As I listed over a month ago, three areas that can be used or perceived as Obama's weak spots are taxes, softness on foreign policy and image politics. McCain has attacked Obama for his ties with Ayers for quite some time now and has therefore used the 'image politics' card that was perhaps inevitable - Obama's not like us, he's strange or risky or elite etc. Take your pick. This time McCain chose Ayers instead of reverend Wright.
That image politics card hasn't played out well for McCain though. Polls showed that it brought his own favourability ratings down and did little good in the polls and maybe even had a negative effect. While they continue to keep that issue up on some level (how can you bury it now) they have shifted focus on Obama's tax policy which again was to be expected. Joe the Plumber, never mind how calculated or spontaneous his role in this has been, has brought this issue back to the forefront. Republicans love to talk about taxes because their message is easy to sell - the recent marginal tightening may not be because of taxes per se but even if it has it's not enough for McCain.
So McCain has extensively used two of Obama's three weak spots - one is left. That is national security and Obama's alleged naivete regarding the issue and foreign policy in general. This card will be played more agressively soon but will it have an effect?
The talk is going on about Bin Laden and his possible "endorsement" for Obama. And there's talk that he might be captured. I have argued that one of two imaginable ways for Obama to lose this election is a terrorist attack on domestic soil (the other one is a personal scandal like a sex scandal etc.). That I don't think the McCain campaign can orchestrate (conspiracy theorists may disagree) but an October suprise on national security is a real possibility. If nothing else, McCain will definately try to shift the focus on Obama's perceived softness on foreign policy issues. He has tried it already of course with his remarks about Obama's plans to negotiate without preconditions but without a good catalyst those allegations don't caught the fire McCain needs at this moment. It's almost 100% certain that McCain will attack Obama on foreign policy/national security but the effectiveness depends largely whether the McCain campaign can come up with a real "October suprise".
Then there's a chance and not a minor one that if the polls show McCain significantly behind one week before the election that he's going to refocus on image politics and bring up reverend Wright. McCain has said he won't do that but that has got more to do with the fear of being perceived as racist than with principles. If the campaign thinks they have nothing to lose they might very well bring up Wright and his clips of "hating America" again. That's a risk but one that they may feel they have to take.
Taxes, Obama's image and foreign policy/national security. All three will be in the forefront of McCain's campaign in the last two weeks. Two of those have already been played quite extensively, will the third make a difference?
Read more...
October 15, 2008
The debate - much fuss but likely little effect
The debate tonight has drawn a lot of attention and has created intense speculation about McCain's supposedly harder stance and more direct attacks against Obama. While it's probably true that McCain will try to land a knock-out punch more eagerly than before it's unlikely that we're going to see one, even if McCain goes into full attack mode. That wouldn't be very wise though, because the negativity of McCain's campaign last week has been perceived to been more hurtful than helpful to the Republican cause. An all-out attack would be in all likelyhood be perceived as a desperation move and it would turn a lot of voters off. So McCain probably tries to hammer Obama on a few selected issues and get a couple of zingers to connect.
Why do I say those attempts are not likely to result in a knock-out punch? Two reasons.
The target is smooth and difficult to hit and the ammunition is lacking in firepower. Obama has been almost overbearingly calm and collected in an effort to be perceived as reassuring and presidential. He has mostly succeeded. So whatever McCain throws at him it's unlikely to stump or irritate Obama. If the ammunition was good then Obama couldn't simply shield away from the attacks by being "cool" and in some ways distant but the punch in McCain's potential attacks is hardly there.
Ayers doesn't interest people and it has been beaten to death already. McCain has refused to bring up Wright which might actually work with some white voters. The economy is not a good terrain for McCain so no secret weapon there either. Foreign policy is McCain's forte but Obama has so far held his own in the debates in that area too. McCain simply doesn't have a good attack line against Obama or at least we haven't seen it yet.
In all likelyhood this debate will be more heated and will be labeled as the most interesting one of the three. We might even get some clips that will be played over and over again in the news or in Youtube. But nothing else is enough for McCain than a pure, solid victory over Obama. Based on the previous debates it's fairly safe to say that that is not very probable.
Obama is pulling away in some swing states (Virginia) and has solified his lead in others (Florida, Colorado). Obama is ahead in national polls about seven-to-eight points. The debate is the last real chance of making a big impact exluding some unforseen event and both campaigns know this. That's why Obama's going to play this safe and it would be no suprise if the next weekend's polls will be pretty much like the last weekend's. Read more...
Why do I say those attempts are not likely to result in a knock-out punch? Two reasons.
The target is smooth and difficult to hit and the ammunition is lacking in firepower. Obama has been almost overbearingly calm and collected in an effort to be perceived as reassuring and presidential. He has mostly succeeded. So whatever McCain throws at him it's unlikely to stump or irritate Obama. If the ammunition was good then Obama couldn't simply shield away from the attacks by being "cool" and in some ways distant but the punch in McCain's potential attacks is hardly there.
Ayers doesn't interest people and it has been beaten to death already. McCain has refused to bring up Wright which might actually work with some white voters. The economy is not a good terrain for McCain so no secret weapon there either. Foreign policy is McCain's forte but Obama has so far held his own in the debates in that area too. McCain simply doesn't have a good attack line against Obama or at least we haven't seen it yet.
