Last night was an historic election to be sure. Rather than give my thoughts about what happened, I thought it best to ask my students to reflect carefully on what November 4th, 2008 meant to them. I asked them to watch both Barack Obama's victory speech in Grant Park, and John McCain's concession in Phoenix, and then carefully reflect upon the last 20 months of campaigning. Attached to this, in comment form, are their thoughts. After they have their say, I'll try to add some of my own reactions.
Now, without further ado, the students who were part of that 18 percent.
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Reverse Bradley Effect and Undecided Voters
Charles Franklin, who taught me statistics at the University of Wisconsin, has a great post addressing the so-called Bradley Effect and undecided voters. Read it here.
Franklin uses empirical data to suggest that the Bradley Effect, if it exists at all, will have a marginal effect in the aggregate. Second, he notes that it appears that undecided voters will break evenly for McCain and Obama.
There's been much speculation about both of these issues. Franklin's analysis actually looks at data to answer the question and is a great example of fine social science.
On the question of undecided voters, I've heard the following:
a) Undecided voters are likely to break for McCain, who is the known quantity.
b) Undecided voters are likely to break for Obama, because they want change.
c) Undecided voters are likely to not vote.
So, which is it?
Context matters in figuring out undecided voters. In the case of a presidential election, voters have enormous amounts of information available to them about both candidates. In this instance, it is hard to see--especially given the amount of money the Obama campaign has spent and McCain's long presence on the national scene--that an undecided voter does not have enough information to make a decision about Obama or McCain.
This is different from your run of the mill congressional election. For example, a congressional election generally features lots of information about the incumbent and relatively little about the challenger. Undecideds, in this situation, are likely to break for who they know best ABSENT mitigating factors. If, however, national events and the challenger's campaign have raised enough questions sufficient to put doubts in the minds of the voter about the incumbent, it is more likely that undecided voters will break for the challenger to express those doubts and concerns.
Undecided voters in a high information contest without an incumbent such as this year's presidential race are likely cross-pressured voters, to use the classic term from one of the earliest studies on voting behavior (Berelson et al 1954). In short, there are issues that pull them in both directions simultaneously. A good example might be a voter who is concerned about the economy and national security. Economically, perhaps they like Obama's plans better, but McCain's experience on defense matters pulls them in the opposite direction.
Franklin's data suggests that undecided voters will split their vote on Election Day between the two candidates. That is probably the case. But also important to remember is those who are cross-pressured face a difficult decision which is cognitively unpleasant. A portion of those voters are just as likely to stay at home than make the difficult choice.
To summarize, I do not anticipate McCain picking up undecideds by two to one, as his campaign suggests. If he does, then he's got a shot on Tuesday.
Franklin uses empirical data to suggest that the Bradley Effect, if it exists at all, will have a marginal effect in the aggregate. Second, he notes that it appears that undecided voters will break evenly for McCain and Obama.
There's been much speculation about both of these issues. Franklin's analysis actually looks at data to answer the question and is a great example of fine social science.
On the question of undecided voters, I've heard the following:
a) Undecided voters are likely to break for McCain, who is the known quantity.
b) Undecided voters are likely to break for Obama, because they want change.
c) Undecided voters are likely to not vote.
So, which is it?
Context matters in figuring out undecided voters. In the case of a presidential election, voters have enormous amounts of information available to them about both candidates. In this instance, it is hard to see--especially given the amount of money the Obama campaign has spent and McCain's long presence on the national scene--that an undecided voter does not have enough information to make a decision about Obama or McCain.
This is different from your run of the mill congressional election. For example, a congressional election generally features lots of information about the incumbent and relatively little about the challenger. Undecideds, in this situation, are likely to break for who they know best ABSENT mitigating factors. If, however, national events and the challenger's campaign have raised enough questions sufficient to put doubts in the minds of the voter about the incumbent, it is more likely that undecided voters will break for the challenger to express those doubts and concerns.
Undecided voters in a high information contest without an incumbent such as this year's presidential race are likely cross-pressured voters, to use the classic term from one of the earliest studies on voting behavior (Berelson et al 1954). In short, there are issues that pull them in both directions simultaneously. A good example might be a voter who is concerned about the economy and national security. Economically, perhaps they like Obama's plans better, but McCain's experience on defense matters pulls them in the opposite direction.
Franklin's data suggests that undecided voters will split their vote on Election Day between the two candidates. That is probably the case. But also important to remember is those who are cross-pressured face a difficult decision which is cognitively unpleasant. A portion of those voters are just as likely to stay at home than make the difficult choice.
To summarize, I do not anticipate McCain picking up undecideds by two to one, as his campaign suggests. If he does, then he's got a shot on Tuesday.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
You're not voting for McCain or Obama, technically
A few weeks ago, I was sitting in my office doing some work and I got a phone call from what I thought was a reporter. The person on the other end of the line asked me if it's true that we don't really vote for the candidates listed on the ballot. I replied that was correct. Technically, when we cast our ballots in the presidential election, we vote for electors that are pledged to that candidate.
The voice on the other end of the line asked me, "Well, then how do we know that they will vote for the person they are pledged to?"
My response: you don't, and that's the point. The Electoral College was set up as one last check against majority tyranny by the Founding Fathers. When we cast our ballots, we actually cast our ballots for a slate of electors who then cast their ballots for their presidential choice. And they can choose to express themselves however they wish, regardless of their individual pledge to a candidate. Each elector represents one of the state's electoral college votes. In Montana, then, we have three electors that will cast their ballots in December for president. Who wins the popular vote in the state will have the three electors pledged to them cast Montana's electoral votes. This vote total is received by the Secretary of the Senate and that becomes the official election tally.
In case you were wondering, here are the electors pledged to McCain and Obama:
1. Thelma Baker
2. Errol Gault
3. John Brenden
1. Chas Jankier
2. Ann Milbrooke
3. Greg Jerguson
The likelihood of an elector NOT casting their ballot for the candidate to whom they are pledged is quite rare. First, the electors are generally good party members and friends of the candidate. Second, some states have laws that require electors to cast their ballots for the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state (of course, I think these laws are constitutionally dubious but, to my knowledge, they've never been challenged). Montana is one of these states. This suggests, of course, that the check on majority tyranny is no longer a check but a simply constitutional formality ratifying the will of the people.
The last time an elector did not cast their ballot as pledged was in 1976 when one of Gerald Ford's electors cast his ballot for Ronald Reagan.
By the way, the person who called me was not a journalist but a chef. He and his colleagues were simply discussing this while preparing for the lunch crowd, and wanted to know who Montana's electors were.
The voice on the other end of the line asked me, "Well, then how do we know that they will vote for the person they are pledged to?"
My response: you don't, and that's the point. The Electoral College was set up as one last check against majority tyranny by the Founding Fathers. When we cast our ballots, we actually cast our ballots for a slate of electors who then cast their ballots for their presidential choice. And they can choose to express themselves however they wish, regardless of their individual pledge to a candidate. Each elector represents one of the state's electoral college votes. In Montana, then, we have three electors that will cast their ballots in December for president. Who wins the popular vote in the state will have the three electors pledged to them cast Montana's electoral votes. This vote total is received by the Secretary of the Senate and that becomes the official election tally.
In case you were wondering, here are the electors pledged to McCain and Obama:
1. Thelma Baker
2. Errol Gault
3. John Brenden
1. Chas Jankier
2. Ann Milbrooke
3. Greg Jerguson
The likelihood of an elector NOT casting their ballot for the candidate to whom they are pledged is quite rare. First, the electors are generally good party members and friends of the candidate. Second, some states have laws that require electors to cast their ballots for the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state (of course, I think these laws are constitutionally dubious but, to my knowledge, they've never been challenged). Montana is one of these states. This suggests, of course, that the check on majority tyranny is no longer a check but a simply constitutional formality ratifying the will of the people.
The last time an elector did not cast their ballot as pledged was in 1976 when one of Gerald Ford's electors cast his ballot for Ronald Reagan.
By the way, the person who called me was not a journalist but a chef. He and his colleagues were simply discussing this while preparing for the lunch crowd, and wanted to know who Montana's electors were.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Presidential Debate, Part Deux
No debate party tonight, unfortunately. Here are some quick thoughts about the debate from my notes:
1. Obama had answers which elicited, more consistently, positive responses from the CNN focus group. In particular, he seemed to do well among women in the focus group.
2. McCain is much better at navigating the Town Hall format, physically. But Obama did a better job directly answering the questions.
3. Not much new. McCain's home mortgage policy plan was interesting, and might get him a bit back in the economic game. I do find it interesting, though, that everyone is so surprised that there ISN'T much new. To some extent, there shouldn't be. Messages should be well honed and repeated for people to get it. The reason why candidates buy SO many TV ads is it takes repeating a message several times before it sinks in. Teachers and advertisers know this. Journalists should, too.
4. The question I was most interested in was the sacrifice question. Good leaders steer Americans in a particular direction, and the best presidents ask for sacrifices in time of need. Obama's answer was better in this regard, while McCain went to his standard earmark answer. Obama talked about creating an ability to serve in a variety of capacities. He noted that young people hunger to make this country better, and he would provide the opportunities for them to do that. McCain, the person who found himself in service to his country, should have nailed this question. How each answered this question, I felt, said a lot about what they will expect of us. Obama got it right, McCain missed an opportunity.
5. McCain's answer on Russia was great. Balanced, carefully crafted, and smart.
6. Obama attacked McCain's healthcare plan by suggesting that insurance companies will move to the state with the fewest regulations and restrictions. This is the old race to the bottom versus the race to the top argument I talk about when we discuss federalism in my introductory classes. The problem is there is evidence for a race to the top and the bottom. California, in establishing state emissions standards, has effectively created higher national standards because it isn't cost effective for Detroit to make cars only to meet California's standards. So, I didn't buy Obama's argument here.
7.Obama's answer on healthcare, being a right, was great because it told the personal story of his mother--and it strikes a chord with other Americans who had to battle insurance companies instead of battling their illnesses.
8. Can I just say that I really don't like town hall style debates?
Who won? Obama did well in the town hall format, which is McCain's domain. I think both did well, but the edge goes to Obama.
1. Obama had answers which elicited, more consistently, positive responses from the CNN focus group. In particular, he seemed to do well among women in the focus group.
2. McCain is much better at navigating the Town Hall format, physically. But Obama did a better job directly answering the questions.
3. Not much new. McCain's home mortgage policy plan was interesting, and might get him a bit back in the economic game. I do find it interesting, though, that everyone is so surprised that there ISN'T much new. To some extent, there shouldn't be. Messages should be well honed and repeated for people to get it. The reason why candidates buy SO many TV ads is it takes repeating a message several times before it sinks in. Teachers and advertisers know this. Journalists should, too.
4. The question I was most interested in was the sacrifice question. Good leaders steer Americans in a particular direction, and the best presidents ask for sacrifices in time of need. Obama's answer was better in this regard, while McCain went to his standard earmark answer. Obama talked about creating an ability to serve in a variety of capacities. He noted that young people hunger to make this country better, and he would provide the opportunities for them to do that. McCain, the person who found himself in service to his country, should have nailed this question. How each answered this question, I felt, said a lot about what they will expect of us. Obama got it right, McCain missed an opportunity.
5. McCain's answer on Russia was great. Balanced, carefully crafted, and smart.
6. Obama attacked McCain's healthcare plan by suggesting that insurance companies will move to the state with the fewest regulations and restrictions. This is the old race to the bottom versus the race to the top argument I talk about when we discuss federalism in my introductory classes. The problem is there is evidence for a race to the top and the bottom. California, in establishing state emissions standards, has effectively created higher national standards because it isn't cost effective for Detroit to make cars only to meet California's standards. So, I didn't buy Obama's argument here.
7.Obama's answer on healthcare, being a right, was great because it told the personal story of his mother--and it strikes a chord with other Americans who had to battle insurance companies instead of battling their illnesses.
8. Can I just say that I really don't like town hall style debates?
Who won? Obama did well in the town hall format, which is McCain's domain. I think both did well, but the edge goes to Obama.
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Presidential Debates: Watch'm
The first presidential debate, on the campus of Ole Miss, will be held this Friday at 6PM MDT. Given that the political conventions this year drew the largest television audience in history, I suspect these events will be well-watched and will help many voters make up their minds.
To put the debates in perspective, here's a link to a great website with resources for all the past presidential debates.
The first televised presidential debate was in 1960 between JFK and Richard Nixon. Interestingly, people who heard the debate on the radio felt Nixon had won and those who watched the debates thought Kennedy had. The television audience was larger, and when you watch footage of the debate, it is easy to see why Kennedy was perceived as the victor: he looked confident, tanned, and attractive. Nixon, with his shifting eyes and four o'clock shadow showing through without the benefit of makeup, confirmed the suspicions many had of him. Fair or not, the image of JFK may have made the difference in one of America's closest presidential elections.
