Alternative Insight
Candidates Face the Ross Perot Voters
Before convention times, each presidential candidate committed political missteps that threatened their pursuits for the highest office. It seemed as if both would lose. Barack Obama's inability to resolve a confrontation with Bill and Hillary Clinton lowered his chance for victory. The Democratic nominee overcame this confrontation and strengthened his campaign. As if not to be outdone, John McCain's awkwardness in representing the Republican Party and his verbal errors when presenting his Vice-President appointment endangered his bid for the presidency. The Republican base approval of Sarah Palin rescued the Republican nominee from sure defeat. The bold stroke of shifting the convention and campaign in order to appeal to disenchanted voters, such as those who voted for Ross Perot in the 1992 election, enhanced the Arizona Senator's chances for victory.Three issues have become prominent: (1) Who has more credibility? (2) Who actually represents change? (3) Who can be trusted to resolve the economic crisis?
Events have unraveled those issues, and the unraveling seems to favor Barack Obama. Nevertheless, past elections show that a sizable portion of the population judges candidates by perceived personal factors rather than by issues. These perceived factors brought Ross Perot ample votes in the 1992 presidential race, and the factors that favored Ross Perot also favor John McCain.
So, we have an objective look at the issues and the subjective look at the personalities. Starting with the objective look leads to the important subjective factor.
A lack of rapport with Hillary and Bill Clinton reflected Obama's willingness to place conviction ahead of effective campaign strategy. By neither vetting Senator Hillary Clinton nor selecting her as a Vice-Presidential candidate, Obama alienated the two most important political personalities he needed for his campaign and distressed the large following that the ex-president and New York senator attracted. The Democratic candidate, despite what was perceived as petulant behavior of the Clintons, displayed to the electorate an inability to either compromise with or contain respected political persons with whom he disagrees, a severe failure from anyone expected to lead a nation. His comparison to John Kennedy fell a few notches, but not for long.
The Clintons stunning and sincere displays of support for Obama validated that the Democratic candidate is not an extension of Bill Clinton but a 'new look' beyond Clinton. By bringing the Clinton's into his fold without compromising dignity or control of destiny, Barack Obama demonstrated executive capability, presidential strength and the ability to bring about change and not just vocalize it. His credibility greatly increased.
Senator John McCain made hypocritical mistakes, which he cannot correct. The Republican presidential candidate loudly proclaimed that his choice of a vice-president had only one criterion - the candidate would be able to assume the duties of U.S. president from day one. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin isn't as empty as her detractors characterize her, but she certainly does not have sufficient experience to assume the duties of the president from day one. The initial attraction that Governor Palin provided for Republican voters has faded, but McCain's compounding of his hypocritical action with dubious statements will remain in voter's minds until Election Day.
Why did the Arizona senator select the Alaska governor as his running mate? McCain's explained that as a Washington outsider who has combated the special interests, Sarah Palin fits into his plan for replacing Washington insiders with independent voices. Is a Washington outsider a person who lives outside of Washington and makes local decisions or is a Washington outsider someone who has lived the Washington experience but has acted outside the establishment? Former Senators Wayne Morse and Eugene McCarthy and present legislators Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders represent the Washington outsider. These independent minded legislators rejected the inner Beltway formulas for success and navigated through the Washington swamps without being subdued by its stench. Knowledge of the workings of the national political system and ability to engage it without being corrupted or losing constituencies define a Washington outsider.
Ms. Palin is not a Washington outsider. She is a Governor who lives far outside of Washington, has rudimentary knowledge of how Washington operates and, rather than functioning contrary to Washington special interests, functions with consideration of Alaska's interests. If she arrives in Washington, she will most likely be confused and map out an indeterminate direction
The Republican candidate continued to lower his credibility. Barack Obama's apparent lack of government experience provided an effective argument to his candidacy. McCain annulled this argument by selecting a vice-president whose experience is easily challenged, and then excused her lack of experience by suggesting that Obama also lacks experience. Any later attempt to attack Barack's inexperience can be challenged by noting McCain didn't consider experience an essential for high public office.
