The Day After the Election: Excuses

Come the day after the election there is a fantasy many of us have that the losing side  in the presidential race will tell the winning side that it was a hard fought and close campaign but that the winner won fair and square.  Unfortunately that will not occur, especially in light of all the pre-election litigation and legal posturing.

Assuming Obama wins, I suspect the argument Republicans make is that the election stolen.  Assume Obama wins close races in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Republicans claim that were it not for a court suspending or invalidating voter ID in those states Romney would have won.  Obama’s victory was a product of fraud.  In Ohio the message will be that the courts allowed too many provisional ballots and therefore fraud occurred, and in Florida they will argue that relaxation of some of the restrictions on voter registration and early voting will be the cause of ineligibles voting.  A few will also point to how mediocre a candidate Romney was, but the big issue will be fraud.

Conversely, on the slight chance that Romney wins, the cry will be that voter suppression across these states is the reason for the loss. A few will point to how mediocre a candidate Obama was, but the big issue will be voter suppression.

I am suspecting these talking points are already being cued up by members of this listserv and the two parties in anticipation of efforts to justify litigation, delegitimize the winner, and prepare us for the fact that on November 7, we will be less than two years away from the next elections.

Tocqueville got it right: “There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one.  Consequently the language of everyday party-political controversy has to be borrowed from legal phraseology and conceptions.”

Election 2012: Politics in the Age of Division (And final predictions)

    Note:  This blog is based on my November 2, 2012 talk to the Minneapolis Rotary Club.  I have spoken to them many times in the past and they have always been a warm and gracious club to address.

     The polls perhaps say it all.  We have a closely divided race nationally for the presidential race.  In fact, go back six months ago and Obama and Romney were essentially tied at about the same place they are now.  Except for one month between the Democrat National Convention and a period after the first debate, the polls have been stable, revealing a stable yet clearly split electorate.
    I see other signs of division in the scores of individuals who come up to me and express fear that the country faces ruin if Obama is elected, or is it Romney?  The political ads make it seem like the end of the world or Armageddon is near. Facebook postings seem almost like rants and raves and if you are like me, I have seen one too many posts about politics or candidates that border on the lunatic, referencing or posting information whose veracity is at best questionable.
    People ask me if this is the most divided politics has ever been. No, think Civil War.  Additionally, the 19th century was meaner.  We often look at the past through halcyonic or rose-colored glasses thinking the past was more kind and gentle than it is now.   But despite that, politics does seem more divided, nasty and conflicted than in recent memory. Why?  Several factors point to the divide that we see this year and this division has implications for the election.

The transformation of American party politics.  The is some truth about a red and blue America and it starts with the change in traditional party structures.  American political parties used to be more coalitional and regional than they are now.  Parties were more likely to be mixed ideologically.  When I grew up in New in the 1960s my governor was Republican Nelson Rockefeller.  One Senator was Republican Jacob Javits, the other was Democrat Bobby Kennedy.  The lost liberal?  Javits.  The most conservative, Kennedy. 
    The Democrat and Republican parties had liberals, moderates, and conservatives in them.  Minnesota once had a pro-choice republican Governor in Arne Carlson and a pro-life DFL governor in Rudy Perpich.  Neither of those individuals could secure their party nomination today.   The two main parties in Minnesota and across the country have become more ideological and national, much more like European style political parties.  We see a disappearance of moderates in the two parties.  There is a rise of straight party line votes in the Congress, and a rise of straight party line votes in the MN legislature.  Both parties have moved to the right, the Republicans more so.  They have moved from the party of Eisenhower to that of Rockefeller, Nixon, Reagan, and now the Tea Party.  There are no more Hubert Humphreys and Paul Wellstones in the Democrat Party.  As a result, the two parties are further to the right and further apart than ever.

