The Gaggle : Barack Obama

The Science of How We See Obama's Skin Color

Andrew Romano — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:21:15 GMT

Sample images from Caruso's study. Photo copyright PNAS.

When it comes to the policies and politics of Barack Obama, it's no secret that liberals and conservatives don't see eye to eye. But according to behavioral sciencist Eugene Caruso of the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, these differences in perspective may literally be a difference in perception. In a new study, Caruso and colleagues Emily Balcetis of New York University and Nicole Mead of Tillberg University asked a group of undergraduates which of a series of photographs of Obama--some of them secretly lightened and darkened--best represented who he is as a person. The results were striking: while self-described liberals tended to pick the digitally lightened photos of the president, self-described conservative students more frequently picked the darkened images. The more you agree with a politician, in other words, the lighter his skin tone seems; the less you agree, the darker it becomes. To discuss how political affinities influence perception--and how politicians and the press could take advantage of these findings--NEWSWEEK's Andrew Romano spoke to Caruso. Excerpts:

How did the study actually work?
Essentially we were interested in whether political party influences how people literally see the world, and how they may see different depictions of candidates as representative of who they really are. So to test this we gathered up a bunch of photos of Barack Obama and digitally altered them to create a version where his skin tone appeared a bit lighter and a version where his skin tone was a bit darker than it appeared in the original photograph. And then we just showed people several different photos and asked them to rate each one on how much they represented who he really is. What we found was that participants who told us that they had a liberal political orientation rated the lightened photographs as more representative of Obama than the darkened photographs, whereas participants who told us they had a more conservative ideology rated the darkened photographs as more representative of Obama than the lightened ones.

So how much of a difference between self-identified liberals and self-identified conservatives did you find in the results?
It’s a little bit hard to quantify the difference because they were just rating on a 7-point scale of representativeness. So to make it a bit more concrete we looked, for each participant, at which photo they rated as the most representative. They gave us three different ratings—say 1, 4 and 6—and we picked the photo that they gave the highest number to. From there we saw that liberals were about five times as likely to rate a lightened version of Obama as the most representative compared to a darkened version, whereas conservatives were about twice as likely to rate a darkened version as most representative compared to the lightened version.

I’m no expert here, but you’re confident that it’s the skin tone that changes “representativeness” in the eyes of the voter, as opposed to something else about the photographs—like pose, or background, or facial expression?
That’s a great question. What we did was essentially take three different photos with three different poses, and created for each photo a lightened and a darkened version. And then we randomly selected the combination of pose and skin tone that we showed each participant.

So your findings about “representativeness” were consistent across poses—the conservative will be twice as likely to say a “darkened” Obama was representative, regardless of which image of Obama was being darkened?
Right. We were experimentally able to isolate the effect of skin tone because some people saw a lightened version of pose #1 and others saw a darkened version of pose #1—and independent of the pose the lightened versions seemed most representative to liberals and the darkened most representative to conservatives.

Were you surprised by the results?
A little bit. Some of my research deals with how people who have different views on a subject are able to try to understand the views of someone on the other side, and the general finding is that people aren’t particularly good at really coming to understand the perspective of someone with whom they disagree. Beyond that, though, I got interested in this notion of whether our beliefs can actually affect the way we see the world—of whether they can actually affect our perception of objects or people in our environment. And it turns out they can.

Ultimately, what does it mean that someone believes a lightened version of Obama is more representative of him than a darkened version, and vice versa? What are the larger implications of these differences in perception?
Partisanship can affect all sorts of beliefs. It’s not surprising that a liberal and a conservative who read the same health care bill would come to very different conclusions about its merits. But I think our work is more akin to having a liberal and conservative look at the exact same physical copy of a bill sitting on the desk in front of them and disagreeing over how thick it is. That is, even something that we feel we should be able to see similarly, like a person’s racial identity or physical characteristics, can be influenced by our desire to see that person favorably or unfavorably.

That’s fascinating. To extend that analogy, I guess you’d say that when a conservative looks at the current health care reform bill on the table, he sees it as really thick and interprets that thickness as meaning that the bill will create more red tape, more bureaucracy, more spending, whereas a liberal would see it as thinner and interpret that thinness as meaning that the bill will streamline an unwieldy system and reduce deficits over time. In other words, they’re seeing a physical attribute as a kind metaphor about the merits of whatever it is they’re looking at. How does that work with Obama and skin tone?
There’s a long history in Western society of associating lightness with good and darkness with bad. Throughout history, throughout literature, et cetera. And we know now that these associations sometimes apply to the color of a person’s skin, and in addition to associating goodness with white, there’s some recent research in implicit attitudes suggesting that at an unconscious level people have a strong tendency to associate America with white. Which means that liberals, who are going to think that Obama is generally good and generally American, may have these subtle associations linking him to the concept of white, which is reflected in their representativeness ratings. The opposite would be true of conservatives.