If the electorate can clear the fog, which Governor Palin's successful entry onto the national stage generated, John McCain's credibility will be challenged. Add to that his concept of change.
Bringing change to America has strongly resonated with voters who are disappointed with the political machinations. McCain defined change by clearly stating at the convention that he doesn't work for any Party; he works for the American people. His declaration of independence, combined with a GOP convention that separated itself from the past, signaled the birth of a new political force that is derived from a rejected GOP.
Barack Obama has shown he wants to change America and is using the Democratic Party to enable the changes. John McCain has shown he wants to change the Republican Party and is using America to facilitate the change. Which change is more significant to the American people?
And which issue is most significant to the people? In every election, it is eventually the economy. Can those who gave the American public the housing crisis, the financial crisis, and the growing unemployment be trusted to solve the problems they created? The fallacy of the Republican concept, supported by McCain, that one-sided laissez faire economics, conducted by short term profit-minded private industry managers, can solve all economic problems has been exposed and contradicted by government rescue plans for Bear Sterns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG and possibly the entire financial structure. Democratic progressive thought, which Barack Obama represents, and which allows government intervention to adjust the economy at critical times, is an open and non-constrained philosophy that has been accepted and proven correct.
If the electorate is objective and votes by issues - and now there is only one issue, which is the economy - the trend favors Barack Obama. Sadly, much of the electorate ignores the issues. A "mad as hell" portion of the electorate is very subjective and favors what it imagines itself to be; rugged individualists who counter the system. If voting patterns in the 1992 election, where fiercely independent Ross Perot entered the race against incumbent Republican George H.W. Bush and Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Clinton, is a guide to this election, then independent John McCain has a good chance to reside in the White House.
When Texas businessman Ross Perot tentatively entered the 1992 election the polls predicted he could obtain 35 percent of the vote, despite having never been elected to public office. In mid-campaign, Perot rashly stopped his pursuit of an independent candidacy due to a bizarre episode in which he claimed that altered nude photos of his daughter would be released to embarrass him and halt his daughter's wedding. He later changed his mind and campaigned as an Independence Party candidate.
Despite the lack of political experience, his strange and vacillating behavior, and his choice for Vice-President of retired of Vice Admiral James Stockdale, a former Vietnam prisoner of war (sound familiar?) who behaved confused, Ross Perot gained 18.7 percent of the vote. Wikipedia describes the sources of Perot's support:
….Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home in his absence on the ballot.
Incumbent President George H.W. Bush's faulty decisions contributed to Perot's appeal. Bush had contradicted himself and lost credibility with the"mad as hell" gang by telling the American public to "read my lips," (lips seem to be involved in many elections) a reference to words which clearly indicated he would not raise taxes. Raising taxes and pursuing the 1990 Persian Gulf war angered a body of isolationist Republicans, who then favored Perot.
Republican pollster Frank I. Luntz, who worked for Perot during the 1992 campaign, concluded that voters liked Perot for five chief reasons: his life outside politics, stance as an anti-politician politician, image as a straight-shooter, vision of hope for the future, and commitment to personal empowerment. Many of these are characteristics are similar to those that John McCain's image builders have managed to portray for him. If the Republican nominee turned Independent can add the Perot type voters to his mostly captured Republican voters, he can win. This possibility indicates that Barack Obama must do more than capture the electorate's minds with clear expression of the issues. He must modify the vision that the electorate has for his opponent and gain perception as the straight shooting hope for the future who empowers people. Unfortunately, that is a difficult chore for someone who talks sense to many who lack sensibility and talks truth to a part of the electorate that is too quick to accept distortions.
alternativeinsight
october, 2008HOME PAGE MAIN PAGE 
alternativeinsight@earthlink.net
