Biden versus Trump: Why Presidential Debates Still Matter

 For 60 years US presidential debates have been important political events in American elections.  The

famous 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate ushered in the television age of US politics.  While many thought Nixon won the debate on content, Kennedy’s appearance played well on television and some claim it was decisive in his victory.  Over time, the debates are heavily watched by the American public, and they have produced memorable lines or scenes that probably affected the election. More often than not it is the one-line, the gotcha statement, or even imagery that define the debate and perhaps affect the outcome of the election.

              In 1976 in the debate between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, the former declaring Poland to be a free country was damaging to his candidacy making it look as if he were naive or not ready to be president.

            In 1980 Ronald Reagan asking the American public if it was better off now than four years ago helped close the deal against Jimmy Carter by reminding people about the dismal   economic state of the economy.

            In 1992 George H.W. Bush’s inability to describe how the problems in the economy personally affected him and then looking at his watch in the middle of the debate painted the picture of someone out of touch with the American public and the average person.

            In 2000 Al Gore’s repeated sighs in his debate with George Bush appeared to give the later advantage, or at least sympathy, in the debate.

            And in 2016 no one can forget the imagery of Donald Trump hovering over Hillary Clinton like a stalker.

            It is impossible to prove that any one of the moments changed the trajectory of the presidential election, but they stand out as images that viewers took away and considered as they voted.  Some many claim US presidential debates are out of date, but data on viewership questions that. Nonetheless, these debates are still heavily watched, with the September 26, 2016 Clinton-Trump the most heavily watched in history.  Presidential debates are media events, great for television news ratings, but still critical for candidates.  The same will be true for the three Joe Biden-Donald Trump debates.  Their first debate may be even more watched than the Clinton-Trump one, and potentially decisive for the race.

            The stakes for the first debate are high.  While polls suggest Biden has a strong lead in the popular vote, the electoral college numbers in the swing states are much closer despite claims by some that Biden has a nearly 80% chance of winning the presidency based on current polling. The debate is taking place during a pandemic, with a weakened economy, days after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and the president’s controversial rushed nomination to replace her by election day, contrary to what public opinion says.

            The debate is also taking place when early voting across many states is taking place, thereby  suggesting that some voters have already decided and cast votes and perhaps the debate does not matter.  Or perhaps the debate will be the final decisive bit of information that forms a decision for voters.  Or perhaps given how polarized the American public is, the debate will not change anyone’s mind because all minds are made up and the only issue is whether someone will vote.

            What will Trump and Biden do in the debate?

            Trump will try to put Biden’s age and character on trial much like he did with Clinton in 2016.  Trump will  try to move the debate away from the pandemic where polls suggest he is not  seen as doing a good job.  Trump will talk to  his base about  the Supreme Court replacement.  He will tie Biden to Black Lives Matters and to violence and rioting and defund the police. He will do his best to motivate even more his base which is already more excited to vote for him than Democrats are to vote for Biden.  He will also hope that he can convince college-educated women  not to vote for Biden.  Trump is not looking to win over these women—he just wants them not to vote  for Biden, much like what happened in 2016 with Clinton.

            Biden needs first to prove he is up for the job.  He did this in part in his presidential nomination acceptance speech but he needs to do it again.  Biden needs to interject some excitement into his boring and lackluster campaign. He needs to excite his base which is less enthusiastic  about him than it is anti-trump.  He also needs to move swing voters to his side.

            Biden will attack Trump’s handling of the pandemic.  He will attack Trump on the economy, health care, and packing the Supreme Court in ways that threat women’s reproductive rights.    He needs to make the case against Trump, prove that he is fit for the job, and generate the excitement among a handful of swing voters in a few swing states  to put him over the electoral college top.

            Even if America is polarized and there are few minds to sway, this debate is critical and  one both candidates need  to think about are defining images or lines that could determine the election.

