Could Bobby Jindal be the new face of the Republican Party? Photo by Marc V. Genre on Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons.

Conversely, after eight years of a Republican-dominated Washington, Democrats across the country are elated by their return to power. Not since the early days of Bill Clinton have Democrats controlled the House, Senate and White House. This immense shift in power, however, is not just bad news for the GOP. It could potentially be detrimental to the entire country. For example, six out of the last eight years have been under Republican control in both Congress and the White House, and that full control threw the U.S. into controversial situations with little opposition. In a two-party system in which one party is virtually ineffective, balance of power becomes a moot point.

So how do the Republicans prevent the tables from turning completely? What does the ailing GOP do now?

With no clear leader at the helm and a major identity crisis looming, the Republicans are heading into an unknown abyss. Congressional races in 2010 will undoubtedly be an important opportunity to regain Republican control in Washington — after all, the incumbent president’s party has lost considerable strength in the House in 23 of the 26 midterm elections since the beginning of the 20th century. But the GOP will also focus on developing their candidates for the presidential election in 2012 to give the party a feasible figurehead.

The party’s 2008 presidential candidates arguably paled in comparison to the unprecedented field of Democratic candidates, which included an African-American, a woman and a Hispanic man. In contrast, the Republicans put forth the usual suspects in their primaries: older, uninspiring, white men who simply seemed out of date compared to the Democrats. But dissatisfaction with the Republican candidates was prevalent within the party as well. A battle raged between social conservatives and pro-business fiscal conservatives, with both sides represented by at least one candidate (Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, respectively), and no clear compromise between the two. McCain ended up assuming the role of the “compromise candidate,” but not before a frontal assault from the right.

In 2012, the GOP will need a candidate around whom the party can rally, but who doesn’t polarize independent or even Democratic voters. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, the 37-year-old Indian-American who is both a staunch social and fiscal conservative, has generated the most buzz. His youth and exotic background appeal to voters seeking a fresh face, and his conservative credentials would secure support from his likely voter base. United Press International has already called Jindal and his family “the other Obamas.” If they are to compete with what could very well be a successful incumbent candidate in 2012, the Republicans must put forth a formidable and competitive challenger.

Another option could, of course, be McCain’s former running mate, Sarah Palin. She isn’t necessarily damaged goods after her defeat in 2008, but she didn’t emerge unscathed. National focus on her “Troopergate” scandal and her constant lampooning on Saturday Night Live contributed to a somewhat negative reputation throughout the campaign, but, as Richard Nixon proved in 1968, presidential victory is possible even after previous defeat. Palin would first need to boost her political credentials before even considering another run at the White House, and the opportunity may present itself soon. As Alaska Senator and convicted felon Ted Stevens seems poised to win reelection, he also faces probable expulsion from the Senate, according to Majority Leader Harry Reid. If this is the case, Palin could very well run in a special election to fill the void – and in Alaska she would likely be the front-runner, touting her experience as both governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee. Time in the Senate would give her more foreign affairs experience and at least an introduction to Washington politics, both of which many considered her to lack during the general election.

After they find a suitable leader, the Republicans must also reconsider their voter base. Following the skillful assembling of a younger, more diverse coalition by the Democrats, the Republicans have no choice but to court potentially neglected voters– and soon– in an effort to expand their now-shrinking voter base.

Obama won the popular vote by almost eight million votes en route to winning the electoral vote 364-162, with Missouri still counting votes. Though the majority of white voters and Protestants still turned out to support McCain, fewer did than in the 2004 election, according to New York Times polls. Additionally, while 43 percent of Hispanic people voted for President Bush in 2004, only 31 percent supported McCain this time around. This, combined with overwhelming turnout among black and young voters, contributed to a rejuvenated Democratic voter base and, in turn, gave Republicans a grim look at a future of potential electoral disappointment.

Republicans, who usually best the Democrats in voter turnout, must first ensure that their base turns out more in future elections. Furthermore, reconciliation with certain alienated groups, like Hispanics, will be crucial to increasing the voter base and guaranteeing electoral victory. Inevitably, there will be some who are disenchanted with the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress, so the GOP should try to attract those voters. But Republicans will also need to try to recapture the days of Reagan, when 59 percent of voters aged 18-29 chose the Republican ticket. In 2008, McCain was able to win the majority of voters aged 60 and older, but Democrats either beat or tied Republicans in the other three main age groups.