Party Membership and generational divide.  The Democrats and Republicans are a tale of two parties The GOP are older, whiter, male, more Christian, and part of the Silent generation along with some older Boomers.  They vote against gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and favor smaller government.  The Democrats are younger, more female,  less white, less Christian, and they represent the  Millennials and Gen Xers. They favor gay rights, choice, immigration and diversity, and more government.  The two parties represent two generations and world views, and party of the intensity right now is a demographic contest witnessing the passing of power from one generation to another.  It also represents a racial polarization the greatest since 1988, and an identity shift as America moves from a White Christian nation to something else.


Political Geography.  Politics and geography now overlay and intersect.  It is not just red and blue states but red and blue neighborhoods.   There is a political sorting of living space by geography.  We increasingly have Democrat and Republican neighborhoods.  We are divided politically by rural and urban.  The result is a decline in the number of real marginal or swing districts and such a problem is only accentuated by redistricting in some states (or conversely, even the best redistricting cannot overcome the political sorting we are experiencing).  There are only 50 or so competitive seats in Congress, and 25 or so competitive seats in MN Legislature.  The remainder are certainties for either of the two major parties.  Partisan districts create less incentive to compromise, reinforcing  polarization.

Evidence of political polarization by public.   The public is polarized.  In Minnesota support for the marriage and elections amendments divides almost perfectly by party.  Two sides have their own versions of truth.  But the division goes to our consumption habits .  Each party has its own network to watch–MSNBC and Fox News–giving each side its own version of the truth.  The produces we consume reveal our political preferences.  Our geography reveal our political preferences.  Thus, combine target marketing data, GPS, and politics and we see in 2012 the use of very specific marketing to seel candidates. 

Implications for 2012
Overall, the polarization, if not as great or significant as the Civil War, is still significant.  How does it affect the 2012 presidential?  First, the choice of Obama and Romney is not great and neither seems to have a clue about what to do with the economy.  But the polarization makes it impossible for third party candidates such as Gary Johnson and Jill Stein to gain any attention or momentum.  Fear of voting for one’s hopes and it electing one’s last choice dooms alternative politics.

Having said that, for months the race for the presidency was simply a set of three numbers: 10/10/270.  Ten percent of the voters (the undecideds)  in ten states would determine who gets 270 electoral votes and win the presidency.  Now the race is 5/7/270.  Five percent of the voters in seven states will decide who wins the presidency.

The original ten swing states were:
Colorado
Florida
Iowa
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Wisconsin

In those 10 swing states, the Associated Press has argued that it is up to about 106 battle ground counties. How many voters are we talking about that might influence the election of president?
Assume 5% undecided in those ten swing states and the number is 1,835,599 voters.
Assume 8% undecided voters in those ten swing states and the number is 2,936,958 voters.

Now assume North Carolina and Nevada are no longer swinging, we have eight swing states.  In the remaining swing states on average 4.9% undecided according to polls in Real Clear Politics on October 25.  My estimate then is that between 1.500,000 and 1.835.599 voters will decide the election, with the focus being on about 11 counties across the country where the battles are really taking place.  These counties in my estimate are:

Arapahoe County, Colorado
Bremer County, Iowa (Waverly)
Chester County, PA  (some have told me this is not swinging this year, though).
Hamilton County, Ohio
Hillsborough County, NH
Hillsborough County, FL (Tampa)
Jefferson County, Colorado
Pinellas County, FL
Prince William County, Virginia
Racine County, WI
Winnebago County, WI

Finally, now assume in 2012 that the estimated eligible voter population is 222,000,000.  In 2010 it was 217,000,000, and in 2008 it was approximately 212,000,000 with about a 63% (131 million voters) turnout.  Assume again about 63% voter turnout this year due to high interest and intensity in the race.   The average of 1.500,000 and 1.835.599 voters (total number of undeceived swing voters in the swing states) is approximately 1,650,000.  Divide that number by the estimated eligible voting population in 2012 (222,000,000) and this means that approximately 0.74% of the eligible voting population will decide the presidential election.

