Monday, October 13, 2008


Assim vai a campanha nos EUA para as eleições dentro de três semanas. Obama continua a subir nas sondagens, nos gastos de campanha e nas receitas. A avaliar pela fotografia, a forma como aborda possíveis eleitores parece fazer dele um alvo extremamente vulnerável. Não sabemos que segurança o protege mas a vontade de o eliminar deve andar por muito perto. A julgar pelo que dizem dele muitos republicanos e outros, que não sendo uma coisa nem outra, não o consideram um dos deles mas um intolerável desavergonhado intrometido a abater.
Se isso acontecesse os EUA recuariam quase um século na sua história. E um terramoto social sobrepor-se-ia ao furacão financeiro.
Até Novembro, pelo menos, assistiremos ao mais arriscado número de funambulismo que imaginar se pode.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, campaigns in Holland, Ohio, near Toledo.
Obama: The $100 Million Man?
Based on campaign spending, it's hard not to assume that Obama is almost certain to have broken his previous fundraising records.
Barack Obama Leads by Double Digits in Poll
Financial Anxiety Rising, Poll Finds Podcast
Clintons Join Biden to Campaign in Scranton
Va. GOP Chairman Compares Obama to Bin Laden
Seeing White House From a Cell

1 comment:

Rui Fonseca said...

McCain, the Media, Money, and Montesinos (and Obama Too)
By Stephen J. Dubner

So Barack Obama continues to raise millions upon millions of dollars, and if he wins the election a lot of people will certainly attribute his victory, at least in significant part, to this money.
But should they?
We addressed this topic in Freakonomics. Our argument was based on a clever piece of research by Steve Levitt (scroll down to “Using Repeat Challengers …”) in which he analyzed legislative races in which two opponents ran against each other more than once. Here’s why it was clever:
If Candidate A wins by 20 points and outspends Candidate B by 50 percent, it might be natural to assume that it was the money that made the difference. But how do you really know? It is hard to separate a candidate’s natural appeal from the appeal that is created by spending money on organization, ads, etc. So by measuring repeat challengers — i.e., races in which the candidates’ natural appeal stayed more or less constant — Levitt was able to isolate the impact of the money.
Here’s how we wrote up the results:
[T]he amount of money spent by the candidates hardly matters at all. A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same 1 percent.
What really matters for a political candidate is not how much you spend; what matters is who you are.