DOES BARACK OBAMA NEED A REMEDIAL COURSE IN CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY?

The much-discussed speech by Senator Obama on racial relationship in the US began: "Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words [We the People] launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy."
This is, indeed, a peculiar vision about "America’s improbable experiment" (a line that resonates with Lincoln's Gettysburg Address) because the consensus among scholars is that the experiment had its roots in a more radical document, something that should inspire a politician like Obama: Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. The "experiment" indeed began in 1776, and the jury is still out to decide if the document signed in Philadelphia eleven years later was a victory, or a defeat, in the struggle for a "more perfect democracy" (a word that in the text of 1787 is nowhere to be found). Any historian, moreover, would have a lot of trouble in accepting what follows: "Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787." First of all, the convention lasted through the Summer, and not the Spring, but Obama's text gives the bizarre feeling that the delegates had just arrived on American soil when, most certainly, Washington, Adams, Jefferson or Madison were born in the colonies, had fought the British troops, declared independence, and organized a government: enough to declare the experiment "real," one would say. True, many historians do accept the mainstream vision of a country that badly needed a stronger national government, but Senator Obama should be aware of the large production of scholars who have looked at the constitutional "coup" of 1787 and reached very different conclusions (does the name of Charles Beard rings a bell?). Also, quoting only a tiny fragment of the first sentence, Barack Obama lost the chance of remembering his audience that the union was formed to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty," all goals that 221 years later are far from being fully achieved.

WHEN THE UNTHINKABLE BECOMES REALITY

It was not even ten days ago when we stressed that American bankers, and politicians, were dancing on the Titanic's deck, while mainstream media provided the reassuring music. Well, it appears that last weekend the FED decided to launch the lifeboats, and the Bush administration scrambled to find a place aboard. The action arrived too late to prevent the well-deserved drowning of Bear Stearns, an investment bank with the reputation of having "often operated in the gray areas of Wall Street and with an aggressive, brass-knuckles approach.” Paul Krugman, a mainstream economist who often was a voice of sanity in the Bush administration's years of madness, writes in the New York Times his obituary of the epoch: "Between 2002 and 2007, false beliefs in the private sector — the belief that home prices only go up, that financial innovation had made risk go away, that a triple-A rating really meant that an investment was safe — led to an epidemic of bad lending. Meanwhile, false beliefs in the political arena — the belief of Alan Greenspan and his friends in the Bush administration that the market is always right and regulation always a bad thing — led Washington to ignore the warning signs."
One couldn't say it better. Now, the question is: what will the Democratic candidates say to the country? Are Obama and Hillary too busy counting delegates to offer a vision of economic rescue? Do they think that this election will be decided by clever commercials, and an appeal to voters' fatigue? If so, a political disaster will double the economic disaster which is under our eyes.

Counting Delegates or Looking at Paychecks?

According to a just-released memorandum by the House' Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, ignored by mainstream media but put into the spotlight by our friends of dirt diggers digest, "executive pay is rising rapidly and dramatically" in the USA. The report is worth quoting at length: "According to Forbes magazine, CEOs of the largest 500 U.S. companies received an average of $15.2 million each in 2006, a collective raise of 38% over 2005. Many experts believe there is a growing disconnect between CEO pay and performance, as increases in executive pay cannot be explained by factors such as changes in firm size or performance. In a recent survey of more than 1,000 directors at large U.S. companies, 67% said that they believe boards are having difficulty controlling the size of CEO pay packages.
The large increases in executive compensation also have widened the gulf between CEO pay and that of the average worker. In 1980, CEOs in the United States were paid 40 times the average-worker. In 2006,the average Fortune 250 CEO was paid over 600 times the average worker. While CEO pay has soared, employees at the bottom of the pay scale have seen their real wages decline by more than 10%o over the past decade."

