tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/usa2012-3776/articlesUSA2012 – The Conversation2012-11-14T19:35:03Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/106222012-11-14T19:35:03Z2012-11-14T19:35:03ZSuperPACs and bags of cash fail to halt Obama’s ground game<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17620/original/6qrwwqyx-1352866731.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Obama's superior organisation outweighed the money stacked against him.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Michael Reynolds</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The fear of Big Money swamping the 2012 federal election cycle in the United States was borne out in sheer dollars, with <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/2012-election-spending-will-reach-6.html">$US6billion</a> in spending, including $2.7 billion on the presidential race alone. </p>
<p>Whether major donors receive the commensurate bang for their bucks remains open to doubt, although we can say more definitively that the system is screwed.</p>
<p>In 2008, Obama became the first presidential candidate to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html">refuse public funding</a>, which would have placed limits on the amount he could raise privately. </p>
<p>In 2012, both candidates opted in favour of unlimited private funding. Apart from the huge spending by political parties and candidates, a significant new wrinkle is the emergence of nominally independent “Super PACs” and “politically active non-profits”, which spent nearly <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-02/super-pacs-kept-romney-obama-even-in-1-billion-ad-race.html">$1billion</a>: an estimated two-thirds of which went to conservative causes and candidates.</p>
<p>The big bucks campaign was the predictable legacy of the judicial savaging of bipartisan congressional efforts to restrain campaign spending and force greater disclosure of private donations. </p>
<p>In 2010, the US Supreme Court delivered one of its most preposterous judgments in <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/citizens_united.php">Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</a> - certainly its worst decision since Bush v. Gore halted the vote count in the 2000 federal election and handed the presidency to George W Bush. While these decisions have had far-reaching consequences for the political process in America, each rested on a slender 5-4 majority.</p>
<p>In Citizens United, the Court overturned the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the culmination of a long effort to reform campaign financing by tightening the many loopholes employed by corporations and special interest groups. <a href="http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/bcra_overview.shtml">McCain-Feingold</a> prohibited broadcast communications (TV, cable and satellite) paid for by corporations or trade unions in the period before a presidential primary or general election if the message was “susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate”.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional on the novel basis that corporations should enjoy the same largely unfettered right of free speech accorded to natural persons - or, as Mitt Romney later <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A">put it</a>, “Corporations are people too!” </p>
<p>In providing the decisive vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf">argued</a> that the First Amendment equally “prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech”. Kennedy added, contrary to common sense and experience, that allowing corporations to directly enter the political fray “will not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption”.</p>
<p>John McCain and Russell Feingold described the decision as <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/feingold-calls-supreme-court-corporate-political-contributions-decision-a-terrible-mistake">“a terrible mistake”</a>, reflecting <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1352815855-/P/uJi5zLKrGFcZgNX9yig">“extreme naïveté”</a> in underestimating the corrosive effect of special-interest money on the legislative process. </p>
<p>President Obama <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">called it</a> “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans”.</p>
<p>Soon after, the Federal Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) <a href="http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/speechnow.shtml">ruled that</a> PACs that did not directly make contributions to candidates, parties or other PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions and corporations for the purpose of making “independent expenditures”.</p>
<p>Connecting the dots about what corporations could and could not do in this new environment spawned the creation of this new species of SuperPACs. </p>
<p>Unlike traditional PACs, SuperPACs can receive unlimited contributions from corporations (but not foreign corporations), but the “independent expenditures” requirement means that they are prohibited from donating funds directly to a political candidate or party, or planning or coordinating strategy or expenditures with a candidate or party.</p>
<p>Super PACS must report quarterly to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which means they can effectively shield the identity of a donor for only three months. A much larger loophole exists, however, since the reporting requirements do not cover corporate donations made to a tax-exempt charitable trust or “social welfare organization” (under s 501(c)(4) or (6) of the US Income Tax Act), and nothing prevents that kind of body from passing those funds on to a Super PAC. </p>
<p>According to a recent study by the non-partisan <a href="http://sunlightfoundation.com/">Sunlight Foundation</a>, at least $300 million of election spending in 2012 was by groups that are not required to disclose their donors, and 80% of this so-called “dark money” was used to support Republicans.</p>
<p>Interests associated with the insurance, pharmaceutical, financial and resources industries contributed many millions of dollars to the US Chamber of Commerce (a tax-exempt charitable trust), which in turn made large donations to “pro-business” SuperPACs that are officially unaligned with the Republican Party, but share values, goals and even personnel. </p>
<p>For example, Restore Our Future is run by two former aides of Mitt Romney, and long-time Republican campaign strategist Karl Rove heads up Crossroads and its dark money brother Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies. The Club for Growth and FreedomWorks have arch-conservative track records, including funding Tea Party activists and causes.</p>
<p>On the other side of politics, Priorities USA is the main pro-Obama Super PAC, and the Majority PAC, House Majority PAC and a swag of others associated with large trade unions spent big in support of Democratic candidates. </p>
<p>There are also Super PACs associated with the LGBT community, funding sympathetic candidates as well as the effort to pass marriage equality referenda in a number of states. Similarly, there are Super PACs associated with the environmental movement, ranging from the mainstream Sierra Club to more radical campaigners.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17621/original/9pnz5jyb-1352868774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17621/original/9pnz5jyb-1352868774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17621/original/9pnz5jyb-1352868774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17621/original/9pnz5jyb-1352868774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17621/original/9pnz5jyb-1352868774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17621/original/9pnz5jyb-1352868774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17621/original/9pnz5jyb-1352868774.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Senator John McCain has attempted to reform campaign finance funding.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Jamal Nasrallah</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are currently 1,115 Super PACs registered with the FEC, and <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/">according</a> to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics they collectively raised over $US660 million in 2012, and spent almost all of it on the primaries and the general election. </p>
<p>Only 200 or so Super PACs raised as much as $50,000, and a high proportion are inactive or serving as placeholders for future use. Others, such as “Zombies for Tomorrow”, “Raptors for Jesus” and “We Just Want Colbert to Come to Our College”, probably just seemed like a good idea at the time.</p>
<p>Obviously, the most worrying aspect of the SuperPAC phenomenon is the disproportionately large voice—and presumably outsized influence—afforded to a small number of extremely wealthy donors. Half of all SuperPAC funding this year was provided by only 22 individuals and corporations. The top 100 donors represented less than four percent of all contributors, but accounted for over 80% of the total funds raised.</p>
<p>For the Republican camp, the major contributors included casino mogul Sheldon Adelson (over $60 million); billionaire oil and gas tycoons David and Charles Koch, the principal funders of the Tea Party movement; and Wall Street financiers - 16 of Romney’s top 20, despite the industry having been controversially bailed out by President Obama post-GFC. Left-leaning SuperPACs were best supported by Hollywood and large trade unions—such as the United Auto Workers, the National Education Association and the Service Employees International Union, although Obama has famously raised enormous amounts by accumulating large numbers of small donations, driven by effective use of social media.</p>
<p>But was it money well spent? The jury is still out on whether these riches ultimately provided some electoral advantage for candidates and a “return” for donors in the form of added influence, or whether all or most of this money was squandered in screening the relentless negative attack ads that bombarded voters in key swing states. What we know for certain is that after burning through $6billion, the election more or less restored the status quo, with President Obama re-elected, Democrats continuing to control the Senate and Republicans continuing to control the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>This masks some churn below the surface, however. The fact that a significant part of the conservative spend was controlled by SuperPACs and true believers, rather than by more pragmatic GOP operatives, helped contribute to the selection of some extreme and unattractive candidates and for the Republican message to skew even more sharply to the right. </p>
<p>Party discipline is difficult to maintain when it is divorced from the allocation of precious resources. For example, the GOP tried to distance itself from Missouri Senate candidate Todd Aikin after his infamous “legitimate rape” remarks, but outside money allowed him to remain in the race, and to be defeated in an otherwise very winnable Senate seat for the Republicans.</p>
<p>While Romney was catching his breath, Obama used his war chest early and wisely to help define Romney in negative terms in the voters’ minds. Democrats were defending 23 of the 33 Senate seats being contested this year, yet managed to gain a couple of seats. Voters in Minnesota, Maryland, Maine and Washington <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-same-sex-marriage-implications-for-australia-from-the-us-election-and-abroad-10672">approved referenda</a> in favour of same sex marriage, the first time this has been achieved in the US through popular votes rather than judicial decision.</p>
<p>And some recipients used this largesse much more effectively than others. Karl Rove’s two SuperPACs are estimated to have spent about $US176 million, but Mitt Romney nevertheless lost his race—as did ten of the twelve Senate candidates and four of the nine House candidates that the Rove groups supported. The US Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association also fared poorly despite large expenditures. Unless this was some form of covert stimulus spending, it has to be seen as a major strategic failure.</p>
<p>Election analysts have partially attributed the Democrats’ success to their early spending, which helped define the issues and the candidates before the public got turned off by the later onslaught. Even more importantly, however, the Democrats used their resources to nurture a much stronger grassroots organisation—Obama’s vaunted “ground game”, which set about registering new voters and focusing on the critical “get out the vote” effort. As a result, the Obama campaign had three to four times the number of campaign volunteers in key battleground states such as Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Minnesota, Nevada and Colorado.</p>
<p>There has been some suggestion that the failure of the conservative SuperPACs to turn their financial advantages into votes might harm their fundraising efforts in 2016. However, the prize of electoral success will be even more valued after another four years in the political wilderness, without the added challenge of an incumbent president to unseat, and influence will be no less keenly sought. </p>
<p>The bigger question is whether Republican strategists, and especially their proxies in the conservative Super PACs, will learn from 2012 and resist the shock and awe of TV advertising in favour of “boots on the ground” and the long hard slog of grassroots campaigning.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10622/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Weisbrot does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The fear of Big Money swamping the 2012 federal election cycle in the United States was borne out in sheer dollars, with $US6billion in spending, including $2.7 billion on the presidential race alone…David Weisbrot, Professor of Legal Policy, United States Studies Centre, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/106922012-11-13T03:11:55Z2012-11-13T03:11:55ZRepublicans trust voter modelling - why not climate modelling?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17551/original/x9b9262x-1352770360.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">After defeat in the 2012 election, it is back to the drawing board for the Republican Party. But will they address the true concerns of the electorate?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/STEPHAN SAVOIA/POOL</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Tuesday, November 6 was a game changer. The Republican Party in the United States has come to understand that the political environment has been altered. White males can no longer dictate the results of an election. The dynamics of the voting electorate have changed dramatically, and they will only continue to do so. </p>
<p>It is safe to assume that conservatives who drive the agenda of the Republican Party “get it”. They are not stupid; indeed, they are quite sophisticated. They understand politics and they will respond to a changing environment.</p>
<p>So why are they so resistant to the idea of a changing climate? This may be an odd question at this point. Ignoring the evidence about a changing climate that puts increasing numbers of people in risk is folly – just as ignoring the changing demographic in critical states has already proven to be. </p>
<p>I can only hope that the Republican Party has learnt something and that those lessons will inform their opinions of how to cope, and not just with a dynamic electorate. My question is: why not apply the same lessons to respond to the dynamic components of the global environment?</p>
<p>Let me be specific.</p>
<p>A new wave of pollsters informed by some very sophisticated understanding of social science, worked on their models over the past year or so. They understood that the political environment was dynamic, they deciphered why and they then incorporated thoise insights into their projections of the future. </p>
<p>They took quite a bit of heat about being biased in their projections, but they turned out to be right! And that is the standard to be applied. Their advantage was that they had a definitive date when reality could be compared with model projections, and they did very well.</p>
<p>Climate scientists have also been working on their own models of the climate - the physical rather than the political. They have come to understand that the portrait of a warming planet is displayed most graphically in the distribution of extreme weather events. Not just hurricanes like Sandy but also droughts, wildfires and extreme precipitation events like the four and a half inches that fell on my deck in the summer of 2011 in 35 minutes. </p>
<p>They too have been criticised, butioi they do not have the benefit of a date certain in the foreseeable future when all will be revealed. That is to say, they do not have an “election day”.</p>
<p>Even so, why don’t Republicans recognise the parallel of changing environments – political on the one hand and climatic on the other? Republicans are beginning to reorganise their party on the basis of election results that can be attributed to demographic changes. </p>
<p>So why not also begin to reorganise their approach on the basis of observed changes in the frequency of extreme weather events, that can be attributed to climate change? There are “confounding factors” in both correlations, but why do they believe one conclusion more than another? Probably because the consequences to the Party are larger in the political case than they are in the climate case, at least in the short run. But…
t
Why can they not recognise that the climate system is just as dynamic as the political environment, and that the “old normals” are broken in both places?</p>
<p>That would be a first step in working toward perhaps the most significant compromise with a re-elected President, who included in his acceptance speech the statement, “We want our children to live in an America that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10692/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary W Yohe is the co-chair of the National Climate Assessment 2013 (<a href="http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment/people/nca-author-teams">http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment/people/nca-author-teams</a>).</span></em></p>Tuesday, November 6 was a game changer. The Republican Party in the United States has come to understand that the political environment has been altered. White males can no longer dictate the results of…Gary W. Yohe, Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/105992012-11-08T00:45:57Z2012-11-08T00:45:57ZIt’s the women wot won it: Democrat victory was no Fluke<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17380/original/6rck6w7k-1352335363.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Barack Obama hugs Sandra Fluke, who was vilified by the right for her views on contraception.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Rick Giase</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A president’s first act in office carries considerable symbolic weight. After President Obama was sworn in in 2009, the <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/01/29/obama_signs_lilly_ledbetter_ac.html">first piece of legislation</a> he signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Act, allowing women greater ability to sue for pay discrimination. Whether by coincidence or design, with a stroke of a pen Obama positioned himself perfectly for the 2012 election.</p>
