I promise I didn’t rig our informal poll, but I won’t pretend that I didn’t like the results. I would have guessed ahead of time that most of the votes would go to Democrats, and most of those would go to Barack Obama, but the margins in both cases were larger than I had anticipated.
The most amazing thing is that Obama actually has a chance of winning this thing. While Hillary Clinton still has a substantial lead in meaningless national polls, Obama is leading in Iowa among likely caucus-goers, 35% to 29%; he is surging ahead in New Hampshire; tied in South Carolina; and could sweep all four early early contests.
There’s still a lot of time (although Iowa is only three weeks away), many chickens remain unhatched, etc. — standard disclaimers apply. And there is that little thing called the general election (where Obama is handily ahead of the Republican field). Still: there is a realistic chance that Barack Obama could be our next President.
But I don’t think that possibility has quite sunk into the national consciousness just yet. In particular, I think there is a moment yet to come when America sits up and says: “Holy crap, we could have a black person as the President of the United States!” For better or for worse — some people will be exhilarated, some will be appalled, some will be scared, some will cry tears of joy. Many pundits will say stupid things, many nasty smears will characterize the campaign. But regardless, it’s hard to exaggerate how extraordinary such an event would be — twenty years ago, a small percentage of political observers would have suggested there was a realistic possibility for an African-American to be elected President by 2050, much less 2008. The history of blacks in the U.S., with the legacy of slavery and the ubiquity of racism and the persistence of poverty, is almost too sprawling and complicated and emotional for any person to really grasp. It would not be hyperbole to describe the election of an African-American President as one of the most significant events in the history of the country.
There are plenty of valid criticisms to make about Obama, he’s certainly not perfect. It would be nice to have a real mandate for universal health care, for example. And, as historic as it would be, the fact that he is black is by itself not a very good reason to support him — having the first black President be a disaster could set the cause of racial justice back many decades. But even if he were a more typical Democratic presidential nominee — you know, a bumbling white Northeastern male who doesn’t use contractions — he would still be a great choice for President. He combines unusual clarity of vision with impressive legislative chops. The major Democratic candidates are not really that different in terms of policy platforms, so the question rightly becomes one of attitude and judgment — who do you want in charge the next time some completely unanticipated event affects the country? I don’t think I’ve ever been so happy to support a candidate.
Who knows? Obama’s campaign could suddenly go up in flames. Or he could get elected President and be terrible; these things are hard to predict. But if he does get elected, the magnitude of the event and what it means for America is difficult to overstate. We’ll have to see what happens.
Yeesh, an informal poll on a site for sequestored academics should have produced even larger numbers for Obama. If this sort of thing makes you sleep better at night, then enjoy it for the next 3 weeks.
Obama spoke quite openly about what he says to people who ask him about religious influence in governance. I don’t have his quote verbatim (saw him on channel 9 a week ago), but his response was as appalling as any republican candidate, probably even worse. He used the word “everything” as part of his rant. Are you pleased that the favorite candidate among your readers believes that religion should affect “everything”?
There is not one candidate worthy of running this country. Edwards comes closest. Also, he has a presidential face, which is very important. Please keep that in mind.
Edwards or Clinton are the rational person’s best candidate, not Obama, for reasons #2 pointed out. As a liberal, this defaults me to Edwards because Clinton’s positions are too right of me.
Cut him some slack on his position on religion. He’s simply unelectable without being pro-religion. He’s not perfect, but from the pool of viable candidates, he’s the most compatible. If you can’t be with the one you love then love the one you’re with. Or something like that.
Jason, I’m just wondering why such a poll would produce like high scores for Obama. Why him? What about him recommends him to “sequestered academics” (and many of us are not “academics” or lab scientists – I am a “cocktail-party physics” (better actually, but admittedly shaky at the rigorous level) gadfly who does support work for tech companies and even the great Jefferson Lab (but I do talk to the real ones!), we have a science fiction writer who does indeed know a lot about the subject, as my torment of him has revealed (sorry Greg E., really, I have been somewhat of an ass), and various other types.) I don’t know that he would treat science in some obviously better way than the other candidates, but anyone please let us know. Or maybe it’s just that certain something that appeals to intellectuals?