The Democratic Party’s Missing Electoral College Game Plan

Rule number one of politics:  The first step in exercising political power is to get elected.  Somewhere along the line the Democratic Party has forgotten this.  Why this is important is that right now it looks that Democrats are on the road to another 2020 presidential popular vote victory and a loss in the electoral college.  Simply put, the Democrats have no electoral college victory plan.

            The reality is that  the only number that matters in US presidential politics is 270.  That is the number of electoral votes you need to  win.  US presidential elections are not really national popular votes; they are 50 separate state elections plus the  District of Columbia where in 49 instances the winner of the state’s popular vote nets the candidate the entire trove of its electoral votes.  The combination of  the electoral college and this winner-take-all structure means that effectively in 40 states the 2020 presidential election is over.  How New York, California, Massachusetts, Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma will vote is not in doubt.  The presidential candidates know this too.  The race for the White House comes down to a handful of swing states, prominent among them are Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  As Trump demonstrated in his 2016 Midwest strategy, winning them was key to his victory and had less than 90,000 votes flipped in them, Hillary Clinton would have won the electoral college victory and not simply the popular vote.

            Political coalitions, like fences, are only as strong as the weakest link.  Democrats need a strategy to hold all the states they won in 2016 and then how to pick up Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.  Yes, they could try to flip Arizona, Georgia, or Texas as some pipedreams hope for, but the reality is winning them is distant and difficult.  They key is flipping critical swing states.

            What is interesting about these swing states is that their electorates are generally to the left of recent Republican Party presidential candidates and to the right of Democratic Party candidates.  In many ways they are states more centrist than the non-swing states, and certainly more in the middle compared to the overall Democratic Party base.

            There are two way to flip these  swing states.  One option is to move swing voters back to the Democrats.  But here what we know is that who is a swing voter is less and less likely to be someone who moves back and forth between voting Democratic or Republican and more so whether they swing into or out of voting.  Democrats did badly in 2016 because swing voters, especially suburban  females, stayed home or did not vote for them.  In 2018, those suburban females came out for Democrats.  Winning in 2020 is getting these women to vote.  What we know about these voters is that they are socially moderate to liberal but are not left of center.  This is a more centrist strategy.

            Option two is moving voters who do not normally vote to show up.  Presumably these voters are more liberal as they constitute younger people, perhaps people of color.  These are the people who perhaps resonate with issues such mandatory Medicare for all.  These individuals are hard to motivate to vote and they may be a smaller percentage of the potential electorate in swing as opposed to non-swing states.

            The point here is that a viable strategy for the Democrats to win the 2020 election relies upon them winning critical swing states, whether it is running more to the center or to the left.

Unfortunately, the debates so far, the 2020 primary and caucus schedule, and the candidate messages are setting the Democrats  up to fail.  Consider first recent polling data.  In critical states such as Michigan ,  Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin  mandatory Medicare for all is unpopular (or is divisive at best) despite the fact that nationally a majority of Democrats support it.  Nationally, only 41% support eliminating private insurance for a mandatory Medicare plan for all.   A pledge by Warren or Sanders to push for this as an issue may not play well in the swing states.

Two, the current so-called debate structure does not favor or emphasize winnability of Democrats in critical swing states.  Instead, its combination of popularity in national opinion polls and national fundraising keeps potential popular vote candidates alive but does little to winnow candidates to those who are viable in swing states.

Three, consider the primary and caucus schedule.  While arguably Iowa (February 3, caucus) and New Hampshire (February 11, primary) are swing states, the critical states of Michigan (March 10, )  Wisconsin (April 7), and Pennsylvania (April 28) come after the March 3, Super Tuesday which features 14 states and includes California and Texas.  Super Tuesday could well filter out candidates who could run well in swing states because of either the costs or ideological orientation of these 14.  Of these 14 states, arguably only Minnesota and Virginia are swing.  Running and winning the gauntlet of Super Tuesday does not mean one is prepared to win in the swing states that will decide the road to 270.

