![[Signifying Nothing]](/local/memlogo-1.png "Welcome to Signifying Nothing")
The New York Times endorses John Kerry Anybody But Bush. I think Michele’s reaction pretty much mirrors my own:
Even our nation’s vaunted media can’t come up with enough cogent reasons to vote for Kerry other than he’s not George Bush.
In general, the calculus of strategic voting dictates that people should vote so as to minimize the chances of their least preferred (but “electable”) candidate taking office. From that perspective, at least, the Times’ position makes sense.
Meanwhile, The Belgravia Dispatch advances an alternative perspective (þ: Andrew Sullivan).
![[Permalink]](/images/permalink.png "Permanent link to this entry"){kind=small}
Recent posts
![[The GIMP]](/buttons/gimp.png "The GIMP"){kind=small}
![[Steal These Buttons!]](/buttons/steal.png "Steal These Buttons!"){kind=small}
4 comments:
Aren’t all elections involving an incumbent essentially referendums on the incumbent. Weren’t the papers that endorsed, and the voters who voted for, Dole in 96 really endorsing “Anybody But Clinton”?
Jeez…. Looking at Bush’s record, Anybody But Bush is a no brainer [but as I’m sure you’re aware, my politics are much closer to Social Democrat than U.S. Democrat….]
And according to everything I’ve read, incumbent elections are referenda on the incumbent. Which inspires me to inquire about Chris’s take on “The 50% Rule”, i.e., the view that if Bush isn’t polling 50% or higher in the critical states he’d better start updating his resume, because the undecideds are going to break heavily for Kerry.
The case for incumbent elections as referenda is a bit overstated. In a real referendum it’s a binary, yes or no, choice. In this election we have to choose a replacement and a simple no vote won’t do.
People that push this view seem to be trying to take Kerry’s record off the table rather than offering a positive alternative.
Robert,
I’m just asking a historical question, not making any normative recommendations, or trying to take anyone’s record off the table. How does this election, in which the opposition pays more attention to the record of the incumbent than to that of its own candidate, differ from any past presidential election with an incumbent?
The idea of a real referendum on the presidential incumbent is an interesting one. In May, we could vote on whether or not to keep the jerk who’s currently in office. If he loses, we elect a jerk to replace him in November.