Get Real
Why Obama will win it
By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:51:00 11/01/2008
Filed Under: Elections, US elections
NEW YORK CITY — From where I sit, the US election is over except for the shouting. No way can Barack Obama lose, the so-called Bradley Effect (where African-American candidates lose elections in spite of poll results showing statistically significant leads, because voters are embarrassed to display their prejudice, as explained by both Amando Doronila and Ramon Farolan) notwithstanding. And even if the Bradley Effect should kick in, Obama may still squeak through, because his lead looks like a commanding one—if not in the national polls, at least in the polls in the “battleground” states.
Of course, it was almost a given that the Democrats would win the White House this year, the financial crisis and the US economic contraction being only the final nails hammered into the Republican coffin. After all, political science research findings say the economy matters: incumbents (whether individual or party) tend to get reelected when the economy is doing well, and tend to be defeated when the economy is doing poorly, with the voters’ perceptions of how the economy is doing, rather than on what is actually happening, as the important consideration.
Please do take note that saying that the economy matters is not the same as saying it is the sole factor driving voter behavior. But in the Obama-McCain fight, two other very important factors have also worked in Obama’s favor: the media, and campaign finance. With regard to the former, US analysts (every aspect of the US election campaign is being analyzed practically to death, or so it seems to me as I channel-surf) have found that negative media reports on McCain outnumber negative media reports on Obama by two to one. Add to that the (yes, Virginia) media play an important role in election campaigns, and in the US case, as in ours, their biases are evident—the most glaring examples being Fox (for McCain), and CNN (for Obama).
With regard to campaign finance, it turns out that Obama has at least a more-than-two-to-one cash advantage over McCain. A National Public Radio (NPR) report, citing the Federal Election Commission, states that through to August, Obama raised $428 million to McCain’s $190 million. (Obama also outspent Hillary Clinton by about the same ratio, remember?) What’s more, after August, McCain having chosen to apply for public funding, while Obama having chosen not to (which is a switch: the Democrats usually apply for public funding, while the Republicans don’t—it’s an ideology thing, and Democrats being traditionally pro-labor, don’t have as much financial support as the Republicans, who are pro-business), McCain’s spending was thereafter limited to $84 million, while Obama reportedly raised (in September alone) something like $147 million, with more funds pouring in for October. With that kind of cash advantage, it is no wonder that Obama’s campaign was able to fund 30-minute “infomercials” on prime time over the major channels earlier this week, as well as on the Internet. And we all know how important those ads can be.
In other words, while McCain may have the moxie in his favor, Obama has the media, the money, and the moribund economy in his (maybe moxie, too). It is hard to believe that racism can trump all that, which is why I make this fearless forecast. In any case, the matter will be resolved in five days. And I sincerely pray that some lunatic doesn’t take it upon himself to decide the issue.
But it is not just the outcome of the US election campaign that is of interest. The process itself is fascinating. And having a front seat, as it were, in the month running up to the election, as well as the leisure to watch TV and surf the Net, I can see similarities as well as differences between them and us.
The similarities are evident from the above: the important role that media and money play in influencing the election results. To this can be added the influence of media personalities (Oprah Winfrey is to Obama what Judy Ann Santos was to Jamby Madrigal) on voters’ choices. Not to mention the concern over election administration, in general, and the proper registration and counting of votes, in particular.
But the differences are also many. For starters, in the case of media personalities, Oprah wasn’t paid by Obama to support him—it was the other way around: Oprah has put her money where her mouth is as far as Obama is concerned. A second difference is that the economy matters in US elections, which does not seem to be the case here. Moreover, assertions by candidates on economic as well as on other campaign issues are independently checked for substance by the media in the United States as part of their coverage, whereas here we have a tendency to take these assertions at face value, and convert press releases in toto as news items. In short, the United States has better-quality coverage.
Last but not least is the use of negative campaign ads in the United States, where the opponent’s shortcomings are magnified (as opposed to positive ads, where the candidate’s own qualifications are emphasized). This type of advertisements are not allowed in the Philippines, maybe because the butt of the ads may not be a good sport (people here have been killed for less). While there are disadvantages (it might boomerang, it is not polite), there are also advantages (differences between candidates are highlighted) to negative ads. Perhaps we should try them.
|