In all likelyhood this debate will be more heated and will be labeled as the most interesting one of the three. We might even get some clips that will be played over and over again in the news or in Youtube. But nothing else is enough for McCain than a pure, solid victory over Obama. Based on the previous debates it's fairly safe to say that that is not very probable.
Obama is pulling away in some swing states (Virginia) and has solified his lead in others (Florida, Colorado). Obama is ahead in national polls about seven-to-eight points. The debate is the last real chance of making a big impact exluding some unforseen event and both campaigns know this. That's why Obama's going to play this safe and it would be no suprise if the next weekend's polls will be pretty much like the last weekend's. Read more...
October 14, 2008
Women and the debates will seal the deal for Obama
Obama is in all likelyhood going to win the election. The decisive factors besides the financial crisis in his up-coming victory are women and the debate performances.
It is clear at this point that women have not been persuaded by the Palin pick to vote for McCain. Women have traditionally been more Democratic and in this election the trend is as strong as ever. The strategy of picking Palin and luring Hillary supporters was a compelling narrative and it sounded somewhat promising but the scenario hasn't actualized one bit. Let's look at the newly released Quinnipiac state polls (10/8-12, >1000 LV, +/-3) for numbers:
Females: Who are you going to vote? (Obama-McCain)
Colorado - 54%-38% - Obama +16
Michigan - 60%-32% - Obama +28
Minnesota - 57%-34% - Obama +23
Wisconin - 59%-33% - Obama +26
Simply stunning numbers.
Let's look at the national numbers for further confirmation:
Gallup, Sep 29-Oct 05
53%-39% - Obama +14
Research2000/Daily Kos, Oct 11-Oct 13
59%-35% - Obama +19
Rasmussen (no demographics available)
"October 12, 2008: Obama leads by fourteen percentage points among women..."
So it's absolutely clear that Obama is crushing McCain on female voters. According to an exit poll in 2004 Kerry won women by three points. So this is a huge advantage for Obama. Palin has probably hurt McCain more with women than helped.
Another decisive factor in Obama's likely victory is the debates. CNN's and CBS's polls all showed that Obama won the first two debates. Let's look at the most recent data again from Quinnipiac's state polls.
Who won the second debate? (Obama-McCain)
Colorado - 56%-24% - Obama +32
Michigan - 56%-22% - Obama +34
Minnesota - 57-22% - Obama +35
Wisconsin - 58%-21% - Obama +37
Again, simply stunning numbers for Obama. The debates have really helped Obama with independents which are the key in winning this election. Obama is currently in commanding lead with independents (R2K poll +9 for Obama) and the debates have surely helped. Obama's "cool and reassuring demeanour" in the words of pundits has removed doubts that Obama's not ready for the presidency.
Women and the debates, two things that I'm sure can't be underestimated when analyzing why Obama won the election. Read more...
It is clear at this point that women have not been persuaded by the Palin pick to vote for McCain. Women have traditionally been more Democratic and in this election the trend is as strong as ever. The strategy of picking Palin and luring Hillary supporters was a compelling narrative and it sounded somewhat promising but the scenario hasn't actualized one bit. Let's look at the newly released Quinnipiac state polls (10/8-12, >1000 LV, +/-3) for numbers:
Females: Who are you going to vote? (Obama-McCain)
Colorado - 54%-38% - Obama +16
Michigan - 60%-32% - Obama +28
Minnesota - 57%-34% - Obama +23
Wisconin - 59%-33% - Obama +26
Simply stunning numbers.
Let's look at the national numbers for further confirmation:
Gallup, Sep 29-Oct 05
53%-39% - Obama +14
Research2000/Daily Kos, Oct 11-Oct 13
59%-35% - Obama +19
Rasmussen (no demographics available)
"October 12, 2008: Obama leads by fourteen percentage points among women..."
So it's absolutely clear that Obama is crushing McCain on female voters. According to an exit poll in 2004 Kerry won women by three points. So this is a huge advantage for Obama. Palin has probably hurt McCain more with women than helped.
Another decisive factor in Obama's likely victory is the debates. CNN's and CBS's polls all showed that Obama won the first two debates. Let's look at the most recent data again from Quinnipiac's state polls.
Who won the second debate? (Obama-McCain)
Colorado - 56%-24% - Obama +32
Michigan - 56%-22% - Obama +34
Minnesota - 57-22% - Obama +35
Wisconsin - 58%-21% - Obama +37
Again, simply stunning numbers for Obama. The debates have really helped Obama with independents which are the key in winning this election. Obama is currently in commanding lead with independents (R2K poll +9 for Obama) and the debates have surely helped. Obama's "cool and reassuring demeanour" in the words of pundits has removed doubts that Obama's not ready for the presidency.
Women and the debates, two things that I'm sure can't be underestimated when analyzing why Obama won the election. Read more...
October 13, 2008
The tracking polls have been very stable
A lot is going on around the election all the time. Debates, speeches, ads, attacks - the campaigning never stops and the press is more involved than ever now that there's only three weeks to the election day. The remarkable thing is that since the VP debate on 10/02 the tracking poll numbers haven't really moved. They have actually been very stable. Many pundits and casual followers alike thought that the debates would have an impact. They've had one - Obama has been able to maintain his commanding lead consistently over the past 1,5 weeks.
