No One Can Say that
American Don't Have a Genuine Choice (La Stampa, Italy)
"American
democracy is invigorated by debates. The voters will have a clear choice in November
between two men with different personalities. ... No repeating the old cliché, 'Voting
is pointless since nothing changes.' As in the 2013 elections in Germany and
Italy, this time the results really matter. ... Americans will make their
choice in freedom. It is a ritual some snobs scorn as 'ideology,' but whose
real name is 'democracy.'"
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on the hustings: People around the world are coming to grips with the fact that he could be the next president.
It was just as wrong to conclude that Obama had been beaten
in the race for the White House after his failure in Denver, as it would be
premature to assume that he has won thanks to a more exuberant performance
against Republican challenger Romney in New York.
The political campaign was undecided before and remains so, and
the debates haven't altered its deeply-set dynamic: Democratic candidate Obama is
leading the race in the toss-up states, especially in strategic Ohio, while the
former Massachusetts Governor, his rival, is close behind, in Pennsylvania for
example.
American presidential elections, marathons that can last for
years, in this case costing over $2 billion (€1.6 billion), involves billions of people, and despite
what media believe, is not decided in a single face-to-face encounter. In fact,
by studying the first analysis of "Big Data" - the galaxy of voter
reaction gathered from social networks and blogs across the Internet, the reality
is different. President Obama is not the invincible candidate idealized in
propaganda. He suffered a humiliating loss in the 2010 mid-term elections, with
the country discontented with economic crisis and a controversial health
care reform. And unlike Bill Clinton, when at the hands of the Newt Gringrich radicals suffered a similar defeat in 1994,
Obama has not comforted moderates, which would have cast his reelection in
stone.
When unemployment reaches 8 percent, U.S. presidents don't
get reelected. If Obama is still in the race, he can thank three
factors: 1) His personal charisma and tenacity Tuesday night allowed him to stand
tall before the Democratic base; 2) The natural reluctance of voters to refuse
a president a second term - in fact, in the post-war period, only two were defeated, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush - and G.H.W. would likely have survived without
independent candidate Ross Perot's 19 percent; 3) the $40 billion economic maneuver
of FED Chairman Bernanke, throwing "helicopters of money" at the
crisis," as economists say: it may not be perfect, but it gives a sense that
businesses will get more help from Washington with Obama than with a Republican
administration.
During the first debate, Mitt Romney was happy to exploit the
difference between propaganda and reality, which harmed the president. Is he a
clumsy, right wing, Tea Party Mormon, ready to enslave 47 percent of citizens;
or a businessman whose management of Bain Capital was defined as "stellar"
by Democratic idol Bill Clinton; or a centrist who, in order to win in the
primaries, decided to wed himself to conservative stereotypes, and is now
backtracking on his positions on abortion, women and the tax burden? In the
first debate, "centrist" Romney defied the caricature and took the
lead. On Tuesday, his new image was redefined by Obama’s harsh criticism on Hispanic
immigration, contraception, national health care, equality for women and the middle
class.
American democracy is invigorated by debates. The voters
will have a clear choice in November between two men with different
personalities. Even on a physical level, the aversion of the two as they
approached one another during their political confrontation was glaring - on political
philosophy, economic plans and their most profound beliefs. They are united
only on foreign policy, and despite the rumors, Romney will not break up with
China, and the situation in the Pacific will not change, as you will see in the
final debate. It is true that PACs have invested obscene amounts of
money polluting the campaign, thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling, but in the end,
every citizen will have a good basis to choose. Let's hope that will soon
happen in our country as well: debates, primaries, transparency (perhaps with
less waste).
After taking in all the data, Obama and Romney are right
where they were, with a slight advantage for the president, and with a chance
for Romney to win in the final sprint. For Americans, the outlines of the referendum
are becoming clear. Obama represents the status quo, lots of money from the
Federal Reserve, and the hope that the anemic recovery will finally lift the U.S.
out of the crisis that began in 2008. Romney represents a change in economic
policies, "more market, less government, " and "soft" cuts,
with benefits deriving from innovation rather than the disadvantages of each
"Keynesian" stimulus. No repeating the old cliché, "Voting is pointless
since nothing changes." As in the 2013 elections in Germany and Italy,
this time the results really matter.
Posted
by Worldmeets.US
Eighty three percent of Americans followed the debate on TV
- "old media" is alive and well - and only 4 percent online, but while
watching the duel on television, one in five Americans commented on social
networks like Facebook, Twitter, and blogs. Among voters
under 39 years of age, one in three used TV and the Web in tandem to take in
the global political broadcast. Thanks to the analysis of Big Data, the campaign
staffs of Obama and Romney know their names, surnames, tastes, opinions,
reading choices and habits, tailoring their messages to undecided voters.
But one must take care: if wavering voters get the impression
they are being targeted with political messages tailored to them, they may
rebel and as a result, change their minds. Thanks to Big Data, in the era of
digital democracy, politicians read their electoral fates in the palms of citizens
- but being excessively intrusive can backfire.
Finally, a word on debate moderator Candy Crowley, a
journalist who doesn’t mistake reporting for a mud-wrestling match. She isn't
posing for pin ups and is capable of keeping Obama and Romney in line when it
comes to important matters like Benghazi and working women. What counted wasn't
the "gaffes" of the candidates; it was keeping them talking about politics
before millions of Americans, who will make their choice in freedom. It is a
ritual some snobs scorn as "ideology," but whose real name is "democracy."
