The Top Ten Campaign Slogans John Edwards Would Go To Hell For

10. Vote Edwards- I'm not your daughter and I didn't rape her
9. John Edwards- For Democrats who hate whores
8. Vote Edwards- If anything, just to piss off your hippy liberal girlfriend
7. White men's brains are bigger- it's science. Vote Edwards.
6. Vote Edwards- Lets keep this thing respectable
5. Vote Edwards- That's what you're going to tell your friends at the club anyway
4. Vote Edwards- They're already voting, isn't that enough?
3. John Edwards- Against universal suffrage
2. John Edwards- No perm needed
1. John Edwards- Are you kidding me?

Why Only Half of Our Country Votes

In the Bush-Kerry election of 2004, which was supposed to be one of the most heated and divisive elections in recent history, only 55% of eligible voters cared enough to go to the polls, and this was up from 51% in 2000, where W's election arguable made some kind of a big difference on the country and the world.

I would argue that this points to an extremely urgent problem with our country, despite its receiving very little attention from any of us. In a country where our leaders stress teh importance of democracy and a government that is accountable to its people, it should be unacceptable to us that only half of eligible voters chose to participate in this process.

What does it mean that only half of our country cares enough to participate in chosing our government's leader? Well, first off, it is debatable how much of this is a "choice," since some eligible voters may be deterred from voting for socioeconomic reasons, but that is a more complicated issue that I will steer clear of in order to focus on those eligible voters who could easily vote and choose not to.

Those that chose not to vote presumably don't care who wins. Now, we can't say for sure that they don't care who is in charge of our government, but rather that they don't care who is in charge if their only options are the Democratic and Republican nominees (ie the choice between W versus Kerry or Gore).

This indifference between Dem & Repub nominees suggests that people don't see the candidates that our two parties produce each year as all that different. This seems accurate. In hindsight, it looks like a President Gore would have done things much differently than W, but during the 2000 campaign both campaigned as moderates, the Saturday Night Live skit where both candidates answered "agree" to everything the other said during the debates comes to mind. Bush-Kerry was essentailly the same - after giving some attention to Dean, the Democratic party scrapped him for Kerry-Edwards, who both campaigned (during the primaries) as in favor of the Iraq war.

Why did the Democrats choose John Kerry? Well experience was important, but grey-haired politicians are a dime a dozen, so what else was decisive? I would say that Kerry got the nomination because he was dubbed, by his campaign and by the American media as the most "electable" of the Democratic candidates.

Say it with me: e-lect-a-ble. I heard the word "electable" being tossed around at the start of the primary "season" in 2003, while I was an undergrad. Dean was the frontrunner at the time, and I remember asking one of my political science professors what he thought about the buzz about Kerry being more electable than Dean. He said: "electable is as electable does," which, apart from making us think of Forrest Gump, means that you can't judge someone's electability until after the election, and any branding of someone as "electable" before the election is a speculative statement, but nonetheless a good campaign strategy if the branding is convincing to the voters.

Now the big question is this: since Kerry didn't turn out to be so "electable" in the general election, how did the Kerry campaign and the national media convince everyone what he was?

My answer is that there are two kinds of "electable" when we are speaking of candidates. In our national discourse (candidates and the media), "electable" means someone who appeals to the other party. A moderate in the sense of a Democrat that appeals to Republicans, or a Republican who appeals to Democrats. Dean was too Democratic and not Republican enough to get elected, the Democrats decided, but Kerry was just republican enough that enough voters would vote to get him elected. The result, of course, is that two candidates emerge who are not so different from one another (again I am talking about what we know about them pre-election), as we have seen in 2000 and 2004, IE two candidates who embrace a mix of Dem & Repub policies, to appeal to the 50% of the country who votes for either a Dem or a Repub in each election.

This seems like a sensible strategy but I would argue that it is extremely unproductive for our country, because it completely ignores the other 50% of the country who doesn't see any difference in the candidates and thus doesn't care enough to vote. We have defined "electable" as "electable by the 50% of the country that votes," and we have completely disregarded the other 50% who may not be so interested in a candidate who embraces a mix of Dem & Repub policies.

