The Strange Death of Liberal America

 Print

Eleanor Roosevelt Voting

Predicting the Presidential election winner will be the name of the game tomorrow night and every network, blog, and tweat will be competing to be the first to name the winner.  The networks and the pundits make it sound like it takes a supercomputer with some magic formula to do the job.

While there is no denying the ability of such tools to predict down to the precinct level and the strength of their prediction models, it is possible for viewers to make their own predictions while watching the election returns and come pretty close to matching those multimillion dollar machines. If you are having a party that night you can even match predictions with friends.

If you have ever sat in on a campaign headquarters on election night, this is exactly what they do. Most candidates know if they have won or lost before the networks “call” the election because they know which precincts they have to win and by what margin and what the margin needs to be in the precincts they will probably lose. In more sophisticated campaigns they do their own polling right along with the networks.

The Real Focus: Turnout

This site contains no big bucks from advertisers and no black box formulas, just information so you can make your own prediction.  If nothing else the analysis sheets should help liven up the evening for they provide a perspective you will not hear from the networks. Hopefully they also will spark some good conversation. In fact the sheets should help you make a better pundit than a fair number who will be taking up air time Tuesday night.

For all the smoke and mirrors consultants and pundits are throwing up around election results, the key to predicting elections is quite simple and has been since someone put them down on papyrus: the candidate who turns out more of his or her people wins. Based on results from the primaries, polling and other data we know which groups tend to lean towards Obama and which lean towards Romney. So predicting each state is a matter of seeing which voters from each of the candidate’s main support groups turn out in higher numbers. For six years this methodology has scooped the networks on every election except one. It produced THE most accurate prediction of the Iowa primary.

The Format

The charts for you to use are all in an attached Word or PDF file you can download and print them out. That way if you don’t want to read all of this essay, you can just print the sheets. You can jot your own comments on the back. Hopefully they will liven up your evening.

The spreadsheets are in one file with separate pages for each swing state.  That way you do not have to download and print separate files for each state.

The States

By now all of you know the election has come down to several swing states. There is some disagreement about some of these, so my choices are based on today’s polling data. These polling data come from RealClearPolitics which maintains a composite of all the major polls. Right now RCP has the following states as swing states: Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, Nevada, Florida, New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Iowa.

According to RCP, Obama currently has 201 electoral votes from states that are solidly in his column while Romney has 191. The final 146 are either leaning towards one of the candidates or are one of the above swing states.  Add in the leaning votes (states where either candidate has at least a 5% advantage) and Obama has 219 electoral votes and Romney 202.

To make things easier, my definition of a swing state is any state in which the polling margin is basically zero–that is either candidate has a three percent lead or less since three percent is the usual statistical margin of error in political polls. That eliminates Wisconsin (4.2% for Obama), Pennsylvania (4.1% for Obama), North Carolina (3.8% for Romney) and Michigan (3.8% for Obama).  Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan have gone Democratic in every election since 2000.  The one wild card is VP Candidate Ryan who is from Wisconsin. Obama squeaked out a slim victory in North Carolina, which previously had gone for Bush, largely on the strength of the African American vote.

Admittedly this is cutting things pretty fine, but it leaves us with Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, New Hampshire, and Iowa. We might call these the Big Four and the Little Three in that the combined electoral votes of  Nevada, New Hampshire, and Iowa are 16, less than Ohio and Florida and three more than Virginia.

Given the closeness of the race the winner cannot lose both Florida and Ohio with their 47 electoral votes.  If Obama wins them both he is within four electoral votes of the needed 270.  Romney would be within 20.  A combination of three out of the Big Four would put either candidate in the White House.

With that in mind, this Predict the Winner analysis will focus on those four states.

The Sheets

On each sheet you will find a series of columns across the top for various demographic groups. The first set of numbers below these groups are the most current data. For example, swing state “A” contains 12% African Americans. A few explanations are needed for some of the symbols and abbreviations used in each column to make the charts more readable and able to fit on one page. AA is for African American. Young is voters under 34. Old is voters over 62. ED is voters without a college degree. POV is the percentage with family incomes below the poverty line. UNION is the percentage of union members.

Census data are from the Census Bureau. Union membership comes from the AFL-CIO.

The open spaces below are for you to fill in the actual turnout data as you find it either from the networks or more likely on the Internet. CNN still maintains the most complete database, but to their credit they tend to release it late. So you will need to do a bit of detective work to find the early data.

