The extended battle for the Democratic nomination has provided this election cycle with much of its drama. In a way, I think any such fight to the end is good because it ensures that voters in all states will at least have something of a choice as they should in a republic. However, there is definitely a different feel about this contest compared to the Republican nomination process. It wasn't so long ago that the last Republicans still standing were Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and John McCain. Paul, in fact, is still in the race, but he has been gaining a bit more attention of late for his new book than for his campaigning. Considering that Paul is libertarian-leaning, Huckabee is a religious conservative, and McCain is a neo-conservative, these three candidates had little choice but to campaign on ideology. The Democratic presidential campaign, however, has been about character and personality almost from the very beginning. While the horse race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has been exciting, the early withdrawals of the other Democratic candidates has ultimately made the nomination into more of a popularity contest than a political debate.
My personal name for Hillary Clinton's political strategy against Barack Obama is "Death by a Thousand Cuts." For months now, Clinton and her campaign have sought to attack Obama on all matter of character issues. (I don't mean to imply that Obama and his campaign haven't been attacking Clinton from day one as well, but I do think Clinton has been more systematic in her approach! Additionally, I think Obama has intentionally tried to play the gentleman in the debates while Clinton has been very aggressive in them -- that definitely has affected my perception.) I've felt that this strategy has greatly weakened Clinton simply because most of the issues she attempted to hit Obama over the head with didn't seem to be all that important -- at least, not important enough to determine who to vote for. If anything, these flimsy attacks reflected poorly on the attacker. The Clinton campaign must have assumed that, sooner or later, some character issue raised by Clinton would really resonate with the voters -- it's only the law of averages at work. Arguably, Clinton is trailing Obama in the delegate race because none of the character issues raised really did "stick" to Obama as much as Clinton had hoped...certainly that was the case until relatively recently. In my view, Obama really did say something offensive when he suggested that the culture and political leanings of small town America are a direct result of economic factors -- from a sociologist such an analysis could be expected, but I think a presidential candidate seeking small town votes should be more respectful, particularly when it comes to the religious views of Americans. Obama's gaffe probably occurred too late to matter overly much, but I imagine Clinton must have been relieved that her patience finally paid off. Perhaps now Hillary will realize that it is far more effective to attack an opponent's obvious weaknesses than to try to invent weaknesses which don't really exist.
The paramount question surrounding the campaigns of Clinton and Obama has become, "When does this all end?" Obama has the delegate lead as well as the lead in the popular vote acknowledged by the Democratic Party. Clinton, though, seems to be only strengthening as a candidate despite the late date. I thought she clearly won the last debate, and more importantly she is also coming off of a primary win in Pennsylvania, though the margin of victory was less than some expected. For her to quit now would seem strange. How, though, can she ultimately win? A superdelegate-led victory or convention shenanigans would lend a distinctly un-democratic air to the Democratic Party, and neither scenario seems very likely to happen. Indeed, I've lately gotten the impression that Clinton has no serious intention of playing the role of the villain who snatches the golden sceptre right from the hands of the heir apparent. Instead, I think Clinton could be in this for the really long haul. Imagine, for instance, that Obama gets the Democratic nomination and loses to McCain in the general election. Clinton might get some blame for this, but if that does happen I strongly suspect that "security voters" (rather than Reverend Wright voters or bitter small town voters) will put McCain over the top. Clinton has tried to portray herself as more trustworthy on national security issues than Obama, but McCain's military as well as political experience will be tough for either Democrat to brush aside. If Obama does not win the general election, then I think Clinton would be in good position to contest the nomination again in 2012, and she's tenacious enough to want to do so. If Obama wins, then I think there's a good chance that Clinton will run in 2016, perhaps with Obama's endorsement. In short, don't expect an end to the Clinton campaign any time soon. It may outlast all of us.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
New Homes for Old Pols
Third parties have two pools of potential voters to recruit from. The first pool is people who either already belong to a party but are dissatisfied with it or consider themselves independents. These are voters who clearly have some degree of interest in politics and already have experience with the process. The second pool is composed of the disinterested masses who do not vote at all. People don't vote for all sorts of reasons -- some definitely do feel alienated and disenfranchised by the two party system and thus have reason to be interested in a third party alternative -- but I think the majority of people don't vote because they are busy with their daily lives and don't follow politics very closely. Those who have been reading this blog for a while know I belonged to that category myself for a long time. It is arguably easier to recruit an active voter to join a new party than it is to convince a non-voter to join the process. "Why don't you start voting so you can support a candidate like me who has virtually no chance of winning?" That's not a great selling point.
Since smaller political parties really do need to court current voters, nominating an established candidate formerly associated with another party can seem like a very appealing prospect. Established candidates have name recognition -- if you doubt that is a powerful thing, remember how great Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson did in the early presidential polls. Established candidates are also seasoned campaigners with useful experience, contacts, and perhaps even an existing organization. There is, however, a big potential downside to welcoming in such candidates. People don't always leave parties for purely ideological reasons. Sometimes they leave because they don't agree with the party leadership on organizational matters or simply don't get along with a particular person or group of people within the party. This being the case, it's possible that an established candidate can leave one party and join another armed with the very same set of ideas and beliefs. The new party, then, risks being hijacked by the candidate -- this seems to be just what happened to the Reform Party when Pat Buchanan joined it and ultimately became its presidential candidate in 2000.
Several of the potential presidential candidates competing for small party nominations are already well-known politicians. Alan Keyes has left the Republican Party and strongly hinted that he wants to become the Constitution Party's presidential candidate. We'll know more after the Constitution Party Convention next week. I don't know enough about the Constitution Party to judge whether Keyes fits there, but one Mississippi CP member is already saying, "No Thanks, Alan Keyes." At least the title of his blog post is polite. Mike Gravel has also left the Democratic Party and is now seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination. This is more than a little wild. Gravel surely has some libertarian leanings when it comes to foreign policy, individual liberties, and abolishing the IRS, but I've never thought of him as someone who wants to drastically reduce social spending like many Libertarians want to do. To tell you the truth, I thought Gravel was much more likely to join the Green Party than to become a Libertarian. Instead, another former Democrat has become the likely Green nominee: Cynthia McKinney, a former Congresswoman from Georgia. She gained some notoriety for hitting a police officer in 2006 -- I had an impression of her being a mentally unbalanced individual probably entirely due to the media coverage of this incident. She actually seems to be quite a good and downright levelheaded speaker, however, and she has done very well in the Green primaries so far. Judging from how the Greens have embraced her, perhaps McKinney's crossover makes the most sense.
In any case, Keyes and Gravel and McKinney are at least bringing some attention to three minor parties. McKinney will probably be a presidential candidate in the general election. We'll have to see about Keyes and Gravel. I imagine that there are a lot of people who right now perceive Keyes and Gravel as being Buchanan-esque hijackers and will oppose their nominations for the long-term good of their parties, but I think both Keyes and Gravel could win over a lot of people if their voices are allowed to be heard. I don't know enough about the other candidates from the smaller parties, but I'm willing to bet Monopoly money that at least a few aren't any more "ideologically pure" than Keyes or Gravel. Ideological purity and political parties just don't seem to go very well together.
Since smaller political parties really do need to court current voters, nominating an established candidate formerly associated with another party can seem like a very appealing prospect. Established candidates have name recognition -- if you doubt that is a powerful thing, remember how great Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson did in the early presidential polls. Established candidates are also seasoned campaigners with useful experience, contacts, and perhaps even an existing organization. There is, however, a big potential downside to welcoming in such candidates. People don't always leave parties for purely ideological reasons. Sometimes they leave because they don't agree with the party leadership on organizational matters or simply don't get along with a particular person or group of people within the party. This being the case, it's possible that an established candidate can leave one party and join another armed with the very same set of ideas and beliefs. The new party, then, risks being hijacked by the candidate -- this seems to be just what happened to the Reform Party when Pat Buchanan joined it and ultimately became its presidential candidate in 2000.
Several of the potential presidential candidates competing for small party nominations are already well-known politicians. Alan Keyes has left the Republican Party and strongly hinted that he wants to become the Constitution Party's presidential candidate. We'll know more after the Constitution Party Convention next week. I don't know enough about the Constitution Party to judge whether Keyes fits there, but one Mississippi CP member is already saying, "No Thanks, Alan Keyes." At least the title of his blog post is polite. Mike Gravel has also left the Democratic Party and is now seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination. This is more than a little wild. Gravel surely has some libertarian leanings when it comes to foreign policy, individual liberties, and abolishing the IRS, but I've never thought of him as someone who wants to drastically reduce social spending like many Libertarians want to do. To tell you the truth, I thought Gravel was much more likely to join the Green Party than to become a Libertarian. Instead, another former Democrat has become the likely Green nominee: Cynthia McKinney, a former Congresswoman from Georgia. She gained some notoriety for hitting a police officer in 2006 -- I had an impression of her being a mentally unbalanced individual probably entirely due to the media coverage of this incident. She actually seems to be quite a good and downright levelheaded speaker, however, and she has done very well in the Green primaries so far. Judging from how the Greens have embraced her, perhaps McKinney's crossover makes the most sense.
In any case, Keyes and Gravel and McKinney are at least bringing some attention to three minor parties. McKinney will probably be a presidential candidate in the general election. We'll have to see about Keyes and Gravel. I imagine that there are a lot of people who right now perceive Keyes and Gravel as being Buchanan-esque hijackers and will oppose their nominations for the long-term good of their parties, but I think both Keyes and Gravel could win over a lot of people if their voices are allowed to be heard. I don't know enough about the other candidates from the smaller parties, but I'm willing to bet Monopoly money that at least a few aren't any more "ideologically pure" than Keyes or Gravel. Ideological purity and political parties just don't seem to go very well together.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Let Ralph Nader Run in Peace
I don't care much for the team mentality that many Democrats and Republicans adopt. Voting for someone only because she belongs to your party or vilifying someone else only because he is of the other party are the acts of an automaton, especially considering that "Democrat" and "Republican" have become almost useless labels given the different factions that exist in each party and the geographical variations in ideology that seem to be accepted by both parties (for example, pro-life Democrats can be commonly found in conservative areas and pro-choice Republicans are prevalent in liberal areas). I personally think there are a lot of people like me who would vote for different parties if presented with different sets of candidates. We consider the differences among the candidates to be more profound than the differences among the parties, and we don't like the idea of voting for candidates we don't believe in on the assumption that they'll tow the party line once enshrined in office. The party faithful expect us to ultimately pick a side; indeed, sometimes they act as if they feel that their parties have some sort of right to our votes.
This attitude of entitlement is often displayed in Democrats who blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's loss to George W. Bush in 2000. That intensely close presidential election left a bad taste in many mouths. Allegations of election fraud and government conspiracy still circulate to this day -- it's a pity that a fair and full recount of the vote in Florida was not allowed to take place given the importance of the occasion. Still, it's one thing to protest at what you perceive as a stolen election, a fraudulent result; it's quite another to tear into someone who is exercising his right to seek office and those who are exercising their rights to vote for the candidate of their choice. Nader has been enveloped in a cyclone of bitterness spawned perhaps above all else by sour grapes. Those who argue that Nader votes would have voted for Gore instead of Bush are in all likelihood right, but how can the preference of those voters for Nader over Gore be dismissed and pushed aside? Nader voters could have voted for Gore or Bush or someone else; they chose not to. Gore has no right to any votes that were not cast for him.
Since Nader has recently decided to seek the presidency once again in 2008, his critics have again arisen in protest, some angrily and some derisively. I strongly doubt that Nader will be the next president of the United States, but nonetheless I feel he deserves as much respect as any other candidate. His road as an independent candidate will be more difficult than that traveled by the Republican and Democratic nominees; indeed, it is probably harder for a Nader to win 2% of the vote than it is for a Republican or Democrat to garner enough votes to win the election. He has as much right to voice his ideas wherever he can find listeners as anyone else. I don't deny that someone who officially runs for president three times probably really likes national attention, but I suspect the other candidates like that attention to some extent as well. Nader is surely not the only one feeding an ego on the campaign trail, so I don't think he should be the singled out for ego-related criticism. It is shameful that running for office can be widely considered a shameful act.
This attitude of entitlement is often displayed in Democrats who blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's loss to George W. Bush in 2000. That intensely close presidential election left a bad taste in many mouths. Allegations of election fraud and government conspiracy still circulate to this day -- it's a pity that a fair and full recount of the vote in Florida was not allowed to take place given the importance of the occasion. Still, it's one thing to protest at what you perceive as a stolen election, a fraudulent result; it's quite another to tear into someone who is exercising his right to seek office and those who are exercising their rights to vote for the candidate of their choice. Nader has been enveloped in a cyclone of bitterness spawned perhaps above all else by sour grapes. Those who argue that Nader votes would have voted for Gore instead of Bush are in all likelihood right, but how can the preference of those voters for Nader over Gore be dismissed and pushed aside? Nader voters could have voted for Gore or Bush or someone else; they chose not to. Gore has no right to any votes that were not cast for him.
Since Nader has recently decided to seek the presidency once again in 2008, his critics have again arisen in protest, some angrily and some derisively. I strongly doubt that Nader will be the next president of the United States, but nonetheless I feel he deserves as much respect as any other candidate. His road as an independent candidate will be more difficult than that traveled by the Republican and Democratic nominees; indeed, it is probably harder for a Nader to win 2% of the vote than it is for a Republican or Democrat to garner enough votes to win the election. He has as much right to voice his ideas wherever he can find listeners as anyone else. I don't deny that someone who officially runs for president three times probably really likes national attention, but I suspect the other candidates like that attention to some extent as well. Nader is surely not the only one feeding an ego on the campaign trail, so I don't think he should be the singled out for ego-related criticism. It is shameful that running for office can be widely considered a shameful act.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
The Company You Keep
In the small town where I live, politics is still very personal. In a typical campaign season, it isn't only the candidates themselves who will canvas neighborhoods, going from door to door armed with a few prepared words and a flyer. Almost inevitably, the candidate's spouse or child or parent will be drafted into the effort as well. Some campaigns make it almost seem like their true "candidate" is not just the person running for office, the name on the ticket, but also that person's entire family and other associates. Too often for my taste local candidates seem to seek votes based on where they went to school, the churches they attend, and the roles their friends and family members play in the community.
