Negative Campaigning

Negative Campaigning came to the forefront in last night's debate:


I want to point out a few things we have already discussed and few observations that I have about this specific part of the debate:

1) Neither of them really answered the question (which isn't a surprise, but I'm pointing it out anyway)

2) We know that negative campaigning works to some extent when it is not taken to too much of an extreme.

3) I loved McCain's attempt to defend the people who comes to his rallies. This is another point that isn't much of a surprise, but I think that it is still important that he stood behind his supporters. My only concern about the answer he gave is that it may turn away those who are undecided (and we discussed in class that at this point those are the people who the candidates need to be focusing on because most Americans have decided who they are going to vote for and very few of the already decided Americans will change at all at this point.)

The importance of the Jewish People

Due to the fact that there has been an ongoing air war (see Right from the Left Coast) and even an editorial in the New York Times regarding the impact of the Jewish vote and the lengths that candidates go to in order to influence this very important vote, I decided to research the actual impact of the Jewish vote. Sadly to say, I have concluded that we probably don't matter all that much.

According to the Jewish Virtual Library, outside of 1916, 1920, 1956 and 1980, the Jewish people have overwhelmingly voted for the nominee from the Democratic party in every presidential election. Furthermore, according to Jay Lefkowitz (who happens to be a member of my synagogue) in a 2005 article in Commentary Magazine:

"The central fact about the Jewish vote is, after all, not how changeable but how stable it is. American Jews do not merely favor Democrats; they are the second most reliable bloc of Democratic voters in the country, exceeded only by African-Americans."

Based on these two facts, it seems that the Jewish vote is important to elections and has had an impact the success, or failure, of the Democratic nominee. HOWEVER, we must remember another important fact about of the Jewish vote (again pointed out by Lefkowitz):

"American Jews constitute only 3 percent of the voting public"

So, in spite of the fact that we as Jews (and the strong efforts of Sarah Silverman) may think that we are a significant part of the election process and the lengths many candidates go to in order to influence the Jewish vote, we as Jews still don't matter all that much (many do argue that in this election 3% might be significant especially in this election, but I happen to disagree).

[For further reading you may want to see an interesting section on Yahoo Answers regarding this issue]

ELECTION DAY EVENT STILL NOTHING FINALIZED

WHAT ARE WE DOING ON ELECTION DAY?

WE ONLY HAVE 3 WEEKS AND MUST SEND SOME SORT OF PROPOSAL IN ASAP.

SO FAR WE HAVE TV'S WITH FOOD:

WHAT FOOD?

HOW MANY TVS?

Hey it could happen

I just wanted to share a joke with you all that was passed on to me.

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=380002&altf=Ebojfm&altl=Hpsepo

Enjoy!

Do attack's work?

According to and AOL News poll that I took this morning:

%55 of people who took the poll believe that using Barack Obama's past associations with Mr. Ayers is fair game.

%44 OF PEOPLE WHO TOOK THE POLE BELIEVE THAT NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING (SUCH AS THIS ONE) WILL NOT BENEFIT EITHER CANDIDATE.


Just thought this was interesting food for thought.

Finger Pointing

I think one aspect of West that is always interesting to note is "The Blame Game."

Although Dr. Pimpare has pointed out that this year's campaign is not as negative as those of years past there still is a significant amount of finger pointing.

For example:
1) Obama (and Biden in the debate) constantly comparing McCain to President Bush and saying that they are one in the same.
2) Sarah Palin constantly being called "inexperiences" (and for that matter Obama constantly being called "inexperienced" [remember he has NO executive experience])
3) McCain attacking Obama for "taking from the rich and giving to the poor"
4) McCain (and Palin) blaming (and attacking Obama) for his lack of support for the "surge" in Iraq.

These are just some examples, and I think that unfortunately this will never go away.
Attacking and blaming will always, as much as I hope this isn't true, be a necessary evil in campaigning.

Debate Ratings

According to The Baltimore Sun:

Thursday night's vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden was seen by 69.989 million viewers, the second-largest TV audience for any presidential or vice presidential debate since Nielsen started counting the number of persons watching debates in 1976.

An interesting statistic, and I think that this number could be significant, but I was unable to find any data about WHO was watching (if you find any PLEASE post it in the comments), which I think would much more useful to judge who "won" the debate (whether it was Palin appealing to the more entertainment hungry Americans or Biden appealing to those seeking more knowledge and skill from the Vice President).

One thing people keep missing in these debates is that without the "important" Americans in swing states and throughout the country watching them they don't serve their purpose. No one doubts that Poli Sci junkies like ourselves will spend 90 minutes of our lives watching this, but the question is whether or not the average American was watching (although I think many had to be because the number is so large, but that doesn't mean that the number is any more significant).

Blame the Media

Who doesn't blame the media these days?

I do not disagree with the fact that the media distorts the statements of politicians, but was this really the time and place to say this?

I think Ms. Palin's words are definitely true, but maybe she could have (and should have) used this time to sound intelligent about something else and not point out the media's short comings?

What do you think?

Restateing the role (or lack there of) of the Vice Presidential candidate

While some (Including William L. Benoit and David Airne) argue that Vice Presidential debates have some impact on the election we must remember that, as Dr. Pimpare has states numerous times, people don't vote for the name that is second in line when it comes time to step into the booth, they vote for the name at the top of the ticket.



Today's New York Times recalled the scene of Matthew Dowd (President Bush's chief strategist in 2004 who was working for Senator Lloyd Bentsen in 1988) sitting between Al Gore and Dick Gephardt watching the debate between Vice Presidential candidates between Bentsen and Dan Quayle.
Dowd recounts:

“We were sitting in the audience, I was sitting between Al Gore and Dick Gephardt, and everyone was like ‘Oh that’s, great, great, but it didn’t matter anymore. You’re 30 days or so out and people are stating to look at the presidential candidates. The race had formed.”

Although I do agree with the general rule that these debates, and vice presidential candidates in general, don't have a huge impact on the ultimate outcome of the election, sometimes the candidates have an opportunity to have an impact, and Sarah Palin had, and lost, a golden opportunity last night. As Barack Obama continues to widen the gap between himself and John McCain, Ms. Palin could have helped the Republican ticket greatly and simply didn't take advantage of this great opportunity.
As Mr. Dowd stated:

"You’re in a race right now that is beginning to solidify into a five- or six-point Barack Obama lead, and each day forward with lead holding is not a good day for McCain. It doesn’t contribute to what they really need to do. They have just a little over 30 days to start to make up some serious ground, at a time when people are already starting to vote.”

It is because of this ground that must be made up that an "adequate" performance by Ms. Palin just wasn't good enough. Many people (myself included) were bracing for the worse because there is always potential (see Katie Couric interview) for Ms. Palin to do something catastrophic, and she didn't do that last night, but she also didn't perform like the Republican Party needed.

With the hole the Republican Party is in right now it will be a long and tough month for McCain and Palin and it seems that they need to start making up ground soon. I think that the turning point could come at the next presidential debate, and I hope that Mr. McCain doesn't dig a deeper hole so that we have some sort of race come election day.

Initial Reaction

In this, my first post after the vice presidential debate, I want to express my initial reactions to the debate (although I have taken a little while to think about what I saw and was said).

I think that the debate was in one word "entertaining." Watching Ms. Palin skillfully (or maybe not so) side step questions throughout the first half of the debate was probably the best example of this.

I think if we look further we can say that each of the candidates had a different objective when they entered Washington University, and each succeeded:
For Ms. Palin it was simple, get America back behind her like they were after the convention. She will never be the skilled speaker or intellectual thinker that Mr. Biden is, but will be able to "rally the troops" around her and the Republican party.
For Mr. Biden, his objective was to show that he "knows what he's talking about" and to not attack Ms. Palin too badly because that would turn Americans off (because we love to show sympathy for Sarah Palin). Mr. Biden was able to show his experience and knowledge by answering most of the questions head on and looking straight into the camera while spitting out statistic after statistic.

All in all I think the debate was both "entertaining" and surprisingly low key.

I look forward to sharing lengthy conversation with all of you about this.