Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Do Leaders Read the Polls?

May 2nd

Do Great Leaders Look at the Polls?

The myth that leadership is some mystical quality that rises above the ebb and flow of short-term popular interactions is not something that most people who have lived around politics believe to be true. The late pollster, Bob Teeter, who was my teacher on these topics, believed that there was a special need to get the polls right and when they were surprising. to spend time helping the candidate’s family understand what had happened.

He referred to the “candidate’s wife” problem. To be surprised by an outcome on election night was worse than any other time. And understanding the end game was always one of the most insightful times.

(As a practical matter, today the professional pollsters can cushion the risk by aligning their final analysis with scenarios of likely voters and election day exit polls. So it’s harder now to miss by a mile.)

The point is equally important on the front end. To understand what happens on election night there’s also a need to go further back and to begin with an accurate baseline at the starting point. There is a point in virtually every election, even the blow out elections, when the voters essentially start the major candidates at parity. This was especially true in 1984 (Reagan – Mondale) when in spite of what later appeared to be an overwhelming base of popular support, there was a time in June 1984 when the two were almost equal. The shift can come quickly and decisively so that it appears that there was always a significant difference. But this masks the real baseline that can be seen at the starting gate.

What’s more as Bush v. Gore demonstrated, the Presidential races are not popular vote contests, they’re decided in the Electoral College (or the Supreme Court and the Electoral College.) Today red states and blue states are so polarized that elections are likely to be decided by a handful of swing states. So the starting gate is really the positioning of the two candidates in 10-12 specific plaes.

For Obama and Romney the election is likely to be decided in a dozen swing states. (There is never complete agreement on what these states are. Sometimes Wisconsin and Michigan are seen more as Democratic than swing.) As Romney gets the nomination Obama has nearly a 4 point lead in the Real Clear Politics poll average. But the interesting thing about the swing states is to see where they are and where they have been.

In 2011 Time Magazine published the following summary of the swing states and their approval ratings. What is clear is that while Obama may be leading nationally, his support has been soft in the key states.

This table shows the Gallop approval ratings and the way that they slipped in key states.

Gallop 2011 OVER  2010
Wisconsin

47.4

0.1

Iowa

45.6

-1.9

Pennsylvania

45

-1.3

Virginia

44.5

-2.1

Michigan

44.2

-4.7

North Carolina

43.7

-3.2

Florida

43.6

-2.2

Ohio

42.1

-5.3

New Mexico

41.7

-6.9

Nevada

41.3

-5.7

Colorado

40.4

-4.8

New Hampshire

38.7

-2.6

 

The table suggests softness in the Obama lead even if there no clear moment of parity yet.

The game is afoot. The moment of parity will come soon and then what may be the most the most import definitional moments of the election. Without watching the polls it may not be easy to recognize this inflection point.

So there may be leaders who do not pay attention to the polls, but they should.

Category
Tags
Comments

UK’s Watergate

July 19th

The Parliamentary Hearing into the actions of News Corp broke new ground and the whole matter has opened a new requirement for business analysts everywhere.

First, the questioning of Rupert Murdoch and his son on live international television was an extraordinary spectacle worthy of, say…Rupert Murdoch.

The opportunity to inquire into the most intimate details of corporate governance of one of the most powerful men in the world is extraordinary theater.

And, in this case, there was an element of human drama that would have been difficult to miss.  Here was Murdoch being asked “what did you know and when did you know it?”  He was given the choice that always dominates discussions like this one – what did you know about this scandal?  What steps did you take?  Obviously, the witness cannot say that he was fully informed and took actions to make things better for his company.  Now that the dam has broken and there is a formal, legal inquiry, any actions taken that were protective have the taint of being conspiratorial.

So what could he say?  He could say that he was a bad manager.  Or he could say that he was foolish or stupid.  Or he could say that he did not know.

But if he didn’t know and if he was a competent manager, then his son must have known.   So there was a human drama of potentially throwing his son under the bus.  Of course, his son was the Chief Executive and perhaps should have taken steps long ago.