National politics is more issue-oriented, but the idea that a candidate's worth depends in part on the people who are related to or otherwise associate closely with that candidate has nonetheless affected the current presidential race. There have been too many muckraking stories about the candidates' inner circles to list them all in a single blog post; few, if any, candidates avoided having their character called into question due to the actions of some person connected to them. I've often had difficulty deciding what to take out of these type of stories. They may be truthful but yet they are often surely promulgated in order to taint a particular campaign. Take the story that emerged last year concerning Rudy Giuliani's current wife as an example. She has been accused of repeatedly demonstrating a surgical stapling technique on live dogs to potential medical customers as part of her former job at U.S. Surgical. Following the procedure, the dogs would be put down having fulfilled their "purpose" in the sales presentation. This is an ugly story, but how does it help us judge Giuliani as a presidential candidate? I suppose one line of thinking is to assume that since Giuliani showed a lack of judgment by choosing to marry a monster he would also show a lack of judgment when making political decisions. I can't quite adopt that line of thinking -- otherwise sensible people often seem to make decisions that often seem questionable to the people around them when it comes to love and relationships. Would you choose not to promote someone who was superb at his job just because he married someone awful? I don't think I could do that personally. At any rate, Mayor Giuliani may not have even known about his girlfriend's past when he married her. I've never been married, but somehow I doubt "dog torture for profit" is a topic that comes up very often during a typical courtship. That's a bomb that gets dropped a few years into a marriage, I imagine. This story is quite typical of its type. On one hand, the details are ugly enough to sway some votes, but on the other hand the degree of separation between the candidate and the acts mentioned is great enough that most people would simply shrug it off. A few votes here and there can ultimately have a big impact on a race, though.
The latest candidate to run into trouble because of the company he keeps is Barack Obama. Obama's patriotism and racial views have come under question merely because the former preacher at Obama's church, Jeremiah Wright, has a history of making controversial political and racial statements. The attention accorded to Wright's statements created enough furor that Obama ultimately decided to deliver a speech to explain his close relationship with Wright and the differences in their views. It was an effective speech, I thought, but I very much wonder if it is wise to hold presidential candidates accountable for the words of everyone around them. Granted, Obama has acknowledged that Wright has been an important influence in his life, but they remain two very different men. To be honest, I don't really hear the acerbic words of the firebrand Wright reflected in Obama's speeches at all. Some of their ideas are similar, but the manner in which they are expressed are worlds apart. Manner inevitably influences interpretation. Contrast Wright's infamous sound bite "God damn America!" with Obama's message of "Let's change America and make it better" (my paraphrase). Both statements acknowledge that America isn't perfect, but Wright's message seems to focus on what he thinks is wrong with America today and what wrongs he believes that America has committed in the past while Obama instead focuses on what America could be in the future. Obama's view of the present and past seems a fair bit rosier than Wright's view as well.
I think judging the politicians based on their own actions and their own words is the best policy a voter can adopt. Like Obama, I have family members with racial views I don't personally subscribe to. I've never distanced myself from them -- in fact, I believe they have a right to those views, though I also exercise my right to argue with them from time to time. Indeed, I don't think I personally know anyone who agrees with me on most issues that are important to me. If the same rules applied to me as some would like to see applied to presidential candidates, then I would be saddled with an enormous host of views that I don't personally hold or even have any sympathy with. If the same rules applied to everyone, then anyone with a family member who does something wrong of his or her own free will should be accused of being a bad sister or a bad parent or a bad husband or a bad third cousin twice removed, and, by association, a bad person. I don't think you can judge people effectively based on the company they keep. At the very least, you would surely need to study the dynamics of each individual relationship to discover the nature of the sympathy of sentiments that exists between two people -- to understand to what extent Obama and Wright see eye to eye, we would need to listen in on their private conversations, not just their public speeches. Since we don't have that kind of access (nor should we), I think Barack Obama should be the #1 authority on what Barack Obama believes.
National politics is more issue-oriented, but the idea that a candidate's worth depends in part on the people who are related to or otherwise associate closely with that candidate has nonetheless affected the current presidential race. There have been too many muckraking stories about the candidates' inner circles to list them all in a single blog post; few, if any, candidates avoided having their character called into question due to the actions of some person connected to them. I've often had difficulty deciding what to take out of these type of stories. They may be truthful but yet they are often surely promulgated in order to taint a particular campaign. Take the story that emerged last year concerning Rudy Giuliani's current wife as an example. She has been accused of repeatedly demonstrating a surgical stapling technique on live dogs to potential medical customers as part of her former job at U.S. Surgical. Following the procedure, the dogs would be put down having fulfilled their "purpose" in the sales presentation. This is an ugly story, but how does it help us judge Giuliani as a presidential candidate? I suppose one line of thinking is to assume that since Giuliani showed a lack of judgment by choosing to marry a monster he would also show a lack of judgment when making political decisions. I can't quite adopt that line of thinking -- otherwise sensible people often seem to make decisions that often seem questionable to the people around them when it comes to love and relationships. Would you choose not to promote someone who was superb at his job just because he married someone awful? I don't think I could do that personally. At any rate, Mayor Giuliani may not have even known about his girlfriend's past when he married her. I've never been married, but somehow I doubt "dog torture for profit" is a topic that comes up very often during a typical courtship. That's a bomb that gets dropped a few years into a marriage, I imagine. This story is quite typical of its type. On one hand, the details are ugly enough to sway some votes, but on the other hand the degree of separation between the candidate and the acts mentioned is great enough that most people would simply shrug it off. A few votes here and there can ultimately have a big impact on a race, though.