The key goal in a presidential debate is to at least meet expectations and not make any mistakes. Ford's claim that the Soviet Union did not dominate Poland probably hurt him in 1976. Reagan's performance in 1980 demonstrated that he wasn't the reactionary nut the Carter administration tried to paint him as, and George HW Bush's looking at his watch in 1992 during the town hall debate fed into the perception that he didn't understand the average person. And who can forget the first presidential debate in 2000: Al Gore's sighing, and Bush's inability to project confidence and policy knowledge.
Here's what I will be looking for on Friday:
Can McCain project energy to overcome the Obama's youthful image?
How will Obama deal with McCain's attacks?
Will McCain keep his temper in check?
Can Obama actually take the gloves off without coming off as mean (remember his snide remark to Hillary, "You're likeable enough?")
Can Obama articulate a vision of America and project an understanding of the average citizen?
Can McCain blunt Obama's advantage on the economy?
And, most importantly:
How many times will Obama mention the "McCain-Bush" team? And how many times will McCain mention Bush in return?
To put the debates in perspective, here's a link to a great website with resources for all the past presidential debates.
The first televised presidential debate was in 1960 between JFK and Richard Nixon. Interestingly, people who heard the debate on the radio felt Nixon had won and those who watched the debates thought Kennedy had. The television audience was larger, and when you watch footage of the debate, it is easy to see why Kennedy was perceived as the victor: he looked confident, tanned, and attractive. Nixon, with his shifting eyes and four o'clock shadow showing through without the benefit of makeup, confirmed the suspicions many had of him. Fair or not, the image of JFK may have made the difference in one of America's closest presidential elections.
The key goal in a presidential debate is to at least meet expectations and not make any mistakes. Ford's claim that the Soviet Union did not dominate Poland probably hurt him in 1976. Reagan's performance in 1980 demonstrated that he wasn't the reactionary nut the Carter administration tried to paint him as, and George HW Bush's looking at his watch in 1992 during the town hall debate fed into the perception that he didn't understand the average person. And who can forget the first presidential debate in 2000: Al Gore's sighing, and Bush's inability to project confidence and policy knowledge.
Here's what I will be looking for on Friday:
Can McCain project energy to overcome the Obama's youthful image?
How will Obama deal with McCain's attacks?
Will McCain keep his temper in check?
Can Obama actually take the gloves off without coming off as mean (remember his snide remark to Hillary, "You're likeable enough?")
Can Obama articulate a vision of America and project an understanding of the average citizen?
Can McCain blunt Obama's advantage on the economy?
And, most importantly:
How many times will Obama mention the "McCain-Bush" team? And how many times will McCain mention Bush in return?
Friday, September 5, 2008
Who's the maverick?
Obama says he will bring change and a new nonpartisanship to Washington. McCain says he's the original maverick, and has the experience to prove it. Biden says McCain voted with President Bush 95% of the time; he's no maverick. The Republicans say Barack has no record of acting bipartisan in Washington.
Who's right?
The problem with cherry-picking data is it feeds into the old adage that students so often like to cite: "You can make statistics say anything."
Biden's statistics are correct: in 2007, John McCain supported President Bush 95% when the president announced a stand on a Senate roll call vote. This is according to the presidential support scores calculated by Congressional Quarterly annually, and used by political scientists who study both institutions. Unfortunately, this does not necessary answer the question of whether McCain is a maverick or not. Some media accounts report that there were a lot of immigration votes that year. It just so happened that Bush and McCain agreed on immigration: the problem was, the rest of the party left them hanging dry. Presidential support scores are problematic because they take a small subset of Senate roll call votes and don't give a good sense of whether someone is willing to buck the party.
Instead, I recommend looking at the party unity score--also calculated by Congressional Quarterly. This score is defined as the percentage of the time the member of Congress voted with their party when 50 percent of the party voted one way and 50 percent of the other party voted the other way (or vice versa).
For example, a party unity vote has to have at least half the Republicans voting nay on an issue and half the Democrats voting yea to be considered in the analysis. This eliminates procedural votes and commemorative legislation that often passes with overwhelming partisan majorities. This gives us a better look at who is willing to buck the party on a number of issues, whether the president takes a stand or not.
Here's a chart of McCain's Party Unity Averages by Congressional session, beginning with the 100th Senate and ending with the 109th. Next to McCain's score, you'll see the Republican Senate average for that session:
Congress McCain GOP Average
100 88 77
101 84 78
102 88 83
103 91 84
104 91 91
105 84 87
106 87 90
107 71 86
108 84 92
109 81 89
Like many members of Congress, McCain voted more often with the party early his career began to become more independent the longer he served. Indeed, we begin to see this drift during the 105th Congress (1997-1998). Three times, McCain's party unity average is almost a full standard deviation below the Republican mean: in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses.
McCain is no Ralph Hall (who exhibited party unity scores in the 20s and 30s as a Democratic Representative from Texas in the House. He later switched parties and became a Republican). But he's clearly NOT the party unity poster boy Biden's comments make him out to be.
Now, what about Obama? Well, I only have data from the 109th Congress available to me. The Democratic party unity average in that session was 89 percent. Senator Obama's average was 96 percent. This suggests there is some truth to McCain's claim that he has the record of a maverick and Obama does not. Even Obama's running mate rated a 90 percent in the 109th Congress.
Now whether you knew McCain was a maverick from last night's speech, that's a different story.
Next time, I hope to do an analysis of pre-VP nomination experience to evaluate the claim that Palin has precious little experience compared to other past nominees.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Sarah Palin: An interesting choice
The reactions to McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his VP nominee break into two camps:
The Democratic Camp: She's less experienced that Obama, and she's a hard core conservative that won't attract women.
The Republican Camp: She's a solid conservative that excites the base, and has the reformist credentials to out change Obama (and hence, will attract independents). And she'll attract disaffected woman upset with Obama's perceived slight of Hillary because he didn't even vet her for the VP slot.
Today's Washington Post had a number of pundits from both sides weighing in on Palin's nomination. Democratic pollster and author Douglas E. Schoen wrote the following: "An ardently pro-life, anti-gay rights woman is unlikely to appeal to whatever is left of Hillary Clinton's heretofore disaffected constituency after the Democrats' show of unity this week."
Schoen would be right on, but that's not the constituency McCain is trying to reach with Palin. Last year, in the months before the Iowa caucus, I read that Hillary Clinton's campaign was particularly focused on older women--especially those who were over the age of 65. The hope was, as it was expressed in several news outlets, that these women--who do NOT normally participate in the caucus process or vote Democratic in that process--might be convinced with the historic nature of the Clinton campaign to participate in the hopes of seeing the ultimate glass ceiling broken.
