof of good personal grooming and culture. But to others these very same things were too clever by half. And just as the sight of a man climbing out of the window with a bag at night would arouse no suspicions in persons unfamiliar with burglars, neither would Obama’s papered over resume ring any alarm bells in people prepared to think the best of everyone.
I think it’s more than that. I don’t routinely associate with con men, etc., but I do have an intrinsic distrust of politicians in general that I think Noonan, Brooks et al don’t, or at least didn’t. And I actually did some research on this particular con man. The press refused to vet him properly, but a few people, like David Freddoso dug into his past, and what he found, from Reverend Wright and the socialist New Party to the general Chicago sleaze, wasn’t pretty. The notion that someone who voted to the left of avowed socialist Bernie Sanders would govern as a “centrist” was always lunacy, but most simply averted their eyes. Perhaps it was Bush fatigue, but there was something about the rubes that desperately wanted to be conned, wanted to believe in the unicorns and rainbows, wanted to be impressed by Reinhold Niebuhr and well-creased pants.
I predicted that he could never be elected, not because he was black (that was the main thing that I saw going for him), but because I didn’t realize that others weren’t seeing him for the obvious charlatan that he appeared to be to me. I’m relieved, though, that the scales have finally fallen from their eyes, and that we’re on the same page finally. It’s almost like the scene in LOTR when Wormtongue’s spell is broken.
[Update a few minutes later]
Wretchard has a follow-up comment:
Back in the days when whiteboards were new we fooled around with decision matrices. The decision criteria went down the left hand side of the board the weights were ranged in adjacent columns. Some criterion were ‘critical’. You had to have them. Uncertainty in their outcomes was not to be tolerated.
In electing a President you can argue that one of the ‘critical’ criterion is having a good handle on who he is; on what he will do based on a good empirical database. You cannot wing this criterion because it is a critical one. You can get the “want” objectives wrong, but the “must” objective is absolute.
The substitution of the “of course he’s brilliant” assertion (because it is an assertion) in place of solid data is nothing short of negligence. You would never select a pilot on that basis to fly your plane. Who would choose a man with no known flight experience, “a blank slate,” but with a wonderful tailored uniform, sharp trouser creases and magniloquent manner? But that is more or less what some voters did in 2008. Someone called it the “Dancing With the Stars” system of election.
So they chose the pilot on that basis.
Now some of the passengers are uneasy. The pilot is hitting buttons at random, whirling around the tabs, twisting the control column this way or that like a man possessed, yelling at the tower. That’s the Bayesian. That’s the a posteriori which they observe. Now the doubts begin, but a little too late. The question is, what now?
In retrospect every candidate ought to come to the nomination a fairly known quantity, someone with a measurable history of policy and executive history. Because this is all the nice people can see. That is evidence in their eyes. And maybe they are right. The hunches and heebie-jeebies of other people may or may not yield valid results. They would not be inclined to accept the gut feelings and judgments of others. But the existence of a measurable track record is something on which everyone should be able to agree.
But we’re still not allowed to see his transcripts.
“But these unpleasant memories were largely absent in middle class, college educated, white America. These were nice people. They didn’t routinely associate with the con-men, hucksters, pawnshop brokers, and street corner grifters. To them the perfect hair, the nice suit, and the emphatic speech were simply proof of good personal grooming and culture. But to others these very same things were too clever by half. And just as the sight of a man climbing out of the window with a bag at night would arouse no suspicions in persons unfamiliar with burglars, neither would Obama’s papered over resume ring any alarm bells in people prepared to think the best of everyone.”
People who work in Law Enforcement tend to be conservative and not by a small margin. That would help explain that.
He rang tons of alarm bells for me before the election. Was not captured by the fantasy nor oblivious to the reality of the guy. Stunned and amazed that he won. But then I paid attention to the details of his life and experience. I don’t think most people who voted for him bothered to look deeper than a bumper sticker slogan. The “hope” in his campaign was always, Gee I sure “hope” he can do the job.
People who work in Law Enforcement tend to be conservative and not by a small margin.
Really?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502443_162-4467606-502443.html
Obama was and is an empty suit. He speaks well when reading a Teleprompter, has an attractive family, and has the right Ivy League credentials. I think that was enough for the dupes. They saw in him what they wanted to see and were unwilling to dig deeper to find out anything about the man. I suspect a lot of them wanted to feel good about themselves for voting for a (half) black man to be president which is both superficial and racist in itself.
