What this article seems to show is that the election was not about political ideology. It was about getting out the vote. The Obama campaign fine-tuned its message to scientifically increase returns in those targeted groups. The Romney campaign played the 'smoke-filled room' game (for all we can tell).
In none of the presidential debates did either man speak in depth about his governing philosophy (or the Fed for that matter). Their talking points rang loud and clear over and over, and finger-pointing abounded, but neither spoke of his core convictions. The campaign speeches were much of the same. For all of the complaints about Romney's lack of details in his economic plan, the President didn't do any better, simply offering a 'stay the course' message (he learned something from Bush).
Therefore, given this article and the lack of ideology involved in the campaigns, I conclude that the voters were not persuaded by philosophy. They were targeted by the campaign so that the powers that be could keep their power.
Looking back to the electoral college results of 1980 and 1984 shows what a strong, clear ideological message can do. Those familiar with Reagan's speeches will know why.
So for those who say that America has embraced any certain ideology, I say that it has not, since ideology hasn't been on the ballot for a long time. People have embraced a man, and the philosophical debate has reached a new low.
I don't know what campaign you were watching, but I heard a lot about governing philosophy. Abundantly from the Democrats side, but also from the Republicans. Of course, they won't go into minute detail about policies on the national level; most people simply don't want to hear that. But it seems clear to me that Obama's political philosophy resonated with more people than Romney's.
ITT we confuse talking points and identity politics with PHILOSOPHY.
Jesus. You know the intellectual landscape is bleak when even hackers are willing to entertain the notion that democracy/mob rule has anything to do with philosophy, or that politicians operate in line with some sort of rational ethic other than straight forward power broking.
It's so easy to play the cynicism card that everything is pandering to mob rule, but if you listen closely many of Obama's major speeches lay out his governing philosophy. I'm a bit too lazy to dig up exact quotes, but his "you didn't build that" speech is a good example. Also parts of his victory speech just last night, and his DNC acceptance speech. It's actually kind of funny that you say he never lays out his governing philosophy, because one of his biggest criticism was that his speeches are too high level and never delve into specifics. Just goes to show that people will rationalize whatever position they already believe.
In none of the presidential debates did either man speak in depth about his governing philosophy (or the Fed for that matter). Their talking points rang loud and clear over and over, and finger-pointing abounded, but neither spoke of his core convictions. The campaign speeches were much of the same. For all of the complaints about Romney's lack of details in his economic plan, the President didn't do any better, simply offering a 'stay the course' message (he learned something from Bush).
Therefore, given this article and the lack of ideology involved in the campaigns, I conclude that the voters were not persuaded by philosophy. They were targeted by the campaign so that the powers that be could keep their power.
Looking back to the electoral college results of 1980 and 1984 shows what a strong, clear ideological message can do. Those familiar with Reagan's speeches will know why.
So for those who say that America has embraced any certain ideology, I say that it has not, since ideology hasn't been on the ballot for a long time. People have embraced a man, and the philosophical debate has reached a new low.