The latest candidate to run into trouble because of the company he keeps is Barack Obama. Obama's patriotism and racial views have come under question merely because the former preacher at Obama's church, Jeremiah Wright, has a history of making controversial political and racial statements. The attention accorded to Wright's statements created enough furor that Obama ultimately decided to deliver a speech to explain his close relationship with Wright and the differences in their views. It was an effective speech, I thought, but I very much wonder if it is wise to hold presidential candidates accountable for the words of everyone around them. Granted, Obama has acknowledged that Wright has been an important influence in his life, but they remain two very different men. To be honest, I don't really hear the acerbic words of the firebrand Wright reflected in Obama's speeches at all. Some of their ideas are similar, but the manner in which they are expressed are worlds apart. Manner inevitably influences interpretation. Contrast Wright's infamous sound bite "God damn America!" with Obama's message of "Let's change America and make it better" (my paraphrase). Both statements acknowledge that America isn't perfect, but Wright's message seems to focus on what he thinks is wrong with America today and what wrongs he believes that America has committed in the past while Obama instead focuses on what America could be in the future. Obama's view of the present and past seems a fair bit rosier than Wright's view as well.
I think judging the politicians based on their own actions and their own words is the best policy a voter can adopt. Like Obama, I have family members with racial views I don't personally subscribe to. I've never distanced myself from them -- in fact, I believe they have a right to those views, though I also exercise my right to argue with them from time to time. Indeed, I don't think I personally know anyone who agrees with me on most issues that are important to me. If the same rules applied to me as some would like to see applied to presidential candidates, then I would be saddled with an enormous host of views that I don't personally hold or even have any sympathy with. If the same rules applied to everyone, then anyone with a family member who does something wrong of his or her own free will should be accused of being a bad sister or a bad parent or a bad husband or a bad third cousin twice removed, and, by association, a bad person. I don't think you can judge people effectively based on the company they keep. At the very least, you would surely need to study the dynamics of each individual relationship to discover the nature of the sympathy of sentiments that exists between two people -- to understand to what extent Obama and Wright see eye to eye, we would need to listen in on their private conversations, not just their public speeches. Since we don't have that kind of access (nor should we), I think Barack Obama should be the #1 authority on what Barack Obama believes.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Privacy Policy
AdSense has recently requested that all publishers using its service now include a privacy policy on their site. I wasn't too thrilled about this at first -- I'm just a blogger, after all. I'm not collecting names, addresses, or Social Security numbers here. I don't know the ages, the genders, or the tastes and preferences of my readers. Why do I need a privacy policy?
I've thought about it a little more now and have decided that a privacy policy isn't such a bad thing to have though I'm not so sure I should be allowed to write one. Google particularly wants users to know about cookies and web beacons and how those two things relate to ads. Cookies and web beacons are two things that people probably don't know enough about, so I'm happy to spread some knowledge around. Quite possibly I'll end up spreading some misinformation as well since I'm not an online privacy expert, but Google AdSense asked for it!
First, let me reiterate what I stated in the first paragraph. I'm not collecting personal information on my visitors. Although web analytics tools exist that could tell me where my visitors come from, what their IP addresses are, and other such information, I'm currently not using any such software with this blog. The only thing I can possibly know about you is what you choose to reveal of yourself via comments or email, and I promise to try to forget any such user-revealed information as soon as possible.
Third party advertisers on this site may be collecting information on you through the use of cookies and web beacons, but you can choose to what extent you wish to allow them to collect this information. Web beacons can take various forms -- some are even images that are too small to be seen -- but their basic use is to collect information on a web user when that user visits a specific site or even reads a particular email: stuff like your IP address, browser of choice, and the time at which you visited the site may be recorded. Cookies are also identifiers, but they can actually be quite useful even for regular users. For instance, shopping sites often use cookies to help keep track of your virtual shopping basket as you add and delete items prior to actually making a purchase. Other sites use cookies to identify returning visitors so that those visitors do not have to manually reenter their login name and password on every visit. As useful as those uses of cookies might be, some companies undoubtedly use cookies along with web beacons largely for their own benefit. Imagine, for instance, that an enterprising sock manufacturer is able to discover that people who click on Mike Gravel ads also have an inordinate fondness for red socks. The potential revenue opportunities would be endless...but do you really want to participate in unpaid market research in that way? And what if there are aspects of your online activities that you'd rather not be linked together? Government web sites can issue cookies as easily as corporate sites can...for that matter, spammers and other online criminals can track you as well! Luckily, all major browsers allow users to disable cookies if they so choose, and many offer more advanced cookie management features (look around the privacy options in your browser to discover these features). Personally, I have my browser set to delete all cookies at the end of each browsing session. This allows me to make use of the features of cookies that I like while I surf, but it prevents me from being tracked on a long-term basis. It's harder to avoid web beacons altogether, but you could at least try surfing behind a proxy to prevent your true IP address from being revealed.