But isn’t there a chicken or egg relationship here? Do conservatives see Obama as darker and are thus prone to dislike him, or do they dislike him first and then see him as darker because of it?
That’s a great question. One of the things we’re trying to do now is experimentally try to tease those two options apart. Basically, what we have in our current paper, the one that’s out now, is correlational studies of Obama where we don’t really know what comes first or what’s causing what. The first study in the paper tries to address part of what you’re asking. If we get people to think about a novel candidate and simply manipulate whether they agree with a candidate or not, we can show that people who think this novel biracial candidate agrees with them later report that the lightened photos are more representative of him, suggesting that if you agree with someone then you may come to see him as lighter. From that we can speculate, exactly as you have, about the reverse path—and that is, seeing images of someone when his or her skin tone looks darker may cause people to like that person less than seeing images of that person with lighter skin tone.

Do you plan to study the second option?
We’ve actually just recently completed a new study that’s not in the current paper that looks at this question. We had people read about this new biracial candidate in the Department of Education, and for some participants we had them read this candidate’s biography with an unaltered picture accompanying the biography, while for some participants we had them read the biography with a picture of the candidate that had been lightened or darkened. Then we had them tell us how they felt about the six issues facing the Department of Education, and everyone was told the same thing—which was that this guy agrees with you on three of the six issues on the table, so it’s unclear really whether you like him or not. Then we asked them to tell us how much they supported him and how likely they’d be to vote for him if given the chance. And somewhat remarkably, the participants who’d seen a darkened photo just a few minutes earlier reported that they were less likely to vote for the candidate than those who’d seen the lightened photo.

Could you imagine political campaigns using this sort of research in the future—you know, as more minorities run for office?
I think our findings help explain the ways in which people may try to influence the level of support for, say, a biracial candidate. People have and may continue to strategically expose the public to images that alter certain characteristics of a person in the media spotlight. It reminds us of the Time magazine cover where an illustration had darkened an image of OJ Simpson following his arrest in 1994. Hillary Clinton’s campaign was actually accused of doing the exact same thing in the primary when it ran a television ad with a video of Obama during one of the debates in which the entire ad was artificially darkened. Although we didn’t find any direct evidence of this in our data, it’s possible that news directors may be susceptible to same sort of biases as our participants, without even really being aware of it, such that liberal and conservative media outlets may differ in the types of images of Obama that they tend to select and depict.

Which, in turn, could activate or reinforce whatever biases are already out there among voters as they see the candidates through the media filter—for example, an MSNBC viewer who is continually exposed to “lighter” images of Obama and who therefore tends to think of him as more “good” and more “American.”
I wouldn’t advocate that people strategically try to manipulate things, but certainly political campaigns and ideologically-driven media outlets will always try to show their candidates in the best possible light.

So to speak.
Right. It’s the same as scrutinizing haircuts and clothing to make people as appealing as possible to the voters. With the Clinton ad, the goal was to try to make Obama appear more ominous.

Or more “other.” There’s still an instinctive feeling among some voters that Obama is un-American—a socialist who wasn’t born where he says he was born.
Absolutely. It’s a short leap from “dark” to different, and from “different” to “dangerous.”

It’s amazing to think that these voters actually see his skin color differently than, say, their more liberal neighbors. You’d think we could all be objective, at least about something so basic.
We expect to be objective, but if we can’t even agree on a picture sitting before us, it suggests that there are still deeper challenges to overcome before we can truly understand the perspective of someone we disagree with.

UPDATE: Reader jblackwell88 raises an excellent point. He or she writes: "The study showed liberals to show FIVE times the color BIAS and conservatives only TWICE the color bias. Not liking Obama because he's dark is the SAME as liking him because he's light. How this interviewer can contort a study that shows color bias in EVERYONE to be a positive thing for the liberals is beyond me." I disagree with the part about me contorting the study; as I mentioned in one of my questions, MSNBC could potentially show lightened pictures of Obama that would reinforce or amplify the existing biases of its audience. Caruso himself explained how liberals may link Obama to "white" and "good" and "American" regardless of the efficacy of his policies. But jblackwell88 is right that I didn't ask Caruso to compare the SIZE of liberal and conservative biases here--i.e., the fact that liberals were five times more likely to find a lightened Obama representative and conservatives only twice as likely to pick a darkened Obama. It's a really interesting question. I'll put it to him today and get you an answer ASAP.

Footballing Obama Experiences the Wonders of Slow Motion

Newsweek — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:12:20 GMT

If President Obama was looking for another way to differentiate himself from President Bush, he just found it. When it comes to sports, you might recall Bush as an avid mountain biker. He also showed off some lightening-quick reflexes that one time that would give him an edge in dodgeball, and certainly fencing. Obama’s forté so far has been shooting hoops. Now add to the list, football. Check out this PSA that will run during several football games on Thanksgiving Day that encourages kids to get more exercise. Between spliced footage of kids running and doing jumping jacks, Obama makes a cameo on the White House lawn, tossing around the old pigskin. An ordinary game of catch, right? Not quite. The whole spot comes off as rather moving, almost epic, but not because of Obama or his receiving skills. Producers slowed down the footage so much that a short-range pass from New Orleans’s Saints quarterback Drew Brees to Obama ends up looking like a Sports Center highlight. Then, add in some dramatic background music and the receiver-in-chief almost looks qualified for a Heisman. Of course that would be premature. First we would need to see his end-zone dance.

