quick notes on the first presidential debate

The debate was supposed to concentrated mostly on foreign policy but the recent economic turmoil was also discussed at length.  You probably won't have the time to watch it entirely, but just in case you do, here it is:

NPR's political commentators estimate that the debate was a draw, with no candidate clearly carrying the day. McCain managed to present himself as a problem solver and someone who is involved in finding a bi-partisan solution to the financial crisis, thus justifying his much derided "suspension" of his campaign to work out a bill in Congress. 

Obama managed to associate his Republican opponent to the present administration, while McCain tried hard to distance himself by reminding the audience of all the times that he had not supported George W. Bush. 

On foreign policy nothing really new came of the debate : McCain hammered Obama for having said that he would meet with all foreign leaders including that of Iran and North Korea with no "pre-conditions" and for having opposed the surge in Irak, which is repeatedly described by McCain as a successful strategy. Obama answered that he took his take from some of the best foreign policy advisors, including Henry Kissinger and that no "pre-conditions" did not mean no preparations by meetings between senior staffers from the two administrations. On Irak, his response was that he opposed the war from the start, but didn't really oppose the surge : he explained that he had voted against a text that had no timetable not against the strategy itself. 

The debate was, to be perfectly honest, not much fun : the audience had to sit in silence and jokes thus jokes fell rather flat. Both candidates were their usual self : McCain simple and direct, at times maybe oversimplifying the issues, whereas Obama was elaborate, a bit professorial and dwelt perhaps to much on the intricacies of the issues. 

going negative...

I checked out a couple negative ads for you. It's hard for us here to measure the impact of these ads, but I do think that they get broadcast quite a bit on television and the most outrageous also get media coverage and attract comments. 

Do you notice anything about McCain's negative ads about Obama? Is it just me or do they have at least one feature in common?

First presidential debate, or not?

As I write, it is very early in the morning in America and we don't know whether the much awaited for debate will take place or not. Yesterday, John McCain "suspended" his campaign to rescue and sort out the economy ! And he has said that we would not attend the debate in Oxford, Mississippi, because he had rather help the government find a solution to the severe crisis on the financial market ( the bill offered by the administration is referred to as "the bail out" package). 

If the debate does take place this is what to look out for : 

Obama's mission is to paint a McCain as another incarnation of Bush. He should try and turn the conversation towards the economy and away from foreign policy. Obama needs to present McCain as the candidate of big money and market deregulation ( which he officially was before this week's U-turn!). 

McCain will try and appear connected and highlight Obama's liberal, elitist and professoral stance, which tends to annoy middle America. McCain needs to present himself as the candidate that is most ready to be commander in chief. 

However I do think that if McCain gives the impression that he is very hawkish and has a markedly ideological approach to foreign policy it might not go down too well with an audience that is tired of the seemingly unwinable and costly war in Irak. More American unilateral  interventionism is probably not what most voters hope for. 

The podcasts I've been listening to recently ( mostly from the liberal media, I must confess) repeatedly compare this election to that of 1932. Will Barack Obama benefit from the recession as much as FDR did? 

The comparaison does not always make a lot of sense, at least historically: 

 To keep yourselves busy before the debate : 

- information on polling and the most recent predictions.

And for a quick laugh : 

Assessing the Palin effect

There is no end to the talk about what the Palin effect will be, in the end, when it comes down to election day. 

She has energized the Republican base, assuredly. But similarly she has poured new energy into  the Democratic Party, which has a clear aim : defeat her, not let Sarah Palin get her feet into the Oval Office, if, GOd forbids, something happens to John McCain. 

You probably have followed the lip-stick sound-bites : 

1. step one : Sarah Palin paints herself (no pun intended) as a tough politician and a fighter by asking her audience :"what is the difference between a pitbull and a hockey mom? Lipstick!". 

2. step two : Barack Obama then wittingly or not picked up on the lipstick theme when he declared "You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig". The quotation should not be seen as a direct attack against Sarah Palin herself, the Sentator from Illinois was referring to the Republican Party in general and its attempt to take on the mantel and the mantra of change, although its been in power for the best part of a decade. 

How much is gender being injected in the campaign by the choice of a female VP?

 I was very interested in last week's Lexington column which offered a new perspective in which we could apprehend Sarah Palin's selection as a victory for feminism. Indeed this interpretation seemed to be rejected by the old core of traditional liberal feminists who certainly don't see the Republican VP nominee as a feminist, nor her selection as a victory that they could claim. This read was a much welcome shift in paradigm, I'm curious to hear about your reaction to the article. 

In terms of polling what I've been hearing is that the two campaigns are basically back to the pre-convention figures and in most of the battle states the two candidates are in a dead heat. 

The defining events now will be the debates, the first of which will be held on Friday. 

More later, I'm being kicked out of the coffee shop. 

electoral map dynamics

When trying to predict the outcome of the American presidential election, the most important thing to keep in mind is the electoral map. It certainly is needless to repeat this to my students from Cergy, but it doesn't matter how well you do at the national level (popular vote), what really matters is how many States you win and thus how many electoral votes you get. Remember that this is a winner takes all system : if you win one State you carry all its electoral votes. Each State is allocated a number of electoral vote based on its population. 

To become President, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes

NPR offers a dynamic and interactive map that is based on polling in local states and that you can play with to see how each state afects the outcome. I strongly recommend having a look at this, it will help you get an idea of how the election will play out. 

For the West Wing fans out there, I'm sure you all remember that the map is the most important prop of the campaign episodes. 

What we really need to have a look at if we want to have a clue about the final outcome of the election is the battle-ground states. Basically, more than half of the States are clearly blue or red, for a whole host of reasons, historic, economic, cultural, sociological... But around 15 states are "battle-ground States", these are States that need to be won to make the difference and carry the election. The Economist has been offering excellent in depth coverage of these battle ground States since August and if you are interested in the nitty-gritty of the election, I'd say the series is a must read. 

For instance, Ohio is both a swing-state (changes sides regulary) and a bellwether (it has consistently voted for the winner since 1960). Both parties will be vying to win the 20 electoral votes of that State and pollsters are keeping an eye on the polls to try and predict which way the election might go. 

Other swing states include :

  Colorado, 

North Carolina,

 New Mexico and Nevada,

  Missouri, 

Minnesota 

Wysconsin

Enjoy the read and take care. 

sorry...

I haven't had ready access to the internet in a couple days, that's why I couldn't comment on the very interesting VP pick by McCain. By now I trust that even if you are holed up in some remote location you will have seen the young face of Sarah Palin.

There is a lot to say, but why not leave it up to you ?
Do you think that this choice was only or mainly meant to rally the religious voters?
Do you think that this will work as a strategy and help McCain gain the critical votes he needs to win the White House?
Will his choice backfire on him ( considering the young age and lack of big scale experience of the former Wasilla mayor and current governor of Alaska)? Was she sufficiently vetted and why was she choosen over Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge?
To what extent will the revelation that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant affect her standing for the conservative voters? Actually I tend to think that it will be neutral or even given a positive spin by the campaign and might end up helping rather than hindering the Republican ticket.
Will Sarah Palin convince the disappointed Hillary Clinton supporters to vote for McCain? Is being a woman enough???

I hope some of you will be brave enough to take up the challenge and write a few words on what you've read or what you think of the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate.
Looking forward to reading you....

Aude