I’ll be curious to see how the debate goes tonight, especially since this will be in a town meeting format with the audience asking most of the questions, though moderator Candy Crowley will have the questions beforehand and select the ones to be used, and provide some follow-ups.
I hope you understand these debates are not about substance but style and rhetoric. And, given the town meeting venue, how and where each candidate moves takes on importance. Romney won the first debate because his debate performance was much better. A point made by a number of pundits is that the Obama team had spent months trying to make Romney seem “unacceptable”, and that changed for many that night. Romney looked like he’d make a good president. And Obama was caught flat footed when Mitt tacked sharply to the center saying things he had never said before (well, not for a long time at least).
I have heard various suggestions from cable pundits of what pose each candidate should strike tonight if they want to win, including one focus group suggestion that the winning pose is that of “a good husband.” David Frum mirrors that in a recent post when he suggests Mitt Romney work on his appearing “empathetic.” You know, the opposite of the “I don’t care about the 47%” attitude.
I keep thinking about the undecided’s, and wonder what varieties they come in. I have no idea what might tip each balance, either in this debate or on election day. Since my last post I have heard a poll estimates undecided’s as 12% rather than 5%. Could the undecided’s actually be growing in number? The numbers might be increasing from people who are not really undecided. Instead, they have just decided they are sick of it all. I know one reader who finds both camps so disgusting that, as far as I know, he may decide not to vote. How many undecided’s will make that decision?
Adding to the difficulty in understanding the undecided’s is what Nate Silver (a pollster’s pollster) calls “the confusing polling landscape” in an Oct 14 post: Even some of the decided’s seem to be deciding differently since the first debate, as Silver’s projected Nov 6 estimate of Obama’s winning the presidency is down to 63.3%, a big drop from the 80+% of a few weeks ago.
This past weekend I watched Melissa Harris-Perry, a cable political chat show on MSNBC that devoted a segment to the issue of the “undecided’s”. I was struck by what seemed likely futile attempts of most of the participants, especially Melissa, to make substance points for selecting Obama, as if that would sway any undecided voters at this point.
In an email she has probably not gotten around to read, I pointed to a recent Pew poll in which 48% of voters don’t even seem to know that Obama is a Christian, including 17% who thinks he’s a Muslim. If nearly 50% of voters don’t know that much yet, how much swing can reason bring?
Also, what may sound reasonable is often wrong. Or the poll is. Another recent Pew poll cited in a column by Matt Miller indicates that older voters favor Romney over Obama 58% to 37%. Say what? Liberal commentators and Dem operatives have cemented the impression we old folks are a slam dunk for them, that the threat of a change in Medicare to a voucher system would turn us into gray panthers. But that poll suggests many of us are jumping ship instead? Maybe we are not the one-issue segment the Dems think. Or maybe some of us would like to actually see how the Obama team will save Medicare as opposed to how Romney will disfigure it. Or maybe, being old, some of us got confused (not my fault, nobody asked me). Or maybe anything….who knows?
When I start feeling very confused by it all I think of Ohio. Unless there are some major surprises in voting elsewhere, it seems that as Ohio goes, so goes the nation. The Republicans haven’t won a presidency without Ohio in their corner, and Obama has held a solid lead there for weeks in all the polls I’ve seen, though it seems more wobbly now. Many Ohioans, employed in car-related businesses, benefited from the saving of GM and Chrysler and the state’s unemployment is around 7.2%, much lower than the national average.
No wonder both candidates (or their VP surrogates) seem to be visiting the state every other day, which after the election may prompt yet another round of debate about doing away with the Electoral College, so the rest of our votes would count as much as those in Ohio.
If Ohio winds up going for Romney, not only will I likely feel the need to avoid several people I’ve made wagers with, I will really be surprised. And then, while I don’t want to do it, I’d encourage someone else to write a book maybe titled: Who Were the Undecided’s and How Did They Decide the 2012 Presidential Election?
- Ask Harry: who are the undecided voters in the 2012 election? (guardian.co.uk)