Ahmed, I would want to look at what Obama said about religion, but: I suspect it’s fluff about his personal experience and values in the “liberal-Christian-Democat” tradition as we might hear from Jesse Jackson et al. IOW, not actual government involvement and support of the sort Huckabee would promote. If not, we need to know. I may support non-sectarian metaphysical concepts of First Cause, and even the relevance of personal mystical experiences, but I don’t want any theocrat taking the reigns.
I think much of Obama and am starting to hope he wins the nomination and Presidency, and he does have talent. Yet much of my attraction is worry over how much of “what they say about Hillary” is true. Otherwise she is the most qualified of the front runners I suppose (but how come the *really* qualified runners like Dodd and Biden don’t get ahead – what does that say about the electorate/media etc?) I have some concern that the oft-flaky Oprah, who promoted a book saying that everything you wish for will come true (The Secret) is now his main celebrity backer. Most important, if Obama wins, I think the salutary effect of having a black president really would transform the country in positive ways. Sean did a good little piece about Obama’s attractiveness what his election would means, and I recommend having the meat of it published elsewhere.
I think the next poll should ask how many people read Cosmic Variance and aren’t sequestored academics.
Allyson, good call. I think there was a poll sometime here about the commenters, but I’m not sure. It would be fun to see a breakdown.
Just one note about Obama and healthcare: there are those who think that his plan would be more effective than Clinton’s (e. g., cover more people):
Example: Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s Labor Secretary:
No, I don’t work for Obama. 🙂
I’m surprised more people (especially on a science/physics blog) haven’t pointed out Obama’s atrocious plans for NASA. I like Obama a lot, but as far as science policy is concerned, Hillary is running circles around him.
He’s proposing to cut hundreds of millions of dollars each year from NASA’s budget to give to the Department of Education instead.
I’m all for more and better education, but I think this decision really reveals his inexperience: Why is he making this an either/or equation? Why is he pitting space exploration against education? Why not take the money from, oh I dunno, the hundreds of billions of dollars in bloated defense spending?
As a consequence of his proposed NASA budget reductions, the US could experience a gap of 10+ years where it will have no regular, reliable means to get astronauts into orbit. There are “stopgap” measures that may arise from private industry, but these are far from guaranteed. We’d most likely end up relying on the Russian Soyuz program, but unfortunately it appears that US/Russian relations are likely to become increasingly chilly in coming years — do we really want to bet on a sunny relationship and rely on them to provide us with manned orbital capabilities?
I question the judgment of anyone who thinks this is a smart move. And don’t try to argue that by cutting all that money from NASA, Obama will be doing unmanned exploration any favors. The fact is it’s a very poor and unwise decision. My vote’s with Hillary (though really Biden’s my favorite).
Regarding the NASA issue, yes it would be bad to see those cuts happen. So I guess one has to ask whether Obama would be the sort of President would would listen to the arguments both for and against such a move and then be depended upon to make the correct decision in the face of the facts.
That is what has been so sorely lacking in Washington these past seven years. We’ve had an ideologically run, faith-based executive that has got us into some terrible messes. Sure, Obama would be informed by his left-of-center ideological foundation, but the question is, will it drive him to bad decisions in the face of the facts? I guess one can never be sure until someone actually becomes President, but I have much higher hopes for Obama than I do for any of the Republican field.
NASA maned space program is terrible, I would much prefer the money to be spent to actual research or education. JPL engineers are first rate and by scrapping ISS/shuttle/moon base/man-on-Mars would produce plenty of funds for them.
Simmons pointed out, for 2 billions a year it would be possible to fix the lousy elementary and high school education, by making teachers job attractive to smart and motivated and charismatic people again. Compare this amount with the current war expenditures.
As for Obama – he comes acros as the only inteligent candidate who is not completely phoney. A healthcare proposal: it is not his area of expertise and maybe Clinton can hire more policy-advice people now, and so on. A churchgoing prez is a no big deal if he can avoid the God-told-me-so based military decisions.
