Newsmaker

In Honor of the Presidential Election Newsmaker, Andrew Wolf has created a cross post on the election and its impact on Cornell and our country.

It was just one of those moments. Time stood still, and everything began anew. Long before midnight, just seconds after the polls closed in California, Barack Hussein Obama was elected president of the United States of America. As I stepped onto College Ave., car horns were honking, strangers were hugging, and fireworks were sent loudly into the sky. Half an hour later standing in one of Collegetown’s many half rate bars, we all crammed around the television as Obama took to the stage and gave a beautiful and beautifully orchestrated victory speech.

It was, of course, hardly a victory speech. It was a presidential speech. The Obama campaign would not let anyone into the park with an Obama sign. You were only given an American flag or nothing at all. The stage had no symbols from his campaign but merely a stoic line of Old Glories.

The speech weaved and bobbed through history, touching on our past and our present. It was a reminder that the president-elect will be the head of all 50 states, not just the blue ones. As his words crashed down, and the Motown picked up, the nation sighed a sigh of relief - relief because the election was over. Two years on both sides of rage, race, and ruckus was now a park full of Americans dancing to Stevie Wonder.

It was amazing to me how real and imperfect Obama seemed on that stage. He seems so tangible and human. MLK, Gandhi, Mother Teresa never seemed real to me. They were beyond reality. Obama looks like you should be having dinner with him, not listening to him give eloquent speeches. His persona and his story are so much larger than larger than life, yet his personality is so simple.

Here we are just over two weeks later, and the world has quietly been turned on its head. For most of America we returned to our lives. Washington has erupted into pious power jockeying… no surprise there. So as Obama’s various constituencies line up and demand him to pony up, let’s join to course, Cornell did vote overwhelmingly blue - didn’t we?

Barack Obama as President could have an incredible impact upon colleges such as Cornell. For starters, I believe Obama’s Washington will become a hotbed of activity and jobs. I suspect Cornellians, who dreamed of shaping policy will find far more opportunities than under the Bush administration. Following the election of FDR, Washington became a beehive of college graduates, helping investigate and crunch the numbers on what became the New Deal. With the increase in think tanks, this should only be greater. Furthermore, with the crash of the stock market many economics and finance students might want to turn their dreams from Wall Street to K Street.

Beyond jobs in Washington, Obama wants to increase service opportunities. I bet we will find Teach For America, the Peace Corp, and other new programs well funded.

Obama has pledged to invest in research, and Cornell, undoubtedly, will find its already deep pockets further padded during this process. Bush has been unbelievably good at cutting funding for science. America uniquely teaches its students to be creative, and this has facilitated our dominance of science for years. But over the past few years, our students have had to become far too creative as they attempted to reach for the stars with no money. I believe engineering, space studies, agriculture, and economics in particular will find funding easier to come by.

Most importantly, Obama’s tax plan stands to save students thousands of dollars a year. His tax plan, for the first time in history, will offer up to $4,000 in tax breaks for families sending their children to college. He also hopes to end our disastrous experiment with privatized student loans. Opponents of this plan call it socialism, but it is the current system that most resembles the Soviet Union. Under our current system, the federal government will pay student loan companies back if students default on loans. So the loan company jacks up the price in order to make sure students default on their loans, because they know the government will pay the inflated bill.

Sadly, an Obama presidency will most likely result in less material for comedians. Gone are our days of stopping our homework at 11:00 PM to snuggle up to our John Stewart to get our requisite half an hour of Bush hating. Let us just hope foreign leaders can ante up and cover our humor deficit.

Beyond Cornell, Washington has been shuffling people faster than you could imagine. Rahm Emanuel? Really? the chorus of pundits and insiders cried. Emanuel has been chosen to be Obama’s Chief of Staff. Now this is the most important secretarial position in the country, a position which on the surface sounds boring at best. Emanuel is known as “The Bulldog” and is known to have a vast vocabulary of four letter words. This, many feel, goes against Obama’s image. Now, people… people, people, people… Obama ran for president on a platform of cotton candy and rainbows. Washington is made out of blood and destruction. Emanuel was a signal to Pelosi, Reid, unions, civil rights groups, women’s groups, and anyone else who thinks they elected Obama, that they are not in charge. Any other choice would have been unwise and irresponsible.

We have already seen them lining up at Obama’s door. Pelosi thinks she can move hard left suddenly, and Harry Reid forgot that he needs 60 votes to pass anything and is trying to force Lieberman out of the party. Unions want labor law reform, day one. Women’s groups want greater protections for abortion. Immigrant groups want amnesty. It’s insanity, and if Obama is not careful he will be rendered useless sometime around February 1st.

