Tools for tonight

Here is an interesting article about tonight's coverage from today's New York Times.

Also, here are some hours to watch when polls close courtesy of The New York Times:

When a Lie Becomes the Truth

The story of Street Fight, which tells the story of the 2002 Newark Mayoral Race, is one that I think is both unique to smaller, city-wide elections, but also tells the story of many issues that arise in many campaigns including the Presidential Race of 2008.

On the one hand, Marshall Curry shows the harsh reality of city political machines and their ability to control every aspect of life including elections, the symbol of our democratic system.

On the other hand, it shows the power of strong political skills and the ability to turn a blatant lie into a truth. The best example from this election is the "Obama is an Arab" claim. Although this claim has been refuted by John McCain himself, we have discussed in class that many Americans will still go into the voting booth and choose not to vote for Barack Obama because they THINK that he may be a Muslim.

In the film, Sharpe James is able to convince many of the citizens of Newark that Cory Booker is not only "not black," but also that his campaign has raised almost 5 times the amount that it actually did (He repeatedly says that Booker has raised 10 million dollars when in reality he raised close to 2), and uses this to persuade voters against voting for Booker.

Although, in the end, after 4 years of fighting Booker does become the mayor of Newark, the film shows that harsh realities of the political world on both a small and large scale.

I recommend the film to all those who haven't watched it, it is truly worth your time.

Furthermore, this election could mean big things for Cory Booker, with ongoing speculation that he will get a job in Washington should Barack Obama win on Tuesday.

REPOST: McCain Catching up?

In light of an article from today's New York Times, which states:

"On the last Sunday before the election, the presidential candidates and their running mates kept up a relentless pace by visiting states their respective parties had lost in 2004."

I would like to restate (and clarify) the point I made in a recent post.

I was trying to make the claim that Steven made in his comment, and that is that John McCain seems to be showing his lack of confidence by pouring more money into states which President Bush won in 2004.

In light of the statement from the NYT that BOTH candidates "visited states their respective parties had lost in 2004" I would like to restate my point, especially in light of the professor's recent post.

Although it doesn't change the fact that all the states that were being visited on Sunday were lost by the respective candidates who visited them, it is important to note WHICH states they visited. Both of the candidates visited states which Nate Silver indicated would win them the election (Obama in Ohio and McCain in Pennsylvania). This indicates that both of them see the value in visiting specific states and are trying to win what was lost in 2004.

However, non of this changes the fact that John McCain is pouring more money into states that President Bush WON in 2004. When I first saw this, I was shocked and it showed a sort of "back-peddling" by the McCain campaign, and what I see as an almost desperate measure in what seems to be a lost campaign.

Although one might disagree with me, when I see someone getting defensive, whether in person or by acting the way the McCain campaign has, it indicates to me a lack of confidence (think for yourself about the last time someone started to argue with you, if you felt confident in your position you were probably on the "offensive," but if you weren't confident in your position you were probably on the "defensive" trying to make excuses for your statements or actions and "back-peddling")

McCain's catching up?

According to The Morning Call, John McCain is catching up to Barack Obama in campaign spending. While this doesn't come as too much of a surprise, the following quote from the article might surprise many and show that the spread in this election is much further is much more then any of the polls are indicating:

"A map of the states where McCain and the RNC are spending their money also illustrates the defensive nature of their 11th hour strategy. Except for Pennsylvania, the McCain-GOP focus was on trying to hold states that President Bush won in 2004."

The impact of television on elections

In spite of the fact that I have argued in the past about the possibility of the internet overtaking television as the most important media source for political knowledge (and maybe even political influence), in light of the recent readings I would like to make almost the opposite claim that television plays the largest media role in political campaigns and this campaign is no exception. In addition, I believe that television is responsible for bringing information to the masses, which is then further looked into on the internet.

According to Broadcast Newsroom:

"In its newest study, Political Pulse , CAB found that people are most likely to first learn about a political candidate or issue from television, with 80% of respondents citing television as a likely source."

With this recent study in mind I would like to explore the impact of one of the most talked about clips from this campaign:

Although this quote has already received a lot of attention (See the results for a google search of "Mccain calls obama that one" which leads to over 14 million hits) I would like to point out two very important effects that this one small, two-word phrase had on the current election.

The first effect is that this one gesture lead to an assortment of reactions that stretched as far as accusing McCain of trying to make Mr. Obama look like "the dangerous other" who "Americans should not open the door for." These negative reactions are clearly not going to help Mr. McCain and might be something that voters remember when they enter the booth to pull the lever.
In addition, Mr. Obama, in barely reacting to the comment, continued to show his ability to maintain poise and control even in the worst of situations, which will remain in many voters minds and effect who they choose to vote for.
Lastly, this clip with its great camera work by almost every news station's camera crew brought to light what Mutz and Reeves (p. 3) point out about the effect of zooming in and different camera angles. They state that television networks sometimes create "a highly unnatural experience for viewers, one in which they view conflict from an extremely intimate perspective, and one that would be highly unlikely to occur in the real world." They further state that "the viewer's intimate perspective intensifies an already negative reaction." This new perspective (which is also aided by the "town hall" debate format may have lead to viewers seeing both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain differently then they had before and these viewers may therefore change (or decide for the first time) who they will vote for.