Perhaps the electoral college is unfair and needs to be eliminated or reformed.  But it is a reality at least for next year.  Democrats need a process that vets candidates and strategy to win the electoral college in 2020.  They do not have it.

Why is Trump Afraid of Vaginas?

When Donald Trump was a little kid did a vagina spook him?  Did one fall out of tree and hit him on the head?  Did he trip and fall into one?  Or did one jump out of a dark alley with hedge clippers and seek to cut off his penis (because as Freud said, women have penis envy and therefore seek to emasculate men by castrating them in all types of ways)?   After observing Trump’s Monday debate performance against Hillary Clinton and now his lashing out against former Ms. Universe Alicia Machado, it appears that he is scared to death of vaginas and that he must have had a traumatic childhood experience with one.

There is no question Trump hates women.  They are pigs, slobs, and dogs a Clinton reminded us Monday when she recounted Trump’s adjectives about them.  He hates Rosie O’Donnell, Megyn Kelly, Carly Fiorina, Hillary Clinton, and now Alicia Macado.  If he cannot objectify and dominate them such as in beauty contests they are threats to his masculinity and therefore objects of ridicule.  After Clinton beat him in the first presidential debate on Monday Trump could have been gracious such as when Obama acknowledged in 2012 that Romney beat him in the first debate.

Instead, he got beaten by a girl, nothing is worse than that.  Thus, Trump blames everyone except himself.  The debate was unfair, the moderator unfair, the questions unfair, and he himself was a gentleman and did not go far enough in raising the question of Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity and a 20 year old story about Monica Lewinsky.  Insult Clinton’s vagina by waving another in her face.  Appeal to her insecurities and that of women across the country by claiming you are not good feminists or women because their husbands had affairs.  It was your vagina’s fault. And of course he lost because Ms. Machado is fat.  All perfectly good reasons to explain his debate performance.

The 2016 presidential debate was the first to have a gender dynamics where there was a woman featured as a presidential candidate.  It was Trump’s first one-on-one presidential debate with a woman.  Throughout the Republican primaries he out-testosteroned the other male candidates.  It was classic Freudian right down to the debate featuring discussion of his penis size.  Why he did not whip it and a ruler out like adolescent males do is beyond me, but he effectively did that, more or less declaring he was the best candidate to make America great again because he had the biggest penis.  But when it came to Fiorina he froze, criticized her face, or otherwise seemed tout his superiority because he had a penis and she did not.

But with Clinton on Monday it was the first time he had to directly confront a strong vagina on stage  He was eye-to-eye with a vagina and he blinked.   It was mano o mano–rather mano o vagina on stage–and he lost.  It was humiliating to his manhood, castrated in front of 84 million viewers.  So of course the only thing he could do was to call a former Ms. Universe fat.  Yes, that evened the score with Clinton and women everywhere.  For Trump, if you cannot dominate a vagina insult it instead.  Clinton’s finest moment on Monday was when she finally became comfortable with gender, laughing off Trump’s insult that she could be blamed for everything.  It was at that moment she won the debate, putting Trump down in the worst possible way by being a vagina that beat him.

Clinton won the First Debate But did it Matter?