This does raise an important point. Obama will not be all puppies and rainbows, or even change and YES WE CAN. By the end of January – just 10 days into his term – I bet that most of use will be upset with something he did. Columbia Free Trade Agreement? Sorry unions. Complete National Health Care? Maybe not. Quick withdrawl from Iraq? Maybe next year. For those who could not keep their heads on straight and believed that Obama is the second coming, you will be sorely mistaken… and for that, I am sorry.

It has been wonderful to watch how quickly the world has fallen back in love with us. We are (yet again!) the land of opportunity. I think we should all take pride in the fact that we are the first country to elect a national minority as head of state. Iraq’s government on November 5 told the New York Times that they are excited because Obama will actually respect their withdrawal time table. Since 9/11, we have forgotten the power of peace, we have forgotten the respect and power that comes from silence, and we have forgotten what it means to be a citizen of this world.

This next year will be rocky; it will be exciting; it will frustrate; but most of all it will be different. As we take solace in victory over race, let us not forget Barack’s own warning, “This election is not about me; it’s about you.” Good luck to those who do not react.

 

The tour series is called the Steel Blitz for Barack sponsored by the United Steel Workers. The tour features a clever mix of Steelers football, steelworkers, and Barack. The heads of the USW are rallying their members to turn out the vote for Obama by touring Pennsylvania with the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers and some retired players. We luckily were invited along for the ride. While the idea is simple the task is not. Union membership does not automatically mean a Democratic vote.

We spent our morning at one of the Steel Workers’ smallest locals. It did not go off as planned. The AFL-CIO decided not to bring the stage for the rally. This was just as well because it was not the correct weather for an outdoor rally. As we sloshed around in the rain with the steel workers, we got an interesting portrait of the election in the Northeast’s only swing state. The union was passing out flyers, “Barack Obama WON’T Take Away Your Gun…But John McCain WILL Take Away Your Union.” One thing has become very apparent, the polls are lying, the race in PA is extremely close.

I was struck by the sense that Obama supporters are getting overly excited. I overheard the union officials saying the internal polls were a lot closer. Then there is the fact that John McCain more or less needs to win Pennsylvania to win and has shifted his resources accordingly.

The Steelers were clearly a big draw. It was two old timers, one guy a receiver I gathered was really good in his day. As much as the Patriots fan in me doesn’t want to admit it, the Steelers are pretty cool. At the second and third events, the owner of the Steelers showed up with his son. There is something really nice about rich people saying, “I don’t pay enough taxes, and you, the middle class, are getting screwed.” The Steelers embody the working class heroes, whom they are named after. It is clearly instilled in the players and it seemed only natural that they give back in this way.

It was a pretty unique opportunity to travel around with the USW. Much to my surprise the international president of the union joined us. Leo Gerard is the president of the International, which represents nearly 3 million of the 15 million unionized workers in the US. Leo was extremely down to earth. He started as a coal miner and has worked his way up to where he is today.

Over breakfast Leo, covered head to toe in Steelers and Obama garb, was all jokes as he was busy recounting something he had heard on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown the night before. I listened as Leo was talking about which parts of his stump speech seemed to be connecting with the workers most. He found the old timers really connected with Obama choosing to go visit his dying grandma, despite the election sprinting to its close.

Leo is a smart guy who has a true brotherhood with the workers. I was really impressed with Leo’s speech. So often on the news we hear people attempting to turn Obama into a saint. Leo, while appreciating Obama’s character, sees the election in terms of the issues that affect him and the steel workers. The speech was about why Obama is better for the middle class than McCain. In fact, his stump speech spends more time attacking McCain’s policies then claiming Obama is the savior. It is an interesting distinction. It is almost seeing one’s vote as a defensive measure rather than an investment.

Leo also had no problem going after McCain’s character. “McCain came back from Vietnam to find his beautiful queen wife disabled, not so beautiful; so he cheated on her and left.” Everywhere we went, McCain’s divorce mattered more than I realized. In these small communities, where everyone works at the plant, betrayal becomes a community matter, and they were holding McCain to this same standard.

It occurs to me that maybe the way these candidates are talked about in kitchens across the country is vastly different from the impressions presented on TV and in the papers. It is hard to pin down how each community’s unique social reality frames the larger world.

Around 4 o’clock we headed on to Ohio. We drove across the point where Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia meet. Frankly, I found it fitting that these are the places that determine our president because they are the ones most in need of help. The poverty was striking. Homes and trailers reinforced with cardboard. There were no stores nor any semblance of a town to be found. One thing that struck me as particularly odd was that with so much open land, all the houses were right on top of each other. It was beautiful land of rolling hills and corn fields running along the banks of the Ohio River. The closer we got to Cleveland the ratio of McCain to Obama signs switched. Not surprisingly somewhere in the middle the signs stood at a 50-50 ratio. Particularly interesting was that the Obama houses were also sporting handmade signs reading, “You can steal my sign but you can’t steal my vote!” One last comment on yard signs, they were ridiculously big in Ohio. I would say 4 times the size of the average NY yard sign.