Florida, the Democratic Party, and the Vanishing Voter

While yesterday Florida’s Democratic party idea of a mail-in primary seemed feasible, today it looks dead-on-arrival again. This is because the Republicans who rule in Florida are certain that State law prohibits election officials from authenticating votes cast in a Party's primary outside the one organized by the State. This seems a potentially fatal blow to the controversial plan (Hillary Clinton, who hopes to have "her" Florida delegates seated at the Convention was very much opposed to it).

With the possibility of a new vote vanishing, efforts to find a way out from the nightmare of a battle inside the "Credential Committee" of a brokered convention, seem fruitless so far. As things stay today, it is quite possible that Americans will watch live at brawls between the Obama's and Clinton's factions on the floor of the Denver Convention.

Obama's Lead in National Polls Widens

The ferocious attacks of the last two weeks notwithstanding, Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 48% to 42% in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination: In fifteen months of daily polling on the race, Obama had reached even 50%, a figure statistically identical to the 48% of today. These polls, and the advantage both in popular vote and pledged delegates should strengthen the Senator of Illinois's position in the race.

Superdelegates: An Assessment

The "Superdelegates Transparency Project," has launched this widget. It allows readers to follow, day by day, the attitude of the so-called Superdelegates, that is the delegates who will go to the Democratic national Convention in Denver (CO) not because they were elected by a caucus or a primary election, but because they are (or have been) leaders of the party at various levels (Governors, members of the DNC etc.). According to the last calculations, Clinton has been endorsed by 249 Superdelegates, Obama by 211 ones, while 260 are still uncommitted and 75 more have not yet been nominated.

A LARGER, BIGGER DEMOCRATIC COALITION/2

Obama's pledged delegates: 1406
Clinton's pledged delegates: 1246


As we have noted in the first installment of this series, eight years of Republican control of Presidency and Congress politically activated new segments of the American electorate. How this fact will play in this year's races, and beyond, is the topic we should explore.
It is plain that the failure of the Bush presidency is the dominant fact of American politics today.George W. Bush's approval ratings stabilized around 30 percent, 25 percentage points below those of Ronald Reagan's in 1988. Bush's presidency has been marred by scandals, an unpopular war, and an economy that is already in recession, hardly ideal for any party wanting to hold onto the White House as Carter learned in 1980 ("Billygate," hostages in Iran, and stagflation).
The mobilization of new angry voters was what created the successes of Democratic political strategy since early 2006, when they focused on the campaign themes that brought their takeover of the House and Senate in November 2006. The majority in the Senate, for example, was entirely the byproduct of unexpected victories in Republican-held territory, like Montana or Virginia. The so-called success of the troop surge in Iraq, which has reduced the number of American casualties has not altered the centrality of George W. Bush and his failed presidency in the mind of Democratic voters approaching November.
Any forecast about the Presidential and Congressional elections must be based not on the last maneuvering of the candidates, but on long-term political trends. The central trend in recent years has been polarization of the electorate, a factor that for a long time was central to Karl Rove's successful strategy. About 90 percent of those identifying with a political party 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. As it is, this translates in a huge advantage for the party that is ahead in what political scientists call "party identification," simply because the pool of voters is larger. And what is the situation on this front? The Democratic advantage is now of almost 10 points, according to Rasmussen and even more according to the Gallup Organization. That disparity is one of the widest partisan gaps ever measured and it is clearly linked to the beginning of the primaries season: the 9.7 percentage point advantage for Democrats now is up from a 5.6 point advantage in January and a 2.1 point advantage in December.
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 it doesn't matter here). If Obama or Clinton will keep the share of 90 percent of the Democratic vote, that translates into a huge gap (12 million votes!) with the Republican candidate, assuming (somehow generously) that he will able to bring the same percentage of followers to the polls (this is a very optimistic assessment of Republican cohesiveness this year: even among Republicans, almost a third of Newsweek's survey respondents said they disapprove of the job Bush is doing).
This assumptions translate into 90 percent of 48 million votes for the Democratic standard bearer against 90 percent of 36 million votes for the Republican one. In an year of economic hardship as this one, there is no way the so-called Independents would split 50-50 between the two parties: more probably they will go 55-45 for the Democratic candidate, McCain's courtship of them notwithstanding. That means another 4 million votes in the democratic column (Independents are about a third of the voters, as of today). As there will be new voters, a large 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 2 million votes net advantage to Hillary/Obama.
Question: Can the democrats squander a 18 MILLION VOTES ADVANTAGE between March and November? The answer is: "In theory, that is possible," Democrats have a long tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
However, this would really go against the odds. To win, it is enough to reassure the constituencies now pouring into their primaries, especially women, Latinos and young people: they should give the Democrats a comfortable edge in November's election, and potentially well beyond. Right now, calculations about the electoral college give the Democratic candidate a solid majority of 318 votes but the victory might be much larger, with Obama (who in the end will prevail over Clinton) collecting more than 350 votes in the electoral college.
If you add to this the real possibility of large majorities in the House (25 seats more) and in the Senate (6 to 8 seats more), one realizes that there are on the table long-term opportunities for the Democrats, 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 themselves.

Republicans lose seat they had hold for 22 years

On Saturday, Republicans lost former House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s seat in a hotly contested special election in Chicago (IL-14). Bill Foster, a Democrat running for his first political job, will go to Congress after defeating Republican millionaire Jim Oberweis 53% to 47%, a result that was unthinkable just weeks ago.

Hastert resigned his seat, and the special election was called to fill the remainder of his term. In November, the same two candidates will campaign for the full term 2009-2011.

The district has at its heart Kendall County, a reliably Republican fast-growing area in exurban Chicago that elected Hastert for the first time in 1986. Hastert was the Speaker of the House between 1999 and 2007, the longest-serving Republican in this capacity ever.

The special election is a huge psychological blow to the Republican Party, handicapped by a stream of senators' and representatives' retirements that forecast larger Democratic majorities in Congress after November. Hoping to turn the tide, the National Republican Congressional Committee spent $1.2 million on the race, to no avail.

Obama gets about 60% in Wyoming

Barack Obama won with a substantial margin the Wyoming's caucuses, where Hillary Clinton campaigned vigorously (her radio commercial about health care, here). Democratic officials reported a turnout about 11 times higher than the one in the 2004 primary. Wyoming is the less populated State in the U.S. but the most Republican: George W. Bush won 69% of the popular vote both in 2000 and in 2004. The last time a Democratic candidate got a majority here was with Lyndon Johnson in 1964. The next primary is now scheduled on March 11, in Mississippi.

DANCING ON THE TITANIC'S DECK

Data from the Federal Reserve show that the amount of equity Americans have in their homes has dropped below 50% for the first time since 1945. At the same time, the number of US homes repossessions, and the speed at which they were being repossessed, hit record levels in the fourth quarter of 2007, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. The delinquency rate for mortgage loans on residential homes stood at 5.82 percent of all loans outstanding at the end of 2007, up 0,87% from one year earlier. The delinquency rate (the percentage of home owners unable to pay their mortgage last month) does not include loans in the process of foreclosure, that is homes that are about to be repossessed by the banks because of non-payments. The percentage of loans in the foreclosure process was 2.04 percent of all loans outstandingon December 31, 2007, an increase of 0,35% from the third quarter of 2007 and 0,85% from one year ago. That means that in the last twelve month, the number of Americans who lost their home because they were not able to pay the mortgage almost doubled, from 1.19% of all mortgage subscribers to 2.04%. In the exquisite language of The Wall Street Journal, "The 1.8 million mortgages now in default have created substantial personal hardship."

A LARGER, BIGGER DEMOCRATIC COALITION/1

While the interest of the media is focused on the candidates, political scientists should look at the tectonic shift under way in the American electorate. Seven years of Bush Administration have played the role of midwife to a new coalition of groups that is making the party younger, more affluent, more liberal, and more responsive to women, Latinos, and African-Americans. Of course, many of these constituencies were heavily tilted toward the Democrats already in the 1970s, but what is new is the growth of Latinos, and there commitment to the Democratic party. It is worth noting that still in 2004 Republicans scored some successes among them, playing the religious card (most of them are catholic, and traditionalist).