Well, those women were activated and many of them were activated for the sole purpose of voting for a woman on the national ticket. These newly activated woman are the ones that McCain hopes to reach with Palin. And these are EXACTLY the types for whom Palin's conservative record matters little. They already express skepticism with Obama, and perhaps the addition of Palin to the GOP ticket might convince them to vote for McCain this fall. I tend to believe that Palin, assuming she doesn't pull a Dan Quayle, can be just the game changer that McCain needs.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Party Conventions Matter
I read a piece the other day that lamented the arrival of 15,000 journalists in Denver to cover the Democratic convention.
Why did 15,000 journalists need to cover an uninteresting event? The nomination was settled, so why report on it at all? And, as a voter, why pay attention when nothing was happening?
I was troubled by this report because it assumed that the only reason conventions exist at all, is to decide the party's general election nominee. This is most certainly not true.
Yes, party conventions today simply ratify the decision made by primary and caucus voters many months ago. The excitement swirling around who might be the nominee, whether a dark horse might emerge, and party bosses pledging their state delegation's vote en masse are long gone. The death knell rang with the arrival of the primary election and the change in Democratic convention nominating rules away from the 2/3rds rule in the 1930s.
But the nomination of presidential candidate is one role of the party convention. There are plenty of other things conventions do and these things are worth observing.
First, conventions serve to bring the party together under one tent and banner, to prepare for the general election canvass in the fall. Old wounds are healed and activists are reinvigorated for the fall. We saw Hillary and Bill Clinton attempt to bring their supporters under the Barack Obama tent in Denver earlier this week.
Second, they allow political parties to stake out their issue agenda for the fall election. Conventions allow them to set the terms of the debate and what the party's stance is going into the election. Parties are responsible: they develop and adhere to a set of principles. Where are those principles articulated? At the convention.
Third, they excite the activist base. Monday night at the Democratic convention was all about getting the activists excited for the hard work ahead. Monday night was about the party's history, and a tribute to its past titans.
Fourth, they allow politicians from different parts of the country to introduce themselves to a national audience. Barack Obama certainly benefited from his speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. And our own Governor Schweitzer might benefit in the future from his rousing convention speech this year.
Finally, they are about defining the opponent. The Democratic Convention said very clearly how they want to define John McCain: More of the same.
In closing, conventions are important to the election campaign even if the nominee isn't in doubt. I urge you to tune in now, if you haven't already.
Why did 15,000 journalists need to cover an uninteresting event? The nomination was settled, so why report on it at all? And, as a voter, why pay attention when nothing was happening?
I was troubled by this report because it assumed that the only reason conventions exist at all, is to decide the party's general election nominee. This is most certainly not true.
Yes, party conventions today simply ratify the decision made by primary and caucus voters many months ago. The excitement swirling around who might be the nominee, whether a dark horse might emerge, and party bosses pledging their state delegation's vote en masse are long gone. The death knell rang with the arrival of the primary election and the change in Democratic convention nominating rules away from the 2/3rds rule in the 1930s.
But the nomination of presidential candidate is one role of the party convention. There are plenty of other things conventions do and these things are worth observing.
First, conventions serve to bring the party together under one tent and banner, to prepare for the general election canvass in the fall. Old wounds are healed and activists are reinvigorated for the fall. We saw Hillary and Bill Clinton attempt to bring their supporters under the Barack Obama tent in Denver earlier this week.
Second, they allow political parties to stake out their issue agenda for the fall election. Conventions allow them to set the terms of the debate and what the party's stance is going into the election. Parties are responsible: they develop and adhere to a set of principles. Where are those principles articulated? At the convention.
Third, they excite the activist base. Monday night at the Democratic convention was all about getting the activists excited for the hard work ahead. Monday night was about the party's history, and a tribute to its past titans.
Fourth, they allow politicians from different parts of the country to introduce themselves to a national audience. Barack Obama certainly benefited from his speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. And our own Governor Schweitzer might benefit in the future from his rousing convention speech this year.
Finally, they are about defining the opponent. The Democratic Convention said very clearly how they want to define John McCain: More of the same.
In closing, conventions are important to the election campaign even if the nominee isn't in doubt. I urge you to tune in now, if you haven't already.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
National polls: Ignore them
I'm blogging from the great state of Alaska today. I've been doing research on Mike Gravel, one of the case studies for my next book. Very interesting subject about which I will have more to say at a later date.
A couple of national polls came out today showing McCain in the lead. See the story here.
I want to caution you. National polls are not terribly useful in an election contest decided by the electoral college. In other words, it's the state by state polls that really matter, not the popular vote total nationally. More troubling for Obama are not national polls, but the Real Clear Politics State average of state polls that shows McCain inching ahead in the Electoral Vote Count. That's a better indicator of where the race is and the challenges both candidates face.
But, again, it is so very early in the game right now. What really matters is how both candidates perform at the convention, who they choose for running mates, and where the election stands in each state after the Republican Convention. That's when much of the electorate will begin to tune in and pay attention.
A couple of national polls came out today showing McCain in the lead. See the story here.
I want to caution you. National polls are not terribly useful in an election contest decided by the electoral college. In other words, it's the state by state polls that really matter, not the popular vote total nationally. More troubling for Obama are not national polls, but the Real Clear Politics State average of state polls that shows McCain inching ahead in the Electoral Vote Count. That's a better indicator of where the race is and the challenges both candidates face.
But, again, it is so very early in the game right now. What really matters is how both candidates perform at the convention, who they choose for running mates, and where the election stands in each state after the Republican Convention. That's when much of the electorate will begin to tune in and pay attention.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Drinking too much of the Kool-Aid
There's been a lot of attention in the last 24 hours to the issue of race in the presidential race. Obama has suggested that Republicans will attack him because he's black, and McCain has angerily rebutted that Barack is the one who is injecting race into this campaign.
I'm not terribly interested in this dialogue. I'm more interested in how McCain and Barack are trying to establish their biographical bonafides, to make the case that they can be the leader America needs.
Obama's campaign has been of the classic outsider variety: Washington is broken, and I am the one who can fix it. At times, his campaign has been inspirational and lofty. Of late, however, one gets the feeling that perhaps Obama is a bit overly impressed with himself.
McCain, on the other hand, began his general election campaign re-introduction with an ad highlighting his experience as a POW in Vietnam. Combined with an Internet ad release showing clips of Churchill and TR, the message was clear: he's a person of strong character and will, and hence, he has the capacity to be a strong leader. But one wonders if this is an advantage in today's political environment.
