Looking Presidential

Currently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is thought of as the leading contender for the Democratic nomination in the Presidential race of 2016.
In class last week, my "team" strategized about how to help Ms Clinton capture the White House. While we weren't tasked with creating a television ad for her, I keep having visions of one.  It features....well, it features ME!  (Or people like me).

The Chris Christie team in class speculated that Secretary Clinton will be viewed by voters as too old for the job ("Over the Hill-ary").  On Election Day, 2016 she will be just a year away from her eighth decade, as will I.  So, to address such criticism, I recommend that one of her campaign's first ads  be designed to preempt the concerns of voters by showing strong, healthy, energetic contemporaries of the candidate engaged in robust activities such as skiing, house painting, gutter cleaning, running, driving a tractor, etc.  These people would take a break from their work (or play) in order to speak to the camera about feeling a kinship with Ms Clinton because of the similarity in their ages.  Maybe they could say, "70 is the new 50" or something like that.

Obviously, my comments here are a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I think there's a kernel of something useful there, should Secretary Clinton win her party's nomination.  I'd be happy to pose on my extension ladder if they need me.

On another note, the haircut and "makeover" my team suggested for Hillary is easily accomplished, unlike the 200+ pound weight loss challenge which is faced by Governor Christie.  Seriously, Mr. Christie is not simply overweight; he is morbidly obese.  His weight puts him at greatly increased risk of premature death.  There is no way that his situation can be spun into a positive.  The fact that a high percentage of Americans struggle with their weight will not translate into votes for Mr. Christie.

If both these individuals require transformation in order to be embraced by voters, my money's on Ms Clinton, not Mr. Christie, to successfully accomplish it.
               

  

Targeting Donors

The assigned reading this week has caused me to think back to all the emails I received on behalf of the President during election season.  If I got any which sought my vote, I don't recall them.  I think they were all looking for campaign contributions.  I suppose it's possible that I was in the data base as someone whose vote could be counted on (though I don't think I directly reported that in any "official" way).  They surely would also have had access to a record of my past financial contributions.

I received multiple emails which sought to prompt an additional contribution by promising that my name would be entered in a drawing which could result in an opportunity to have dinner with the Obamas.  I deleted them.  I did respond to a couple of emails which claimed that Mr. Romney was raising (and spending) more money than the Dems.  I responded to emails which identified a looming deadline of some sort; "We must raise $X by midnight tomorrow in order to..."
I ignored the ones, purportedly from Ms Obama, which asked me to "sign Barack's birthday card" and, oh, by the way, donate more money while you're at it.

So, what did the Obama campaign learn about me from their "interactions" with me?  I hope they learned that a chance to dine and schmooze with famous or otherwise "important" people is not the way to my heart (or wallet).  They might have learned that I am willing to help out when there is some threat to my candidate, when the other team seems to have the advantage in some way.  I wonder if next election season I will be bombarded with doomsday scenarios.
I guess time will tell.

Non-Issues

Two of the important "non-issues" of the recent Presidential election brought to our attention are poverty and the expected vacancies on the Supreme Court.  The similarity I see between these is that both candidates saw the potential for getting into trouble with the populace for elucidating their stands on the issues.  Certainly, informed voters can guess that a Democratic President would appoint more progressive judges, a Republican more conservative ones.  But I think there was an unspoken agreement between the candidates and their parties to avoid discussion of the impact of a changing Court on issues such as abortion.  They wished to steer clear of alienating the voters whose allegiance might be easily shaken.

Similarly, voters know that a Democratic leader may be more willing to spend the country's money on assisting the poor among us.  But a discussion of poverty can get awfully "sticky" for both sides.  Nobody wants to be viewed as facilitating intergenerational transmission of poverty or welfare dependence.  On the other hand, while a Republican leader would be expected to reduce the size of government and keep  tighter control of the nation's funds, the candidate wouldn't want to be seen as insensitive or cruel by declining to help those genuinely in need.

It doesn't surprise me that Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney and their VP choices were reluctant to engage in a discussion of issues that are potentially inflammatory and divisive as well as difficult to "solve."  But, how can we explain the media's acquiescence in this decision?

What Happened on Tuesday?

Well, Barack Obama was re-elected President in pretty convincing fashion.  His victory surprised many, including challenger Mitt Romney.  The explanation for this incredulity has been described in recent days as the "GOP's media cocoon."  But there were pollsters, including Nate Silver, who accurately predicted the incumbent's win.

