Man o' man, this is really a wild and crazy political season. It would be more fun if wasn't so serious. I was interested that the polls, particularly among undecideds, moved decisively toward Obama after the debate. Trying to think of different reasons why this was the case, I came up with the following:
a. People had low expectations for him particularly in the area of foreign policy and when he at least seemed to give as good as he got, people were pleasantly surprised and moved for that reason.
b. Undecided have not been paying that close attention and wanted to know if this guy seemed "presidential". It seemed as if passed that test.
c. His response to McCain about Iraq "you voted for the war; you were wrong. You said we would be greeted as liberators; you were wrong" etc. was a memorable and vivid way of putting it. It's the kind of rhetorical flourish people tend to remember and sounds, well, strong.
I'm sure there are other reasons for the swing towards Obama. Maybe it's just because the economic situation seems so dire and people tend to trust Democrats to do something positive about it more than Republicans. Interested to hear your thoughts.
c.
6 comments:
Point A resonates within me. McCain was expected to wipe the floor with Obama on the first debate due to its focus on foreign policy. Obama was able to keep his own and challenge McCain. He seemed much more knowledgeable about foreign policy the people expected. Whether this is true or not, doesn't necessarily matter when it comes to presentation.
I am worried that this same effect is going to occur in the VP debates. If you look at the recent interview between Couric and Palin, and the SNL skit making fun of this interview, it is clear why the people have such a low expectation of Palin for the VP debates.
What if Palin is able to prep herself well enough to come off as more knowledgeable and responsive to the nation? I am nervous that Palin will 'pleasantly surprise' the nation, the way Obama did for his debate.
Will this push the undecided voters towards McCain, Palin? I guess that this is the point of the debates to give the candidates the most possibilities possible.
As Dr. Bob said in class, if this wasn't so real and important, it would be a very entertaining few months. Too bad the results of this election can have a real impact on all of us and on our world...
Dr. Bob,
In addition to the three reasons for the pro-Obama swing that you mentioned, to me it seems that there are a couple more factors at work.
One is the decline of Palin. It pains me, as an (admittedly unwilling) McCain/Palin supporter, to say this, but Palin put on a pretty miserable showing over the last couple of weeks or so. Some say she is just perceived as clueless, and that the interviews were edited to portray her in a bad light, she was asked "gotcha" questions, etc, etc, etc -- but I doubt it, having read and watched the interviews. Given the office she's running for, Palin simply ought to've done her homework better, so as not to give her detractors the kind of ammunition they are now using against her. As it is, for now she seems to've flunked the "perception" test, and since in politics perception *is* reality she is now paying the price. And the price is declining support for the McCain campaign, along with the perception of *McCain* in an unflattering light because of his disappointing Veep choice.
Which isn't to say that McCain doesn't deserve a good portion of the blame. He could have put on a better showing in the debate, could have attempted to walk the bipartisan walk as he was speaking the bipartisan talk; what he did instead was snicker at Obama while the latter was delivering excellent speeches for all he was worth. Such behavior might appeal to his base (and looking at some Rightie blogs, it did, in spades); however, like you said in class, blatant partisanship does not undecided voters sway. Now, the Maverick is in the process of (perhaps) rediscovering this concept... In addition, he came up with a couple of moderately despicable (in my opinion) schemes for promoting his bi-partisan image and garnering support for his positions -- he used Ted Kennedy's misfortune for personal gain, and he brought up the (utterly nonsensical) bracelet thing to angle for support for the Iraq war. Looking at his record in Congress-- not to mention the facts on the ground -- there is a wide variety of far better examples he could have used to get his point across. Next, it seems he... massaged some facts about Obama's position, and got called on it numerous times; again, there is so much verified information for him to use that stating half-truths simply does not make sense. Lastly, he visibly got his dander up a few times, whereas Obama maintained his composure rather well.
So, it seems to me that to an undecided voter, there was much to admire about Obama's performance, just as there was much to doubt about McCain's. Issues aside (I think that in this one, they were about even when it came to issues), it was the attitude and the projected image that made the real difference.
In and of itself, McCain's debate performance may have cost him a few undecided voters; combine it with Palin's recent gaffes, however, and it becomes much easier to see why the big pro-Obama shift took place. That, and, as you mentioned, the nation's economic woes, which are at this point icing on the cake.
Oh well. There's still a month left, and looking at the way the political winds have been shifting lately, there's a chance the McCain campaign may yet surprise us. I shall wait and observe; however the election goes, I'm sure it'll be fascinating to watch.