Both campaigns are centered on the question of leadership, but both are approaching the question from very different angles. Which dialogue will win is anyone's guess, but this election feels very much like 1976. Voters were disgusted with corruption and scandal, and wanted a fresh, honest face. That face, of course, was one-term Governor Jimmy Carter. Obama is this year's Jimmy Carter.
McCain's biography is his weakest and strongest suit. Voters are eager for change, and they've experienced a President who was certain that he was right. As Bush himself put it, "You may not agree with me, but at least you know where I stand." In this sense, McCain's inflexibility (an asset at other times) might actually hurt him come November.
McCain and his staff, of course, are worried that Obama's change argument will win the day. McCain's campaign has chosen to attack Obama's perceived strength--as an agent of change--by suggesting he's not experienced enough to do the changing. This is the classic response to an outsider challenge: sow the seeds of doubt among voters. But McCain's response is different from past attempts. Look here:
The McCain folks are lambasting Obama, ridiculing him. This is a stronger attack than the one Bush Senior made against Bill Clinton (essentially calling him a two-bit Governor of a two-bit state). This ad, along with the celeb ad, make us question Obama's sincerity and whether there is any "there there", so to speak. One might say that McCain is taking from Hillary's playbook: It's 3AM, do you want this guy answering the phone? Or, do we want someone else in the White House who doesn't have any doubts--just like W?
Doubts remain about Obama among voters. They should. He's less known than McCain--and there's a lot of time left to update one's priors and make a more informed decision about him. McCain is hoping that in voting for change, voters vote for experienced change. It's a risky gamble, but to win in November, McCain will have to take some risks in this political atmosphere that's becoming more and more toxic for Republicans.
I'm not terribly interested in this dialogue. I'm more interested in how McCain and Barack are trying to establish their biographical bonafides, to make the case that they can be the leader America needs.
Obama's campaign has been of the classic outsider variety: Washington is broken, and I am the one who can fix it. At times, his campaign has been inspirational and lofty. Of late, however, one gets the feeling that perhaps Obama is a bit overly impressed with himself.
McCain, on the other hand, began his general election campaign re-introduction with an ad highlighting his experience as a POW in Vietnam. Combined with an Internet ad release showing clips of Churchill and TR, the message was clear: he's a person of strong character and will, and hence, he has the capacity to be a strong leader. But one wonders if this is an advantage in today's political environment.
Both campaigns are centered on the question of leadership, but both are approaching the question from very different angles. Which dialogue will win is anyone's guess, but this election feels very much like 1976. Voters were disgusted with corruption and scandal, and wanted a fresh, honest face. That face, of course, was one-term Governor Jimmy Carter. Obama is this year's Jimmy Carter.
McCain's biography is his weakest and strongest suit. Voters are eager for change, and they've experienced a President who was certain that he was right. As Bush himself put it, "You may not agree with me, but at least you know where I stand." In this sense, McCain's inflexibility (an asset at other times) might actually hurt him come November.
McCain and his staff, of course, are worried that Obama's change argument will win the day. McCain's campaign has chosen to attack Obama's perceived strength--as an agent of change--by suggesting he's not experienced enough to do the changing. This is the classic response to an outsider challenge: sow the seeds of doubt among voters. But McCain's response is different from past attempts. Look here:
The McCain folks are lambasting Obama, ridiculing him. This is a stronger attack than the one Bush Senior made against Bill Clinton (essentially calling him a two-bit Governor of a two-bit state). This ad, along with the celeb ad, make us question Obama's sincerity and whether there is any "there there", so to speak. One might say that McCain is taking from Hillary's playbook: It's 3AM, do you want this guy answering the phone? Or, do we want someone else in the White House who doesn't have any doubts--just like W?
Doubts remain about Obama among voters. They should. He's less known than McCain--and there's a lot of time left to update one's priors and make a more informed decision about him. McCain is hoping that in voting for change, voters vote for experienced change. It's a risky gamble, but to win in November, McCain will have to take some risks in this political atmosphere that's becoming more and more toxic for Republicans.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Flip Flopping: When is a flip a flop?
John McCain, a self-proclaimed Republican maverick, has long been known as a deficit hawk. He has attacked pork barrel spending with glee, in part to emphasize the need to spend carefully and balance the budget.
It was in part a desire to balance the budget that led to his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, as they were not offset with sufficient program cuts.
Now, he's running for president, and he supports extending the tax cuts permanently.
Barack Obama won the primary, in part, on his opposition to the Iraq War. Now, he's willing to weigh his options after travelling to the war zone later this week.
Both have been tagged by the media, and each other, as flip floppers. Certainly, a characteristic that people admire in politicians and leaders is fortitude and a clear sense of purpose. Flip flopping is seen as opportunistic. For example, Hillary Clinton received a lot of flak for calling for a gas holiday--a stance which seemed out of place with her emphasis on green jobs and the environment. And can one forgot John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it?" How come Hillary couldn't get a way with a flop, when others--such as Ronald Reagan (the avowed tax cutter who raised taxes)--can? And when should we judge a flip-flop truly a flop and problematic?
There are no hard and fast rules about flip flopping. Sometimes, the answer lies in the salience of the issue. Flip-flopping is easy when the issue isn't on the radar screen or considered to be very important to voters. Sometimes, politicans can flip flop because their credentials are so solid that they can't be suspect (Ronald Reagan's years of espousing tax cuts and smaller government). It is harder when the issue is important among voters, or if the issue cuts at the core of the politician's individual brand name.
McCain has not flopped on Iraq, but has on taxes and on the environment (see off-shore drilling). Interestingly, his firm stance on Iraq and the surge may have proven correct, but it is also an issue on which the public is firmly against him. In this instance, McCain might be hurt by his unwillingness to flip-flop, especially given Bush's general intransigence is no longer seen as a strength among the public.
Barack's flip-flop, on the other hand, may not hurt him at all. A willingness to reassess the situation on the ground when new facts present themselves is a mini-flip flop, and doesn't really undermine his anti-war credentials.
McCain's flip flops, particularly on taxes, strikes at the core of who he is. It might shore up his support among his political base, but strikes others (independents and Democrats) as the political opportunism that Hillary displayed in support of the gas tax holiday (which McCain also supports). Furthermore, his unwillingess to move on Iraq hurts his maverick brand, as he appears to simply want to continue the Bush administration's policy.