Google AdSense uses the DART cookie to help decide what ads should be shown based on a user's previous web surfing activity. So, for instance, you might tend to visit Democratic-leaning web sites. On this nonpartisan blog, you might get to view Democratic rather than Republican ads because of your past visits whilst a more Republican-leaning surfer might see other ads catered more towards his or her surfing. This might all seem a bit Big Brotherish, but you don't have to let Google tailor ads for you in this way if you find it objectionable -- you can opt out of the program altogether.
More useful information can be discovered via Wikipedia: check out the articles on cookies, web beacons, and proxies to become better informed.
I've thought about it a little more now and have decided that a privacy policy isn't such a bad thing to have though I'm not so sure I should be allowed to write one. Google particularly wants users to know about cookies and web beacons and how those two things relate to ads. Cookies and web beacons are two things that people probably don't know enough about, so I'm happy to spread some knowledge around. Quite possibly I'll end up spreading some misinformation as well since I'm not an online privacy expert, but Google AdSense asked for it!
First, let me reiterate what I stated in the first paragraph. I'm not collecting personal information on my visitors. Although web analytics tools exist that could tell me where my visitors come from, what their IP addresses are, and other such information, I'm currently not using any such software with this blog. The only thing I can possibly know about you is what you choose to reveal of yourself via comments or email, and I promise to try to forget any such user-revealed information as soon as possible.
Third party advertisers on this site may be collecting information on you through the use of cookies and web beacons, but you can choose to what extent you wish to allow them to collect this information. Web beacons can take various forms -- some are even images that are too small to be seen -- but their basic use is to collect information on a web user when that user visits a specific site or even reads a particular email: stuff like your IP address, browser of choice, and the time at which you visited the site may be recorded. Cookies are also identifiers, but they can actually be quite useful even for regular users. For instance, shopping sites often use cookies to help keep track of your virtual shopping basket as you add and delete items prior to actually making a purchase. Other sites use cookies to identify returning visitors so that those visitors do not have to manually reenter their login name and password on every visit. As useful as those uses of cookies might be, some companies undoubtedly use cookies along with web beacons largely for their own benefit. Imagine, for instance, that an enterprising sock manufacturer is able to discover that people who click on Mike Gravel ads also have an inordinate fondness for red socks. The potential revenue opportunities would be endless...but do you really want to participate in unpaid market research in that way? And what if there are aspects of your online activities that you'd rather not be linked together? Government web sites can issue cookies as easily as corporate sites can...for that matter, spammers and other online criminals can track you as well! Luckily, all major browsers allow users to disable cookies if they so choose, and many offer more advanced cookie management features (look around the privacy options in your browser to discover these features). Personally, I have my browser set to delete all cookies at the end of each browsing session. This allows me to make use of the features of cookies that I like while I surf, but it prevents me from being tracked on a long-term basis. It's harder to avoid web beacons altogether, but you could at least try surfing behind a proxy to prevent your true IP address from being revealed.
Google AdSense uses the DART cookie to help decide what ads should be shown based on a user's previous web surfing activity. So, for instance, you might tend to visit Democratic-leaning web sites. On this nonpartisan blog, you might get to view Democratic rather than Republican ads because of your past visits whilst a more Republican-leaning surfer might see other ads catered more towards his or her surfing. This might all seem a bit Big Brotherish, but you don't have to let Google tailor ads for you in this way if you find it objectionable -- you can opt out of the program altogether.
More useful information can be discovered via Wikipedia: check out the articles on cookies, web beacons, and proxies to become better informed.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The Two Phases of a Presidential Election
I've decided that I disagree with those people who complain that the presidential race starts too early. Iowa and New Hampshire may have begun the race in one form, but they also represented the end of the race in another form. Consider the winnowing of the race that started right after the first caucus and first primary. Even a few well-funded and well-supported candidates such as Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John Edwards are now finished. Even though many voters have yet to have their say in the nomination process of either party, their choices have become very limited. Indeed, this phase of the election is very much of a process -- we are now in the midst of determining just who will be the nominee of each party, and after that we will move on to determine who will be the next president. It wasn't always like this.
I must admit that the 2007 side of the election wasn't always enjoyable, even for a budding political junkie like myself. It was hard work watching all those debates and researching all the candidates. Personally, I skipped a few debates and neglected several candidates; I still regret not looking more at the candidacy of Chris Dodd. Nonetheless, I find myself sometimes wishing we were back in that phase of the election again -- I call it the ideological phase. Back then there wasn't a process underway, really; instead, there was a battle for attention as each candidate scrambled to get his or her message out. Although Mike Gravel and Ron Paul are still in the race, candidates with alternative viewpoints are heard much more often and much more loudly in that first phase of an election. That's not entirely due to the media -- the race itself draws attention away from candidates with limited support once primaries and caucuses begin to be won or lost. I can't even argue that winning the ideological phase is vital to later success in the election. John McCain's candidacy, in particular, seemed to really start thriving in the process phase. I do feel that the ideological phase is vital to the intellectual health of America's political debate, however, and I'm already looking forward to 2011.