I find it both amazing and unsettling that more people couldn’t see through this man.
Rand, I’m having trouble getting past the first twos sentences you quote: “…in 2008 nobody had direct experience with Barack Obama. He was the man from nowhere.”
Very close to 13 million people live in Illinois, the 5th largest state by population, close behind Florida. Illinois is not nowhere. 5.3 million people voted in the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate Election (70% voted for Obama, 27% for Alan Keyes, and 1.3% voted for the Libertarian party candidate.) Those 5.3 million Americans – the voters of Illinois — are not “nobody”.
I know you knew that – I just had to vent. I will now go back to reading the rest of your post.
I saw Chicago Machine branded on his forehead. I’m from Illinois. All I needed to know, really. I’m a conservative/libertarian, so the chances my voting for any Dem are pretty low, but this guy? No way.
It is the responsibility of the opposing candidate to bring to light the weaknesses of their opponent and that includes their background and associations. In the 2008 election, McCain not only didn’t fulfill that responsibility, he blocked others from doing so. As a result, the electorate was profoundly uninformed.
There’s a lot of overly sheltered people out there. In the late 80s, having lost jobs with multiple bankrupt electronics companies, in jail for contempt of court because I was behind on child support payments, I offer to the judge to drive a cab to make ends meet. There I encountered “con-men, hucksters, pawnshop brokers, and street corner grifters,” not to mention strung-out crack whores, crack dealers, pimps, strippers, muggers, drunks, and even a few honest, upright citizens.
I got mugged by the courts *and* by freelancers, and as the old saying goes, a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, a liberal is a conservative who has been arrested… so I guess that makes me a libertarian, and despised by all. Obama is the emptiest empty suit the world has seen in a long long time- even makes Harding look competent- and he never fooled me for a moment. I think he got space policy right precisely because he didn’t give a damn about space.
70% voted for Obama, 27% for Alan Keyes, and 1.3% voted for the Libertarian party candidate.
You’re citing an election that was a statistical fluke. Jack Ryan self-immolated (with some help from the Chicago Tribune and the state of California). Despite that, Obama managed to get only 3.7 million people to vote for him. In 2008, He WAS the “man from nowhere”. Which is exactly what he wanted to be. And what the majority of people voting for him wanted him to be.
Jim Davis,
The American Hunters and Shooters Association endorsed Obama.
Obviously, that demographic is overwhelmingly liberal based on that endorsement.
“Rand, I’m having trouble getting past the first twos sentences you quote: “…in 2008 nobody had direct experience with Barack Obama. He was the man from nowhere.””
I think you missed the meaning of the statement, perhaps intentionally.
***
I think what we did and didn’t learn about Obama from the media was very intentional. The reporters at CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and NPR knew exactly what Obama was all about and did their best not to show it. Look no further than the JournOlist for collusion amongst the media to promote Obama and attack his opponents.
It is the responsibility of the opposing candidate to bring to light the weaknesses of their opponent and that includes their background and associations. In the 2008 election, McCain not only didn’t fulfill that responsibility, he blocked others from doing so. As a result, the electorate was profoundly uninformed.
McCain was a lousy candidate. That said, it’s also the responsibility of the Press to dig into all candidates and to present information equally. The Press failed dismally in its responsibility. That doesn’t excuse McCain, but the Press has no excuse at all.
Yes, it was McCain’s responsibility to highlight Obama’s weaknesses, which he did not do, but also to differentiate himself from Obama, which he also failed to do. Much of 2008 can be explained by the fact that many Republicans were angry at their own party for nominating the media’s favorite, instead of someone they thought represented their views. Many stayed home on Election Day. There is actually some sense to punishing your own party when they do something wrong, so that maybe they won’t repeat the mistake in the future.
Not sure what happens next year. Looking for a Reagan, not sure I see one yet.
That doesn’t excuse McCain, but the Press has no excuse at all.
I agree about the press. But if McCain had pushed it, the press would have had no choice but to deal with it.
Looking for a Reagan, not sure I see one yet.
She’s there. Just wait.
You’re not going to see a Reagan next year. Reagan was Reagan and there aren’t any more in the pipeline. We aren’t going to have a perfect conservative (or perfect anything else) but then, the perfect is the enemy of the good. I hope we nominate the most conservative candidate that has a real chance at winning the election and lean towards Perry. That said, I’d crawl on my hands and knees over broken glass to vote for someone other than Obama. I’d prefer to actually vote for someone instead of just voting against Obama, but there’s no way in hell (short of an accident that causes massive brain damage) that I’d skip voting or vote for Obama.