McCain's key strength is his military experience and his willingness to talk straight. Whenever he flip-flops, he undermines that brand. Obama's brand is change. As such, flip flopping is less of a problem--unless Obama's flops make his look less like change and more like the same. In keeping an open mind about Iraq, one might argue Obama's position is consistent with change as the administration and McCain has been less willing to do the same.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
How much for a gallon of milk...gas...OJ?
When I worked on a presidential campaign, one of my duties was to put together a memo for the candidate whenever he came to the state. The memo would include the price of a gallon of milk, bread, and a gallon of gas. Why did my candidate need this information? Because if he didn't know the price of these things when asked by the media, he'd be accused of being "out of touch" with the concerns of average Americans.
Well, it's begun again in this political season:
Symbolism is powerful in politics: Gerald Ford munching into a tamale without taking off the husk, George HW Bush in awe of a grocer scanner, Mike Dukakis in the tank. But, let's be real here: wouldn't you rather have your candidate concerned with knowing what's going in Iraq or Afghanistan than whether they pump their own gas?
Well, it's begun again in this political season:
Symbolism is powerful in politics: Gerald Ford munching into a tamale without taking off the husk, George HW Bush in awe of a grocer scanner, Mike Dukakis in the tank. But, let's be real here: wouldn't you rather have your candidate concerned with knowing what's going in Iraq or Afghanistan than whether they pump their own gas?
Friday, June 27, 2008
Ike and Mac; Korea and Iraq
In 1952, the country was deeply entrenched in an unpopular war across the globe. Opponents of the Korean War called it, "Mr. Truman's War". The country wasn't in the best shape economically, either. Steel strikes threatened production, and Truman took an expansive view of executive powers to seize the mills to keep them in production, fearful that if they shut down, the troops wouldn't have the materials to fight the war.
Does this sound familiar? 2008 is similar--economic troubles, an unpopular war, and an administration that has sunk to near historic lows in Gallup approval ratings. Both in 1952 and in 2008, an unpopular incumbent was leaving the White House, and the party's nominee had to deal with the fallout. The only difference is the unpopular administration in 1952 was Democratic, today it is Republican.
Despite a wide-advantage in party identification, Eisenhower was able to beat Adlai Stevenson in 1952. How? In part, Eisenhower was enormously popular personally, as he lead the Allied forces in defeating the Germans in Europe. And, his background as a general provided him with an advantage over Stevenson: he could credibly claim that he would go to Korea personally and end the war.
If McCain wants to seriously contend in the fall, perhaps it is time for his own Ike moment. Iraq may have receded as a problem in the minds of voters, but Iraq is intimately tied to the economic concerns that are at the forefront of the campaign. Instead of saying we need to stay in Iraq, McCain needs to say he has the experience, the ability, and will to go to Iraq and get us out of the quagmire. At the very least, it might help him neutralize the advantage Obama has on this issue. While Obama can rightly say he was against the whole episode from the start, it is less clear that voters are willing trust that he has the experience necessary to produce a favorable outcome. McCain's claim has the potential--by the dint of his experience--to be viewed credibly by the voters.
Does this sound familiar? 2008 is similar--economic troubles, an unpopular war, and an administration that has sunk to near historic lows in Gallup approval ratings. Both in 1952 and in 2008, an unpopular incumbent was leaving the White House, and the party's nominee had to deal with the fallout. The only difference is the unpopular administration in 1952 was Democratic, today it is Republican.
Despite a wide-advantage in party identification, Eisenhower was able to beat Adlai Stevenson in 1952. How? In part, Eisenhower was enormously popular personally, as he lead the Allied forces in defeating the Germans in Europe. And, his background as a general provided him with an advantage over Stevenson: he could credibly claim that he would go to Korea personally and end the war.
If McCain wants to seriously contend in the fall, perhaps it is time for his own Ike moment. Iraq may have receded as a problem in the minds of voters, but Iraq is intimately tied to the economic concerns that are at the forefront of the campaign. Instead of saying we need to stay in Iraq, McCain needs to say he has the experience, the ability, and will to go to Iraq and get us out of the quagmire. At the very least, it might help him neutralize the advantage Obama has on this issue. While Obama can rightly say he was against the whole episode from the start, it is less clear that voters are willing trust that he has the experience necessary to produce a favorable outcome. McCain's claim has the potential--by the dint of his experience--to be viewed credibly by the voters.
Friday, June 20, 2008
The Real Ralph Nader of 2008: Bob Barr
Now that the nominees for both the major parties are settled, it's time to talk about another nominee who has largely escaped notice: Bob Barr.
In late May, the Libertarian Party nominated for president former Republican Congressman Bob Barr. Barr's nomination will undoubtedly cause John McCain problems come November, and he may very well play the role of spoiler that Ralph Nader did in 2000.
McCain is viewed warily at best among conservative Republicans, particularly those who are religiously conservative. But he is also viewed with suspicion among Hayek-espousing libertarians who don't support the war in Iraq. These folks, of course, contributed heavily to Ron Paul's campaign and routinely delivered 20 percent of the vote or more in late Republican primary states well after the nomination had been all but delivered to McCain.
The problem for McCain is these Ron Paul supporters are clustered in states where he needs to do well to win in November. Additionally, it is interesting to note the relationship between Ron Paul's support to Ross Perot's support in 1992.
The following table looks at Perot's 10 best states in 1992, lists the percentage of the vote George Bush got in 2004, and Ron Paul's performance in the Republican primaries (or caucuses, as the case may be) this year:
I then added the latest polling in these states on the matchup between Obama and McCain. The highlighted states, four in number, represent those states where Barr might possibly draw enough votes to tip the balance away from McCain in favor of Obama. Voters here have displayed a propensity to support third party candidates in the past, and have indicated a willingess to support a maverick member of the Republican Party this year. You can add Kansas to that list should Obama pick popular Governor Kathleen Sebelius.
The point of all of this is to say that Barr can help Obama in his effort to increase the number of states in play this fall. If McCain can't win Nevada, Alaska, and Montana, not only will he lose, he will likely lose big. Even more troubling from his perspective is Minnesota, a state that Republicans have tried to put into play since 2000. The latest polls indicate that Minnesota is again a swing state, but if Barr can pull even 5 percent of the vote (certainly not inconceivable given Perot's 26 percent in 1992 and Jesse Ventura's surprise gubernatorial victory a few years later), McCain's ability to put more "blue" states in play to force Obama to play defense himself will be severely hampered.
Add to this Obama's decision to opt out of public financing, and suddenly, the hill for McCain to climb becomes even steeper.
