More on newspaper endorsements: the switchers
Mark notes Kerry's lead in newspaper endorsements, prompting a poorly-argued rebuttal from our bête noire.
But quantity of endorsements doesn't really interest me. If only 3/4ths of the newspapers who endorsed Bush in 2000 endorse him again in 2004, Bush will win on shear numbers. Circulation figures might show a different story, but since most large newspapers are in blue states, that doesn't matter either. (For more on the 2000 endorsements see GWU's list or the dKosopedia list with excerpts.)
What I'm interested in is the switchers: newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000 and go for Kerry in 2004, or vice versa.
So far, no newspapers that endorsed Gore have gone over to Bush. But 10 newspapers than endorsed Bush in 2000 have gone over to Kerry this time. Futhermore, three Bush 2000 endorsers have declined to endorse a candidate this year. One paper, the Arizona Republic, did not endorse in 2000 and endorsed Bush this year. (Source: dKosopedia 2004 endorsements page.)
This bodes well for Kerry, but the endorsement race probably matters more for its propaganda value than for the endorsements' ability to change voters' minds.
posted by Luke Francl @ 10:53 AM |
| 
8 Comments:
It's true that the endorsements will have little effect in swaying people's votes (thus their propaganda value is almost zero!). But it *is* interesting that, in an electorate that's supposedly so evenly divided, newspaper endorsements are so lopsidedly in favor of Kerry and/or against Bush (e.g. the switchers and non-endorsers you cited). Even after the election is over, these endorsements (both the overall tally and the individual content) will have value in underscoring Bush's failed Presidency.
Oh yeah, forgot to add, I'm totally digging the dkosopedia! (despite it's 'orrible name)
I meant the propaganda value for the campaigns. They can trumpet their endorsements; say how many more they're getting than their opponent, and so on.
While not, strictly speaking, an endorsement, this editorial from today's (10/19) LATimes lays out the gross ineptness of the Bush administration. Terrorism, flu vaccine, equipping troops in Iraq. It's all the same failure to be able to analyse, anticipate, act in the public interest.
• Ideology and Flu Vaccine •
Thirty-six thousand Americans die of the flu every year. If that number rises by just a tenth because we have only half as much flu vaccine as we need, the increase in deaths will exceed the number killed by Osama bin Laden on Sept. 11, 2001.
The parallels to 9/11 do not stop there. As in the 2001 catastrophe, officials of the Bush administration are claiming ignorance as if it were a virtue. They say they had no idea the vaccine shortage would happen. They are pinning the blame on neglect by previous administrations.
And they are bragging about everything they are doing — now — to prevent this kind of thing in the future. But, as with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it didn't take long for various filed-and-forgotten reports to resurface, all of them warning about the danger of a flu vaccine shortage.
Hindsight is cheap, of course. Washington is the world's leading manufacturer of dire warnings. You can't heed them all. But there were other hints as well. Lesser flu vaccine screw-ups have been common in recent years. Clearly, the system was broken.
Regarding 9/11, President Bush's apologists emphasize that it happened when he was still learning his way to the White House men's room. But the flu vaccine shortage comes as he is running for reelection with heavy emphasis on claims of wisdom derived from experience.
The flu-shot problem could have happened under any president. But it was more likely to happen under this one because preventive measures conflict with his ideology. When frail elderly people are falling down dead as they plod from clinic to drugstore in search of vaccine, and a black market is growing to serve those who can pay hundreds of dollars for a single dose, it is not a good moment for bromides about the evils of letting big government allocate healthcare.
Then there is money. A scientist quoted in the New York Times on Sunday noted that the government was spending $283 million a year on flu research and $5.6 billion on research for a vaccine against anthrax, a purely theoretical threat.
The causes of the flu vaccine shortage may even include a couple that Bush would find compatible with his philosophy: lawsuits and excessive regulation. But he missed the opportunity to ride these hobbyhorses, and possibly to prevent a national disaster, because he was otherwise engaged.
This post went from debating what affect newspaper endorsements have on the election, to The shortage of Flu vaccine is now Bush's fault. It's so easy to blame someone you hate for all the issues that matter most to you. At what point do you look in the mirror and take responsibility for your own shit you wallow in?
People go off on tangents. It happens. Deal with it. In my book, Rainy's comment was topical.
"At what point do you look in the mirror and take responsibility for your own shit you wallow in?"
That's very profound. Isn't that a Michael Jackson song?
"Man in the Mirror" was definitely Jacko's last decent song. Nothing can beat that all-time classic LP Off the Wall though. Obviously Q was breeding those Brothers Johnson for some greater purpose.
Now what were we talking about again?
So as you see folks, the shortage of flu vaccine is actually Michael Jackson's fault.
Post a Comment
<< Home