Brass, a disappointed Barack Obama 2008 voter, is troubled by his feeling that both candidates—though particularly Mitt Romney—“are willing to compromise their morals to get ahead.” My point is not that Brass is automatically right or that his final decision will somehow decide the election, although Iowa remains close. Rather, it is that real voters often defy cartoonish stereotypes; Brass does not hold the right-wing sentiments somehow expected from a Marine who became a cop.
I am pretty certain that most of the undecided voters I interviewed (like Mike, an Iowa family-practice physician troubled by low Medicare reimbursement rates) could make a voting decision right now if they had to. But bulletin to the press and the pollsters: These voters don’t have to make up their minds under November 6. Nothing in the Constitution requires them to adhere to an artificial schedule dictated by journalistic impatience.
It’s not just the press pack. In early voting states like Iowa, both the Obama and Romney campaigns have been relentless in their efforts to harvest a vote-by-mail bounty before the first pitch of the World Series. After seeing this electoral arm-twisting in action, I would love to read some well-reported stories on whether early balloting short-changes voter reflection. I also wonder if it encourages unreflective partisanship in voting for down-ballot races like state legislative elections, since external clues such as newspaper endorsements and candidate debates often come late in the electoral cycle.
Most Americans, of course, are not being bludgeoned into voting early by door-to-door canvassers with the zeal of old-time encyclopedia peddlers. In fact, rarely have so many voters been consigned to the sidelines of a campaign based solely on the states where they reside. The narrow geographic focus of this presidential campaign is unprecedented, with only Wisconsin being added to the map of hotly contested political turf since the summer. (Of course, not being subjected to the barrage of presidential campaign ads that you face in markets like Cedar Rapids or Cincinnati has its aesthetic benefits.)
Reporting trips to bellwether states like Iowa and Ohio haven’t only given me a chance to talk to undecided voters—they’ve also convinced me that the only polls that matter are swing-state surveys. From the television ad barrage to the intense canvassing efforts, voters in battleground states are witnessing a different presidential campaign than the rest of America. In Iowa, campaign insiders working for both Obama and Romney told me that their internal voter-identification systems are infinitely more sophisticated than a lowly political reporter could possibly imagine. (That, by the way, fits the thesis of Victory Lab author Sasha Issenberg, which I discussed in a recent CJR column.)
Statistical gurus and armchair pundits may obsess over the cosmic meaning of the fluctuations in the Gallup tracking poll numbers. But I’m convinced that the polling divide that matters is one that tracks an underlying reality: this is an election about the Two Americas (Hat tip: John Edwards, c. 2004). The Two Americas are the scores of states that both campaigns are taking for granted, and those seven or eight others that will pick a president. That’s why I am swearing off all national polls until November 6.
- 1
- 2
If reporters did a better job of reporting on third party candidates and the issues not even mentioned by the usual press, this may not be a 2 man race. That it is, is the fault of reporters.
#1 Posted by David Schaff, CJR on Fri 19 Oct 2012 at 02:43 PM
Voters are undecided because neither candidate has clearly defined principles. Voters don't know what to expect from one day to the next.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 19 Oct 2012 at 03:02 PM
Procedure, political structured intentional difficulties psychology hyper media mapping hyper media graph works labor, and, procedure, chief article ordinance critique/criteria as conduct pace annex steps hyper-media-systems-works, no matter what state a voter is in, have proven to be fallable ^ fallacy/fallable-fallacy and sought via losses, as political media archives/archives-media-poltical are conituously noting the political state is futurism. On and off cards that states voting truthfully as/is a unstable. Maybe it`s artificial psychology sustainment. Maybe it is psychology fiction sustainment. Maybe it is algorithms and stress.
Pssp. your ads have {Error on page} -!!
#3 Posted by LDH H., CJR on Sun 21 Oct 2012 at 09:28 AM
There are two reasons for having undecided voters.
A) Thay are high information voters who are sorely tempted to vote for a third, fourth, fifth party based on the lack of personal representation by the first two.
A Cornel West type voter:
http://m.vice.com/read/cornel-west-plans-to-vote-for-obama-in-november-and-protest-his-policies-in-february
B) They are low information voters who consume politics at the end of the season, not really seeing the tactics that led to the shape of the season. They walk into the room saying, "Okay, I'm ready to vote! What's going on?" These are the people to whom debate performances matter because that's where they form their impression of how the political system is working.
Here's an example of a low information / misinformation voter exchange.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/bissinger-vs-bouie-on-supporting-mitt-romney.html
There really isn't an excuse to be an undecided voter these days. You can't argue that politics doesn't affect your daily life post 2007, that information and verification is hard to find on the Internet, or that the two parties don't present a stark enough choice (yes, they both are corrupt and are beholden to the interests the people who they see socially and fund their campaigns, but one party is competent at governance while the other party is just morons and crazies who find the topic of uterine control of higher priority than the topic of unemployment).
If you are undecided after 8 bloody years of being lied to your face under Bush; if you are undecided after watching 4 years of Mitch, Rush, and Boehner attempt to sabotage everything the government does under a democrat; if you are undecided after watching republicans complain that the weak regulations of Dodd Frank are too much government in finance after finance blew up the world; then what in hell are you waiting for to push you over the edge towards one side or another? If you've been paying attention, then you are decided when it comes to the two parties. If you haven't been paying attention after Enron, 9-11, the Iraq war, New Orleans, the Great Recession, etc.. then what will it take to make you? That's an unacceptable dereliction of citizendry. That's laziness.
