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.

Agreeable Mr. Romney

While watching this year's third and final Presidential debate last night, I was repeatedly struck by how often Governor Romney agreed with The President. Obama took advantage of the situation, repeatedly emphasizing Romney's endorsements of the incumbent's policies and past actions.  At one point, while responding to Mr. Obama's comments about managing the crisis in Syria,  Mr. Romney very nearly parroted the President.  It was actually uncomfortable to watch.  I was not the only one who noticed.

Frederick Allen of Forbes felt that Romney was disadvantaged by having to repeatedly agree with the President's handling of various foreign policy matters.  Michael Crowley of Time's Swampland observed the Governor's "constant endorsements of Barack Obama's policies."  Bloomberg's Julie Hirschfield Davis and Indira A.R. Lakshmanan noted that the President kept Mr. Romney "on the defensive on foreign policy...as his Republican rival worked to criticize the incumbent's leadership while endorsing most major actions he has taken."  Jennifer Epstein of Politico starts her blog by saying that the candidates "spent most of Monday night disagreeing with one another during the...debate," but then spent the remainder of her article discussing all the examples of Romney's agreement with the President.  Both Epstein and Huffington Post's Ryan Grim and Joshua Hersh share that former Fox news commentator Glenn Beck tweeted, "I'm glad to know Mitt agrees with Obama so much.  No, really.  Why vote?"

The general feeling seems to be that Romney failed to distinguish himself from the President in matters of foreign policy.  It's no wonder he tries, at every turn, to bring the focus back to the economy.

I can't...

I just can't.  I've read Nate Silver and many of the links his blogs provided.  I've read my classmates' blogs.  But it's almost time to leave for work and I can't create a cohesive, sensible post of my own.  The topic of figuring out how numbers speak to us (!) and the mention of "algorithms" make me break out in a cold sweat...and eat many more cookies than I should.

When I was at Trinity I took a statistics course.  Need I say it was a requirement for my major?  Anyway, to make myself feel a little better about it, I bought a calculator which had faux jewels instead of ordinary buttons on it.  To say that my professor was nonplussed is a BIG understatement.  No matter, my calculator and I passed the course and I'll bet Professor Russo still tells that story at cocktail parties.  Or not.

So, while I plan to engage in classroom conversation this evening about what we've all learned this week, I shall not be blogging about it.  Sorry.

Personal Experience with Poll Numbers

Okay, well before I get into poring over Nate Silver's 538 postings, I want to talk about a personal experience with poll numbers.  In 2010, I was working on Rep. Chris Murphy's campaign.  On the day before the election, I reported to Chris' New Britain office, as I did every Monday evening.  There was something different about the "energy" in the place.  People's faces were grim and there was a lot of whispering going on.  I asked a staffer what was up.  I was told that a poll (I think the Q, but I'm not sure) showed that Sam Caligiuri was up by 7%.  Now, that's more than the margin of error and was seen as very bad news by the Murphy team.

The next day, sporting my red "Team Murphy" tee shirt and carrying a campaign sign, I reported to a polling place to greet voters.  Murphy's mom, Cathy, was there too.  We engaged in small talk as we stood and smiled at those arriving to vote, all the while avoiding the "elephant in the room;" the poll numbers.  Finally, I decided to confront the issue.  In my most empathic voice, I said, "Well, if Chris loses, we just have to trust that it's for the best, that there's something better ahead for him."  Ms Murphy very graciously agreed.

Well, needless to say, Chris Murphy was elected.  I was too embarrassed to go to the victory celebration that night, fearing I'd encounter MOM!

The subtitle of my blog used to be, "A skeptic's take on the 2012 election," but I messed around with the template, lost that phrase, and can't figure out how to get it back.  Whatever.  But the above story does help explain why I'm skeptical of polls.  Let's see if Mr. Silver can change my mind.

Designing an Obama Campaign Ad

First of all, any campaign ad I'm involved with has to be, on the surface anyway, positive.  However, I'm aware that, by presenting my candidate as positive, I'm implying that his opponent is lacking in some way.  So be it.

My ad would feature people who have overcome poverty and/or disability because they were supported in some way by government programs which comprise the "safety net."  There could be a person who is the first in her family to exit poverty through educational grants.  Or someone who received treatment for a disabling condition (physical or mental) through Medicaid and is now an independent, contributing (tax paying!) member of society.  It would be good if the featured person is someone viewers would recognize.  The background music?  No question: "Lean on Me," though not Bill Withers' version, something more upbeat, say the one by the "Glee" cast or even the USC Trojans' attempt.  Nah, I'll go with the former, though the latter is fun to watch.