Let's look at the actual numbers. (McCain-Obama)
Pollster ---------- 10/02 ---- 10/13 --- movement
Gallup ------------42-49 ----- 41-51 --- Obama +3
Rasmussen ---- 44-51 ---- 45-50 -- McCain +2
Research 2000 40-51 ----- 40-52 -- Obama +1
All the movement is inside the MoE. The stability can be traced even more backwards than to 10/02. In Rasmussen's polls since 09/26 Obama has been between 50-52% and McCain between 44-45%. The stability has been simply stunning. In Gallup's polls during the same time period Obama's numbers have been between 48-52% and McCain's between 41-44%. The difference is significant and revealing. In R2K's polls again during the same time period Obama's numbers have been between 48-53% and McCain's between 40-43%.
McCain hasn't break the 45% ceiling in any of the three tracking polls since 09/26. During the same period Obama has never dropped below 48% and has been as high as 53%. That is all you need to know.
Let's look at some other tracking polls during a shorter time period (these pollster's have changed their methodology since 09/26 or don't have an easily accessible history of the poll numbers).
Pollster ----------- 10/09 ------ 10/13 ----- movement
Zogby ------------ 44-48 ------- 44-48 ----- Nothing
Diageo/Hotline - 41-47 --------42-48 ----- Nothing
Battleground --- 45-48 ---------43-51 ------ Obama +5
While these numbers tell us a lot less because they are from a shorter time period it still shows that the recent attack against Obama about Ayers has not moved the numbers at all. (Battleground has been a very shifty pollster so their numbers are not quite so useful).
The facts are these - Obama is ahead about 7% nationally (RCP avg. +6,8, Pollster avg. +7,6) and that he has had a sizeable, stable lead since the late September. Debates have been considered victories for Obama and it has negated any effect that McCain's attacks might have caused.
The future is still clear. Obama will become the next president if there's no major sudden game-changer event like a terrorist attack.
Read more...
Let's look at the actual numbers. (McCain-Obama)
Pollster ---------- 10/02 ---- 10/13 --- movement
Gallup ------------42-49 ----- 41-51 --- Obama +3
Rasmussen ---- 44-51 ---- 45-50 -- McCain +2
Research 2000 40-51 ----- 40-52 -- Obama +1
All the movement is inside the MoE. The stability can be traced even more backwards than to 10/02. In Rasmussen's polls since 09/26 Obama has been between 50-52% and McCain between 44-45%. The stability has been simply stunning. In Gallup's polls during the same time period Obama's numbers have been between 48-52% and McCain's between 41-44%. The difference is significant and revealing. In R2K's polls again during the same time period Obama's numbers have been between 48-53% and McCain's between 40-43%.
McCain hasn't break the 45% ceiling in any of the three tracking polls since 09/26. During the same period Obama has never dropped below 48% and has been as high as 53%. That is all you need to know.
Let's look at some other tracking polls during a shorter time period (these pollster's have changed their methodology since 09/26 or don't have an easily accessible history of the poll numbers).
Pollster ----------- 10/09 ------ 10/13 ----- movement
Zogby ------------ 44-48 ------- 44-48 ----- Nothing
Diageo/Hotline - 41-47 --------42-48 ----- Nothing
Battleground --- 45-48 ---------43-51 ------ Obama +5
While these numbers tell us a lot less because they are from a shorter time period it still shows that the recent attack against Obama about Ayers has not moved the numbers at all. (Battleground has been a very shifty pollster so their numbers are not quite so useful).
The facts are these - Obama is ahead about 7% nationally (RCP avg. +6,8, Pollster avg. +7,6) and that he has had a sizeable, stable lead since the late September. Debates have been considered victories for Obama and it has negated any effect that McCain's attacks might have caused.
The future is still clear. Obama will become the next president if there's no major sudden game-changer event like a terrorist attack.
Read more...
October 12, 2008
Election fraud a serious threat
The electronic voting systems have long been suspect of being unsafe. One of the most famous recent reports is Ohio secretary of state Jennifer Brunner's EVEREST report (an article, the report). Election fraud is not a wild conspiracy theory but a real threat concerning the electronic voting systems around the US and which hasn't been discussed widely enough.
One of the more famous voting machine hacking experts is Finnish Harri Hursti, who has conducted studies in cooperation with University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University and University of California Santa Barbara. The team of three researchers lead by Hursti conducted a test that yielded frightening results. They managed to change the outcome of the whole election by a virus installed into a single voting machine in a single voting booth.
The group activated the voting machine's infrared gate by a magnet and transferred a virus installed into a palm pilot to the voting system. They could've used a cell phone or a programmable remote control instead also. The virus spread into all the voting machines in the voting area.
After the counting of the votes had started the virus spread into the regional central computer, from there to the state's central computer and from there to the headquarters of Elections Systems and Software (ES&S), the provider of the election system. ES&S is the largest electronic voting system provider in the United States and from their HQ the virus could corrupt voting systems in 36 states. The time that process took was less than two minutes.
That was real and it has been widely described in the EVEREST report mentioned above. Hursti himself said that "it was the most scary hacking that I've ever participated in".
Voting fraud is easy to do and it does not leave any marks. Hursti half-jokingly said that "the scary thing is what we programmers and researchers could do if we snapped and decided to manipulate elections. It's so easy that a large group of people could do it".
There are many other scary scenarios that the researchers have realized in their tests. One good place to study them is Black Box Voting.