But perhaps the direst issue for the GOP to consider during this period of reconstruction is their ideology. In recent years the Democrats have run on a progressive platform of more modern policies. They have encouraged the advancement of alternative energy, stem cell research and developing science and technology to prepare future generations for a 21st-century economy. In contrast, the Republicans have focused too heavily on their traditional conservatism: second amendment rights, overturning Roe v. Wade and opposing stem cell research and gay marriage. The GOP’s positions on many of these issues are slowly but surely alienating a large population of voters who want to move past them.

This has been the trend since 1964, when southern Democrats abandoned their party after the passing of the Civil Rights Act and joined the GOP. Upon signing the bill, President Lyndon B. Johnson said, “I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway.” Johnson was right in that “those sorts of states” would not adjust to the changing times. In subsequent elections, the Republicans capitalized on the southern Democrats’ disenchantment and eventually adopted them into their camp. Sadly, it seems to be those same sorts of voters that are holding the GOP back today, preventing it from adjusting to the times and becoming a more progressive party for the future. Granted they are the party of faith in tradition, but they must reconcile their conservative values with a changing world without deserting their basic platform.

These next few years will be telling for the once-grand Republican Party. A new wave of untapped politicians will surely be sent into battle to regain power, and the potential of a new, unifying ideology will help the party remain a viable contestant for years to come. The end result, ideally, will be a balanced and more effective two-party system.

Photo by Joshua Davis on Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons.

In May, the California Supreme Court recognized that gay people had the right to marry, sending shock waves across the nation and sending Ellen straight to the wedding registry. Of course, that also got social conservatives up in arms and they managed to get Proposition 8 on the ballots, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. While thousands of gay couples rushed to the altar, both sides on the proposition started raising money. Each campaign brought in more than $35 million, making it the most expensive measure on any ballot in the nation.

Going into the election, Proposition 8 looked like it was heading for defeat. It was lagging in the polls and Obama’s popularity meant that millions of new liberal voters were filling out ballots. However, the measure passed with 52.4 percent of the vote. That outcome is raising all kinds of questions.

Analysts are wondering how Prop 8 passed, with so many factors working against it. Some think that the new slate of Obama voters may not have been as liberal as people thought. There may have been a Bradley Effect, only with sexual orientation instead of race. And some are even wondering if Sean Penn could have changed the race: Penn is turning in an Oscar-worthy performance in Milk about Harvey Milk and his challenge to California’s Proposition 6, banning homosexuals from teaching in schools. The movie won’t be released until late November to garner some Oscar buzz, but some wonder if an earlier release of the movie might have turned the tide against Proposition 8.

Whatever the reason, it’s the outcome that really matters. Even though the state is still counting as many as 2 million mail-in ballots, opponents of Prop 8 are already gearing up for a fight. The ACLU is urging the state Supreme Court to overrule the proposition on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Gay rights groups are organizing protests and some cities are even prepping for a legal fight that would erase the proposition. And some counties are refusing to stop performing same-sex marriages until the state tells them to stop.

California’s case is interesting because it was going to the ballots to overturn the courts. This wrinkle of public opinion versus legalese adds another complication, meaning the legal fight is sure to be long. A lawsuit has already been filed and more will undoubtedly follow. Even though two other states (Arizona and Florida) passed measures against gay marriage last week, California is set to become the battleground for the fight. There’s no telling how successful these challenges will be, especially after the unpredictability of last week’s vote.

There’s a good chance that this fight will be taken to the federal courts. The current atmosphere makes it unlikely that proponents of gay marriage would bring it to the Supreme Court immediately, but the marriage issue is almost sure to end up being settled on the national stage, no matter how many politicians recite the “states’ rights” line. Whether the case comes out of California or another state, Prop 8 will certainly come up in any discussion.

For now, though, it’s unclear what will happen to the thousands of couples that were married in California when it was legal. Domestic partnerships will still be allowed, but it’s unclear if the marriages will be voided, or if they will continue to be recognized. Even more confusing is the option that they would no longer be recognized in California, but would be in other states. The last option is the most likely, but one that can also raise some philosophical questions about what a marriage really is.

As the marriages are in flux, so is the legal status of Proposition 8. However, California has captured the nation’s attention on this issue and this will likely become a seminal moment in our generation’s most defining social battle.