Sean, would you mind clarifying why you were surprised by the margin that went toward non-Obama candidates?
I have, literally, put my money on Edwards. I’m not sure I believe he has much of a chance, but if I have to pick one of the set, he’s my first choice. (After Kucinich, of course.) I just don’t want to go through what I went through last round, which was standing in the voting booth, thinking about writing McCain’s name in because at least I knew he would be honest, unlike the completely tasteless Kerry.
As you know, I’m a fan of Black and female achievement, but I think people who are letting the symbolism dominate their choice are fools. (Not you Sean — I can see that you have thought more deeply about your choice.) I also think that the gay community should step back before choosing not to embrace Edwards simply because he’s been honest about his religious convictions. I love Lucy, and I’m glad that Edwards would support her right to immigrate to the US as my legal partner. That’s enough for me.
Skin color, gender issues and gay rights all come secondary to the day to day issues at hand with poverty, and Edwards is the only one who has consistently spoken out and actually been clear about what he will do to confront it. His populism trumps any symbolism about progress in integration, in my opinion. I won’t sacrifice the working poor of any colour or gender on the altar of my gay marriage or my need to see a woman or a Black man in a place of power. Frankly, I don’t care if it is a white man. I care if it is a leader I trust to enact the policies I care about. When a Black man stands up and truly represents what I believe in, I will be the first in line to donate money to, campaign for, and vote for him. (Unfortunately MLK is dead …)
I will vote for whomever gets the nomination next year, but if it’s for Clinton, I am fully expecting a repeat of my ballot box experience of 04. If it’s for Obama, I’m not walking out feeling terribly hopeful.
On the other hand, if he does what one UC Physics professor (that we both know) did, which is have enough faith in and a willingness to work with the Chicago Public School system to allow it to be charged with the education of his children, I might start to feel better about it.
Why do so many people around here seem to be such big fans of manned space exploration? Manned space exploration is not science. Worse yet, it’s a serious distraction from the real space science that NASA should be doing.
We’re all aware, I hope, of what’s happened to NASA science over the last few years as Mr Bush has become so interested in a Mars mission.
Tacitus wrote : >one has to ask whether Obama would be the sort of President who would listen to the arguments both for and against such a movebefore he becomes president. We don’t, really, because he hasn’t been in any big job long enough.
And Neil B: >I think the salutary effect of having a black president really would transform the country in positive ways.
Sorry, my last line dropped off:
If we’re voting for symbols, what’s wrong with the ‘salutary effect’ of having a female president? Just as good, I would think; or not?
Not this crap again.
Listen, everyone … OBAMA IS AN ATHEIST.
Think about it … he was raised by a secular humanist, and did not join any religion until he began running for public office and discovered that he needed a church affiliation to make inroads in the black community in Chicago.
Does anyone really believe that Obama actually believes any of the religious tripe he sometimes spouts?
I won’t vote for Obama myself in the primary (too inexperienced, too short on policy details, so I’m going for Richardson), but a vote for him is a vote for an atheist.
Holy Crap watching this videos I see what a friend meant when he said that Americans treat their Politicians like Popstars….
On another issue, why the fuck should his personal religion matter?
Not voting for people because they are religious is no better then not voting for them because they are atheists!
The question is what is their stance on seperation of state and religion for example.
@King Cynic:
I don’t think it should matter one way or the other, but to claim that he joined a church for pure political expediency is harsh. It’s possible he did, but I don’t believe he was running for office when he decided to join. It happened during his days as a community organizer.
@Chanda: Obama has spent most of his working life advocating for the poor. It was, you know, his job as a community organizer. I find it highly unlikely that Obama cares about poverty less than Edwards, and Obama has actually spent time trying to deal with the problem in practical ways.
It not the fact that Obama is black that makes him compelling. Previous black candidates have not been nearly as compelling. The fact is that Obama is not the black candidate, he is a candidate who happens to be black. Beyond his race, his life story is extremely compelling. He has seen life and taken his share of knocks. He’s developed a compassionate and nuanced politics because of it. He’s not beholden to an us vs. them mentality; however, despite being able to word his policy ideas in ways that republicans and independents find palatable, he doesn’t betray his fundamental liberal core.
While I’m sure I would be ok with the other democratic candidates, I believe that Obama could really be one of the greats. The others I would trust not to make our country worse than it currently is.
[Obama] did not join any religion until he began running for public office and discovered that he needed a church affiliation to make inroads in the black community in Chicago.
According to a NYT article cited by wikipedia, Obama converted to Christianity in 1988. Obama was first elected to public office in 1996, and as far as I know did not make any attempts to run for office before this; in any case he wouldn’t have been running for anything in 1988 because (also according to Wikipedia) that was the year he entered Harvard.
Ahmed, it’s hard to know what Obama said if you don’t even remember the quote. There are many possible statements he could have made regarding religion and “everything” and certainly not all of them are terrible statements and some of them may be very true. So, if you can’t remember the quote well enough to even paraphrase it, it’s not worth trying to discuss rationally.
Z, I can’t see how Edwards or Clinton would be any better (or worse) than Obama on religion. All three of them unequivocally support the separation of church and state and all three of them are religious and “spiritual”. None of them is directly gunning for the “rational” vote.
Personally, one of the things I like most about Obama is that he does tend to speak and act rationally, tending to give more nuanced answers, as opposed to other candidates like John Edwards, who at times just breathes partisanship and pander. It’s sometimes difficult to count the number of times he says “Bush, Cheney, and the Neocons” in his stump speeches. I’m not fond of the Bush administration by any stretch of the imagination but the seething partisan rhetoric coming from Edwards is grating nonetheless.
One of the great things about Obama’s war opposition wasn’t just that he opposed it when it was politically risky, but that he opposed it on very well thought-out terms. He’s the kind of guy I would be comfortable with making the decisions about our nation’s foreign policy, and he’s certainly got a good line up of advisors, which is a very good indicator.
While I tend to avoid supporting politicians simply because I “feel” they’re genuine, he does have a record to match his rhetoric and he does often avoid easy panders to give more truthful answers and I think that’s a desirable quality in a President, especially following the current administration.
I regularly read your blog via google reader, so I’m not an “invading” supporter here to stir up controversy.
But you DID rig the poll.
By selectively excluding candidates which you do not want to take seriously (aka Ron Paul and Kucinich).
There is exactly ONE person on your poll who has been against the war in Iraq since it began, and I’m glad he got the most votes. I suppose that makes Obama the best “choice”, but you didn’t really give us one.
I suppose in that way it’s very much like the elections we will have in 2008.
Neil B.,
Having no federal record on which to run, Obama is your default, fill-in your wildest dreams, liberal candidate. Hill’reh is a Republican in disguise, and Edwards has the stink of failure on him from 2004, so Obama is merely next in line. It is sad that there is nothing more sophisticated than that causing “progressives” to flock to his candidacy.
you DID rig the poll… By selectively excluding candidates which you do not want to take seriously (aka Ron Paul and Kucinich).
Couldn’t supporters of those candidates just vote for “other”? I note a lot of people did, enough to put “Other” in second place…
I should point out that the second question in the poll, “Do you like my new haircut?” has a clear-cut 98% for “Other”.
Allyson, none of the voters were “sequestored” academics, at least not at any currently known or suspected sequestorianable academic site. All had read Cosmic Variance at least once. No poll was necessary to ascertain these data.
Judith, Oprah isn’t really running–at least, not yet. There are apparently no other possible female presidents for this election, though various commentators have indicated there is a two-headed baby-eating monster capable of turning Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt masquerading as one.
King Cynic, the Washington Post pretty much convinced me he’s a Muslim, trained in a madrassa, and likely a terrrist wannabe:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802757.html?hpid=topnews
Did you get your “Obama an atheist” concept from Rush Limbaugh? Rush is so 2nd millenium…