I hoped to interview some voters in Cleveland, but there weren’t any people to talk to. We seriously drove around Cleveland without even seeing a soul. Judging from the vast number of churches in the town we could only assume that’s where they must all be. Although, I feel no ill feeling for Cleveland my breakfast was only $3.95 after all.

My experience driving through the ultimate swing states are that this really is a referendum on Obama. The partisans are partisan.  But the middle class voters we meet have a decision to make. For some they need to decide if Obama will take away their guns or if God will allow them to go blue. I don’t mean this in a derogatory way.  It is just that these were the issues people were talking about. As for racism, I confirmed that there are racists, but they seem to have found other reasons to justify voting for McCain. God, Guns, and Race…our economic futures hangs in the balance in the American Midwest.

Erie, Pennsylvania 10:59 just fed the car some much needed oil. It is extremely windy. I guess when it’s not cold enough it’s just lake effect wind. I am lamenting the fact that it is night because I am sure we are traveling through some beautiful rolling hills.

So far I have not met any racists.

It is funny to think that it is places like this that decide the

fate of our election and some might say that of

the whole world. I don't say it is funny because

these are backwards parts of our country, but

because they aren't really all that different

from anywhere else. A rural gas station in Erie

is much like a rural gas station in New York,

Massachusetts, or Wisconsin. People are people;

we all want to be safe and healthy.

We had an amazing dinner in Almond, NY. Not

dressed in native garb, we did stick out like

sore thumbs. When we entered the restaurant heads

clearly turned in our direction. The menu said it

all though. They had a special “Inflation

Busting” section, a Burger for only 4.95. We live

in an increasingly connected world, one where we

find people with sources and streams of

information that just a few years ago were

unavailable. People are surprisingly informed.

I suppose it is important to discuss unions. We

will be working with the United Steel Workers.

Unions represent at best 12% of the American workforce

down from a high in the early 50's of around 33%. 

More importantly, unions in the private sector 

account for only 7% of all workers. The decline 

of unions has many causes be it unfair laws, 

aggressive management, poor union leadership, 

and globalization. What is more important 

are the effects of the decline. The

middle class has shrunk over the last three

decades, pensions are a foreign concept to my

generation, and for most families their

children’s lives will not be better than theirs.

Simply, the American dream is moving further and further away from a reality.

Ronald Reagan once said “Government is not the

solution it is the problem.” It is funny because

I couldn't agree more. Our laws are getting in

the way of the American dream. Unionization is a

near impossible task for most workers. That is

what is at stake in this election.

Barack Obama Supports EFCA (the Employee Free

Choice Act), a measure that would legalize and

mandate the process of workers signing cards

asking for a union, if over 50% sign a card…

blamo…there is a union. It should not be too hard

to see why employers would hate this. The GOP has

claimed this is an assault on democracy and the

sanctity of the secret ballot. A claim anyone who

has ever witnessed or read about a unionization

election would brush off as hog wash. More

importantly this is the process most unions

already use. Obama just wants to give it further legal legitimacy.

Bruce Raynor, President of UNITE-HERE a union of

textile, hotel, and service employees, claims

that if EFCA is passed there will be 5 million

new union members in two years. For unions this

election is about far more than Obama.

That’s what we hope to explore on our journey.

For unions this is about EFCA. Getting back to

Reagan, what is so interesting is that if the

government made is easier to unionize many of the

nation's problems would correct themselves. Unions

mean higher wages, more insured, more job

security, fewer people on food stamps, fewer people

showing up to the emergency room with a cold,

fewer people living off the tax payer dollar, and

more tax dollars to be collected.

It strikes me as we travel through the state

where McCain is supposedly pitching his last

stand that we live in an artificially polarized

country. Though one thing is clear: when menus

in Almond, NY mock the financial crisis something has got to give.

On the day that OPEC, the Mideast oligopoly of

oil producers, announced that it will cut oil

production to keep prices artificially high I

decided it was a perfect day for a road trip.

Four of us have piled into a purple hand painted

mini van and are heading to Pennsylvania. The

purpose? We got invited by the Steelworkers’

Union to help staff rallies for Barack Obama

featuring the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers.

Clearly, it’s a once in a lifetime opportunity.

We head off as the election has been blown as

wide open as the stock market. With the

inevitable recession looming over this nation’s

historically racist parts this country has

decided to close their eyes and pull the lever

for a black man, whose middle name is Hussein. As

The Atlantic reported earlier this month,

door-to-door canvassers in Pennsylvania at one

house asked a man who he was voting for; without

blinking he responded, “I am voting for the nigger”…wow…America!

