“The two districts are very different,” Schreibman replied. “Maurice’s [present] district stretches all the way to Binghamton and the Southern Tier and back to Newburgh. The new district is much more compact, with more common interests. I believe I can be effective in this district.”
Late word from the Ulster Board of Elections is that about 5,000 fewer people will vote in this election than in 2008, not particularly good news for Obama or Democratic candidates. Four years ago, the president carried the county by 22,000 votes (62 percent).
For certain, a lot more people will be voting this year than two years, six years, and 10 years ago.
Despite passionate believers on both sides, there seems a good deal less interest in this presidential race in these parts than the last one. Will that be true in the advertising-saturated swing states?
On one side the Democratic candidate has not lived up to bold promises. By many measures, we are definitely not better off than we were four years ago. On the Republican side, the candidate simply hasn’t measured up, and his credibility has been seriously challenged. In different ways, it comes out to the same thing: a choice between disappointments. As evidence, with election less than two weeks away, both candidates are treading water somewhere around 50 percent.
Experience suggests eligible voters will make one of three choices on the presidential race. Some — quite a few, according to anecdotal evidence — will vote for their candidate and nobody else. Some will vote the party line straight across. And some won’t vote at all. By doing so, this latter group will make a statement that they don’t care for either (major-party) candidate or that they just don’t care at all. Not good.
A split vote will also bring into doubt the winner’s ability to effectively govern over the next four years. With a divided Congress, we can expect more of the same gridlock, and that’s never been good.
I watched two of the last three presidential debates (we were out of the country for the first one). Fortunately, it was annoyingly repetitive, offering the opportunity for me to check ball scores now and then.
The worst part wasn’t the post-debate talking heads telling us about what we’d already seen, but the “experts” from both parties getting in their best digs for their candidates. A candidate could make an absolute fool of himself — like John McCain wandering aimlessly around the stage after one debate with Obama — and his side would say he killed.
I think it’s a good thing to put candidates face-to-face on live television. But I’m not convinced that two-minute answers with one-minute rebuttals to complex issues is the best way to inform voters.
Predictions? Obama in a squeaker, with the real possibility of a delayed verdict, or Romney by five points.