This shift, well described in a recent National Journal article, can be measured both by looking at the participation in the democratic primaries so far and by checking the polls about party affiliation.

We already noticed the surprisingly large turnout on the Democratic side ("Let's Crunch Some Numbers", below) but now Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International polls offer evidence that in 18 the states where it is possible to compare 2004 and 2008 caucuses and primaries, the share of the vote cast by young people has risen by substantial margins. Women's share of the vote has grown in 17 of the 18 states, albeit by smaller increments because the "gender gap" was already significant. In 12 of those states, Latinos have cast a larger percentage of votes, as have the voters who consider themselves liberals. African-Americans have boosted their share in 11 of the 18 states. Look at this chart, courtesy of National Journal, that shows how the movement was under way already in 2006.

The 1952 Scenario

The history of 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago is too well-known to be told again here (see the wonderful account by sociologist Todd Gitlin here ).

A better term of reference may be the 1952 Democratic race, when Senator Estes Kefauver went through the primary process, beat President Truman in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maryland, going to the Chicago convention with a lead of 257 delegates, with four other contenders trailing behind, including Adlai Stevenson. On the first ballot, Kefauver held the lead but Stevenson (Governor of Illinois) moved up to second place. Then ultimately Stevenson grabbed the designation from Kefauver on the third ballot, despite his failure to contest a single primary, with no accumulated Democratic votes compared to those of Kefauver's, and in spite of his late entry into the race. But the party elders thought he would be the better nominee.

Today, this should have been impossible: the new party rules give to the voters -through the primaries- about 80% of delegates who will go to the convention in Denver. The 1952 scenario (a candidate with a plurality of delegates who DOESN'T get the nomination) should have been impossible in 2008. It should, but... there are two candidates with roughly the same popular support (a slight advantage for Obama there) and superdelegates will play a key role in picking up the nominee.
Unfortunately, this had a bad effect in 1952 (Stevenson lost to Eisenhower 55% to 44%) and would be even worse now: an intraparty war in Denver, largely broadcasted on all American TV screens, would left the party exhausted and demoralized, opening the way to a (still improbable today) McCain's victory.

LET'S CRUNCH SOME NUMBERS

With 99% of the votes counted in Texas, it looks as though the number of votes in the Democratic primary will largely exceed the number of votes cast for Al Gore in 2000, and match John Kerry's vote total for the 2004 general election. Kerry received 2,832,704 votes in Texas in 2004. At this writing, Clinton and Obama are at 2,812,289 between them. A primary that has a party turnout similar, or larger, than a general election is simply unprecedented in American politics and, indeed, Republicans voters on March 4 were about ONE THIRD of the voters who supported Bush in the 2004 general election.
Let's look at the 2004 Presidential Primary: four years ago Kerry got about 560,000 votes, Edwards 120,000, Dean 40,000 and other candidates about 115,00 for a grand total of 835.000 ballots cast. That is two million less than the number of votes cast this year. Or, Democratic voters seem to be this year more than three times the number they were in 2004. Hillary Clinton received more votes than all Republican candidates combined in Texas last night, Barack Obama received nearly as many. Clinton doubled the vote total of Republican nominee John McCain, Obama nearly did as well.
Remember, this is Texas, home of George W. Bush, who got 61% of the vote in 2004. Here, no Democratic candidate for President won the state's electoral votes since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Democrats haven't won a Senate race since Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, or a Governor's race since Ann Richards in 1990. Next Fall, observers may well throw their political maps out of the window.

Does Negative Political Advertising Pay?

One field of political communication that developed enormously in the last 20 years is related to TV commercials attacking political competitors: "negative campaigning" in the professional jargon. While there is no consensus on the general effect of smear tactics, several scholars maintain that they indeed damage the political process, shrinking and polarizing the electorate. What seems certain is that politicians hit by them, particularly if they are slow or timid in responding, do lose support. There are few doubts that Michael Dukakis's campaign was put in disarray by the "Willie Horton" and "Dukakis in the tank" commercials, produced by George Bush's consultants in 1988.
Compared to those, or to the "Swift Boat" ad aired by Republicans in 2004 against John Kerry, the "It's 3 AM and the telephone is ringing" commercial broadcasted in Texas by Hillary Clinton was not stronger than a cup of tea. And, in truth, it did not prevent Democrats from breaking any previous record of mobilization in Texas. However, while the last polls predicted a tie, with Obama catching up and maybe surpassing her, in the end it was the former First Lady who won. Part of her success can be explained by the effect of the commercial on precisely those voters it targeted, the Democrats and Independents, mostly female, who made up their mind only at the last minute.
The exit polls suggest that Obama and Clinton were tied among Democrats who made up their mind early (50-49), but there is evidence that she won handily among those voters who decided in the last three days, that is when her attacks were hitting Obama the hardest. In this category (one voter in five) Hillary got 60% of ballots, a huge margin. A pocket calculator is enough to show that it was this group which put her over the top, 51% to 47%. Obama's campaign responded, and You Tube quickly filled up with spoofs and parodies. No matter, the ad worked where it was supposed to work. Remember that before making any predictions about the results in November.

Lost in The Media Buzz About "Hillary's Comeback..."

In the media storm about Ohio, Texas, and a politically-born-again Hillary, the newspapers overlooked a significant poll by the respected Cook Political Report. The poll, published on Tuesday, shows that in the hypothetical general election match up, Obama holds a nine point lead over John McCain, 47% to 38%, with 15 percent of voters undecided or supporting others. This reverses the result of similar polls conducted in December, when McCain led 44% to 37%, and substantially increases the advantage Obama had in January (45 to 43, a statistical tie).
Apparently, each candidate is able to win among his own party members by equal proportions. McCain won among Republicans and those independents who lean toward the GOP by a 64-point margin, 77-33 percent, Obama won among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents by the same 64 points, 74 to 10 percent. Obama, however, has a significant lead among "pure" independents, those who don't love either party: 11 points, 46 to 35 percent.
Obama leads McCain among women by 20 points, 51 to 31 percent. McCain leads among men, but only slightly, 45 to 43 percent, again a statistical tie. Twelve percent of men, and 18 percent of women, are undecided. Obama leads McCain significantly among 18-34 year olds, 58 to 27 percent. Things are closer with 35-49 year olds and 50-64 year olds, with McCain leading 43 to 42 percent and 38 to 36 percent. Predictably, Obama leads in every region except the South, where McCain leads by 9 points, 47 to 38 percent.
We should remember that, before Reagan transformed politics in America, Democrats were the normal majority and Republicans could only win if Democrats were split, or if Republicans could win over the majority of Independents. Democrats today are not divided over any issue or set of values, and self-identification with the party recently jumped to 41.5%, the highest total on record in decades. Just 31.8% of voters consider themselves to be Republicans. The partisan gap—a 9.7 percentage point advantage for the Democrats—is by far the largest it has ever been. Even if the fight for the nomination between Obama and Clinton goes on, pollsters find no issues barrier blocking a Clinton supporter from voting Obama in the general election, or vice versa. Republicans' slim hopes therefore depend on McCain's long-standing appeal to Independent voters, but the state of the economy will probably push this constituency toward the Democrats, too.

Ohio and Texas strenghten Clinton in key constituencies

It was good night for senator Hillary Clinton, all the more so because of Texas's and Ohio's exit polls. According to NBC's interviews, she had her usual strong support from women, and won white males in both states (see "Will 2008 Be a Remake of 2004? The Role of Working Class White Men" below). In Texas, she prevailed in this key constituency,50% to 48% and in Ohio with the larger majority of 58% to 39%. This gives her a strong rationale for continuing her campaign, because her major liability -the difficult relationship with white male voters- seems to fade. At the same time, one of Obama's most important assets -his ability to speak to a constituency that has been mostly favorable to Republicans in the last decade- is weakened.
Barack Obama made a great effort to win the Latino vote, but apparently he failed. The Texas Latino turnout was very large and these voters went Clinton in a landslide: 67% to 31%. And if Latinos will vote at this level in November Texas, that went by a large margin to Republicans in the last 32 years, would become a Democratic state (sealing victory for the Democratic candidate, whoever he or she is).