 

With the numbers and reality turning against

them, the GOP media has gotten silly. Michelle

Bachmann, congresswomen from crazy town

Minnesota, in a circular interview with Chris

Matthews said that she was worried that Obama was

anti-American and that we should do a serious

investigation into who in Congress hates

America…I’ll save her the time and trouble…it’s

the Democrats. The National Review’s Christopher

Buckley not only endorsed Obama but did so

because he claims to no longer know what

Conservatism stands for. Then he resigned from

the publication his father, the conservative ideological juggernaut, started.

 

Even Karl Rove has been forced to admit that

statistically Obama should win. The National

Review and the Weekly Standard have suddenly

become statistics journals, investigating and

exploring any possible issue with the unfriendly

polling numbers. Day after day articles can be

found about the way this poll is garbage or how

this poll’s sample size is out of whack. They

claim the polls are over-sampling Democrats. As

fivethirtyeight.com points out this is because

there are currently more registered Democrats

than Republicans and therefore it is almost

impossible to not sample more Democrats.

 

Tina Fey has completely highjacked Palin’s public

persona. We no longer talk about Sarah Palin we

talk about Tina Fey’s Palin. This week the only

talk of the real Sarah was that the RNC spent

$150K to clothe her and her family. While normally

not a big deal that sum is pretty much equal to

the average cost of a home in the US, and

remember we are losing our homes in record

numbers? -1 one for relating to voters. It’s all

part of the side show this election has become.

We ran out of substantive debate a long time ago.

Now we just have the political equivalent of the squirrel jet skiing.*

 

But me and my fearless journeymen are going into

the belly of the beast. We will unlock the truth

behind the claims that racists are voting for the

black guy. More importantly we will figure out

who convinced the Steelers to drive around

Pennsylvania with a bunch of college kids in a purple van.

 

*See Daily Show for Clarification

Hey Folks,

So school got busy and my blog fell by the wayside. I am gonna make it up to you. I’ll post everyday or every other day until the election. In return you got to promise to make comments so that I know I am not just writing for my dad and my girlfriend. Deal?

Here is a great article from theroot.com

Will White People Riot?

By Wendi C. Thomas | TheRoot.com

Ridiculous question? Then stop asking it about black people.

Oct. 20, 2008–

“Would black people riot if Sen. Barack Obama didn’t win the election?” That was the question a white man in Memphis recently asked a racial reconciliation group with which I am involved.

After five years of being a columnist for the daily paper in Memphis, I wasn’t surprised by the absurdity of his query. Many whites still labor under the illusion that black folk act en masse and that if you ask the right one, you can get the official position of some 40 million people. If a few of us get angry, that logic allows, it must surely result in a riot.

Riot because we didn’t get our way? Please. Black people have more than their share of experience with disappointment and dashed dreams. (See: King, Martin Luther; Evers, Medgar; Chaney, James.) Matter of fact, I’d go so far as to say we’re experts in making the best out of a losing hand.

The reply to the curious white gentleman: “No! There is no reason to believe black people will riot if Obama does not win.”

But soon after getting this man’s e-mail, I started to wonder if he was on to something, if he had noticed what I had: a seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration that makes good riot fuel. The kind of anger that prompts people to shout “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” at rallies. The kind of hatefulness that would prompt a man to bring a stuffed monkey with an “Obama” sticker on the toy’s head to a campaign event.

That kind of group-fueled nastiness must surely beg the question: Will white people riot if Obama wins?

Not all white people are McCain supporters. (See primaries, Iowa.) Not all black people are backing Obama. (See Negroes, self-loathing. Just joking.)

But there is a small but vocal segment of white Republicans who just might have an aneurysm if the next occupant of the White House is a black man.

If the polls are accurate—and Obama wins—will these few angry white people make good on their oral declarations? And will those who stood by them silent, join them? With dreams deferred, can angry whites do what Langston Hughes taught us—to let it fester like a sore, even to let sag like a heavy load? Or will the dream of a perfect streak of white men in the White House, if deferred, cause white people to explode?

Might they torch stores and overturn cars? Or worse, will angry whites take out their disgust on black people by, say, denying loans, or jobs or housing? Burned-out stores and cars, that’s unsettling. But the damage angry whites could inflict if they really go off—that’s scary.

Will angry white people riot if Barack Obama wins the election?

There may be some people who think this is an absurd question. I honestly don’t know. But it is no more absurd than asking it about blacks.