The mood in the apartment of Northwestern College Democrats President Lily Becker is upbeat, to say the least. It’s Nov. 4 — Election Night, to the United States — and Obama has just captured another state’s electoral votes. Becker has invited six of her friends and fellow College Dems to her living room, picked a spot of the couch, and set the TV to CNN.

“Suck it, McCain,” Becker shouts as Obama’s electoral vote count increases. Her friends laugh.

“Everyone, including myself, has a lot at stake,” Becker says. “This is the first time that I’m a real adult and have to worry about loans and jobs.”

A slender charcoal-colored cat slinks around the room and between the legs of the tense audience. Communication sophomore Lauren Kudsi came to watch the results from Becker’s apartment; she said the setting felt a lot more intimate, and less stressful.

“Sitting at home, munching on popcorn is a lot more comfortable than sitting on grass with a whole lot of people watching a big screen,” Kudsi says. “Plus, I like the punditry.”

Ryan Murphy, a Weinberg senior, joined the small watch party after nine hours spent working at the Illinois polls. He places his backpack on the floor and quickly pulls out a long roll of white paper. Printed on the long sheet are the poll results from his location.

Weinberg senior Ryan Murphy shows off the results ticket from the Parkes Hall polling station, where he worked that day. Photo by Katherine Tang / North by Northwestern.

This summer, the Minnesota native spent his summer working for the campaign of Senate candidate Al Franken. By mid-Wednesday, the votes were still too close and a recount of the entire state was mandated.

“On the [Minnesota] ballot is a campaign that I’ve been following for a year and a campaign that I’ve been working on for three months,” Murphy says.

Periodically, he jumps up and moves to a laptop to check Franken’s status in the race. “I’m jittery,” he explains. “I’m worried about Minnesota, though, because no one knows what’s going to happen.”

When Obama’s victory is officially announced, the reactions in the room are mixed. Some jump and clap loudly. Various cell phones are flipped open and fingers dial furiously. Murphy shares the contents of a text from his brother. “OMFG,” it says. Patia agrees.

“Bush has been president for all of my political life, so I’m ready for a change,” she said. “I think it’s going to take a while to finally set in.”

Jesse Benchk, a McCormick senior, says he was almost certain that Obama would be victorious on Election Night. He smiles at the flashing images of Obama across the screen. For Benchk, the end of the presidential campaign means a return to his academics.

“I’d like to go downtown this weekend with a couple friends to celebrate, but I have a midterm tomorrow,” he says.

Yet for Murphy, the end of the elections brings new beginnings as well as the unknown:
“I’ve just realized I don’t know what happens after Election Day.”

One of the most memorable fiascoes in the history of fiascoes was the “Dewey Defeats Truman” headline after the 1948 election. Since The Hall of Presidents doesn’t have a creepy animatronic Dewey statue, you know that the headline was incorrect. Based on Gallup’s supposedly infallible exit poll numbers, the editors of the “Chicago Daily Tribune” figured that Dewey would win, so they put up the headline and called it a night. And, of course, we all remember what happened the last time the news jumped the gun with some poll numbers.

Illustration by Tyler Feder / NBN

The numbers we’re seeing may not be as accurate as they seem. Here’s why:

The Cell Phone Problem (aka nobody calls me anymore)

Land lines are going out of style quickly, a fact that nobody realizes more than students. More and more households are becoming cell-phone only, largely among young people. So why does that matter to pollsters? Because many of them don’t call cell phones.

Recent data shows that about 16 percent of homes are cell-only, a number that could rise by the end of the year. And a good number of those were young people — Pew estimates that 46 percent of the cell-only users were ages 18-29 and another 36 percent were 30-49. Additionally, more minorities were cell-only. Those are groups that have been swinging Obama’s way, especially the young people.

Not surprisingly, excluding cell phones is skewing the polls. Calling cells is expensive and time-consuming because pollsters have to dial the numbers by hand. Plus, it’s so much easier to ignore a pollster if their number shows up on your screen. It’s estimated that leaving out cell numbers reduces Obama’s numbers by about 3 percent and inflates McCain’s by 1 percent. Obviously, that doesn’t change a lot in the grand scheme of these polls, but it still shows how skewed the results can be. Ignoring cell-only users means that pollsters are ignoring a lot of the under-30 set, including those first-time voters that are supposed to control this election.

The Bradley Effect (aka nobody wants to look racist)

News flash: there’s a black guy running for president. And that might be tipping the polls.

One of the unspoken problems in this election is that voters might actually be racist. But nobody wants to seem racist, so when talking to a pollster, people might be more inclined to say they’re voting for Obama, even though they agree with everything on that “New Yorker” cover.

