Pundit: NASA has endorsed Mandago will that change MOAS?

[MOON Ki]

  Raila's tribe has not changed since he started running but the tribal votes he gets have changed.  In 2007 Kalenjins voted to him to a man and in 2013 they voted against him to a man. Let us stop this stupid argument and admit that the so called tribal voting cannot explain how and why 80% of Kenyans vote the way they do.

No need to be rude.   You might tempt me into being condescending.     

Now, carefully consider what you have just written: in 2007 they mostly voted for him, and in 2013 they mostly did not.     

The first significant thing to note is that you are considering them as a tribal block in both those two elections.   We may therefore say that the voting was tribal.

The second significant thing is your observation that Raila did not change between 2007 and 2013, but the way the Kalenjin voted changed dramatically.    What caused the change?   Their "our man", Ruto. 

Actually tribal voting can explain how more the 80% of Kenyans vote in any elections.  In these ones, I have a pretty good idea of how Luos, Kalenjins, Luhya, Kamba, Gusii, and GEMA will vote.   That's a good chunk of the population.   For the smaller ones, just go by which of the big ones they are "affiliated" with.       

[Kadame5]

I am Gusii and from everything I've heard, they certainly are. If anything, tribalism seems to me to be the primary reason those who reject Raila do so. There is a steadily shrinking segment of Gusiis that would never vote for a Luo come hell or high water. It is based on deeply help stereotypes that Luos are bad at business and investments (therefore cannot be trusted to manage major resources for the future), and that silliness about being uncircumcised. But like I said, from all I can tell, this is a steadily shrinking group. There are places in Gusii where you' risk violence if you went about talking s*** about Raila. I don't think the same applies for Uhuru or Jubilee anywhere.

As I have explained at length on another thread, by "tribal voting", I mean tribe being a reliable guide in any given elections.    You have given a good example---that Gusiis, as a tribe, can be counted on to mostly vote for Raila.    I'm pretty sure the same thing applies to the Kamba, although I have no idea of their stance on "issues".     Likewise, I am fairly confident of something similar with respect to Kalenjins, Meru, Embu ... and Uhuru, although, again, I have no idea of where they stand on the "issues".

You could do the same with races in the U.S., though.

People influence each other's political views and most people are influenced by the people they are related to. In Africa, these are your ethnic groups. It doesn't mean that individuals robotically make detereminations based on "this person of my tribe says this, therefore I will do it regardless if whether its true or not".

To me, you guys, both your side and Kichwa, seem to be perpetually agreeing while seeming to disagree. You all keep making the same points over and over but using different approaches.

Humans are social creatures. Belonging to a group/having a collective identity is as natural to us as desiring survival. This may be satisfied through religion or ideological groups, or even ethnicities which have organically settled over hundreds of years. Humans tend to go with the consensus of the groups they are part of. Whichever part of the planet they happen to inhabit.

Most people dont have the personality or capacity to invest tonnes of resources to research everything for themselves, so they go with consensus and established authorities. This consensus is what I see here labelled as tribalism but I see it everywhere. The whole world is tribalist if that is true.

[Nefertiti]

Kadame - the Pundit and Kichwa positions are common. They are schools of thought. Seems we have the Left and the Right on Nipate. The tribe and the issue.

[Omollo]

I still have not figured out why it is important for a vote to be labeled *tribal* or "Non Tribal".

I spent some time in Belgium and noted how different groups vote according to their collective self interests.

The Northern League in Italy is not ethnic but is brought together by values of hate, racism, affluence and the anger at having to share some of their wealth. They vote their "Northern League against, well, The South, Immigrants and everything else.

The Corsicans in France vote for Pro or anti-Independence.

The Coastal in Kenya vote against Kikuyu led governments because of their Land. They support anybody who is genuinely interested in protecting their rights. The Turkana will vote for Raila almost to a man because he is promising to give them a greater share of their own oil.

If you examine each of these groups, there is an issue or matter/ value/ LIE etc that is binding them together to vote. Even the promise of 1000 Year Uthamaki complete with a history of Conquering Kings that never existed (T. Njoya), mobilizes the Kikuyu.

In Kenya the main issue has been and remains marginalization and the feeling of exclusion. When you exclude a group it soon joins with other excluded groups to form one big group.

Thus Kenyatta inadvertently helped to craft the Coalition that removed Kibaki in 2007 and will get rid of his son in 2017. It is simple: Both Kibaki and Uhuru followed the path created by Kenyatta and ended up rekindling the coalition that Kenyatta "created" against himself.

That is why I feel the Kalenjin may at the last minute opt for NASA.

Some oxymoron stuff here:

Pundit argues that politics is tribal and everything else is immaterial. Then when asked why people should vote for Jubilee, he goes: SGR, SiGiRi Bridge ; Economy has grown at triple digit, etc.

How is fulfilling Jubilee's manifesto in any way going to assist Jubilee convince people who only care about tribe to vote for it?
 

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

As far as I am concerned, this is more about the political analyst than the people who are actually voting. Neither you or I know exactly why an individual votes the way they do unless you ask them.  You have decided that they do so because of tribe and I disagree. The only way to really know is to ask each and every individual why they voted the way the do, otherwise I do not believe that your tribal explanation is the only one nor that it is superior to mine. It only shows that we approach this issue from different perspectives and experiences.

I think it's more about the data than the analyst.  At individual level, a Luo cares about issues.  Same for a Kikuyu.  But the collective result always aligns with the tribal leaders preferences.  It has already been mentioned that if you tried to focus purely on issues without taking the tribe into account, you can't make any meaningful prediction. 