In fact, if I wanted to pick one county where the race for the presidency comes down to, it is look to what happens in Hamilton County, Ohio.  Whoever wins it wins Ohio and then the presidency.  This shows the polarization we face in this country when such a small number decides who wins.

Final Predictions
Presidency:  Back in March I said Obama would win with 272 electoral votes. He still wins but with 290-305 electoral votes.  He also will get around 50.5% of the popular vote.

US Senate: Democrats retain control with 51 seats.
US House: Republicans retain control but with a slightly narrower margin.

Minnesota Congressional Delegation: No change.  Nolan and Cravaack is too close to call but a slight nod to the incumbent.

Minnesota House: DFL or GOP control by one seat for either and a real chance of 67-67.
Minnesota Senate: Republicans retain close control.

Marriage and Elections Amendments: Both pass.

Amending the Minnesota Constitution

Hi all:

On Thursday, November 1, 2012,  I presented  a talk at Central Lakes College, in Brainard, Minnesota entitled "Amending the Minnesota Constitution."  I prepared a Powerpoint presentation on the history of the amending the Minnesota Constitution that also included a discussion of the two amendments on the ballot this fall.  I upload the Powerpoint presentation to my web page and you can find it there.  At my Web page scroll down on the left until  you get to the section entitled "Amending the Minnesota Constitution."  Here  you will find and can download my presentation.   Feel free to share.

The Road to the White House: How Obama could lose it

From a political science perspective Obama is strategically positioned to win the presidency on November 6.  If all the polls are correct Obama has well positioned himself to win the critical 270 Electoral Votes to win the presidency, even if he were to lose the popular vote.  This split in the Electoral Vote and popular vote is a real possibility, but there are so many signs pointing to an Obama victory. He has a better ground game than Romney, he has registered more voters, delivered more early voters to the polls.  He has the demographic advantage with women and people of color.  All of this points to an Obama victory.

Yet for months I have said that Obama should not even be in this race.  The economy should have doomed him already.  Unemployment has ticked down, the GDP is up slightly, durable goods sales are better as is true also with home sales.  But unemployment is still high and past history suggests presidency almost always lose with numbers like this.  If this coming jobs report is bad–or at least spun as bad–Obama is in real trouble because he will not be able to explain away the economy over the last weekend where the news will key in on that.

Additionally, Obama’s major failure all along has been the missing narrative.  Obama has not had a rationale for reelection since at least back to 2010.  The Democrats were trounced in 2010 because they lacked a narrative and even today Obama too still lacks one.  “Forward” is meaningless.  Presidents needs to make the case for why they deserve four more years and Romney has correctly hammered Obama for a failure to articulate a vision for the future.

 A weak economy and no vision–this is a recipe to lose.  All that has kept Obama in the race is that Romney is a weak candidate.  The mistake of the first debate was that Obama made Romney look like a viable alternative.

But there is something else going on right now that is less political science and more intuition and observational.  Obama does have a lead in the critical swing states but that support may be soft and eroding.

Consider for example the October 28, 2012 Star Tribune poll that gives Obama merely a three point lead in the state.   Minnesota should never be a swing state and if it is Obama is in danger.  There are some reasons to thing the poll is accurate.  The Democratic-Republican makeup of the poll is 38%-33%, just about what I think it is in the state.  This should be cause for Obama to worry.  But the land line-cellphone split of 80%-20% probably under samples those who would support Obama.  And the news of the president consolidating support among independents also suggests that the president is doing well in the state.  Yet in a state where the Marriage amendment might pass, many if not most of those who support it might also vote for Romney, Obama might want to consider one more visit to the state before election day.

But nationally there are also worries for Obama.  The Washington Post reports the largest racial divide in the electorate since 1988.  Obama should worry.  Political scientists Charles Tien, Richard Nadeau, and Michael Lewis-Beck concluded that Obama lost five percentage points of the popular vote due to his race.  This time around that see him losing about 3 points.  They may be wrong.  Many working class whites voted for Obama begrudgingly in 2008 because of the economy.  Obama has had a hard time sealing the deal with them this time around.  It is possible that at the last minute that do not go for him.   Here is also some evidence that the waitress moms–working class moms without college degrees, are not as strong supporters this time around and may waiver.

So much of Obama’s 2012 strategy (as I have noted before) is reminiscent of the 1980 Carter strategy to make Reagan look like a nut.  Yet in the last 96 hours of the election the race went from a tie to a Reagan blowout as millions of voters changed their minds.  Reagan’s “Are you better off” question resonated, as did the reality of the continued Iranian hostage crisis pointed to a presidency that appeared to  lack leadership.  Voters liked Reagan as a person and the disgust with the status quo was so powerful that they opted for change over status quo.

There is no Iranian hostage crisis today.  People like Obama better as a person.  Much early voting has taken place.  But there are still 5% undecided voters in the swing states.  Hurricane Sandy if badly handled by the president could further dent his leadership and competency image.  And the economy and race are still factors.

Pure political science suggests today an Obama victory.  Political intuition tempers that.

Minnesota's Constitutional Politics and the Tyranny of the Majority

 (Please note:  This blog is drawn from my comments at a October 26, 2012 conference at Hamline University sponsored by the Hamline University Law School that discussed the two constitutional amendments.)

The case against the Marriage and the Elections amendments can be made on many grounds.  But one argument often overlooked is that their proposal and perhaps adoption by the people represents what America’s constitutional framers feared most–the tyranny of the majority. 
    Consider the context that influenced the framing of the Constitution  in 1787.  On the one hand the framers feared strong central authority and power as exemplified by King George III.  Our American Declaration of Independence is literally an indictment of the king.  Conversely, events such as Shay’s rebellion 1786 instilled a fear of mob rule and the instability that accompanies it.  Thus, the writing of the Constitution set a task: Create a government powerful to maintain stability yet not too powerful to threaten individual liberty.
    This problem of politics is the subject of the Federalist Papers.  According to Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in Federalist 47 and 49, "all government rests on opinion" (Federalist, p. 329).  Public opinion is composed of the sentiments and passions of the majority of  people organized together for particular purposes.  Arguably the strength of popular government is that it rests upon public opinion, drawing its democratic impulse and authority from the consent of the government.   Yet, the weakness of republican government also rests upon public opinion. Alone, humans can be reasonable but not in crowds, at least this is the sentiment expressed in the Federalist.  Crowds and the crowd sociology turns individual thoughts into restless sentiment and passion.  Public opinion is both popular sentiment and popular sovereignty.  The sentiment of public opinion is the ruler in a popular democracy yet this sentiment is not firm but unstable, subject to frequent changes, and to fits of passion and excess.  But the real danger is how such public opinion can decay  and become destructive, degenerating into a faction.
    What is a faction for Madison and how do factions relate to speech and public opinion?  According to Madison:

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority of minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

Madison is saying four things about factions.  One, people join factions because of some common interest or, two, because of some common passion.  Three, factions can either be composed of a minority or a majority of the population.  However, while Madison is concerned about both types of faction, his real concern is with majority factions because the regular votes of the majority and the weakness of the minority will prevent the latter from being a real threat to others.  Finally, a faction is not defined as simply any band of people who share common impulses or interests.  Their association must be destructive of the rights of others or of the interests of the entire community.  The latter suggests that there is an identifiable common good that can be known and should be defended .  Individuals banding together, can do great things and pursue the public good, but they can also let their passions and interests run wild, thereby threatening the rights of others and the public good.
    Individuals have a propensity to band together for common base interests and desires and this pursuit of desires can constrain or distort the rights of others including the community.
    If a faction is simply a small portion of our society then the majority can outvote them. But what if a faction is composed of a majority, then what?   This is the question Madison asks and in Federalist 10 he states the core problem facing the framers: 

    When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.

The issue for the framers was how to preserve individual liberty and popular government from the threats of majority faction.  Phrased otherwise, the problem, as Alexis DeTocqueville would later ask, is how can the American republic deal with the threats of the tyranny of the majority?  Another way of stating it: How to balance majority rule with minority rights?  How does one allow for majority opinion to rule, as it should in a popular government, but not let it become destructive to minority rights?
    The constitutional solution is a complex combination of ways to break up political power and slow down the forces of political change.  It involves appeals to separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism bicameralism, and the enabling of a robust competitive political process to prevent anyone group from getting too powerful.   Bit is also included eventually in 1791 the adoption of a bill of rights.
    The Bill of Rights takes some issues out of politics.   As Justice Jackson eloquently stated in  West Virginia v. Barnette:

    The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.  One's right to . . . freedom of worship . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

The essential problem for American democracy is balancing majority rule versus minority rights.  Majorities get there way on most issues, but not when it comes to minority rights.  And the problem with ballot measures such as the two constitutional amendments is there legacy in targeting minority rights.
    There is unfortunately an ugly side to American politics where fear and prejudice have prevailed.  The Salem witch trials, slavery, denying women the right to vote, the McCarthy era, and Stonewall.  Majorities do ugly things and the constitutional framers were correct that pure majority rule needs to be tempered by minority rights.
    Seldom do ballot measures and votes by majorities protect minority rights. Barbara S. Gamble’s “Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote,” 41 American Journal of Political Science 245 (1997) examined local and state ballot measures related to AIDS testing, gay rights, language, school desegregation, and housing/public accommodations desegregation), from 1960 to 1993. that Minorities almost always lose. In the eighty-two initiatives and referendums surveyed in this Article, majorities voted to repeal, limit, or prevent any minority gains in their civil rights over eighty percent of the time.
        Gamble also found that measures aimed at limiting the civil rights of minority groups were much more successful than other types of initiatives and referendums. She noted that a previous study of ballot measures between 1898 and 1978 found that only 33% of measures  succeeded.  Low passage rates change dramatically when it came to the  limitation of civil rights is the subject of the proposal.  In this case, 78%  of the 74 civil rights measures that she studied resulted in a defeat of minority interests.
    Gamble's findings are consistent with those of political scientists Haider-Markel and Meier. Mei-er and Haider-Markel's study on gay ballot initiatives found that 77% of those seeking to repeal the rights of lesbians and gays were successful in doing so, and in the 13 attempts to extend rights of gays and lesbians, 84% were unsuccessful.  Gays and lesbians, as well as other minority groups, lose when their rights go to the ballot box.
    What does all this mean?  Direct democracy and majoritarian politics inconsistent with the broader substantive values of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which the Framers understood.  They recognized the problems of the tyranny of the majority and the threat that the ballot box poses to individual liberty.  In the case of the marriage amendment, it singles out a specific group for a special disability, in ways that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional in Romer v. Evans.  Gays and lesbians (and transgenders too) are the classic discrete and insular minority  that the Supreme Court speaks of in footnote four of United States v. Carolene Products.  Groups unable to defend themselves in the normal political process are those which the judiciary are supposed to protect against the tyranny of the majority.
    Moreover, Carolene Products also spoke of special judicial scrutiny in cases where legislation circumvents the normal political process and closes it down.  Normally we say that if you do not like a specific policy use the ballot box to change it.  The Elections amendment targets the political process, seeking to close down and make it more difficult to vote.  It and the Marriage amendment, by constitutionalizing these policies, aim to circumvent the normal legislative process and place political change beyond the reach of ordinary legislation.
    The opening three words of the Constitution are “We the people.”  Our nation is one that is supposed to be inclusive, respecting the rights of all to compete fairly and equally in the political process.  The tragedy of the Marriage and Elections amendments is how they undermine the promise of We the People and hoe they are inconsistent with the values that our Framers endorsed.
   

Soccer Moms and Swing State Politics: The Missing Narratives

On the eve of the final presidential debate the race has come down to three predictable points–developing a compelling narrative to move soccer moms in the swing states to vote for Romney or Obama.  None of this should come as a surprise.

           

Politics is about the power of telling a compelling narrative about yourself, why you are running for office, what you hope to accomplish, and what you think the world looks like. It is your vision of yourself and the world that you seek to sell to others.

Everyone loves a good story or narrative. We all love a good movie, television show, joke, and perhaps a book if it has a good plot and story.

Politics is no different. To be successful in politics, candidates need a narrative.  For most candidates, simply explaining why they are running for office is not enough. A good political narrative has several components: (1) it explains why the candidate is running for us; (2) it is a narrative describing who the candidate is; (3) it must describe the candidate(s vision of the world; and (4) it must describe what the candidate wants to accomplish if elected(it is their platform.

Narratives are important. Back in 1988, George Herbert Walker Bush cast off the importance of narratives by stating that he did not need the (vision thing( to get reelected. He may not have had an explicit vision, but he certainly had a narrative. He had a narrative about winning the Cold War, creating a kinder and gentler society; one guided by a thousand points of light. Bush successfully convinced many Americans about a way to think about the world and him; they believed that by voting for him, they would get a particular type of government that would secure a specific view of the world without new taxes. Unfortunately for him, he did raise taxes. His story turned out to be a lie for some, and he lost in 1992 to Bill Clinton.

In 2008 Obama ran with a powerful narrative–change.  Change is a compelling  narrative, especially when you are the opposition. Gerald Pomper, one of my former political science professors at Rutgers University, once pointed out that Obama’s use of change as a slogan was similar to those of Eisenhower and Kennedy. Change seems to be the narrative to use when wanting to out incumbents or when voters are weary of the status quo.

      

The generational narrative of 2008 about change, then, captured age, technology, being cool, and being connected to Americans. Obama and the Democrats had a great narrative, but then 2010 happened. In a year where the economy still stunk, how did Obama defend his stimulus bill, financial reform, and health care changes? The situation was clear: they had no good narrative. I could not find a single compelling narrative for the Democrats in 2010 to defend what they had done.

But then a new narrative emerged–“It could have been worse” (had we not acted). This narrative grew out of comments from Obama and Tim Geithner, who talked about all the things they had done, such as bailing out the banks, GM, and so on. Had these steps not been taken, said Obama and Geithner, things would have been worse. I do not know about you, but for me “It could have been worse” hardly inspires voters or wins over swing voters. Still, that was their narrative, and Democrats lost big when Republicans ran on the narrative change in 2010.   

The basic problem Obama has had in this campaign is finding a narrative, vision, or argument for four more years. Romney is correctly criticizing Obama for his lack of vision for the future.  Obama‘s “forward” does not offer it, and throughout the debates and even his speech at the DNC one is still looking to hear the argument of Obama’s for why he deserves four more years and what he hopes to do.  Simply saying “I am not Romney” may not be enough.  What the 2012 campaign is offering is one candidate lacking a narrative versus another whose narrative of change is vacuous, disingenuous, or simply flawed.  However, the power of Romney’s narrative is identical to Reagan’s “Are you better off now” and Obama seems unable to articulate a Reaganesque “Morning in America” response. 

The missing narrative gets to the second factor dominating the closing days of the presidential election–appealing to soccer moms.  I have consistently argued for years that soccer moms are the single most influential swing voter in American politics.  Women are the majority of the electorate now and vote in greater percentages than men.  Women are more likely to be Democrats than men. Many former GOP women have left that party because of the issues the Republicans push now.  These women are not yet willing to call themselves Democrats and thus they are swing voters who  vote on issues different from men. Women were a critical constituency to Obama’s 2008 win but they stayed home in 2010.  How they vote will be critical in 2012.

While Democrats have enjoyed a gender gap for years, this year Obama appeared to be opening up a huge lead among women.  But then it began to shrink.  This is the main reason for the tightening in the polls since the first debate.  Soccer moms are shifting–not in large numbers, but enough to make a difference.  This is why Democrats are seizing on Romney’s “Binders of women” slip.  It is an effort to portray Romney as out of touch with women.  The reality is that the “binders” comment was probably simply a miss-statement that means nothing.   Yet Romney seemed like he did not get it when it comes to gender discrimination issues.  That was the real gaffe.  He failed to understand women still face workplace discrimination in the form of sexual harassment, being paid 76% that of men, glass ceilings, and other problems of being single parents or double standards.  Yet the problem for Obama is that he too has failed to describe an agenda appealing to women, and his failure to craft a narrative about the economy, student loans, education, and a host of other matters means that some soccer moms are unsure about who to vote for.

Finally, the problem of narratives and appealing to soccer moms comes down yet again to the swing states.  As it had been for the last several election cycles, the entire race comes down to about ten states that are swing and which will determine who gets to 270 electoral votes.  Thus, the race is simple–finding a narrative to move a handful of swing soccer moms in a handful of swing states.

Neither candidate seems overly appealing to the soccer mom. Neither offers a narrative or message that addresses their concerns or needs.  Despite the fact that women are the majority of the electorate American politics seems fixed in a masculine voice telling a story that is either absent or unappealing.

Obama Supporters Breathe! Second Debate Thoughts

    Ok Obama supporters, you can now breathe.  The second debate is over and Obama did not pull a repeat of the first performance. Instead, he was much stronger than before.  But what does it all mean?  A few quick thoughts.

Obama probably won slightly on debate points in terms of answering the questions.  He had more specifics.  He had more gotchas and quotable one-lines.  Romney had several near gaffs regarding “binders of women,” references to his retirement portfolio, and fact-checked by Candy Crowley.  His facial expression and body language were not great.  Obama made good eye contact, was aggressive, and offered specific proposals for what he has done and would do.  All this set a contrast from debate one.

What will really matter is the world of perception.  The spin will probably favor Obama and it will negate the first debate bounce for Romney.  Historically presidents lose first debates and come back and win the second.  This happened here too.  Look to see in about 2-3 days what all this means in terms of polling both at the national and swing-state basis. 

But the real impact will be the enthusiasm factor.  Much like the first debate enthused the Romney people the same will be the case with the Obama people now.  They will be more excited and it translates into dollars and votes.

So far Romney and Obama have won the debates they should have won.  Romney should have been his best at the first debate on the economy, Obama on a debate with audience interaction.  Now the critical third debate on foreign policy that usually favors the president.  Here it should help Obama.  Whether foreign policy is the defining issue of the campaign I doubt it.  It is still the economy and it is also about rival personalities.  But perhaps foreign policy is the tie-breaker or perhaps if Syria deteriorates more or Israel does pull an October surprise, then expertise is an issue.

If I were Obama now, I would steal Hilary Clinton’s ad from 2008 and ask who do you trust taking the call at 3 AM.  Given Romney’s lack of foreign policy experience, the ad would be just as devastating against him as it was against Obama in 2008.

But the debate last night also highlighted three other sleeper issues to think about.

Early voting: Up to 40% of the population cane vote before November 6.  Early voting started three weeks ago and some early signs are that the Obama people are doing a much better job winning the early vote.  Early votes seals the deal for a candidate.  This early voting may have negated some Romney bounce and now may make more Obama voter excited to vote early.  Look to see the Obama people make a bigger push to get their people to the polls.

Voter registration: Obama and the Democrats have registered more voters this year than Republicans.  This is the payoff of the ground game that has been Romney’s weak point.  With most voter ID laws weakened or halted in swing states such as Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, this is good news for Democrats.

November 2 unemployment numbers: This is the last Friday before the election and the last report on unemployment before the election.  This date and report could decide the election.  It will dominate the news cycle to the election with a report helping or hurting the president.

My point to above?  The second debate was important but more so is what you do with it.  This is what is yet to bee seen.

I return to the USA for the third debate!