Every politician keeps an eye on the polls, but it is with the knowledge that regardless of the numbers not every poll reflects potential voter action. It’s a bit like the old advertising adage that only 50% of advertising works; but which 50%?
Specific issues, like the current Middle East conflicts, can reflect powerful public attitudes. For example, some latest samples which show a wide disparity between ‘Western’ countries involved:
The Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll found 59per cent believe Israel's actions are "justified", although a quarter of this group stated that the military had behaved in an "excessively harsh" fashion.
YouGov-Daily Telegraph poll in Britain showed that only 17 per cent of those surveyed believe that Israel has made an "appropriate and proportional" response to the kidnapping of its soldiers.
A Forsa/Stern poll has shown that 75per cent of Germans believe Israel's actions are "disproportionate" and only 12 per cent approve of the attacks on Palestinian or Lebanese settlements.
The question is; are those attitudes, for and against, reflected in voting patters?
Hillary Clinton seems to think so, with her latest attacks on Rumsfeld. She’s called on him to resign, after accusing him of "presiding over a failed policy in Iraq".
Of course it is merely posturing on Hillary’s part as she has no real influence over the US Administration. Her comments simply put her stand on public record.
But as far as the information available shows, the questions were specifically asked of Israel’s role in that conflict, and even if the public is strong one way or the other on the conduct of conflicts, does it change the way they will vote?
I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that, given other factors it might, but only might, have some influence. The really powerful factor always comes back to economics, and Hillary would do well to heed Bill’s advice on that point.
It is how voters perceive their own economic standards and futures which really determine their vote preference, the rest is just so much noise.
7 comments:
You are so right. Michael Moore made that same point in one of his books. If you want to convince a conservative that he's wrong on some issue, you've got to convince him that it's costing him money.
Cynical, but true.
Bearing in mind the 'working class', if I can use an outmoded term, is generally very conservative then there are a lot of votes to be targeted through the hip pocket.
I don't know if it is cynical or just a reality, but a government generally won't fall if the economy is sound.
Don't get fooled by a few barfs Hillary makes. She's still a paid shill.
annonny-maus, Obviously I'm not conservative, but I can afford to be a dispassionate watcher of US politics.
I don't think anyone posting here sees the Dems in their current form as ideal.
The consensus seems to be that difference is in the possibility of some policy changes.
Al-Qaida loves the liberals - ain't THAT the truth.
That my friend is a purely partisan observation, which pays no heed to reality. Al Qaida is largely concerned with its own agena and loves nobody, not even its own. Their tactical error has spawned the likes of Hezbollah. That will be the new battle ground.
annon, I'm with you on Clinton and Kerry. But you lost me after that.
;-)
Excellent, love it! Ibm 1 33 cpu Allegra donatella versace tippmann a-5 paintball gun bc design ecommerce site web asthma trials manchester botetourt county interior designer
Post a Comment