Now, should we care about the fact that 50% of Americans are indifferent? Well, maybe. If we believe that half the country is indifferent because the like everything about the Dem & Repub nominees, so either way they are happy (ie: Bush and Gore or Bush and Kerry are both so great, how can you choose), then we shouldn't have a big problem with this. However, if half of the country has decided that they don't like either candidate, then we have a big problem. I would argue that the state of our politics reflects the latter: half of the country is so disappointed with the Dem & Repub nominees that they choose not to vote for either: because they don't believe that either candidate adequately represents their interests and cares about the issues that they care about.

So if this is accurate, and I do not see why it shouldn't be, 50% of Americans feel that the nominees put fourth each election cycle don't represent or care about the things that they care about, so they don't vote. This in itself should be disturbing. However, I would argue that the problem is actually much worse than it looks, because I would bet that many people in the 50% of eligible voters that DO vote think of it as choosing "the lesser of two evils," so many voters are actually voting for candidates that they don't even like so much themselves.

The result? The two parties put fourth candidates that most of the country is not crazy about, and one of these candidates gets to be in charge of our government. This seems like a big problem to me.

So how do we solve the problem? My opinion is as follows.

The first step is redefining how we think of "electable," in fact we urgently need to do this. Again, we can see the 2008 race starting to look like 2004: right now, Obama is just like Dean and Edwards in 2004 - young, fresh, inspirational, and doesn't stick to the same-old, unambitious, "play it safe" political rhetoric. Now the paradox is that so many people like this guy and so few are excited about the other candidates, yet everyone is questioning whether the guy is "electable," and OF COURSE, what they mean by "electable," is: WILL REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR HIM? The same exact thing is going on with Hillary. Now this is totally bogus, because only about 25% of eligible voters are Republicans - why should the Democrats decide their nominee for President based so heavily on what 25% of the country thinks? Nevermind why this is even an issue because I don't want to digress, my point is that we should not just be asking whether Republicans will vote for Obama or Hillary, but we should be asking whether the 50% of the country who continually chooses not to vote for anyone, we should be asking whether they would come to the polls for someone like Obama or Hillary.

Now I am not advocating Obama or Hillary (although I would vote for either if they were the nominee), all I am saying is that we need to redifine our concept of "electable," since our present concept is inaccurate, and it is this inaccurate idea that is being used to discredit not just Obama and Hillary, but perhaps a great majority of politicians in general (a great majority if you see them as potentially appealing to 75% of the vote).

So if we want to get more eligible voters to the polls, and in turn, if we want to send candidates to the general election and in turn elect presidents that truly represent the issues that majority of our democracy cares about, let's rethink our currently narrow concept of who is "electable" and broaden it to someone that is in touch with the interests of as much of our country as possible.

Time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something besides war

Sure he might have supported the war in 2002, and he might have paid $400 for a haircut, and he might have already lost a primary and a general election, but John Edwards delivered my favorite quote of the night last night at the Democratic debates.

He said that the President has to ask Americans to be patriotic about something besides war.

I think this was in reference to cutting our pollution or emmissions or something, but it doesn't really matter. The point is that Bush has turned patriotism into an issue about Iraq and the troops, when we as a nation are capable of doing so many different things (not to detract from the troops or the war, but just to say there are other ways in which America can do things), and we need to embrace and be patriotic about those other things too. Part of the problem is that our President has been pretty lacking in inspiration or rallying us around any causes except for supporting his policies, of which there are very, very few.

Edwards is right, the next President has to raise patriotism in terms of many different things that we want to accomplish, and we need to be patriotic about our capabilities to pursue different coals and our resolve and commitment to pursue them. Kennedy did it with the space race, we need to do it, I think most urgently, with education. There needs to be a national call to action that considers teachers and principals and guidance counselors, etc, the noblest of all professions. Of course paying them more wouldn't hurt either. The point is that there is no reason why we shouldn't have the best schools, and if we admit that we are capable and that we want them, this goal is within our reach (it's not rocket science or moonwalking after all). Another obvious one is the environment and alternative energy, and another one is America's role as a leader by example, and a country that influences other countries to imitate its policies not because they have been bullied or forced upon them by the US, but by people observing the US doing things that that result in success.

