A few months ago, it was easy to surmise Barack Obama’s bid for a second term was a piece of cake. American voters, unlike Filipinos, are more disposed to reelecting their presidents.
Today, however, the race appears too tight to call. Obama lost momentum when he performed lackadaisically during the first debate with his rival. Although he bested Republican challenger Mitt Romney in the second debate held this week, there is little indication of a strong rebound in the polls.
The third debate, focusing on foreign policy, will be held next week. On the subject, Obama should have the upper hand. Romney’s foray into foreign affairs a few months ago produced a lot of gaffes.
Over the past few decades, US presidential elections have become intense battles over fewer states. Most of the states consistently vote Democratic or Republican. They are referred to as “blue” or “red states.” Only a handful of states oscillate between the two parties, the largest ones being Ohio and Florida.
The Democratic party always wins in the northeastern and Pacific Coast states. The Republicans dominate in the southern and Midwestern states. Just two weeks before elections are held, analysts believe the presidential battle will be decided on only two or three swing states.
Unlike in our case, the American president is decided by an electoral college. Each state, depending on its population size, holds seats in that electoral college. The candidate who wins a majority of seats in the electoral college wins the election.
In this system, it is possible for a candidate to win the popular vote and yet lose the election. This last happened in 2000 when the Democratic candidate won the popular vote but George W. Bush won the majority of seats in the electoral college. The entire electoral battle boiled down to who would win Florida.
The importance of the swing states is reflected in both presidential candidates’ choices for running mate. Obama’s running mate Joe Biden hails from Pennsylvania while Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan is senator from Wisconsin.
At the onset of the campaign period, Obama enjoyed an overwhelming edge over Romney among female voters. That advantage has since diminished.
When Obama took office in 2008, the economy was reeling from a profound financial crisis. At that time, the American economy was close to replicating the Great Depression of the 1930s. The drift was reversed by bold measures such as industrial and bank bailouts as well as quantitative easing policies.
Although some recovery happened over the past three years, a gap exists between expectation and actuality regarding economic performance. Americans think the recovery could be stronger. But weighed, in part, by external factors as the European crisis, the American economy could only deliver so much.
At the moment, US unemployment stands at over 8% — just a shade under the crucial threshold of 9%. Historically, no US president ever won reelection when the unemployment rate was 9% or more.
The gap between expectation and actuality is exploited thoroughly by the Republican camp. Using a line made famous by Ronald Reagan three decades ago, the Republicans now ask voters if they were better off now than on the day Obama took office. Clearly, not many of them are.
Obama and Romney are as different as any two characters could be.
Obama possesses great oratorical talent and is tremendously charismatic. His critics, however, say he talks more than he does. They characterize his presidency as being laid back and lacking a sense of urgency.
Romney trails Obama in the likeability department. He is seen as wooden and detached: too rich to care about the common folk. His successful corporate career, however, suggests strong executive abilities. As challenger in this contest, it is easier for him to build a case about the incumbent’s shortcomings.
On social issues, the two are farthest apart.
Obama represents the neo-Keynesian ideological position of the Democratic Party. He favors better social protection through a more extensive health care program, larger public investments in education and research, and greater women’s control over their bodies. While that may appeal to the more vulnerable in society, it likewise implies greater taxation and courts the danger of pushing the US off the “fiscal cliff” — the tipping point where the public debt becomes unsustainable. The US is already the most indebted country on the planet.
Romney appeals to the social conservatives and economic libertarians. Hewing close to the classical political economy the Republican Party stands for, the advocates lower taxes for businesses, market-driven health care and greater individual responsibility for their condition. He frowns on pro-choice policies, opposes gun control and generally disagrees with publicly funded welfare programs.
Republicans fear that if Obama is reelected, the US could be pushed over the fiscal cliff due to unrestrained welfare spending. Democrats fear that should Romney win, there will be massive cutbacks on welfare programs. The ideological debate is deeply polarized.
We have no figures indicating how many Filipinos watched the US presidential debates, even as these were broadcast live by the wonders of cable television. From the chatter in social media, it seems that local interest in the US elections is, at best, low.
Many of the issues might seem foreign to us. For many, the idiom of American politics is strange. Perhaps, the sheer parochialism that overwhelms our own politics widens the chasm between them and us.
This is unfortunate. Wider public appreciation of the US presidential elections might educate us — at least in what we are missing in the appalling mediocrity of our domestic political discourse.