Obama has more chances to win

Today, the first Tuesday of November is the time of presidential elections in the United States. Current head of the White House, Democrat Barack Obama vies with former governor of the Massachusetts State, Republican Mitt Romney for the right to remain on the post of the president for another four years. With one day left before the elections no one can say with certainty who the winner will be. According to opinion polls, the two candidates go head to head. According to some polls, Obama is ahead of his rival by one or two percent, according to others – Romney wins. In the last days before the election both candidates focused their efforts on key uncertain states, on which the overall voting results depend.

The Day asked Alexander MOTYL, professor of Political Science at Rutgers University (USA), director of the East Central European Center and Oleh SHAMSHUR, former Ambassador of Ukraine to the United States to assess US presidential campaign, say what the results of the election might be, and how it can affect the relationship between Ukraine and the USA.

Alexander MOTYL: “American campaigns over the past 20 years have all been quite dirty. This campaign does not differ significantly form the previous ones.”

Oleh SHAMSHUR: “The presidential campaign in 2008, which I could observe directly from within the United States, could be characterized, in my opinion, by two main features. First, it is the impact on its course at the final stage of some sort of financial and economic earthquake that affected the very foundation of the American economy and the American way of life. Second – and this may be the most important – despite the economic difficulties, a spirit of hope for positive and radical changes was quite strong in the American society. The changes were associated with the charismatic figure of Barack Obama. The current campaign took place under the sign of continued economic hardship and disappointment in President Obama and Washington in general. To me this campaign was much tougher than the previous one. The tone was set by the president’s team, which focused its election strategy on what Americans call ‘the destruction of the personality,’ Romney’s personality in this case. As noted by US analysts, in presidential campaign 2012 there were too many mutual attacks of the candidates and too little of discussing of complex challenges the United States are facing now.”

How important is the role of money in American campaigns, especially in this one? Will this factor play a crucial role in this election?

A.M.: “Perhaps, it won’t play the crucial role, because then only rich republicans could have chances to win presidential elections or elections to Congress, Senate, or local government. But after the Supreme Court passed the decision that allows anyone, even firms, to lend money to any candidate the role of money factor has become much more noticeable, and campaigns as well as politicians became the sphere of big business, where large sums of money are being spent and earned. However, it is a totally different question whether this will influence the outcome of the election in any way. Perhaps, in areas where there is balance between republicans and democrats this may be true, but in areas where one side is dominant – this will not make any difference.”

O.Sh.: “Without sufficient financial base, even with great ideas and unblemished reputation, it is impossible not to just think about winning the elections, but even about decent participation in either presidential or any other political race in the United States. It is not by chance that in the US when progress and chances of winning of the candidates are estimated, great attention is paid to the amount of financial resources that they and their supporters were able to mobilize for the election campaign. Recently, in the American mass media I came across such estimates of the total costs of this year’s presidential race in the US – it is 2.6 billion dollars.”

Is it true that during this campaign American society was polarized into two camps: the socialists and the capitalists, the first of which is represented by the Democrat Obama and the second – by Republican Romney?

A.M.: “Polarization has been noticeable since the 1990s. However, it is not true that socialists compete against capitalists. In America, there are no genuine socialists. There are only capitalists who believe that the state should interfere in the market as little as possible, and the capitalists who believe that government invention is necessary and there is nothing wrong about it. The first group think that the market will lead to social justice on its own, while the second group think that market only deepens the social injustice.”

O.Sh.: “This campaign has in fact deepened the division in American society and political elite of the United States, and made it more difficult to reach a consensus on such fundamental issues as the role of the state in regulating the economy and the various aspects of life of the society in general, the amount and form of state aid an ordinary American person needs. Position of the current administration is closer, but not identical, to the European Social Democrats. I would rather define Romney as a center-right politician or a moderate conservative.”

Who do you think has a good chance to win this election, Obama or Romney? What will be crucial for the victory of each of candidates?

A.M.: “Obama. Everything depends on the so-called Electoral College. Romney should get the majority of votes in seven or eight out of nine critical states to get the most electoral votes. If he gets a majority in the six of those, he will lose. Thus, it is easier for Obama to win. For Romney it is a much more difficult task.”

O.Sh.: “In the early September answering the similar question I would quite confidently say Barack Obama. Obama’s charisma, undeniable support of traditional Democratic voters, signs that the US economy is moving towards the path of sustainable development, even if it is slow for now, persuasive behavior during the recovery works after the hurricane Sandy add up to the overall benefit of the current head of the White House. Nevertheless, all the polls show that despite Obama’s leading positions, the difference between the rating of the candidates is within statistical error. Romney, after his successful performance in the first presidential debate, was finally able to find his voice and move beyond the caricature of a ‘heartless capitalist,’ created by Obama’s political technologists. Many voters still haven’t got the feeling of the improvement of economic indicators. Credit of trust to Obama, especially among independent voters was seriously undermined. We can not exclude the possibility of the situation similar to what happened in 2000, when Romney received the majority of votes nationwide, but not the required majority in the ‘electoral vote,’ which formally defines the president and is based on figures obtained by the candidates in each state (winner gets all the votes from a state).”

Many experts believe that Obama will win anyway. Can you tell why Americans prefer him?

A.M.: “The vast majority of Americans supports Obama because of number of reasons: 1) he was a good president after all: his foreign policy is well-balanced, his internal policy appeals to those who believe that the economic crisis is the result of George W. Bush’s presidency, but does not appeal to those who think that the deficit is high and the crisis is still in process; 2) he is a good-looking man, while Romney has had quite a severe look up until recently; 3) many people do not like the fact that Romney is a multibillionaire who pays low taxes; 4) those critical states, where the electoral votes will play a crucial role, now have economic boom because it is the place where the industry is concentrated and Obama gave them large state subsidies; 5) in the after Sandy recovery works Obama had the opportunity to present himself as a strong leader; 6) democrats outnumber republicans, but republicans are voting more actively; 7) Romney won the first presidential debate, while Obama won the second and the third ones.”

O.Sh.: “The factor of friendliness, his ability to evoke trust without any doubt enhance the chances of being re-elected to the post of the US president for Obama. Will all of this be enough to win, we will find out in a few days.”

What will Obama’s second term or Romney’s victory mean for America and how can it affect the relationship between the official Washington and Kyiv?

A.M.: “If Obama will be the president, apparently, the universal social security program will be introduced. If Romney gets the post – this will not happen. Because America is facing very serious economic problems, neither one nor the other of the candidates will be able to significantly influence the development of the country.

“What concerns foreign policy, especially towards Ukraine: both of the candidates will focus on Middle East and China, to some extent also on Russia. Ukraine, unfortunately, is not interesting to anyone, especially with its current government which is unable to openly acknowledge its pro-Western positions, release Yulia Tymoshenko from prison, implement anti-corruption reforms, support small and medium business, etc. Ukraine acts like Russia’s province and this is how Americans will see it.”

O.Sh.: “I think it is still too early because at the present moment Obama’s second term plans look rather vague, although we have a chance to see further ‘left’ drift away from the center of his administration in domestic policy. Romney proposed an economic recovery, which involves reducing government intervention in the economy, tax cuts, increased fiscal discipline, and energy independence. The debates on foreign policy showed that the differences between the candidates on foreign policy are not significant and are related mostly to selecting the tools of foreign policy. I personally view this as an evidence of subordination of US foreign policy not to clan, but to national interests. It is, therefore, doubtful that under any circumstances there will be any major changes in the US policy toward Ukraine: it will continue to be pragmatic, aimed at achieving concrete results. However, I believe that it will increase attention to issues of democratic development and human rights, especially after the parliamentary elections in our country. America will continue to view Ukraine as an important country in Central and Eastern Europe, however, it will not belong to their foreign policy priorities.”