Hacking the voting machines is real. It has been done by researchers and it can be done again. Who knows what has actually been done in real elections? When you think about the scandal in Florida in 2000 and then read about voting fraud it really brings some unpleasent thoughts into your mind. Who knows what happened in 2000? The fact is that voting fraud cannot be counted out from the equation.
In "a world's best democracy" like many claim that the United States is these kind of things should not happen. If we can't trust that our votes count then the deep core of democracy is in doubt. The new administration has to do a dramatic overhaul to the voting system because today it's unsafe. And that is not a conspiracy theory.
Read more...
One of the more famous voting machine hacking experts is Finnish Harri Hursti, who has conducted studies in cooperation with University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University and University of California Santa Barbara. The team of three researchers lead by Hursti conducted a test that yielded frightening results. They managed to change the outcome of the whole election by a virus installed into a single voting machine in a single voting booth.
The group activated the voting machine's infrared gate by a magnet and transferred a virus installed into a palm pilot to the voting system. They could've used a cell phone or a programmable remote control instead also. The virus spread into all the voting machines in the voting area.
After the counting of the votes had started the virus spread into the regional central computer, from there to the state's central computer and from there to the headquarters of Elections Systems and Software (ES&S), the provider of the election system. ES&S is the largest electronic voting system provider in the United States and from their HQ the virus could corrupt voting systems in 36 states. The time that process took was less than two minutes.
That was real and it has been widely described in the EVEREST report mentioned above. Hursti himself said that "it was the most scary hacking that I've ever participated in".
Voting fraud is easy to do and it does not leave any marks. Hursti half-jokingly said that "the scary thing is what we programmers and researchers could do if we snapped and decided to manipulate elections. It's so easy that a large group of people could do it".
There are many other scary scenarios that the researchers have realized in their tests. One good place to study them is Black Box Voting.
Hacking the voting machines is real. It has been done by researchers and it can be done again. Who knows what has actually been done in real elections? When you think about the scandal in Florida in 2000 and then read about voting fraud it really brings some unpleasent thoughts into your mind. Who knows what happened in 2000? The fact is that voting fraud cannot be counted out from the equation.
In "a world's best democracy" like many claim that the United States is these kind of things should not happen. If we can't trust that our votes count then the deep core of democracy is in doubt. The new administration has to do a dramatic overhaul to the voting system because today it's unsafe. And that is not a conspiracy theory.
Read more...
October 11, 2008
Palin is not an asset to McCain but 'Troopergate' has little to do with it
Troopergate in all likelyhood will not play a decisive role in this campaign. When Palin was announced as the Republican VP-candidate and the issue first came up many people thought that would be something that would be a major achilles heel for Palin and for the whole McCain campaign. The truth is that it will not be a major event just because McCain is in such a deep trouble right now. Even Palin will not overtly suffer from this revelation (read about Troopergate here) because her favourability ratings are already quite bad and her ability to sway swing voters to McCain is questionable to say the least.
CNN's article states that "Sarah Palin may be the best thing that ever happened to John McCain's campaign for the presidency. She is the cover-girl of the campaign. But she may be heading back to the front page for a very different reason". I have to disagree vehemently. Palin's favourability rating is in an all-time low in R2K's tracking poll (-20) and while other polls show better results for Palin than this Democratic-leaning pollster the trend is clear. She has suffered immensely from her infamous interviews and even before those her star was on the decline because of all the "half-truths" concerning her actions in Alaska (earmarks etc.).
The conventional wisdom in the mainstream media still seems to be that Palin is somehow an asset to McCain. She solidified the base but the cost was huge - independents are not liking her one bit. It's easy to overvalue the "bringing home the base" factor - yes, McCain is not loved by the diehard conservatives but they would've never voted for Obama anyway. Palin just brings a bigger number of them to the polls and while that is important the independents are a much more decisive factor in who wins this election and Palin is not helping there.
I wrote on September 16th how the positive Palin effect is coming to a close.
CNN's article states that "Sarah Palin may be the best thing that ever happened to John McCain's campaign for the presidency. She is the cover-girl of the campaign. But she may be heading back to the front page for a very different reason". I have to disagree vehemently. Palin's favourability rating is in an all-time low in R2K's tracking poll (-20) and while other polls show better results for Palin than this Democratic-leaning pollster the trend is clear. She has suffered immensely from her infamous interviews and even before those her star was on the decline because of all the "half-truths" concerning her actions in Alaska (earmarks etc.).
The conventional wisdom in the mainstream media still seems to be that Palin is somehow an asset to McCain. She solidified the base but the cost was huge - independents are not liking her one bit. It's easy to overvalue the "bringing home the base" factor - yes, McCain is not loved by the diehard conservatives but they would've never voted for Obama anyway. Palin just brings a bigger number of them to the polls and while that is important the independents are a much more decisive factor in who wins this election and Palin is not helping there.
I wrote on September 16th how the positive Palin effect is coming to a close.
"McCain's campaign is now in a watershed moment. Can they salvage Palin's image and stop the slow bleeding?"
Read more...
Well, the answer is that they couldn't and Palin has most likely become a drag on the ticket. VP candidates rarely if never decide elections and most of McCain's troubles are not related to Palin (the economy, anyone?) but the storyline surrounding Palin has not benefited McCain at all. It has been a distraction and a source of much discomfort to McCain for sure. The conservative base is riled up but if the majority of the people think lightly of her regarding policy issues it's got to hurt.