A note here about the network data and that of the Associated Press: their exit polling is conducted by one organization, Edison Research. Edison’s methods leave me a bit uneasy since their pollsters often are hired just for this event and receive questionable training (some is via videotape). Several elections ago the networks and AP all pooled their resources and hired Edison, so when you hear Fox or CBS talk about their polling; they really are talking about the same poll and the same data–Edison’s.

This practice of using the same data to call election winners bothers me. Essentially the election is in Edison’s hands since their exit polling data declares the winner long before all the ballots are counted.  Most states have their own independent pollsters, who often are more accurate than Edison. So a good place to start is the major paper in your state.

The Colors

The red-colored numbers indicate increases from the 2008 Presidential election.  The most notable–and most commented on–is the increase in Latino voters.  In the four states it totals about 7%.  Given polls show those voters are leaning towards Obama that gives him that many more votes over what he had in 2008.

The other increase is even more interesting.  Reports about the death of the union movement are exaggerated for in three of the four states union membership INCREASED since 2008. With the GOP pushing right-to-work measures this should bring out union voters who have increased 3.7% in the four states. This alone would be enough to swing those states to Obama.

The blue colored numbers represent the 2008 percentage turnout for that particular group. It is important to remember that this DOES NOT represent the percentages in that group voting for Obama. For example Obama won 95% of all African Americans nationally and 56% of women.  If his support among African Americans falls to the low nineties of below ninety he is going to have a tough time winning.  These turnout percentages are useful to compare to this year’s results. Should Obama’s core voters turn out in smaller percentages than 2008 he will be in trouble.

The States

If you would rather not read the BS below, click below for the Word or PDF file.

2012 prediction sheets (Word)

2012 PREDICTION SHEETS  (PDF)

The left hand column headed “Time” identifies the time of the sample. “Pre” means pre-election. “2008″ are data taken from the CNN exit polls for the last Presidential election. “2nd data” and “3rd data” are for you to fill in data as you find it or to just make a prediction.  For example, you could use 2nd Data to predict and 3rd data for the first real data. “Final” is for the actual results. It can be compared with 2008 and the Census data to create your own analysis of what happened and maybe spark a few early morning conversations or arguments at work the next day.

Have fun. I will be adding my own, only I will not start making predictions after the polls close.

COLORADO

Obama won Colorado handily in 2008, in part on the gender gap with 56% of women voting for him. He also won every age group except those over 65 along with 62% of the Latino vote.

The fact that Colorado is a tighter race this year may have to do with a falling off among these groups.  If the turnout by women is low along with that of Latinos, he will have a tough time winning this state.

FLORIDA

In 2008 Obama had a lead of 4.2% in Florida on the eve of the election. This year Romney has a lead of 1.4% and is expected to win the state. At one point there was talk of Obama not even contesting Florida.

Florida is a strange state in that the combined percentage of Latino and African American voters is 39.4%.  That should be more than enough to swing the state Democratic in every election, but that has not happened. One explanation is that the Latino vote is a wild card since Florida’s large Cuban-American population has tended to vote Republican. But that has changed in recent years so it does not sufficiently explain Florida’s results.

If you remember back to the Bush-Gore Supreme Court case some explanation can be found in evidence and testimony suggesting African Americans were discouraged from voting or had problems voting.  Pay careful attention to the vote from Dade County, which was at the center of Bush v. Gore.  If the turnout is high there, Romney may be in trouble. Results from Dade County tend to come in late, so if Florida is close and we don’t yet have the results from Dade we could be in for a long night and perhaps even another court case.

OHIO

In 2008 the polls showed Obama with a 4.2% lead.  Now it is 2.8%.  The economy is a huge issue here with a high foreclosure rate, fear over potential plant shutdowns and the financial crisis.  There also is union anger at the right-to-work initiative. Blue collar voters are a key swing vote in this state and if they go heavily for Obama, as they seem to be trending towards, then that lead could widen.

If African American support falls below 2008 that means that the enthusiastic support for the President that characterized the African American vote in 2008 has waned. If you wonder why you are seeing the Colin Powell ad so many times this is why.

Like Florida, Ohio has a history of election shenanigans almost as bad as Florida. It is an inside joke that both campaigns already have more lawyers there than campaign staff. If this one goes early for Obama it could signal a big night for him.