Poll: Majority of Republicans Believe ACORN Stole the Presidential Election

Katie Connolly — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:30:58 GMT

As his hopes of winning the congressional election in New York's 23rd district fade, conservative candidate Doug Hoffman is clearly getting desperate. Today he's blaming his loss on "ACORN, the unions, and the Democratic party" who he alleges, without a shred of evidence, tampered with votes to rig the election against him. Never mind that ACORN told David Weigel that they didn't have volunteers in the area, or that it largely operates in poor urban communities, which NY-23 is not. For conservatives, ACORN is shorthand for the evils of the left.

On the heels of that news, Public Policy Polling released this shocking nugget on its blog: "a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately." Say what? More than half of Republican respondents believe the president was elected fraudulently! That's a stunningly high number. It's disturbing, not only as a demonstrable lack of faith in America's democracy but as an expression of wanton ignorance. Worse, it illustrates the effectiveness of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, et al., alongside a well-funded "Stop ACORN" campaign, in creating an atmosphere where unquestioned lies become received wisdom.

Barack Obama won the election by an easy margin. In the end, it wasn't even close. John McCain knew that and delivered his concession speech before 9:30 p.m. Obama didn't just win in the urban areas where ACORN could actually be seen as a force—and which would likely have voted for him regardless of ACORN's participation. He won in places like North Carolina, where ACORN had just eight staffers. There's been no formal challenge to the electoral validity of the votes.There's simply no proof to back up claims that ACORN tampered with ballots. But there is evidence of irresponsible reporting catalyzing misguided fears.

In September, Peter Dreier and Christopher Martin at California's Occidental College released a study of media coverage of ACORN. Among their many findings was this laundry list regarding stories about ACORN's alleged involvement in voter fraud:

82.8% of the stories failed to mention that actual voter fraud is very rare;
80.3% of the stories failed to mention that ACORN was reporting registration irregularities to authorities, as required by law;
85.1% of the stories about ACORN failed to note that ACORN was acting to stop incidents of registration problems by its (mostly temporary) employees when it became aware of these problems;
95.8% of the stories failed to provide deeper context, especially efforts by Republican Party officials to use allegations of "voter fraud" to dampen voting by low‐income and minority Americans, including the firing of U.S. Attorneys who refused to cooperate with the politicization of voter-fraud accusations—firings that ultimately led to the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

To be sure, ACORN has some serious credibility problems, including those infamous videos of ACORN staffers handing out advice about how to fool the IRS as well as an embezzlement scandal. The organization is indeed compromised. But that's even more reason why it's almost unimaginable that it could engineer a massive deceit on the American people and fraudulently steal an election. It's hard to conceive that hundreds of volunteers with clipboards and voter-registration papers were engaged in an elegant (and enormous) conspiracy to cheat and thieve a national election, or that such drastic measures were necessary in a fight against an unpopular incumbent party.

The conservative obsession with ACORN is sad and culturally debilitating. For some, it's politics as usual. Demonize the other side until you get the power back. But for others it's evidently an expression of fear of a world where poor people of diverse ethnic backgrounds become a mobilized political force. For its part ACORN hasn't been very virtuous, but it's far from the "criminal enterprise" that Rep. Steve King or Rep. Darrell Issa would have you believe. It actually does have a history of doing socially constructive work in low income and disenfranchised communities, legitimately helping people file taxes, register to vote and find employment. The people they serve—underprivileged, mainly nonwhite, inner-city dwellers—also happen to vote for Democrats, which is exactly why they're such a prime target of conservative animus. But ACORN's now public improprieties doesn't make it even remotely capable of stealing a hard-fought presidential election. If it did, America would have much bigger problems on its hands than some hookers trying to cheat on their taxes.

Does Palinmania Really Help Bloomberg?

Katie Connolly — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:20:54 GMT

Over at The Daily Beast today, political strategist Mark McKinnon makes a compelling argument for why the 2012 election could be tailor-made for NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. McKinnon is one of the sharpest minds around when it comes to understanding the mood of the electorate. McKinnon knows how to sell winning candidates, which is why I think the case he builds for Bloomberg is a serious one. Bloomberg is a true centrist who has racked up a swag of political achievements in New York—and he has a ton of cash. Dropping $1 billion on a presidential campaign would barely cause a ripple in his ocean of Benjamins. And he appeals to the growing bloc of independent voters. But, after reading McKinnon's analysis, I've got a couple of lingering questions.

First, how will his background in financial services play to an electorate weary of Wall Street misadventures? To be sure, it's been a very long time since Bloomberg was directly involved in trading and banking. Most of his cash piled up when he started offering IT and media services to the financial sector. But Wall Street is already enough of a myth to most voters. They may not have the patience to distinguish between the greedy bankers who broke the economy and the folks that provided the information that helped them carry out the devastating deeds. They may just see a really, really, ridiculously rich guy who made his money on Wall Street.