Palin came, saw and conquered but also stumbled, fell and crawled back up again. But the fall wasn't pretty and her image after that is forever changed (translation: until mid-December). Troopergate is just another storyline concerning Palin and in the current athmosphere people will not really care that "she abused her powers". The firing was legal so it's all more or less semantics to the great masses. Besides, Obama's links to Ayers and Rezko make the voters easily lump all the scandals together and consider them as politics as usual. Sure, Troopergate casts another doubt over Palin but she was already damaged goods.
McCain will lose. Picking Palin didn't ultimately pay off at all. When McCain looks back at the campaign he'll surely regrets bringing Palin along. It was a risky move but McCain needed to do something drastic - this time his judgement was wrong.
Palin came, saw and conquered but also stumbled, fell and crawled back up again. But the fall wasn't pretty and her image after that is forever changed (translation: until mid-December). Troopergate is just another storyline concerning Palin and in the current athmosphere people will not really care that "she abused her powers". The firing was legal so it's all more or less semantics to the great masses. Besides, Obama's links to Ayers and Rezko make the voters easily lump all the scandals together and consider them as politics as usual. Sure, Troopergate casts another doubt over Palin but she was already damaged goods.
McCain will lose. Picking Palin didn't ultimately pay off at all. When McCain looks back at the campaign he'll surely regrets bringing Palin along. It was a risky move but McCain needed to do something drastic - this time his judgement was wrong.
October 10, 2008
McCain's campaigning schedule - playing offense
It's interesting to notice that 25 days before the election both candidates are still predominantly campaigning in traditionally opposition states. Obama's strategy is understandable since he's in a comfortable lead in most if not all Kerry states and in a good position in traditionally swing and red states but McCain's strategy is quite perplexing. Check out his schedule:
Friday, October 10, 2008
8:45 a.m., Rally in La Crosse, WI.
4:30 p.m., Town Hall in Lakeville, MN.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
8 a.m., Rally in Johnstown, PA.
10:30 a.m., Rally in Davenport, IA.
Monday, October 13, 2008
10 a.m., Rally in Virginia Beach, VA.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
9 p.m., Debate in Hempstead, NY.
What on earth is he doing in Wisconsin (RCP avg. -8,8%), Minnesota (-8,3%), Iowa (-9,5%) and Pennsylvania (-13,8%)?
It is more and more evident that the only way McCain can win this race is if a miracle happens (from McCain's point of view) and some dramatic revelation about Obama comes to light. The only other way is if McCain can re-focus his campaign and win all Bush states (minus Iowa and New Mexico). It's not impossible but the way McCain is squandering his time in solid blue states like Pennsylvania (it hasn't been anywhere close for two weeks already) he's having a really difficult time winning states like North Carolina not to mention Florida or Virginia.
McCain needs to stop the useless campaigning in the Great Lakes area and focus all his resources on Bush states. North Carolina, Indiana and Missouri shouldn't be anywhere near close and he should be able to bring those states back to him if he just showed some interest to those states' constituents. His campaign schedule is truly remarkable and it can be seen as very bold or very stupid.
One thing to keep in mind is that if McCain did more or less pull out of Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin it would be perceived as another sign of weakness and it could create a harmful narrative and a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's a risk he should take though, because otherwise he's destined to lose the election. Read more...
Friday, October 10, 2008
8:45 a.m., Rally in La Crosse, WI.
4:30 p.m., Town Hall in Lakeville, MN.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
8 a.m., Rally in Johnstown, PA.
10:30 a.m., Rally in Davenport, IA.
Monday, October 13, 2008
10 a.m., Rally in Virginia Beach, VA.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
9 p.m., Debate in Hempstead, NY.
What on earth is he doing in Wisconsin (RCP avg. -8,8%), Minnesota (-8,3%), Iowa (-9,5%) and Pennsylvania (-13,8%)?
It is more and more evident that the only way McCain can win this race is if a miracle happens (from McCain's point of view) and some dramatic revelation about Obama comes to light. The only other way is if McCain can re-focus his campaign and win all Bush states (minus Iowa and New Mexico). It's not impossible but the way McCain is squandering his time in solid blue states like Pennsylvania (it hasn't been anywhere close for two weeks already) he's having a really difficult time winning states like North Carolina not to mention Florida or Virginia.
McCain needs to stop the useless campaigning in the Great Lakes area and focus all his resources on Bush states. North Carolina, Indiana and Missouri shouldn't be anywhere near close and he should be able to bring those states back to him if he just showed some interest to those states' constituents. His campaign schedule is truly remarkable and it can be seen as very bold or very stupid.
One thing to keep in mind is that if McCain did more or less pull out of Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin it would be perceived as another sign of weakness and it could create a harmful narrative and a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's a risk he should take though, because otherwise he's destined to lose the election. Read more...
McCain will lose because of the economy - but he wouldn't have had to
A lot of things have happened in the last two weeks. The VP debate, the second presidential debate, the financial turmoil - all these things have been covered in depth in the blogosphere already. The campaign has really taken a dramatic turn as all things point towards an Obama victory, if not a landslide. Is it really so? Is McCain doomed? Yes he is, and it's not only because the financial crisis surfaced. It's because of his response to it.
There is precious little that McCain's campaign can do anymore. I wrote in mid-September that Obama's three possible weak spots were taxes, foreign policy experience and an image politics weak spot. Well, now or never the tired cliché of "it's the economy, stupid" really applies. It has been nearly impossible to compete in any other policy area than the economy since Black Monday on September 15th. The incumbent is always to blame in times like these so does McCain have any chance of "owning" the economic discussion? He might have had one, but not anymore. The boat has passed and the concentration on image politics with the Ayers thing is too little, too late and about the wrong subject.
