Could it really be?
Recent polls published by Rasmussen Reports and Public Policy Polling have McCaskill up by only six points. Can Akin do anything stupid enough - or McCaskill anything smart enough - to seriously change the minds of Missouri voters. We know he can.
The absence of a commanding lead warrants a reconsideration of McCaskill's rhetorical strategy to bill her as a moderate. At a recent interview with the Springfield News-Leader Monday, she was asked to explain exactly how she could be a moderate, especially when she's supported Obama's policies when in 2008 more the half of Missouri rejected Obama's promises.
Take a look, and see if you detect anything...troubling.
By trying to make herself seem the moderate and appeal to both sides, Claire insults the voters of Missouri twice:
"When you look at the politics of those votes, I knew the politics were going to be tough. It's really important that you make two consideration when you cast a vote: one is on the public policy, the other is...realizing the politics."
Besides an unbearable vagueness, Claire's thoughtfulness comes across an insider's condescension to the rabble of democracy. Instead of referencing "the politics," which could evoke images of corruption, McCaskill would be better off explaining who was involved in "the politics" and what the stakes were. Explain it to us: we'll appreciate it and we might even understand it.
2. Our ignorance actually...dumbfounds her.
When she tries to justify her support of Obamacare, McCaskill lets a little too much haughtiness escape:
"It never ceases to amaze me how many [Missouri voters] are misinformed about what [the Affordable Care Act] actually is..."
McCaskill's rhetoric needs to match her adopted "moderate" moniker. Voters expect a political moderate to be able to connect with the average person. If in trying to prove her moderate-ness McCaskill insists on talking down to voters, explaining how much they don't know, and highlighting the distinction between herself as a politician and her targeted voter, then she may not end up the moderate, no matter her opponent.
Claire's not that bad. Her worst crime is informing Missouri.
 |
| Link here |
Take a look, and see if you detect anything...troubling.
By trying to make herself seem the moderate and appeal to both sides, Claire insults the voters of Missouri twice:
1. She knows politics, we don't.
However true this may be, a month before the election may not be the most teachable moment for a civics lesson for Missouri voters:"When you look at the politics of those votes, I knew the politics were going to be tough. It's really important that you make two consideration when you cast a vote: one is on the public policy, the other is...realizing the politics."
Besides an unbearable vagueness, Claire's thoughtfulness comes across an insider's condescension to the rabble of democracy. Instead of referencing "the politics," which could evoke images of corruption, McCaskill would be better off explaining who was involved in "the politics" and what the stakes were. Explain it to us: we'll appreciate it and we might even understand it.
2. Our ignorance actually...dumbfounds her.
"It never ceases to amaze me how many [Missouri voters] are misinformed about what [the Affordable Care Act] actually is..."
McCaskill's rhetoric needs to match her adopted "moderate" moniker. Voters expect a political moderate to be able to connect with the average person. If in trying to prove her moderate-ness McCaskill insists on talking down to voters, explaining how much they don't know, and highlighting the distinction between herself as a politician and her targeted voter, then she may not end up the moderate, no matter her opponent.
Claire's not that bad. Her worst crime is informing Missouri.
 |
| But Akin is "here for the children!" |
Great post. A couple of observations:
ReplyDelete1. Yes, she's voted almost all the time with the president, and yes she's a moderate. How is this possible? Because the president is a moderate. Those on the right just can't seem to see past the veil of "socialism" that Faux News has cast over the White House.
2. It may be that her rhetorical strategy is not as effective as her campaign team thought it would be, and thus, the narrow spread in the polls. But you mention that Akin is capable of doing stupid things to hurt his own chances. After his "legitimate rape" comments, (most) polls showed him dead even with McCaskill. After his "ladylike" statement and the video of him claiming doctors give abortions to women who aren't even pregnant, he is still within 6 points. How is this even possible?
Here's what I think: Missouri has seen an extreme shift to the right in its electorate. Evidence of this can be seen in the veto-proof majorities the GOP holds in the state legislature. There is a large chunk of the state that will support Akin no matter what. Perhaps it won't be enough to help lead him to victory, but I think suggesting that he still has the ability to end his chances of winning by doing something stupid is seriously short-selling the loyalty many voters have to him.
Chris here, I wanna let you know I read this a couple days ago and I've been considering how to respond. You caught me on #2! :P
Delete1. Spot on. Agreed.
2. Akin was on the fast-track to take the seat before his comment. And, you're right -- a considerable amount of voters will vote for him regardless of what he says. When I first read this I sort of disagreed and here's why: I suspect this loyalty isn't based on much rational thought. When and if McCaskill goes on the offensive, forcing his ridiculous views to light (see our most recent post), the polls will shift via her "true" response.
The reason I'm not completely behind this statement is the doubt I hold for how much McCaskill really can force people to think outside party lines and instead on the specific consequences of Akin's statements. But I have faith!