I agree about the press. But if McCain had pushed it, the press would have had no choice but to deal with it.
The Press has the ability to ignore what they want to ignore or to refute charges against the candidate of their choice. Do you remember when that guy bragged that the Press was worth 15 percentage points for Kerry back in 2004?
John,
Unfortunately we are seeing the same pattern again this year with the Republicans going to the opposite extreme and likely nominating someone that will be unelectable in the general election.
The end result will probably be something similar to the Nevada Senate race in 2010. Although over half the state dislike Senator Harry Reid, the choice the Republicans provided was disliked even more. So many voters stayed home, while a majority of the rest just held their nose and voted for Senator Reid to avoid a worst fate.
The good news is that it forced the Republicans to clean house, which is why Sharon Angle was promoting the AIP candidate for Rep. Heller’s old seat, and needless to say he lost big time to Rep. Amodei who easily beat the Democrat Kate Marshall 58% to 36%. Sharon Angle’s preferred candidate, Timothy Fasano, only got 2%.
It should be noted in 2010 that President Obama and Senator McCain tied with each getting 49% of the vote in the district while Rep. Heller received 63% of the vote in his re-election in 2010.
Curt Thomson: Jack Ryan self-immolated? Yeah, right. With some help from the Chicago Machine dirty-tricks department. Those sealed divorce records didn’t leak themselves.
It was obvious to me back then who Obama worked for and what to expect, and I can say I’ve never been disappointed in him since – you have to have expected something other than a Dem machine hack to have been disappointed. Surprised, yes, that he fooled so many and went so far. But never disappointed.
I suspect that there arre very many people in the USA who will never, ever, vote for any of the most likely Republican Presidential candidates because they all wear their faith on their sleeves – to mangle a Shakespeare quotation. There are also quite a lot who will never vote anything else, for the same reason, but IMHO they are fewer. Come up with a GOP candidate who doesn’t come across as a theocratic nutcase and the GOP will probably win.
After Ryan dropped out, the Illinois GOP could have done better than Keyes, just by picking an elected Republican at random, you know, one who is actually from Illinois and one who has actually managed to get elected to a position. The Illinois GOP would have also helped itself (and by extension, anti-Obama readers of this blog) had it picked a new candidate quickly. Instead, the Illinois GOP decided to throw the election. Why do you suppose they did that?
” Despite that, Obama managed to get only 3.7 million people to vote for him. ”
Ha! Obama only got 70% of the turnout in a Presidential election year. Tell me, how many Illinois voters would impress you?
I’m going to answer the question I posed: Why did the Illinois GOP decide to throw the 2004 senate election, despite having an impressive track record with both the Senate and, particularly, the Governor’s office? Because Illinois politicians knew Obama (since he didn’t come from nowhere, and he did have a track record), and no Illinois Republican could be found who was willing to go up against Obama — they knew they would lose. Heck, some elected Republicans turned around and endorsed him.
The American Hunters and Shooters Association endorsed Obama.
Obviously, that demographic is overwhelmingly liberal based on that endorsement.
Precisely the point. Sweeping statements like “People who work in Law Enforcement tend to be conservative and not by a small margin” are simplistic and naive.
No Jim, it is based on experience. I did not say ALL nor make any absolute statements.
BTW Jim. I WORK in LE but not in the conventional sense. I certanly interact with plenty of conventional LE in my travels.
What if I were to make the same statement regarding the Military Jim? Would you dispute that too?
“Bush fatigue”
It’s taken less than 3 years for Obama fatigue to set in.
Those sealed divorce records didn’t leak themselves.
Correct. Leaked. Not fabricated.
Because Illinois politicians knew Obama (since he didn’t come from nowhere, and he did have a track record)
A record of voting present. And involvement with a small asbestos removal project. In 2008, he was the man from nowhere who could transform the country. BECAUSE he was from nowhere.
No Jim, it is based on experience.
And NAPO’s endorsement of Obama? What was that based on? Being out of touch with their membership?
I did not say ALL nor make any absolute statements.
You said not “by a small margin”. NAPO’s endorsement suggests that liberal sentiments are not unknown among law enforcement professionals. Indeed, Rand made many complaints about the police not reacting to recent union abuses in Wisconsin because it sympathized with them.
What if I were to make the same statement regarding the Military Jim? Would you dispute that too?
Indeed I would. The Democratic Party is well represented in the military.
If you’re looking for a group with overwhelmingly consistent voting patterns try black Americans who vote 85%-90% Democratic year after year. Unfortunately for them, the Democrats (including Obama) tend to take them for granted and the Republicans write them off.
“And NAPO’s endorsement of Obama? What was that based on? Being out of touch with their membership?”
Pretty much.
“Indeed I would. The Democratic Party is well represented in the military.”
And yet it tends to overwhemingly support Republican candidates, by a margin of 2/3rds. About like what you would find amongst LEOs.
“Indeed, Rand made many complaints about the police not reacting to recent union abuses in Wisconsin because it sympathized with them”
A few unionized big city officers do not represent the national whole by any measure.
Clinton and McCain were the first significant opponents Obama had who weren’t forced to drop out of the race prematurely. Keyes was never going to win, but his task was to run a serious enough campaign and require Obama to remain in Illinois and do some actual campaigning. Keyes was unable to do that, so Obama ignored the senate campaign and began to raise his national profile and lay the groundwork for his 2008 presidential campaign.
I have long thought the title Obama really desires is “former president”. Unfortunately in order to get that title, you first need to get the title “president”. I’m just hoping he achieves his career goals four years ahead of schedule.
What is stunning to me is the small majority Obama received (52.9% of the popular vote), and the large size of McCain’s 2nd place vote (45.7%) given the race card, the amount of money spent and MSM adulation received by Obama. It was possible then because no more than 1% of the population “knew” him (being generous and using Bob-1’s statistics) and his opponent was a complete waste of oxygen (some suspected him to already be deceased).
I voted for neither because I couldn’t identify a lesser evil, out of two evidently very evil choices. This time we will know everything about the Republican, and only what we have observed about Obama (because the MSM will still add little or nothing). But it is now enough to allow one to distinguish between a major evil and any lesser one.
NAPO is not a police organization, it is a police union organization. It’s members are police unions, not rank and file cops. That a union organization would endorse an ultra-liberal Democrat is deeply dog-bites-man news. Police unions and brass-heavy police organizations like the Int’l. Assoc. of Chiefs of Police, tend to endorse Democrats and the Brady/Joyce gun-grabber agenda pretty much uniformly.
The American Hunters and Shooters Organization is a tiny astroturf operation ginned up by the usual liberal gun-grabber suspects in 2005 in an attempt to make credulous fools think there was actually a significant population of real gun owners who swallowed the nonsense peddled by the Brady campaign and the Joyce Foundation. It also provides someone for their many trained-seal fellow travelers in the MSM to quote in alleged counterpoint to the NRA when writing their usual crap-tastic stories having anything to do with guns. It’s a false flag operation.
NAPO is not a police organization, it is a police union organization. It’s members are police unions, not rank and file cops.
In other words, it’s much like the AFL-CIO.
That a union organization would endorse an ultra-liberal Democrat is deeply dog-bites-man news. Police unions and brass-heavy police organizations like the Int’l. Assoc. of Chiefs of Police, tend to endorse Democrats and the Brady/Joyce gun-grabber agenda pretty much uniformly
And M Puckett’s not by a small margin conservative law enforcement professionals are represented by such organizations.
There are far more non-union LEOs than Union LEOs in the US total.
I gurantee you that if only LEOs could have voted in 2008, BHO would not be POTUS right now.
I gurantee you that if only LEOs could have voted in 2008, BHO would not be POTUS right now.
Maybe. But you’re moving the goalposts. Your original claim was “People who work in Law Enforcement tend to be conservative and not by a small margin.”
There is nothing inherent in being a law enforcement professional (or in the military for that matter) that makes one disposed in favor of free enterprise, right to work, limited government, school vouchers, etc or opposed to affirmative action, capital gains tax, environmental regulations, etc. One’s profession is an important component in one’s political outlook but hardly the only one. Police stations have their fair share of political arguments and bull sessions just like other workplaces.
I am sure they do. But the LEO populations is more conservative than the population at large and it is not close to being a 50/50 thing.
“I suspect that there arre very many people in the USA who will never, ever, vote for any of the most likely Republican Presidential candidates because they all wear their faith on their sleeves”
It is too bad that people who dislike a Republican saying god bless america would get equally outraged at the Obama and democrats using religion to justify their policies.
Curt Thomson:
“”Those sealed divorce records didn’t leak themselves.””
“Correct. Leaked. Not fabricated.”
Hah. Ever been through a contested divorce? Probably not, if you’re so sure no fabrications ever end up in the records, or (as you imply) that divorce records should be fair game for election campaigns.
Surely, though, if you approve of divorce records being relevant to campaigns, then you’d want to see, say, college transcripts and term papers as well…
Bottom line regardless is that someone has played major-league dirty in Obama’s favor in just about every election he’s ever been in. Says a lot about someone’s expectations for him – that sort of thing doesn’t come free.
I am sure they do. But the LEO populations is more conservative than the population at large and it is not close to being a 50/50 thing.
Okay, fine. Quantify “not by a small margin.” How did law enforcement types vote between Obama and McCain?
I would be very surprised if it was greater than 60/40 in favor of McCain and probably not as great as that.
Porkypine, I think you can safely finger the Republican-leaning Chicago Tribune.
Blair Hull, the Democrat Obama beat in the US Senate primary, was never elected to anything. And had a problematic private life that didn’t stay private when first exposed to the Republican-leaning Chicago Tribune.
Jack Ryan the Republican Obama was on target to beat in the US Senate general election, was never elected to anything. And had a problematic private life that didn’t stay private when first exposed to the Republican-leaning Chicago Tribune.
Alan Keyes, the Republican gadfly Obama beat in the US Senate general election, was never elected to anything. And had a problematic public life that was the target of unrelenting scorn from the Republican-leaning Chicago Tribune.
In the 2008 Republican primaries, the Republican-leaning Chicago Tribune cunningly endorsed John McCain. Enough said, eh? And the paper didn’t endorse Clinton or Obama, arguing that the Illinois Democratic primary race was a forgone conclusion (which it was).
In the 2008 General Election, the Republican-leaning Chicago Tribune endorsed a Democrat for Presidet for the very first time since the paper started printing in 1847.
Lynn Sweet, from the rival Chicago Sun-Times, said she was not surprised. You can read her reasoning here:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/chicago_tribune_endorses_obama.html
(If you don’t want to bother, the culprit is Bruce Dold. He’s the one! Blame him!)
After fingering Dold, Sweet continued:
Many Americans say they’re uneasy about Obama. He’s pretty new to them.
We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago.
Conclusion: He didn’t come out of nowhere, but you can investigate whether Bruce Dold got paid back.
And yet the national press thought it important to send a battalion of reporters to rummage through Wasilla dumpsters, but couldn’t be bothered to send anyone to Chicago.
Bob1: So, the Chicago Tribune leaked those records? No, they published them, after someone else leaked them. You say “Republican-leaning” like it’s some kind of mantra, but newspapers occasionally are in the business of, gasp, selling newspapers. Scandal sells. In politics, the question is seldom who will publish scandal; someone always will. (Unless it’s about a left-wing hero, but that’s a whole ‘nother diatribe.)
The point here is that Obama, just about every step of the way, was helped along by bad stuff happening to opponents. You can believe it was all just luck if you want to, but the way to bet is, someone was protecting their investment. Anyone who hadn’t figured that out about him long before November 2008 wasn’t paying attention. (Alas, a whole lot of people weren’t paying attention.)
Your theory really falls apart when we get to Clinton. And then McCain. In other words, the two most important steps.
Not clear on the difference between “just about every” and “every”, are we?
Interesting point though – all Obama’s previous election wins were local or state, IE within the easy reach of the Chicago machine. Those two you mention were his only national contests. Larger playing field, different tactics…
“Conclusion: He didn’t come out of nowhere, but you can investigate whether Bruce Dold got paid back.”
Being mentioned in a Chicago newspaper hardly translates into being well known in the rest of the country. Even Tom Brokaw recently said that he didn’t know very much about Obama before he was elected.
Obama was a blank slate that people projected their ideas onto. He had no accomplishments, other than being elected to public office. His associations with radical left wing groups were never examined for fear of being labeled racist.
Now Obama has a record to be judged on. Not really working out for him right now.
How did McCain get to be Obamas opponent? I don’t know any conservative that doesn’t have a bad taste when it comes to McCain.
As for Hillary, her supporters have been trying to get the word out about Obama dirty tricks, but the media has totally ignored it.
Result: coup d’tat in the justice dept.
Not paranoid. Just amazed.