Wendi C. Thomas is the metro columnist for The Commercial Appeal. She’s been a writer or an editor for The Charlotte Observer, The (Nashville) Tennessean and The Indianapolis Star. Among her many journalism awards is her 2008 induction into the Scripps Howard Hall of Fame for her opinion writing.

and yes anyone who reads this and takes me up on this will get a free beer if I am wrong…I am that convinced…

Barack Obama will win the US presidential election with 54.5% of the popular vote, because of efforts to overcome voter disenfranchisement, the increase in Democratic party identification, the theory of economic voting, the theory of the directional spatial voting, and because of the polling trends and the trends of the political betting markets. On all important categories that political scientists have identified as predictive of election outcomes, Obama holds an advantage. Above all else, it is the political betting markets that have been found to most accurately predict election outcomes, and with the Iowa market currently trading at Obama receiving 54.5% of the popular vote, it is apparent that all available information is indicating an Obama victory on November 4^th.

It is important to look at who is likely to vote in this election and whom this will benefit. Beyond individual and social reasons people will choose to vote, there are institutional rules that govern voting. Much fuss has been made about the issue of voter disenfranchisement, either legal bars on felons or practical bars such as long voting lines during lunch time. Manza and Uggen concluded in their paper Punishment and Democracy that felon voting laws disproportionately affects minorities. They also noted, “…states with larger proportions of nonwhites in their prison populations were more likely to pass restrictive laws…”[1] They also found that this provided a small advantage for Republicans, since minorities are more likely to be Democrats, looking at data from 1972 to 2000.[2] While this research seems to indicate an advantage for McCain, the consistency of this advantage makes it seem unlikely to truly determine this election’s come.

Far more important than felon voting laws is the Republicans’ attempts to purge voters whose homes have been disclosed in swing states. But Obama’s legal team has effectively nullified this practice.[3] Obama’s team has gone even further by trying to help those voters, who traditionally have found it harder to vote,: such as students, nurses, firemen, and others who work long shifts or are traditionally mobile. Their biggest success has been in Ohio, where early voting allows an entire week of same day registering and voting.[4] These targeted registration campaigns are important because research has shown that they are the most effective way of increasing turnout, even beyond simply liberalizing registration laws.[5]

Beyond who will vote, it is important to evaluate the theories of how people determine their vote. The research on vote choice has found party identification and the state of the economy as the most important factors in determining vote choice. But there are also issues associated with the campaigns and political ideology that could affect the outcome of this election. The theories on vote choice are broken down into the importance of party, issues, and candidates.

According the Michigan Model of vote choice Party identification is the most important factor affecting vote choice, and since the Democratic Party has been enjoying a huge increase in party registration this would indicate an Obama victory. In Miller and Shanks’ paper Multiple –Stage Explanation of Political Preferences the found that when holding all other variables constant Party ID’s coefficient of correlation was still statistically significant at 0.16.[6] This is to say, when all else is accounted for, 16% of the vote is still determined by party ID. The authors explain the effect as such, “It acts as a ‘tie breaker’ because the effects of other political attitudes are balanced, or as the only influence for individuals, who do not have any other basis for choice…”[7] So Party ID is heuristic. It either tells people what their best choice is, when all other information leaves them with tied impressions of the candidates, or it is the only deciding factor, when the voter has no information on the candidates.

More importantly, this same paper found that party ID was the most important factor determining vote choice. Issues were not as relevant. For example, holding all other factors equal government assistance to the disadvantaged had a coefficient of 0.04, homosexuals in the military a coefficient of 0.05, and abortion -0.01. What this indicates is, not that these issues are necessarily important, but that they tell us almost no new information about vote choice when party ID is known. Knowing someone’s party identification is the best way to determine how they will vote. So the rise in Democratic registration should equal an increased support for Obama.

Another way to look at the importance of Party ID in this election is to observe its effects on the campaigns. It has been shown in studies that campaigns do not have a huge effect on the election. Campbell in his paper How Campaigns Matter hypothesized that this is because campaigns are really about convincing members of the candidates party not to jump ship. He explains,  “…reinforcement is one in which  the voter at the outset of the campaign intends to defect from their predispositions (usually partisanship) but change their intention and remain loyal as a result of the campaign’s reinforcement…”[8] This is consisted the Michigan Model which says that your perceptions of the candidates are influenced by your party ID. The classic example from this election was John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his VP choice. Facing large defections from the evangelical base McCain needed Palin to secure these votes. But the fact that this was even a problem for McCain means he is campaigning from a disadvantage.