I was exclusively informed on election night by the staff of ABC's telecast, including Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos.  (What can I say?  Yes, I'm an ABC devotee).  Starting the following morning, I gathered additional information about the results of last week's vote through reading articles online, watching analyses on TV, listening to the radio, and discussing the outcome with friends and acquaintances, chiefly the politically involved, lefty members of my book club.

The general explanation for Gov. Romney's loss is that the GOP has lost touch with who comprises the electorate.  That is, it has failed to notice important demographic changes and missed opportunities to capture the votes of Latinos/as and other people of color, young people and women, particularly unmarried women.  Today on "The View" a thoughtful(!) Newt Gingrich said, "I think we (the GOP) fundamentally misunderstood the American people."  He went on to explain that "The Republican doctrine of highly paid consultants spending millions of dollars in 30 second ads doesn't build a party."  He offered a strategy for the GOP going forward: "The Republican Party better rethink in 2013 how we're gonna deal with the country's issues and do it in a way that the average American looks up and says, 'You know, those are the folks I'm willing to trust with my future.'"

I'm not sure what I don't know about the election.  I think human beings intuitively tend to search for confirming evidence, seeking out and/or attending to information that "fits" with their own world views.  This is the place where the "media cocoon" lives for the Republicans.  I suppose some similar force is at work in my life, but this time the information I received was more accurate.

Congratulations...

....Senator-Elect Chris Murphy!  

This and That on Election Day

I started election day, as I do every day; tuning in to ABC's Good Morning, America.  Host (anchor?) George Stefanopoulos introduced the fabulous new set which is the backdrop for tonight's coverage of the Presidential election.
There was a discussion of the increasing role of social media in the 2012 election.  Elizabeth Vargas introduced the segment by saying, "Whether it's tweeting, Facebooking or...emailing, social media has shaped this election as never before."  Staffer Josh Elliot shared that one of the top Google searches of the day was regarding the "Redskins' Rule."  Apparently, when the Washington Redskins win their last home game before the Presidential election, the incumbent usually wins.  Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, the Skins lost.  However, later in the day, the Huffington Post noted that when the Dow Jones closes higher on Election Day than it was on that year's Labor Day, The incumbent usually wins.  Score one for Barry.

Getting back to the burgeoning role of social media in elections...A few weeks ago on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," one of the guests wondered whether we would see real-time tweets as a crawl during future debates.  Currently, tweets are used this way during television "competition" shows, including "The Voice" and "Dancing with the Stars."  And what are Presidential debates, if not competition?  But, who would decide which tweets to feature, which to exclude?  It seems like a logistical nightmare, but we'll see what happens four years from now.

Effects of East Coast Storm on the Election

In the wake of yesterday's storm Sandy, there has been a lot of speculation about how the weather event would impact the Presidential election.  Even prior to the storm, The Week predicted that the bad weather would have major consequences.  Multiple sources agree that Sandy would reduce early voting and disrupt planned campaign events by both candidates.  The Week also sees the potential for President Obama to either "shine or stumble," depending upon how well (and how quickly) he responds to the needs of people and communities affected by the storm.  To that end, Mr. Obama scored big by earning the vociferous praise of Republican New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie.   Christie also indicated that he didn't want Governor Romney to accompany him in his inspection of New Jersey's devastated areas because he didn't want to politicize the misfortune of his state's citizens.  Oh snap.

On a Radio Free Europe site, Ron Synovitz writes that "Sandy could be (an) October surprise in (the) U.S. Presidential vote."  He takes note of the factors mentioned above and adds that a decrease in the number of opinion polls could have an influence on voting, at least on the part of people reactive to those data.  He also expresses concern about potential problems with the functioning of electronic voting machines (presumably if they are exposed to moisture).

Reuters discusses the dangers and opportunities open to each of the candidates in the days ahead as a consequence of the storm.  Depending on his response to the current crisis, Obama can emerge as either a hero who epitomizes strength of leadership or as ineffectual and callous, as it seemed George W. Bush was in managing the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.  Gov. Romney must be careful to avoid appearing insensitive to people's suffering by resuming campaigning too soon.  He also must avoid (once again) criticizing a sitting President in the midst of a crisis.