Someone remarked that this election was supposed to be about GWB. Instead it turned out to be an election about Obama. Still another pundit said the election was going to be a “referendum” on Obama. McCain was simply “the other candidate”. Still others have argued that Obama has “hijacked” the Democratic Party from its old base and shifted it on to the new one. Arguments that McCain has done the same to the conservative faithful can also be heard.

Teresita’s argument that that this is a contest between two brands is an insightful one. The problem, which she also brings up, is that if there is a diminishing distinction between the brands then how much of the election will then be made on the basis of fads? If the steak and the oatmeal increasingly begin to taste like each other, then we begin to enter the area where people are “very close to the borderline between alternatives” and might as well choose steak instead of oatmeal or vice versa. Close the gap enough and people will toss a coin or choose depending on how they are feeling today, not because they want “steak” or “oatmeal”, the two having become nearly the same. When information contrast is very low a fad is as good a reason to do one thing as another.

So if both candidates equal big government, high taxes we are left with little to choose between except the quality of their haircuts. On the other hand, information contrast can also be decreased by smudging it, and I think we are seeing some of that in Obama. ‘I am a screen on which people can project their political aspirations’ he said of himself. That means he could be like McCain, if you imagine him to be. And he has a better haircut.