--Eugene
I really think the economic situation may have been overstated in this race. Just because everyone says Democrats are more trusted on the economy does not make it truth... I think there is a connection to this thought with how well the economy did under Clinton. However, for individuals at all interested in politics they will remember (and attribute success) to the Republican Congress throughout this time. Many of Clinton's "successes" were Republican backed bills such as Welfare Reform. I really do not see people in this race lining up in party lines and generalizing that one party has the upper hand on the other on the economy. I think this election is getting very personal for millions of citizens and their thoughts are more about trusting Obama vs McCain that Democrats vs Republicans. Maybe this is idealism on my part, but I really think that older generations generally underestimate cultural/demographic shifts while they are happening. Pundits often refer to the past in a "we knew it was coming" way, painting them as knowledgeable on the present and future as well. I don't think either of these candidates will have an answer to this crisis -- there is no answer. There is only time to recover, and mistakes to learn from. It is foolish to think that one man's policies will end the slide of home prices. Most people do not think in such simple terms. Rather, this is a question of who can best motivate, inspire, and lead the general population in creating or extracting these answers from within ourselves. WE (the 300 million) ARE WHAT MAKES AMERICA TICK! IDEAS, REVOLUTIONS, CHANGE -- THEY ALL COME FROM THE BOTTOM, UP! THIS IS WHERE WE NEED TO SEARCH FOR ANSWERS!
Boris,
I agree with much of what you say, to a degree -- in particular the economic problems being overstated, as well as the reasons behind the economic growth during the Clinton years. I will add that there's currently talk that it is the Democrats who are actually responsible for a good portion of the current crisis, since they were the ones putting pressure on banks to extend high-risk loans (to promote home ownership) back in the 90's.
I won't pretend to know a lot about the true nature of the crisis -- I'm no economist. What I can tell for sure, though, is that neither the Democrat nor the Republican version of what happened is the whole story. That, and -- like you said -- that anyone promising a quick and/or painless fix is, intentionally or not, lying through his teeth.
Switching gears a bit, I must disagree with you somewhat on people voting for one party or the other because they think said party has the upper hand on economic issues. You said yourself -- anyone *interested in politics* will realize the true nature of the crisis, will (I say "might" -- bias will get its due) see through the propaganda put out by both sides, etc, etc... The problem is, many -- most? -- people don't see politics as a top priority in their lives, and will not put in the effort to educate themselves even on the most basic issues. Now I know that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", but I've heard enough people say that they'll be voting for the Democrats because they had more money under Clinton to conclude that there's something to this. So, in my opinion, people *will* gladly vote for the candidate that they perceive has the upper hand in economics.
Now, to play Devil's Advocate -- our economic system is driven by faith in the strength of the economy as much as anything else. So, if the winning candidate manages to paint a rosy picture of the nation's economic landscape, might not that turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy? People do, after all, invest, open new businesses, and try harder overall if they think that the economy is doing well, or will be shortly...
Not for the first time, something a high school Political Science teacher told me comes to mind: in politics, perception *is* reality. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but it does explain a lot of what's currently happening.
It gives one something to ponder, at any rate.
Regards,
--Eugene
I think that after watching the 1st vice presidential debate it is interesting to bring up your point A from the 1st presidential debate:
a. People had low expectations for him particularly in the area of foreign policy and when he at least seemed to give as good as he got, people were pleasantly surprised and moved for that reason.
I think that this expectation of low expectations can be translated to Sarah Palin and her performance at the VP debate. However, in terms of experience for Palin it wasn't focused on a talking point like Obama's was, this was a focus on whether or not she could slide through the debate since experts on the conservative and liberal side had "written her off".
I think that with Obama he showed that he indeed could stand presidential next to a "washington insider" just as Palin was tested on her performance against Joe Biden, who has been involved in washington for 32 years.
With the question of expectations and experience however, the introduction of Sarah Palin has saddened me in terms of what the American people want and expect in a VP candidate. I think that yes experience is crucial, and more importantly knowledge is a must. The republicans make it seem as though someone with an education, who got where he was because of education is some form of elitism, and that someone who enjoys spending their evenings with a six pack after hunting moose is a "common American" and can better identify with the American people. I am a common American and as a student I do not understand the message that this sends; a man who used his education to get ahead and beat adversity is someone that I respect and someone who proves to me that they do understand what many Americans are going through.
If we want to talk about educators and politicians at a world scale, then what about Gordon Brown, the prime minister of GB? He has proven to be a pretty successful politician and he comes from a background of education. Is that a standard that we should ignore here in the U.S. then?
I know I am blabbing on here, but I think it is so very interesting to see what each side is claiming what the "typical joe six pack is"; and I think that it is important that our leaders stay in touch with the people they lead, but to suggest that someone who is just average should run our country is ludicrous. We need someone who is above average, who exceeds the normal expectations to lead and represent our country in the world.
Post a Comment