Although Party ID might be the most significant predictor of vote choice, the increase in the number of Americans not identifying with a political party might indicate the importance of issues on vote choice. The literature on the issue of vote choice identifies economic conditions as the most important variable. Additionally, people tend to vote sociotropicly, looking at business conditions as a whole instead of their own personal condition when they vote.[9] As a result, Nadeau and Lewis-Beck’s found that voters first and foremost attribute the state of the economy to the actions of the president despite that we often have divided government, where the president and the congress are not of the same party.[10] They conclude that when the incumbent president is running for reelections people evaluate the economy retrospectively, looking at how the economy has been However, when no incumbent is running (such as the current election) voters look at the economy prospectively. They explain the effects as follows, “The classic V.O. Key economic voter then compares an in-party to an out-party, rather than an in-candidate to an out-candidate (since both candidates are “out”).”[11] Since the future outlook of the economy is not good, John McCain is disadvantaged, because he is of the in-party.

The research did find that with no incumbent running economic voting is weakened, which would lead to the conclusion that the economic conditions will not automatically give the election to Obama. It seems that with the financial crisis and the potential of recession that there is no possible way that economic voting is weaker simple because no incumbent is running. The Obama campaign’s constant attempts to convince voters that McCain and Bush’s economic policies are the same is further evidence that prospective voting is tied to “in-party” status and this it is important in this election. Given the literature on economic voting and the large degree to which economics affects vote choice, one can say with a high probability that this issue alone should be enough to predict an Obama victory.

The final, variable that the literature of vote choice attributes to vote choice is the candidates. Candidates are personified by their campaigns and their ideology. In Campbell’s paper, he concluded that campaigns have about a 4% effect on the outcome on the election.[12] Clearly campaigns do not have the effect on vote choice that party ID and economics do. Campaigns do attempt to locate the candidates ideologically. The literature on the effect of a candidate’s ideology on voting is summarized in two spatial models,: the proximity and the directional models. The proximity model predicts that two candidates will split the vote by aligning themselves just on either side of the median voter. So McCain goes just to the right of the median voter and gets everyone to the right. The model further predicts that support for candidates should peak where the candidates are located and then taper off on either side, a fact not supported by the data. The proximity model would predict that John McCain should win because he has long been considered a centrist. There is a problem with this model, namely that it is hard to decided where candidates are located on either issues. In response, political scientists came up with the directional model, which says that politicians try to locate themselves as taking sides on the issues and then people vote for the candidate that is on the same side as they on the greatest number of issues. This model would support Obama because there are a greater number of registered Democrats and a larger number of people who think he would be better at fixing the economy. One way to examine the model’s validity is to look at the candidates’ voting records. We will look at the 2006 voting records for the two candidates because both men voted very little in 2007 and voted only when their party most needed their votes, meaning their ideological rating would be more extreme. According to Lewis and Poole, using a formula developed by political scientists, reporting for voteview.com they found that ideologically Obama was the 20^th most liberal senator and McCain was the 2^nd most conservative senator.[13] Now their actual rank does not say much because who knows what they were actually voting on and senators tend to be more moderate than other elected officials in the first place. What is important to note however is that they are not located in the middle in terms of ideology. They seem to be following the logic of the directional model by choosing sides without going to a punishable extreme. This makes sense because the candidates want to offer the voters actual choices on the issues instead of seeming like slightly different shades of gray. It seems that the data supports the directional model of voting which should help Obama win.

Beyond the theory, it is also important to take into account the polls that are predicting the outcome of the election. As of 10/4/08 the polls are predicting a large Obama victory. RealClearPolitics.com (RCP), which averages all of the polls, shows Obama winning nationally by 5.9%.[14] More importantly however, RCP’s electoral vote calculator shows Obama with 264 electoral votes either locked in or learning his way (where leaning means a RCP state average of 5%). That means Obama only needs six more electoral votes to win and RCP shows him up in many of the leftover toss-up states. Furthermore, fivethirtyeight.com which adjusts its polls given historical trends, a method found to be more effective[15], computes probability scenarios and finds that the probability that McCain loses either Ohio and Michigan but still wins the election at 1.51%[16] and McCain’s campaign announced a few days ago that they were giving up on trying to win in Michigan.[17] Simply put, Obama has far more ways of winning the Electoral College than McCain does. But polls are not even the best method for determining who will win. Far more effective are political betting markets.[18] The markets are so accurate because, just like actually stock markets, they represent all available information. This includes all of the above theories mentioned. The markets were accurately able to predict how every state would vote in the 2004 presidential election and predicted every senate race in 2006.[19] The Iowa University market as of 10/5/08 has Obama’s vote share price quote at 0.545 or 54.5% of the vote with a 73.7% chance of an Obama victory.[20] The intrade market as of 10/5/08 closed with a 66.7% chance that Obama will win.[21] Given the history of these political markets accurately predicting the outcome and the unfavorable Electoral College map for McCain, it seems extremely unlikely that he could win.