This is very inspirational and I have always found Edwards to be so. I also wouldn't count the guy out just because he had the guts to run in 2004 back when W wasn't doing so badly in the polls and Iraq wasn't such an obvious disaster and other candidates like Biden and Hillary waited on the sidelines for 2008.

Democrats Debate Tonight 7pm ET

Amidst the 24 hour mainstream media coverage of Rosie O'Donnel and other completely insignificant topics, I seem to have, until today, missed the fact that the Democratic candidates for president are debating tonight.

It appears that the Democrats will be debating starting at 7pm ET and it can be seen on MSNBC.

This should be our first chance to get a good look at the candidates side by side, to hide their numbers.

Since I have given up on liking any of the Republicans, hopefully I will get a chance to catch the debates and figure out who I like from the Democrats, and hopefully the rest of you will do the same so we can discuss.

Here are my grossly underinformed gut feeling rankings going into the debate, just to compare to what they are afterwards:

1. Dodd
2. Richardson
3. Edwards
4. Biden
5. Obama
6. Hillary
7. Kucinich

America: A Nation Divided?

Over the years we've been told that ours is a nation divided. People ask whether Barack can unite the nation, which implies that it is now divided. John Edwards told us in 2004 that there's two America's (which I think he's right about, but nobody wants to hear that, so I don't think he'll use that again, and anyway that has nothing to do with this post).

Ever since 2000 and 2004 they've told us about red states and blue states. I think in 2000 it was something like half the nation was republican and the other half was democrat, and Florida was half and half. Here's the map they used to explain it to us:


So as we saw in 2000, American states were either burning hot or freezing cold. 2004 looked even more divided:

Now this one really freaked me out, man. At least in 2000 we were kind of integrated, with New Mexico a blue among reds, and New Hampshire a red among blues. At least back then red states and blue states could get along with one another and live among one another. In 2004 it was pretty clearly geographically divided, as if we're divided into two countries. I considered secession for a moment but then I remembered that George Clooney was from Kentucky, and him being my fellow countryman was always one of the things that kept me going in this world. I was still freaked out though. I don't want America to be two countries, what the crap? In the last year I have been to Florida, North and South Carolina, Louisiana, Texas, and Arizona, and all of those places are freaking awesome. But it's these freaky maps that make me fear that I'm venturing into a foreign country when I go down south, and not just any foreign country but one of those hostile, anti-American foreign countries where they'll hear my Yankee accent and see my Yankee black t-shirts and think I'm some kind of Yankee douchebag. By the way it's a good thing I'm not a Red Sox fan because then I would really be offended by this. Now if the red and blue electoral maps weren't enough to spread this "divided America" theme around, along came this:


So there you have it. Red states and blue states, democrats and republicans. Or at least this is what the politicians would have us believe as they try to energize their base, and this is what the media and the pundits would have us believe as they try to get people interested in their drivel. The problem is that we see these electoral maps and most of us are like "geez, we're pretty divided," without thinking about it much more. The media and the politicians do the same. I guess it's more interesting that way, but to me it is dangerous, counterproductive, and just plain stupid to act like every single person in the red states vote republican and every single person in the blue states vote democrat.

First of all, in 2004, only 55% of eligible voters even voted! So much for this coloring scheme that's only based on half of the country. Furthermore, the winner-take all voting style completely distorts the picture, which colors in an entire state either red or blue. Of those that actually voted, 37 of our 50 states were split between 50-60% for one candidate, and 50-40% for the other. Only 13 states plus DC were real landslide contests in which such a large majority (of half of the eligible voters) voted for one of the parties.

The low voter turnout and the relatively even 60-50% - 50-40 split% suggest that there are 37 swing states, and that our country is not as divided as everyone says. In fact, some are even saying that America is not red and blue, but purple.

Here is a map that portrays things more accurately, showing % of vote by county:


And here is one of the 2006 elections:


Now of course we have our differences, and we should recognize them and celebrate them. But we shouldn't necessarily exaggerate them and think that people from the north can't get along with people from the south, or republicans can't get along with democrats, because the north and south is full of both, and we do live together and we do get along.