VIRGINIA

So we come to the last toss-up state. You need only look at the demographics to see why. First, it is one of the few states where younger voters outnumber older. Second, among the swing states it has one of the highest percentages of people with a college degree. Third African American and Hispanic voters make up almost a third of the electorate.

The state has been trending Democratic and a solid vote for Obama could solidify that. This will be a state where the African American and Latino turnouts will decide the winner.

FINAL THOUGHTS

A key group will be low income voters. No Democrat has won without them.  The GOP has been running ads blaming Obama for an increase in the poverty rate.  It will be interesting to see which party these voters blame for their situation.

While it is doubtful these voters will swing Republican they have a recent history of staying away from the polls, with one of the lowest voting rates of any group. If they vote significantly below their demographic percentage it means Obama has lost the confidence of this group that he can handle the economy.  If that occurs expect for Obama to have a long night.

Although much of this analysis is predicated on polls showing older voters trending for Romney, I think they are the demographic to watch in this election.  Older voters used to be a Democratic-leaning group.  The question will be whether recent moves by Republican radicals to privatize Social Security and Medicare have scared these voters back into the Democratic column.  If these voters record high numbers for Obama, especially in the two Southern states, Florida and Virginia, it is all over for Romney.

Finally, the combined Latino and African American vote, which in my book has been the swing vote in every election for at least half a century, reached its maturity in 2008. The victory of an African  American whose margin of victory was due in large part to people of color signaled the beginning of a major transition period in American politics.  The big question is whether the economy has thrown a wrench into this.

If he loses, Barack Obama will be the first Democrat since Grover Cleveland to campaign for a second term with questions being raised about a major economic crisis. Jimmy Carter’s was minor compared to the Great Recession. Most people believed FDR’s New Deal was working. Cleveland faced the Panic of 1893 and lost the support of his own party for failing to take on Wall Street, intervening in the Pullman Strike against the unions, having to borrow money from J.P. Morgan to prevent the collapse of the Treasury and failing to aid starving farmers.

While not as ineffective as Cleveland, Obama’s policies echo Cleveland’s refusal to take on Wall Street. For example,  Obama has failed to prosecute three banks for violation of the Riegle-Neal Act. Most people have never heard of Riegle-Neal, but there is the feeling Obama has gone soft on Wall Street, in part because that is the stance of his chief campaigner Bill Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. [More on that after the election.]

The Wild Cards

This will be the first Presidential election to take place in the era of social media. If you followed coverage of the debates, you heard a lot of pseudo-analysis coming from network pundits generalizing about Twitter and Facebook postings. Expect that to continue.

Both sides will make huge efforts to get control of the social media early in the day. This will turn into a deluge after the first poll closings. There will be some crude attempts to sway voters in states where the polls have not yet closed by claiming that their candidate is ahead and posting rumors of election irregularities.  Twitter and Facebook are under no rules to not broadcast exit polling.  It is going to be tough to keep the lid on this and to separate the noise and BS from what is real.

The other wild card is Sandy. It devastated New Jersey where Obama currently holds an eleven percent lead.  Reports stress low income people suffered disproportionally from the hurricane with many of them still without power and shelter and some scrambling just to find something to eat. There is no question turnout will be lower because of Sandy and that it will hit Obama voters more heavily.  If New Jersey becomes close Obama could have a tough hill to climb.

Expect some law suits to come from attempts to allow people to vote away from the polls. The GOP has no choice but to file these suits since its strategy has been to discourage alternative voting. If alternative voting works in the wake of Sandy it will give a big boost to those who are pushing to do away with voting practices that have not changed much since the nineteenth century.

See you on election eve.

 Print

• No Comments yet...

 Print

AP Photo/Eric Gay

I have to confess when I was growing up I remember sometimes irritating my little brother so much he would start throwing punches. When he did that I would put my hand on his head so he couldn’t reach me and he would keep flailing away getting madder and madder with each swing while I ignored him. The Vice Presidential debate reminded me of that.

The Obama debate team advisory group definitely needs a shakeup because they prepared Joe Biden for the last debate not for this one. Anyone with any brains could have predicted that after Obama’s performance in the last debate Joe Biden would be in full attack mode and he did not disappoint. The Republicans counted on that.

Again, as with the last debate, I figure by now everyone has made up their mind, so let me comment on other factors that seem to be attracting attention.

Marshall McLuhan

Marshall McLuhan is all but forgotten these days, but back in the 1960s and 70s all he had to do was sneeze and everyone would remark how brilliant he was. He was like Chauncy Gardiner, the Peter Sellers’ character in  Being There who makes matter-of-fact or cryptic statements and soon everyone thinks he’s a genius.

McLuhan was most famous for the phrase “the medium is the message,” which everyone thought was profound, but nobody knew what it meant. But it was something you could throw out in the middle of a conversation when you didn’t know what else to say and people would think you had read McLuhan which meant you might not be a genius but you understood one, which is about as close as you can get.

The one phrase McLuhan threw out that was applied to the 1960 debates between Nixon and Kennedy was that television was a “cool” medium where “hot” personalities did not come off well. The analysis of those debates said Kennedy won because he was cool while Nixon was hot.

I thought about that in terms of the Biden-Ryan debate. Here Ryan was the cool one and Biden the hot one. The “hot”/”cool” analogy has since been pretty well debunked by political television talk shows that remind me of relatives arguing around the dinner table. It strikes me as fascinating that Republicans faulted Biden for being “rude” for his facial reactions to Ryan when Bill O’Reilly and company do that all the time.

Given that we are used to seeing all kinds of behavior on television these days, Biden’s facial expressions are not what the substance of a debate is all about. If we are going to grade debates on whose suit is nicer or their so-called “body language” then we are going to end up with a robot for President.

As an independent I am interested in what they said more than how they said it.

Energizing the Base

It was clear each candidate had a carefully-planned script designed to energize their base. That suggests to me the internal polling by both camps in showing too few undecideds to make a difference and that from here on the campaign will be about who can turn out their supporters.

Biden had been coached to be feisty. His job was to react indignantly to any perceived attack on the President. To pounce on any fact that was wrong or twisted. To passionately defend the administration’s record and the values of the Democratic Party.  Biden carried out his mission perfectly. After the debate Democrats were energized again.

The reviews from the media are mixed about the first two parts of Biden’s mission, but on third part he was brilliant. Although some commentators thought his closing was weak, I thought it was one of his best moments. He calmed down and spoke genuinely from the heart about the values which had guided his political career.

The entire speech was structured around a defense of the level playing field. It is the first time I have heard a Democrat use that phrase for years. If there is a moment in Biden’s performance worth taping it is this one. Hopefully Barack Obama will get the message and talk more about the level playing field.

Last year Paul Ryan gave what I thought was the most effective reply to the President of any Republican. What made it effective is that Ryan has a rare ability to weave key facts around a carefully structured answer that sounds logical. That was much on display in the debate but no more so than in his closing remarks.

Ryan had also been coached to behave much the way I did when my little brother was throwing punches at me. He would hold Biden at arm’s length–even ignore him–with the hope that it would rile up Biden even more. At times it worked. Biden appeared frustrated by Ryan’s refusal to give specific answers. He must have asked sixteen times for specifics on the Romney-Ryan budget and never received an answer.  Ryan seemed to almost revel in Biden’s frustration. If Biden’s mission had been to be passionate, Ryan’s was to inflame that passion. He succeeded. The picture above captures his own smug satisfaction.

For those still trying to make up their minds all you need to do is watch the last five minutes of the debate to help you understand where each candidate is coming from. Up to that point (except for one other moment which I will get to) the debate had been rough and uneven with both candidates talking past each other as much as talking to each other.

The closing statements made up for that. It was probably the best finish I have seen to a debate in quite some time.

The Abortion Moment

Moderator Martha Raddatz did a credible job of trying to keep both candidates in line, but her best moment was when she asked both candidates about abortion. To her credit she did not ask any of the more obvious questions, but asked each candidate to explain how their faith played a role in their position on the issue.

Ryan looked stunned and there was an awkward—and too long—moment of silence before he replied, as if he had not rehearsed an answer to this one. Here he was caught squarely in the contradictions of the Romney campaign because it is no secret Ryan is a rigid anti-abortion ideologue who opposes abortion under any circumstances.

In his answer he seemed to be trying to somehow take this rigid position (“life begins at conception”) and reconcile it with the Romney position that allows abortion in the case of rape, incest or the health of the mother. Ryan has disagreed with that and was clearly uncomfortable stating the Romney position. If there is a moment in this debate when the Romney camp wonders whether this debate cost them the election this was it.