I should note that it appears that the Obama campaign has noticed this, too. Their recent ad buy reintroducing Obama to voters covers 18 states. Two of those states, Alaska and Montana, are Ross Perot-Ron Paul friendly states. One of those states, Georgia, is home to Bob Barr's former congressional district.
In late May, the Libertarian Party nominated for president former Republican Congressman Bob Barr. Barr's nomination will undoubtedly cause John McCain problems come November, and he may very well play the role of spoiler that Ralph Nader did in 2000.
McCain is viewed warily at best among conservative Republicans, particularly those who are religiously conservative. But he is also viewed with suspicion among Hayek-espousing libertarians who don't support the war in Iraq. These folks, of course, contributed heavily to Ron Paul's campaign and routinely delivered 20 percent of the vote or more in late Republican primary states well after the nomination had been all but delivered to McCain.
The problem for McCain is these Ron Paul supporters are clustered in states where he needs to do well to win in November. Additionally, it is interesting to note the relationship between Ron Paul's support to Ross Perot's support in 1992.
The following table looks at Perot's 10 best states in 1992, lists the percentage of the vote George Bush got in 2004, and Ron Paul's performance in the Republican primaries (or caucuses, as the case may be) this year:
I then added the latest polling in these states on the matchup between Obama and McCain. The highlighted states, four in number, represent those states where Barr might possibly draw enough votes to tip the balance away from McCain in favor of Obama. Voters here have displayed a propensity to support third party candidates in the past, and have indicated a willingess to support a maverick member of the Republican Party this year. You can add Kansas to that list should Obama pick popular Governor Kathleen Sebelius.
The point of all of this is to say that Barr can help Obama in his effort to increase the number of states in play this fall. If McCain can't win Nevada, Alaska, and Montana, not only will he lose, he will likely lose big. Even more troubling from his perspective is Minnesota, a state that Republicans have tried to put into play since 2000. The latest polls indicate that Minnesota is again a swing state, but if Barr can pull even 5 percent of the vote (certainly not inconceivable given Perot's 26 percent in 1992 and Jesse Ventura's surprise gubernatorial victory a few years later), McCain's ability to put more "blue" states in play to force Obama to play defense himself will be severely hampered.
Add to this Obama's decision to opt out of public financing, and suddenly, the hill for McCain to climb becomes even steeper.
I should note that it appears that the Obama campaign has noticed this, too. Their recent ad buy reintroducing Obama to voters covers 18 states. Two of those states, Alaska and Montana, are Ross Perot-Ron Paul friendly states. One of those states, Georgia, is home to Bob Barr's former congressional district.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Hoosiers for Obama
Last night, I had the opportunity to see Barack Obama’s campaign rally here in South Bend. Tickets were gone within ten minutes on Tuesday, but because of my longstanding relationships with the local media, I was able to get credentials in return for some live post-event analysis.
As I sit here and begin to form my thoughts, I am reminded of the pitfalls and cautions of the participant-observer method of social science. Political scientist and congressional scholar Dick Fenno spent the bulk of his professional career following politicians around at home and in Washington to better understand their perceptions of representation. In a particularly interesting methodological piece (Watching Politicians: Essays on Participant Observation), Fenno has written how difficult it can be to put your own emotions aside and not become invested in the success of those you spend considerable time observing. Fenno notes that he came to like the senators and congressmen he travelled with, and found himself wanting them to win and to succeed regardless of their particular politics. To do good political analysis, it is important to remember to keep your own emotions and passions in check and not get caught up in the “moment”.
And yet, a political rally is perhaps the hardest place to keep those passions at bay. The very activity is designed to pull you up, to get you excited, to stomp your feet, to clap your hands, to say “Yes, We Can” with the crowd. I saw members of the media wearing Obama stickers and clapping with the crowd. I did my best to remain detached and stick to my main purpose for being there: to understand the sensation that is Barack Obama and why he might come out of the political wilderness and capture the presidential nomination.
In terms of Obama’s speech, I did not hear much that I hadn’t heard or read elsewhere. The speech was his standard spiel, and not particularly tailored to Indiana. Contrast this with Hillary’s speech, which had a laser-like focus on the economy and certainly was meant to stir the union folk in the crowd to action.
No, the speech itself did not tell me much about Obama. Rather, it was his unscripted moments that spoke volumes about the man. Unlike Hillary, Barack did not take questions. The questions allowed Hillary to showcase one of her strengths: the ability to talk policy. What struck me about Barack was his poise and confidence. But do not confuse confidence with arrogance. I’ve read elsewhere that Barack thinks he’s all that and a bag of chips. It will shock no one that politicians have egos; a healthy dose of ego is required put oneself through the gut-wrenching and exhausting daily slog that is a campaign.
Arrogance is not what I sensed. Instead, I sensed that this man knew who he was and was sure of his leadership abilities. And he was human. Barack was funny, engaging, and witty. At one moment, he said that he’s shaken tens of thousands of hands, and kissed hundreds of babies. Then he stopped for a moment and pointed to a baby in the crowd in front of him, saying, “And I’m going to kiss that baby, too. He’s a cutie”. The crowd roared its appreciation, and he chuckled. When he wrapped up his speech, the crowd began to shout, “NO, NO”. Barack just smiled and said, “C’mon guys, it’s late. We need to get some sleep so we can get to work.” Barack was, quite simply, engaging. He passes, I think, the beer buddy factor. I wanted belly up to the bar with him and quaff a brew or two with him.
The difference, though, is I felt I could talk about anything with him at that bar. Sports, religion, politics, faith, problems at the office—you name it. Barack seemed to me more like the close friend you confide in and share your problems with than the buddy you talk sports with while watching the game. Perhaps this explains some of his attraction: his ability, in a short period of time, to develop an attachment with people. Bill Clinton has this—some call it “EQ” or emotional intelligence. Presidential scholar Fred Greenstein has pointed out that EQ is something that is in short supply, but something that is particularly useful for successful leadership. A lack of EQ, on the other hand, can be devastating (witness Nixon).
For those looking for policy details, there were none. But the crowd didn’t seem to care. 3,500 folks turned out in the middle of the week and waited until 10:45 to see Barack. Some probably didn’t get home until after midnight. Yet no one left. The crowd was electric and the cheers for Barack upon his entrance deafening. This crowd didn’t need the details: it had largely made up its mind already. They wanted Barack, and they wanted him now. If the energy in that room translates into volunteering and voting, Barack may very well win Indiana—a state demographically more to Hillary’s favor.