That may not be as much of a burden in New York, where there are plenty of ridiculously rich people, as well as loads of people who move among the obscenely wealthy hoping one day to be that rich themselves. But outside the city, the electoral map just doesn't work to Bloomberg's advantage. I can't imagine Bloomberg's appeal translating well in the red states he would have to win to wrest the presidency from Obama (and to scuttle the Palin vote): Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, you know the list. He'd need to pick up all the purple states and nearly all the red ones to be viable, and for many predominantly Republican voters in those parts of the country, Manhattan might as well be a different country. And then there are the poorer rural areas that have long voted Republican. I just don't think Bloomberg's urban fairy tale will resonate with people who can't get even broadband in their homes, or who can barely afford their electricity bill let alone think about buying a Mac.

Second, I'm unconvinced of Bloomberg's ability to excite and inspire, as evidenced by the paltry turnout in November's mayoral election. Of course turnout was low because his opponent was a pretty ordinary candidate who nobody thought would win, but it still didn't seem like Bloomberg's supporters were particularly passionate about him. People who like Bloomberg often like him in a very levelheaded fashion. In my experience they tend to offer buttoned-up report-card like assessments of his political career. "He's a wonderfully proficient administrator." "He's managed the city very well." "New York feels much safer under Bloomberg. I'll take sugar with my tea." You get the picture.

I don't think that rationally expressed appreciation of management skills wins presidential elections. Just ask Mitt Romney. As our current president definitively illustrates, voters want to be excited and inspired by presidential candidates. Effective turnout operations are critical, and they require passionate, committed field workers to herd voters into polling booths. Maybe I've misread things, but I don't see swathes of voters fired up about Bloomberg, nor can I imagine armies of enthusiastic volunteers. (They certainly didn't in New York, according to The New York Times: "But the turnout appeared to be on track to be among the lowest in modern New York history as the mayor’s vaunted campaign machinery failed to deliver the surge of supporters his aides had predicted.")

Yes, Bloomberg could capture the imagination of many an independent voter (and has in the past), but independents can't be your base. Mostly, they're independent for a reason: they're fickle, picky, and non-committal. And that means they're rarely inclined to spend their Saturdays handing out your literature at Wal-Mart or cheerfully standing on street corners brandishing pro-Bloomberg signs. (I guess Bloomberg could just pay folks to do that.) Independent voters are ripe to be courted, but they're not renowned for reliability.

McKinnon's argument shouldn't be discounted, and my quibbles aren't insurmountable hurdles for someone like Bloomberg. But I'm going to need some more convincing before I believe he's viable in 2012.

Outrage Over Obama's Bow Is Contrived and Unhelpful

Katie Connolly — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:51:51 GMT

I've been a little hesitant to weigh in on the debate about what it means that President Obama bowed when he met Japanese Emperor Akihito. It seems that the folks who are outraged by the bow are just seizing on it as yet another outlet for an increasingly unhinged disdain for anything and everything the president does. Those who aren't imbuing the bow with earth-shattering meaning don't care enough to offer a passionate defense of it. They're just shrugging their shoulders and moving on.

I'm in the camp that doesn't think the bow is such a big deal, which is why I haven't written about it earlier. Obama isn't the first president to bow before a foreign dignitary: Bill Clinton also bowed to Akihito; Nixon bowed to his father, Emperor Showa (also known as Hirohito), and Eisenhower bowed to French President Charles de Gaulle. None of these events precipitated a catastrophic collapse of American power abroad, and neither will Obama's. A president can be both respectful and powerful at once. Why should power be demonstrated by lack of polite observance of traditions or disregard for, as Donna Brazile put it on CNN, gestures of kindness and goodwill? Is America's place in the world really so fragile that a bow to an aging emperor─of a country the United States largely has good relations with─risks jeopardizing it? I don't think so.

A debate of the direction of America's foreign policy is an entirely legitimate one. Some critics believe that showing too much deference to international leaders is an admission of weakness, and that's a discussion worth engaging in. But it's a conversation that should revolve around concrete decisions and policies, not a simple greeting to a monarch whose contemporary political duties are largely symbolic. Outrage over that is contrived and unhelpful, only serving makes America look like a weaker country than the act itself.

**UPDATE** David Sanger provides some interesting context on presidential bows.

Obama's Job Summit: Best. Idea. Ever.

Ben Adler — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:04:27 GMT

Katie thinks that while President Obama's job summit is sensible on policy grounds it will be a political liability, reinforcing his image as a dithering talker in the face of crisis.

Says Katie, "Is it a good idea? Yes. Having key stakeholders put their heads together, or at least communicate about the problem, will undoubtedly produce some interesting ideas." So, case closed, right? Wrong! "The 'optics' of the summit ... might just work against him," Katie warns. "Obama is undeniably a deliberative president. He shares none of his predecessor's brash decisiveness ... I'm not sure the public finds that tendency comforting anymore."

Katie's premise is correct. Many Americans are reassured by leaders like our erstwhile "decider" in uncertain times. Until, that is, their rash decisions prove disastrous. Then Americans die, deficits mount, and their approval ratings plummet.

So, while Katie's political advice to Obama might be wise in the short term, it strikes me as short-sighted. Good policy is good politics, especially where the economy is concerned. Careful decision making now will pay political dividends later.

Nor, it should be noted, did Sen. John McCain's seemingly precipitous decision to suspend the presidential campaign during the financial crisis last summer redound to his benefit politically.