That isn't to say that the general election will be bereft of ideological debate. If, for instance, John McCain ends up the Republican nominee and Barack Obama obtains the Democratic nomination, then we'll have two candidates expressing very different views on important issues like Iraq and health care. Still, we'll only have two voices, and I suspect that those voices will frequently be speaking of "experience" and "hope." Personally, I'm casting a vote for hope right now with a prayer: political gods, please grant us a strong third party or independent candidate that can get in the post-convention debates and help shape the dialogue!
I must admit that the 2007 side of the election wasn't always enjoyable, even for a budding political junkie like myself. It was hard work watching all those debates and researching all the candidates. Personally, I skipped a few debates and neglected several candidates; I still regret not looking more at the candidacy of Chris Dodd. Nonetheless, I find myself sometimes wishing we were back in that phase of the election again -- I call it the ideological phase. Back then there wasn't a process underway, really; instead, there was a battle for attention as each candidate scrambled to get his or her message out. Although Mike Gravel and Ron Paul are still in the race, candidates with alternative viewpoints are heard much more often and much more loudly in that first phase of an election. That's not entirely due to the media -- the race itself draws attention away from candidates with limited support once primaries and caucuses begin to be won or lost. I can't even argue that winning the ideological phase is vital to later success in the election. John McCain's candidacy, in particular, seemed to really start thriving in the process phase. I do feel that the ideological phase is vital to the intellectual health of America's political debate, however, and I'm already looking forward to 2011.
That isn't to say that the general election will be bereft of ideological debate. If, for instance, John McCain ends up the Republican nominee and Barack Obama obtains the Democratic nomination, then we'll have two candidates expressing very different views on important issues like Iraq and health care. Still, we'll only have two voices, and I suspect that those voices will frequently be speaking of "experience" and "hope." Personally, I'm casting a vote for hope right now with a prayer: political gods, please grant us a strong third party or independent candidate that can get in the post-convention debates and help shape the dialogue!
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Super Tuesday: Do People Vote in Groups?
I tend to think of voting as being a very individualistic process. Each voter must ultimately cast his or her own ballot singly so it seems natural to me that each voter should also make his or her mind up concerning who to vote for more or less independently as well, though of course everyone is influenced by the people and circumstances that surround them. That isn't quite how most political pundits seem to see it, and perhaps not quite how most politicians see it either. The pundits talk on and on about groups whose support a candidate has earned or is attempting to win. The candidates themselves seem to vie for the support of groups by attending special events geared towards certain groups and sometimes by pandering directly towards a specific group in speeches or debate performances. Which is it...do people vote more often as individuals or as parts of groups?
Exit polling data from Super Tuesday seems to make it fairly clear that group affiliation does play a big factor in how many people choose to vote. Barack Obama won a startling 80% of the African American vote yesterday, but, as the linked article also notes, Hillary Clinton garnered a large degree of support from the Hispanic community. Although Mitt Romney didn't have the day he had hoped for, it certainly wasn't because Mormon voters didn't support him in droves. Some of these percentages are just too big to ignore. How could Obama possibly win 94% of the African American vote in Illinois or Mitt Romney win close to 90% of the Mormon vote in Utah? In my experience, nine out of ten people don't agree on much of anything -- these overwhelming majorities at least raises the possibility that there are a significant number of people out there who aren't voting for a president so much as they are voting for their own race or religion, especially when you consider that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hold many similar political positions just as Mitt Romney and John McCain do. Mike Huckabee arguably benefited more than anyone else from religous voters because the Christian conservative vote powered him to primary victories in several Southern states, though Huckabee didn't win a huge majority of these votes. There are similar stories to be told concerning women supporting Clinton, young people supporting Obama, and older voters supporting Clinton and McCain, but we also don't see 80% of any of these groups supporting a single candidate. Clearly, group affiliation impacts elections, but most groups don't cluster overwhelmingly around a single candidate, so individuals acting relatively individually still have a big impact.
Perhaps one of the great cultural questions surrounding this presidential election has been whether or not candidates like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney could draw widespread support from outside their particular groups. Neither sexism, racism, nor religious chauvinism has prevented men from supporting Clinton, whites from supporting Obama, or non-Mormons from supporting Romney. If nothing else, this presidential election ought to encourage many people from diverse backgrounds to at least consider running for president in the future. Given that race and religion seems to have influenced the vote for Romney and Obama so much, it seems likely that there was also a sizable percentage of people voting for other candidates for whom Obama's race or Romney's religion were negative factors. Nonetheless, when all was said and done, Obama and Romney remained viable candidates after Super Tuesday...though Obama is now in a much stronger position than is Romney. At the end of the day, it seems like it can finally be said that anyone can be elected president, though the coming general election will likely also add another chapter to this story.