Finally, there should be little question that this is not a “UK” problem as much as the Murdocks might have wished that it were.  US law – foreign corrupt practices and licensing before the FCC – make this inquiry a US inquiry as well.

The new ground?  In their answers the Murdochs referred frequently to their reform of the corporate governance committee.   Clearly it would have been better to have had a Management and Standards Committee that reported to the independent directors.   The corporate governance process would have been better protected and that decision may turn out to have been a multibillion dollar decision.

In the end, it’s hard to predict how extensive the damage will turn out to be.  Business analysts everywhere will have to be even better at being able to assess events and processes like this one.

New ground at a minimum, indeed.

Category
Tags
Comments

A Transformational President

November 15th

Two weeks later the political engine that drives public policy continues to serve up one of the most interesting moments in memory.

Returning to Washington on Sunday after a 10-day Asia trip that was marked by a pair of key setbacks on international economic issues, President Obama said that even though the U.S. has gone through a tough two-year period, America’s preeminent position on the world economic stage has not been forgotten. (Scott Conroy, Real Clear Politics, “Returning to Washington to New Domestic Reality”)

Two years ago when Barack Obama was elected President, there was a widely shared sense that he would be a transformational President.  Indeed, in the sense that he might have meant that, he has been.  Passage of Health Care Reform and recovery from the financial crisis (along with the new Dodd Frank financial regulations) were remarkable legislative achievements.  They are filled with policy change that will reshape core American industries.  At this point it would appear that the green agenda has been challenged and certainly a Cap and Trade and does not appear to be possible in the near future.  So the pattern is not uniform.  Isn’t that to be expected?

But the election of 2010 has conveyed the message that these were not popular historic changes in direction.  Returning from Asia President Obama still stands at a critical crossroads of transformational choices.  But the way forward is not at all certain.

Democratic Coalition Crumbles, Exit Polls Say

November 3rd

Writing in the Wall Street Journal Peter Wallsten and Danny Yadron pointed to one of the stories coming out of the election of 2010 that will be reported again and again in coming weeks.  This may be worth a deep dive.  There are going to be broad implications, not to mention puzzles.  In the aftermath of the 2008 election.  Among seniors 65 years and older Republicans now hold a “large advantage.”  And among white women there is a significant pro-Republican divide and yet after 2008, the two parties were even.  As Wallsten and Yadron write:

Amid deep pessimism about the economy, the coalition of voters that gave Democrats control of Congress in 2006 appears to have fractured.

Preliminary exit polls showed that the party lost ground to Republicans in Tuesday’s midterm elections among women, middle-income workers, whites, seniors and independent voters.

Driving the shift: broad anxiety over the economy, as well as skepticism of big government and opposition to signature Democratic Party policy achievements, such as President Barack Obama’s economic-stimulus package and the health-care overhaul.

Category
Tags
Comments

The Stone Age Didn’t End Because the World Ran Out of Stones

August 25th

In an article on the Saudi reaction to President Obama’s call for Energy Independence Jad Mouawad of the New York Times “Green Inc.” notes the ever-present dynamics of the geopolitics of oil.  (“Saudi Blasts American Energy Policy.”)

The Saudis are as sensitive to the cross currents of energy policy change as anyone.  In “In a short and strongly-worded essay in Foreign Policy magazine, Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former ambassador to the United States and a nephew to King Abdullah” critiques the broad statements of the Obama Administration.  His point recalls Sheik Yamani’s famous line about the stone age.

What this thought points to is the question of how soon green technology is going to replace the oil economy.  While it makes the stream of articles on China’s development of solar panels and electric vehicles all the more interesting, it does recognize that no one can imagine a technology that is going to radically shift the energy balance in the next five years.

In the meantime, OPEC looks quite different today than it did in 1973.  The difference is not in the names of the countries that are the sources of oil but in their leadership and their relationship to the U.S.  Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria could not be more different today than they were in 1973 when Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon first launched the policy of “energy independence.”