<p>Women became a focus of the 2012 campaign when the “war on women” narrative emerged during fights over contraceptive coverage mandates. Though a potent rhetorical tool for Democrats, the “war on women” narrative obscured women’s centrality to this year’s race.</p>
<p>Initially, the Obama administration was losing the debate over contraceptive coverage. Conservatives had successfully framed the issues as one of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/us/politics/birth-control-coverage-rule-debated-at-house-hearing.html">religious liberty</a>, not women’s rights. But then something happened: conservative men started talking. And it turned out they couldn’t talk about policies aimed at women without saying something remarkably retrograde.</p>
<p>Rush Limbaugh <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-buzz/post/rush-limbaugh-calls-georgetown-student-sandra-fluke-a-slut-for-advocating-contraception/2012/03/02/gIQAvjfSmR_blog.html">called</a> a Georgetown student a “slut” for advocating for birth control. Rick Santorum, runner-up for the Republican nomination, <a href="http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/14/rick-santorum-wants-to-fight-the-dangers-of-contraception/">warned against</a> “the dangers of contraception”. “You know, back in my days,” <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/foster-friess-in-my-day-gals-put-aspirin-between-their-114730.html">said</a> conservative mega-donor Foster Friess, “they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.”</p>
<p>In the wake of these comments, women began flocking to the Democratic Party. Democrats saw opportunity in the growing gender gap: They could win over voters by focusing on issues that elicited these kinds of responses from Republicans.</p>
<p>The strategy succeeded. Keeping the focus on so-called “women’s issues”, Democrats forced Republicans to defend their increasingly rigid stance on reproductive rights. Since the 1980s, the Republican platform has <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/31/opinion/la-oe-0831-kinsley-abortion-gop-platform-20120831">called for</a> federal bans on abortion procedures, without specifying any exemptions for rape or the health of the mother. It was a remarkable development for a party that until the late 1960s was the party of feminism, contraception, and abortion rights.</p>
<p>Practiced Republicans have found ways to discuss this stance without sounding radical and regressive, though Mitt Romney did blunder in the second debate with his now infamous “binders full of women” comment. But when novices find themselves obliged to do the same, they end up inadvertently saying what they think. Todd Akin babbled on about <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/19/todd-akin-gop-senate-candidate-legitimate-rape-rarely-causes-pregnancy/">legitimate rape</a> and Richard Mourdock <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/indiana-senate-candidate-richard-mourdock-pregnancy-from-rape-something-god-intended/">asserted</a> pregnancies from rape were what “God intended.”</p>
<p>When they made these claims, voters fled - and not just women voters. Akin and Mourdock’s <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/gops-akin-mourdock-lose-senate-elections/2012/11/07/2b48954c-27b3-11e2-b2a0-ae18d6159439_story.html">drubbings</a> last night help illustrate what the “war on women” narrative often obscured: that voters concerned about so-called “women’s issues” aren’t just women. Men too were repelled by the idea of “legitimate rape”, and men too voiced support for the ability to control reproductive choices.</p>
<p>The “war on women” framework also distorted women’s role in the election. By focusing on women as voters, it diverted attention from the historic nature of women’s candidacies in 2012.</p>
<p>Women have long been underrepresented in America’s national politics. They make up only 17% of the current House and Senate – and those are historic highs. In terms of women in government, the U.S. <a href="http://www.catalyst.org/publication/244/women-in-government">lags behind</a> nearly seventy other countries. While last night’s election results won’t suddenly make the Congress a gender-equal institution, the upper chamber will add four, possibly five, new women senators. This includes Elizabeth Warren, the popular Harvard law professor, and Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay senator.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17374/original/9rr58y2w-1352334106.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17374/original/9rr58y2w-1352334106.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17374/original/9rr58y2w-1352334106.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17374/original/9rr58y2w-1352334106.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17374/original/9rr58y2w-1352334106.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17374/original/9rr58y2w-1352334106.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17374/original/9rr58y2w-1352334106.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Elizabeth Warren at a campaign rally in Massachusetts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tim Pierce</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And where does the newly re-elected president fit into all this? It is easy to interpret Obama’s decision to lead off with the Ledbetter Act as a play for women’s votes. And to some extent it was. But it was also a signal that the economy Obama planned to rebuild from the rubble of the global financial collapse would be a more equitable one, one in which women would command the same economic value as men.</p>
<p>Tuesday night’s results suggest the political system could become more equitable as well. One could imagine as the results came in that future debates over policies affecting women’s choices might actually include women as policymakers rather than bodies to be legislated.</p>
<p>The phrase “war on women” has real limitations. But to the extent the 2012 election was a battle over what role women would play as America moves forward, the results are clear. Americans rejected Akin and Mourdock, returned to office the man who signed the Ledbetter Act, and increased the number of women senators by at least 25%.</p>
<p>A war on women? If so, it wrapped up last night. And women won.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10599/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole Hemmer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A president’s first act in office carries considerable symbolic weight. After President Obama was sworn in in 2009, the first piece of legislation he signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Act, allowing women…Nicole Hemmer, Visiting Assistant Professor at University of Miami & Research Associate, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/104922012-11-05T03:27:23Z2012-11-05T03:27:23ZA storm of stupidity? Sandy, evidence and climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17232/original/y6xffwyc-1352064501.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ignoring climate change isn't stupidity, it's ideology.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Peter Foley/EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>“It’s global warming, stupid” – <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid">Bloomberg’s Businessweek cover</a> last week left little doubt about their opinion concerning “Frankenstorm” Sandy. The accompanying tweet anticipated that the cover might “<a href="https://twitter.com/Tyrangiel/status/263983816610308096">generate controversy, but only among the stupid</a>.”</p>
<p>These frank words about the Frankenstorm are perhaps long overdue in light of the general failure of American politicians <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0403-y">to show leadership</a> on this issue.</p>
<p>But is it really a matter of mere “stupidity” to deny the link between climate change and Sandy’s fury — a link that has been drawn carefully but quite explicitly by scientists around the world, <a href="http://media2.apnonline.com.au/img/media/pdf/Climate_Commission_Hurricane_Sandy_Briefing.pdf">including in Australia</a>?</p>
<p>No, it is not a matter of stupidity.</p>
<p>On the contrary, it takes considerable, if ethically disembodied, intelligence to <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/11/04/the-australians-war-on-science-78-2/">mislead the public</a> about the link between climate change and Sandy as thoroughly as our national “news"paper has <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate-link-to-sandy-invalid/story-fn59niix-1226509504684">done for the umpteenth time</a>. </p>
<p>It is not a matter of stupidity. It is a matter of ideology.</p>
<p>People who subscribe to a fundamentalist conception of the free market will deny climate change irrespective of the overwhelming strength of the scientific evidence. They will deny any link between climate change and events such as the unprecedented Frankenstorm Sandy, or the unprecedented <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-kenya-to-texas-recent-climate-extremes-around-the-world-2824">Texas drought</a>, or the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_North_American_derecho">unprecedented series of Derechos</a>, or the unprecedented flooding in Tennessee, or the unprecedented <a href="https://theconversation.com/teetering-on-a-tipping-point-dangerous-climate-change-in-the-arctic-5156">Arctic melt</a>, or the unprecedented retreat of Alpine glaciers, or the unprecedented <a href="http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyNormalization.html">tripling of extreme weather events during the last 30 years</a>.</p>
<p>There is no longer any reasonable doubt that climate change is happening all around us. There is also no doubt that ideology is the principal driver of climate denial.</p>
<p>So what effect will Sandy have on public opinion?</p>
<p>On the one hand, the deniers will likely double down and their claims will become ever more discordant with the reality on this planet. Their denial will continue even if palm trees grow in Alaska and if storms such as Sandy — or far worse — have become commonplace.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the vast majority of people who are not in the clutches of a self-destructive ideology will likely wake up and smell the science. Even before Sandy, a <a href="http://www.eenews.net/assets/2012/10/16/document_cw_01.pdf">recent Pew poll (PDF)</a> revealed that acceptance of climate change among the American public rebounded by 10 percentage points in the last few years. There is every reason to expect that Sandy will accelerate this trend towards acceptance of the dramatic changes our planet is undergoing.</p>
<p>Much research has shown that people’s attitude towards climate change depends on specific events and anecdotal evidence. For example, people are more likely to endorse the science <a href="http://dx.doi.org/2010.1177/0956797611400913">on a hot day than on a cool day</a>, all other things being equal. Even a seemingly trivial stimulus such as a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.12.002">dead plant</a> in an office can enhance people’s acceptance of the science (three dead plants are even better). This human tendency to focus on scientifically irrelevant anecdotes rather than on data can be unfortunate, especially because it lends itself to exploitation by propagandists who haul out every cool day in Wagga Wagga as "evidence” that climate change is a hoax.</p>
<p>However, people’s propensity to learn from specific events rather than scientific data and graphs can also be beneficial. For example, a <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1059.html">national survey in the UK</a> revealed that people who personally experienced flooding expressed more concern over climate change and, importantly, felt more confident that their actions will have an effect on climate change. Similar data have been <a href="http://psychologyforasafeclimate.org/resources/Public%20Risk%20Perceptions..%20Responses%20to%20ClimateChange%20in%20Australia%20and%20Great%20Britain.pdf">reported in Australia</a>. Respondents who attributed salient events to climate change were found to be better adapted to climate change, they reported greater self-efficacy, and they were more concerned with climate change.</p>
<p>There is little doubt that Americans, too, will connect the dots between Frankenstorm Sandy and the reality of climate change. They will also likely recognise how <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/28/freaking-out-about-nyc-sea-level-rise-is-easy-to-do-when-you-dont-pay-attention-to-history/">drastically wrong</a> the deniers were when they shrugged off sea level rise and how it might contribute to a flooding of New York City.</p>
<p>The moment the public recognises the link between climate change and Sandy, they will clamor for action. Just like New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, when he <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/11/01/barack-obama-michael-bloomberg-election-2012/1674967/">endorsed President Obama</a> for re-election because he was more likely to address climate change.</p>
<p>Salient events carry a message.</p>
<p>People understand that message.</p>
<p>After all, it’s global warming, stupid.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10492/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephan Lewandowsky does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>“It’s global warming, stupid” – Bloomberg’s Businessweek cover last week left little doubt about their opinion concerning “Frankenstorm” Sandy. The accompanying tweet anticipated that the cover might “generate…Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/104252012-10-30T04:54:01Z2012-10-30T04:54:01ZWhy Sandy could be the ‘October Surprise’ of the 2012 presidential election<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17060/original/cnbqdhjn-1351570831.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">As New York City firefighters look over two houses struck by trees in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, both Republicans and Democrats worry about the impact on voter turnout.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Justin Lane</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On November 4, 1979 when Jimmy Carter’s presidency depended on gaining the <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/carter-hostage-crisis/">freedom of the US hostages</a> held by Iranian student militants, he was unable to achieve this goal even when it looked like the Iranians were ready to yield.</p>
<p>Ronald Reagan pounced on this failure and Carter lost. A few months later the hostages were released after Reagan assumed the presidency. In 1992 George Bush fresh from victory in “Desert Storm” enjoyed a 95% approval rating. But by October 19 the US was in a mild recession and upstart Bill Clinton was driven by the famous words: “it’s the economy stupid”. Bush was finished.</p>
<p>US political legend holds that there will be an incident, a surprise in late October in a presidential election year, which will separate the candidates at a point where one moves so far ahead that he wins by more votes than anyone anticipates. Is <a href="https://theconversation.com/hurricane-sandy-the-new-normal-10408">Hurricane Sandy</a> the 2012 October surprise for Obama?</p>
<p>Given the close race, it will take a deciding deed or moment for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney to pull away in the last dash to victory. There is no doubt Sandy is a political storm and not just a weather event.</p>
<p>The memory of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 is still clear to American voters. The inability of George W. Bush to lead in that crisis sealed the fate of the Republican Party candidate, no matter who it was going to be. Now, Mr Obama is facing his October event. In almost any other election, this event would be an inconvenience for voters and not the deciding moment for the President or his challenger. But this year is different.</p>
<p>Obama has looked lost on the key domestic issue of the economy. Romney, in spite of major gaffes such as his comments on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/mitts-47-gaffe-the-romney-shambles-rolls-on-9669">47%</a> and a disastrous <a href="http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fworld%2F2012%2Fjul%2F26%2Fmitt-romney-gaffes-uk-visit&ei=2lePUKT8HY2higefg4HgBw&usg=AFQjCNFhemMlyzp4ZM8AoS7ZnTW8QsHVqQ">London trip</a> has hammered the President on the issue of jobs. There is little doubt that Romney held his own in the debates. Now a real crisis has hit the nation. What will this October surprise yield?</p>
<p>First, both candidates have to get out their voters. Obama’s team is worried that city-dwelling Democrats will be evacuated or polling places moved at the last moment, suppressing the lower-income Democratic base votes, especially among inner-city Hispanics and Blacks. As Katrina showed, low-income voters have too many life support issues like food and shelter to worry about, well ahead of trying to find a new voting place. Romney’s team worried about his auto dependent suburban and rural voters who may not be able to travel to the polls due to road outages and blockages. Many bridges have washed away in the folds accompanying the storm.</p>
<p>Second, who looks and acts presidential? This is the reason Obama is at the <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/obama-returns-to-washington-to-handle-storm-response-bill-clinton-and-romney-campaign/article4719263/">US emergency headquarters</a> looking like he is in charge. He is not going to repeat <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/ns/us_news-katrina_the_long_road_back/t/video-shows-bush-got-explicit-katrina-warning/#.UI9Y3W_MikM">George W’s performance</a>. Romney is reminding everyone he did a good job running snow storm disasters in Massachusetts and trying to show how open he is to the needs of all Americans.</p>
<p>Nature has handed both candidates a perfect opportunity to look good. One has to look better to the electorate as they choose someone who will take America through the big fiscal storms ahead.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10425/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ed Blakely does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On November 4, 1979 when Jimmy Carter’s presidency depended on gaining the freedom of the US hostages held by Iranian student militants, he was unable to achieve this goal even when it looked like the…Ed Blakely, Honorary Professor in Urban Policy & disaster recovery expert, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/103282012-10-26T00:55:08Z2012-10-26T00:55:08ZObama’s all-nighter: fast, furious and foolish<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16915/original/cp7m2f7b-1351211054.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Barack Obama would be well advised to catch some sleep on the plane during his whirlwind tour.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Michael Reyonds</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Politicians of all persuasions often claim they need little sleep to lead their nations. Thatcher, Hawke, Abbott, Rudd, Berlusconi and Clinton are all examples of this “on the job 24 hours per day” club. Barack Obama is the latest to sign up.</p>
<p>Currently Obama is on a two-day campaign race through eight states. He recently told a crowd of supporters, “This is the first stop on our 48-hour fly-around campaign marathon extravaganza. We’re going to pull an all-nighter — no sleep.” Looking back, it’s clear Obama is a serial “sleep deprivationist” with a number of all-nighters during his 2008 campaign.</p>