Much as in his closing statement, Biden was thoughtful and subdued. He acknowledged the position of his church on the issue and how he as a Catholic was personally obligated to follow the teachings of his church, but then came what may have been Biden’s best moment. Looking straight into the camera with obvious emotion he said that did not give him the right to tell other religions how to think about abortion and—even more important—it did not give him the right to intervene in a discussion between a woman and her doctor. Biden then went on to note the next President will probably get to name at least two new Supreme Court justices, which means if Romney wins Rowe will likely be overturned.

The gender gap has been discussed almost as an afterthought in this year’s campaign, but it won Obama the White House in 2008.  If there is a key turning point it this year’s campaign Biden’s answer on abortion so far wins the prize.  Between Ryan’s answer and Biden’s clear, unequivocal reply the choice could not be clearer.

Suddenly amidst all the noise about budgets and deficits and what to do about Syria an important moment of clarity emerged in this campaign. It comes down to abortion. There was an excellent op ed piece in the New York Times about why conservatives should support Obama Care. Its most important observation was that the main reason certain Republicans oppose it is because of abortion.

Social conservatives’ hostility to the health care act is a natural corollary to their broader agenda of controlling women’s bodies. These are not the objections of traditional “conservatives,” but of agitators for prying, invasive government — the very things they project, erroneously, onto the workings of the president’s plan. Decrying the legislation for interfering in the doctor-patient relationship, while seeking to pass grossly intrusive laws involving the OB-GYN-patient relationship, is one of the more bizarre disconnects in American politics.

That is why Romney is back tracking on his Massachusetts plan: it is no longer consistent with his ever-changing position on abortion. Paul Ryan is at least consistent. Romney has dramatically changed his—and that is very scary. As several documentaries and press reports have pointed out, he has yet to give a satisfactory explanation about his change. If someone changes their views on something so fundamental, what else are they willing to change in the name of political expediency?

Why Abortion Is Crucial

As the son and grandson of political refugees, I find it amusing that abortion is labeled a “woman’s issue.” It certainly is for every woman because reproductive care is the only area of medicine in which other people make decisions about what is and is not allowed.  Yes, there are rules about drug use and certain procedures are forbidden, but my kidney is my own and ultimately I get to decide if I want a certain type of care. If you are a woman that is not true of your reproductive organs. They have become political footballs where you get no say in the matter.

But abortion is more than that. It is, as anti-abortion advocates often say, a human rights issue. What Ryan made very clear is that this is a case where a religious belief is being forced upon the rest of us. If government can force everyone to accept one religious belief what is to prevent them from enforcing another? Where does the boundary between church, synagogue or mosque door and door of Congress lie?

Are we to have an American version of Sharia, the conservative Muslim legal doctrine that has caused so many problems across the world? Years ago Republicans asked John Kennedy if the Vatican would be in the White House if he were elected. Now we have come full circle. Ryan’s answer when it comes to abortion seemed to be “Yes.”

Never has that boundary been made more specific than by Justice Robert Jackson in West Virginia vs. Barnette. The case involved the refusal of Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the flag. Jackson, who presided over the Nuremburg Trials, made what is still the single most important statement about the separation of church and state:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

The Vice Presidential debate made plain one set of candidates in this election would ignore that statement; the other would defend it. The choice is now ours.

For this independent the election suddenly became much clearer.

 Print

• 2 Comments already...

 Print

 (Credit: Reuters/Jim Bourg/AP/Eric Gay)

I will not add my score to the aftermath of the first 2012 Presidential debate. By now everyone who saw it has calculated their own score. Please feel free to add your comments about the debate.  I welcome ideas from both Republicans and Democrats.

What I will add are several observations, one on the much-commented-on moderator, Jim Lehrer, one on the impact of that moderation and a final thought on what could have been said.

Jim Lehrer

Jim Lehrer is one of the most respected voices in broadcasting because he is someone who talks to people not down to them. He has in him something of Walter Cronkite and Charles Kuralt. Like them, Jim is respectful. Because of that he has never bullied or browbeaten his guests. If the guests are going to act up that is their problem not his. But what makes for a good interviewer does not necessarily make for a good debate moderator.

I say this because there has been too much written, some of it frankly disrespectful of older people, implying Lehrer was too “senile” to manage the debate and let it get out of control. As usual people forget history. If you watch video of debates dating back to before 2000 you will find Lehrer did not moderate them any differently than this one.

