McCain: Campaigning Hard, Supporters Energized
McCain’s supporters are energized. Earlier this year, they thought that their man didn’t have a shot at winning the GOP’s nomination, but they stuck with him, and saw him rise from the dead. Their goal today? Have McCain finish in third place in Iowa.
The battle for third place is an important one: McCain, Fred Thompson and Ron Paul might all very well finish in third place. The one who’s able to beat the other two will create some momentum and might do even better in other states.
McCain and his supporters know this and are doing everything in their power to energize voters, to convince them to vote for McCain and to get them to the polls. The Senator from Arizona isn’t doing it with amateurs alone, however. He’s supported by people like Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham, and John Thune. If that’s not enough, he also has the support of Joe Lieberman and Thompson is likely to endorse him if he drops out.
The others mentioned are already campaigning hard for McCain. They’re joined by hundreds of volunteers. Billy Valentine is one of those volunteers (and bloggers). He has a post up about yesterday night’s / today’s rally (with photos).
What’s remarkable, to me, is that in American elections it’s much more about people than in the Netherlands. We vote for people, yes, but only to a degree. More than that we vote for a party and for a specific program. In the US, however, it’s more about individual candidates. They must connect with voters, and there seems to be a real, strong bond between them and their supporters. It’s almost like a soccer match (or baseball or football match for Americans). Or better: It’s as if voters, and especially volunteers, have taken an oath of allegiance… not to a program but to a person.
It’s fascinating to see, and it also explains why American elections are much more nasty than Dutch ones. After all, if it’s about people it’s easier to get personal, whereas if it’s about programs it’s more of an intellectual debate.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