It’s called the Bradley Effect, named after Tom Bradley, a black man who ran for California governor in 1982. Even though polls showed him with a significant lead heading into the election and even exit polls projected him winning, he ended up losing the race to his white opponent. Douglas Wilder experienced a similar dip after exit polls and he ended up winning his race for the 1989 Virginia governorship by less than half a percentage point.

Pollsters (and Democrats) are worrying that Obama might fall victim to the Bradley effect. There is little evidence that the effect has been hurting black candidates in the past 15 years, but none of the races have been as big as the presidency. It’s hard to quantify how much the Bradley effect might be skewing the polls, but it might be enough to negate those enormous leads Obama has been racking up.

The Aggregators Take Over (aka fuzzy math)

This election has seen a big digital transformation, whether it’s McCain hitting Facebook or Obama texting his supporters. But it’s also seen the rise of websites that mash poll numbers together. These aggregators, like Five Thirty Eight and Real Clear Politics, take polls from various sources and average them using fancy formulas to give a more accurate poll. They’ve become increasingly popular among people looking for a quick and easy way to see how the race stands. But are they actually accurate?

Five Thirty Eight has gotten props for its system of weighing polls, which supposedly give a more accurate result than just a simple average. And the founder, Nate Silver, knows his stats — he used to work for Baseball Prospectus, the team that predicted a winning season for the Tampa Bay Rays. These poll aggregators often show different numbers than the mainstream media and are more apt to call tossup races.

But no matter how sophisticated the formula, there’s still the issue that these aggregators are performing science on numbers (that might not be all that accurate in the first place) to come up with new numbers. The numbers haven’t been too far off, but it’s still easy to think that statisticians can play with numbers any way they want. And as these aggregators become more and more of a force in polls, it might be worth taking a second look.

This is all to say that polls shouldn’t dominate the coverage. But while they may be accurate and may show how the race is leaning, they don’t show the whole story. The only way to know for sure is to wait for Election Night.

This is not a eulogy for John McCain.

If this election continues down the track it’s been on, there will be plenty of time for that come November. In politics, of course, anything can happen, but McCain’s prospects certainly don’t look good right now. Unlike Barack Obama, however, the Arizona senator is not just running for president — he’s running for his entire political legacy.

Consider two former presidential candidates: Al Gore and Bob Dole. In 2000, Gore lost the presidency to former Texas governor and current friend of bunnies George W. Bush. He moved on, however, becoming a crusader for the environment and winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. Bob Dole is a decorated World War II veteran who served 27 years in the Senate, serving as both Minority and Majority Leader for the Republican Party. Now, though, Dole is just the guy who lost to Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential election.

A decorated war veteran with a long, established Senate career running for president — sound familiar? Given McCain’s age, he, unlike Gore or potentially Obama, likely does not have the time to reinvent his legacy after a loss. Because of this, there is a deeper reason for him to be cognizant of the way his campaign is being run.

If McCain continues his Tom Petty impression and loses this election, historians are going to look back (as historians are prone to do) and wonder why. They’re going to see a number of decisions that are questionable at best: the ill-received campaign suspension, the foolish housing proposal, and the insist focus on Bill Ayers and ACORN instead of the economy. The choice of Sarah Palin now seems like the worst casting this side of the Star Wars prequels (though to her credit, Palin delivers her scripted, tired dialogue much better than Hayden Christensen delivered his).

The most damaging aspect of the campaign, however, may be the crowds at some of his rallies. The screams of “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” are bound to be remembered, whether or not you can blame the shouts on McCain. Recently, he has made an admirable effort to try and quell the hatred at events, though he also defended his supporters at the last presidential debate, calling them “the most dedicated, patriotic men and women.” But when his campaign centered itself on how Obama “palled around with terrorists” and questions about who he really is, how were the hardcore supporters expected to react? McCain’s campaign is being torn up by the monster he helped to create.

So where does McCain go from here? The recent strategy of harebrained stunts and increasingly desperate attacks is not working. A change in tone certainly wouldn’t hurt his victory chances and would help his political standing. Sure, it’s an uphill climb, but what is there to lose from introducing an actual, well-thought out economic policy? At the Al Smith Dinner last Thursday, McCain gave a speech that was humorous, self-deprecating, and incredibly well-received. It would be great to see that same shift affect the whole campaign. Unfortunately, McCain’s tactics don’t seem to be changing. He and Palin recently started comparing Obama’s economic plan to socialism in their stump speeches. These kinds of distractions are likely to get worse as Election Day nears, and they are simply hurting both the campaign and the perpetrator’s reputation.

