The editors of Campaign Stops asked contributors to weigh in with their early reactions to the second presidential debate. Tune in here for regular updates.
12:45 a.m. | Updated
John Sides: Closing the Empathy Gap
Lynn Vavreck: How Will the Undecided Make Up Their Minds?
Gary Gutting: Hooray for the Questioners
Stanley Fish: He's Back
Kevin Noble Maillard: Of Human Binders
8:59 p.m. John Sides |Closing the Empathy Gap
Mitt Romney has closed or shrunk many gaps since the first presidential debate, including, perhaps most crucially, the gender gap. In general, people now have more favorable views of him. He is running neck-and-neck with President Obama in the polls. But there is one gap he hasn't closed: The empathy gap.
For the past 10 months, Lynn Vavreck and I have documented this gap as part of our book about the presidential campaign, "The Gamble." During this time, more people have said that the phrase "cares about people like me" describes Obama better than Romney. In the most recent poll, conducted after the first debate, 53 percent said this of Obama and 44 percent said it of Romney.
A similar 6-point gap existed when we asked whether Obama and Romney "care about the middle class." Other public polls have found similar attitudes.
Tonight's town-hall format allows the candidates to respond directly to voters, and thereby perhaps to convey their empathy more visibly or even viscerally. Closing the empathy gap may ultimately prove unnecessary for Romney to win, but it would certainly help.
John Sides is an associate professor of political science at George Washington University.
10:25 p.m. Lynn Vavreck |How Will the Undecided Make Up Their Minds?
We are down to the last three weeks and just under 3 percent of the electorate is still thinking about who they're going to vote for. When they hear that I am working on a project on undecided voters, the first thing people ask me about the remaining undecideds is, "What on earth are they waiting for? Will the debates matter? How will they finally make up their minds?"
I tell them that undecided voters are not as anomalous as they seem. The undecided will do exactly what the rest of the electorate has done: They will let the classic drivers of voting decisions affect them. They just do it a little later than everyone else.
But most listeners are skeptical when I say that so I thought I would make what that means clear. Let's start with one of the most important canonical drivers of voter choice in American presidential elections: party identification. How is it driving late-breaking voters to either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
As usual, these data come from the Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project being fielded on line by YouGov. We interview 1,000 people every week and we've been doing it since January 1st. All 41,000 people to date also had a 2011 interview in December – so we can track the changes in their choices over time, although most people don't move off their initial choice.
What I'm presenting below are data from our interviews since July 1st, which show how well party identification relates to the choices voters who were undecided in December of 2011 have made compared to how well it relates to the decisions made by people who made choices a year ago.
As you can see, party identification is more closely related to vote choice for people who can make up their mind a year out from an election, but even among undecided voters coming to a decision, party is a strong driver. For each party, 65 percent of the self-identified partisans choose their party's candidate, compared to a stunning 93 or 94 percent among those who decide well in advance.
Interestingly, independents who were initially undecided are breaking more heavily for Obama compared to the independents who were able to make an early choice (they're evenly split). In general, each party group makes up about a third of the set of undecided voters (although independents are closer to 40 percent).
So party identification matters for undecided voters more than we might think.
Lynn Vavreck is an associate professor of political science and communication studies at U.C.L.A.
12:22 a.m. Gary Gutting |Hooray for the Questioners
I am not a fan of presidential debates. I find it bizarre to pretend that, after the information and analysis overload of our hyper-extended campaign, there is anything left to discover about the candidates that should have a decisive effect on our votes. But I have an affection for the kind of debate we had tonight, the "town hall" format. It's the only prime-time national event at which ordinary citizens are allowed to directly confront the candidates. So I'm happy to salute this democratic moment by reflecting on the questions my fellow Americans asked and the answers they received.
By my count, there were 11 questions. All of them were impressive in their clarity and specificity: Does Obama agree with his energy secretary on not trying to lower gas prices? Which middle-class tax deductions would Romney eliminate? Why were requests for enhanced security at Benghazi denied? How does Romney differ from George W. Bush?
What did the questions tell us about the questioners? That they had thought an important issue through and honed what is a stake down to one precise, eminently answerable question. They put in place the materials for a fruitful discussion.
My primary criterion for judging the two candidates was the extent to which they actually addressed these excellent questions, rather than exploiting the time for their own purposes. By this standard, Obama did better than Romney but neither excelled. Asked about specifics on tax deductions, Romney said he would not increase taxes on the middle class; asked how he would deal with productive citizens lacking green cards, he said he wants to stop illegal immigration; asked to correct the biggest misperception about him, he said he believed in God, gave to charity, ran the Olympics. His worst moment in my view — apart from his efforts to bully the moderator — was when he was asked about workplace inequities for women. He explained how he and his advisors couldn't think of any women candidates for his gubernatorial cabinet and had to ask women's groups for ideas.
Obama gave concrete reasons to a college student why there would be more job opportunities when he graduated, explained the arithmetical implausibility of Romney's tax plan and offered a detailed statement of what he had done to improve the economy. But he evaded the question about Benghazi and one about outlawing semi-automatic weapons.
Overall the questioners had every right to think that the candidates used their intelligent, pointed queries mainly as hooks to make points they thought were more important than engaging with actual voters sitting in front of them. I think that all of us — including the candidates — would have learned a great deal more about what's at stake in this election if we had heard serious, detailed responses to what the questioners had on their minds.
