Now Conservatives Think Ahead To President Obama

Another week is over, and a quick assessment would go something like this:

1) Whatever John McCain says, the voters don't believe it, not even if Joe the Plumber supports it.

2) Whatever the Bush administration does, the Wall-Street-types don't believe it for more than a couple of hours.

In other words, this is a crisis of trust in the ability of Republicans of all stripes to solve the economic mess, and this feeling can't possibly turn around before the election.

3) All this is perfectly clear to any conservative with an IQ in the 90-110 range, as shown by the last Matthew Kaminski's column in the Wall Street Journal.

What is interesting in Kaminski's piece is the fact that in his 1300-word column, nowhere the possibility that Barack Obama will NOT be elected is mentioned. The very title, "The Axelrod Method. The 'change' president could be in for a rough ride on Capitol Hill," indicates that while McCain's campaigns launches its last fireworks, conservatives start thinking to a completely different subject: the possible failure of Obama's first term.

Kaminsky writes about the election of Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts:

As a path to power, the Axelrod method appears to be the best thing going today. Coming into the 2006 race, Mr. Patrick was a political novice with 1%-2% name recognition in a state that's 6% black . He faced off against a sitting state attorney general favored by the Democratic Party establishment. The former Clinton administration lawyer energized the grass-roots and youth vote with superior organization and stirring oratory. The candidate himself was the message; the campaign dwelled on his personal story, not the issues. (...) Massachusetts never saw anything like it. Mr. Patrick upset the favorite in the Democratic primary and won the general election by 21 points.

Then Kaminski, goes into the details of the difficult relationship between the governor and the Democratic legislature:

That crusading optimism, so critical to his election victory, fast bumped up against established Democratic interests such as the police unions and power brokers on Beacon Hill. They didn't know Mr. Patrick, didn't appreciate him jumping the queue to the governor's chair, didn't buy his reformist outsider message, and frankly liked things as they were. Great speeches or popular support were insufficient for Mr. Patrick to get his way.

And Kaminski makes his final point forecasting "a rough ride" for Obama, when dealing with "the Democratic warhorses on Capitol Hill."

Well, no doubt that the Republican candidate for president  will be happy to hear THAT (with still 17 days to go) but let's put aside John McCain's feelings, and discuss the scenario offered by the Wall Street Journal.

First, Kaminski could have found a better example than the one of a first-term governor: in fact, president Carter's relationship with Democratic Congress between 1977 and 1981, would be much more significant. 

Jimmy Carter, indeed had trouble in having legislation passed by Congress, as had Bill Clinton in 1993-1995. It would be fair to say that all Democratic presidents, including Franklin Roosevelt, had sooner or later strong difficulties in implementing their agenda because of resistance from Congress. Only Roosevelt in his first term (before the "Court-Packing" episode) and Lyndon Johnson after the 1964 landslide were able to lead Congress in the direction they wanted.

Carter and Clinton, on the contrary, were both governors of backward Southern states, real outsiders in the party. Clinton was more well-connected than Carter, but his first term began in worst possible way, with troubles in confirming his cabinet, and the public relation disaster of gays in the military. Clinton got only 43% of the popular vote, and no senator or representative felt obliged to him for his election.

What about president Obama? If the Democratic ticket wins on November 4, it will be largely because a perfect campaign that has reshaped the political geography of the country. Axelrod's and Plouffes' efforts in mobilizing activists and voters from North Dakota to Louisiana will benefit local Democratic candidates for the House and the Senate, many of whom will enter Congress only because of Obama's coattails.

Obama will win with more than 50% of the popular vote (FiveThirtyEight's forecasts, the best in the business, give him 52%) and a large majority in the electoral college. He will bring to Washington a NEW Democratic majority in the Senate, a majority that today exists only in name (the party controls 49 seats, and only the conditional support of two independents allows Harry Reid to claim the mantle of Senate Majority Leader). Democratic candidates for a senate seat might win in states like Texas, on November 4: will they forget in a minute who is the leader that propelled them over the top? And representative who will win in arch-conservatives districts will give Obama a "rough ride?"

Maybe.

However, a more plausible scenario is that President Obama will start with strong majorities in both houses of Congress, and that the bulk of these senators and representatives will be grateful to him, and decided to implement his agenda to turn the page after eight years of George W. Bush. The sense of urgency created by financial chaos will add to the discipline of the troops, exactly as happened during Franklin Roosevelt's first term. The fact that the mood of the country changed, and that Democrats will be on the verge of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate will strengthen the administration enormously.

What Barack Obama will be able to do is another matter. Two wars and a depression will tax his abilities enough, Congress will not be the top of his concerns.

Is McCain Really Ahead?

Gallup's new poll, conducted right after the Republican convention, barely appeared on the firm's home page, and the pundit class started screaming about the "Palin effect," the "new energy" she brought to McCain's campaign, and the new "enthusiasm" of evangelicals for a presidential ticket led by someone they despised.

Well, let's look at the basics.

It is certainly true that McCain for a moment took the lead, after several weeks in which it was "advantage Obama" (most recently 50% to 42%, just one week ago). However, these polls reflect the "bounce" after the convention and really mean that the race is tied, as shown by the new Rasmussen's poll here on our right bar. The turning point will probably arrive with the three debates between the candidates.

More important, the race seem to go in the same direction of the 2000 and 2004 election, that is highly polarized contests in which the two camps count on mobilizing the faithful more than  reaching to the independents. Probably about 90 percent of those identifying with a political party will vote for that party's presidential candidate: the exit polls in 2004 showed that John Kerry had won 89 percent of the Democratic vote, George W. Bush 93 percent of the Republican vote. The question is: which one of the camps has more troops?

We know that the Democratic advantage in party identification is now of almost 6 points, according to Rasmussen: during August, the number of Americans who consider themselves to be Republicans increased two percentage points to 33.2% while the number of Democrats was little changed at 38.9%. That gives the Democrats a net advantage of 5.7 percentage points.

To gauge the importance of this factor, imagine that in November vote the same 120 million Americans who voted in 2004 (there will be more voters, but we shall look at that issue later). If Obama will keep the share of 90 percent of the Democratic vote, that translates into a huge gap over McCain (41 million votes to 36 million). Even assuming (somehow generously) that McCain will able to bring the same percentage of followers to the polls, while Democratic cohesiveness would be weaker (80%) that still means an advantage for Obama (37 million to 36 million). 

And what about independents? In an year of economic hardship as this one, there is no way they will split 50-50 between the two parties: more probably they will go 52-48 for the Democratic candidate, McCain's courtship of them notwithstanding. That means another million votes in the democratic column (Independents are about a third of the voters, as of today). 

And there will be new voters, a majority of them pulling the lever for the democratic candidates (remember that turnout in their primaries has been the double than in Republican ones). This will bring another million votes net advantage to Obama.

Question: Can the democrats squander an advantage which is between 3 and 7 MILLION VOTES in the next two months? The answer is: "In theory, that is possible." If you put together a lethargic propaganda, a campaign focused on the economy but short of solid proposals, plus the vicious Republican campaign, it is indeed possible that the Democrats achieve the result of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

However, this would really go against the odds. To win, it is enough for Obama to reassure the constituencies that took part in the primaries, especially women, Latinos and young people: they should give the Democrats a comfortable edge in November's election. Right now, calculations about the electoral college give the Democratic candidate a slim majority (273 votes) but the victory might be much larger, if Obama wins in Ohio, Virginia or Florida, which is quite possible.

If you add to this the real possibility of large majorities in the House and in the Senate, one realizes that there are on the table long-term opportunities for the Democrats, and the possibility of changing American political landscape for a generation, as Ronald Reagan did for Republicans in 1980. This, of course, is a question of leadership but it all depends on how the party leader will conduct himself. Will Obama be up to the task?

____

Will John McCain Do Better Than Barry Goldwater?