With only a few weeks remaining before Election Day, time is running out for the McCain campaign to right itself. What is the Arizona senator’s place in American politics? Will he be the crazy old man who threatened to skip the first presidential debate? The guy who picked a first-term Alaskan governor to be his running mate? The candidate who had supporters turn to racism and hatred rather than accept an Obama presidency? I’m sure McCain is looking for none of the above.

There are definitely better ways to leave a legacy. He could be remembered as a decorated Vietnam veteran, as a long-serving and significant senator, and, yes, maybe even as a maverick. Above all, of course, McCain wants to go down in history as the 44th President of the United States. If that doesn’t come to pass, though, a shred of dignity sure would be a great consolation prize.

But the president is not a figurehead whose essence can fit in a crossword puzzle. We need a president who is mentally equipped to unpack complex problems and offer pragmatic solutions. We need a president who knows how to boldly and efficiently manage ideas, people and bureaucracy. We need a short big-city mayor who celebrates Yom Kippur. We need Michael Bloomberg.

Even Papaya King, New York’s famous hot dog joint, endorsed Bloomberg. Photo by • Eliane • on Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons.

During the primary season, rumors materialized that Bloomberg was going to invest $1 billion of his personal bankroll in an independent campaign for the presidency. Bloomberg, the current mayor of New York City, founded and built the financial information empire that bears his name. He is renowned for his effective management and innovative leadership, once summarized his strategy as “recognize what you don’t know; find people who do; and study hard.”

A Bloomberg presidency would likely focus on stabilizing the economy, reducing global carbon emissions and restoring America’s international credibility. But what makes Bloomberg more equipped to pursue these ends than McCain or Obama?

Bloomberg’s unique advantages are his independence and leadership credentials. Any race between the two American political parties risks devolving into a war centered on culture and class. Governor Hockey Mom and her fellow GOPers have argued that we need a leader who is intimately familiar with small town values. Senator Hope serenades the middle class in his attempt to justify protectionism. The debates are often recycled and frivolous. Bloomberg would shift the focus to reestablishing a strong economic foundation upon which American families can independently build.

As an independent, Bloomberg would neither need to adhere to a party dogma nor shore up a base constituency. Partisanship stands in the way of consensus-building. Pandering stands in the way of principle. Bloomberg’s wealthy independence represents a new kind of politics; it requires no fundraisers, no ideological obligation.

Though New Yorkers have reservations about abolishing term-limits to allow Mayor Bloomberg to continue his reign without inhibition, describing it as a benevolent dictatorship, a Bloomberg presidency would not be one. In fact, since no members of Congress would feel obliged to support him (and his advisers would be bipartisan), there would be significantly more checks on his actions. His proposals–this is, his ideas rather than his party–would elicit unbridled criticism from both parties, whereas party members in the House and Senate habitually feel obliged to support proposals from a president of the same party. With Bloomberg, the spheres of Congress would not feel bound to support or oppose any presidential initiative; rather, Congress would afford the initiative criticism unfettered by partisanship.

Bloomberg has the experience of running a multibillion dollar financial business. He understands international and domestic financial systems. He has led the largest city in the United States for the past seven years. His commitment to civil liberties and an equality of opportunity is coupled with a desire for efficiency.

And his accomplishments as mayor are not few and far between. In New York, Bloomberg helped lead the economy out of its post-9/11 doldrums and led a global campaign to stanch the flow of illegal arms. He promoted a ban on smoking in public places and restaurants and pushed for a carbon tax on cars entering New York City. He has also pushed for an education plan that stresses charter schools and an anti-poverty campaign that has attempted to increase the amount of public housing.

While some have criticized his egoism, others focus on Bloomberg’s benignity and pragmatism. His astoundingly high approval ratings will likely allow him to reform the New York City statute on term limits and continue serving as mayor until the next presidential election.

Bloomberg is not the messiah; his presidency will not bring an end to partisan politics. However, Bloomberg’s pragmatic approach to global cooperation is likely to restore America’s ability to exert peaceful power abroad. His economic acumen, too, is particularly important today as the world undergoes the first global crisis of the 21st century.

His candidacy would mean more electoral options and a more vibrant democratic fabric. It would extend the political debate beyond historical partisan issues in order to address the true purpose of the presidency. The novelty of Bloomberg’s independent approach could inspire a new faith in those who have become so disenchanted by partisan politics. He can appeal to voters looking for a more efficient, less divided government. If nothing else, a Bloomberg candidacy would challenge historical political institutions and reshape our political discussions. Wait until 2012.

A lot has changed since then. Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination with a unique and incredibly effective primary campaign. He projected a special appeal that brought rural and urban voters together. He broke trend and emphasized many small donations over a few huge ones. Most importantly, he injected enthusiasm and excitement into a process that has long lacked both.

My question is: Where has it gone?

Barack Obama campaigns in Iowa in March, 2007. Photo courtesy of IowaPolitics.com on Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons

What happened to the loftily worded speeches, the hopeful commercials and the chanting crowds? Obama has gone from a fresh, electrifying presidential candidate to, well, just a presidential candidate.

The logic behind the change is understandable. A primary election is smaller and more contained, and the candidates need to cater solely to party supporters. Kitsch and gimmickry can work well in this setting, but common practice would indicate that the general election demands a higher degree of professionalism and tact.

This campaign, however, was supposed to move beyond (to borrow one of the senator’s favorite phrases) “politics as usual.” He held that promise throughout the primary, and the results were magical. Moving rhetoric and a positive tone allowed him to defeat the Clinton political machine, arguably a tougher challenge than beating McCain come November. Sure, conventional wisdom would indicate that the campaign strategy would need to change, but this candidate spent more than a year fighting conventional wisdom leading up to his primary victory. An old adage comes to mind: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

As we approach Election Day, though, it’s clear that Obama has turned his back on the tactics that won him the nomination. Attack ads and potshots from aides have taken the place of idealistic promises. Even his acceptance speech at the DNC was measured at best and bland at worst, especially in comparison to previous tours de force. Campy as it may seem, when was the last time one of his crowds rolled out the “Yes we can!” chant?

The point is that people like to be a part of something bigger than themselves. It’s the reason so many people show up for church on Sunday, the reason we donate to charity or sign up to do volunteer work. The beauty of Obama’s primary campaign was that supporters weren’t campaigning for him; they were campaigning with him. Every chanting citizen in those crowds in Iowa felt a connection that a traditional political campaign just can’t bring.

When voters see a scathing commercial about John McCain’s computer illiteracy, there is nothing there for them to personally connect to. When Obama dials down the inspiration in his stump speech to avoid sounding too highbrow or idealistic, he fails to create the impact that makes listeners view him as something more than just another politician. Instead of proving why he’s better, he’s fallen into the trap of attempting to prove why his opponent is worse. Where he used to yell “Yes we can,” Obama now turns to McCain and chants, “No he can’t!”

The shift in tone knocked Obama from extraordinary to ordinary. His transcendent campaign made him the clear frontrunner at first, but bringing his tactics down to McCain’s level negated that advantage. Luckily for Obama, the latest economic downturn, however, has breathed new life into the campaign. “Fired up” or not, the Illinois senator has regained a comfortable lead. Had he been as politically transcendent as he was in the primary, though, he wouldn’t have had to rely on Wall Street’s ineffectiveness for a boost. Plenty can still happen between now and November, and running a whitebread campaign like those in the past means the door is always open for results like those in the past.

There’s still time left to recapture some of that magic, though. The charm of the primary is ripe for a comeback. Becoming a president who rejects the politics of old means running a campaign that does the same. Reverting to his original tactics would spell victory for Obama, and that’s a change we can believe in.

“[Our] goal is to register and get out to the polls a historic number of students here at Northwestern,” said School of Communication sophomore and volunteer coordinator Kim Castle. As part of this effort, NU Decides is registering students to vote and providing absentee ballot application forms for most states.

According to Castle, all you need is a state issued photo ID (such as your driver’s license) and the last four digits of your social security number. If you drop by the Arch, the Rock, Norris, or Tech, from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. by Thursday, Oct. 2, you can fill out the required forms. NU Decides mails everything for you; you just have to wait for your absentee ballot to show up in the mail. It’s that simple– and it’s free, though NU Decides is accepting donations to cover the cost of stamps.

“It’s incredibly important that we all get out and vote because it’s one of the best and most effective ways to get our voice heard,” said Castle.