<p>Going without sleep during campaigning is not just a US phenomenon. In the 2010 Federal election, Tony Abbott put in his own 48-hour eye-opener.</p>
<p>He said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Why sleep at a time like this, if there are voters to be seen, if there are cases to be made, if there’s an argument to be put across to the public.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For politicians, functioning without little sleep seems to be a form of machismo – witness the frequent late night parliamentary sessions in parliament or boasts about Kevin Rudd’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-lady-of-the-lodge-demystifying-the-pms-wife-20090717-do8j.html">staying power</a> reading documents through the night, as if he was a rival to the wombat as Australia’s most famous nocturnal mammal.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16917/original/9r2x2kvw-1351211180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16917/original/9r2x2kvw-1351211180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16917/original/9r2x2kvw-1351211180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16917/original/9r2x2kvw-1351211180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16917/original/9r2x2kvw-1351211180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16917/original/9r2x2kvw-1351211180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16917/original/9r2x2kvw-1351211180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16917/original/9r2x2kvw-1351211180.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Obama’s 48-hour trip is gruelling, and if he doesn’t sleep he’ll suffer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twitter/@BarackObama</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The reality is that pulling an all-nighter or going without sleep for 24 or 48 hours makes no sense, especially for political leaders who need clear heads to make decisions. Progressive hours without sleep results in an increasing need for sleep and worsening brain function. This is amplified by our body’s circadian rhythms that program us to be awake during the day and asleep at night. As a result, the effects of sleep deprivation are always accentuated during the night hours. Historically, pulling an all nighter or a series of all-nighters has led to disastrous decision-making typified by the catastrophes at Chernobyl or involving the oil tanker, Exxon Valdez.</p>
<p>Without sleep, the ability to concentrate deteriorates, as does memory and complex thinking. Sleep deprivation also causes a failure in judgement – so that you don’t even know you are making errors. Micro-sleeps start to occur at greater frequency and the brain actually starts recruiting extra resources by shifting activity to areas that normally lie quiet in the well-rested state. This can help briefly in emergency situations but is not a long lasting safety net. Going without sleep for 24 hours results in greater risk taking as seen from experiments using gambling tasks. Casinos take advantage of this by well-worn techniques to keep their clientele awake and at the table – bright lights, noise and food service.</p>
<p>On the road, these effects result in more sinister problems of being unable to judge speed and fall asleep risks. There are some similarities between progressive sleep deprivation and increased alcohol consumption. Certainly by the time you hit 48 hours without sleep you can get confused and disinhibited.</p>
<p>Longer periods of sleep deprivation can result in irritability, impaired mood and even paranoia. Research ethics committee are not keen on experiments where sleep deprivation is extended beyond 40 hours – this timeframe is starting to get too close to torture.</p>
<p>If our political leaders think their brains can function well without sleep, then a bad message is being sent to truck drivers, marine pilots and even young drivers. The reality is that many individuals in critical industries and those involved in sustained operations are highly vulnerable to Barack-style all-nighters.</p>
<p>Countering the effects of sleep deficiency requires better technology measuring and predicting the brain’s response to sleep loss in real time even at roadside tests. Maybe these tools can be employed to keep us safe from sleepy politicos and errant decision-making.</p>
<p>With 10 days to go before an election, political campaigns are always going to be fast and furious. Obama’s best bet is to catch up on as much sleep on Air Force One as he can. Better to be sleep-wise than all-nighter foolish.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10328/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ron Grunstein receives funding from the NHMRC.</span></em></p>Politicians of all persuasions often claim they need little sleep to lead their nations. Thatcher, Hawke, Abbott, Rudd, Berlusconi and Clinton are all examples of this “on the job 24 hours per day” club…Ron Grunstein, Professor of Sleep Medicine, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/99902012-10-24T19:33:17Z2012-10-24T19:33:17ZA foreigners’ guide to US election technology<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16812/original/4fbqwv6x-1350967197.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Voters in Florida casting their votes through electronic voting, introduced in the wake of 2000's "hanging chad" controversy.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Rhona Wise</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Elections in the United States are run by state authorites that use a wide variety of voting technologies, often with newsworthy results.</p>
<p>Some computerised elections have even awarded the election to the wrong candidates. This has prompted a partial return to a human-readable paper record of the vote. For a comprehensive and worrying history of US experiments in election technology, see Simons and Jones’ excellent book, <a href="http://www.brokenballots.com/">Broken Ballots</a>.</p>
<p>Here are some state-by-state highlights of electronic voting in the US.</p>
<h2>Florida (of course)</h2>
<p>Seats on the city council of Palm Beach, Florida, were <a href="http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/420523/e-voting_system_awards_election_wrong_candidates_florida_village/?fp=4&fpid=18#closeme">mistakenly awarded</a> to the wrong candidates because their computerised optical scan vote (paper ballots that voters complete by filling in the oval of their choice which are then scanned and counted automatically) tallying system was not set up properly. Fortunately, the actual paper votes could be counted by hand. Unfortunately, nobody noticed the problem until after the election results had been certified.</p>
<h2>South Carolina</h2>
<p>A manual recount was impossible for the 2010 Democratic Primary in South Carolina, because the Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting system - a computer that accepts votes from individuals and makes electronic records - produced no paper record. Researchers inspecting the electronic records <a href="http://static.usenix.org/events/evtwote11/tech/final_files/Buell.pdf">found numerous</a> electronic vote records that were not counted, but it was impossible to prove exactly what the election outcome should have been. </p>
<h2>Ohio</h2>
<p>But those were just accidental failures. What about deliberate manipulations via insider access or security vulnerabilities? American voters, accustomed to more shenanigans at voting time than we are, were appalled to hear that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/opinion/hack-the-vote.html">Diebold CEO Warren O’Dell</a> was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President” in the 2004 election. Voters feared that he could deliver on his promise, because his company produced unverifiable DRE voting systems used throughout the state.</p>
<h2>California</h2>
<p>In 2007 the California Secretary of State commissioned a wide-ranging “top to bottom” <a href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/oversight/top-to-bottom-review.htm">technical review</a> of voting systems. The researchers found numerous serious security vulnerabilities which could have allowed an attacker to manipulate votes. For example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The testers discovered numerous ways to overwrite the firmware of the Sequoia Edge system…the attackers controlled the machine, and could manipulate the results of the election. No source code access was required or used for this attack.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>All DREs in California now produce a voter-verifiable paper audit trail, which means that the DRE prints a paper record which is checked by the voter and retained by the authorities. Some paper records are selected at random and reconciled with the electronic record to verify the election outcome. This is called a “post-election audit”. Many other US states now have a similar process, which provides a reasonable degree of evidence of the correct result. However, some <a href="http://verifiedvoting.org/">still use DREs</a> without any human-readable paper record, implying that machine error could undetectably change the election outcome.</p>
<h2>Maryland</h2>
<p>Takoma Park, Maryland, runs a <a href="http://scantegrity.takomaparkmd.gov/">sophisticated voting system</a> that gives voters a mathematical proof that their vote was correctly recorded and counted. This actually provides a higher degree of evidence than traditional paper methods.</p>
<h2>Washington DC (the Internet)</h2>
<p>Most US computer scientists and electronic security experts oppose Internet voting, because it is too easy to manipulate and too hard to prove who should have won.</p>
<p>In 2010 electoral officials in Washington DC ran a courageous experiment: they put up a practice version of their open-source Internet voting software and encouraged people to test it or attempt to hack it. A team from the University of Michigan did just that. Their report, <a href="https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/dcvoting-fc12.pdf">Attacking the Washington, D.C. Internet Voting System</a>, also says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Within 48 hours of the system going live, we had gained near complete control of the election server. We successfully changed every vote and revealed almost every secret ballot. Election officials did not detect our intrusion for nearly two business days—and might have remained unaware for far longer had we not deliberately left a prominent clue.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>They also detected attempted intrusions from Iran, India and China. </p>
<p>By being open and transparent, the electoral officials were made aware of the vulnerabilities in time to call off the trial. The system would otherwise have been trusted for returning votes, while remaining vulnerable to outside attack.</p>
<h2>Back home in Australia</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16813/original/2jyx2v2p-1350967475.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16813/original/2jyx2v2p-1350967475.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16813/original/2jyx2v2p-1350967475.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16813/original/2jyx2v2p-1350967475.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16813/original/2jyx2v2p-1350967475.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1149&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16813/original/2jyx2v2p-1350967475.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1149&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16813/original/2jyx2v2p-1350967475.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1149&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An electronic voting computer as introduced in the ACT in 2001.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most Australian electronic voting trials have been careful and free of disasters. The ACT runs <a href="http://www.elections.act.gov.au/__data/print_to_pdf.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elections.act.gov.au%2Fnews%2Freport_of_act_electronic_voting_and_counting_system_released%3FSQ_DESIGN_NAME%3Dpdf%26SQ_PAINT_LAYOUT_NAME%3Dpdf">widespread computerised voting</a> on an open-source system, which set a high standard for transparency when it was introduced in 2001. Unfortunately it hasn’t been updated in keeping with more recent ideas about voter verifiability. </p>
<p>Few other projects had openly available source code. A system currently in development at the Victorian Electoral Commission will be open-source and verifiable, with similar properties to the system in Takoma Park, Maryland. Other states and the federal government have trialled polling-place electronic voting machines for vision impaired voters and others with disabilities. Australia currently has no nationwide requirements for open source software or voter verifiability.</p>
<p>NSW voters who were out of the state during their most recent election were offered an Internet voting platform called <a href="http://www.office.elections.nsw.gov.au/voting/ivote/overview">iVote</a>, from US vendor Everyone Counts. The system was extremely popular because of its convenience and accessibility, including for vision impaired voters. Unfortunately it <a href="http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/93481/iVote_Audit_report_PIR_Final.pdf">misrecorded</a> at least 43 of the votes, which contained the letter “N” in the boxes where numbers are supposed to go. Again this was probably an accidental bug rather than the result of deliberate hacking, but, despite giving voters a receipt that was described as “confirm[ing] there has been no tampering to the vote”, the system provided no meaningful evidence that any of the votes were correctly recorded, received or printed. </p>
<p>Indeed, there were known security vulnerabilities as well: the NSW Electoral Commission’s security audit found that “significant security vulnerabilities were highlighted”. A <a href="http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/93481/iVote_Audit_report_PIR_Final.pdf">summary report</a> after the election stated “some of the risks identified by third party security experts and NSWEC remained outstanding during the voting period”. The system <a href="http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/elections/sydney_state_by-election_27_october_2012/early_voting/ivote">remains in use</a>, however, including for the current Sydney by-election.</p>
<p>Australia has a proud history of transparent, well scrutinised, high-integrity elections. The challenge for us is to use technology when it is beneficial, while ensuring that it maintains Australian standards of transparency and integrity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9990/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vanessa Teague contributes on a voluntary basis to the Victorian Electoral Commission's open source electronic voting project, but otherwise does not work for, consult to, or own shares in any company or organisation that would benefit from this article.</span></em></p>Elections in the United States are run by state authorites that use a wide variety of voting technologies, often with newsworthy results. Some computerised elections have even awarded the election to the…Vanessa Teague, Honorary Fellow in the Department of Computing and Information Systems, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/99012012-10-21T19:20:20Z2012-10-21T19:20:20ZWhy Obama and Romney are both supporting a particular Israel<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16641/original/myzm3qhc-1350451544.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Barack Obama, pictured with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been accused of throwing Israel "under the bus".</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Aaron Showalter</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>At the same dinner party that Mitt Romney infamously told his $50,000-a-plate supporters that 47% of the American public are slackers, he also delved into foreign policy. </p>
<p>Romney <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video#nodeal">told</a> his audience that peace in Israel/Palestine is “just wishful thinking”.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I always keep open the idea of, I have to tell ya, the idea of pushing on the Israelis? - to give something up, to get the Palestinians to act, is the worst idea in the world. We have done that time and time and time again. It does not work. So, the only answer is show your strength. Again, American strength, American resolve.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This insight gives us some clue to Romney’s approach to Israel: use American strength, or the perception of American strength, to support Israel in its aims. At the same time, don’t do anything to help push peace forward: and so Palestinians remain stuck, with a well-funded Israeli army sitting on top of them. This is not surprising. As Guardian journalist Gary Younge <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/09/us-most-racially-polarised-election-white">has written</a>, the Republicans are the party of white America. It is not too far of a stretch to see that they are will support similar elements in Israel who preach a particular form of supremacy.</p>
<p>But how different is Barack Obama’s position?</p>
<p>On his campaign website, <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/america-and-israel/">the section</a> that outlines his policy on Israel is called “America & Israel: An Unbreakable Bond”. Obama claims that “America’s commitment and my commitment to Israel and Israel’s security is unshakeable”. He emphasises a commitment to Israel’s “security”, and doesn’t mention Palestinians here once. As was recently written in an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/the-truth-about-obama-and-israel.html?_r=0">op-ed</a> in the New York Times:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There’s no denying that by every tangible measure, [Obama’s] support for Israel’s security and well-being has been rock solid… Mr. Obama has assured Mr. Netanyahu that he will “always have Israel’s back”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So where does the local American support of Israel fit into this? What role does it play?</p>
<p>The existence of a <a href="http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/category/one_time_tags/obama_and_the_israel_lobby">powerful domestic Israel lobby</a>, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is no small thing. But we also need to remember that there is significant general domestic electoral support for America providing Israel with abundant military support. America’s economy is in dire straits, both campaigns are talking about how to attempt to balance the budget, and, as political commentator M.J. Rosenberg has pointed out, no one is talking about cutting funding to Israel. </p>
<p>Rosenberg recently <a href="http://mjayrosenberg.com/2012/10/09/mainstream-jewish-organizations-earn-israel-first-designation-again/">wrote</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The current economic situation has put all…programs under scrutiny, and most have sustained cuts which have cost many Americans (including cops and teachers) their jobs. The one program exempt from scrutiny and from cuts is the aid to Israel program. In fact, every budget slashing proposal passed or pending in Congress exempts Israel and only Israel (no, the U.S. military is not exempt while the Israeli military is).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Even J Street, the ostensibly liberal arm of the “pro-Israel” camp, supports this position. Rachel Lerner, the Vice President of the J Street Educational Fund, recently <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/getting-our-piorities-in-order.html">wrote that</a> “J Street opposes proposals to condition or cut security assistance to Israel”.</p>
