As the current presidential campaign winds down, and observers are inundated with political messages, a recent presentation on political advertisements at Miami’s Wolfsonian Museum is of particular interest. The Wolfsonian is a unique museum that focuses on propaganda. It hosted a film by archivists Antoni Muntados and Marshall Reese that presented presidential campaign ads from 1952 to the present. There were no commentaries, so viewers could take from the documentary what message they found in the 75-minute collection.
A tie is a tie is a tie. We also have an abundance of conflicting data
and no idea how the election will turn out. And yes, both campaigns
believe they will win on Tuesday. It's easy to argue that in a dead
heat, the votes ultimately tip to the challenger. It's also easy to ask
why on earth is the challenger not ahead of an unpopular president in a
Consider this: Both sides have spent a billion dollars, presumably to win over about 7 percent of the electorate.
We spend more and more money each election to win over fewer and fewer voters. Is this the next bubble to burst?
Also, consider the fact that $2 billion is about as much as the federal government borrows every few hours.
For most Americans, the most personal vote they ever cast is for president of the United States — not mayor, not school board, not state rep, not Congress. The reason is simple: There is so much at stake and voters want to make sure they know the candidates, know what makes them tick and have a real three-dimensional sense of the person who will govern for four years.
In poll after poll for decades, the questions of honesty and integrity and trust rise to the top. Who is leveling with me, who do I believe, who do I truly trust in the office?
Rachel Maddow got it right about a "tale of two presidents.” We speak, of course, of Bill Clinton, the former president who spearheaded the great economic surge in America and is barnstorming for Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, who destroyed the Clinton budget surplus and the Clinton job surge; who is singing for his supper and barnstorming for his bucks by giving a major (well-compensated) speech at the homepage for why Mitt Romney keeps his tax returns secret, otherwise known as the Cayman Islands. Nothing better dramatizes the differences between the candidates, the parties and the stakes of the election!
The left and the right agree on something this morning. Their guy is going to win the presidency on Nov. 6.
The left is buoyed by publicly released media polls that show Obama clinging to a lead in swing states, even though the national polls are a toss-up. They have believed the narrative that voter turnout will closely approximate 2008, and if they are correct, Obama wins a second term.
The right knows that the 2008 turnout model is not going to happen, if for no other reason than conservative intensity in this election far exceeds what was seen in that low-water-mark year. Even if intensity on the left remained the same, the turnout numbers will shift due to greater participation on the right.
Looking around the Washington media this morning, there are few who think that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s endorsement of President Obama is going to make any difference on Tuesday, particularly in the swing states.
The Washington Post’s The Fix quotes a witty tweet from Alec MacGillis of the New Republic: “Obama gets The Economist AND Mike Bloomberg in the same day? How many Electoral College votes does the Acela quiet car carry?”
In my last column “Hillary Women Will Save Obama,” I explained three reasons I believe President Obama will win a narrow Electoral College victory. If you want to know what many of the smartest Republican strategists really think, take Dick Morris's column predicting a gigantic Republican landslide, and turn it inside out and upside down. A majority of Republican strategists privately agree with me and believe Barack Obama is most likely to be inaugurated in January and Harry Reid is most likely to return as majority leader of the United States Senate.
The Bloomberg endorsement is powerful for Obama. He talks of climate change in ways that would make Al Gore proud, and talks of the historic magnitude of shape-shifting and position changing and weathervaning by Mitt Romney. Good for Bloomberg. I will confess, I was wrong about him. I privately believed he would endorse Romney, and even though I never made this view public, I feel obliged to admit I was wrong.
Democrats win elections primarily by carving up the American people into interest groups. Republicans usually fall for this trick, and often play by Democratic rules. They have never won this way, and have only hurt their own credibility by doing so, giving Democrats ammunition for the next election.
The October surprise has arrived. Let’s give Chris Christie and Barack Obama credit. They lead. They collaborate. They act. They do what Americans want political leaders to do: work together at a time of crisis. Meanwhile, the ubiquitous and disastrous Bush appointee and Romney supporter Michael Brown, known as "Brownie,” attacks the president for his excellent leadership during the hurricane crisis. And again Mitt Romney acts in character. He pandered to the right during the primaries by calling for the privatization of FEMA. He named as his running mate Paul Ryan, who favors decimating FEMA with devastating cutbacks. Romney spent Tuesday looking like a defendant on a perp walk refusing to answer at least 11 questions about his now-secret views on disaster relief.