The first thing people want in a crisis is to see that the president is paying attention to the problem. President Bush's itchy trigger finger on fighting terrorism was perceived as legitimate, even reassuring, only because he addressed Congress shortly after 9/11 and said his administration would henceforth be committed to the struggle.

Issue-based summits are a good way of telegraphing to the public that you are putting an issue on the front burner. And, in the case of the summits on the financial crises and health-care reform, they were followed by bills in Congress. The summits served as a kick start, not a delay.

One of McCain's biggest liabilities was the perception that—being so old and wealthy that he didn't know how many homes he owns—he was out of touch. Obama is sending another message to Americans with his jobs summit, besides being serious about the problem he is saying, as Bubba would, "I feel your pain." Laugh if you want, but doing that is a necessity for politicians, especially ones in the "Mommy Party."

The Obama Jobs Summit: Perhaps Not the Best Idea

Katie Connolly — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:21:11 GMT

Today, just before jumping on Air Force One for his nine-day trip to Asia, the president announced that he'll convene a "jobs summit" in December. Amid rising joblessness, the summit will ostensibly aim to figure out ways to create new jobs and stem the flow of recession-induced layoffs. The president will invite CEOs, economists, unions, and small-business leaders to meet with administration officials at the White House to discuss the issue. "It's important that we don't make any ill-considered decisions—even with the best intentions—particularly at a time when our resources are so limited. But it's just as important that we are open to any demonstrably good idea to supplement the steps we've already taken to put America back to work. That's what this forum is about," Obama told reporters today.

Is it a good idea? Yes. Having key stakeholders put their heads together, or at least communicate about the problem, will undoubtedly produce some interesting ideas and spark important conversations. But is it a good idea for Obama? That's questionable. The "optics" of the summit—those elusively defined, fuzzy readings of events that pundits like to bang on about—might just work against him.

The president has recently been accused of "dithering." Of course, that particular criticism was in regard to his impending decision of Afghanistan strategy—arguably the most important decision of his presidency so far, given the potential for loss of life. But the word has stuck in people's minds because, depending on your perspective, dithering and deliberating can be interchangeable. And Obama is undeniably a deliberative president. He shares none of his predecessor's brash decisiveness—a fact that I, for one, am happy about. I'm pleased to hear of any president who takes time to weigh options and map out their implications. But I'm not sure the public finds that tendency comforting anymore.

In times of uncertainty, voters often gravitate toward decisiveness. Many found comfort in George W. Bush's unflinching reaction to 9/11, but as time progressed and his actions appeared increasingly rash or reckless, his don't-blink-in-the-face-of-trouble countenance became worrying. However, swing voters have notoriously short memories, and so Obama appears to be suffering the opposite fate. In him, voters chose someone purposely contemplative, and yet now they seem in a mood for firm action. Another summit won't cut it. What it will likely do is feed a narrative, which harks back to the campaign, about the president being all talk. I can hear the complaints now: Obama has health forums and beer summits, but what's the point? (That deliberative discussion is essential to functioning democracies isn't an answer that holds muster with such critics.)

A job-creation strategy isn't something that comes together overnight. Any such plan would be a farce. But in publicly announcing a brainstorming session, Obama is opening the door for a barrage of criticism about the questionable usefulness of talkfests, and why he's taken so long to develop an overarching jobs strategy. Yes, he needed to make clear that jobs are a priority for him. Of course he needs to assure America that his mind is on the issue and he's working on solutions. I even think a jobs summit per se is a good idea. Let's put smart, interested parties in a room and see what they come up with. But with the "dithering" president playing host to the group, I'm not convinced their solutions won't just become partisan ammunition, while Obama is portrayed as hesitant and dawdling. And that would be a pity.

Election 2009: Don't Stare at the Tea Leaves for Too Long

Katie Connolly — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:28:25 GMT

Make no mistake: tonight’s losses in Virginia and New Jersey should worry the Democratic Party. Just one year after their historic presidential victory, it turns out that ballots without the name “Obama” don’t have the same magnetic allure for voters, especially if said voters are young, black, or Hispanic. That’s a problem for Democrats heading into 2010, particularly members of Congress who were elected in traditionally Republican districts. But be careful about reading too much into these results. It wasn't a referendum on the president.

Recent history tells us that both Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial contests tend to be won by the party that has just been kicked out of the White House. In 2001, Democrats Jim McGreevey and Mark Warner soundly beat their Republican opponents in New Jersey and Virginia, respectively, where the GOP had held both positions. And in 1993, Bill Clinton’s first year in office, Christine Todd Whitman in New Jersey and George Allen in Virginia wrested the governorships from Democrats.

This isn’t 2008. Obama is no longer the voice of change, a representation of possibility. He’s the president, the incumbent, the new establishment. He’s the guy with the power in races where, as Fineman notes, voters clearly want to continue punishing the Big Dogs. Even if many of the problems Obama is dealing with were not of his making, he’s the guy holding all the cards now. Recovering from a near-devastating recession was never going to be simple or speedy. And 10 months into a new administration the probability that the economic outlook would suddenly be peachy was pretty low. So there’s still a lot of understandable anger about the economic debacle of 2008, and of course some of that will reflect on the president.

Still, neither of the new Republican governors, Bob McDonnell or Chris Christie, ran anti-Obama campaigns. Both men, McDonnell in particular, kept their campaigns upbeat in the face of negative attacks, and the voters responded. Similarly, neither Democrat, Creigh Deeds nor Jon Corzine, are particularly Obama-esque—politically, biographically, or rhetorically. They can stand beside him in as many campaign ads as they like, but few voters are going to mistake a pro-gun hunter with a Southern accent for the president any time soon. And let's not forget that much of each race was dedicated to local issues—transport policy or state taxes—which is entirely typical of state races. Those aren’t the transcendent themes that resonated so loudly with Obama voters last year.

For me, the biggest question raised by tonight’s results is this: if the Democratic candidates had run as “Obama Democrats” (in the vein of “Reagan Republicans”), what would that campaign look like? Can the appeal of the Obama ’08 campaign—change, hope, etc.—even be localized? Or does its very existence revolve around the enormous possibility of the presidency? How do congressional or state-office candidates take the Obama credo and reasonably apply it to local issues like speed limits and playgrounds? Of course the president himself was a community organizer who probably understands the potency of fiercely parochial issues. And he clearly knows how to parlay that knowledge into a political career. But the distance between urban planning, for example, and the Obama ’08 campaign is vast. He and his advisers need to figure out how to campaign in that space in between—under an Obama (i.e., not conservative) presidency—if he’s to hold on to his impressive legislative majorities in 2010.

Election 2009: Rejecting the Big Boys, Again

Howard Fineman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:41:22 GMT

Maybe I'm crazy, or just jealous, but my favorite—and I think most emblematic—contest this Election Day was the mayor's race in New York City. Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg, despite spending more than $100 million of his own money, ended up in the race of his life against a relative unknown named William Thompson.

What does that have to do with Republican victories in the governor's race in Virginia and New Jersey? Well, everything. Americans (and certainly those few who voted in this off year) are still mad at the Big Boys, whether they are in Washington or on Wall Street, or, in the case of New York City, down at City Hall. Voters see the Big Boys getting their bonuses again, or getting their gold-plated health care, or spending the voters' tax money like it’s rainwater in the rainforest, and they are angry at the System—as angry as they were when they plucked a skinny guy named Obama out of obscurity and made him the exalted 44th president of the United States.

Those who argue that there is no national significance in these election results are right in one sense: they don't necessarily presage what is going to happen in 2010, let alone 2012. If Obama and his advisers are smart, they will go to school on this disaster and figure out how to avoid it next year. But this is a warning to the president: you better shake things up—give us real reform—or your presidency may go from coronation to condemnation. It simply won't do for Obama to run a "bowling with bundlers" White House. People wanted something different—a real reformation.

Election Results Show Lack of Confidence in Obama

Howard Fineman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:29:02 GMT

Election Day 2009 was not a repudiation of Barack Obama, but it sure wasn't a vote of confidence, either. Exit polls in Virginia and New Jersey showed that fewer than 40 percent of voters factored the president per se into their polling-booth equation. But the deep skepticism that the (shrunken) electorate showed toward Democratic candidates can't be interpreted in any other way than as a vote of not-quite-confidence in the man in the White House. The fact is, as the exits showed, voters are overwhelmingly worried about the economy—and the president has done little or nothing, it seems, to allay that fear. That presents an opening to the Republican Party next year, if they can take advantage of it.

Two gubernatorial elections do not a new national party make. Nationwide, the GOP currently has the allegiance of only one in five voters—the lowest percentage since Abe Lincoln was building the party a century and a half ago. If the Republicans are going to build on the momentum they acquired today, they are going to have to present credible alternative plans for economic revival. The national party might take a look at what Bob McDonnell did in Virginia. He had specific, detailed plans for transportation, education, and other bread-and-butter concerns in the state, especially in the swing-voter suburbs near Washington.

As for Obama, he needs to pass—and convincingly sell the virtues of—legislation that helps real people in real ways.

Independents Turn Out Big Time for the GOP

Holly Bailey — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:47:56 GMT

A major story tonight is how independent voters turned out strongly for Republicans this Election Day, a not-so-encouraging sign that Democrats have lost touch with a voting bloc considered pivotal to Barack Obama’s win in 2008 and the party’s recapture of Congress in 2006. If exit polls are to be believed—and we know sometimes they aren’t—Republican Chris Christie trounced Gov. Jon Corzine in New Jersey 58 percent to 33 percent among independent voters. Ditto in Virginia, where Republican Bob McDonnell’s gubernatorial victory tonight appears to have been fueled in part by swing voters. According to exit polls there, McDonnell led Democrat Creigh Deeds among self-described independent voters 65 percent to 34 percent. It is a fluke? Not exactly. For months, national polls have been showing independents moving to the right. A recent Gallup Poll found Republicans leading Dems 46 percent to 36 percent among independents. One reason, according to a recent Pew Research survey, is that independents are increasingly unhappy with the Democratic-led Congress. And their single biggest issue appears to be the one driving election results today and likely in 2010: worries about the economy.

Five Things to Watch for in Tonight's Election Coverage

Katie Connolly — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:24:57 GMT

Voting in Pepper Pike, Ohio on Tuesday. Photo by Amy Sancetta/AP

It's Election Day, and although none of the contests has a real national impact, political strategists will be analyzing every minute detail for clues on national trends. As the results come trickling in, here are five things to watch for.

1. In Virginia, things look pretty dour for Creigh Deeds. Although Obama won the state last year, Deeds has few of the traits that excited Democrats to vote for Obama in droves. But Republicans will quickly celebrate a poor showing by Deeds as proof that the president's star power is waning. Watch for the White House to subtly distance itself from the Deeds campaign, likely in the form of blind quotes on Politico or in tomorrow's Washington Post.

2. In New Jersey, incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine and Republican challenger Chris Christie will be duking it out till the bitter end. It's a close race, but as the man formerly known as Stumper wrote last week, Jersey politics is often decided by the strength of the Democratic turnout machine. Tonight's vote will be an indicator of whether the base there is politically motivated enough to vote for a guy they're not that excited about just to prevent a GOP win. A Corzine loss would be the most worrying outcome of the night for Democrats. That said, the person who will decide tonight's race is really Republican turned independent Chris Daggett, who has steadily chipped away at Christie's numbers. Watch for Democrats to marginalize his impact on the race—they won't want to admit that Corzine may have been trampled if Daggett hadn't taken some of the vote. Speaking of third-party candidates . . .

3. In NY-23, a GOP seat that surprisingly has become the race to watch, look for unbridled joy from conservatives regardless of the outcome—and by conservatives, I don't just mean Republicans. Mainstream GOPers should be very worried about the events in NY-23, where an independent candidate managed to buck the Republican machine. The seat has been held by the GOP since the 19th century and should have been an uneventful race. But the pro-choice, pro-gay GOP candidate, Dede Scozzafava, rankled local conservatives, forcing her to drop out. Watch for Republican talking heads to tread very carefully when discussing this race on cable tonight. Democrats will charge that this is a sign that the GOP is edging further toward the right, and away from mainstream America. Republicans won't want to invest this race—and thus the rejection of their party—with too much meaning. Scozzafava, after all, wasn't your typical GOP candidate. But Republicans also don't want to risk the wrath of feisty conservatives in their party. Watching the spinners walk that line will be interesting.

4. In Maine, marriage equality is being put to the test via ballot initiative. It hasn't fared well at the hands of voters thus far—remember California's Proposition 8? In those states where gay marriage is legal—including Iowa, Vermont and Massachusetts—it was the result of legislation, not ballot initiatives. But gay-marriage activists have high hopes for Maine. One problem there, though, is the wording on the actual ballot. To vote in favor of gay marriage, residents have to vote no on the resolution. Whatever the outcome in Maine, watch for the winning side to hail it as the truest representation of America's attitudes toward gay marriage. Another interesting ballot initiative to watch is in Ohio, where voters will decide whether to allow casino gambling. The pro-gambling side has painted it as a much-needed source of income for the cash-strapped state. Whether Ohio voters go for it—it is, after all, the fifth time they've been asked—might be a clue as to how acutely they're feeling the recession's pinch.

5. Overall, watch for all these races to be spun, in one way or another, as indicators of the state of Obama's presidency. Regardless of the outcome, I don't agree, but more on that later. Stay tuned.

Reid vs Obama Drama Not So Dramatic

Katie Connolly — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:11:18 GMT

D.C. loves nothing more than insider intrigue about closed-door meetings. Exhibit A: TPM's Brian Beutler is stirring the pot with his reporting that last week's White House health-care meeting between the president and Senators Reid and Schumer was more acrimonious than we've been led to believe. Days after the meeting Reid announced the inclusion of a public option in his health-care bill, amid speculation that the White House still favored a trigger option. Beutler writes that in the days leading up to the meeting, relations between Reid and the administration inched toward the breaking point. His sources describe "the back and forth between Senate health-care principals and the White House as a "sort of stare-down where the two sides were saying, 'you be the face of pulling it out.' Reid wants Obama to do it to give cover to his caucus. Obama wants Reid to do it so he's not the bad guy on the public option and can still walk away with a win with reform, with bipartisanship, and with a card for everybody running for reelection." He also reports that Schumer was the one tasked with pitching Reid's opt-out-option strategy to the president. When he did, Beutler's source says, "Obama was less than responsive and asked questions that suggested he preferred an option that could get the trigger and bipartisan support."

In true D.C. fashion, however, my sources paint a different picture. Senior Democratic sources close to the discussions tell me that the White House meeting was all about Olympia Snowe and how to secure her vote. It's no secret that the president is eager to call reform a bipartisan effort, and Snowe holds the one last candle of hope. But by the time Reid and Schumer entered the White House, Snowe was no longer the topic du jour for them. They were operating on a different calculus.