Already registered to vote? Just click on your state to get the absentee ballot application. Fill it out and go to www.govoteabsentee.org with your zip code to find out where to mail it.

View Larger Map

To state the obvious, she’s a woman, a mother and a politician. Choosing her in what seemed to be a frantic campaign move smacked of patronizing Hillary supporters that had yet to embrace Obama as their candidate. Her positions on abortion and gun control are embraced by only the most conservative of women voters; Palin’s nomination was “historic pandering”, suggesting that the decision-makers made the shallow assumption that women would vote for any woman, however inexperienced she is, based only on her gender. What’s more, her choice to have her son, Trig, with full knowledge he would have Down’s syndrome is being touted by Republicans as evidence that her moral stance on abortion is undeniably superior — a completely dehumanizing assertion, as if having her child was a planned political move.

Palin wasn’t to blame though for her coverage; she was being used. The big name misogynists during the Hillary days immediately changed course and rushed to Palin’s defense, a miraculous act of born-again punditry that made hypocrites out of every Republican with a teleprompter and airtime.

Sarah Palin was the change of pace that the Republicans needed, but not because of her credentials: Simply, she was enough to McCain’s right to shove his moderate views into many conservatives’ blind spots.  Her family history, an issue even Obama refused to pass judgement on, was brought to the fore by Republicans seeking to paint her as a victim of the media’s sexism.  She may have fielded a few too many questions about her capability in post-announcement interviews, but it was her own party that left her vulnerable to such intense scrutiny in the first place, by skimping on their internal vetting.

But perhaps the biggest issue I had with her nomination was implying that her age, her gender and political experience made her as qualified for the White House as her opponents are.  Republicans and Democrats can agree on one thing: She looks absolutely nothing like an experienced Washington politician.  The problem comes when the Republican party argues that not being part of the “old boys’ club” automatically imbues Palin with the ability to bring everyone’s favorite political buzzword — “change” — to Washington.

Obama has caught some flack for his usage of Palin’s “lipstick” quote, but the comparison he made seems apt.  Being one of the first women to have a shot at the White House doesn’t make her even half the seasoned lawmaker and campaigner that Hillary is.  Being young and making unpopular decisions in office doesn’t make you the insightful lawmaker that Obama is or the maverick McCain claims to be.  

Especially when you’re responsible for your own host of alleged corruption activities, including an ethics scandal and the recent inability to deny supporting the “Bridge to Nowhere” (wearing the t-shirt doesn’t help).  And I wouldn’t trust the difficult job of cleaning up earmark abuses to someone who’s requested $453 million worth of them (in a mere two years as governor, netting $295 per capita in earmark money).

A “Miss Alaska”-turned Governor is no two-term U.S. senator.  Hillary slugged through what may have been one of the most difficult primary seasons in recent history, and has spent time in and around Washington for most of her career. Palin, on the other hand, made her way from PTA member to Governor of Alaska — no small feat for a former sportscaster, but not the journey of a seasoned politician either. 

Palin’s free ride is an insult to the work Hillary had done battling Obama; Palin wouldn’t have had a shot at the White House had it not been for John McCain using his vice presidential pick as an olive branch to placate the religious right.  And insulting, too, is her youth; both Obama and Palin are young and it shows, though insisting that they are equally insightful is ludicrous. Palin is early in her first term as the governor of a state that has voted mainly red since its induction into the Union.  Obama has extensive experience as the editor of the Harvard Law Review, a civil rights lawyer in Chicago, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago and a progressive community organizer on Chicago’s South Side. No contest.  Palin insists she has better managerial skills than Obama due to her executive experience; maybe she’s learning on the job as a governor, but she needed to hire an administrator to help her govern a town of (then) 5,500 people.

In her short career, she’s become the first female and the youngest governor of Alaska, but was she ready to be yanked to the top in what seemed like a move of desperation? Ready to face public scrutiny over her personal life and political flame over her experience? Her politics aside, she’s given McCain a media buzz that makes his embarrassing days in midwestern German restaurants seem a thing of the past.

Palin seems to act as a shield for the McCain campaign. Her nomination makes McCain deliberately difficult to attack, diverting media attention from the war hero entirely.  This has the effect of putting Republicans embarrassed by McCain at ease, but it’s still at heart only McCain’s quick fix to gain some ground on Obama, a strategic distraction that still hasn’t had a permanent effect on the polls.  Rather than considering her actual political experience, the Republican party seems to have fallen in love with whom she represents and not who she really is.