To the extent that American presidential debates sway public opinion, help swing voters decide, or persuade observers that someone is fit to lead the United States, Hillary Clinton won the first debate.  While she may have not done much to help her cause, Donald Trump did nearly  nothing to his benefit.
It is questionable  how much presidential debates really shift public opinion.  Since first televised in1960, they remain the most watched event during the presidential  campaign.  While in the past famous scenes–such as how Kennedy won the 1960 debate over Nixon by looking more presidential, or when in 1992 George H.W. Bush looked at his watch and looked out of touch when he debated Bill Clinton seemed decisive, the best political science evidence is that the debates only shift a small number of voters. This year in a highly polarized electorate where there are few undecided or swing voters, the same can be said.  Trump supporters will say he won, Clinton’s allies the same.  Thus, for the few undecided voters the question is who won their vote, if either?
With the presidential race essentially tied, Trump and Clinton needed to do two things. First they needed to play to their political bases and get them excited to vote.  Both candidates did that.  Trump was aggressive and continued his rhetorical style that suited well during the Republican debates.  He raised questions about Clinton’s honesty, stamina, and her views on some policy issues such as Iraq.  Clinton sought to question Trump’s temperament, display her policy skills, and show she was more prepared to be president.  Thus their political bases were pleased.
But if the issue was moving the swing voter in the critical swing states, Clinton did a better job.  The swing voters–women, people of color, and those under the age of 30– found more to like with Clinton.  She talked more policy, she appeared calmer, and she seemed prepared.  Trump lacked focus, seemed to ramble, and he barely could string together a coherent  argument.  Moreover, Clinton simply was prepared and gave thoughtful answers even if you disagreed, whereas Trump gave troubling responses.  He had no plan for ISIS or terrorism, his remarks about NATO left it member countries wondering if the USA would protect them, and his refusal to renounce first strikes with nuclear weapons did little to convince critical swing voters that he could be trusted as commander-in-chief.  On merits, Clinton generally answered the questions, Trump avoided them or blustered.
Clinton also came out more truthful.  Yes she had questionable answers about her denial in supporting free trade, but generally most fact checks gave Clinton the edge.  Trump was not truthful regarding his stances on his support for the Iraq war and he was wrong on issues such as China and currency devaluation.  Whether he lied or simply was uninformed is a matter of debate.
Finally, in terms of style, Trump did little to convince people he had the right temperament to be president.  He f ought with the moderator, he shouted down Clinton.  He simply displayed a style that did not win him any new friends.  Clinton navigated the gender double-standards, generally avoiding looking too aggressive or passive.  Whether she navigated the fashion police I leave to others to address.
Overall, Clinton should be judged the winner but whether it matters is yet to be seen.

The Near Impossibility of Clinton Winning the First Debate

Before it even takes place the easiest prediction in the world to make regarding the first presidential

debate between Clinton and Trump is that it will be nearly impossible for Clinton to win it.  The reasons are simple–sexism and the expectations game.

There are many reasons why Hillary Clinton could or will lose the first debate.  She is not a strong  public speaker.   Or she might not provide good answers to tough questions.  Or she will continue to be dogged by issues surrounding her e-mails or even something substantive and real that matter, such as her policies toward ISIS, health care, or financial regulation.  All are possibilities.

But what will doom her first is sexism.  She is trapped by a double-standard that Trump will not face.  If on the one hand Clinton is too aggressive she will be saddled with the bitch word;   too passive and she will be perceived as too weak, too female, to be a commander-in-chief.  If she is too policy focused she risks turning off too many, further reinforcing the impression that she is too cold or ambitious.  If she getting into a yelling match or goes into the gutter against Trump she is just a nag. No matter what she says she will be criticized.

But presidential debates are more watched than heard.  Since the beginning of televised presidential debates in 1960 it is how one looks that is more important than what one says.  Radio listeners thought Richard Nixon beat John Kennedy in 1960 in terms of content while most who watched declared the latter the winner because he looked young, strong, and in command while the former sweated with a five-o-clock shadow.  The medium is the message as Marshal McLuhan famously declared and for television the medium is appearance.

Even before she utters a word Clinton will be judged by her appearance.  She will be poured over in terms of what she wore (another pantsuit!), how her hair looked, her make up, her weight, or whether she looked sick.  She will be judged by her body language.  Think back to the primaries when Sanders wore the same cheap $99 Woolworths suit everywhere he went.  No one criticized him on that.  But lest Clinton wear the same pantsuit as before or not have all her hairs in place she will be harshly criticized for that and the lead story come Tuesday will be about her fashion mistakes.