<p>It is only because of this seeming national consensus - which of course isn’t a real consensus, as there are plenty of dissenters to the positions of the two major parties and their presidential campaigns - that this absurd state of affairs can continue.</p>
<p>We saw this consensus laid out clearly in the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan on October 12. There we saw both candidates tripping over themselves to make a claim to being the best friend that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has. When challenged by Ryan on the closeness of the Democrats and Netanyahu, Biden <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/biden-ryan-debate-israel-iran-netanyahu-2012-10">vigorously asserted</a> that he has been friends with Netanyahu for 39 years. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16696/original/nmm3f886-1350563052.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16696/original/nmm3f886-1350563052.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16696/original/nmm3f886-1350563052.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16696/original/nmm3f886-1350563052.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16696/original/nmm3f886-1350563052.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16696/original/nmm3f886-1350563052.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16696/original/nmm3f886-1350563052.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mitt Romney on a visit to Jerusalem as part of his foreign tour earlier this year.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Abir Sultan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Considering that Netanyahu has just <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-15/news/sns-rt-us-israel-votebre89e1ku-20121015_1_israel-sets-election-date-nuclear-program-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu">called an election</a>, it begs the question of how much the next US President will be getting involved in that election campaign. And it reminds us all that it would seem that no matter what an Israeli government does to Palestinians, to refugees who are turned away or locked up, and to increase social and economic stratification (as highlighted by last year’s <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/04/tel-aviv-tent-city-protesters">J14 tent protests</a>), whoever wins the election will maintain this close friendship and support. </p>
<p>And so while Peter Beinart, amongst others, might <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/05/bibi-s-democrat-problem.html">argue</a> that Netanyahu is a friend of the GOP whereas Defence Minister Ehud Barak is friends with the Democrats, it seems as though both parties are going out of their way to demonstrate that they are good friends with whoever is in charge. American commentator Glenn Greenwald <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/04/third-party-us-presidential-debate-deceit?CMP=twt_gu">wrote</a> of this attitude that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>On still other vital issues, such as America’s steadfastly loyal support for Israel and its belligerence towards Iran, the two candidates will do little other than compete over who is most aggressively embracing the same absolutist position.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The challenge then becomes how to break this absolutist position and the ideas of intervention and control in the Middle East that it goes with. Because it is clear that from the perspective of the vast majority of Palestinians, a win for either candidate is a massive loss.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9901/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jordy Silverstein is a volunteer member of the executive of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society (AJDS).</span></em></p>At the same dinner party that Mitt Romney infamously told his $50,000-a-plate supporters that 47% of the American public are slackers, he also delved into foreign policy. Romney told his audience that…Jordana Silverstein, Historian, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/101752012-10-17T10:18:34Z2012-10-17T10:18:34ZUS presidential debate: Obama gets his game on<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16643/original/rddnx6rd-1350453802.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Obama gave a much improved performance in the second of three presidential debates.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Win McNamee</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The president probably wished he could have taken the shot again after his listless debate performance two weeks ago. </p>
<p>There are no do-overs in politics. But then, in the second debate in New York, he just about managed to hit a pretty good one out of the rough. </p>
<p>One of the <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/liberals-livid-with-obama-s-debate-performance-20121004">criticisms from liberals</a> after the first debate is that Obama’s heart wasn’t in it. That the president wasn’t interested in making the aggressive and affirmative case for why he deserved a second term. I’m always sceptical about these attempts to psychoanalyse politicians. And it seems bizarre to read so much into an hour and a half of theatrical performance as opposed to the president’s record over the last three years. </p>
<p>In any case, you’re not going to be hearing any of those complaints from Democrats this time around. Obama was passionate and eager to challenge Republican candidate Mitt Romney on policy facts and ideological differences. At one point, moderator Candy Crowley commented that the president would field the next question. “Looking forward to it,” he replied. It looked as if he genuinely meant it. </p>
<p>Who knows exactly how independents will judge the performance, but the president certainly fired up his base. And that’s hardly insignificant. Increased enthusiasm amongst Republicans accounted for much of Romney’s <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/oct-5-day-after-debate-strong-swing-state-polls-for-romney/">gains in the polls</a> after the first presidential debate. And inspiring supporters is especially important for the president since the Democratic coalition includes many demographics that don’t always vote in large numbers.</p>
<p>For his part, Romney didn’t flop but this wasn’t the <a href="https://theconversation.com/round-1-to-the-republican-romney-comes-out-swinging-9992">commanding performance</a> we saw on in the first debate. My colleague <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-smith-9948">David Smith</a> frequently says that anger and passion are important in these formats but that it’s very difficult to channel these emotions effectively. This was clearly on display tonight. Obama hit his crescendo at the right moments while talking about <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09hwMcVcjq4&feature=player_embedded">the “47%”</a> and defending his administration against accusations that they played politics with the Libya tragedy. Romney, on the other hand, seemed most perturbed when discussing the debate rules and whose turn it was to talk. </p>
<p>One of the more telling points of the whole evening came during the opening question from a college student worried about his job prospects after graduation. After hitting his talking points on college affordability Obama quickly pivoted to a discussion of manufacturing and Romney’s past opposition to the auto industry bailout. Most college-educated New Yorkers probably aren’t going to end up working at General Motors.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16644/original/2g3445w5-1350454661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16644/original/2g3445w5-1350454661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16644/original/2g3445w5-1350454661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16644/original/2g3445w5-1350454661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16644/original/2g3445w5-1350454661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16644/original/2g3445w5-1350454661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16644/original/2g3445w5-1350454661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Barack Obama and Mitt Romney take centre stage at the second debate, held in a “town hall” format.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Michael Reynolds</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But Obama’s answer wasn’t really directed at 20 year old Jeremy Epstein. It was to the undecided voters in swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin, and especially Ohio. Both candidates’ path to the presidency runs through the Midwest and it will be very difficult for either candidate to win if they don’t carry Ohio. As such, it was hardly surprising that both Obama and Romney were trying to steer discussion towards issues that are especially pertinent to this area of the country. </p>
<p>So what effect will the debate have on the polls? The unhelpful but intellectually honest answer is that it’s difficult to know. But I can say with some certainty that Obama supporters who are hoping for a Romney style post-debate surge will be disappointed.</p>
<p>Even though the president was leading by a fairly significant margin after the Democratic National Convention the fundamentals have always predicted a tight election. As such, Romney’s improvements over the last two weeks are impressive but perhaps not entirely shocking given that this was always supposed to be a horse race. Obama might see some modest gains but it’s difficult to dramatically change the dynamics of an election that by all accounts should be close. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, in a closely fought contest, small gains can be significant. And the president did what he could to help his case tonight.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10175/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Freedman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The president probably wished he could have taken the shot again after his listless debate performance two weeks ago. There are no do-overs in politics. But then, in the second debate in New York, he just…Luke Freedman, US Election Analyst, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/101242012-10-14T19:25:07Z2012-10-14T19:25:07ZCan America lead? The presidential debate and the future of US foreign policy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16463/original/cphd6wps-1350014928.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Obama leaves Marine One. Is the US still the leading power in the world?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Joshua Roberts</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the current American presidential debate, Republican Mitt Romney has <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-foreign-policy-speech-vmi-obama-virginia-military-institute-libya-2012-10">criticised</a> President Barack Obama for his reputedly timid approach to the Middle East. </p>
<p>He has promised to restore American leadership in the region, and indeed the world, through a greater activism. Yet Romney’s comments generate genuine questions about whether America can still lead, and if not, how it can restore itself to global eminence, if not preeminence.</p>
<p>The answer to the first question is a resounding “no”. America no longer has the capacity to lead as it once did. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/death-in-benghazi-the-dark-side-of-the-citizens-revolt-in-libya-9552">violent attacks</a> on American consulates and embassies, acts of civil disobedience and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/innocence-of-muslims-protests_n_1892888.html">burning of flags</a> around the globe that we have witnessed in the past few weeks are emblematic of the decline in America’s standing that dates back well over a decade, rather than owing to a temporary loss of leadership. </p>
<p>It is easy for Americans to convince themselves that such protests are the acts of unthinking radicals, that the anti-Islamic film against which they demonstrated is nothing more as a pretext for voicing their opposition to the West, or that such public disaffection is the inevitable result of a process of modernisation in which the US is, at most, a surrogate for the autocratic regimes under which disaffected men suffer in the Arab world. </p>
<p>But this is not simply a complaint about American policies. It is a challenge to America’s role in the world.</p>
<p>Almost in defiance of this criticism, as every speech in this political season attests, Americans are told that America was, is and will remain the greatest country in the world. </p>
<p>It is a country that others seek to emulate and that such opposition is the product of envy, not hostility. To an extent, both presidential candidates have participated in sustaining this charade. They ignore a broad swathe of evidence to the contrary. </p>
<p>It stretches from America’s inability to assist its critical European economic partners in addressing their financial crisis to its incapacity to reassure the Chinese that America is not pursuing an encirclement strategy in Asia when it <a href="https://theconversation.com/memo-stephen-smith-there-are-us-bases-in-australia-and-they-are-expanding-8622">locates a new base in Australia</a>. </p>
<p>It extends from a failure to achieve consensus about how to effectively engage Iran or North Korea over the problem of proliferation to its unsuccessful attempts to insert itself into the process of regime change in the Middle East and North Africa. </p>
<p>Indeed, rather than leadership and emulation, <a href="http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/">global public opinion surveys</a> stretching back over a decade resonate with the same view: America, despite its claims to the contrary, is the greatest force for global instability. Many foreigners share this view, not simply the more objectionable outliers such as Chavez in Venezuela or Ahmadinejad in Iran. America can’t get anything done, let alone lead, when faced with this kind of widespread opposition.</p>
<p>But the truth is perhaps more brutal: focusing on its unprecedented military capabilities rather than its diplomatic capacities in the pursuit of its foreign policy goals since the end of the Cold War, America has relied more on its coercive power than an ability to influence others.</p>
<p>This subtle distinction between power and influence has been lost on American politicians, policymakers, academics and the media alike in its parochial political debates. Together, in concert, they have claimed that the coupling of America’s military as a blunt indispensable “force for good” with its alluring hypnotic soft power mix of democracy, unregulated capitalism and pop culture has sustained its right, its capacity and ability act as a global leader.</p>
<p>The crux of the problem is that America possesses the power but not the legitimacy to influence foreign affairs, and both are needed if the US is to reestablish its ability to lead. The portents, however, are not as gloomy as the evidence might suggest. </p>
<p>In a surprising, unacknowledged bipartisan trend, both President Obama and his predecessor, George Bush, have occasionally shown a willingness to sponsor global initiatives.</p>
<p>An appreciation for America’s sponsorship of global initiatives is evident in the continued widespread support for its unheralded campaigns against both human trafficking and piracy on the high seas – initiatives that began under the Bush administration but were continued by President Obama. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16470/original/rxfxm7rx-1350015968.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16470/original/rxfxm7rx-1350015968.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16470/original/rxfxm7rx-1350015968.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16470/original/rxfxm7rx-1350015968.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16470/original/rxfxm7rx-1350015968.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16470/original/rxfxm7rx-1350015968.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16470/original/rxfxm7rx-1350015968.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The US consulate in Benghzai after an attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stephen.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Stringer</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In both cases, America pursued criminals in the naked abrogation of the sovereignty of other countries, has bullied foreign governments into creating and enforcing programs to protect victims, and has threatened allies and enemies alike with sanctions. </p>
<p>All this without a peep of the kind of criticism we have witnessed on the streets of capitals around the world in the last month. And the same tendencies are manifest in the sorrow and apologies expressed by Libyans about the recent consulate attack, fully recognising America’s indispensable role in their liberation. </p>
<p>It’s no coincidence that only Libyans, among all the countries in the Arab world, who have expressed remorse about the attacks on American personnel, symbols and property. These initiatives have, in some quarters, gone far in rehabilitating America’s reputation abroad.</p>
<p>The acts of violence against Americans are indefensible and unjustifiable. But demanding leadership as Romney has done, asserting America’s moral superiority or dismissing the protesters on the streets as simply outside the mainstream is an ineffective strategic response, however understandable in this political season in the US.</p>
<p>The restoration of America’s influence for which Romney pines begins with a recognition that it cannot act as a buttress against chaos around the global simply by trying to seize the reins of leadership and using power indiscriminately. </p>
<p>That didn’t work in Iraq, has continued to fail in Afghanistan, and no expedient measures will adequately address the problem of America’s lack of legitimacy. </p>
<p>Rather, America’s leadership must recognise the new realities of a global politics, where power and legitimacy are more intertwined than ever, accept that rebuilding the latter is a longer terms process, and build support for its position by demonstrating a willingness to pursue what its leaders regard as the good ideas of others.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10124/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Reich does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the current American presidential debate, Republican Mitt Romney has criticised President Barack Obama for his reputedly timid approach to the Middle East. He has promised to restore American leadership…Simon Reich, Professor in The Division of Global Affairs and The Department of Political Science, Rutgers UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/101092012-10-11T19:56:11Z2012-10-11T19:56:11ZRace to the White House: Sven Feldmann, Andrew John<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16419/original/8tbx7ymw-1349933583.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">original</span> </figcaption></figure><figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16419/original/8tbx7ymw-1349933583.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16419/original/8tbx7ymw-1349933583.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16419/original/8tbx7ymw-1349933583.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16419/original/8tbx7ymw-1349933583.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16419/original/8tbx7ymw-1349933583.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16419/original/8tbx7ymw-1349933583.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16419/original/8tbx7ymw-1349933583.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s still the economy, stupid. Bill Clinton gestures while addressing a crowd during a campaign event for United States President Barack Obama a the University of New Hampshire.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/CJ GUNTHER</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Welcome to part six of our Race to the White House podcast series.</p>
<p>Each week we’ll be talking to Australia’s top US experts on the ins and outs of the 2012 US presidential campaign.</p>
<p>This week, we take a look at the campaign in light of the economy, with Melbourne Business School Associate Professors of Economics, Sven Feldmann and Andrew John.</p>
<iframe width="100%" height="166" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F63005368&show_artwork=true"></iframe>
<p><em>Podcast produced by Rachel Baxendale.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10109/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Welcome to part six of our Race to the White House podcast series. Each week we’ll be talking to Australia’s top US experts on the ins and outs of the 2012 US presidential campaign. This week, we take…Sven Feldmann, Associate Professor, Economics , Melbourne Business SchoolAndrew John, Associate Professor of Economics, Melbourne Business SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/100042012-10-05T03:18:04Z2012-10-05T03:18:04ZRace to the White House: Dennis Altman, Nick Bisley<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16230/original/qw95xs5p-1349404289.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The challenger and defender: the first US presidential debate has changed the game for Romney and Obama.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Welcome to part five of our Race to the White House podcast series.</p>
<p>Each week we’ll be talking to Australia’s top US experts on the ins and outs of the 2012 US presidential campaign.</p>
<p>This week, Romney just might have re-inspired his flagging campaign after coming out swinging in the first round of presidential debates. La Trobe University’s Dennis Altman and Nick Bisley examine Obama on the resulting defence as he asks for the “real Mitt Romney” to please stand up.</p>
<p>Listen to the conversation <a href="http://webstat.latrobe.edu.au/www/marketing/assets/podcasts/2012/121005-2012election05.mp3">here</a>.</p>
<p>To listen to previous podcasts from the La Trobe University US election coverage, go to the iTunes library <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/itunes-u/u.s.-election-2012-america/id559658334">here</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10004/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>no relevant conflicts of interest</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Bisley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Welcome to part five of our Race to the White House podcast series. Each week we’ll be talking to Australia’s top US experts on the ins and outs of the 2012 US presidential campaign. This week, Romney…Dennis Altman, Professorial Fellow in Human Security, La Trobe UniversityNick Bisley, Professor, Program Convenor, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/99922012-10-05T01:27:05Z2012-10-05T01:27:05ZRound 1 to the Republican: Romney comes out swinging<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16219/original/mb6c9cth-1349398120.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C189%2C3720%2C2361&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney had the edge over President Barack Obama in Wednesday night's presidential debate.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Shawn Thew</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Verdicts on the <a href="http://live.wsj.com/video/best-moments-of-first-obamaromney-debate/9A76ACAD-1CC8-40C4-916D-39DD78F27A77.html#!9A76ACAD-1CC8-40C4-916D-39DD78F27A77">first presidential debate of 2012</a> overwhelmingly favour Governor Mitt Romney. </p>
<p>Romney articulated his message with a sense of clarity about the political ideas and principles he represents. In contrast President Barack Obama conveyed his arguments with the deftness of a policy wonk, the clarity of his own vision overshadowed by dense policy explanations.</p>
<p>The debate was always Obama’s to lose, with a senior Romney advisor noting that voters <a href="http://gawker.com/5947252/romney-campaign-memo-obama-is-a-master-debater-will-probably-win-next-week-because-voters-think-hes-better">expected Obama to prevail</a> in the debates by a margin of 25 points. The Atlantic national correspondent James Fallows <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/slugfest/309063/">points out</a> that Romney was destined to exceed expectations, both through his proven debating skills, and by mere virtue of being seen on an equal footing with the President.</p>
<p>As such the key question is not who “won” on the night, but rather what the debate reveals about the ability of each candidate to bring his own strengths to bear on his opponent’s weaknesses. The debate exposed a growing strategic divide between the candidates over the perceived importance of emphasising a clear ideological vision versus a concrete policy program. The reason for Romney’s crisp delivery may ultimately be his greatest weakness; while the source of Obama’s sometimes turgid responses may yet propel him to victory in the November election.</p>
<p>Romney’s performance showed his preference for clear ideological vision over policy detail. The entirety of Romney’s responses revolved around repeating a set of traditional conservative platitudes: cutting the size of federal government, reducing bureaucratic waste, devolving power to states, and deregulating the economy. The strategy of answering questions according to these first principles contributed to the clarity of Romney’s message that so impressed many viewers.</p>
<p>However, Romney’s failure to develop a policy program giving life to his ideological vision was conspicuous as the debate progressed. This has been a growing theme of the Democratic campaign, and Obama seized on it as Romney’s Achilles’ heel. Obama challenged Romney’s inability to demonstrate the feasibility of cutting taxes by $5 trillion, increasing military spending by $2 trillion, and yet remaining revenue neutral by closing tax loopholes and deductions. </p>
<p>Romney’s response included the listing of unflattering economic statistics of the past four years and studies challenging Obama’s position. Yet nowhere could Romney provide the requisite list and costing of loopholes and deductions necessary to substantiate this most pivotal policy. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16220/original/rqqbh247-1349398273.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16220/original/rqqbh247-1349398273.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=778&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16220/original/rqqbh247-1349398273.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=778&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16220/original/rqqbh247-1349398273.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=778&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16220/original/rqqbh247-1349398273.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=977&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16220/original/rqqbh247-1349398273.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=977&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16220/original/rqqbh247-1349398273.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=977&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave an impressive performance during the first Presidential Debate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Shawn Thew</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On healthcare Romney reiterated his intention to repeal “Obamacare” by referring to the article of faith that “free people and free enterprises trying to find ways to do things better are able to be more effective in bringing down the cost than the government will ever be.” Again Obama responded by attacking Romney for failing to specify what would replace Obamacare once it was repealed, while questioning the absence of details necessary to demonstrate that the alternative plan would nevertheless continue to cover people with pre-existing conditions.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly Romney excelled in responding to a big picture question on the appropriate role of federal government. The high-water mark of Romney’s elevation of ideological principles over policy details came when he pointed to the image of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence projected behind the candidates as the basis for his answer. Yet the election will not be decided by those who are satiated by such ideological tropes. Policy details are the red meat that will lure crucial undecided voters.</p>
<p>With five weeks of the campaign left Obama is well placed to continue speaking to voters in terms of a contest between competing policy programs. This will disarm efforts by the Romney campaign to cast the election as an ideological choice between “two very different paths”. As things stand Obama would wield the decisive advantage among those undecided voters who are looking for more than naked ideology of either stripe.</p>
<p>Clear political principles are a necessary element for an effective campaign. The internally coherent world view of George W. Bush became a key asset in his electoral victories. Yet first principles are only politically meaningful insofar as they provide the blueprint for a specific policy program. The political irrelevancy of Sarah Palin attests to the limitations of politics constructed entirely on folk wisdom that fail to progress to a workable policy program.</p>
<p>Romney’s efforts in a contest of political ideology will ultimately be in vain unless he can provide details of an alternative policy program converting grand principles into solutions for the country’s economic woes. Tenaciously clinging to a perceived ideological advantage could come at the expense of fulfilling this task. The great irony is that if the battle over policy is neglected the ideological war for the principles Romney touted so confidently in this first debate will also increasingly ring hollow.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9992/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Malcolm Jorgensen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Verdicts on the first presidential debate of 2012 overwhelmingly favour Governor Mitt Romney. Romney articulated his message with a sense of clarity about the political ideas and principles he represents…Malcolm Jorgensen, PhD Candidate & Lecturer, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/98262012-10-03T23:59:15Z2012-10-03T23:59:15ZWhat can Romney learn from past comebacks?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16149/original/bgcr6bdn-1349307308.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What can Mitt Romney learn from previous candidates that trailed but won?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Michael Reynolds</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With Mitt Romney entering October as the decided underdog it seems fitting to revisit some past presidential election comebacks. And while these cases are entertaining in and of themselves, they also offer insight into the state of the current race.</p>
<p>A conversation about political upsets inevitably starts with Harry Truman’s victory over New York Governor Thomas Dewey in the 1948 presidential election. Truman, who assumed the presidency in 1945 after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, struggled to quell divisions within his own party and by the spring of 1948 had seen his approval rating sink to a seemingly fatal 36 percent. </p>
<p>However, the president refused to roll over. He embarked on <a href="http://millercenter.org/president/truman/essays/biography/3">several cross-country campaign tours</a> and offered harsh critiques of Dewey and the ‘do-nothing’ Republican-controlled Congress. Republicans, Truman warned, would undo all the achievements of the New Deal era.</p>
<p>Truman’s fiery rhetoric is usually seen as the catalyst of his remarkable resurgence. In reality though, his victory was less about campaign strategy than the fact that the fundamentals of the race were quickly shifting in the incumbent’s favour. Political scientist James Campbell <a href="http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/bxn2011100602/">explains</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Until recently, for instance, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) figured that GDP in the first half of 1948 (leading into the Truman-Dewey contest) was growing at a healthy 4.1% rate. The BEA’s latest series indicates that this greatly understated growth at the outset of the 1948 campaign. The BEA now figures that the economy was growing at a sizzling 6.8%, a revision that helps explain Truman’s miraculous comeback.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The other much-discussed presidential “comeback” is Ronald Reagan’s decisive victory over incumbent Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election. The contest has become a something of a rallying point for the Romney campaign and it’s not hard to see why. Just before the election, undecided voters broke strongly towards the challenger, turning what had been a close election into a landslide. </p>
<p>However, the comeback narrative is misleading. There were a couple of late October polls that had Carter ahead. But that doesn’t mean he was actually leading. Political scientist John Sides has <a href="http://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/trialheats1980.png">aggregated</a> the polls to show the state of the race throughout 1980. As you can see from the graph, Reagan had taken the lead by late May and opened up an enormous gap after the Republican convention. The contest would tighten again but Reagan never relinquished his advantage.</p>
<p>Much is made of Reagan’s strong debate performance a week before the election. But, by this time, the Republican challenger was already a fairly solid favourite thanks to an <a href="http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com%2F2012%2F05%2F30%2Feconomically-obama-is-no-jimmy-carter%2F&ei=GENpUNScFeSSiQep_4DoDw&usg=AFQjCNEs9NiIQlr73OfmhghHkQWDfb47gA&sig2=B5gNIyYKWev0FWgCf2COrA">abysmal economy</a>. </p>
<p>These cases are a reminder not to read too much into the ins and outs of the campaign. It’s not that a strong debate performance or campaign tactics are inconsequential. These things matter. But election analysis often misses the forest for the trees; focusing narrowly on supposed turning points while ignoring underlying economic trends that are more often than not directing the race. Consequently, you end up retrofitting a misleading ‘comeback’ narrative that doesn’t fit the data. </p>
<p>These examples also illustrate the extent of the challenge that Romney faces. The Republican nominee trails by four points and so far hasn’t generated any headway in the general election. Based on history and the current state of the race it’s unlikely that the upcoming debates or another campaign recalibration will be enough to close the gap.</p>
<p>In August, conservative columnist Rich Lowry <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79767.html">urged</a> Romney to “Give em ‘hell, Mitt”: a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_%27em_Hell,_Harry!">reference</a> to Truman’s no holds-barred campaign in 1948. It might be sound advice. But, if Romney really wants to follow Truman’s path to the White House; and isn’t afraid to be a little self-serving, it’s probably time to start hoping for some bad economic news.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9826/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Freedman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With Mitt Romney entering October as the decided underdog it seems fitting to revisit some past presidential election comebacks. And while these cases are entertaining in and of themselves, they also offer…Luke Freedman, US Election Analyst, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/97662012-10-03T20:29:23Z2012-10-03T20:29:23ZPresidential debates loom as Romney’s last best hope<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16074/original/tzc6532q-1349154614.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mitt Romney, flanked by Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul during a Republican candidates' debate last year, needs a strong performance in this month's debates against Barack Obama to save his campaign.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/CJ Gunther</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The US presidential election is almost over before the best part – the presidential debates. </p>
<p>With Barack Obama looking <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/49262704">almost unbeatable</a> at the beginning of October, Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s last chance at the 11th hour is a stellar performance in the <a href="http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=2012-2">three presidential debates</a> that will take place this month. </p>
<p>Romney can’t afford to simply hope for a poor performance from Obama. As he did with his understated <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rl8Ou84s5U">convention speech</a>, Obama is likely to play it safe as long as he maintains a lead over Romney in the <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx">opinion polls</a>.</p>
<h2>The benefits of the American system</h2>
<p>While there are many aspects of the American electoral process that are far from best practice, Australian politics could benefit from following the American model of presidential debates. The Rudd government promised such an independent commission in Australia; however, this good idea <a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2010/04/27/hypocrite-rudd-runs-from-independent-election-debates/">seems dead</a>. </p>
<p>Instead the debates between Australian prime ministers and opposition leaders in recent years have been a national embarrassment. There is one short debate, a practice that distinctly favours the incumbent. </p>
<p>Why are the American debates a model of sorts? Apart from being run by a Commission on Presidential Debates and the regular appearance of the excellent <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81806.html">Jim Lehrer</a> as a moderator, the debates offer moments of significant political drama (real and contrived) and put candidates on the record in a very public way that provides a standard to judge them by if elected.</p>
<h2>The 2012 candidates</h2>
<p>Obama’s greatest aim in the upcoming round of debates will be to not look too overconfident or aggressive. </p>
