Sí, así de llamativo puede ser el resultado de la investigación que mi admirado James Fowler (@James_H_Fowler) y sus colegas han publicado hoy en Nature, y que sin embargo se ha anunciado con titulares muy distintos. En una doble página dice El País  que «Un mensaje en Facebook movilizó 340.000 votos en un solo día.»Â Â Europa Press tituló de forma todavía más llamativa, arrastrando a muchos diarios a hacerlo también: «Un mensaje en Facebook arrastra a sus usuarios a las urnas» (¡¡¡¡). Más modesto, el Washington Post afirma que «Un estudio encuentra que el voto de los amigos de Facebook tiene impacto en el resultado de la jornada electoral.»

Es sabido que para vender muchos ejemplares las revistas y los periódicos tienen que ofrecer titulares llamativos, especialmente en materia científica. Y que si esos titulares son sobre las revoluciones tecnológicas que ya son o que vienen, tanto mejor. Es de suponer que tanto Facebook como Nature como Fowler tienen todo el interés en que creamos que lo que sucede en Facebook tiene algún impacto relevante en el comportamiento político de la gente.

Pero miremos el estudio con un poco de atención y de detalle.

Primero, los datos son ridículos. Sobre unos 61 millones de usuarios de Facebook ese día, resulta que quienes vieron en su pantalla el simple mensaje «yo voté» con las indicaciones para encontrar el sitio en el que está el colegio electoral, (mensaje que los investigadores llaman «informativo»), no cambiaron su actitud en nada. Impacto del mensaje: cero. Se dice que, sin embargo, quienes recibieron el mismo mensaje pero con las caras de algunos de sus amigos debajo (mensaje que los investigadores llaman «social») tuvieron ¡un 0,4 por ciento de probabilidad mayor de votar! Para que el lector lego en estadística entienda el efecto, esto significa que si alguien nos pregunta si vamos a ir a votar o no, en lugar de decirle «al cien por cien te digo que seguro que no votaré,» después de ver el mensaje «social» de Facebook, le diríamos que al 99,6 por ciento te digo que no iré a votar.» En términos agregados, el resultado es que se supone que unas 300.000 personas, de los 61 millones, votaron por el mensaje «social.» (Sí, puede ser, pero entonces unos 60,7 millones no hicieron ni caso).

Segundo, eso no es, en todo caso, efecto de Facebook, sino de tus amigos. Sí, claro, se supone que si ven que seis amigos suyos (aunque sean amigos virtuales) han hecho algo como votar, una buena parte de la gente se sentirá invitada a hacer click en la tecla «yo voté», es decir, «yo también soy como mis amigos.» Facebook ayuda a verlo, pero el efecto no es de Facebook, sino de tus amigos. Si en un estudio hipotético observáramos que la probabalidad de votar se incrementa cuando el individuo ha recibido seis llamadas de teléfono de amigos que le dicen que ellos ya han votado, jamás atribuiríamos el efecto al teléfono, sino a los amigos.

Tercero, por mucho que he buscado, no he econtrado en el estudio el lugar donde se explique que los supuestos 340.000 nuevos votantes primero vieron el mensaje, luego fueron a votar y luego volvieron a Facebook para hacer click en «Yo voté.» Es decir, que muy probablemente esa gente pulsó el «yo voté» porque vio que sus amigos también lo habían hecho. El estudio se encarga de comprobar que quienes pulsaron, efectivamente, votaron, pero no que primero vieran el mensaje y luego fueran a votar y luego pulsaran, que es muy distinto. El estudio, en otros términos, demuestra que quienes ven que sus amigos pulsan, tienden a pulsar ellos también, pero no necesariamente que voten porque sus amigos hubieran votado.

Y cuarto, resulta llamativo que en la explicación detallada de los datos del estudio, se admita que Facebook no permitió que el experimento se hiciera en las condiciones científicas que los investigadores deseaban, imponiendo que el mensaje social fuera recibido por los 61 millones de usuarios. En otras palabras: cuidado con las investigaciones patrocinadas por quienes tienen intereses en que el resultado sea uno determinado. (Por no hablar del hecho de que Facebook afirme sin pudor que pudo promover artificialmente el voto de 300.000 personas… aunque eso es otra cuestión…).

En definitiva, por mucho que griten los titulares, seguimos viendo lo obvio: no importa la herramienta, sino la gente que la utiliza, que no ha cambiado mucho en los últimos 200.000 años. Y en el caso del comportamiento de voto, Facebook en particular tiene un efecto prácticamente nulo.

 

Qué interesante ver cómo el mejor orador de nuestro tiempo improvisa sobre el texto y lo mejora. The Atlantic Wire ha hecho el ejercicio de comparar el texto que Clinton tenía escrito y el que finalmente pronunció en su discurso en la Convención demócrata, la mejor intervención del evento, sin duda por encima de la del propio Obama  (vídeo de ambos discursos aquí).

Los secretos del intérprete al leer la partitura son estos:

• Introduce, sobre todo al principio de las frases, fórmulas coloquiales como «pues bien», «mirad», «escuchad», «amigos».
• Pone énfasis con palabras que improvisa como «realmente», «verdadero», «totalmente»…
• Cierra frases que habían quedado en el aire.
• Improvisa frases sencillas.
• Introduce anáforas, repeticiones que dan ritmo al discurso, como «(los republicanos) quieren… quieren… quieren…»

En El poder político en escena (p. 429) cito un párrafo maravilloso de Clinton, que compara la oratoria con el jazz. Dice el maestro:

«Hay una melodía que tocar, y tienes que tocarla en el tono correcto, pero hay un momento en que tienes que improvisar. Si improvisas totalmente y tocas fuera de tono y te olvidas de qué canción es, tienes un problema. Pero si nunca te separas de la melodía, tampoco serás muy eficaz.»

Aquí está la partitura, y la interpretación: lo que Clinton añadió sobre la marcha, en negrilla y cursiva. Lo que omitió, tachado. Magistral.

 Now, Mr. Mayor, fellow Democrats, We’re here to nominate a president, and I’ve got one in mind.