But the sexism is even deeper that how she looks.  She will also be Laurerized.  Laurerized is the new verb coined by Matt Laurer’s sexist treatment of Clinton a couple of weeks ago when he constantly interrupted her but not Trump in the Commander’s forum.    The media’s double-standard  will box her in.  Finally think even about this campaign and how the candidates are reverenced )and even self-referenced): Hillary v Trump.  The female is often referred to by her first name, the male  his last–a subtle but powerful form of sexism that treats women like children.

Clinton thus faces a difficult challenge.  She cannot be too aggressive or passive, too logical or emotive, or too strong or weak.  She has to look just right.  She needs to thread a nearly impossible  needle to be declared the winner–a task many women find everyday at work but not magnify that problem on a national stage and one will find it almost impossible to navigate.

But add to that the expectations game.  Clinton I expected to mop the floor with Trump on substance.  If she does not dominate she is declared the loser.  Trump wins simply by showing up and not insulting anyone (too much), or he wins if he insults Clinton, or he wins if he just looks presidential (read as be male and looking like he is in control).  The expectations are so low for Trump that almost anything he will count as a victory.

This is especially the case in the polarized political and media environment we live in today.  Half the public has already declared Clinton will lose not matter what she says, and with that half the media and blogosphere has already rendered its judgment.  The post-debate pundits will issue the usual and predictable verdicts, make it difficult for a real consensus to emerge regarding who has won on merits.

Finally, this polarization and the politainment focus of the debates will render whatever substance there is superfluous, where neither truth will matter nor content seem important. Clinton cannot win on merits because merit does not matter. In so many ways, expect the debate to be cast as a great entertainment venture where all Trump needs to do is to call Clinton “an ignorant slut” and we have reality mocking the famous 1979 SNL Dan Aykroyd-Jane Curtin Point/Counterpoint skit.

It will be nearly impossible for Clinton to win the first debate.

Out-Foxed! Fox News and the Crisis of Contemporary Journalism

Fox news is trapped–ensnared not only in the basic contradictions that plague the news industry in general– by a business plan that increasingly reveals the impossibility of it serving as a legitimate news service while also pursuing it profit imperatives and its political goals.   The first Republican debate and how Fox treated Trump then and afterwards point to the coming crisis this national news service faces.
Back in 2000  I edited a book It’s Show Time: Media, Politics, and Popular Culture, in which I a penned a chapter entitled “The Cultural Contractions of the American Media.”  In it I described the four roles or functions that the news media performs in our country.  There is first the democratic function; that is the task of informing citizens about public affairs and serving as a watchdog.  It is this function which is at the heart of the First Amendment constitutionalizing a free press.
As the theory goes, a free press that critically reports the news is essential to a functioning democracy.  For many, this image of a free press was formed during the middle to second half of the twentieth century.  It was the era of Walter Cronkite who told us “that’s the way it is,” of Woodward and Bernstein relentlessly pursuing a story even if it meant that it would bring a president down, or the New York Times publishing the Pentagon Papers.  We expected the media to be politically neutral, but critical, and to evaluate all the facts and decide on what is the truth.  Truth was not telling one side and then the other; it was often times recognizing that truth might be something different.  This is what reporters once learned in journalism school.
But this image of the media is quaint and old-fashioned.  For one, it is an image that seldom existed, especially when we remember that the press the constitutional framers had in mind looked nothing like what it does today.  It was first handbills and pamphleteers such as Ben Franklin, and then small partisan-controlled papers which literally were the party organs.  But the creation of a national media, the search for audience share, and the large bell shaped distribution of public opinion made it reasonable for the news to search for the center.  But that era ended, with the media pulled by three other functions that compromise its democratic function.
Unlike even a generation ago, the news media is controlled by a small handful of corporate behemoths.   Journalism professor Ben Bagdikan once talked of the big 50 media companies in America, it is now the big six, with Rupert Murdoch’s Fox one of them.  Fox is also one of the principle drivers making news corporate, and with that structure it is a for-profit business.  At one time news was a lost leader for a company, now it is a revenue generator.  To make money, maximize market share.    But in a era where now (as opposed to the 1960s in a pre-cable, pre new media and pre social media 24/7 news cycle) there are many apparent choices for news, profitability is possible with market segmentation.  Fox news figured this out.  Develop a product niche, capture that audience, and make a ton of money.  Instead of profitability through news neutrality, profitability comes from appealing to a certain audience–be it liberal, conservative, or whatever.  Political neutrality and objectivity take a back seat to profitability.
But to maximize profitability and market share the media has had to become more entertaining.  Ben Barber, one of my former professors, talks of a world where we are increasingly distracted by many diversions.  We do not just have to watch the news–we can do a hundred other things to entertain us.  Thus corporate news in presented increasingly in a format to entertain us.  Thus the fine line between Comedy Central and legitimate news.  Watch morning “news” shows, they are more about entertainment or hyping other television shows or personalities.  This is the world too of politainment that I have written about.
Finally, as corporations they too have their own political interests.  They lobby the federal government, they support candidates, they have their ideological and political biases.  Taken together, the corporate, for-profit, entertainment driven aspect of contemporary news often all but makes the democratic function impossible.  “All the news that’s fit to make money” is what it is about.
So how does this apply to Fox national news?  They are trapped by these four conflicts as are the other major news services.  But Fox has a special problem–its business plan was more extreme than others, and it also had a fifth imperative constraining its behavior, specifically serving as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.  Fox has been profitable for years and has been able to hide behind the veneer or being real legitimate journalism, but the Republican debate last week laid bare all the problems it and much of the American media faces.
In going after Trump Fox stood to make the debate a ratings hit and it succeeded.  It might have also been a way to show it was a legitimate news service while also being a guardian of Republican orthodoxy.  Megyn Kelly too may have viewed the debate to show she was a real journalist, not simply the shrill conservative commentator that her nightly show reveals.  But now all of this has exploded on Fox and Kelly.  Post debate Trump’s poll numbers are up, Rogers Ailes effectively apologies to Donald Trump, and 20,000+ sign a petition demanding that Fox prevent Kelly from hosting another Republican debate because she is biased and instead she should question the Democrats instead.
What is at stake for Fox is its veneer of journalistic legitimacy which was always critical to its business plan.  The debate it hosted was a debacle and the backlash from it is not over.  Nothing here says that Fox will cease to exist or that it will lose money, but what we may conclude is that its product and business plan are forever damaged.  Fox is trapped and there may be no way out of the contradictions it faces.

An American in Ukraine: Thoughts on Politics, Domestic and Abroad

Fade to Black: The End of the Orange Revolution

    Americans often times don not realize how good our election system actually.  Some bitterly complain–with little evidence to support their contentions–that the American political system is perforated with voter fraud and that election officials are biased and do a bad job counting ballots.  Consider ourselves lucky.

For the last week I have been teaching and lecturing in Kyiv (Kiev) Ukraine.  I was invited to lecture on election law at the school of law at Taras Schevecheno University.  I was also asked by the US State Department to give two additional lectures on American democracy.  One for the history department at Schevecheno University, the other at the Ukrainian National Library.  All of my public lectures were packed with students and members of the public eager to learn about America.  They also wanted to talk about their elections.

Ukraine is having its national elections on October 28.  Yet unlike the United States, the prospect of a fair election is nil.  Ukraine was part of the USSR but in 1991 achieved independence.  Its democracy has struggled, with the turning point–or so it appeared–reached in 2004 when a rigged election was thrown out by its Constitutional Court and a new fair election was ordered.  Ukrainians took to the streets in what was called the Orange Revolution, demanding free and fair elections.  It looked like they got what they wanted.  Yushchenko, a reformer looking to the west, had defeated Yanukovych to become president.  In 2006 free parliamentary elections produced a governing coalition electing Yuliya Tymoshenko as prime minister.  But then in 2010 elections,  Yanukovych barely defeated Tymoshenko in elections that were barely fair and free.  In 2010 local elections were held, and they were not free.