This morning, as I conclude my thoughts on last night’s rally, I think back to Fenno: Did I keep my emotions in check? Could I stop myself from rooting for Barack? And the answer is no. But I rooted for Hillary after her rally, and suspect I would do the same after seeing John McCain. The simple fact of the matter, I am biased, but not in the normal way one might expect. Sure, I have particular policy beliefs and an ideological slant. But as I spend more time observing the political process, I’ve learned that I have another bias, too. I like politicians and I want to see them succeed. It’s too bad that they all can’t win.
As I sit here and begin to form my thoughts, I am reminded of the pitfalls and cautions of the participant-observer method of social science. Political scientist and congressional scholar Dick Fenno spent the bulk of his professional career following politicians around at home and in Washington to better understand their perceptions of representation. In a particularly interesting methodological piece (Watching Politicians: Essays on Participant Observation), Fenno has written how difficult it can be to put your own emotions aside and not become invested in the success of those you spend considerable time observing. Fenno notes that he came to like the senators and congressmen he travelled with, and found himself wanting them to win and to succeed regardless of their particular politics. To do good political analysis, it is important to remember to keep your own emotions and passions in check and not get caught up in the “moment”.
And yet, a political rally is perhaps the hardest place to keep those passions at bay. The very activity is designed to pull you up, to get you excited, to stomp your feet, to clap your hands, to say “Yes, We Can” with the crowd. I saw members of the media wearing Obama stickers and clapping with the crowd. I did my best to remain detached and stick to my main purpose for being there: to understand the sensation that is Barack Obama and why he might come out of the political wilderness and capture the presidential nomination.
In terms of Obama’s speech, I did not hear much that I hadn’t heard or read elsewhere. The speech was his standard spiel, and not particularly tailored to Indiana. Contrast this with Hillary’s speech, which had a laser-like focus on the economy and certainly was meant to stir the union folk in the crowd to action.
No, the speech itself did not tell me much about Obama. Rather, it was his unscripted moments that spoke volumes about the man. Unlike Hillary, Barack did not take questions. The questions allowed Hillary to showcase one of her strengths: the ability to talk policy. What struck me about Barack was his poise and confidence. But do not confuse confidence with arrogance. I’ve read elsewhere that Barack thinks he’s all that and a bag of chips. It will shock no one that politicians have egos; a healthy dose of ego is required put oneself through the gut-wrenching and exhausting daily slog that is a campaign.
Arrogance is not what I sensed. Instead, I sensed that this man knew who he was and was sure of his leadership abilities. And he was human. Barack was funny, engaging, and witty. At one moment, he said that he’s shaken tens of thousands of hands, and kissed hundreds of babies. Then he stopped for a moment and pointed to a baby in the crowd in front of him, saying, “And I’m going to kiss that baby, too. He’s a cutie”. The crowd roared its appreciation, and he chuckled. When he wrapped up his speech, the crowd began to shout, “NO, NO”. Barack just smiled and said, “C’mon guys, it’s late. We need to get some sleep so we can get to work.” Barack was, quite simply, engaging. He passes, I think, the beer buddy factor. I wanted belly up to the bar with him and quaff a brew or two with him.
The difference, though, is I felt I could talk about anything with him at that bar. Sports, religion, politics, faith, problems at the office—you name it. Barack seemed to me more like the close friend you confide in and share your problems with than the buddy you talk sports with while watching the game. Perhaps this explains some of his attraction: his ability, in a short period of time, to develop an attachment with people. Bill Clinton has this—some call it “EQ” or emotional intelligence. Presidential scholar Fred Greenstein has pointed out that EQ is something that is in short supply, but something that is particularly useful for successful leadership. A lack of EQ, on the other hand, can be devastating (witness Nixon).
For those looking for policy details, there were none. But the crowd didn’t seem to care. 3,500 folks turned out in the middle of the week and waited until 10:45 to see Barack. Some probably didn’t get home until after midnight. Yet no one left. The crowd was electric and the cheers for Barack upon his entrance deafening. This crowd didn’t need the details: it had largely made up its mind already. They wanted Barack, and they wanted him now. If the energy in that room translates into volunteering and voting, Barack may very well win Indiana—a state demographically more to Hillary’s favor.
This morning, as I conclude my thoughts on last night’s rally, I think back to Fenno: Did I keep my emotions in check? Could I stop myself from rooting for Barack? And the answer is no. But I rooted for Hillary after her rally, and suspect I would do the same after seeing John McCain. The simple fact of the matter, I am biased, but not in the normal way one might expect. Sure, I have particular policy beliefs and an ideological slant. But as I spend more time observing the political process, I’ve learned that I have another bias, too. I like politicians and I want to see them succeed. It’s too bad that they all can’t win.
Friday, February 29, 2008
The Obama Response to 3 AM
The wonders of instant media.
Here is the Obama campaign's response ad to the Clinton camp's 3 AM piece:
What is experience without proper judgement? I think this is an effective response. And I think it will be part of the assault against McCain in the fall (should Obama be the nominee).
Which, by the way, points to a fundamental flaw in HRC's experience line for the fall campaign. McCain can say, "Hey, you supported this war, now you say you're against it, you were against the surge, and yet it has worked". Again, McCain can trump her with more experience AND make the argument that he has better judgement.
Here is the Obama campaign's response ad to the Clinton camp's 3 AM piece:
What is experience without proper judgement? I think this is an effective response. And I think it will be part of the assault against McCain in the fall (should Obama be the nominee).
Which, by the way, points to a fundamental flaw in HRC's experience line for the fall campaign. McCain can say, "Hey, you supported this war, now you say you're against it, you were against the surge, and yet it has worked". Again, McCain can trump her with more experience AND make the argument that he has better judgement.
It's Experience, Stupid
Hillary Clinton has a new ad out that is clearly aimed at the Soccer Moms, stressing that she has the experience to meet global crises and not (by implication) Barack Obama.
Check it out:
The problem with this ad, I think, is if you really want experience, then John McCain is your man. I just don't find it effective.
Furthermore, given that this ad appears to be geared to mothers, that suggests bigger problems for Hillary. It indicates to this political observer that she's worried about her base. And if she's worried about her base, it will be a long day next Tuesday.
I'll post again soon on the question of experience and the presidency.
Check it out:
The problem with this ad, I think, is if you really want experience, then John McCain is your man. I just don't find it effective.
Furthermore, given that this ad appears to be geared to mothers, that suggests bigger problems for Hillary. It indicates to this political observer that she's worried about her base. And if she's worried about her base, it will be a long day next Tuesday.
I'll post again soon on the question of experience and the presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