Earlier in the week, Reid realized that he stood to lose more votes by not including a public option than he'd gain by including the trigger. In other words, a trigger brought Snowe into the mix (and probably Lincoln, Landreiu, and Nelson) but lost the votes of a handful of liberal senators. Unlike the Ben Nelsons of the world, who've repeatedly aired their concerns to reporters, public-option proponents like Jay Rockefeller were making their case privately to leadership, largely through Schumer, who quickly learned that while liberals disdained an "opt-in" proposal, they could live with an opt-out, which is the model Reid ultimately decided on.

In conversations with Rockefeller and others, Schumer realized that he and Reid had been asking the wrong question of moderates. They shouldn't have beeen asking for moderate support for the opt-out option, they just needed to know if it was a dealbreaker. As it turns out, for several moderates it wasn't. For them, problem No. 1 was affordability. They worried that an individual mandate saddled low-income constituents with having to buy expensive insurance without providing them with appropriate subsidies. That would cause enormous voter backlash, especially for those senators up for reelection in 2014 when the provisions really kick in. If that issue could be resolved, then they could live with an opt-out public option, which some even conceded might ameliorate affordability concerns.

This was the new mindset Reid and Schumer brought to their meeting with the president, who was initially skeptical. Could they really get the 60 votes necessary to even get this bill to the Senate floor? And how do you then get Snowe's vote back? Sources say that the president didn't openly advocate for a different strategy but pushed back hard to test Reid's calculations. But he didn't commit to a particular option, trigger or otherwise—which shouldn't be surprising. After all, the president has been hedging on the public option for months. Several Senate sources expressed frustration to me about the White House's lack of clarity on the public plan. Public-option proponents have been waiting for a clear signal of the president's preference, believing that his stamp of approval would have made their vote counting significantly easier. They were privately disappointed that the president hadn't taken a more detailed stance in his September speech to Congress.

So what's the truth behind the meeting? Was the White House aggressively pushing Reid to go with a trigger? Is the administration annoyed that Reid went with the opt-out plan? My reporting indicates no. But really, the only truth in the gossipy, he said-she said world of D.C. politics is that it's a lot more high school than anyone wants to admit.

What You Need to Know About Pelosi's Health-Care Bill

Katie Connolly — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:15:04 GMT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled her long-awaited health-care bill today. There aren't any real surprises. Most of the newsy provisions have been well known for weeks now. The bill will likely extend coverage to 36 million Americans, and it will prevent insurers from dropping or denying coverage. It also won't add to the deficit, thus satisfying one of the president's primary objectives. The CBO estimates the cost at under $900 billion. Here are a few of the key points you need to know about the bill:

The change that will perhaps have the most impact on Americans is the expansion of Medicaid. Under Pelosi's bill, anyone earning up to 150 percent of the poverty line will be eligible for Medicaid. This is an increase on previous iterations─and the Senate bill─which only covered people up to 133 percent of the poverty line.
The bill includes a public option but not the so-called robust plan. Hospitals and providers will be able to negotiate their rates with the government insurer.
A surtax will be leveled on wealthy Americans─those earning over $500,000 for individuals or $1 million for families─to help offset costs. This differs from the Senate bill which relies on a tax on "Cadillac," or expensive, insurance plans. Medical-devices companies will also be subject to a new tax.
The bill removes the health-insurance industry's exemption from antitrust laws, which will no doubt upset insurers.
Like her Senate colleagues, Pelosi won't be offering a "doc's fix," that is, she won't offer a long-term solution to a problematic Medicare formula that causes reimbursement rates for physicians treating Medicare patients to decrease.
Medicare expenditures will be cut by approximately 1.3 percent, with the pharmaceutical industry bearing the brunt.

The bill currently has no Republican support. Abortion remains a sticking point for some Democrats, like Bart Stupak of Michigan, who want to see the language tightened to prohibit any federal funds being used to fund abortions, meaning that government subsidies can't be put toward plans that cover abortion.

Politico reports that Pelosi has reneged on a deal she made with Anthony Weiner of New York to allow a vote on a single-payer system on the floor. The vote would have failed by a large margin, but its symbolism was important to liberals who feel that they've already compromised enormously in backing a public option over single payer.

Ask Michelle: Dating Advice From the First Lady

Katie Connolly — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:22:15 GMT

Michelle Obama can add one more thing to her list of "firsts": next month she will be the first first lady to grace the cover of Glamor magazine. It's part of the fashion mag's annual "Women of the Year" edition, and Obama is being honored for her with a "Special Recognition" award for her work in mentoring younger women. Of course, no self-respecting women's mag would run a cover story without some mention of the central issue: boys. So what does the president's wife have to say on the matter? Good looks won't cut it.

In a sneak peak of the interview (conducted by Katie Couric, who also makes her debut in the mag this month) just posted by Glamor's editor in chief, we get a glimpse of her thoughts on men: “Cute’s good. But cute only lasts for so long, and then it’s, Who are you as a person? Don’t look at the bankbook or the title. Look at the heart. Look at the soul ... When you’re dating a man, you should always feel good ... You shouldn’t be in a relationship with somebody who doesn’t make you completely happy and make you feel whole.”

Michelle seems to have lived by her words. She certainly didn't marry the president for his money. When things between them got serious, he was toiling away on a personal memoir that was virtually unknown for a decade and directing voter-registration drives for Project Vote. Looks like things worked out OK for her.