Here's a proposal: The networks should invite Obama and Romney — each separately to avoid the alpha-male posturing — to meet with the 11 undecided voters to give detailed, non-evasive answers to this evening's questions. This would immensely elevate what promises to be three brutal closing weeks of this campaign.
Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.
12:36 a.m. Stanley Fish |He's Back
Andrew Sullivan, interviewed by Chris Matthews after the debate, said that while he had been demoralized after the first debate, he was thrilled after the second one: "I saw the president I didn't see last time. He's back."
I think that's right. The tone was set by the first question, from a student who was afraid that he wouldn't get a job when he graduated. In response, Governor Romney said what he continued to say all evening: I know what it takes to get the economy going and it's not going to be like the last four years. He would vary the mantra somewhat during the debate – I know how to balance a budget, I've done it before; I've been successful in the private sector for many years; I ran the state of Massachusetts – but basically he said, repeatedly, Trust me, I know what I'm doing, and the other guy shows by his record that he doesn't.
But the other guy wouldn't co-operate. President Obama, in response to the same question, crisply listed the things he had already done and pledged to build on his administration's accomplishments (about which he was strangely silent in debate No. 1). He then pivoted (a verb pundits absolutely adore) and pointed out that Romney had been for letting GM and Chrysler go bust. He didn't quite say it, but the implication was clear: is this the guy who will aggressively grow the economy?
Romney didn't help his cause when his defense of his record on women consisted largely of saying that he had his staff bring him "binders full of women." The diction was as unfortunate as the image. The governor's worst moment turned out be one he thought would be his best. He hammered the president for not saying the phrase "act of terror" in the Rose Garden the day after the Libya disaster. Obama responded by saying, "Get the transcript," and Candy Crowley immediately backed him up. A devastating moment we can look forward to seeing again and again in the coming days.
Romney did well in listing the differences between himself and George W. Bush, but Obama turned on a dime and observed that the governor did indeed have differences with the former president on social issues: he was more extreme.
In the last two minutes, Romney opened a fatal door when he declared his concern for 100 percent of the people; the president walked right through it and beat his opponent over the head with the infamous 47-percent-of-the-American-people-are-victims statement. (I hope Mother Jones is on the Democratic payroll.) As this was the last question, Romney had no comeback, and the audience and the viewers were left with 47 percent ringing in their ears.
This was a feature of the evening: the format militated against the audience-losing, endless back and forth that characterized the earlier debate. Crowley was able to control the pace simply by adhering to the town meeting protocols and calling on someone who immediately changed the subject. This worked for Obama, who often concluded his bit of air-time with a concise rhetorical flourish to which the governor was not allowed to respond. Romney was frustrated and showed it.
In sum, a reversal of fortunes, but one that did not fully cancel out the gains Romney made last time, when he handily dispelled doubts about his ability to stand on a presidential stage.
Stanley Fish is an Opinionator columnist.
12:45 a.m. Kevin Noble Maillard |Of Human Binders
Let's talk about those "binders full of women."
Katherine Fenton — who wins the best question sweepstakes— asked the candidates about gender inequality in the workplace. Quoting the deplorable statistic that women earn 72 cents for every dollar that a man earns, Fenton made it clear and simple: state your position on women and what you are going to do to make their lives better.
President Obama took a personal angle, reminding the audience about the working contributions of his mother and grandmother. That experience, he said, led him to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for women to file complaints about unequal pay. "These are not just women's issues," Obama said. "These are family issues." Question asked, policy cited, question answered.
Romney chose to remind the audience that he had actually hired women in the past. While he was governor, most of the applicants for positions in his cabinet were men. "Gosh, can't we find some women that are also qualified?" Romney wondered. What to do? Bring him binders full of women! But they had to be "qualified" (unlike the men, who were presumably just "regular"), and once hired, given a flexible schedule. Kudos to Romney for actually hiring a decent number of women (11 out of 27), which he attests was higher than any other state cabinet.
I wonder how he feels about affirmative action.
But this was a handful of people when compared with the other 150 million females in the country. What would he do across the board for gender equality, or would that be socialist? Perhaps all small businesses should stock up on supplies at Staples to make room for the resumés of all those Judys and Normas. Binders of women! But even if these Trapper Keeper covens were hired, they'd still make less than men.
Maybe they should get married, which is apparently a panacea for everything. If it works for the danger of assault weapons, as Romney seemed to suggest — "But let me mention another thing, and that is parents" — then just imagine the possibilities! David's Bridal Shop as the epicenter of women's labor issues and of women's health issues, too. And these women would have more money because married people automatically get a coupon —or more likely, a voucher — for discounted entry into the middle class.
So Romney didn't really answer Fenton's question. Instead, he pointed out that "We took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet." He even "went to a number of women's groups and said, can you help us find folks? And I brought us whole binders full of, of women."
"Whole binders" are just not enough. Romney addressed the issue of bringing women into the workplace (where they already exist), but said nothing about making their conditions equal to men. If it were left to him, there would be minimal regulation about equality in pay because businesses should decide that for themselves. With that attitude, 72 cents is here to stay.
Kevin Noble Maillard is a professor of law at Syracuse University. He is the co-editor of "Loving v. Virginia in a Post Racial World: Rethinking Race, Sex, and Marriage."
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Campaign Stops: Debating Points: Obama vs. Romney Round Two
Dengan url
http://opinimasyarakota.blogspot.com/2012/10/campaign-stops-debating-points-obama-vs.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Campaign Stops: Debating Points: Obama vs. Romney Round Two
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Campaign Stops: Debating Points: Obama vs. Romney Round Two
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar