Vienna, Austria is largely credited with creating the coffee house culture. Its venerable institution of a coffee shop, Café Central, was meeting place, workshop, living room for writers and political firebrands of all kinds. Revolutionist Leon Trotsky was just one famous patron. At the coffee house, you could be sure to connect with the most passionate and literate people around.

While that culture persists in Vienna and many European cities, critics argue that Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX), McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) and Dunkin Donuts have devalued coffee's key role in literary and political engagement. I argued last month that this was one of the key failings of Starbucks over the past several years and that the company should endeavor to reclaim the coffeehouse feel. And small steps indicate the chain is trying. Publication of the GOOD sheet and offering free coffee for those who vote seem designed to target the engaged. [Aside: Starbucks changed its qualifications to "anyone who asks" to keep on the right side of election law, which generally bars inducing someone to vote -- or convincing them not to vote -- by giving them anything of value.]

By aligning itself with an ad campaign that encourages voting and prompting its customers to delve deeply into a potentially political issue with its GOOD sheet, Starbucks is clearly attempting to rebrand itself from the accessory of the clueless pregnant celebrity (remember Britney Spears and Jennifer Garner while pregnant, always with a Starbucks cup in hand?) to the brain fuel of the cerebral community organizer. As bold and cutesy stuffed animals and children's insulated mugs are replaced on the counter space with an explanation of the economy or a description of U.S. immigration statistics, it's clear the company is working toward coffee house and away from its industry category ("quick service restaurant").

Recent management comments in last week's New York Times point to more ways Starbucks is working to appeal to the engaged, intellectual consumer.

Most major polls have U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, leading U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, in the contest for U.S. president. And, if the election were held today, instead of on Tuesday, November 4, Election Day, Obama would register a decisive victory in the all-important electoral college, as well as in the popular vote.

As of late Friday, NPR.org's survey of polls had the electoral vote at Obama, 291, McCain 163. Four battleground states are still in play: Ohio, where Obama lead by 5%; Florida, Obama by 3.5%; Indiana, McCain by 1.7%; and Missouri, McCain by about 0.5%. Concerning the national vote, on Friday, Gallup.com's daily tracking poll had Obama leading McCain, 52% to 41%.

Still, as most political aides will tell you, "the only poll that really counts is the one on Election Day, Tuesday, November 4." In other words, polls can err; that's why they have a margin of error, typically +/- 2%.

Polls only recently have become more accurate. Some notable poll mistakes include the 1980 U.S. presidential election, when some polls had incumbent President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat slightly ahead of the challenger, then Gov. Ronald Reagan, a Republican. Reagan, of course won the 1980 election in a landslide.

Pres. Truman had the last laugh on pollers

But the biggest polling error in a presidential election has to be the 1948 election between President Harry S. Truman, a Democrat, and challenger Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, a Republican.

The polls predicted that Dewey would win by a large margin. They were wrong: Truman won a decisive victory, 303-189, in the electoral college.

Have you decided who to vote for in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election?

If you're like most Americans, you have. By this date, two weeks or so before the election, at least 90% and in some elections 95% of you know who you're going to vote for, political science research tells us.

Historically, at this stage of the campaign, the only people who have not determined which candidate they'll vote for are those adults who tend to not vote regularly: they'll often even pass up voting in a presidential election.

2008 campaign: most negative ever?

One benefit, if you've decided who to vote for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, or U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, is that you don't have to watch any more campaign coverage or campaign ads (if you can avoid them).

True, it must seem like this presidential campaign has been the most negative ever, but if the truth be told, it's no more negative than the one in 2004, or in 1960, and certainly not more negative than the one in 1928. In 1928, the insults and smear tactics used against Democratic Party nominee N.Y. Governor Al Smith, would set the standard for gross and outrageous campaign tactics.

The nation's two candidates for U.S. president met Friday in Mississippi in their first debate, with both candidates scoring points, but with neither candidate registering a decisive "knock out blow."

The debate played out pretty much along scripted lines -- something campaign operatives were no-doubt delighted to see. In modern, televised debates, the goal is not so much to win as to avoid losing; a serious gaff can set a campaign back, whereas a victory, even a decided one, rarely moves a candidate up in the polls more than a percentage point or two.

Republican Party nominee U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, effectively demonstrated his experience in and knowledge of foreign policy, underscoring the need to win the war in Iraq. McCain believes the United States now has taken the upper hand in Iraq -- if he doesn't believe the nation is winning the war outright -- and does not see defeat as an option.

Democratic Party nominee U.S. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, effectively demonstrated that electing him president would represent a decided break from the policies of the Bush Administration, and he underscored the need for the United States to rebuild both its economy at home and standing/reputation with its allies abroad and throughout the world.

Perhaps the most compelling dimension of the debate was the fact that despite discussing the financial crisis currently gripping the nation, neither candidate said he would make any adjustments to his platform/agenda in light of the decidedly more-challenging fiscal environment. Sen. McCain did not say he would forgo his goal to cut income and business taxes. Sen. Obama did not say he would curtail goals to increase spending on education, infrastructure, and basic research/technology.

Political science teaches us that, historically, the first U.S. Presidential debate is the most important debate during the presidential campaign, mainly because it's the most-watched debate of the three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate.

That would have been the case this year, as well, given the closeness of the race, and the increase in political interest/participation by American citizens in several segments of the electorate this election cycle.

Financial crisis alters debate backdrop

However, the debates have been displaced in importance by the crisis facing the financial system and the U.S. Congress' and President's efforts to reach an agreement on a plan that will end the crisis and shore-up severely-stressed credit, bond, stock, and currency markets.

The upcoming debate now looks like a side-show, a momentary diversion, before the nation returns to the work of trying to avoid a re-emergence of the barter system in two thousand and eight, Anno Domini.

The U.S. Treasury's $700 billion bailout bill is winding its way through the Congress.

To say the situation is dynamic and fluid would be the understatement of the year. The Congress, led by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is likely to propose and obtain substantial changes in the legislation, changes it believes will better protect the U.S. taxpayer and more efficiently deploy the. funds allocated.

The American people, if public opinion polls are an accurate gauge, are skeptical of the plan at best, and at worst view it as rewarding large financial institutions and other companies whose flawed practices both perpetuated and magnified the crisis.

In addition, with an election up ahead in about a month, Congress (particularly the 435 representatives and 35 senators up for re-election) will be especially sensitive to public opinion, with many not wanting to go against it for fear of being voted out of office.

Is the bailout bill a solution?

With the above as a backdrop, BloggingStocks Wednesday asked three economists, David H. Wang, Richard Felson, and Peter Dawson, for their policy recommendation.

Historically, the vote for U.S. president hinges on three factors: a voter's party identification, the voter's attitude toward the candidate, and 'a most important issue.' (See: Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes, The American Voter.)

Some voters cite two or three most important issues, but most have only one. One such issue that has repeatedly shown up in survey research dating back to 1952 as a factor affecting vote is the U.S. economy.

In general the rule is that if the U.S. economy is doing well, the party in power -- the party occupying the White House -- is re-elected.

If the economy is doing poorly, the party in power is voted out of office. In other words, if the economy isn't doing well, the American people "throw the rascals out," as my Ph.D. advisor, Professor Sarah Morehouse, UConn professor emeritus of political science, used to say.

The U.S. President as manager of the economy

It matters not if the president caused the damage. On many occasions the president rarely is entirely at fault, but it doesn't matter -- the president is still held accountable for the economy's performance. If the economy's strong, the president gets the credit; if the economy's in poor condition -- the blame.

Although it may seem like it's been going on for a long time, the sprint called the U.S. presidential campaign has just started.

Maybe you just wish the race was over by now?

True, given the near-continual political coverage of the primaries and general election campaign on 24-hour, cable broadcast news networks MSNBC (NYSE: GE), CNN (NYSE: TWX), and Fox News (NYSE: NWS), it probably seems like the campaigns have been going on since the dawn of recorded history.

But, really, the political calculus becomes substantive after Labor Day, primarily because the polls are more telling. The summer polls are less-predictive/less-reliable because, in a nutshell, Americans have vacations and summer leisure activities on their minds.

The Gallup Poll

U.S. Senator John McCain, R-Arizona, has pushed ahead of U.S. Senator Barack Obama, D-Illinois, 49%-44%, in the Gallup tracking poll, as of interviews conducted through September 8. There are several, accurate polls one can monitor, but the recommendation here is to follow Gallup, given the organization's strong performance record in survey research.

Look for McCain's percentage to fall and Obama's percentage to rise as the 'bounce' that McCain received stemming from the Republican National Convention fades. Almost all candidates get a 'bounce,' or an increase in voter support, coming out of their party's nominating convention. But know also that at least a portion of this bounce typically disappears in a week or two. The conventions are largely four-day advertorials for the candidates and they tend to sway selected voters, but only temporarily. As the convention hype fades, voters look at the candidates more-critically, which accounts for the dip in support.

However, if McCain's bounce doesn't disappear before September 26, or if his support continues to increase, then most likely some other factor is at work, boosting the Republican U.S. Senator. And given her newness to the campaign and the national political stage, it's most likely Vice Presidential Nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska. But don't draw any conclusions about Palin yet: let's see what the Gallup Poll looks like in a week or so before forming any conclusions about her impact.

One issue likely to influence voters' choice for U.S. president in November is the U.S. economy.

The Iraq War/War on Terror, and other issues, such as health care concerns, are likely to be factors as well, but look for concern about the economy to be paramount. Of course, political science teaches us that party identification and voters' attitude toward each candidate will also help determine the vote for president.

(In a nutshell, the political science theory that best predicts vote is PI + ATC + MSI = Vote. Or, Party Identification + Attitude Toward the Candidate + Most Salient Issues = Vote. But more on that, some other time.)

Further, regarding the U.S. economy, there's been considerable coverage regarding its health -- sometimes too much -- but not as much clarity. So, without further ado, some "givens" or clarity about the U.S. economy.

• U.S. GDP: The U.S. economy is experiencing anemic growth, but technically, it is not in a recession. Unemployment is trending up -- now at 6.1% -- put is still relatively low, compared to unemployment levels in previous economic slowdowns. [Note: The above is not to slight anyone who has lost his/her job; each job lost is a serious problem/concern for the person involved.]
• Median income: The median U.S. family income is down. In 2006 the median U.S. family income, adjusted for inflation, was $58,407, according to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data, down from $59,398 in 2000. Since the economic slowdown started in October 2007, it's possible, but not likely, that median family income rose in 2008, but more than likely it fell. Moreover, it probably fell during that time period, for most families.

Tuesday's primary victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island gave Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, about all her campaign could hope for: solid performances and a chance to close the delegate gap in the next primary, in Pennsylvania on April 22.

Still, the delegate math remains rough for the candidate seeking to become the first woman nominated for president by a major U.S. political party. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, leads in delegates, 1477-1391, including pledged superdelegates, according to a Washington Post tally, and the Clinton campaign's strategy will now be to try to close the delegate gap to 60 or so with a win in Pennsylvania. Two caucuses, Wyoming and Mississippi, occur before the Pennsylvania primary, and Sen. Obama is expected to win each and increase his delegate lead heading into Pennsylvania.

In 187-delegate Pennsylvania, the demographics favor Sen. Clinton -- she's leading in statewide polls there - - and the Clinton campaign likes its chances. Pennsylvania has a large working class -- which, along with women voters and Latin-Americans, forms the bulk of Clinton's base. If Sen. Clinton registers a solid win in Pennsylvania, she can make the case that although Sen. Obama has the delegate lead, she has won in the major states of New York, California, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and probably would have won in Florida, had the delegate count been included in the Democratic Party's nominating process. That big-state coalition, and the fact that she's the candidate of the working class, would be two strong philosophical points as the campaign attempts to secure pledges from the to-date 353 un-pledged superdelegates. (Note: The number of un-pledged delegates is likely to decline by the end of the primary season on June 3.)

Social scientists, unlike some journalists, are reluctant to label anything a trend until they've amassed and evaluated a great deal of data often over years. A journalist can always cite a lack of information, or the crush of daily (and shorter) deadlines as a reason his/her news story did not describe reality, but if a social scientist errs in a refereed-article, well let's just say the action is not conducive to career advancement.

And that's why many social scientists are reluctant to comment on the impact of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) run for the U.S. presidency: it's way too early to articulate informed conclusions that are likely to endure.

Still, that's not to say that one can't comment on developments that may -- and underscoring "may" -- be indicative of a trend. And along that line, here's what we know about the Obama candidacy regarding voting behavior:

[Note: This is the second of a two-part series on the race for the Democratic Party's nomination for president of the United States. Read part one: Obama's New Hampshire strength highlights Clinton's vulnerablity]

Clinton's mistakes

Why didn't Clinton win by a bigger margin in the New Hampshire primary? The main reason was a misguided campaign strategy that presented her in too many town meetings and gymnasium forums, and not enough as a concerned, positive, relating, trustworthy leader and as a real person. Clinton has never been accused of not being intelligent or organized or professional: what she has been accused of is lacking that "likability" and "press the flesh" quality that every modern presidential candidate -- and every president -- must display.

Ironically, Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy in Iowa and New Hampshire departed from President Bill Clinton's winning presidential campaign strategy. What was an example of President Clinton's positive vibe? During his campaigns, when Bill Clinton arrived at a location for a speech and there were 400 people lined up outside of the hall, who couldn't get in, waiting to see the candidate, Bill Clinton wanted to shake the hands of all 400 people outside. No joke. Clinton would arrive one hour, two hours late for an event, if it meant he could shake hands and make positive, personal contact with as many people as possible. Hillary Clinton must do the same: she must be real, show that she cares, and show that's she's human, just like everybody else. That's a big part of what Hillary Clinton must do to move forward and win the Democratic Party's nomination.

There's an old political adage that goes, "Regarding the nomination process, Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love." Tuesday's New Hampshire primary provided ample evidence of the above, for each party.
Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) strong showing instantaneously catapults him to formidable contender status in the Democratic race. His performance also suggests -- and we won't know this empirically until survey research has been analyzed -- that he has expanded the electorate. Obama increased voter turnout particularly, and unexpectedly, among voters ages 18-21. This age group has had the lowest turnout rate of any age group in primaries and presidential elections since 1952 when political scientists began keeping statistics.

Obama's appeal among independents was also high, and -- also troubling for the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) -- his appeal among Democratic Party-affiliated voters was much stronger than expected. Furthermore, African-American voters -- although not a major factor in New Hampshire -- now appear to be shifting decidedly in his direction nationally, a big change from the previously overwhelming support they gave to Clinton as late as this summer. As a result of the latter, look for the Clinton camp to face a markedly tougher fight in the South Carolina primary, which is the next hurdle, along with Nevada, before Tsunami Tuesday (formerly called Super Tuesday), on February 5.

Sources close to CNN broadcast journalist/commentator Lou Dobbs said he is seriously considering a run for the U.S. presidency in 2008, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Dobbs, who formerly hosted CNN's MoneyLine business news show and currently hosts CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight has seen both his ratings and his name recognition rise after his work's focus turned away from news reporting and anchoring and toward political and economic commentary.

Dobbs, an independent, displays an ideology and a political world view that many have characterized as a modified hybrid of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan -- i.e. populism combined with strong views against free trade (or current trade frameworks) and against illegal immigration.

Dobbs is a frequent critic of both the Democratic and Republican parties, which he argues don't represent the interests of the typical person or the middle class. His show's website describes him as "an independent populist and the leading media advocate for working men and women, their families, our middle class and the American way of life."

Political Analysis: Unless there's a tidal wave of discontent in the American electorate not tallied by pollsters, Dobbs, as a third-party candidate or as an Independent, has virtually no chance of being elected president of the United States. Although his name recognition is rising and he has a positive public image, it's highly unlikely Dobbs could assemble the campaign staff and money required to compete effectively against Democratic and Republican parties' nominees.

However, this is not to say that Dobbs could not broaden the discourse, i.e. "force the discussion of less-publicized issues" during a debate. Dobbs could accomplish this, but it must be emphasized that making points in a debate is a much easier task than receiving enough votes to win the electoral college vote for U.S. president.

Yahoo Inc (NASDAQ: YHOO) shareholders sent a symbolic message yesterday about the heft of Chief Executive Terry Semel's $71.7 million paycheck, which was more than double that of any other Silicon Valley CEO last year, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

Three top advisory firms have been urging institutional shareholders to vote against three members of Yahoo's compensation committee, one-third of the investors voted against the slate of directors at the annual meeting, up significantly from 2005, when nearly one-fifth of the investors withheld their votes for directors after a similar campaign.

About one-third of investors also backed a union pension fund's proposal to tie pay more closely to performance.

Reacting in part to shareholder discontent, Yahoo's board approved a controversial package in May 2006 that slashed Semel's salary from $600,000 to $1 but awarded him 6 million options to carry him through a three-year period. Those options were valued at more than $71 million.

Semel has cashed in a total of $446 million in gains since taking charge in 2001. During this time, Google Inc (NASDAQ: GOOG) has come to dominate many aspects of Internet searching and advertising.

Meanwhile, investors continue to look for any signs of success from Project Panama.