I would also like to point out one other important finding of the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau (CAB) study quoted above and that is that television is the most likely place for people to FIRST find out political information. This being the case, I would still like to suggest that the internet plays a major roll in the way people get and react to political information (in addition, the internet did rank second in the place for people to first learn political information). In addition to the convenience of being able to search for almost anything and receiving information almost instantaneously, the internet also provides a place to watch (and re-watch) video clips. This, in light of the findings of Mutz, and Mutz and Reeves, can have great effect on the negative feelings people have towards one specific candidate and politician in general.

Another possible "Recount"?

Although I do recognize that there has been much debate about Recount's accuracy and bias (a good example of this debate is found on Yahoo Answers), after watching the documentary and doing further research, I have to say that I agree with the review from The Dallas Morning News which stated that:

"Recount is accurate and fair. Some may find fault with the Republican team being presented as too thuggish or unscrupled. Others may object to the Democratic side seeming too conflicted and ineffectual. But behind all that spin is a movie that shows both sides of both sides. One more thing: It's not just fair and accurate, it's also pretty good."

I also believe that there are many important issues about the way that the United States government operates, the electoral process as a whole and how different campaigns build their strategy and act throughout a campaign.

First, towards the beginning of the documentary, the Gore and Bush legal teams chose to take two opposite stands on the media and the strategy they would take in dealing with the issue at hand. One the one hand the Gore campaign chose to use the media (there is a quote from the character playing Ron Klain (Kevin Spacey) gets up from the very first meeting as says "I have to go call the New York Times" and chooses to use as many protests (Like the one led by Jesse Jackson). On the other hand, James Baker (Played by Tom Wilkinson) says that he wants to see "no newspapers" and only chooses to use protests towards the very end of the campaign and the Recount process.

Second, the problem of military absentee voting could become a problem in this election. Although military absentee ballots will be accepted in the upcoming election, there are many technicalities in the absentee ballot process that make it almost possible for soldiers to ensure that their votes are counted. Furthermore, there have already been military absentee ballots thrown out throughout the country including in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Third, the current issue of Time Magazine has raised 7 possible things that may prevent people from voting, including "Long lines, ID checks and court challenges," which I not only agree with, but believe are issues that are not easily solvable.

Fourth, in the documentary Baker discusses the effect of the networks calling the election for Al Gore before the polls closed may have hurt the Bush campaign because people may have thought the election was over and therefore didn't go and vote. Although record voter turnout is expected this November, I believe that the fact that many people may think the election is over before it really is may come into play again (and not only towards the end of the day, but even before election day itself).

Lastly, the documentary not only shows the power of the "4th branch of government" (the media), but also shows the power of the 3rd brand, the Courts. Two highlights of the court's power from the documentary are the decisions made by the Supreme Court in Bush V. Gore , which many believe decided the ultimate outcome of the election, and the scene showing the Gore Campaign hoping for a certain Justice to preside over their initial hearing in Florida.

John McCain and President Bush

Although President Bush did endorse John McCain in his bid for the presidency, I don't understand why they are so closely linked (as seen above in the recent Obama ad). Does is come as a surprise to anyone that Mr. McCain would vote with the REPUBLICAN president, even if it's at a huge percentage like 90%?

I would like to point out a few statistics from The Washington Post about Senate voting in general that might surprise you:

1) Senators vote with their party 84.2% of the time

2) Barack Obama votes with the Democratic Party 96% of the time.

3) John McCain voted with the Republican Party 88.1% of the time.

Now although this may show that John McCain goes out of his way to vote with President Bush as he has admitted to voting with the President "90% of the time," but I think there are more striking conclusions one can draw from these statistics:

1) If there was a Democratic President, Barack Obama would be very likely to vote with that President no matter what (note that he ranks 10th and Joe Biden ranks 5th in voting along party lines)

2) John McCain might truly be a "maverick" as his percentage is very low compared to most Senators.

I'm not writing this in order to endorse one candidate over the other, I am simply trying to point out why this newest ad may highlight something that isn't really an issue, and something that should be made an issue in the other direction (is surprises me that at this point seeing as the McCain campaign needs to try almost anything to stay in this race they haven't gone to more statistics like this, but there is still a long way to go)

More important then our past time?

Although we don't know who will play in the World Series, Fox has agreed to delay the first pitch of game 6 (if there is one) to air a half hour Barack Obama ad.

Fox said in a statement:

"Fox will accommodate Senator Obama's desire to communicate with voters in this longform format."

Furthermore, Fox went on to say that

"We are pleased that Major League Baseball has agreed to delay the first pitch of World Series Game 6 for a few minutes in order for Fox to carry his (Barack Obama's) program on Oct. 29. If requested, the network would be willing to make similar time available to Senator McCain's campaign."

This is not the first time in this campaign that a sports game's start time has been moves. You may recall that in September the NFL moved the start of the season opener between the Washington Redskins and New York Giants in order to ensure that the game would be completed by the time John McCain accepted the Republican party's presidential nomination.

What people really know

Although we all know that Americans don't know too much about the election and the issues, but this is a funny clip from the Howard Stern show (Warning: this sight may be offensive to some):

http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3

[IN addition, I think that this is a good example of how pollsters can manipulate the answers that they get. Notice that the person asking the questions says everything with confidence and most of the responses are dont quickly without thinking)

Great New York Times resource

I found this link that tracks the ad's of both Barack Obama and John McCain. It might be helpful for analysis now and in the future.