A Luo and Kikuyu neighbor in Kibra likely care about the same issues.  Yet they will vote for different people, in a predictable way, if you factor in tribe.  In fact the only insight you gain by asking them why they vote one way or another is that they conflate their interests, whatever those may be, with those of the tribal leader.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I still have not figured out why it is important for a vote to be labeled *tribal* or "Non Tribal".

I spent some time in Belgium and noted how different groups vote according to their collective self interests.

The Northern League in Italy is not ethnic but is brought together by values of hate, racism, affluence and the anger at having to share some of their wealth. They vote their "Northern League against, well, The South, Immigrants and everything else.

The Corsicans in France vote for Pro or anti-Independence.

The Coastal in Kenya vote against Kikuyu led governments because of their Land. They support anybody who is genuinely interested in protecting their rights. The Turkana will vote for Raila almost to a man because he is promising to give them a greater share of their own oil.

If you examine each of these groups, there is an issue or matter/ value/ LIE etc that is binding them together to vote. Even the promise of 1000 Year Uthamaki complete with a history of Conquering Kings that never existed (T. Njoya), mobilizes the Kikuyu.

In Kenya the main issue has been and remains marginalization and the feeling of exclusion. When you exclude a group it soon joins with other excluded groups to form one big group.

Thus Kenyatta inadvertently helped to craft the Coalition that removed Kibaki in 2007 and will get rid of his son in 2017. It is simple: Both Kibaki and Uhuru followed the path created by Kenyatta and ended up rekindling the coalition that Kenyatta "created" against himself.

That is why I feel the Kalenjin may at the last minute opt for NASA.

Some oxymoron stuff here:

Pundit argues that politics is tribal and everything else is immaterial. Then when asked why people should vote for Jubilee, he goes: SGR, SiGiRi Bridge ; Economy has grown at triple digit, etc.

How is fulfilling Jubilee's manifesto in any way going to assist Jubilee convince people who only care about tribe to vote for it?
 

It's the most important predictor of an election at the national stage in Kenya.  If you are planning on jumping into the fray, you have to factor it in your plans.  You will either make a plan that can destroy it as a factor, or one that will ride it.

[MOON Ki]

It's the most important predictor of an election at the national stage in Kenya.  If you are planning on jumping into the fray, you have to factor it in your plans.  You will either make a plan that can destroy it as a factor, or one that will ride it.

Not possible in today's Kenya, which is why a Maasai, for example,  would be a non-starter as a presidential candidate.     To be a viable candidate in Kenya, one has to first come from a big tribe; that automatically corners the votes of his tribal sheeple and the sheeple of some small "affiliate" tribes.  Next, one has to bring in at least one other big tribe ... same deal with the tribal sheeple.    Kalonzo, for example, is a wishy-washy  flake, yet he is now looking at the prospects of the VP's position, from the very people be let down earlier to get that position.  How is that possible?   Strictly, Kalonzo himself doesn't matter: his views on the issues, his past performance, etc. are irrelevant; what matters is that he brings plenty of sheeple.   In 2013 Mudavadi knifed his friends in the back at the very last minute, but there he is today ... happily doing the Chubby Boogie on their stages and eyeing something big in government.   Explanation?

Elsewhere on this thread comments have been made about Obama's run; in Kenya, Obama would be the Maasai guy.       

Omollo writes that:

That is why I feel the Kalenjin may at the last minute opt for NASA.

To my mind, that's fantasy.   But we'll find out soon enough.

[vooke]

As far as I am concerned, this is more about the political analyst than the people who are actually voting. Neither you or I know exactly why an individual votes the way they do unless you ask them.  You have decided that they do so because of tribe and I disagree. The only way to really know is to ask each and every individual why they voted the way the do, otherwise I do not believe that your tribal explanation is the only one nor that it is superior to mine. It only shows that we approach this issue from different perspectives and experiences.

Moon Ki- I will give you luos and Kikuyus for the sake of argument. But explain to me what is so tribal about Kisii's voting for Raila or Somali's voting for Ouru?

Do you think Kisiis are likely to vote for Raile and Somalis to vote for Uhuru?

You're right unless every individual gave an honest opinion for their choices, you would be guessing.

But after they make that decision, you can work backwards analyzing their choices and end up with Tribe instead of some unseen, ambiguous factor called 'issues'.

Right now, you have no idea why Kiambu will vote Uhunye to man and not Raila. What issue compels them? Is it that Raila can't communicate to them adequately how he will resolve their issues? Or is Uhunye offering the best solutions to their issues?

I think before you run away from the known, you must have sufficient proof that it is a weak predictor. So far you haven't

[Kadame5]

Mudavadi knifed his friends in the back at the very last minute, but there he is today ... happily doing the Chubby Boogie on their stages and eyeing something big in government. 

We have a tweet of the day, can we have a quote of the week??

[Kichwa]

Dr. Ndii had a problems explaining in one of his interviews why you cannot focus too much on individuals.  Let us go back to the 2nd liberation or even to the 1st liberation for that matter, many bad dudes who opposed the  movements earlier came aboard at the end and some people complained, but the most important thing was not the individuals but the achievements.  Folks like Kibaki who made the "mugumo tree" analogy ended up advancing the cause of multi-party to a certain extent.  We have folks who opposed devolution and the new Katiba initially and ended up being their biggest proponents today.  Right now we have folks joining NASA who were corrupt but so long as the mechanisms to fight or reduce corruption are put in place, the individuals really do not matter. Ms. Kiguta asked Dr. Ndii about the corrupt people in NASA but when Dr. Ndii was trying to explain this to Ms. Kiguta, she was too busy raising her eyebrows.

Mudavadi knifed his friends in the back at the very last minute, but there he is today ... happily doing the Chubby Boogie on their stages and eyeing something big in government. 

We have a tweet of the day, can we have a quote of the week??