Thursday, May 05, 2005


Emily's List has sent me their newsletter even though I need to renew my donation to them.

According to their pollster's review of 2004 election polling, reproductive choice was not a decisive feature in the election of George W. Bush. Instead, it apears to be incumbency, Iraq/terrorism, the economy, and "personal feelings" (as opposed to impersonal sentiments) about Bush.

The pollster Mark Mellman also said "how a candidate approaches an issue is almost as important as her position on the issue" and so candidates should "explain to voters why they have come to a particular position." (Notes from Emily, March 2005, p. 4). I'm not sure what this conclusion means - it may simply circle back to the notion of "values" governing votes.

I'm not sure what meta-level analyses of polls say, either. (For manic meta-level reflections on interpretions of the election, see my archived posts from November-December 2004.)

I recall reading about a right-wing funding organization that said they got their idea for strategic targeted appeals to a network from Emily's List. Sigh. If progressives had copyrighted strategy and terminology, at least we'd make money off of the right wing.


Post a Comment

<< Home