The point of the ad would be to get viewers feeling good about helping others, to celebrate the successes we, as a nation, can create if we are willing to assist those who are less fortunate.  There are those who, by characterizing the poor as lazy, unmotivated, and chronically dependent, excuse themselves from having to help.
I'd like my ad to begin to decrease their numbers.

The theme of my ad is well described by poet and activist Anitra L. Freeman, who benefitted from government assistance during the time her mental illness caused her to become homeless:

"Do you believe that human beings are interdependent on each other: that we are not only nobler, but wiser, when we help each other out over rough spots? Or do you believe that the human race is stronger when people who can not make it through rough spots on their own are allowed to die? Do you believe that each of us is the beneficiary of countless good things we did not create and gifts we did not earn: electricity, medical hygiene, computer technology, the printing press, to name a few? Or do you believe that you are entirely a "self-made person"? Do you believe that government is a social compact to keep us off each other's backs, or a social compact to care for each other?"

Songstress Disses Mitt

I didn't see last night's debate between VP Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan because I was at Brooklyn's Barclays Center with my sisters, attending a Barbra Streisand concert.  Barbra took questions from the audience and when she was asked about her reaction to Mitt Romney's plan to cut funding for Public Television, she responded,  "I love Big Bird and I hope no one tells Romney how to get to Sesame Street...or to Pennsylvania Avenue."

Ms Streisand had plenty more to say about the race for the White House and told those of us in the audience that if we cared about the environment, women's right to choose, and other progressive issues, then "you know who to vote for."  I know there are many who are offended by entertainers using their celebrity status to try to influence the outcomes of elections.  But last night's crowd seemed to celebrate Ms Streisand's comments--very enthusiastically.

Well, I'd better go watch that DVR'd debate.  There's a big baseball game on later tonight.

Audacious Diane

The six PM World news broadcast tonight featured a startlingly bold interview of President Obama by anchor Diane Sawyer.  It speaks for itself, of course, but I couldn't help but feel heartened by Mr. Obama's response to the tough questions.  I'm pretty sensitive to the facial expressions and body language of others and didn't detect even a hint of irritation or defensiveness on the part of the President.  I am predicting a greatly improved second debate for the incumbent.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/president-obama-debate-performance-bad-night-17446753

(Sorry, I guess viewers will have to put up with a short ad at the start)

Debate Distress

I haven't yet recovered from my disappointment regarding Mr. Obama's performance in the fist Presidential debate.  I worry about the seeming effect it has had on the polls.  I fret that he might overcorrect in the next debate and come across as aggressive and unpleasant, turning off the more genteel viewers.

More immediately, I am stressing about Thursday's Vice Presidential debate.
Tracey Schmitt, a Republican strategist told Politico that, "When he (Biden) is all guns blazing, he tends to misfire."  Well, yes.  While Vice President Biden is a seasoned politician, informed about the issues, he also has a history of goofing up.  There even exist multiple youtube videos on the subject, one called "The Best of Joe Biden's Gaffes; a Continuing Series."

Nevertheless, I trust that there are many people out there in the voting citizenry who feel as I do; that no matter how disappointing the showing a candidate makes in debates, it's mostly the party platform that matters.
Regardless of how well Romney and Ryan do in their television appearances, I do not forget their intentions to put vulnerable populations at risk through  punitive changes in the safety net.  I do not forget their lack of support for gay rights or their discriminatory positions on women's health issues.  Would I like Obama and Biden to make good showings in the debates to come?  Of course.  But even if they disappoint, they still get my vote.

Who Prepped the POTUS? (or Who Didn't?)

I watched the first Presidential Debate of 2012 with a sinking heart.  While Governor Romney presented as alert, engaged and sharp, my candidate appeared distracted and irritable.  Romney reliably looked in the direction of the President when speaking.  Obama looked down (taking notes?) or at the moderator, sometimes seeming to plead for Jim Lehrer to intervene in some way.

I have often found Presidential debates to be frustrating, as the candidates often fail to respond to the questions asked, but simply present "answers" which put forth their own agendas.  The candidates frequently hurl unflattering accusations at one another which are then denied by the opponent and repeated anew.   Arrrggghhh!  What are voters supposed to learn when nearly everything claimed is only partially accurate?

Mr. Lehrer clearly had trouble "controlling" the candidates.  I was distracted by trying to envision a better way of obtaining the cooperation of the debaters.  Would turning off their microphones after two minutes work?  What about if the moderator shouted, "Enough!" (or even, "Shut up!")?  A vaudeville type hook?

The summary statement of the President was especially troubling.  Mr. Obama had an opportunity to connect with the viewers by looking into the camera as he made his final "pitch."  He did so only fleetingly.  I'm sure that preparing for a debate of this magnitude is overwhelming, with facts to memorize and arguments to formulate.  But looking at the camera is an easy way to score points and he didn't do it.  I'll bet he does next time.