<p>He did an <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/27/opinion/polls/main4482119.shtml?source=search_story">excellent job</a> of avoiding John McCain’s attempts to provoke him in the 2008 debates, where Obama was cool under pressure and revealed his first class temperament. </p>
<p>Romney is likely to perform beyond expectations – not hard to achieve given the general failings of his campaign recently (and all year long really). </p>
<p>Romney is likely to be more articulate and probably more direct about his policy proposals than many might expect.</p>
<h2>The classic debates</h2>
<p>All students of American politics have heard or read about the <a href="http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=kennedy-nixon">first ever televised presidential debate</a> between JFK and Nixon in 1960. In the pre-YouTube tellings of this event in my undergraduate years, Nixon had refused to wear make-up saying that was for sissies and thus his five o’clock shadow made him look shifty and devious. </p>
<p>Seeing the film of the debate years later I was disappointed: Kennedy was less charismatic than I had been told and Nixon cleaner cut. In 1964 LBJ <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/30/opinion/greene-debates/index.html">simply refused</a> to debate Goldwater: why give a drowning man a chance was the calculation of the Johnson camp. </p>
<p>In 1968 and 1972, Nixon refused to debate his opponents believing the 1960 debate had cost him the presidency. In the often forgotten 1976 election, in the second debate against Carter, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8rg9c4pUrg">Ford said</a> “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe”. </p>
<p>This was a significant gaffe and reinforced the image of Ford as the man that couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time (a sanitised version of LBJ’s famous put down of Ford). </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16075/original/ytjvwhsg-1349154826.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16075/original/ytjvwhsg-1349154826.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16075/original/ytjvwhsg-1349154826.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16075/original/ytjvwhsg-1349154826.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16075/original/ytjvwhsg-1349154826.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16075/original/ytjvwhsg-1349154826.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16075/original/ytjvwhsg-1349154826.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Preparations are well underway at the University of Denver in Colorado for this week’s debate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Michael Reynolds</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The debates are often about reinforcing expectations or trying to break a stereotype held about a candidate. The single 1980 debate was important not because Reagan necessarily beat Carter, but because he showed he could speak without notes and foot it with Carter as a credible alternative for president. </p>
<p>If the public has low expectations regarding a candidate’s debating skills, as they did with Reagan in 1980 and George W. Bush in 2000, a competent and personable performance enhances the candidate’s stocks at a crucial time. This has to be Romney’s great hope: that with the public <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/obama-leads-on-expectations-but-the-race-itself-stays-close/l">expecting very little of him</a>, he significantly exceeds expectations with articulate and convincing performances.</p>
<p>Performances is the right word here because these encounters are not really debates; instead they are often duelling speeches or competing proposals to win “the living room test”.</p>
<h2>The best performers</h2>
<p>Some presidential nominees are particularly good at presenting complex policies and political ideas in their short responses to questions in these debates. Bill Clinton and John Kerry come to mind as candidates who raised the quality and tone of the debates in this manner. </p>
<p>However, it is body language, sighs and aggressiveness that the press often focus on in their debate summaries. The biggest loser in this regard was Al Gore in 2000. Given how close the 2000 election was, Gore’s <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2077515_2077516_2077506,00.html">sigh-ridden performances</a> may have cost him the election. </p>
<p>One of the amusing press stories during the 2004 debates, that got a lot of play in Australia, was that an odd looking bulge at the back of Bush’s neck during that election’s first debate <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/oct/14/thisweekssciencequestions3">contained a device</a> telling him the answers to the questions. Given that it was Bush’s worst performance maybe Cheney was barking ideas to him.</p>
<h2>The big issues? Usually not.</h2>
<p>In the best case scenario for those who think there are important issues regarding debt, jobs, taxation and the limits of American military intervention at stake in 2012, Romney will force a debate on these questions in what has often been a policy-lite campaign year. </p>
<p>However, despite being a former venture capitalist and the guy who wrote and spoke so vividly about the audacity of hope, these two candidates are risk adverse. </p>
<p>Thus the more likely scenario will be an ultimately frustrating series of debates that skirt around the edges of the significant problems facing America. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9766/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brendon O'Connor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The US presidential election is almost over before the best part – the presidential debates. With Barack Obama looking almost unbeatable at the beginning of October, Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s…Brendon O'Connor, Associate Professor in American Politics at the United States Studies Centre, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/98522012-10-02T20:51:26Z2012-10-02T20:51:26ZWhy disappointment and dissent can’t break the two party system<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15998/original/y5wrzqdx-1349049621.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson is running for president as the Libertarian Party's nominee, but are third parties relevant in US politics?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Gage Skidmore</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Election Day in 2012 many Americans will vote against a candidate they hate, not in favour of a candidate they like. This is often the case. During the 2004 contest between George W. Bush and John Kerry, <em>Reason</em> magazine ran the headline “The good news is one of these guys will lose”. A <a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154582/debate-2004"><em>South Park</em> episode</a> the week before the election conveyed what a lot of people felt about the choice. </p>
<p>This year it is easy to see parallels between Mitt Romney and Kerry. Both men are wealthy, aloof patricians from Massachusetts who were unloved by their party activists but were accepted as the most “electable” candidates in their primaries. For Republicans now as for Democrats then, the main task is <a href="http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/asfYg.FNljAar6YE0tl88g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://mit.zenfs.com/100/2012/06/bumper_sticker.jpg">beating the hated president</a>. In the <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/limbaugh-we-are-voting-against-obama-romney-could-be-elmer-fudd">words of Rush Limbaugh</a>, Romney “may as well be Elmer Fudd as far as we’re concerned. We’re voting against Obama.” </p>
<p>For progressives, there are some uncomfortable parallels between Obama and Bush that go beyond the fact many of his opponents <a href="http://today.yougov.com/news/2012/07/11/birthers-are-still-back/">don’t consider him</a> a legitimate president. While Obama revoked the use of torture and redirected military power from Iraq to Afghanistan, in many ways he has continued and extended Bush-era foreign policy violence. </p>
<p>Obama has taken the <a href="http://www.esquire.com/features/obama-lethal-presidency-0812">“targeted killing”</a> of individuals - including American citizens - to unprecedented levels, and has personally authorised unmanned drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists in six countries. The people who die in these strikes are <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-drone-study-20120925,0,5793737.story">not always terrorists</a>, though the administration counts all military-age male casualties from drone strikes as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all">“combatants”</a>. People in the targeted areas of Pakistan and Yemen reportedly live in <a href="http://livingunderdrones.org/">a state of constant terror</a> from drone attacks, which are never as precise or “surgical” as the US government claims.</p>
<p>For some progressives it is not enough that Obama is running against an opponent who would <a href="http://prospect.org/article/foreign-policy-romney-promises-bush-redux">probably be much worse</a>. Some will <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/">refuse to vote for him</a> on moral grounds. Why is there no plausible third-party candidate for progressives to vote for? And why doesn’t the Tea Party have a candidate of its own on the right?</p>
<p>The experience of Ralph Nader, <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81649.html">who recently told <em>Politico</em></a> that Obama should be held accountable for war crimes, helps to explain the persistence of the two-party system in America.</p>
<p>Nader originally rose to prominence as a consumer rights activist and environmentalist in the 1960s. He gained notoriety in 2000 as the Green Party’s “spoiler” candidate who <a href="http://prospect.org/article/books-review-1">may have cost Al Gore</a> the extremely close Presidential election, though his exact effect on the election is <a href="http://www.prorev.com/green2000.htm">disputed</a>. Nader <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81649.html">calls</a> the term “spoiler” a “politically bigoted word, as if we’re second-class citizens.” But in US Presidential elections, it is hard to think of third-party candidates as anything else.</p>
<p>In any country the prospects of minor parties are helped or hurt by the electoral system that translates votes into power. In a proportional representation system such as Germany’s, 10% of the vote for a party like the Greens equals roughly 10% of the representation, and the chance to play an important role in a coalition government. In a single member district system such as Australia’s lower house, the Greens can get the same amount of votes and have nothing to show for it. Unless some of those votes are very geographically concentrated, they rarely have enough to win any given seat.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15994/original/xmjxjm23-1349049216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15994/original/xmjxjm23-1349049216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15994/original/xmjxjm23-1349049216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15994/original/xmjxjm23-1349049216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15994/original/xmjxjm23-1349049216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15994/original/xmjxjm23-1349049216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15994/original/xmjxjm23-1349049216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Republican Ron Paul may have attracted a strong protest vote had he run as a third-party candidate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Larry W Smith</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even in <a href="http://greens.org.au/people/adam-bandt">our system</a>, or <a href="http://www.carolinelucas.com/">Britain’s</a>, the Greens can occasionally get a seat and some legislative bargaining power. In a US presidential election, only the winner of the national majority of electoral college votes gets anything–the presidency. This does not deter hopeless candidates from <a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/entertainment/celebrities_gossip/Roseanne-Barr-spurned-by-Greens-running-for-president-as-socialist-.html">running</a>, but donors prefer candidates who have a chance of winning, and voters are reluctant to “waste” their votes if they have a even a weak preference for one of the major candidates over the other. </p>
<p>This is why the most successful third candidate in recent years was <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ross-perot-2012-his-message-was-20-years-ahead-of-its-time/2012/07/20/gJQAazGeyW_story.html">an eccentric billionaire</a> who was hard to place on a standard liberal-conservative spectrum. In 1992, Ross Perot appealed to voters who didn’t like politics and who saw little difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates.</p>
<p>Voters with stronger ideological leanings are haunted by the possibility that by protesting against their own side, they might be helping the other side win. Ron Paul, an anti-war Republican who also <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies">enjoys some support</a> from the anti-war left could probably mount a strong third-party campaign in protest against bipartisan warmongering. But on election day, progressives would worry that a vote for Paul is really a vote for the Republicans and their heartless domestic policies. Libertarians would fear that a vote for Paul is effectively a vote for Obama and his creeping socialism.</p>
<p>This is why a strong third party remains a distant pipe-dream in American politics, even when there seems to be strong grassroots demand for it. Voters are not brainwashed, but they do know how the system is rigged.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9852/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On Election Day in 2012 many Americans will vote against a candidate they hate, not in favour of a candidate they like. This is often the case. During the 2004 contest between George W. Bush and John Kerry…David Smith, Lecturer in American Politics and Foreign Policy, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/97032012-10-02T20:51:15Z2012-10-02T20:51:15ZObama and Romney face off over Middle East policy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15884/original/sdh575ys-1348637345.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Obama's charm offensive in the Middle East has been overtaken by the Arab Spring and growing instability in the region.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Khaled El Fiqi</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Barack Obama and Mitt Romney commenced their presidential campaigns, Middle East policy was not a top issue. But the Middle East has a propensity to thrust itself on US politics. </p>
<p>True to form, the US response to the unfolding crisis in the Middle East is front and centre in public debates. In the wake of the murder of the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19577913">US Ambassador</a> to Libya and three other US nationals in Benghazi and a violent backlash against the amateur YouTube video about Prophet Muhammad, President Obama has remained calm but assertive. </p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CHcQFjAL&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2208396%2FObama-condemns-disgusting-anti-Islam-video-insists-Muslims-suffered-hands-extremism.html%3Fito%3Dfeeds-newsxml&ei=WOVkUK77CMWfiAenqIGYDw&usg=AFQjCNGZ6pYNi443F0h2mum47rxjh61rrQ">public statement</a>, he made it clear that the US government does not condone the denigration of Islam. He also reiterated the US position to end violence, and more generally assist the Middle East region chart its way towards democracy. President Obama took advantage of his appearance in 60 minutes to accuse Mitt Romney of sabre rattling, which is ultimately damaging to US interests.</p>
<p>At the same time, President Obama feels the need to emphasise his resolve in dealing with Iran. This point was made loud and clear at his <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly">UN address</a> last Tuesday. The United States will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Yet, Obama does not want this message to be an ultimatum for war. Instead he is trying to keep a fine balance, not too accommodating to Iranian intransigence and not too eager to start yet another war in the Middle East. This approach has left Obama open to accusations of being soft from the Romney camp.</p>
<h2>The view from Romneyworld</h2>
<p>Mitt Romney’s hawkish statements on the Middle East don’t quite constitute a set of policies. But they do clearly point to the failure of President Obama to deliver. So Romney is reaching for the “re-set” button, as did Hilary Clinton in relation to Russia. </p>
<p>For Romney, US priorities are simple. According to his electoral website, the US needs to lead the world into an American century. This means that the United States takes leadership in terms of military might and economic power, and sets the political agenda for freedom. ‘In an American century, America leads the free world, and the free world leads the entire world’. </p>
<p>This grand standing may sound comical and out of tune with the complexity of the world and the dipping economic fortunes of the United Sates, especially in relation to China. But it could appeal to an electorate that is disillusioned with Obama’s ability to deliver in the Middle East.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15883/original/2xqyyddq-1348637109.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15883/original/2xqyyddq-1348637109.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=878&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15883/original/2xqyyddq-1348637109.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=878&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15883/original/2xqyyddq-1348637109.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=878&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15883/original/2xqyyddq-1348637109.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1103&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15883/original/2xqyyddq-1348637109.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1103&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15883/original/2xqyyddq-1348637109.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1103&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Obama’s policies have not been supported by Benjamin Netanyahu, who lobbies actively for a pre-emptive strike on Iran.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Martin H Simon</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>President Obama’s Middle East policy had prima facie merits. It was based on the principle that US interests were best served by providing states and societies in the Middle East the tools for democratic transition, rather than imposing one on them. Taking a less interventionist approach to the political developments in the Middle East was supposed to be Obama’s signature policy towards the region. Unfortunately for Obama and US-Middle East relations, this approach hit a wall in some key areas and has failed to produce results, mostly because events overtook Obama’s charm offensive.</p>
<h2>The intractable questions</h2>
