« Jonathan Haidt - The difference between liberals and conservatives | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Friday »

Conventional Wisdom



Maybe women, with their superior listening skills, actually paid attention to Palin's interview last week? ;)

Man, didn't that thing reek of a "bad job interview by a newly-graduated college student"?

Remember, McCain gets elected, she has a 33% chance of being president.

Man, didn't that thing reek of a "bad job interview by a newly-graduated college student"?


I've seen quite a few polls say exactly the opposite of this. So I'd be interested to see how they collected their data.

Same here. Just as I question everything from a conservatively biased source, so too do I consider these results could be skewed in some way.

Most media outlets are biased these days, NYT included. I really wish this wasn't the case, but nobody can deny it is true.

They said it was a CBS/New York Times poll. I think republicans would see that as a democrat would see a Fox News poll.

From the little bit that I see of the Olberman show and this new show here, I feel like MSNBC has become the liberal version of Fox News: unabashedly biased. (But I never manage to catch anything else on that channel)

Crap. I wrote a big thing and forgot to copy it. My conneciton timed out and it didn't go through.

To put it again: Maddow is a bit wrong about the gender gap. Women have favored Dems not because the former are more pro-choice (men and women actually divide fairly evenly on abortion), but on issues that are connected to compassion and the use of violence. So women in significant numbers are more anti-war and more in favor of government programs to help the less fortunate. These are standard, well-established findings of public opinion research and voting behavior in political science.

Obama is a peace candidate running against a POW who talks about being a POW all the time. It's a no brainer that women are going to go strong for him. It is conventional wisdom that being a POW and a war hero (a few have been strong presidential candidates, but only one since women have been able to vote: Eisenhower), but I think that's male-centered thinking. Kerry, I think, is an example of someone who squandered women voters by trying to out-bellicose the GOP. He criticized Bush on the war--claiming that Bush wasn't tough enough on the Taliban, etc.

By the same token it's insulting and sexist to argue that women supported Bill Clinton because they were sexually attracted to him (as some people--not Maddow--do). He was widely viewed as more compassionate and more empathetic than both of his opponents.

You say he is the peace candidate dande, and there is no doubt that is what his supporters promote him as, but if you read his own words and speeches with the least bit of skepticism, you might not be so sure.

Here is an article he wrote in July 2007 for Foreign Affairs that spelled out his views on foreign relations, and while he does put emphasis on diplomacy, he also intends to carry a very big stick - especially with regard to the middle east. He sounds pretty aggressive.

Obama is no peacenik, but compared to Rebuilding America's Defenses (The Project for the New American Century manifesto), Obama's Foreign Affairs article is flower child stuff. I don't see McCain distancing himself at all from the neoconservatives.

Interesting - The Project for the New American Century was down for quite a while - now it's back up and doesn't really look different although, from what I can tell, the wayback machine it looks like it's always changing....

My comment was a horse-race comment, not a policy substance comment. Obama will probably be in the ball-park of Clinton or Bush I in terms of foreign policy. That's more hawkish than a lot of liberals want. McCain on the other hand has, for 20 years, been calling for GW Bush's foreign policy. That's a policy where the reponse to 9/11 is make a list of 10 countries we're going to invade. It's where we get to attack countries and overthrow their governments just because they try to defend themselves. Policy-wise, it's not even close. It's not just a talking point; wanting to have "more wars" is the single defining thread that you can trace through McCain's whole career.

But back to the horse-race question. Obama is clearly presenting himself as a domestic policy-oriented candidate who also opposed the Iraq War. There again, it's not even close. He's the peace candidate in this race, and he's the liberal on domestic social policy, and those are the reasons why women are going to vote for him with a double-digit margin. Not his position on "women's issues" like abortion.


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives