The dynamics of the South in this year's voting are simple. George W. Bush won every state in the region in the last two elections and John McCain needs to do the same in 2008. Remember that McCain must keep Barack Obama from improving John Kerry's 2004 results by 18 electoral votes in order to win. Since we have seen that Obama appears poised to tip more than that number away from him in the West and Midwest, McCain can ill afford any defections from the Republican base region. Unfortunately for him, he is running behind in one state and stands in electoral jeopardy in three others.
The list of Southern states McCain can count on, with their electoral votes in parentheses, includes: Texas (34), Tennessee (11), Alabama and Louisiana (9 each), South Carolina and Kentucky (8 each), Arkansas and Mississippi (6 apiece) and West Virginia (5). Some might disagree with calling West Virginia a Southern state, (especially the people who live there!) but it certainly has been voting like one for the past eight years and this year should be no different.
Four other states in the region could go to Obama. These are Virginia (13), Florida (27), North Carolina and Georgia (both with 15). An Obama win in Florida alone would likely ensure his election, and a victory for him in any of the other three would make it extremely difficult for McCain to stop him. Let's look at the specifics in these four states.
Obama is actually running ahead in Virginia. The average of three June surveys has him leading by 1.7%. The state has been getting more competitive of late, including the election of Democrats Tim Kaine as governor in 2005 and Jim Webb as U.S. Senator in 2006. Former Democratic Governor Mark Warner is also considered to be ahead in the race to replace retiring GOP Senator John Warner (no relation) this year.
In Virginia Obama starts with a likely vote of 95% or more among African-Americans, who make up about a third of the voters. That means he needs about one-third of the white vote to carry the state. That is difficult for a Democrat in a lot of Southern states, but Virginia's demographics are changing. The rapidly growing suburbs in Northern Virginia around Washington, D.C. are seeing a heavy influx of people from Northern states. Many are federal government workers who tend to vote Democratic.
Obama is heavily targeting Virginia, and with another $30 million raised last month he gives every indication of being able to press the issue in the Old Dominion. All the polls show the race there is close, but all show him ahead. McCain will have to make a major effort to win, expending scarce resources that he might rather devote to the closely contested states of the Midwest. And even then it could go for Obama anyway.
Perennial battleground Florida looks close again this year. The average of four polls in June show McCain ahead by 2.2%. Florida has a very unusual electorate. In the Western panhandle it is a typical southern state, reliably Republican. The Southeast has a huge, historically Republican Cuban population in and around Miami but also a large number of Northern retirees, particularly Jews who have been a Democratic voting bloc. From Tampa to Orlando teem standard American suburban populations concerned about pocketbook issues, which should tend to help Obama this year. But the military population is high, too, and they usually trend Republican.
This hodgepodge is what makes Florida hard to predict and usually close. The bottom line is that Obama would love to win the Sunshine State but that McCain absolutely has to. Without its 27 electoral votes he has almost no path to victory. If it stays close McCain will have to devote whatever time and resources it takes to try to secure Florida. In that case, the McCain campaign in places like Colorado, New Mexico and Michigan will just have to do without.
North Carolina presents Obama with another real opportunity. The average of the three statewide polls taken in June shows McCain leading by just 3.3%. It's close because of a large African-American vote and also because the Charlotte-Raleigh-Durham metropolis in the center of the state, anchored with numerous major universities and a burgeoning high-tech sector, is growing increasingly liberal. Obama also has a strong organization still in place from his big primary win here.
McCain doesn't have the resources to match Obama dollar for dollar everywhere. He will probably not be able to spend as much time or allocate as much money or personnel in North Carolina as he would like. He will have to hope the state's traditional patterns reassert themselves and that he can eke out a win. Losing these 15 electoral votes would be a very heavy blow for him.
The final Southern state that looks competitive is Georgia. McCain leads in the Peach State by an average of 6.7%. That's a decent margin but certainly not one that can be taken for granted with 3 1/2 months to go in the race. McCain is being hurt a bit by the Libertarian candidacy of former Georgia Republican Congressman Bob Barr. Barr is polling as high as 4% in some surveys. I'm expecting Barr's support will wane as the election approaches, to about 2%. McCain should not seriously have to worry about Georgia's 15 electoral votes unless the whole election race starts to turn into a runaway.
But his position is precarious enough right now. John McCain is vulnerable in a number of states George W. Bush won in 2004, and he cannot afford to lose very many of them and still win in November. That particularly applies to the usually safe Republican states in the South. He could really use a Southern Sweep, and at the moment that's not looking anything like a sure bet.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Presidential Race: The Midwest
To get elected president, Barack Obama needs to win 18 more electoral votes than John Kerry did in 2004. For John McCain to win he needs to keep that from happening. In yesterday's blog we saw that Obama currently stands to pick up at least 14 electoral votes in the Far West and perhaps as many as 25. Today we'll see that he is currently outperforming the 2004 Democratic performance by another 46 electoral votes in the 13 states of the Midwest.
In 2004 Republican George W. Bush enjoyed the upper hand in the Midwest. He carried 9 Midwestern states with 73 electoral votes (EVs). Democrat John Kerry took 4 states with 58 EVs. An average of recent polls this year shows McCain solidly ahead in just 5 states with 24 EVs. One other state with 11 EVs is leaning his way. Obama has strong leads in 3 states with 49 EVs, and four other midwest states with 55 EVs are leaning his way. If the election were held today Obama would apparently outperform Kerry's Midwestern showing by 46 EVs. Unless McCain can turn that around he is sure to lose.
McCain holds safe leads only in the 5 states of the Great Plains. These were all states Bush won last time. The states and their electoral votes are North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Nebraska (5), Kansas (6) and Oklahoma (7). The only other state in the region where McCain is ahead is Missouri (11). The averages of 4 polls taken in May and June had McCain ahead there by 3.8%.
Obama has strong leads in three states that went for Kerry. These are Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10) and his home state of Illinois (21). He is ahead narrowly in another, Michigan (17). Most importantly, Obama is currently leading in three states in the region that Kerry lost, Iowa (7), Indiana (11) and Ohio (20). If McCain is unable to turn those states, especially Ohio, around, his chances of victory in November are very poor. Since he already seems likely to under perform Bush by 14 in the West, he really can't even afford to lose even Iowa in the Midwest. He could offset this by taking Michigan and will have to make a huge effort there. Let's look at the close states in a little more detail.
In Michigan Obama's average lead in 5 recent Michigan polls is only 2%, but he seems to be gaining the momentum. Two surveys taken in May each gave McCain 4% leads, but three taken in June have Obama up by an average of 6%. The economy is the overriding concern here, especially auto manufacturing. Exploding gas prices are a prime factor too, since they are depressing auto sales, particularly the SUV and truck sales that have been bringing in the highest profits and providing the most jobs in the American companies in recent years. McCain will try forlornly to convince people that more Bush-style tax cuts are the answer. He may have better luck advocating taking all restrictions off oil drilling. Picking Mitt Romney, who beat McCain here in the primary and whose father was governor 40 years ago, as his running mate might help in Michigan too. Obama has an intrinsic advantage here because things are not working as is and he is identified with change. He proposes government assistance to promote alternative energy and fuel economy and talks of renegotiating the NAFTA treaty that many blame for exporting jobs.
Ohio resembles Michigan in its pain over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The average of recent polls has Obama ahead by 4.5%, a figure that has been growing. No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio, and if McCain cannot close this gap he will have to take Michigan and its 17 EVs to mostly compensate for Ohio's loss. Failure to win either would almost certainly doom his candidacy.
If that weren't bad enough for McCain, Obama is currently leading in the longtime Republican bastion of Indiana. This is a serious problem for him. Indiana hasn't voted for a Democrat for president since 1964, but Obama is running 0.5% ahead according to the current averages. Indianapolis in central Indiana and Gary in the northwest have large African-American populations. The northwest manufacturing corridor is experiencing the same problems Ohio and Michigan are encountering. In addition, northwest Indiana is within the Obama-adoring Chicago media market and even includes many commuters who work in Chicago. These demographics and conditions are balancing Indian's big downstate rural vote and have put the Hoosier State in play for the first time in over 40 years. It is a drain on McCain's campaign to have to commit scarce resources to a state that Republicans usually have no worries about. Consider that just by taking Indiana (11) and Iowa (7) and holding the other Kerry states, Obama would secure the 18 EVs he needs to win the election--even without turning any of the Western states where he also leads.
Obama also leads by an average of 5.5% in Iowa. He built a strong organization here for the caucuses that launched his campaign. Iowa has been closely divided in recent elections, going for Gore narrowly in 2000 and Bush narrowly in 2004. It is mainly a farm state but its large 19th century German-immigrant descended population has traditionally been strongly peace-minded. Obama has an excellent chance to capture Iowa's 7 EVs this year.
McCain is holding an average lead of 3.8% in Missouri. Missouri is a state where the election is usually close but the Republican wins. Bush came out ahead in both 2000 and 2004. Obama is paying a lot of visits to Missouri and including it in his TV buys. As in Indiana, if this forces McCain to have to campaign, spend money and send personnel to Missouri it leaves him weaker elsewhere. Since Obama is expected to top McCain in fundraising and has more employees and volunteers, this works strongly to his advantage. Missouri has the two great cities of St. Louis and Kansas City on its east and west borders respectively (Obama-friendly), with a lot of rural, and downstate, Southern-descended whites in between (McCain-friendly). Obama could possibly win the Show Me State, though I expect it to go McCain unless the overall election turns into an Obama runaway.
To sum up then, if the election were held today Barack Obama would take all the Great Lakes States of the Midwest plus Iowa with a total of 104 electoral votes. This would better John Kerry's 2004 showing by 46 EVs and assure his election as president. McCain would take the five Great Plains states plus Missouri for 35 electoral votes. I'm expecting McCain to hold onto Missouri and probably turn Indiana back into his column. I do at this point feel Obama will win in Michigan, Ohio and Iowa. If so, he will still better the Democrats' 2004 record by 35 electoral votes in the Midwest region, more than enough to provide the 18 he needs nationally to assure his election.
In order to avoid this McCain will have to change the entire dynamic of the race. His party faces a sharply uphill struggle with war dragging on and a bad economy under its watch. McCain's best shot at this is to hope that by making Barack Obama himself the issue, raising questions about his capacity to lead, voters will decide to go with the experienced alternative.
In 2004 Republican George W. Bush enjoyed the upper hand in the Midwest. He carried 9 Midwestern states with 73 electoral votes (EVs). Democrat John Kerry took 4 states with 58 EVs. An average of recent polls this year shows McCain solidly ahead in just 5 states with 24 EVs. One other state with 11 EVs is leaning his way. Obama has strong leads in 3 states with 49 EVs, and four other midwest states with 55 EVs are leaning his way. If the election were held today Obama would apparently outperform Kerry's Midwestern showing by 46 EVs. Unless McCain can turn that around he is sure to lose.
McCain holds safe leads only in the 5 states of the Great Plains. These were all states Bush won last time. The states and their electoral votes are North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Nebraska (5), Kansas (6) and Oklahoma (7). The only other state in the region where McCain is ahead is Missouri (11). The averages of 4 polls taken in May and June had McCain ahead there by 3.8%.
Obama has strong leads in three states that went for Kerry. These are Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10) and his home state of Illinois (21). He is ahead narrowly in another, Michigan (17). Most importantly, Obama is currently leading in three states in the region that Kerry lost, Iowa (7), Indiana (11) and Ohio (20). If McCain is unable to turn those states, especially Ohio, around, his chances of victory in November are very poor. Since he already seems likely to under perform Bush by 14 in the West, he really can't even afford to lose even Iowa in the Midwest. He could offset this by taking Michigan and will have to make a huge effort there. Let's look at the close states in a little more detail.
In Michigan Obama's average lead in 5 recent Michigan polls is only 2%, but he seems to be gaining the momentum. Two surveys taken in May each gave McCain 4% leads, but three taken in June have Obama up by an average of 6%. The economy is the overriding concern here, especially auto manufacturing. Exploding gas prices are a prime factor too, since they are depressing auto sales, particularly the SUV and truck sales that have been bringing in the highest profits and providing the most jobs in the American companies in recent years. McCain will try forlornly to convince people that more Bush-style tax cuts are the answer. He may have better luck advocating taking all restrictions off oil drilling. Picking Mitt Romney, who beat McCain here in the primary and whose father was governor 40 years ago, as his running mate might help in Michigan too. Obama has an intrinsic advantage here because things are not working as is and he is identified with change. He proposes government assistance to promote alternative energy and fuel economy and talks of renegotiating the NAFTA treaty that many blame for exporting jobs.
Ohio resembles Michigan in its pain over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The average of recent polls has Obama ahead by 4.5%, a figure that has been growing. No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio, and if McCain cannot close this gap he will have to take Michigan and its 17 EVs to mostly compensate for Ohio's loss. Failure to win either would almost certainly doom his candidacy.
If that weren't bad enough for McCain, Obama is currently leading in the longtime Republican bastion of Indiana. This is a serious problem for him. Indiana hasn't voted for a Democrat for president since 1964, but Obama is running 0.5% ahead according to the current averages. Indianapolis in central Indiana and Gary in the northwest have large African-American populations. The northwest manufacturing corridor is experiencing the same problems Ohio and Michigan are encountering. In addition, northwest Indiana is within the Obama-adoring Chicago media market and even includes many commuters who work in Chicago. These demographics and conditions are balancing Indian's big downstate rural vote and have put the Hoosier State in play for the first time in over 40 years. It is a drain on McCain's campaign to have to commit scarce resources to a state that Republicans usually have no worries about. Consider that just by taking Indiana (11) and Iowa (7) and holding the other Kerry states, Obama would secure the 18 EVs he needs to win the election--even without turning any of the Western states where he also leads.
Obama also leads by an average of 5.5% in Iowa. He built a strong organization here for the caucuses that launched his campaign. Iowa has been closely divided in recent elections, going for Gore narrowly in 2000 and Bush narrowly in 2004. It is mainly a farm state but its large 19th century German-immigrant descended population has traditionally been strongly peace-minded. Obama has an excellent chance to capture Iowa's 7 EVs this year.
McCain is holding an average lead of 3.8% in Missouri. Missouri is a state where the election is usually close but the Republican wins. Bush came out ahead in both 2000 and 2004. Obama is paying a lot of visits to Missouri and including it in his TV buys. As in Indiana, if this forces McCain to have to campaign, spend money and send personnel to Missouri it leaves him weaker elsewhere. Since Obama is expected to top McCain in fundraising and has more employees and volunteers, this works strongly to his advantage. Missouri has the two great cities of St. Louis and Kansas City on its east and west borders respectively (Obama-friendly), with a lot of rural, and downstate, Southern-descended whites in between (McCain-friendly). Obama could possibly win the Show Me State, though I expect it to go McCain unless the overall election turns into an Obama runaway.
To sum up then, if the election were held today Barack Obama would take all the Great Lakes States of the Midwest plus Iowa with a total of 104 electoral votes. This would better John Kerry's 2004 showing by 46 EVs and assure his election as president. McCain would take the five Great Plains states plus Missouri for 35 electoral votes. I'm expecting McCain to hold onto Missouri and probably turn Indiana back into his column. I do at this point feel Obama will win in Michigan, Ohio and Iowa. If so, he will still better the Democrats' 2004 record by 35 electoral votes in the Midwest region, more than enough to provide the 18 he needs nationally to assure his election.
In order to avoid this McCain will have to change the entire dynamic of the race. His party faces a sharply uphill struggle with war dragging on and a bad economy under its watch. McCain's best shot at this is to hope that by making Barack Obama himself the issue, raising questions about his capacity to lead, voters will decide to go with the experienced alternative.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Presidential Race: The West
Today I'll begin a series on the electoral vote prospects for the presidential election race. Since I'm a Westerner I'll start in the West and move East, region by region. The West currently looks like an area where Barack Obama will make some gains.
There are 538 total electoral votes at stake in the fifty states and District of Columbia. It takes 270 to get a majority and win the White House. Keep in mind the results of the 2004 election between Bush and Kerry. Bush won with 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 252. That means Barack Obama must better Kerry's showing by 18 electoral votes in order to win. The overall popular vote across the country means nothing. What matters is winning states. If a candidate wins a state (or Washington, D.C.) by any margin he will get all of its electoral votes.
The electoral values of the 13 Western states, from west to east, are: Hawaii 4, Alaska 3, Washington 11, Oregon 7, California 55, Nevada 5, Idaho 4, Utah 5, Arizona 10, Montana 3, Wyoming 3, Colorado 9, and New Mexico 5. California is obviously the big prize in the region. In 2004 Kerry won Hawaii, Washington, Oregon and California for a total of 77 electoral votes. Bush won the other nine states and 47 electoral votes.
It looks as though Obama has an excellent chance to pick up most of or all of the 18 extra electoral votes he needs across the country just in the Western states alone. Of the 9 states Bush won, McCain is only solidly ahead in 4: Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and his home state of Arizona. He has narrow leads in 3 others. An average of recent polls has McCain ahead by 5.5% in Alaska, 2.5% in Nevada and 1.5% in Montana. And Obama actually leads in the other 2, Colorado by 3.5% and New Mexico by 5%. Of the states Kerry won, Obama has big average leads in 3, but only leads in Oregon by an average of 5.5%.