Beyond the media punditry and the coverage of gaffes and counter gaffes the political science theories all indicate an Obama victory this November. Despite the effective disenfranchisement of voters through purging and other tactics by the GOP in years past, Obama’s legal team has more than a reason to fight this challenge. More importantly, they are engaging in rigorous targeted voter drives, a technique found to be far more effective at increasing turnout than liberalizing voting laws. The increased number of registered Democrats also strongly indicates an Obama advantage. The theory of prospective economic evaluations explains that simple by being a member of the “in-party” John McCain is at a disadvantage. The directional model of voting also favors Obama and his expanded Democratic party. All the polling is trending Obama’s. Most importantly, John McCain’s possible Electoral College maps to victory are becoming more and more impossible. Finally, the extremely predictive political betting markets are all predicting over a 65% chance of Obama winning. While campaigns do fluctuate and change, with only a few weeks to go John McCain will not find favorable news from the electoral theories.

---

[1] Manza, Jeff & Uggen, Cristopher. 2004. Punishment and Democracy: Disenfranchisement of Nonincarcerated Felons in the United States. Perspectives on Politics 2 (3): 293.[2] Ibid: 497

[3] Halloran, Liz. 2008. ACLU Sues Michigan Over Voter Purge Program. U.S. News and World Report. http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/09/18/aclu-sues-michigan-over-voter-purge-program-saying-it-hurts-college-students.html. (accessed October 4, 2008).

[4] Majors, Stephen. 2008. Ohio election officials brace for early voting. AP Report. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmJpgsrR27lwSUQ24_WSSrU0W-JwD93GUI9G1. (accessed October 4, 2008).

[5] Mitchell & Wlezien. 1995. Article sited in lecture on 9/11/2008.

[6] Miller, Warren & Shanks, Merrill. 1996. Multiple-Stage Explanation of Political Preferences. In Controversies in Voting Behavior, ed. Richard Niemi, 226. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

[7] Ibid: 227.

[8] Campbell, James E. 2008. The American Campaign. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 197.

[9] Prof Peter Ens Cornell Government Dept

[10] Nadeau, Richard & Lewis-Beck, Michael. 2001. National Economic Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections. In Controversies in Voting Behavior, ed. Richard Niemi, 209. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

[11] Ibid: 208.

[12] Campbell: 191.

[13] Lewis, Jeff & Poole, Keith. 2006. 109^th Senate Rank Ordering. Carnegie – Mellon Unversity. http://voteview.com/sen109.htm (accessed October 4, 2008)

[14] RealClearPolitics. 2008. General Election: McCain vs. Obama. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html (accessed October 4, 2008)

[15] Prof Peter Ens Cornell Government Dept

[16] Silver, Nate. 2008. Scenario Analysis. FiveThirtyEight.com. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/. (accessed October 5, 2008)

[17] Chris Cillizza. 2008. McCain Moves out of Michigan: What It Means. Washington Post. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/10/mccain_moves_out_of_michigan_w.html?nav=rss_blog. (accessed October 6, 2008)

[18] Wolfers, Justin. 2007. Best Bet for Nest President: Prediction Markets. The Wall Street Journal, December 31.

[19] Ibid

[20] Iowa Electronic Markets. 2008. Market Quotes. http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/quotes.cfm. (accessed October 5, 2008)

[21] Intrade. 2008 Realtime Electoral Vote Predictor. http://www.intrade.com/. (accessed October 5, 2008)

I found this great article by Jay Cost of realclearpolitics.com, it’s amazing this guy is only a grad student.

October 03, 2008

Nebraska and Maine?

I noted with interest stories today discussing McCain and Obama opening up campaign offices in some far-flung places: McCain in Bangor, Maine and Obama in Omaha, Nebraska. Maine and Nebraska do not have reputations as swing states, so what the heck are these guys up to?

Part of it is to head off the possibility of something like this occurring:

What you see here is a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College. So also is this:

What happens when there is such a tie? We go to Amendment 12, which states:

The person having the greatest Number of [Electoral College] votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

That’s right, the House of Representatives - which acquitted itself so beautifully over the last week! - gets to make the choice, but with a twist. Each state gets one vote. That makes things a little dicey, for both campaigns.

For McCain, the problem is obvious: the Democrats control the Congress. Not only that, but they currently control 27 of the 50 state caucuses. The GOP controls 21 and 2 are split.

But Obama has a problem here, too. In this scenario, McCain will have won more states, which means that to win, Obama will have to convince some Democrats to vote against their states. A few unfortunate souls would probably have to vote against their own districts. In 2004 George W. Bush won 255 congressional districts to Kerry’s 180. A 269-269 tie like this implies that McCain will probably have won more districts than Obama, which would complicate matters for the Democrat.