If McCain had attacked Obama over his connections in August or even during his convention bounce in early September the character attack might have worked. Now, however, it's only backfiring and one can only wonder how close McCain would be with a better campaign strategy to begin with. Ayers is not something that people care about right now. It only fires up the hard right wing of the Republican party and alienates independents. After falling behind in the polls it's understandable and even inevitable that they went that way but they should've seen by now that it does not work. The campaign even signaled this themselves when they said after the second debate that they're not going to talk about Ayers anymore. Why did they continue? That decision was their final nail in the coffin.
All signs pointed out on September 14th that this would be a close election. McCain's convention bounce was all but gone and the trend continued to be downward. In all likelyhood it would've been a tiny Obama lead going into the first debate without the financial crisis. Now that it happened the environment obviously favours Obama overwhelmingly. That didn't have to mean that McCain's campaign goes down in flames. The campaign made serious mistakes and calling them erratic is not the most far-fetched idea to be heard these days.
McCain's stunt to suspend his campaign was a way too ambitious move. He should've acted agressively, yes, but not in a way the he did. He should've talked about policy, policy and policy and emphasize his tax cuts now that the economy is in crisis. He should've painted Obama as too inexperienced in hard times like these and he should've showed steady leadership with an emphasis on substance. He has indeed tried to paint Obama as too inexperienced but when words don't correspond with actions they're useless.
It was going to be an uphill battle for McCain but it didn't have to go the way he did. Maybe it really shows that he doesn't know a lot about economics. When the country is in crisis they don't look to the new guy first - yes, it's tempting to bring "change" but people are conservatives at heart and they seek the familiar and safe when things go bad. McCain could've provided that with his experience and "maverick image" that wasn't so tarnished back in September. He did not. His whole campaign was spinning in chaos and he couldn't translate a simple, solid message to the voters. It was Obama who not only benefited generically from the crisis, he earned the poll bump with his actions.
Then came the debates and McCain was lousy. He truly was. That doesn't mean that Obama was great, he wasn't, but his style worked well against the grumpy old guy. McCain isn't really a good performer. He has come across as old, angry and preposterous. This isn't partisan spin but an independent evaluation from the sidelines. Obama's cool demeanour has worked because McCain has been so unsympathetic. If McCain would've come across as a steady, experienced father-like figure he could've schooled Obama badly and depicted Obama as distant which is Obama's pitfall. Instead he left Obama to be presidential and came across as the challenger. He was the challenger but the way he could've climbed up in the polls would've been to act like the man in charge. It might not have worked. But the routine he pulled of now of being an angry challenger was a terrible choice. Maybe it's all he managed to be, who knows. But it's his demeanour and stunts that really lost him this election.
The surfacing of the financial crisis was a terrible blow to the McCain team. It wouldn't have been a suprise if he had lost. But the way McCain tried to turn the crisis to his advantage and how he has performed in the debates sealed his fate. He had a reputation of being an independent-minded reformer who had experience and who was fun to hang around with. Now he has been succesfully painted as a George W. Bush II whose experience hasn't helped him to be presidential and who is to top it all not very likeable. How has Obama been so succesful at turning McCain's image upside down? He should thank McCain for being so helpful in that. Read more...
There is precious little that McCain's campaign can do anymore. I wrote in mid-September that Obama's three possible weak spots were taxes, foreign policy experience and an image politics weak spot. Well, now or never the tired cliché of "it's the economy, stupid" really applies. It has been nearly impossible to compete in any other policy area than the economy since Black Monday on September 15th. The incumbent is always to blame in times like these so does McCain have any chance of "owning" the economic discussion? He might have had one, but not anymore. The boat has passed and the concentration on image politics with the Ayers thing is too little, too late and about the wrong subject.
If McCain had attacked Obama over his connections in August or even during his convention bounce in early September the character attack might have worked. Now, however, it's only backfiring and one can only wonder how close McCain would be with a better campaign strategy to begin with. Ayers is not something that people care about right now. It only fires up the hard right wing of the Republican party and alienates independents. After falling behind in the polls it's understandable and even inevitable that they went that way but they should've seen by now that it does not work. The campaign even signaled this themselves when they said after the second debate that they're not going to talk about Ayers anymore. Why did they continue? That decision was their final nail in the coffin.
All signs pointed out on September 14th that this would be a close election. McCain's convention bounce was all but gone and the trend continued to be downward. In all likelyhood it would've been a tiny Obama lead going into the first debate without the financial crisis. Now that it happened the environment obviously favours Obama overwhelmingly. That didn't have to mean that McCain's campaign goes down in flames. The campaign made serious mistakes and calling them erratic is not the most far-fetched idea to be heard these days.
McCain's stunt to suspend his campaign was a way too ambitious move. He should've acted agressively, yes, but not in a way the he did. He should've talked about policy, policy and policy and emphasize his tax cuts now that the economy is in crisis. He should've painted Obama as too inexperienced in hard times like these and he should've showed steady leadership with an emphasis on substance. He has indeed tried to paint Obama as too inexperienced but when words don't correspond with actions they're useless.