I can well understand why some people would look at the 80%+ support for Obama among African Americans and Romney among Mormons with dismay and disappointment. Such a plurality does suggest that an awful lot of people are still voting for whoever seems to be most like them, just as critics of democracy that fear the "rule of the rabble" have long predicted. The fact that other groups did not vote so much in "lock-step" is one positive, and I think there is another factor worth considering: namely, that Obama and Romney are actually strong candidates with wide bases of support. Obama's candidacy is not centered around the fact that his father was from Kenya, and Romney has not made his Mormonism the focus of his campaign. Both have a history of success in politics, albeit not particularly long histories; Romney has also been successful in the private sector. My feeling is that it is the quality and electability of these candidates that has enabled such large majorities to be built within their particular communities. It's not fair to say that most African Americans or most Mormons that are voting for Obama and Romney are primarily motivated by their candidate's group affiliation; it is closer to the truth to say that Obama and Romney's group affiliations are just another positive that have encouraged (not caused) African American and Mormon support for Obama and Romney, respectively. My evidence for this? Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun, Orrin Hatch. Good presidential candidates, all, but as I recall none of them made a big splash in the races they competed in. Sharpton won 17% of the African American vote in the 2004 South Carolina primaries, in contrast to Obama's comfortable majority in 2008.
Exit polling data from Super Tuesday seems to make it fairly clear that group affiliation does play a big factor in how many people choose to vote. Barack Obama won a startling 80% of the African American vote yesterday, but, as the linked article also notes, Hillary Clinton garnered a large degree of support from the Hispanic community. Although Mitt Romney didn't have the day he had hoped for, it certainly wasn't because Mormon voters didn't support him in droves. Some of these percentages are just too big to ignore. How could Obama possibly win 94% of the African American vote in Illinois or Mitt Romney win close to 90% of the Mormon vote in Utah? In my experience, nine out of ten people don't agree on much of anything -- these overwhelming majorities at least raises the possibility that there are a significant number of people out there who aren't voting for a president so much as they are voting for their own race or religion, especially when you consider that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hold many similar political positions just as Mitt Romney and John McCain do. Mike Huckabee arguably benefited more than anyone else from religous voters because the Christian conservative vote powered him to primary victories in several Southern states, though Huckabee didn't win a huge majority of these votes. There are similar stories to be told concerning women supporting Clinton, young people supporting Obama, and older voters supporting Clinton and McCain, but we also don't see 80% of any of these groups supporting a single candidate. Clearly, group affiliation impacts elections, but most groups don't cluster overwhelmingly around a single candidate, so individuals acting relatively individually still have a big impact.
Perhaps one of the great cultural questions surrounding this presidential election has been whether or not candidates like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney could draw widespread support from outside their particular groups. Neither sexism, racism, nor religious chauvinism has prevented men from supporting Clinton, whites from supporting Obama, or non-Mormons from supporting Romney. If nothing else, this presidential election ought to encourage many people from diverse backgrounds to at least consider running for president in the future. Given that race and religion seems to have influenced the vote for Romney and Obama so much, it seems likely that there was also a sizable percentage of people voting for other candidates for whom Obama's race or Romney's religion were negative factors. Nonetheless, when all was said and done, Obama and Romney remained viable candidates after Super Tuesday...though Obama is now in a much stronger position than is Romney. At the end of the day, it seems like it can finally be said that anyone can be elected president, though the coming general election will likely also add another chapter to this story.
I can well understand why some people would look at the 80%+ support for Obama among African Americans and Romney among Mormons with dismay and disappointment. Such a plurality does suggest that an awful lot of people are still voting for whoever seems to be most like them, just as critics of democracy that fear the "rule of the rabble" have long predicted. The fact that other groups did not vote so much in "lock-step" is one positive, and I think there is another factor worth considering: namely, that Obama and Romney are actually strong candidates with wide bases of support. Obama's candidacy is not centered around the fact that his father was from Kenya, and Romney has not made his Mormonism the focus of his campaign. Both have a history of success in politics, albeit not particularly long histories; Romney has also been successful in the private sector. My feeling is that it is the quality and electability of these candidates that has enabled such large majorities to be built within their particular communities. It's not fair to say that most African Americans or most Mormons that are voting for Obama and Romney are primarily motivated by their candidate's group affiliation; it is closer to the truth to say that Obama and Romney's group affiliations are just another positive that have encouraged (not caused) African American and Mormon support for Obama and Romney, respectively. My evidence for this? Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun, Orrin Hatch. Good presidential candidates, all, but as I recall none of them made a big splash in the races they competed in. Sharpton won 17% of the African American vote in the 2004 South Carolina primaries, in contrast to Obama's comfortable majority in 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)