If you don't know by now, get off your ass and learn. Your ignorance is costing the nation and the world it's embedded in. Wake the f' up!
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 21 Oct 2012 at 04:18 PM
OMG the secret voter is my brother ?!
#5 Posted by joe, CJR on Mon 22 Oct 2012 at 09:19 AM
If they were "knowledgeable" undecided voters they would have sufficient information to make a decision. If this slice were truly unable to translate their knowledge into a decision, the SNL parody would be spot on.
If, however, you had identified them as "confused" undecided voters, I could accept that since there are precious few voices of authority differentiating between competing claims (and lies).
Those decrying "partisan excess" apparently don't understand how our form of government works. A piece of legislation is put forward. Our representatives in Congress vote on it. It either gets enough votes or it doesn't. The President then signs it or vetoes it, and in the latter case Congress has an opportunity to override the veto or let it stand. What Officer Brass seems not to take into consideration is the secret pact Republican leaders made among themselves on the night President Obama was inaugurated -- a pledge to block everything he proposed in order, as Mitch McConnell said, to make him a one-term President regardless of what it did to the country.
#6 Posted by MichaelC, CJR on Mon 22 Oct 2012 at 11:22 AM
"OMG the secret voter is my brother ?!"
There's one in every family.
"If they were "knowledgeable" undecided voters they would have sufficient information to make a decision. "
Well, there are those who are knowleable who struggle with the choice of supporting a lesser evil. Conor Friedersdorf, for instance, is well aware of the greater evil:
http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/until-republicans-fix-this-problem-they-cant-fix-any-problems/262657/
But finds it hard to throw support to the lesser:
http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/
I respect that choice, though it is unfortunately a wrong one due to the nature of the American electoral process.
(When you take strength away from the lesser evil in a winner take all system, you give the victory to the greater evil which idiots take to mean "people prefer the greater evil. Let's emulate them!" Under this system, it is better to involve yourself and force the lesser evil to be 'less evil' in the primary and the policy stages than it is to give the greater evil victories and mandates. The system discourages using the electoral process to select the candidates that best reflect your values, ironically. Still, I respect the protest vote, though it's a doomed strategy, and I respect the Cornel West vote, though it's a selling out of your ideals today so you can attempt to bend the system towards them in future. Selling out your ideals is not an act to take lightly, and I respect those who struggle with the decision)
But the majority of undecideds are such because they watch the Sunday morning political shows and are mal-informed by the amount of content on tv and on the political gossip venues. Political journalism SUCKS in America, though with the appearance of fact checking, policy and wonk sites, and good political content like Up with Chris Hayes and Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, you can easily get very informed very quickly. It's a matter of being discerning with your podcast selections, with your political site selections, and with the shows you choose to inform yourself with.
Unfortunately, many partisan voters and many undecideds are not aware of good content because the primary incentive for political media is to capitalize on audience interest.
That means making entertaining gong show tv (and reading) out of something that is supposed to be journalism - something that is supposed to inform. Rachael Maddow manages to pull off a balance of partisan entertainment yet informative, but few others do. Which is why THEY SUCK.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 22 Oct 2012 at 01:45 PM
The other thing to consider is how the media reenforces and is reenforced by a population which is ignorant about the process by which government works. Where is the civics education required to evaluate a government's effectiveness and a candidate's ability to make it more so? Many american people see the government as a complicated and alien thing which sucks a few bucks out of their household budget on a regular basis and are aware of little more. Because these people lack the tools to evaluate the government based on its working, yet they are charged with making choices on who will do the work and by what philosophy will their government be governed, they have to evaluate the government based on taste. The political press serves a popularity contest to this audience because that's what they can understand.
But that is not acceptable for a population that must engage in the hard and frustrating and necessary work of self-government. When you have a public which is disconnected from the process of self government, two things happen:
a) people don't vote. They know that it's a hassle, they don't know what it means, and there's other things that need doing around the house. They don't vote or they vote for the guy who says "There'll be less taxes!"
b) people ask the question "Should people who are ignorant about government have the final say on government?" And then they start to take measures to 'minimize the damage done by ignorant voters so the right party can get in'.
Government should not be an alien thing to a democratic citizen. When we separate ourselves from the stewardship of our society, we cede it to our worst elements. There is a difference between being undecided and ignorant, from being a participant and being a flotsam on a political sea. If you do not defend your autonomy, if you not exercise your power to shape your government, you will lose them.
And this is something which needs teaching to each generation, lest those lessons be lost.
How do people keep a republic if they cannot keep the knowledge and history of how it works?
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 22 Oct 2012 at 02:36 PM
An oldie but a goodie on the political press and how they SUCK.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/stupid-voters-political-reporting_n_1349779.html
"Did it not occur to any of the authors or editors of this piece that terrible, stupid news coverage leads to confusion, which in turn impacts public opinion? All Politico has done, on the issue of gas prices, is again and again fail to note that "every policy expert in both parties says there's little a president can do to affect the day-to-day price of fuel in a global market." And now, it has shown up, holding you responsible for not knowing that all along!
Who's the stupid one, here? I'm going to go with the website that's routinely asserted that the incorrect point of view on gas prices was perfectly valid, until it became necessary to insult its readership."
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 22 Oct 2012 at 05:35 PM