It was going to be an uphill battle for McCain but it didn't have to go the way he did. Maybe it really shows that he doesn't know a lot about economics. When the country is in crisis they don't look to the new guy first - yes, it's tempting to bring "change" but people are conservatives at heart and they seek the familiar and safe when things go bad. McCain could've provided that with his experience and "maverick image" that wasn't so tarnished back in September. He did not. His whole campaign was spinning in chaos and he couldn't translate a simple, solid message to the voters. It was Obama who not only benefited generically from the crisis, he earned the poll bump with his actions.
Then came the debates and McCain was lousy. He truly was. That doesn't mean that Obama was great, he wasn't, but his style worked well against the grumpy old guy. McCain isn't really a good performer. He has come across as old, angry and preposterous. This isn't partisan spin but an independent evaluation from the sidelines. Obama's cool demeanour has worked because McCain has been so unsympathetic. If McCain would've come across as a steady, experienced father-like figure he could've schooled Obama badly and depicted Obama as distant which is Obama's pitfall. Instead he left Obama to be presidential and came across as the challenger. He was the challenger but the way he could've climbed up in the polls would've been to act like the man in charge. It might not have worked. But the routine he pulled of now of being an angry challenger was a terrible choice. Maybe it's all he managed to be, who knows. But it's his demeanour and stunts that really lost him this election.
The surfacing of the financial crisis was a terrible blow to the McCain team. It wouldn't have been a suprise if he had lost. But the way McCain tried to turn the crisis to his advantage and how he has performed in the debates sealed his fate. He had a reputation of being an independent-minded reformer who had experience and who was fun to hang around with. Now he has been succesfully painted as a George W. Bush II whose experience hasn't helped him to be presidential and who is to top it all not very likeable. How has Obama been so succesful at turning McCain's image upside down? He should thank McCain for being so helpful in that. Read more...
October 1, 2008
ABC of negative campaigning
Negative campaigning is a famous phenomenom and it has also been theorized and made into general rules. First, the effect of negative campaigning is that it bumps people into undecided category and therefore its prime impact is not necessarily luring undecideds to your side but to turn your opponent's supporters into undecideds. Second, negative attacks are far more frequent to be done by the trailing candidate than the front-runner. The more one trails in the polls the more inclined he is to take a risk and go into full attack mode in the hope of changing the status quo by luring the opponent's supporters into undecideds. Adversely, the front-runner doesn't need to turn more people into undecideds and it's enough for him to compete for the already existing undecideds by positive ads.
There are also theories about the different roles of presidential and VP-candidates. According to Lee Sigelman and Emmett H. Buell Jr the attack roles between the candidates in the ticket ”differ most when they are leading by a comfortable margin, differ least when they are trailing badly and to exhibit no consistent pattern when they are running neck and neck with their opponents.”
In this year's US presidential elections the above theories have been proven to be quite correct. In July and early August when McCain was trailing Obama not by a huge margin but clearly nevertheless, McCain attacked Obama for the first time with considerable force with ”Paris Hilton commercials”. The tighter the race became during August the more Obama started to respond to McCain's negative campaigning by launching his own attacks. The general trend in this election has been that McCain has trailed Obama slightly and it's noteworthy that McCain has received more attention from his negative campaigning than Obama. While this race has been and continues to be quite close the challenger's inclination to attack more has been evident in McCain's campaigning.
The different roles of the candidates in the ticket are also following the theoretical guidelines. While Obama has not lead by a comfortable margin at any time he has been mostly in control of the race and Biden has been more clearly the attack dog when Obama has concentrated more on showing bi-partisanship spirit. Both candidates have immersed themselves in negative campaigning but Biden has been much more consistent in attacking the opponents. The better it has looked for the Obama-Biden ticket the clearer the difference has been between the candidates in negative campaigning.
This theory has also applied to the McCain-Palin ticket with some reservation. Since Palin became the VP-nominee their ticket has been in a clear small lead, in a neck-to-neck situation and behind by a small but clear margin. Palin's role is difficult to measure because of extra-ordinary circumstances surrounding her candidacy but it can be safely stated that McCain's and Palin's roles haven't differed much and haven't exhibited any consistent pattern considering the negative campaigning. This would suit well with neck-and-neck and trailing situations. Because of Palin's current troubles regarding her image McCain has had to assume a more larger and solitary role in the campaign than he would've presumably wanted. If Palin can conquer her difficulties with the media her role considering the negative campaigning can be analyzed more accurately but it's likely that if the current situation stands both McCain and Palin will attack with equal vigour and more actively than Obama and Biden, the current front-runners. Read more...
There are also theories about the different roles of presidential and VP-candidates. According to Lee Sigelman and Emmett H. Buell Jr the attack roles between the candidates in the ticket ”differ most when they are leading by a comfortable margin, differ least when they are trailing badly and to exhibit no consistent pattern when they are running neck and neck with their opponents.”
In this year's US presidential elections the above theories have been proven to be quite correct. In July and early August when McCain was trailing Obama not by a huge margin but clearly nevertheless, McCain attacked Obama for the first time with considerable force with ”Paris Hilton commercials”. The tighter the race became during August the more Obama started to respond to McCain's negative campaigning by launching his own attacks. The general trend in this election has been that McCain has trailed Obama slightly and it's noteworthy that McCain has received more attention from his negative campaigning than Obama. While this race has been and continues to be quite close the challenger's inclination to attack more has been evident in McCain's campaigning.
