Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i have the sense that, this time out, the polls are as much about generating interest in the press coverage of the election as they are about the election.
but maybe that is a function of where i live--i do not know anyone who is undecided, nor do i know anyone who knows anyone who is undecided.
i sometimes wonder who these people are, the Undecideds--where they live---if they are a family somewhere that fields telephone calls from polling companies as a full time job.
sometimes beaver or wally undecided is out when the calls come.
sample error 3%...
i do not have the sense that the debates are that important
does anyone have a sense of much play in the electorate at this point?
not based so much on the papers/tv, but on their social networks?
of course the advertisers who would support the debate programming, brought to you by archer daniels midlands and bud light, hope that there are many undecideds out there.
but seriously, i dont see it...do you folks?
|
I don't see it either, but I live on the west coast. The constant harping on these ephemereal characters bothers me, but not much I can do since they are supposedly tucked safely away Ohio or something--presumably where no one can ascertain their beliefs with any great certitude.
I had a few discussions with someone watching the talking heads make these grand claims regarding who controls the elections. Her point was that undecided voters are diffuse throughout the regions, which I believed would actually undermine their efficacy as a voting 'bloc.'
Then I brought up the point that the electoral college ultimately decides which candidate will receive the votes. Thus, in a very real sense, the undecided voters do
not control the elections--the EC does. This point was not taken very lightly, and a sense of nihilism began to set in. To which I responded that I did not wish to discourage anyone to vote; rather, if the voting system is (or appears) farcical, then voting is made all the more important. How else can the system be legitimated (or delegitimated) unless the dynamic between what is real and what is promised (e.g., how people vote versus the notion that their voting 'matters' in a free nation) is played out on the national election stage.
I think my conclusion was that I then deconstructed the interplay during the florida fiasco as a movement to legitimate the voting system moreso than a struggle over who would win the presidency. In that sense, it was extremely important that the votes be counted, and that the court rule which votes would or would not matter in the endgame. Otherwise it seems the electors could have just cast their votes and called it good.
now I'm rambling, so no, I don't know of personally or remotely and undecided voters. but I attribute it more to infusing legitimacy into the process moreso than generating voting interest.