I want to nominate a man whose own life has known its fair share of adversity and uncertainty.I want to nominate A man who ran for president to change the course of an already weak economy and then just six weeks before the election, saw it suffer t he biggest collapse since the Great Depression. A man who stopped the slide into depression and put us on the long road to recovery, knowing all the while that no matter how many jobs were created and savedhe saved or created, there were still millions more waiting, trying to feed their children andworried about feeding their own kids, trying to keep their hopes alive.

I want to nominate a man cool on the outside but burning who burns for America on the inside. I want A man who believes with no doubt that we can build a new American Dream economy driven by innovation and creativity, but [sic] education and — yes — by cooperation.

And by the way, after last night, I want A man who had the good sense to marry Michelle Obama.

I want Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States and I proudly nominate him as the standard bearer of the Democratic Party.

Now, folks, In Tampa a few days ago, we heard a lot of talk all about how the president and the Democrats don’t really believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everyone to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy.

The Republican narrative — this alternative universe — issays that all of usevery one of us in this room who amounts to anything, arewe’re all completely self-made. One of our greatest Democratic chairmen the greatest chairmen the Democratic Party ever had, Bob Strauss, used to say that every politician wants youevery voter to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself, but, as Strauss then admitted, it ain’t so.

We Democrats, we think the country works better with a strong middle class, with real opportunities for poor people folks to work their way into it andwith a relentless focus on the future, with business and government actually working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We thinkYou see, we believe that «we’re all in this together» is a far better philosophy than «you’re on your own.» It is.

So Who’s right? Well, since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. So What’s the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million.

Now, there’s a reason for this. It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics, Why? because discrimination, poverty poverty, discrimination and ignorance restrict growth, When you stifle human potential, when you don’t invest in new ideas, it doesn’t just cut off the people who are affected; it hurts us all. We know that while investments in education, and infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase it growth, creating more They increase good jobs and they create new wealth for all the rest of us.

Now, there’s something I’ve noticed lately. You probably have too. And it’s this. Maybe just because I grew up in a different time, but Though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our President Obama and thea lot of other Democrats. After all, that would be impossible for me because President Eisenhower sent federal troops to my home state to integrate Little Rock Central High andPresident Eisenhower built the interstate highway system. And as governor When I was a governor, I worked with President Reagan and his White House on the first round of welfare reform and with President George H.W. Bush on national education goals. I am actually grateful to — if you saw from the film what I do today, I have to be grateful, and you should be, too — that President George W. Bush for supported PEPFAR, which is savingIt saved the lives of millions of people in poor countries and toAnd I have been honored to work with both Presidents Bush for the work we’ve done together afteron natural disasters in the aftermath of the South Asia tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian earthquake. horrible earthquake in Haiti.

Through my foundation, both in America and around the world,I‘mworkworking all the time with Democrats, Republicans and Independents, Sometimes I couldn’t tell you for the life who I’m working with because who are focused we focus on solving problems and seizing opportunities, not fighting each other. all the time.

And so here’s what I want to say to you, and here’s what I want the people at home to think about. When times are tough, and people are frustrated and angry and hurting and uncertain, the politics of constant conflict may be good politics but in the real world, cooperation works better. But what is good politics does not necessarily work in the real world. What works in the real world is cooperation. What works in the real world is cooperation, business and government, foundations and universities. Ask the mayors who are here. Los Angeles is getting green and Chicago is getting an infrastructure bank because Republicans and Democrats are working together to get it. They didn’t check their brains at the door. They didn’t stop disagreeing, but their purpose was to get something done. Now, why is this true? Why does cooperation work better than constant conflict? BecauseAfter all, nobody’s right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day. All of us are destined to live our lives between those two extremes. And every one of us — every one of us and every one of them, we’re compelled to spend our fleeting lives between those two extremes, knowing we’re never going to be right all the time and hoping we’re right more than twice a day.

Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn’t see it that way. They think government is always the enemy, they’re always right, and compromise is weakness. Just in the last couple of elections, they defeated two distinguished Republican senators because they dared to cooperate with Democrats on issues important to the future of the country, even national security. They beat a Republican congressman with almost a hundred percent voting record on every conservative score, because he said he realized he did not have to hate the president to disagree with him. Boy, that was a nonstarter, and they threw him out.

One of the main reasons America shouldwe ought to re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to constructive cooperation. Look at his record. Look at his record. Look at his record. He appointed Republican secretaries of defense, the army and transportation. He appointed a vice president who ran against him in 2008, and he trusted himthat vice president to oversee the successful end of the war in Iraq and the implementation of the recovery act. And Joe Biden did a great job with both.

He — President Obama — President Obama appointed several members of his Cabinet members whoeven though they supported Hillary in the primaryies. Heck, he even appointed Hillary. Wait a minute. I am — I am very proud of her. I’m so proud of her and grateful to our entire I am proud of the job she and the national security team have done for America. for all they’ve done I am grateful that they have worked together to make us safer and stronger and to build a world with more partners and fewer enemies. I’m grateful for the relationship of respect and partnership she and the president have enjoyed and the signal that sends to the rest of the world, that democracy does not have a blood — have to be a blood sport, it can be an honorable enterprise that advances the public interest.

Now besides the national security team, I’m alsovery grateful to the young men and women who serve our country in the militarywho’ve served our country in uniform through these perilous times and I am especially grateful to Michelle Obama and JillJoe Biden for supporting those military families when while their loved ones arewere overseas and for helpingsupporting our veterans, when they come home bearing the wounds of war, or needing help with education, housing, and jobs. or jobs or housing.

President Obama’s whole record on national security is a tribute to his strength, andto his judgment, and to his preference for inclusion and partnership over partisanship. We need more if it in Washington, D.C.

Now, we all know that He also tried to work with congressional Republicans on health care, debt reduction, and jobs, butAnd that didn’t work out so well. ProbablyBut it could have been because, as the Senate Republican leader said, in a remarkable moment of candor, said two full years before the election, their No. 1 priority was not to put America back to work, butit was to put the President Obama out of work. Well, wait a minute Senator, I hate to break it to you, but we’re going to keep President Obama on the job.

Now, are you ready for that? Are you willing to work for it. Oh, wait a minute. In Tampa — in Tampa — did y’all watch their convention? I did. In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president’s re-election was actually pretty simple pretty snappy: we left him a total mess, he hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.