Why is it that Maine and Nebraska are relevant to this scenario? Most states allocate electors on a winner-take-all basis. Maine and Nebraska do, too - but they also dole out electors depending upon who won which congressional districts. If McCain were to win Maine’s second district, he’d get an elector. If Obama were to win Nebraska’s third, he’d get an elector. That could make the difference.

That would be especially helpful because here’s how the Vice-President is selected.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.

Again, the same tension would exist. Biden would have more Democrats. Palin would have more states.

Note that the House picks the President, the Senate picks the Veep. That means it’s possible to see a split in the executive branch - one party wins the top job, another wins the second job!

So, a spare elector from Maine or Nebraska could be quite useful.

The Daily Show held a debate focus group of elderly Florida Jews. The result…delicious

Stupid embedder tool not letting me put content from daily show…go here

Who won the debate? That is the all important question. From my own personal vantage point, no one won, which someone pointed out means Obama won. By virtue of being ahead, a tie means he is still ahead. McCain has been desperate for a game changer, and he didn’t get one at the debate.

Of course, the pundits are pundits, and actual voter reaction is most important; so here it is:

CBS Insta Poll: Obama 39%, McCain 25% and 36% not sure who won

MediaCurves.com: Independents gave Obama a 61% to 38% win.

CNN: Obama “did better” 51%, McCain “did better” 38%. Men even split. Women Obama 59% to McCain 41%. (Maybe as my classmate pointed out McCain in HDTV is not pretty)

Insider Advantage: Obama 42%, McCain’s 41% and 17% not sure who won.

And of course, Sunday’s Gallup Tracking Poll: Obama 50%, McCain 42%

Things the pundits said that I think are important:

Pat Buchanan (Also, how did this right wing yahoo/semi-racist warm his way into my heart with his charmingly unbiased reporting) recalled that while working for Reagan, the cowboy did not do that well in a debate against Mondale. But as the media buzz grew people’s perceptions of Reagan’s victory grew to above 80%, despite Pat’s belief that Reagan was terrible. So expect this again and forever.

John McCain visibly could not stand Obama. McCain never once looked Obama in the eye.

McCain got angry a few times, repeatedly told Obama he didn’t understand, and appeared flummoxed. Not to mention, McCain kept referring to how old he is. While Obama stayed calm and was not afraid to agree with McCain. Possible perception being that McCain is an angry old man with a temper (we have heard this before).

When Obama gave his laundry list of things he believes McCain was wrong about, McCain retreated to talking about how he stands up for wounded veterans (a point having nothing to do with Obama’s complaints). At some point he will be perceived as hiding behind the flag.

McCain’s best moment was when he said the next president won’t have to worry about winning the war in Iraq, but instead when and how we leave. This is an extremely good mantra for his campaign.

Obama did not do well on the Iran issue. And the exchange about Henry Kissinger was silly.

My thoughts:

McCain really did look grumpy, angry, insert various adjectives he needs to avoid here. Substantively though, he did rather well especially considering the first third of the debate was on the economy, the subject he has failed to talk about correctly for quite some time. On the flip side, Democrats don’t do well on foreign policy, the next two debates won’t be on foreign policy, and Obama avoided damage.

McCain was constantly on script and Obama was not. McCain said Obama just doesn’t understand, and yet Obama seemed to understand foreign policy quite well.

McCain’s views of the crisis in Georgia are horrible (please see my post on the CIAR panel on the conflict).

Obama missed the opportunities to point out that we still haven’t found Osama, at least not in a clear way. Just say, “Where is Bin Laden?” and say it a lot. Also, Obama’s stance on Iraq is becoming increasingly convoluted. He is trying to explain that McCain was wrong to want to go in there in the first place, but he can’t reconcile this with the success of the surge. He should point out that McCain advocated for the surge under the pretext that it would give the Iraq’s the opportunity to come to a political solution, but no political solution has come to pass.

Obama’s best moment was when following John McCain’s explanation of how the dead soldiers bracelet that he wears around his wrist proves he understands the troops better, Obama replied, “You know John I have a bracelet too…”

So basically, if stylistic issues matter, Obama probably won by a lot simply because McCain would not condescend himself to make eye contact with Obama. On the other hand, if substance matters it was a draw and both sides should be kicking themselves for failed opportunities to win.

Finally, John McCain was born before the Depression ended (1936). So when at the beginning of the debate he said that this financial crisis was the worst in his life time, he either incorrectly remembered when he was born or has come full circle and now believes that we are royally screwed.

Up next, Joe “I have foot in mouth disease” Biden v. Sarah “Every time I open my mouth I cause a crisis” Palin in what will undoubtedly be a glorious if not cringe worthy circus side show…Sweet!!!