<p>In relation to Iran, President Obama was trying a significantly different approach to George W Bush by offering to have open talks on Iran’s nuclear program without preconditions. But his initiatives were stonewalled by the Islamic regime. Tehran was quite unprepared for this change of policy and used the statements in relation to the 2009 government crack down on the opposition movement to accuse the US of meddling in its affairs. The rapid deterioration of relations and the consequent tough sanctions on Iran were directly tied to the Iranian regime’s lack of interest in any rapprochement with the United States.</p>
<p>In relation to the protracted Israeli-Palestinian dispute, President Obama tried to take a principled position and ask the Israeli government to respect international law and refrain from expanding its illegal settlements, and implement the <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ARAB,,,3de5e96e4,0.html">Oslo Accord</a> on final negotiations on a future state for the Palestinians. But this has been ignored in Israel as the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to build more settlements in the West Bank, blockade the Hamas-run Gaza strip, and lobby US congress for a military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. In a significant symbolic gesture, Obama refused to meet Prime Minister Netenyahu while on his campaign trail. But this gesture has little tangle impact on the way Israel behaves in the region.</p>
<h2>Friends and enemies</h2>
<p>In relation the budding democratic movement, dubbed the Arab Spring, the United States was forced to take sides and help the anti-Qaddafi rebels to prevent a humanitarian disaster. And in Syria, the United States is stuck between a bad choice and a bad choice: Bashar al-Assad or the Islamicly-inclined rebels that are sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Obama’s instinct to not meddle in the internal affairs of the region does not really help with the resolution of the ongoing civil war in Syria.</p>
<p>Obama has been trying to walk a fine line in the Middle East and take the United States out of theatres of conflict. The withdrawal from Iraq and the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan reflect his determination to put the Bush legacies to rest. But he can’t afford to be seen as weak when it comes to US interests. </p>
<p>The targeted killing of Osama bin Laden is often highlighted by the Obama camp as evidence of his resolve.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9703/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shahram Akbarzadeh receives funding from Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>When Barack Obama and Mitt Romney commenced their presidential campaigns, Middle East policy was not a top issue. But the Middle East has a propensity to thrust itself on US politics. True to form, the…Shahram Akbarzadeh, Deputy Director National Centre of Excellence in Islamic Studies, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/98142012-09-30T20:39:55Z2012-09-30T20:39:55ZWhat happened to climate change? Fox News and the US elections<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15970/original/vj64x2dg-1348807997.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mitt Romney and the Republicans are openly sceptical of climate change.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Michael Reynolds</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Climate change has been significantly absent from the US presidential election campaign. President Obama, who made climate change a key plank of his 2008 campaign, has not been anywhere near as vocal in this race.</p>
<p>Republican nominee Mitt Romney, recognising the active disbelief in climate science among his party base, only raises the issue to sneer at it as the obsession of a deluded middle class.</p>
<p>But how did we arrive at this point? Why is the defining issue of the age so pointedly absent from the most important political decision making process? Where are voters getting their information - or lack thereof - from?</p>
<h2>Fair and balanced?</h2>
<p>The News Corporation-owned Fox News is by far and away the most popular news channel for Republicans. And its coverage of climate issues leaves a great deal to be desired.</p>
<p>An analysis of prime time programs on Fox News has found that 93% of their coverage of climate science in 2012 was misleading. The report, <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/news-corporation-climate-science-coverage.html">published by the Union of Concerned Scientists</a>, analysed six months of prime time segments covering climate change in early 2012. </p>
<p>The Wall Street Journal, News Corporation’s other media flagship, didn’t fare much better. The report also included WSJ opinion pieces over the last year and found 81% of their climate change coverage was misleading. </p>
<p>To characterise this coverage as biased doesn’t capture the magnitude of their treatment of climate science. News Corporation is promoting an inversion of reality. For the past several decades, there has been a strengthening scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901110000420">Surveys of the climate science community since 1996</a> have found the percentage of climate scientists agreeing on human-caused global warming has steadily increased to the point where in the last few years, several independent surveys have found <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract">97% agreement among actively publishing climate scientists</a>.</p>
<h2>Fine words from Murdoch but …</h2>
<p>As the scientific consensus strengthened, there have been signs of improvement in media coverage of climate change. From 1988 to 2002, US prestige press newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post (and yes, the Wall Street Journal) gave <a href="http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec.pdf">disproportionate attention to climate contrarians</a>. However, coverage improved to the point where in 2007, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00769.x/abstract">96% of U.S. prestige newspaper coverage of climate change depicted human contribution to climate change as significant</a>. </p>
<p>At this time, Rupert Murdoch pledged that News coverage of climate change would improve. In 2007, he said “I think when people see that 99% of scientists agree about the serious extent of global warming, it’s going to become a fact of life”. In fact, the <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n9/full/nclimate1295.html">link between perception of scientific consensus and acceptance of climate change</a> has been demonstrated by researchers. The important consequence emerging from this research is that perception of consensus is also a strong predictor of support for climate policy.</p>
<p>Despite Murdoch’s promise to improve Fox coverage, this 2012 analysis shows that coverage is worse than ever at Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Before we shake our heads and mutter “only in America”, we mustn’t overlook that Australian media is not immune to this form of reality inversion. An <a href="http://www.acij.uts.edu.au/pdfs/sceptical-climate-part1.pdf">analysis of media coverage of climate change policy by News Limited newspapers</a> from Feb to July 2011 found 82% of their coverage was negative with only 18% positive coverage. </p>
<p>In contrast, Fairfax newspapers were more balanced, with 56% positive articles and 44% negative. A <a href="http://www.quarterlyessay.com/issue/bad-news-murdochs-australian-and-shaping-nation">survey of climate coverage by The Australian newspaper</a> found that they accept contributions from climate contrarians such as Bob Carter, Ian Plimer and Christopher Monckton <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/how-australian-newspaper-warps-world-climate-science">ten times more than recognised climate change experts</a> such as veteran climate scientist James Hansen.</p>
<h2>The importance of reliable information</h2>
<p>Why does this matter? Mainstream media is where most people get their information about climate change and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00769.x/abstract">television is the predominant source</a>. Fox News is the most popular cable channel in the US and the Wall Street Journal is the country’s largest newspaper. How the media covers climate change has a strong influence on public views on climate change.</p>
<p>Consequently, a <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Global-Warming-2012-Election.pdf">survey of the American public</a> published this month found that only half of Americans think most scientists agree global warming is happening. Of course, public opinion is not monolithic with different demographics showing strongly divergent views. While 65% of likely Obama voters believe that humans are causing global warming, only 27% of likely Romney voters thought the same. This is not a surprising result – a number of studies have found a <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate/news/PoliticsGlobalWarming2011/">strong link between conservative ideology and the rejection of climate science</a>.</p>
<h2>The Republican willing blindness</h2>
<p>The conservative aversion to climate science was no more evident than during the Republican primaries when every Presidential candidate except Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman espoused views casting doubt on human-caused climate change. The peer-pressure was too great for Romney who <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20127273-503544/mitt-romneys-shifting-views-on-climate-change/">retracted his support for climate science</a>. Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan has long been <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/paul_ryan_on_climate_change_his_environmental_record_is_atrocious_.single.html">outspoken about his rejection of the scientific consensus</a>.</p>
<p>However, while the <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Global-Warming-2012-Election.pdf">recent survey of Americans</a> was unsurprising in showing the link between conservatism and science rejection, one intriguing result did emerge from the results. It turns out 65% of undecided voters also believe global warming is human caused. This degree of acceptance of climate science is the same as likely Obama voters. This result takes on extra significance as climate change is one of the important factors that undecided voters are considering when casting their vote in the upcoming presidential election.</p>
<p>Perhaps this is why for Republicans, climate change has been the issue “<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0907/Climate-change-why-it-could-be-a-hot-topic-on-the-campaign-trail">that shall not be named</a>”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9814/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Cook does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Climate change has been significantly absent from the US presidential election campaign. President Obama, who made climate change a key plank of his 2008 campaign, has not been anywhere near as vocal in…John Cook, Climate Communication Research Fellow, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/97012012-09-25T20:19:28Z2012-09-25T20:19:28ZIndia, the ‘New Asia’ and the American presidential elections<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15733/original/f4k2wrnb-1348193117.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Obama met with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in November 2009 in what was seen as a further sign of a strong emerging relationship between the two countries.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Shawn Thew</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Any American presidential election reverberates around global policy corners but, for India, the 2012 contest carries unusual significance. </p>
<p>With its economy slowing, national government under severe pressure, and competition with China over “new Asian power” status sharpening, India has a strong stake in the November result.</p>
<p>Superficially, India could be contented. A late 2011 <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/full-text-of-congressional-research-service-report-on-india-133602">Congressional Research Service</a> report shows two-way trade totalling approximately $US50 billion. </p>
<p>The US is India’s largest direct investment partner at over $16 billion, and one of its largest trading partners. As India’s economic growth flourished, American interest and investment soared. The highpoint was America’s 2008-9 <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/warming-up-us-india-relations">agreement</a> on nuclear development and trade – as for Australia a few years later, that was the cost of doing business with India. </p>
<p>The US-India Strategic Dialogue, emerging from this interaction, has essayed further wide-ranging collaboration, especially in the “knowledge economy” – the development of stronger higher education partnerships, for example, carries significant implications for Australia with the US drawing over $3 billion from Indian international <a href="http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/150780.pdf">students</a>.</p>
<p>Considered more closely, though, doubts surround the robustness of the India-US relationship. There was policy drift in the early Obama period, even if the President seemed positive. Many New Delhi authorities were puzzled, even alarmed by the apparent lack of direction. The Dialogue series restored some confidence, with Indian parliamentarian and poster-boy commentator Shashi Tharoor <a href="http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/india-s-american-relations-by-shashi-tharoor">suggesting</a> “relations are more or less on the right track”.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15731/original/ftrw6gk2-1348191821.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15731/original/ftrw6gk2-1348191821.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=804&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15731/original/ftrw6gk2-1348191821.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=804&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15731/original/ftrw6gk2-1348191821.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=804&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15731/original/ftrw6gk2-1348191821.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1010&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15731/original/ftrw6gk2-1348191821.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1010&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15731/original/ftrw6gk2-1348191821.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1010&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Barack Obama holds a reception in honor of Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna of India in June 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Ron Sachs</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This despite ongoing concerns in Washington about India’s allegedly slow progress on matters like intellectual property protection, continuing corruption concerns, and differing views about relations with Iran. For India’s part, the US farm subsidy program gives American farmers undue trade advantages, the visa program restricts the free flow of Indian skilled labour, and moves towards a free trade agreement are too slow.</p>
<p>The presidential elections raise serious questions about what happens next, especially as Mitt Romney’s foreign policy forays have been so underwhelming. His position on India, its role and its region are under-elaborated, at best, even if his representatives agree the country is “<a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/romney-and-u-s-indian-relations/">important</a>”. </p>
<p>Those foreign policy calls from any future president will have great significance for India in at least four key areas.</p>
<p>First, what happens in Afghanistan carries enormous weight in India, with Obama’s commitment to a withdrawal having already caused anxiety. Romney did not mention the war in his speech to the Republican convention, but has also committed to a late-2014 withdrawal. This is significant and uncomfortable, particularly as there are now suggestions that the troubled and troubling Afghan President Hamid Karzai will also step down that year. The question for India, obviously, is “what happens then?” India has a long-standing strategic interest in Afghanistan, and desperately wants Pakistan excluded from any resolution process there.</p>
<p>Pakistan is the second and directly connected challenge. Feasibly, Pakistan is now more of a problem for the US than is Afghanistan. The American administration’s relations with Pakistan have never been easy, and Osama bin Laden’s execution did not help. Nor have Obama’s attempts to “cool” on Pakistan in favour of its long standing neighbour and enemy. The “<a href="http://terrorism.about.com/od/globalwaronterror/u/War_on_Terror.htm">war against terror</a>” is firmly based on dealing with what happens in Pakistan, the withdrawal from Afghanistan complicates that, and bothers India. Having faced its own terrorist outrages, most notably in <a href="http://terrorism.about.com/od/originshistory/p/Mumbai_Attack.htm">Mumbai</a>, India will be watching the candidates’ declarations on Pakistan, and by definition “the war on terror” most keenly.</p>
<p>That also applies to the third key factor, China. At the global, diplomatic level this might even be the most significant marker as India pursues a permanent UN Security Council seat, publicly supported by Obama. These rising “new powers in Asia” watch each other intently, and for signs of where the US is inclined between them. Neither Obama nor Romney has been definitive, but India considers the dialogue to suggest that the present administration, at least, takes India seriously.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15735/original/g2kg7f9k-1348193430.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15735/original/g2kg7f9k-1348193430.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15735/original/g2kg7f9k-1348193430.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15735/original/g2kg7f9k-1348193430.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15735/original/g2kg7f9k-1348193430.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1093&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15735/original/g2kg7f9k-1348193430.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1093&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15735/original/g2kg7f9k-1348193430.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1093&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mitt Romney on the campaign trail in Florida: so far his position on India has been described as under-elaborated.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Brian Blanco</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Indian Ocean is part of that, and the fourth key lever with further significance for Australia. India’s “Look East” policy presumes an increasingly dominant Indian Ocean and beyond role. As the Obama “<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/15/us-usa-pacific-pivot-idUSBRE85E1B420120615">pivot</a>” policy evolves, this gives opportunity for further tension between India and China, with loop back into the China question and even the <a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2012-09/15/content_15760046.htm">Russian</a> one where India, again, has history. As with other foreign policy issues, Romney’s position is less well publicly delineated, causing further anxiety in New Delhi.</p>