Politically, the situation in the field is this: Obama has gained a 7-point margin over John McCain in the last three days (50%-43%) and he seems to be a Democratic candidate not weakened at all by the long battle in the primaries. At least, this seems to be the effect of Hillary Clinton's endorsement of Saturday: now 81% of Democratic voters say they are ready to vote for him.
That means he should easily win in November: he will need only to keep the blue States where John Kerry prevailed in 2004, and win in states like Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico (look at the map on top of the page): that would make 273 votes in the Electoral College, more than the "magic number" of 270. In Iowa and New Mexico a few thousand votes more (or, a few thousand votes LESS in the Republican column) will suffice. Colorado has been leaning Democratic in recent years, electing several smart politicians like governor Bill Ritter and senator Ken Salazar.
This, however, is a conservative forecast: polls give him good chances of winning in Ohio and Nevada, creating a very large majority in the Electoral College for a Democratic President who will have strong Democratic majorities in Congress (the party should pick several seats in the House, and Democrats are on the brink of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate).
During an American Presidential campaign everything can happen, but John McCain will have a hard time in convincing voters that the main issue should be terrorism, or Iraq, and not the economy. The gasoline at 4$ a gallon is simply political poison for him.

Angry Democratic White Men/3 - an Interview with Michael Katz

Michael B. Katz is Walter H. Annenberg Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania. He is considered one of America’s leading experts on the history of social welfare, poverty and inequality. Professor Katz spoke with Marco Polo Review of Books about the issue of racism and how it might affect Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Marco Polo (MP): There has been much talking recently about Barack Obama’s problem with white working class voters. Do you think that this is true at the national level or are his difficulties with this particular constituency regionally-based?
Michael Katz (MK): My sense is that it may be a problem in general with white working class voters but I suspect that it is more extreme and regionally concentrated in some areas, such as rural areas and Southern states. Basically we are talking about those places with a history of slavery and confederation, where I think racism lingers, especially among less educated people.

MP: How much do you think these problems could affect the general elections and the race against John McCain? Is it something the Democratic Party should seriously worry about? And could it be an issue that might convince super-delegates to endorse Clinton against the results of the primaries?
MK: My suspicion is that if Obama wins the greater number of delegates, the majority of leaders and officials of the Democratic Party will move behind him and mobilize in those areas where he has been weak. In the cities this would be easier to do because there are more established Democratic machines and voters could be rallied more easily. As far as white working class voters that seem hostile to Obama, their influence in the general election will depend on the state where they are located, what percentage of the population they comprise and if they will turn out to vote. In the last analysis, these people will really have to ask themselves if they want to vote for a Republican, considering the state of things now, between the Iraq war, the economy, gas prices, and the housing crisis. I think it will be very hard for them to make such choice. Then there is the other side of the issue as well, or the disgruntled Republicans. Yesterday I read an interesting piece on The Nation which pointed out that in a number of primaries, Republicans chose to vote in the Democratic contest and over 70% of them cast a ballot for Obama.
So, I think these will be very complicated elections; on one hand there will be white working class Democrats that could go Republican. On the other, there could be those frustrated Rockefeller-type Republicans that might go Democratic.
And, we should consider that there might be a slight decline in white working class voters’ turnout, but other than that there will be a huge participation among African Americans and young people. Obama has this way of mobilizing people that is incredible.

MP: What kind of an African American would you say Barack Obama is? How black is he?
MK: It is not a question of how black he is; it is a question of how street he is. And he is not street. He is a highly educated, articulate, handsome, presentable American and, let’s put it this way, I think that most Americans that would be uncomfortable with Jesse Jackson would be comfortable with Obama.

MP: Considering his peculiar profile and personal history, do you think Barack Obama should be viewed as a symbol of real change in America, of the end of an era of segregation and discrimination? How much instead is he just an exception?

MK: I honestly think that his candidature is a momentous development because, it is true, he does have a white mother and an unusual upbringing, but he is cast in the mind of the public as an African American, that is how people look at him. The fact that an African American could very well be the next President is unprecedented; something that ten years ago I would not have imagined could happen in my lifetime. But it can only be an African American who has Obama’s characteristics, well spoken and highly educated. It could not be someone like Al Sharpton.

MP: Because of his mixed racial heritage, his international background and his degrees from Ivy League universities, would you say that there could be doubts about Barack Obama within the African-American community itself?

MK: There was some discussion of it earlier, about the fact that Obama wasn’t black enough. But then people have come around. The African-American population in general has a very mixed background, and the homogenous view that is normally cast is simplistic and racist. Obama falls within this group.

MP: In conclusion, what do you think will be the biggest challenges for Barack Obama in running for President of the US?
MK: I do share the worry of many people that he might be a target for assassination. This is true for Hillary Clinton too. I think every President is, but there are hardcore racist people and hardcore misogynist people. I don’t think that this should stop him from running or people from supporting him. But I hope his security is well taken care of. Just think about those doctors who perform abortion and how heavily they are targeted by groups of extremists.
Secondly, he will have to unite the Democratic Party. He has to win over the people that have been Hillary Clinton supporters and he has to make them enthusiastic and get them to work for him and to go vote. I think Clinton will come around and she will support him wholeheartedly.
In the end, the two elements that will decide the race are, on one hand, the attraction for Obama, which is very great. On the other, there is the repulsion for Bush. So the next thing to watch in this election is how successful John McCain will be in distancing himself from Bush. But Republicans have a terrible record right now.

Angry Democratic White Men/2

What is important, in these comments by angry supporters of John Edwards, is the extent of their resentment, and their willingness to accept the rumors, half-truths, and complete fabrications spread during a presidential campaign. We must remember that these people certainly are part of the most active voters, not uninvolved citizens prone to swallow any lie that surfaces on the Internet. This is another comment posted on the ABC blog: “At the end of the day, the core preoccupation about our floundering Democracy lies in the issue of consistency and integrity. John Edwards knows that Obama is the ‘offspring’ of Chicago’s corrupt political machine, but he still supports him. John Edwards understands that Obama has personally funded, via his directorship in the Woodsfund, terrorist sympathizers (Khalidi and others) who claim that SUICIDE BOMBING is a legitimate method of resistance fighting (even if used against school children). John Edwards also knows that Obama is completely unprepared to become Commander in Chief, something to which he had continuously alluded to in multiple interviews, nevertheless, we now have him riding this faux pony all the way to the White House.”

Another participant takes issue with the perks of politicians: “I had heard on my local CBS radio station today that local US congressmen even charge the taxpayers for gasoline. So, on top of the best health care in the world, we pay the $4/gal gas for their SUVs. Yes, SUVs. Then they have the gall to lecture us about our polluting the air.”

Some readers try to defend Edwards’ endorsement of Obama: “I do not care how win the nommination!obama or clinton.democrat have to win,in november” but the majority vents its anger at his repudiation of Hillary Clinton: “John Edwards lies like a rug! I would not trust him anymore than I would Barack Obama or any other Democratic bully boys! Edward's funny timing endorcement for Sen Barack Obama amazes me, especially right after Hillary's landslide victory in West Virginia. GO-Go Sen. Hillary Clinton in '08....” and this: “John Edwards what a snake. Elizabeth [Edwards] must be really proud of your endorsement of Osama right now. I had thought better of you. Guess a lot of people were wrong about what you really stood for. Sad.”

And another one: “Does Edwards really believes that the American people are so stupid as to buy into his story that there was no deal cut to endorse Obama? He is just an opportunist who ran away from the North Carolina Senate reelection because he knew he would have never been reelected.”

The threat to jump ship in November is crystal clear: “Edwards has gone to being a man for the people to supporting elitists. You go figure. I am voting for McCain Well I think I am just not voting.”

There are some responses:”All of you so called "democrats" who insist that if Obama gets the nomination then you will vote for McCain in the fall. Well, you'll show them huh? Then we will have a 3rd term of Bush as if the country had not had enough already. WOW just because the nominee that some democrats wanted Hillary isn't going to get the nomination doesn't mean that you should switch parties. What are you accomplishing? If you vote out of anger and not on the issues then you are only hurting yourselves.”

Nevertheless, the split in the party is there and it is clearly dangerous in some swing States needed to create a majority in the electoral college: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan. While it is technically possible, for Obama, to get 270 electoral votes and win without Ohio (if he prevails in some western States like Nebraska, Montana, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico) he definitely need Pennsylvania and Michigan, where many low-income white families do think along the lines we described above.