The different roles of the candidates in the ticket are also following the theoretical guidelines. While Obama has not lead by a comfortable margin at any time he has been mostly in control of the race and Biden has been more clearly the attack dog when Obama has concentrated more on showing bi-partisanship spirit. Both candidates have immersed themselves in negative campaigning but Biden has been much more consistent in attacking the opponents. The better it has looked for the Obama-Biden ticket the clearer the difference has been between the candidates in negative campaigning.
This theory has also applied to the McCain-Palin ticket with some reservation. Since Palin became the VP-nominee their ticket has been in a clear small lead, in a neck-to-neck situation and behind by a small but clear margin. Palin's role is difficult to measure because of extra-ordinary circumstances surrounding her candidacy but it can be safely stated that McCain's and Palin's roles haven't differed much and haven't exhibited any consistent pattern considering the negative campaigning. This would suit well with neck-and-neck and trailing situations. Because of Palin's current troubles regarding her image McCain has had to assume a more larger and solitary role in the campaign than he would've presumably wanted. If Palin can conquer her difficulties with the media her role considering the negative campaigning can be analyzed more accurately but it's likely that if the current situation stands both McCain and Palin will attack with equal vigour and more actively than Obama and Biden, the current front-runners. Read more...
ABC of strategic voting
Strategic voting is a theory which argues that voters do not only vote for a candidate they want to win the most but that they also engage in strategic or tactical voting by voting for another candidate if they think it's more advantegous for their cause. There are many different theoretical approaches to strategic voting but they are all based on the idea of rational choice theory. According to the theory voters make rational decisions based on a set of preferences that they hold.
For instance if candidate A is a person's preferred candidate but he thinks A has no chance of winning against candidate B who the person dislikes, then the person can vote for candidate C if he thinks he has a chance of winning against B and thinks C is a lesser of two evils. Another example of strategic voting is from the US primaries where a person is certain that candidate A is going to win his party's nomination in the primaries. Then that person could change his registration (if needed) and vote in the other party's primary for a candidate C whom he thinks A could beat easier than the other rival party's candidates.
Strategic voting is a real phenomenom but it's unclear how widespread or impactful it really is. In two-party systems it can be however a very impactful factor. In this year's US presidential election there are many ”third-party candidates” or independents like Ralph Nader (independent), Bob Barr (Libertarian Party) or Cynthia McKinney (Green Party). Even if a voter would prefer one of these candidates over the main candidates he can be still very inclined to vote for either Obama or McCain simply because he doesn't want to ”waste his vote”. This a real concern for the voters because there are examples of third-party candidates impacting the election in a significant way. Ross Perot is a one example from 1992 and more recently Ralph Nader has been widely credited for Al Gore's loss in Florida in 2000 and therefore for Bush's election victory. Those kinds of events could very well disencourage voters to vote for less-known candidates from a fear of helping ”the worst” candidate to victory like many Nader supporters in 2000 noticed for their dismay.
Another way how strategic voting has been witnessed recently was in the main parties' presidential primaries. The Democrats had many heavy-weight candidates like Bill Richardson and Joe Biden but since all the media attention went primarily to Obama and Clinton and therefore they were significantly ahead in the early polls it disencouraged voters to vote for the ”long-shot” candidates. People have a tendency to want to think that their vote is important and that's why they flock to the main candidates. There are psychological reasons for that no doubt but many people also vote that way for rational reasons in order to help the better of the two to victory. That's strategic voting and it has been witnessed to happen many times in this election cycle already. Read more...
For instance if candidate A is a person's preferred candidate but he thinks A has no chance of winning against candidate B who the person dislikes, then the person can vote for candidate C if he thinks he has a chance of winning against B and thinks C is a lesser of two evils. Another example of strategic voting is from the US primaries where a person is certain that candidate A is going to win his party's nomination in the primaries. Then that person could change his registration (if needed) and vote in the other party's primary for a candidate C whom he thinks A could beat easier than the other rival party's candidates.
Strategic voting is a real phenomenom but it's unclear how widespread or impactful it really is. In two-party systems it can be however a very impactful factor. In this year's US presidential election there are many ”third-party candidates” or independents like Ralph Nader (independent), Bob Barr (Libertarian Party) or Cynthia McKinney (Green Party). Even if a voter would prefer one of these candidates over the main candidates he can be still very inclined to vote for either Obama or McCain simply because he doesn't want to ”waste his vote”. This a real concern for the voters because there are examples of third-party candidates impacting the election in a significant way. Ross Perot is a one example from 1992 and more recently Ralph Nader has been widely credited for Al Gore's loss in Florida in 2000 and therefore for Bush's election victory. Those kinds of events could very well disencourage voters to vote for less-known candidates from a fear of helping ”the worst” candidate to victory like many Nader supporters in 2000 noticed for their dismay.
Another way how strategic voting has been witnessed recently was in the main parties' presidential primaries. The Democrats had many heavy-weight candidates like Bill Richardson and Joe Biden but since all the media attention went primarily to Obama and Clinton and therefore they were significantly ahead in the early polls it disencouraged voters to vote for the ”long-shot” candidates. People have a tendency to want to think that their vote is important and that's why they flock to the main candidates. There are psychological reasons for that no doubt but many people also vote that way for rational reasons in order to help the better of the two to victory. That's strategic voting and it has been witnessed to happen many times in this election cycle already. Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