<p>The present situation, then, has the current US attitude towards India substantially positive, with India well placed to capitalise despite some uncertainties. However, that might well be altered in 2014 when India faces a general election. The Manmohan Singh-led <a href="http://www.bjp.org/">United Progressive Alliance (UPA)</a> government seems unlikely to survive. That would elevate the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) whose website argues for foreign policy “driven by a nationalist agenda”, and all policies framed against “cultural nationalism.” The party now carefully distances itself from Hindu extremism, but Washington would be dealing with a very different India should the government there change.</p>
<p>For India now, it seems that the erratic present might be preferable to an <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/delhis-choice-known-obama-or-unknown-romney/1000471/0">erratic future</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9701/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian Stoddart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Any American presidential election reverberates around global policy corners but, for India, the 2012 contest carries unusual significance. With its economy slowing, national government under severe pressure…Brian Stoddart, Emeritus Professor, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/96692012-09-18T23:40:03Z2012-09-18T23:40:03ZMitt’s 47% gaffe: the Romney shambles rolls on<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15621/original/wnmy78yc-1348009051.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mitt Romney's 47% comments portray a man out of touch with most American lives.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/CJ Gunter</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>At a certain point, Mitt Romney will have to pony up for the monocle and top hat if he wants to heighten his similarities to Rich Uncle Moneybags. Rhetorically, he’s topped out.</p>
<p>Romney filled his gaffe tank on Monday when video leaked of the Republican nominee speaking at a private fundraiser in Florida. Here’s the <a href="http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/09/17/transcript-mitt-romneys-remarks-on-obama-voters-at-a-florida-fundraiser/">choice bit</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matte what … These are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income tax.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>“And so my job is not to worry about those people,” Romney continued, “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”</p>
<p>He capped it all off by <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/09/mitts-forty-seven-per-cent-problem.html">declaring</a>, “I have inherited nothing,” and asserting that had his (governor and auto executive) father “been born of Mexican parents, I’d have a better shot of winning this.”</p>
<p>It was a breathtaking jumble of privilege, tone-deafness, sophistry, and social Darwinism, one he spent much of Monday and Tuesday trying to explain away. But his comments on the 47% will haunt Romney’s campaign for the next seven weeks.</p>
<p>Allowances should be made for context. Romney would never have made such remarks on the record. His argument, such as it was, relies on a squishy logic and smug derision that pleases partisans but few others. Barack Obama’s 2008 <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_on_smalltown_PA_Clinging_religion_guns_xenophobia.html">remarks</a> about small-town Americans bitterly clinging to guns and religion – also recorded at a private fundraiser – fall in the same category.</p>
<p>In this case, though, context doesn’t help Romney much. It’s not clear where one should go to rail about low-income earners not paying their fair share, but a $50,000-a-plate <a href="http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2012/may/18/romney-ends-florida-swing-with-boca-fundraisers/">fundraiser</a> hosted by a fellow investment banker probably isn’t it.</p>
<p>While context matters, content matters more. First, the sleight of hand. True, President Obama has a core support of about 47%. It is also true that around 47% of Americans don’t pay federal income tax (though they do pay a slew of other taxes). But just because those numbers are the same doesn’t mean they encompass the same people. Indeed, key Republican constituencies have no federal income tax liability, particularly the white working-class and seniors on Social Security.</p>
<p>And you want to talk “makers” versus “takers”? In the US, tax money <a href="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/how-richer-states-finance-poorer-ones/">flows out</a> of wealthy states and into poor ones. Of the seventeen states that send out more money than they take in, all but one votes Democratic. And the beneficiaries of all that blue-state largesse? Seven of the top ten welfare states vote Republican.</p>
<p>To say, then, that those with lower tax liabilities “will vote for this president no matter what” is simply not true.</p>
<p>That conflation of the 47% with core Obama voters matters, because Romney has some harsh judgments to pass on them. They are victims, dependents, entitled. They don’t have any “skin in the game”, as Republican Senator Orrin Hatch <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-51-percent-20120209?page=1">said</a> of the same group. All this makes the 47% less fit for democracy, less worthy of a say in government. “We all have a stake in this country and what needs to be done,” Republican Senator Dan Coats <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/25/278175/taxing-the-poor-republicans-support/">said</a>. “I think it’s important that this burden not just fall on 50% of the people but falls on all of us in some form.”</p>
<p>Romney has long been <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289863/speaking-conservatism-second-language-jonah-goldberg">criticised</a> by the right for speaking conservatism as a second language. When he listed the 47%‘s entitlements, that lack of proficiency peeked through. Ronald Reagan had it down to an art form. He spun tales of “welfare queens” fraudulently raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars. What are the lavish entitlements Romney’s 47% clamour for? Food, housing, and health care.</p>
<p>In Romney’s America, the 47 percenters may be starving, homeless, and sick, but at least they won’t be saddled with a sense of dependency.</p>
<p>Sharpening this soak-the-poor attitude, Romney’s policy proposals reveal he doesn’t want to cut food, housing, and health care entitlements for everyone – just those at the bottom. Romney calls for reduced spending on food stamps but defends farm subsidies as a matter of national security. He wants to <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/medicaid-to-lose-1-26-trillion-under-romney-block-grant.html">slash</a> health care for the poor but vows to preserve coverage for seniors.</p>
<p>He’s even <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/mitt-romney-at-private-fundraiser-i-might-eliminate-hud/2012/04/16/gIQA5QuKLT_blog.html">toyed</a> with eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the federal agency responsible for affordable housing (once headed by his father, George). That at least Romney balances: at another private fundraiser, he <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romneys-tax-musings-suggest-rich-pay/story?id=16149624#.UFiqRLKPVXc">warned</a> he may eliminate mortgage-interest deductions for second homes.</p>
<p>In his acceptance speech, Mitt Romney <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rnc-2012-mitt-romney-speech-to-gop-convention-excerpts/2012/08/30/7d575ee6-f2ec-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_print.html">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Americans have a choice. A decision. To make that choice, you need to know more about me and about where I will lead our country.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In his remarks on the 47%, he made clear both who he was and who he would look out for.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9669/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole Hemmer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>At a certain point, Mitt Romney will have to pony up for the monocle and top hat if he wants to heighten his similarities to Rich Uncle Moneybags. Rhetorically, he’s topped out. Romney filled his gaffe…Nicole Hemmer, Visiting Assistant Professor at University of Miami & Research Associate, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/92392012-09-08T23:27:25Z2012-09-08T23:27:25ZThe Romney calculation: better to be disappointed than damned<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15104/original/gnjvq55h-1346895096.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Can Mitt Romney form a bond with the American people?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Erik S Lesser</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After the success of the Democratic National Convention, with its barnstorming speeches from former President Bill Clinton and First Lady Michelle Obama, Mitt Romney’s performance at his convention can be considered more closely</p>
<p>In his acceptance speech, Romney made his pitch to swing voters by claiming that if they feel disappointed then it is time for a new US president. </p>
<p>In marketing terms this is a pretty savvy line. However, the problem for Romney is that the large contingent of disappointed Obama supporters simply aren’t that taken by the former Governor of Massachusetts.</p>
<p>Romney has two big problems: his personality and his policies. If you consider this a particularly harsh judgement, spend 40 minutes watching his acceptance speech. </p>
<p>The speech largely attempts to address a number of gaps: Romney’s likeability gap in the polls compared with Obama, his empathy gap in the same polls and his party’s significant gender gap (women voters in America are increasingly turning against the Republican party). He also needed to address his biography gap (his reluctance to talk about his past). By the time he finished dealing with his credibility in his convention speech, there was little time left for policies. </p>
<p>Romney’s life and family look picture perfect. That’s not necessarily a positive for him: it can make him seem like the Hollywood version of an American president, reinforcing the view that Romney is a hollow man. These credibility gaps are hard to overcome because they stem from Romney’s unwillingness to talk about two central elements of his character – his Mormon faith and his business career. </p>
<p>Mormons are generally reluctant to talk about their personal lives and the inner workings of their church, as this is discouraged by Mormon leaders. Surveys show that non-Mormons are suspicious of the religion. Many Christians don’t consider it a Christian religion and many non-believers think it to be especially weird. </p>
<p>Americans do consider Mormons to be hard working, successful and patriotic but many won’t vote for a Mormon with polls clearly showing that a Mormon candidate would face more discrimination from voters than someone from an African-American background. As a result Romney keeps quiet about his faith.</p>
<p>The most repeated cliché about Romney is that he is risk adverse. However, a career as a venture capitalist isn’t exactly punching a clock in a life time guaranteed job. Bain Capital, the firm Romney co-founded and led from 1984 to 2002, took many risks with other people’s money, businesses and jobs but, conversely, Romney and his partners were very good at what they did and earned millions to prove this. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, Bain’s practice of picking winners and losers often left a trail of destruction. If things worked out it created jobs and helped expand businesses; when things didn’t go well companies like the KB Toys chain were saddled with debts that Bain had borrowed with little direct liability. The bankruptcy of some of Bain’s acquisitions has created many unhappy former employees who have featured in rival Republican and Democrat ads this year. So it is risky for Romney to talk about his business career, especially in a time of high unemployment and when high flying financial companies are still (not unfairly) blamed for America’s ongoing economic woes. </p>
<p>The Obama campaign will therefore argue that Romney is a corporate raider who is committed to bringing back the bad economic ideas of George W. Bush whose legacy was the 2008 financial crisis and its fallout. Is Obama any better? Surprisingly for such a charismatic speaker, Obama has his own empathy problem. This logical decision maker is often seen as no longer cool but just cold and not really understanding of the public’s pain. Obama’s style has a certain aloofness that he has worked at overcoming since his party’s shellacking in the 2010 mid-term elections. </p>
<p>Romney’s convention speech has been criticised by Obama in recent days for being light on policy; if you make that charge you need to have your own ideas and policy achievements to promote. What are these likely to be? Obama will talk up killing bin Laden, ending the war in Iraq and recently starting to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. These were topics Romney’s speech almost entirely avoided, making this the first time in a generation of presidential elections that a Democrat is more trusted with foreign policy than a Republican. </p>
<p>Unfortunately for Obama, the election will be won or lost almost entirely on domestic issues and this means at this week’s convention he will attempt to make the election as much as possible about Romney, not about the troubled US economy. However, he cannot avoid talking about what he has done to save the economy from being worse and what his administration has done to make it better. </p>
<p>He will promise growth and jobs in the years ahead; and argue the signs of progress can be seen. Obama can point out that Romney’s ideas might well increase unemployment but his problem is his own administration’s less than impressive record on creating jobs and economic growth. </p>
<p>Clearly there is only so much a president can do, but that message is not one the public is particularly interested in hearing. </p>
<p>This means Obama will be reduced to changing his 2008 message of hope and change to one in 2012 that evokes hope and fear of what a Republican presidency will do. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9239/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brendon O'Connor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After the success of the Democratic National Convention, with its barnstorming speeches from former President Bill Clinton and First Lady Michelle Obama, Mitt Romney’s performance at his convention can…Brendon O'Connor, Associate Professor in American Politics at the United States Studies Centre, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/94252012-09-08T01:09:47Z2012-09-08T01:09:47ZWill the Democratic convention bring Obama a poll bounce?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15201/original/68ntttb7-1347065299.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Barack Obama had a good convention, but it won't win him the election.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Shawn Thew</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Democratic National Convention went about as well as the party could hope. The question is, in this partisan political climate, will it be enough to move the polls? </p>
<p>The common narrative throughout the convention was best reflected by Bill Clinton’s declaration that “we’re all in this together.” In an individualistic society such as America, it’s a message that needs careful crafting. </p>
<p>But the communitarian vision the Democrats put forward wasn’t one of big government or large-scale wealth distribution. Rather, it centred on equality of opportunity; of having a fair shot at the American dream.</p>
<p>It worked. Michelle Obama’s speech was almost conservative in tone but made clear, that “when you’ve worked hard, and done well, and walked through that doorway of opportunity … you do not slam it shut behind you … you reach back, and you give other folks the same chances that helped you succeed.” </p>
<p>The president built on this idea in his discussion of citizenship. The bonds which tie Americans together, he explained, give rise to “certain obligations.” It was a more workmanlike speech from Obama than we are used to seeing. But, given the strength of his supporting cast, he didn’t need to carry the convention on his back.</p>
<p>All in all, two excellent speeches from the First Lady and Democratic legend Bill Clinton capped by a fairly strong address from the commander in chief. So, can Obama expect a decent convention bounce? </p>
<p>Not necessarily. </p>
<p>On average, the presidential candidate gets about a five point boost in the polls after their party convention. But, as political scientist Larry Sabato <a href="http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-conventions-how-big-a-bounce/">points out</a>, the size of the bounce can vary rather dramatically. Sometimes a convention can greatly alter the shape of the race and sometimes it can have almost no impact whatsoever.</p>
<p>In the current era, you’re probably better off betting on the latter. Nowadays, voters are much more set in their political beliefs and party allegiance. A couple of speeches or negative campaign ads aren’t going to convince someone to abandon their beloved Republican Party or vice versa. </p>
<p>This phenomenon is well-illustrated in this year’s race. We keep waiting for something - be it the Bain attacks or Romney’s VP selection - to shift the momentum in one direction. But, through all the turmoil, the polls have remained fairly stable. Obama maintains a very narrow lead in the national race with a slightly bigger advantage in the key swing states. </p>
<p>True to form, the Republican convention didn’t generate much Mittmentum. Most of the <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html">major polls</a> had either no change or only a modest boost for the Republican nominee. </p>
<p>But, it’s not as if Romney and Ryan deserved a huge popularity spike from the Republican convention. It wasn’t a total flop,but, but the Republicans never achieved the highs we saw this week in Charlotte from the Democrats. And Mitt Romney’s speech <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/157256/gop-convention-romney-speech-evoke-lukewarm-reactions.aspx">received the lowest marks</a> of any presidential convention address since 1996.</p>
<p>As such, the polls that follow the Democratic convention should be revealing. Did the Republicans fail to get a bump because their convention was merely average? Or, do deeper structural factors mean neither of these conventions was ever going to change the race?</p>
<p>Given, party entrenchment; even a small boost could be significant. If Obama opens up a slightly bigger gap in the polls it could be very difficult for Romney catch him. </p>
<p>This election is shaping up to be quite close. But, it’s Mitt Romney, not Barack Obama, who should be the most worried about a continuance of the status quo. And, the Republicans just missed one of the best opportunities to recast the race. </p>
<p>If I’m Team Obama, I’m feeling cautiously optimistic coming out of Charlotte.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9425/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Freedman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Democratic National Convention went about as well as the party could hope. The question is, in this partisan political climate, will it be enough to move the polls? The common narrative throughout…Luke Freedman, US Election Analyst, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.