Angry Democratic White Men/1

A number of high-profile political figures like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, governor of New York David Paterson have brought black politicians in the spotlight, and created the impression that the color of skin is no more a factor in the mind of voters. Unfortunately, this is wrong: most of these high-profile figures have been appointed, not elected, and it makes an enormous difference when someone must present himself to the judgment of citizens. The depth of resentment against “elitist” politicians, and the extent of hidden racism among white voters is apparent in the comments published by an ABC blog after John Edward’s endorsement of Obama.

Dozens, probably hundreds of Edward’s supporters rebelled against this choice, flatly ignoring the fact that Obama’ political positions are very close to those of their preferred candidate. Edward was at the far left of the political spectrum, but nevertheless he is a white Southerner, and this is what many of his fans had to say (I keep the original spelling for authenticity): “Obama is a superficial, arrogant individual who is dangerous. He said he is here to unite.. but he is here to destroy. A uniter doesn't go to the San Francisco elite fundraisers and talk behind America's back.”

Another one, referring to Obama and Edwards together on stage: “Actually both of them look quite effeminate. Maybe I would call them a lesbian couple??? No offense to the real lesbian intended.” The fact that both Edward and Obama are happily married with children didn’t prevent another angry voter from writing: “Maybe wants more $400 haircuts. is he gay?" Many were convinced that Obama paid the endorsement promising future appointments to Edwards: “No deal was cut? Yeah, I sure believe that. And to think Edwards used to be my guy.” Another one: Edwards is a traitor to the American working class that he teared up about. Political bull****. He is a traitor to West Virginia who chose who they believe will better represent them and help them. I cannot get over how out of touch these dems have become. Hello Edwards - you just betrayed the memory of your father.” And one more: He didn't endorse barack obama just for the sake of endorsing him. Like Bill richardson, edwards has an motive. Unfortunately for them, Barack Hussien Obama will never be president.”

Other contributors to the blog mocked the Democratic party: “Politics of Change! Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha. Politics of Change! Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha. Politics of Change! Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha. This is Obama's New Washington! Kennedy – Loser. Kerry – Loser. Richardson – Loser. Dean – Loser. Edwards – Loser.” (more).

How Will Obama Perform in November?

No matter what, Barack Obama has secured the nomination: he need only 63 more delegates to cross the required number of 2,025. However, the first Afroamerican candidate to the presidency nominated by a major party has many serious problems that the media is ignoring. While the conventional wisdom is that hate and racism disappeared in American politics, the fact that they are banned in polite discourse in Manhattan doesn’t mean that they are equally banned at the ballot box. 

The actual performance of Afroamerican politicians in elections is mixed at best. A number of them have been elected mayors (David Dinkins in New York, Harold Washington in Chicago, Andrew Young in Atlanta, Kurt Schmoke in Baltimore (MD), Harvey Gannt in Charlotte (SC), and many others). There is a number of successful representatives, whose dean is Charles Rangel, who has been in the House since 1971, taking over the Harlem’s seat of colourful Adam Clayton Powell. And, of course, there has been a handful of black senators: Obama himself had Carol Moseley Braun among his predecessor in Illinois, but she was a one-term senator, elected in 1992 and easily defeated in 1998. Gannt run twice, in 1990 and in 1996, against aging Republican Jesse Helms in South Carolina and he was defeated twice, favorable polls notwithstanding. Harold Ford was a young and dynamic politician, but he failed to win the Tennessee Senate seat in 2006.

This experience in various elections suggests that charismatic politicians of Afroamerican origin can win, but they some times underperform compared to the expectations in the polls. If a black candidate is credited of 53% of the vote 24 hours before the voting, his actual results may be between 48% and 51%. People were simply ashamed of saying pollsters they would NOT vote for him, inflating his numbers in the polls and depressing them in the actual results. Does this mean that Obama is a weak candidate? Not in the least, but he will need a mistake-free campaign because his margins will be smaller than those of a white candidate. This is clearly shown by the angry reactions of some Edward’s supporters to the announcement that he would endorse Obama (more later on this). We are strongly convinced, however, that race will a factor much less important this year, and that long-term demographic and political trends will propel Obama to victory in November.

"Republicans Must Stand for Something!", or Who Needs Friends When Enemies Work For You?

No less the engineer of a vision of politics based upon dirty tricks, Karl Rove, writes that "As Republican ranks declined, the number of independents and Democrats grew. Has the bottom been reached?". So, what we have been saying for months now has been vindicated by "Bush's Brain" himself: powerful currents in American politics do favor the Democrats in 2008, and panic is spreading in the GOP. 

Rove has his recipe for winning the Presidency (not even the Virgin of Guadalupe could make Republicans win back Congress, where a Democratic landslide is more or less inevitable) and the prescription would be: "Republicans Must Stand for Something!" This doesn't sound very original (even if the entire leadership of the ITALIAN Democratic party could benefit from the advice) and it skips a very basic point: "Will a majority of voters AGREE with the SOMETHING offered to them?"

The very issues advanced by Rove in his column seem to go precisely in the opposite direction: To tell Americans that they are winning in Iraq and that the economy is improving appears to be a message rejected by two thirds, or even three fourths, of the voters. If this is what the political guru of the Wall Street Journal has to say, Democrats should start making preparations for their victory party in November.

Clinton, The Candidate of Seniors

The brawl for the Democratic nomination may be about to stop: numbers leave no chance to Clinton of snatching the nomination. However, Obama may have several concerns to think about in the coming weeks (aside the fact that Hillary hasn't withdraw yet). One is his trouble in convincing the 65+, voters, who in Indiana preferred Clinton by a massive 71% to 29%. This pattern was already established in the first primaries and caucuses and was particularly apparent in Ohio, where Hillary crushed Obama in this age group by a whopping 46-point margin, and Tennessee, where she got 40 percentage points more than her opponent.
Obama still has an overwhelming support among the 18-29 years-old, but this age group is smaller, and less inclined to vote than seniors. In 2004, for example, two over-65 citizens voted for every under-29 one. That means that facing McCain (an appealing figure to seniors, at least because he is over-70 himself) Obama may have a potentially dangerous weakness in the general election. Seniors count for much in some key states like Florida and Ohio, that in 2000 and in 2004 went to George Bush, tilting the electoral college to Republicans.

The Day After

Pennsylvania spoke, and the two Democratic candidates are more or less in the situation of the two Civil War armies on the morning of July 4, 1863, at Gettysburg (which, by the way, was in Pennsylvania).

The question, today, is: "Does the never-ending battle for the democratic nomination alter the dynamics of this campaign?" It might, but the fundamentals remain on the Democratic side, whoever is the nominee (and Marco Polo remains strongly convinced that it will be Barack Obama). We think significant that at this low point of Democratic Party's internecine war, polls show Barack Obama with a statistically insignificant two-point advantage over John McCain, 47% to 45%. During last month, it was McCain leading Obama by similarly close margins: at this point the two candidates are tied in the preference of voters. In a match-up with Hillary Clinton, McCain maintains the advantage: yesterday, 47% of the vote, while Clinton would get 45% (all data coming from Rasmussen).

This almost perfect parity between Obama and McCain is apparent in the Electoral College, too, and this is what will really matter in November. So far, the race remains a toss-up: the Democrats lead in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189 ones. When States that “lean” toward one of the two camps are added, the Democrats lead 260 to 240 (the magic number to enter the White House is 270).

All this means that John McCain, at the moment when Democrats are engaged in a dogfight, and mainstream media are romancing him, is not capable of obtaining a significant lead over Obama, and has only a modest advantage over Clinton. Why is that?

The only reasonable explanation is that McCain is the Republican standard bearer in a year when all the the strong currents of American politics favor the Democrats. The economic crisis and the social tragedy of million of people losing their home will be on the forefront of voters' concerns in November. The same can be said for the Iraq war, that vanished from the TV screen, but not from the mind of citizens: two-thirds of them still want the troops home ASAP.

Much will depend on the two Conventions, but in the Fall most Democratic voters will go back to the party candidate, no matter his or her name. Today, only 74% of Democratic say they would support Obama but American politics has been polarized for 30 years, and the two parties has never been so far apart as during George W. Bush's era. Three out of four citizens think that the Country is "on the wrong track." This trend will favor heavily the Democrats and it will matter a lot in November.