The 2000 debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore is a classic case. In that debate Bush, like Romney, interrupts and pays no attention to the moderator’s attempts to hold him to a time limit or make him stay on topic. I suspect one of the unsaid reasons Lehrer retired from moderating debates and apparently had to be arm-twisted into this one has to do with this decline in civility.

The Romney strategists obviously had reviewed these tapes just like a coach reviews tapes of officials before a big game. They counted on Lehrer to not strictly enforce the rules for this debate just as he did not in 2000. They knew they could get away with pushing the envelope on things like rude interruptions.

Outcoached

Having said that, it is clear the President’s team was outcoached. Romney’s people had seen tapes of Lehrer-moderated debates and prepared their candidate accordingly. Like a team that knows the officials will call a loose game, they decided to go aggressive.

Meanwhile the Obama team had not prepared for a Lehrer-moderated debate.  That is not the President’s fault. One would hope the President is dealing with the economy or foreign policy not watching tapes of old debates. That is up to his staff, which failed him in this debate.

I suspected this might happen when I saw that John Kerry was going to take on the task of “playing” Romney for this debate. Kerry is probably the worst debater the Democrats have had since the debates first began with Nixon and Kennedy. To have Obama practice against Kerry would be like practicing against a Division III football team for the Super Bowl. Obama needs to get someone better to practice against.

The Civility Factor

 In the list of questions about judging the debates one of the points I mentioned was the civility factor. This was a huge element in this debate. Barack Obama is not by nature a rude person. He expects people to behave and follow the rules.

Mitt Romney did not follow the rules. His interruptions were disrespectful of the moderator, the President and, frankly, the audience. But then if you watch people like Bill O’Reilly this is apparently how the radical right seems to think people should behave. If Romney’s debate behavior is any indication, during his first meeting with Democratic Congressional leaders he would constantly break into the conversation rather than listen.

Obama has been accused of being too nice to his opposition and not standing his ground. If this election is lost, I think it was lost when Obama gave in to Nancy Pelosi and decided not to push tax fairness in the 2008 election. Ever since then he has been back tracking.

What the behavior in the first debate tells us is what kind of President each candidate might make. How is someone who rudely interrupts going to deal with Vladimir Putin or Benjamin Netanyahu?

What Went Unsaid

 The key moment in the debate came when Lehrer asked each candidate to talk about the role of government. Romney pointed to the text of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that served as a backdrop and gave an eloquent answer about defending what was in each.

I would rate this as one of the best answers in this debate or any debate for that matter. He was articulate and spoke from his core values. If I were the Republicans I would take that response and use it in campaign commercials all across the country. It would certainly beat the negative campaigning that we have all had too much of.

As for Obama, this was not the Obama of 2008. Perhaps he was tired or ill, but there is little question Romney got the best of this exchange. We may look back on it as the turning point of the election.

What went unsaid by Obama is that a major duty of government is to insure a level playing field.  Government serves to level the playing field when those with power and money seek to tilt things in their direction, to assure that the votes are counted fairly, to maintain a free and open “marketplace of ideas,” to stimulate our society to positive ends whether in the arts or research, and to provide an equal education so that every American not only starts from the same point, but also has the same opportunities every step of the way on into college and even professional school and work.

The fingerprints of that principle lie everywhere on this nation, from public buildings built by the Works Progress Administration, to schools, roads, homes and utilities paid for by government grants, loans, and subsidies. You cannot pass through the core of any city, drive on any road, visit any national park, or enter any school, hospital, or government building without passing over ground built by the principle of a level playing field. The principle pervades every American household, where someone has benefited from government programs, ranging from college loans to unemployment, from the minimum wage and collective bargaining to regulations assuring the safety of the food we eat, the air we breathe and the water we drink.

THAT is what is at stake in this election. The playing field in this country has become seriously tilted. I fear that my son’s generation may not enjoy the benefits I have enjoyed—and this is the first time in over a century that has happened. Already he carries a college debt ten times what either I or my wife had put together. The candidate that wins this election will be the one who offers—or appears to offer—the best hope of correcting the tilt in the playing field so the next generation can enjoy the American Dream.

That will be what we need to watch for in the next debate–who will speak for the average American and the level playing field.

 Print

• 7 Comments already...