At the time of this writing, it is too early to say where the delegate count rests. Vermont and Rhode Island (where there were also primaries) cancel each other out. So it comes down to Texas and Ohio, but it is not clear whether Clinton has eaten into Obama's lead: it is still possible that he had won the delegate count last night. In this case, Clinton would have ended her good night with an important psychological result, but without making ground where it actually matters for the convention.
The good news for the party is that Democrats turned out in droves again: in 2008 the mobilization factor seems to be largely on the Democratic side. The bad news is that the enthusiasm must survive what can become a bitter political fight in the next weeks, or even months. Now, Obama has to prove that he can bounce back from his setbacks. He has had a charmed political season and a little political adversity is important to prepare for the brawl in the Fall. For Hillary Clinton, as the New York Times writes this morning, "the battle ahead is not so much against Mr. Obama as it is against a Democratic Party establishment that had once been ready to coalesce behind her but has been drifting toward Mr. Obama. The party wants a standard-bearer now."

Clinton Wins in Ohio and Texas, delegates' count still favors Obama

Winning in Ohio, Hillary Rodham Clinton ended a long string of defeats and kept her ambition of obtaining the nomination alive. However, Barack Obama keeps nearly the same delegate lead as he had before Tuesday primaries, and remains on his way to winning the contest. The psychological effect of yesterday's results will depend on the final count in Texas where, at midnight local time, Clinton and Obama were head-to-head. CNN projected a Clinton win.

Will Democratic Candidates Offer a New Vision For the Economy?

Unconvinced by Ben Bernanke's prayers, a total of 78% of Americans now say the national economy is getting worse. In the last days, Hillary Clinton's campaign in Texas adopted a more populist tone with a commercial about the economy, available on You Tube, or here. That may well be too little, too late: if her campaign had focused ont the economy and the middle class from the beginning, many primaries would have gone in a different direction. Today, only 14% of Americans approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the economy, 79% disapprove, and 7% are undecided. Only hard-core Republicans still support the President, and their number halved in a month: they were 29% in January according to a poll by the American Research Group. In February 2007, a solid 40% of voters approved Bush's performance, and it is plain that the crisis of subprime mortgages is hitting American families much more than the White House, Congress, or the candidates are willing to admit. This reality, however, will not have the political consequences it should if the Democratic candidates do not offer credible plans for the future. So far, both Hillary and Obama have only mumbled vague proposals of "renegotiating" the trading pact NAFTA (read the most recent controversy in the New York Times). That will go nowhere: the Democrats desperately need new ideas, putting an end to the "compassionate Republicans" attitude they have adopted since 1980.

Classic Political Ads: Daisy Girl (1964)

In Texas and Ohio, both Clinton and Obama aired videos on the theme of "What will happen to our children in case of war?" Their products were rather disappointing compared to this unsurpassed piece of political communication bravura, Tony Schwartz's spot for Lyndon Johnson (here in a poor quality version) that was aired only once, in September 1964, and completely dominated the campaign afterwards. It remains to this day more exciting and fresh of anything seen recent years.

Politics and Emotion

During the 1990s, Political Science Departments in American universities filled up with economists, and economics models became the major academic field allowing predictions not only for public behavior but also for politics in the United States.
Now, in some universities like Harvard, many social scientist admit that, although economics offers very elegant models, they are often models of how people "should" behave according to the paradigm of homo oeconomicus, rather than models of how people actually do behave. And so we bring in the psychology of judgment and decision making in order to find out how people actually do make decisions: a very interesting interview with Jennifer Lerner on Emotion, Judgment and Public Policy here.