Now — (cheers, applause) — but they did it well. They looked good; the sounded good. They convinced me that they all love their families and their children and were grateful they’d been born in America and all that — really, I’m not being — they did. And this is important, they convinced me they were honorable people who believed what they said and they’re going to keep every commitment they’ve made. We just got to make sure the American people know what those commitments are.

Because In order to look like an acceptable, reasonable, moderate alternative to President Obama, they just didn’t couldn’t say very much about the ideas they have offered over the last two years. You seeThey couldn’t because they want to go back to the same old policies that got us into trouble in the first place: They want to cut taxes for high-income Americans even more than President Bush did; They want to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts; They want to actuallyto increase defense spending over a decade $2 trillion more than the Pentagon has requested without saying what they’ll spend the moneyit on; And they want to make enormous cuts in the rest of the budget, especially programs that help the middle class and poor kids children As another president once said- there they go again.

Now I like the argument for President Obama’s re-election a lot better. Here it is. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, He put a floor under the crash, He began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.

Now Are we where we want to be today? No. Is the president satisfied? No Of course not. But Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an And listen to this. Listen to this. Everybody — (inaudible) — when President Barack Obama took office, the economy was in free fall, It had just shrunk 9 full percent of GDP. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month. Are we doing better than that today? The answer is yes.

I understand the challenge we face.Now, look. Here’s the challenge he faces and the challenge all of you who support him face. I get it. I know it. I’ve been there.I know manyA lot of Americans are still angry and frustrated with theabout this economy. ThoughIf you look at the numbers, you know employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend again. And in a lot of places, and even housing prices are picking up a bit even beginning to pick up, too many people don’t feel it.But too many people do not feel it yet.

I experiencedhad the same thing happen in 1994 and early 1995. We could see that the Our policies were working, thatand the economy was growing but most people didn’t feel it yet. Thankfully, By 1996, the economy was roaring, everybody felt it, and we were halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history the history of the United States. But — wait, wait. The difference this time is purely in the circumstances. President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. Listen to me, now. No president- no president, not me or not any of my predecessors, no one could have repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.

Now — but — he has — he has laid the foundation for a new, modern, successful economy of shared prosperity.But conditions are improving and if you’ll renew the President’s contract you will feel it. I believe that with all my heart. Folks, whether the American people believe what I just said or not may be the whole election. I just want you to know that I believe it. With all my heart, I believe it. Now, why do I believe it?

I’m fixing to tell you why. I believe it because President Obama’s approach embodies the values, the ideas, and the direction America musthas to take to build a 21st century version of the American Dream in: a nation of shared opportunities, shared prosperity and shared responsibilities. shared responsibilities, shared prosperity, a shared sense of community.

So let’s get back to the story. In 2010, as the president’s recovery program kicked in, the job losses stopped and things began to turn around.

The Recovery Act saved and created millions of jobs and cut taxes — let me say this again — cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people. And, In the last 29 months theour economy has produced about 4.5 and one-half million private sector jobs. We could have done better, But last year, the Republicans blocked the president’s jobs plan costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here’s another jobs score: President Obama plus 4.5 and one-half million, congressional Republicans zero.

Over that same period, During this period — during this period, more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama- That’s the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s. And I’ll tell you something else. The auto industry restructuring worked. It saved more than a million jobs, and not just at GM, Chrysler and their dealerships, but in auto parts manufacturing all over the country. That’s why even the auto-makers thatwho weren’t part of the deal supported it. They needed to save thethose parts suppliers too. Like I said, we’re all in this together.

So what’s happened? Now there are 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than on the day the companies were restructured. So — now, we all know that Gov. Romney opposed the plan to save GM and Chrysler. So here’s another jobs score: Are you listening in Michigan and Ohio and across the country? Here’s another job score: Obama 250,000, Romney, zero.

Now, The agreement the administration made with management, labor and environmental groups to double car mileage over the next few years is another good deal that was a good deal too: it will cut your gas prices in half, your gas bill in half.No matter what the price is, if you double the mileage of your car, your bill will be half what it would have been. It will make us more energy independent, It will cut greenhouse gas emissions, and add another 500,000 good jobs according to several analyses, over the next 20 years, it’ll bring us another half a million good new jobs into the American economy.

President Obama’s «all of the above» energy plan The president’s energy strategy, which he calls “all of the above,” is helping too- the boom in oil and gas production combined with greater energy efficiency has driven oil imports to a near 20-year low and natural gas production to an all-time high. Renewable energy production has also doubled.

We do need more new jobs, lots of them,Of course, we need a lot more new jobs. but there are already more than three million jobs open and unfilled in America today, mostly because the applicantsthe people who apply for them don’t yet have the required skills to do them. We have to prepare more Americans for the new jobs that are beingactually going to be created in a world fueled by new technology.The old economy is not coming back. We’ve got to build a new one and educate people to do those jobs. That’s why investments in our people are more important than ever.

The president and his education secretary hashave supported community colleges and employers in working together to train people for open jobs that are actually open in their communities. And, even more important after a decade in which exploding college costs have increased the drop-out rate so much that we’ve fallen to the percentage of our young people with four-year college degrees has gone down so much that we have dropped to 16th in the world in the percentage of young people with college degrees. So the president’s student loan is more important than ever. Here’s what it does — (cheers, applause) — here’s what it does. You need to tell every voter where you live about this. It his student loan reform lowers the cost of federal student loans and even more important, it gives students the right to repay thethose loans as a clear, fixed, low percentage of their incomes for up to 20 years.

Now what does this mean? What does this mean? Think of it. It That means no one will ever have to drop-out of college for fear they can’t repay their debt, and no one will have to turn down a job, as a teacher, a police officer or a small town doctor because it doesn’t pay enough to make the debt payments. And it means that if someone wants to take a job with a modest income, a teacher, a police officer, if they want to be a small-town doctor in a little rural area, they won’t have to turn those jobs down because they don’t pay enough to repay they debt. Their debt obligation will be determined by their salary. This will change the future for young Americans.

I don’t know about you, but on all these issues, I know we’re better off because President Obama made these decisions he did.

Now, That brings me to health care.

The Republicans call it derisively Obamacare and They say it’s a government takeover of health care that they’ll repeal a disaster, and that if we’ll just elect them they’ll repeal it. Well, Are they right? Let’s take a look at what’s actually happened so far. First, Individuals and businesses have securedalready gotten more than a billion dollars in refunds from their insurance premiums because the new law requires 80 percent to 85 percent of your premiums to be spent on go to your health care, not profits or promotion.

And the gains are even greater than that because a bunch of Other insurance companies have loweredapplied to lower their rates to meetcomply with the requirement. Second, More than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time because their parents’ policies can cover them can now carry them on family policies. Millions of seniors are receiving preventive care includingall the way from breast cancer screenings and to tests for heart problems and scores of other things. And younger people are getting them, too. Fourth, Soon the insurance companies, not the government, the insurance companies, will have millions of new customers many of them middle class people with pre-existing conditions who never could get insurance before.

Now, finally, listen to this.And For the last two years — after going up at three times the rate of inflation for a decade,for the last two years, health care spending has growncosts have been under 4 percent, in both years for the first time in 50 years.

So let me ask you something. Are we all better off because President Obama fought for health care reform it and passed it? You bet we are.

Now, There were two other attacks on the president in Tampa thatI think deserve an answer. First, Both Gov. Romney and congressman Ryan attacked the president for allegedly robbing Medicare of $716 billion. That’s the same attack they leveled against the Congress in 2010, and they got a lot of votes on it. But it’s not true. Look, here’s what really happened. You be the judge. Here’s what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits at all. None. What the president did was to save money by taking the recommendations of a commission of professionals to cut cutting unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that weren’t making people any healthier and were not necessary to get the providers to provide the service.. And instead of raiding Medicare He used the savings to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program, and — you all got to listen carefully to this; this is really important —and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare Trust Fund so it is solvent till 2024.It’s now solvent until 2024. So President Obama and the Democrats didn’t weaken Medicare, they strengthened it Medicare.

Now, When congressman Ryan looked into the that TV camera and attacked President Obama’s Medicare savings as, quote «the biggest coldest power play» in raiding Medicare, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. You see, because that $716 billion is exactly to the dollar the same amount of Medicare savings congressman Ryan hadhe has in his own budget. You got to get one thing — it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did. So … now, you’re having a good time, but this is getting serious, and I want you to listen. It’s important, because a lot of people believe this stuff.

Now, At least on this issue, on this one issue, Gov. Romney’s been consistent. He attacked President Obama too, but he actually wants to repeal the those savings and give the money back to the insurance companies, He wants to go back to the old system, which means we’ll re-open the donut hole and force seniors to pay more for drugs, and we’ll reduce the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by eight full years. So now if he’s elected and does what he promised to do Medicare will now gogrow [sic] broke by 2016. Think about that. If that happens, youThat means, after all, we won’t have to wait until their voucher program to begins kicks in in 2023 to see the end Medicare as we know it. They’re going to do it to us sooner than we thought.

Now, folks, this is serious,Butbecause it gets worse. And you won’t be laughing when I finish telling you this. They also want to block grant Medicaid and cut it by a third over the coming decade 10 years. Of course, that will hurtthat’s going to really hurt a lot of poor kids, but that’s not all. Lot of folks don’t know it, but nearly Almost two-thirds of Medicaid is spent on nursing home care for Medicare seniors who are eligible for Medicaid.

It’s going to end Medicare as we know it. And a lot of that money is also spent to help and on people with disabilities, including kids from middle class families, with special needs like, Down syndrome or autism a lot of middle-class families whose kids have Down’s syndrome or autism or other severe conditions. I don’t know how those families are going to deal with it. And honestly, let’s think about it, if that happens, I don’t know what those families are going to do. So I know what I’m going to do. I’m going to do everything I can to see that it doesn’t happen. We can’t let it happen. We can’t.

Now — wait a minute — let’s look at the Republican chargeother big charge the Republicans made. It’s a real doozy. They actually have charged and run ads saying that President Obama wants to weaken the work requirements in the welfare reform bill I signed that moved millions of people from welfare to work. Wait, you need to know, here’s what happened. Nobody ever tells you what really happened — Here’s what happened.

When some Republican governors asked if they could have waivers to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama administration listened because we all know it’s hard for even people with good work histories to get jobs today. So moving folks from welfare to work is a real challenge. And the administration agreed to give waivers to those governors and others only said they would only do it if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent and they could keep the waivers only if they did increase employment.You hear that? More work. Now, did I make myself clear? The requirement was for more work, not less. So this is personal to me. We moved millions of people off welfare. It was one of the reasons that in the eight years I was president, we had a hundred times as many people move out of poverty into the middle class than happened under the previous 12 years, a hundred times as many. It’s a big deal. So But I am telling you the claim that President Obama weakened welfare reform’s work requirement is just not true.

But they keep on running the ads claiming it running ads on it. You want to know why? As their campaign pollster said «we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.» Now finally I can say, that is true. I couldn’t have said it better myself- I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad. And I hope you and every American within the sound of my voice remembers it every time they see one of those ads and it turns into an ad to re-elect Barack Obama and keep the fundamental principles of personal empowerment and moving everybody who can get a job into work as soon as we can.

Now, Let’s talk about the debt. Today, interest rates are low, lower than the rate of inflation. People are practically paying us to borrow money, to hold their money for them. But it will become a big problem when the economy grows and interest rates start to rise. We have to deal with it We’ve got to deal with this big long- term debt problem or it will deal with us. It will gobble up a bigger and bigger percentage of the federal budget we’d rather spend on education and health care and science and technology. It — we’ve got to deal with it. Now, what has the president done? President ObamaHe has offered a reasonable plan with $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade, with $2 of spending reductions for every $1 of revenue increases, with 2 1/2 trillion (dollars) coming from — for every $2 1/2 trillion in spending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues — 2 1/2-to-1 and tight controls on future spending. It’s That’s the kind of balanced approach proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, a bipartisan commission.

Now, I think the president’sthis plan is better than theGovernor Romney‘s plan, because First, the Romney plan failsed the first test of fiscal responsibility: The numbers just don’t add up.

It’s supposed to be a debt reduction plan but it begins with $5 trillion in tax cuts over a 10-year period.I mean, consider this. What would you do if you had this problem? Somebody says, oh, we’ve got a big debt problem. We’ve got to reduce the debt. So what’s the first thing you say we’re going to do? Well, to reduce the debt, we’re going to have another $5 trillion in tax cuts heavily weighted to upper-income people.That makes the debt hole bigger before they even start to dig out.So we’ll make the debt hole bigger before we start to get out of it.

Now, when you say, what are you going to do about this $5 trillion you just added on? They say they’ll oh, we’ll make it up by eliminating loopholes in the tax code. WhenSo then you ask «well, which loopholes and how much?» You know what they say? «See me about that after the election on that.» I’m not making it up. That’s their position. See me about that after the election.

Now, People ask me all the time how we delivered got four surplus budgets in a row. What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: arithmetic. If — arithmetic! If they stay with a $5 trillion tax cut plan — in a debt reduction plan? — the arithmetic tells us no matter what they say that one of three things willis about to happen:

1) assuming they try to do what they say they’ll do, get rid of — pay — cover it by deductions, cutting those deductions, one, they’ll have to eliminate so many deductions like the ones for home mortgages and charitable giving that middle class families will see their tax bill go up an average of $2,000 year while people making over anybody who makes $3 million or morea year get will still get a 250,000 dollar tax cut see their tax bill go down $250,000; or

2) they’ll have to cut so much spending that they’ll obliterate the budget for our the national parks, for ensuring clean air, clean water, safe food, safe air travel; or they’ll cut way back on Pell Grants, college loans, early childhood education, child nutrition programs, all the and other programs that help to empower middle class families and poor children help poor kids,not to mention cutting Oh, they’ll cut back on investments in roads and bridges and science and technology and biomedical research. That’s what they’ll do. They’ll hurt the middle class and the poor and put the future on hold to give tax cuts to upper-income people who’ve been getting it all along.

Or 3) in spite of all the rhetoric, they’ll just do what they’ve been doing for more than thirty plus years now- They’ll go in and cut taxes way more than they cut spending, especially with that big defense increase, and they’ll just explode the debt and weaken the economy. And they’ll destroy the federal government’s ability to help you by letting interest gobble up all your tax payments. Remember, Don’t you ever forget when you hear them talking about this that Republican economic policies quadrupled the national debt before I took office, in the 12 years before I took office, and doubled it after I leftthe debt in the eight years after I left, because it defied arithmetic. It was a highly inconvenient thing for them in our debates that I was just a country boy from Arkansas, and I came from a place where people still thought two and two was four. It’s arithmetic. We simply can’t afford to give the reins of government to someone who will double-down on trickle-down.

Really. Think about this: President Obama’s plan cuts the debt, honors our values, and brightens the future for of our children, our families and our nation. It’s a heck of a lot better. It passes the arithmetic test, and far more important, it passes the values test.

My fellow Americans, all of us in this grand hall and everybody watching at home, when we vote in this election, you have to decidewe’ll be deciding what kind of country youwe want to live in. If you want a you’re on your own, winner take allwinner-take- all, you’re-on-your-own society you should support the Republican ticket. But If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities- a «we’re all in it this together» society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

If you want every American to vote and you think it’s wrong to change voting procedures just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama. And If you think the president was right to open the doors of American opportunity to all those young immigrants brought here as childrenwhen they were young so they can serve in the military or go to college who want to go to college or serve in the military, you shouldmust vote for Barack Obama. If you want a future of shared prosperity, where the middle class is growing and poverty is declining, where the American Dream is really alive and well again, and where the United States remains the leadingmaintains its leadership as a force for peace and prosperity in this a highly competitive world, you shouldhave to vote for Barack Obama.

Look, I love our country so much.– and I know we’re coming back. For more than 200 years, through every crisis, we’ve always come back we’ve always come out stronger than we went in. People have predicted our demise ever since George Washington was criticized for being a mediocre surveyor with a bad set of wooden false teeth. And so far, every single person that’s bet against America has lost money because we always come back. We come through every fire a little stronger and a little better. And we will again as long as we do it together. WeAnd we do it because in the end we decide to champion the cause for which our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor- to form the cause of forming a more perfect union.

If that’s what you believe, if that’s what you want, we have to re-elect President Barack Obama. My fellow Americans, if that is what you want, if that is what you believe, you must vote and you must re-elect President Barack Obama.

God bless you – God bless America.

Se trata del discurso sin duda más citado de la Historia contemporánea. Te dejo aquí un extracto de El poder político en escena, en el que hablo del contexto en el que el discurso se produjo:

Como todo lo demás, o aún más, la marcha fue minuciosamente preparada. El objetivo era lograr concentrar a 100.000 personas, muy por encima de las más masivas manifestaciones estadounidenses hasta la fecha: los 35.000 miembros del KKK reunidos en 1925, las 8.000 sufragistas de 1913 o los 20.000 veteranos de la Primera Guerra Mundial dispersados violentamente en 1932.

Los seis grandes líderes del movimiento afroamericano unieron sus fuerzas, montaron una sede en el Harlem de Nueva York, y encargaron a un activista curtido en la organización de protestas y varias veces detenido, Bayard Rustin, que montara el evento en unas pocas semanas. En una reunión con los organizadores dos meses antes de la marcha, Kennedy trató de disuadirlos.

Aunque no tenían ni fecha, ni presupuesto, ni programa, ni personal, los líderes negros se mostraron decididos a seguir adelante. Al terminar, Kennedy dijo a sus asesores: «Bien, si no podemos pararlos, controlaremos el maldito asunto». Y así fue en cierto modo: se exigió que fuera un día laborable para ponérselo más difícil a los asistentes, y también que los asistentes llegaran y se marcharan en el día.

En la mañana del miércoles 28 de agosto, más de 2.000 autobuses, 21 trenes especiales, 10 vuelos chárter y una caravana inmensa de coches se movilizan para que la mayor manifestación hasta la fecha tenga lugar a pocos metros de la Casa Blanca.  Desde la muerte de Roosevelt, en Washington ningún suceso tuvo más interés para los medios. La mayor parte de los 1.200 periodistas acreditados en Washington cubrieron la marcha, y se expidieron otros 1.600 pases especiales. No hubo incidentes a pesar del miedo que reinaba en la ciudad en las horas previas. La televisión, que solo tenía una década de desarrollo, pero ya era un aparato familiar en los hogares occidentales, había reflejado hasta entonces las algaradas y las imágenes conflictivas de policías deteniendo a ciudadanos, de negros corriendo, de sentadas y enfrentamientos… Pero esto era otra cosa: allí estaban, a la vista de todo un país mirando a la pantalla, Marlon Brando y James Baldwin, con otros muchos. Allí cantaban  pacíficamente Bob Dylan y Joan Baez acompañando a cantantes negros de gospel.

Para los estándares de 1963, la cobertura de televisión fue contundente: los tres canales nacionales, NBC, CBS y ABC, plantaron 23 cámaras en la explanada y acordaron un sistema de pool con otras 26 situadas en otros lugares. Durante todo el día dieron cobertura especial a lo que sucedía, que podría haber sido una mera fiesta y poco más, si no hubiera sido por las palabras que cerraron las intervenciones del día.

King ofreció el discurso más conocido de la historia reciente, pero sus palabras más memorables no estaban previstas. Cuando King ya terminaba de leer sus siete minutos preparados en papel, el propio orador y quienes le acompañaban notaron que faltaba algo, una suerte de cierre fuerte. Detrás de él, la cantanteMahalia Jackson, le susurró al pastor: «Háblales del sueño, Martin». Y entonces la palabra de King se convirtió en metáfora y en historia. «Y por eso, aunque afrontamos las dificultades de hoy y mañana, yo todavía tengo un sueño… Tengo un sueño: que mis cuatro pequeños hijos algún día vivan en una nación en la que no se los juzgará por el color de su piel, sino por los rasgos de su personalidad… Tengo un sueño…».

King había narrado muchas veces su sueño en homilías, conferencias y manifestaciones. Pero era necesaria una escena solemne como aquella del verano de 1963. Hasta ese día memorable en la historia de los derechos civiles en Estados Unidos, la gente común había pasado por delante del sueño de King sin reparar demasiado en el sonido de su música, como si un virtuoso violinista interpretara piezas a la entrada del metro. Pero un cuidadoso, valiente y largo empeño en llamar la atención de la opinión pública había solidificado aquella mañana, gracias en gran parte a la fuerza de ese nuevo aparato mágico en las casas de los estadounidenses. Como dijo un testigo, «hasta entonces el problema de los negros había sido la comunicación y la dramatización de su causa. No hacia los integracionistas, no hacia quienes tenían implacables prejuicios, sino hacia los millones de blancos indiferentes para los que la integración o la segregación eran de escaso interés personal. El sociólogo de mañana observará que fue la televisión más que cualquier otra cosa la que finalmente penetró en el inmenso mundo de los no comprometidos.»

El acontecimiento, sin embargo, resultó decepcionante para quienes esperaban un cambio repentino en la opinión pública. John Lewis, el más exigente de los organizadores de la marcha, que tuvo que rebajar la virulencia en su borrador de discurso aquel día a petición de los organizadores y de la propia Casa Blanca, se lamentaba del desajuste entre el esfuerzo invertido y el impacto de la manifestación:

«En los días que siguieron, demasiada prensa nacional, en mi opinión, se concentró no en la sustancia del día, sino en la escena. Sus historias retrataron el evento como un gran picnic, una guardería combinada con el espíritu de una reunión renovadora de oración. Demasiados comentaristas y periodistas suavizaron y trivializaron los duros bordes de dolor y sufrimiento que provocaron este día en primer lugar, ignorando los duros asuntos que debían resolverse, los temas que habían despertado tantos problemas en mi propio discurso. Fue revelador que las citas que lograron de los líderes del Congreso en el Capitolio no fueran sobre las posiciones de los legisladores sobre los derechos civiles, sino que, en su lugar, se concentraron en alabar la «conducta» y la «pacífica actitud» de los manifestantes en la masa.»

(Traducción literal de un artículo aparecido el pasado 19 de julio en The Washington Post):

Cinco mitos sobre anuncios de campaña

Por Ted Brader, 19 de julio

1. Los anuncios negativos son más eficaces que los positivos.

Etiquetar los anuncios simplemente como «positivos» o negativos oculta la considerable diversidad que hay en cada una de esas categorías. Una revisión de más de cien estudios científicos no encontró diferencias concluyentes entre los anuncios positivos o negativos, definidos así de forma general, en su capacidad para ganar votos o afectar al resultado.

Sin embargo, sí hay efectos distintivos de algunos tipos específicos de publicidad negativa o positiva. Los spots que generan emociones positivas como la esperanza, el orgullo y el entusiasmo estimulan la participación y el interés de los votantes en una elección. También polarizan al electorado activando el partidismo de los seguidores y los oponentes que ven los anuncios. En 1984, los anuncios «Amanece en América / Morning in America” del presidente Reagan presentaban música evocadora e imágenes brillantes de trabajadores felices, banderas americanas y bodas. Fijaron el estándar de la publicidad que te hace sentir bien, que los candidatos de ambos partidos han utilizado desde entonces.

Los anuncios que suscitan temor son mejores en la persuasión de los votantes porque alivian la presión del partidismo. Meten miedo a los votantes con información nueva sobre los candidatos y los temas, haciéndoles cambiar de opinión. El  anuncio de Lyndon B. Johnson de 1964, “Daisy”, por ejemplo, evocó dramáticamente el espectro de un conflicto nuclear en plena Guerra Fría. Anuncios más recientes han usado imágenes oscuras y voces ominosas para suscitar miedo sobre el crimen, la inmigración, el terrorismo, la salud pública o el empleo.

El enfado, por el contrario, no suele cambiar las opiniones; más bien moviliza a los votantes para que voten por sus convicciones. Los anuncios electorales generan enfado sugiriendo que se ha hecho daño a la gente injustamente y culpando de ello al adversario, como un spot reciente de Romney, (“¿Dónde se ha ido todo el dinero?» / Where Did All the Money Go?”) que trata de incitar enfado sobre el presidente Obama diciendo que se ha malgastado dinero destinado al estímulo económico.

Los anuncios políticos son demasiado polifactéticos como para etiquetarlos como negativos o positivos y concluir que un tipo es superior al otro.

2. Los anuncios de campaña no informan.

Como mínimo, los anuncios incrementan el conocimiento de los candidatos, lo que ayuda a superar la ventaja de quien gobierna. Pero también  enseñan a los votantes mucho con respecto a la posición de los candidatos.

Puesto que alcanzan a gente que probablmente no buscaría información en las noticias o sobre los candidatos, los anuncios pueden reducir la distancia entre los desinformados y los politizados. En los últimos 40 años, mientras los políticos han estado generando anuncios en televisión y radio sobre sus posiciones políticas, los medios informativos convencionales han dedicado cada vez menos tiempo a las diferencias políticas sustanciales, concentrándose por el contrario en la estrategia y los resultados de encuesta.

Los anuncios de campaña son breves, sesgados y ocasionalmente falaces. Sin embargo, proveen un amplio acceso a información que muchos votantes no tendrían de otra manera.

3. Los votantes menos informados son más fácilmente persuadidos por los anuncios.

Pero, ¿no son esos votantes desinformados más susceptibles a las tácticas emocionales y manipulativas que utilizan los consultores? No tanto.

Respondemos emocionalmente a las cosas que nos importan. La publicidad política arranca las mayores reacciones en aquellos a los que les importa la política y saben más de ella. En 2006, un anuncio de los republicanos mostraba a Osama bin Laden amenazando a los americanos sobre sonidos del tic tac de un reloj y del latido del corazón. Los votantes informados tienden a responder emocional y políticamente a este tipo de anuncios, en parte porque ya tienen el tipo de convicción partidaria que se trata de evitar con anuncios de miedo (o de activar con anuncios placenteros).

El calendario del anuncio importa tanto como su contenido. Los spots que critican a un oponente tienden a funcionar de forma diferente al inicio o al final de una campaña. Antes de que la gente se haya hecho idea de un candidato, los ataques les ayudan a hacerlo. Pero esos mismos anuncios pueden reducir la participación cuando son vistos más tarde, por votantes que ya han decidido a qué candidato apoyan.

4. Un candidato debería responder a un spot de ataque con un contrataque sobre el mismo asunto.

En algunos casos, una respuesta así tiene sentido; en otros, es justo lo que no hay que hacer.

Si una acusación pega de lleno en la fortaleza de un candidato – por ejemplo, el anuncio del «abandono de la lancha» («Swift boat») sobre la actuación militar de Kerry en Vietnam – entonces es necesaria una respuesta contundente, preferiblemente con pruebas.

A menudo, sin embargo, estos contrataques sacan a los candidatos de su mensaje. La investigación sugiere que es mejor gastar el dinero de publicidad destacando los puntos fuertes de un candidato – como aquellos en los que la candidata ha gestado una buena reputación o aquellos en los que la gente prefiere su posición – que no entrar en los asuntos del adversario.

Romney, por ejemplo, debería probablemente no dedicar muchos anuncios a la lucha contra el terrorismo, un asunto en el que Obama da relativamente bien en las encuestas, o al medio ambiente, un asunto en el que los demócratas tienen una mejor reputación.

Igualmente, emitir anuncios que niegan que eres una bruja, como hizo Christine O’Donnell en su fracasada campaña al Senado en 2010, alimenta un tema de campaña que es improbable que mejore tus opciones en día del sufragio.

5. Los medios neutralizan los anuncios falaces por medio de sus comprobaciones.

Puede que esas noticias sobre los spots sean bienintencionadas, pero no hay pruebas claras de que eviten el efecto de las afirmaciones falaces o las tácticas de manipulación. La causa está en parte en el volumen: los anuncios se repiten y llegan a mucha gente que no ve, escucha o lee las noticias.

Pero la psicología del votante también juega un papel. Mientras algunas noticias pueden debilitar la eficacia de un anuncio, muchas informaciones terminan extendiendo el ámbito de las afirmaciones falaces que están intentando desmontar: y la gente escucha la explicación y la recuerda mejor que la corrección.

En 1992, CNN ofreció un segmento de «visionado de anuncios» señalando que los ataques de Bill Clinton hacia el presidente Bush sobre su gestión económica eran equívocos y que los ataques de Bush hacia Clinton sobre la subida de impuestos cuando era gobernador eran hipócritas. En ambos casos, el resultado fue que los espectadores se llevaban una mejor impresión del candidato cuyo anuncio se estaba criticando.

Esta tendencia se refuerza por las fuertes convicciones partidistas de la audiencia. La investigación  demuestra que los partidarios tienden a mantener sus la información en la que creen aunque sea incorrecta, incluso cuando ha sido enmendada, cuando esa información mejora la visión de su partido o empeora la del otro.

tbrader@umich.edu

Ted Brader, el autor de  Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work es profesor de ciencia política en la Universidad de Michigan.

Mitt Romney, el candidato republicano a la presidencia de Estados Unidos en las elecciones de noviembre, tiene un caballo que se llama Rafalca. Es un precioso ejemplar marrón (el de la foto), que competirá en los Juegos Olímpicos de Londres en Doma Clásica. MoveOn, la plataforma progresista amiga de Obama y los demócratas, ha encontrado un filón en Rafalca para componer una historia que se está extendiendo como el fuego por Estados Unidos.

Aparte de lo snob y elistista que resulta la identificación del «empresario» multimillonario Romney con un deporte tan exquisito (como ya sucediera con Kerry y el wind surf en 2004), resulta que las condiciones de vida de Rafalca son excepcionales, como seguramente es propio de un animal olímpico. MoveOn no ha dejado pasar la oportunidad y ha enviado a sus activistas y amigos un «plan secreto para la televisión de las Olimpiadas» que no tiene nada se secreto. El mensaje que envía – y su plan – no tiene desperdicio. Lo traduzco aquí:

Querido miembro de Move On:

Cuando las Olimpiadas se inauguren el viernes, el caballo bailarín de Romney, Rafalca, estará ahí para competir. El caballo vive una vida bastante cómoda en un campo de 5.000 acres, con un avión y mejores cuidados de salud que la familia americana media, incluyendo quiromasajistas y masajistas. (El mensaje original, aquí abajo, incluye referencias a las fuentes).

La ironía salta a la vista: Romney mima a ese precioso caballo, pero no puede evitar rechazar cuidados de salud para 30 millones de americanos.

Por eso nuestro equipo creativo ha hecho un anuncio hilarante sobre Rafalca, del tipo de esos que logran cobertura adicional en los medios porque los periodistas hablan y hablan de ellos. Si logramos 250.000 dólares, podremos emitir el anuncio durante las Olimpiadas, ¡justo cuando Rafalca esté compitiendo!  Pero tenemos que hacerlo para mañana si queremos lograr esos momentos publicitarios clave.

Tenemos que pensar a lo grande, porque Romney de hecho va por delante en la última encuesta de Gallup y CBS. La mayoría de la gente no ha prestado mucha atención a la campaña. Sin embargo, sí le pondrá atención a los Juegos Olímpicos, por lo que ésta es una oportunidad perfecta para definir a Romney como el candidato del 1 por ciento más privilegiado. ¿Puedes ayudarnos a emitir este peculiar anuncio durante los momentos clave de las Olimpiadas, antes de que perdamos la oportunidad?

Sí, puedo donar 5 dólares. 

Durante meses, las noticias sobre la campaña presidencial han dominado las portadas, especialmente las historias recientes sobre las inversiones misteriosas de Romney en paraísos fiscales y su testaruda negativa a mostrar información fiscal básica.

Pero incluso después de tal cobertura, Romney todavía gana en las encuestas, y la última de USA Today revela algunos errores en el juicio que la gente hace sobre él. Casi dos tercios de los americanos creen que su trayectoria de negocios le ayudaría a tomar buenas decisiones sobre economía.

De hecho, Bain Capital, la empresa de Romney, fue pionera en remplazar a los trabajadores americanos con mano de obra barata de otros países. Y las decisiones de Romney le dieron beneficios incluso mientras las fábricas cerraban y los trabajadores eran despedidos. Por eso es por lo que nuestro nuevo anuncio de televisión le pega duro a Romney en su historia de externalización.

Tenemos que sacar ahí fuera la verdad: Romney sería un desastre para la clase media. Y el tiempo se acaba para hacerlo. Nuestro anuncio olímpico de televisión es una oportunidad increíble para alcanzar una audiencia inmensa con un mensaje poderoso. ¿Puedes ayudar?

Haz click aquí para contribuir con 5 dólares.

Mandemos un mensaje a Mitt: deja de hacer cabriolas con el futuro de América.

Gracias a todos los que lo hagáis.

–Justin, Lenore, Mark, Carrie, y el resto del equipo

————————————————————————————

Dear MoveOn member,

When the Olympics open on Friday, the Romneys’ dancing horse, Rafalca, will be there to compete. The horse lives quite a cushy life on a 5,000-acre estate, with a chartered jet,¹Â and better healthcare than the average American family—including chiropractors and massages.²

The irony jumps out at you: Romney pampers that precious horse, but he can’t wait to repeal affordable healthcare for 30 million Americans.

So our creative team made a hilarious TV ad about Rafalca—the kind that gets huge amounts of additional media coverage because reporters keep talking about it. If we raise $250,000, we can try to run that ad during the Olympics, just when Rafalca is competing! But we have to make our move by tomorrow if we want to get these key ad spots.

We’ve got to go big now, because Romney is actually ahead in the latest Gallup and CBS News polls.³Â Most people haven’t been paying much attention to the campaign. They will pay attention to the Olympics, though, so this is a perfect opportunity to define Romney as the candidate of the wealthiest 1%. Can you help us run this awesome ad during key moments of the Olympics, before we miss our chance?

Yes, I can chip in $5.

For months, news about the presidential campaign has dominated the headlines, especially recent stories about Romney’s mysterious offshore investments and his stubborn refusal to release basic tax information.

But even after all of that reporting, Romney is still gaining in the polls, and the latest USA Today poll reveals some disturbing misconceptions about him. Nearly two-thirds said that his business background would help him make good decisions on the economy.⁴

In fact, Romney’s Bain Capital was a pioneer in replacing American workers with low-wage labor in foreign countries.⁵ And Romney’s deals often made him profits even as factories were closed and workers were fired.⁶ That’s why our new TV ad hits Romney hard on his outsourcing history.

We’ve got to get out the truth: Romney would be a disaster for the middle class. And time is running out to do that. Our Olympic TV ad is an incredible opportunity to reach a huge audience with that powerful message. Can you help?

Click here to contribute $5.

Let’s send a message to Mitt: Quit horsing around with America’s future.

Thanks for all you do.

–Justin, Lenore, Mark, Carrie, and the rest of the team

P.S. Of course, as very patriotic sports fans, we’ll be proudly cheering on all of America’s Olympic representatives, including the dressage horses and their riders—you can join in with us using #London2012 on Twitter. Go USA! And giddyup, Rafalca!

 

P.P.S. MoveOn gives average citizens the ability to influence the political system in a meaningful way. This is a great example. Your donation can actually help change the campaign conversation and set the agenda. Donate now.

 

Sources:

1. «Ann Romney’s Horse Aims for Olympic Glory,» Businessweek, July 12, 2012. 
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=277958&id=47241-18962557-Qs6vAdx&t=5

2. «Raising Romney’s Horse vs. An American Family: Which Costs More?» Current, June 20, 2012.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=277959&id=47241-18962557-Qs6vAdx&t=6

3. «General Election: Romney vs. Obama,» Real Clear Politics, July 26, 2012.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=277999&id=47241-18962557-Qs6vAdx&t=7

4. «Poll: Romney Preferred Over Obama to Handle the Economy,» USA Today, July 23, 2012. 
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=277950&id=47241-18962557-Qs6vAdx&t=8

5. «Romney’s Bain Capital Invested in Companies That Moved Jobs Overseas,» Washington Post, June 21, 2012.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=277659&id=47241-18962557-Qs6vAdx&t=9

6. «After a Romney Deal, Profits and Then Layoffs,» New York Times, November 12, 2011.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=277969&id=47241-18962557-Qs6vAdx&t=10

 

Want to support our work? We’re entirely funded by our 7 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.