Yet now it appears that the Orange Revolution is perhaps ready to fade to black. Yanukovych and his governing coalition have jailed the leading opposition candidate  Tymoshenko on trumped up charges.   Yanukovych’s supporters are trying to enact a defamation law to criminalize criticism  of the government.  Opposition candidates and parties are being removed from the ballot.  Few expect the elections to be fair.

Whether people will take the streets again I do not know.  Kyiv is politically odd.  I see opposition  commercials on television and there is a permanent encampment protesting Tymoshenko located not far from Independence Square.  Students are openly critical of the government but yet there seems realization that the election results are already known and that perhaps more restrictions are on the way.

Lessons for America
America’s political system is far from perfect.  Money corrupts the political process for one.  The choice of candidates is often lousy and the two major parties provide voters with often mediocre options.  Yet the opposition is not jailed.  We have no real evidence of voter fraud or vote buying with two close elections in Minnesota demonstrating a political system 99.9%+ free from errors.  Studies across the country further prove the general integrity of our political system and generally how fair and impartial the administration of our elections.  We have the right to openly criticize the  government and a right to vote.

Yet all of that is being threatened.  The cries of voter fraud and efforts to restrict franchise worry me.  Restrictions seeking to be put in place across the country to make it more difficult to vote compromise the integrity of our democracy.  Stories of partisan election officials and legislatures trying to limit franchise too smack of vote rigging.  Laws that make it difficult for third parties to access the ballot are fearful.  And of course now watch some of our political debates where political honesty and truth seem secondary to winning.  We are not Ukraine but we certainly are not the model of democracy we like to believe we are.

The lesson of Ukraine for the United States is that we take our political system for granted.  We should not be creating a democracy that attempts to disenfranchise voters and make it difficult for  parties to campaign and gain access to the ballot.  Students in Kyiv worry that the rich are buying  elections in their country.  We too should worry the same and not let those who argue cynically that money is speech win the argument.  Some I know who argue that money is speech content they are merely neutrally looking out for the rights of us all, including the poor, to give money to the candidate of their choice.  Anatolie France once said the rich and poor equally have the right to sleep under the bridge.  Some equality, some choice.  We can do better as a country, and we should.

Life in Kyiv
    Kyiv is a beautiful city.  I spent a lot of time just hiking it in between lectures and sampling  wonderful food.    The best part of the city is the architecture of the old churches.  The city is old, founded around 980 CE, and some of the churches approach 1000 years old.  At some future point I will post a few of my pictures.  Beyond the buildings, the people are very friendly and there is a love for flowers, tea, and sweets here that is great.  Wonderful pastry shops and places for treats are everywhere.  This city has one of the best subways (Metros) I have every ridden, and I get could get anywhere for hardly a cost.  One of my colleagues took me to the Kyiv Opera House to see a terrific contemporary ballet.  The opera house was stunning and the ballet excellent.

My favorite events here were the talks with the students and the public.  My public lecture at the Ukraine National Library was standing room only and the questions from the audience great.  The same was true with the student lectures, but the talk I gave in the history department to them was especially fun.  Students here are still excited by Obama, even if the same is no longer true in the USA.  The history department chair had spent some time at the University of Iowa and we had common friends.  In fact, there is another funny story here.  One of my law colleagues here had visited the country of Georgia recently and she ran into one of my former students from Moscow State University.  This is truly a small world!

Final Thoughts on the American Elections
    Amazing how much Obama threw away with his horrible first debate.  He all but had the presidency sew up and destroyed it.  The numbers now suggest that his leads in the swing states are  disappearing too.  What happened?  Simply put, Obama failed to demonstrate a passion or install a passion among his supporters and swing voters and he finally gave those doubtful about voting for Romney to consider him a viable alternative.  Obama needs to shift the momentum in his second round with Romney, otherwise the swings will continue to shift and it will be more and more difficult for him to win.  Obama does have voter registration and money on his side, but that may not be enough.

Off to Malta to lecture!

A Debate That Could Have Been

    No question Obama lost the first debate.  It was not even close.  But as pundits and the public debate the performance one has to ask, did it really matter that Obama blew it? 

Think first about had the debate gone the other way.  Romney is behind in the polls nationally and in the swing states and lagging in fund-raising.  He was coming off a couple of very bad weeks.  Had Obama won a decisive victory this might have ended Romney’s presidential campaign.  A bad performance would have shifted donors from his campaign to congressional races, making it all but impossible for Romney to remain competitive.  Obama had a chance to deliver a technical knock out.  But he failed.  In part Obama’s failure is the failure of his presidency–a failure to provide a narrative or rationale for another four years. As I have repeatedly contended, since 2010 the Democrats have failed to provide a narrative and Obama has yet to explain why he deserves four more years.  Romney provided a vision for the future, Obama did not.  His closing statement was terrible.

Romney did not achieve a knockout either in terms of dooming Obama’s campaign.  But whether this was the proverbial “game-changer” that experts talk of is a matter of dispute.  Romney would not be the first challenger to win the first debate but still lose.  In 1984 Mondale decisively beat Reagan and the latter came back for a second debate and won, and trounced him in November.  Kerry too beats Bush in 2004 only to lose the election.  First debates often go to challengers.  Simply by virtue of standing next to the president challengers often win.  But Romney did more than that. 
This was the debate that should have been Mitt’s best–on the economy.  He could shine by criticizing the president’s handling of the economy and sin with his experience as a business person and head of Bain capital.  Obama could have wounded him with the criticisms of exporting job’s oversea or outsourcing while at Bain or with the 47% speech, but Obama let him off easy, thus giving Romney  the best forum on the best topic for him to debate the president.  The next debate will be on foreign policy, a weaker area for Romney, and Obama should be more in the game for it.  He needs to look like he wants to be at the debate, not somewhere else.  On Wednesday I saw shades of 1992 when George Bush looked at his watch during the presidential debate, acting as if he had a better place to be that talking to the public.

My point is that presidents off blow a first debate and recover.  So can Obama.  There are two other presidential debates and a vice-presidential debate to come.  There is also one more month.  At least Obama got some reprieve on Friday with an unemployment rate falling to 7.8%–the number looks better even if the job production is still bad.  Obama’s approval rating is over 50% according to CNN and his poll numbers in swing states still look good.  Early voting is already taking place and there are few undecided voters.  All this suggests Romney’s good performance may be muted unless the performance was so good it forces some already decided voters to change their mind.  I am cautious about instant polls on the debate and look to see what the polls say on Saturday or Sunday was the tweets and pundits are done.

What Romney got Wednesday was a new lease on life.  Obama could have ended the campaign effectively but failed to do so, giving Romney a new chance to do something.  Both candidates need to decide what to do with the opportunity but still it looks like the race is Obama’s to lose.

Finally, it was  debate that could have been had either candidate really offered ideas that would work or which had realistic math and numbers attached to them.  I saw it as a debate with two contending economic philosophies:  One that failed  and one that is failing.  Neither Romney not Obama or the Republicans or Democrats in general seem to be offering realistic theories about taxes, investing in the future, energy, or a host of other issues.  So much of the debate the other night was about what was not discussed and needed to be.

Side Note:   Today I head to Kiev, Ukraine and Malta until October 20.  I will be teaching and giving lectures as an independent scholar for the US State Department.  I will do mu best to blog while away.