So if the election were held today it looks as though Obama would take 91 electoral votes to McCain's 33, with up to 11 additional electoral votes vulnerable to Obama. Of course, 7 of Obama's appear vulnerable to McCain too. But as things stand now, with a lot of time to go, it must be said, Obama would pick up 14 of the 18 new EV's he needs in this region.
Here is what's going on in some of the battleground states. In Alaska, longtime Republican incumbent Senator Ted Stevens is the target of a corruption investigation and faces a serious re-election challenge from the popular Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. Obama is pouring TV money and organizational power into this usually-safe Republican state.
Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico have large Hispanic populations which are trending for Obama 2 to 1. During the Democratic primaries Hillary Clinton was winning Hispanics 2-1 over Obama and it was wondered whether they would switch their allegiance back to him. They apparently have. McCain is also hurt with this group by his party's tough position on immigration. He at first personally supported a "comprehensive" immigration solution but it was defeated in the Senate and McCain after that felt forced to stress enforcement over the path to legal residency in order to succeed in the Republican primary race. Bush won 44% of Hispanics in 2004 but it looks as though McCain will not do nearly as well. These three states are all close right now. Obama has the edge in Colorado and New Mexico while McCain leads narrowly in Nevada.
Montana has an independent libertarian streak and has been trending more Democratic of late. Both U.S. Senators and the Governor are now Democrats. Obama has visited Montana and bought TV time there too. His primary caucus organization is already in place and pushing his message of "change" in a state that seems frustrated with the status quo. A Mason-Dixon Poll back in May had McCain ahead by 8% but the Rasmussen survey conducted July 1 showed Obama up by 5%. Obama clearly feels he has a good shot here. It could go either way.
Oregon is the one Kerry state where Obama is not solidly ahead. The state has gone Democratic in the last five presidential elections, but often only narrowly so. Incumbent Republican Senator Gordon Smith is doing all he can to distance himself from President Bush and assume a moderate posture in order to get re-elected. He has even begun touting his agreements with Obama in his battle to defeat challenger Jeff Merkley. Oregon is divided between the liberal strongholds of Portland and the university towns of Eugene and Corvallis and the conservative rural regions of the rest of the state. It would be surprising if McCain were able to win here, but the polls say he has a chance.
Overall, Obama appears poised to gain some ground in the West. If he can make some inroads here and hold the former Democratic states elsewhere he will only need one or two other pickups somewhere in the country in order to be elected. John McCain is being hurt by the economy and President Bush's unpopularity in a region that is usually safe for the GOP except for the Pacific Coast. Just remember there are still almost four months to go until the election, enough time for a lot to happen.
There are 538 total electoral votes at stake in the fifty states and District of Columbia. It takes 270 to get a majority and win the White House. Keep in mind the results of the 2004 election between Bush and Kerry. Bush won with 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 252. That means Barack Obama must better Kerry's showing by 18 electoral votes in order to win. The overall popular vote across the country means nothing. What matters is winning states. If a candidate wins a state (or Washington, D.C.) by any margin he will get all of its electoral votes.
The electoral values of the 13 Western states, from west to east, are: Hawaii 4, Alaska 3, Washington 11, Oregon 7, California 55, Nevada 5, Idaho 4, Utah 5, Arizona 10, Montana 3, Wyoming 3, Colorado 9, and New Mexico 5. California is obviously the big prize in the region. In 2004 Kerry won Hawaii, Washington, Oregon and California for a total of 77 electoral votes. Bush won the other nine states and 47 electoral votes.
It looks as though Obama has an excellent chance to pick up most of or all of the 18 extra electoral votes he needs across the country just in the Western states alone. Of the 9 states Bush won, McCain is only solidly ahead in 4: Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and his home state of Arizona. He has narrow leads in 3 others. An average of recent polls has McCain ahead by 5.5% in Alaska, 2.5% in Nevada and 1.5% in Montana. And Obama actually leads in the other 2, Colorado by 3.5% and New Mexico by 5%. Of the states Kerry won, Obama has big average leads in 3, but only leads in Oregon by an average of 5.5%.
So if the election were held today it looks as though Obama would take 91 electoral votes to McCain's 33, with up to 11 additional electoral votes vulnerable to Obama. Of course, 7 of Obama's appear vulnerable to McCain too. But as things stand now, with a lot of time to go, it must be said, Obama would pick up 14 of the 18 new EV's he needs in this region.
Here is what's going on in some of the battleground states. In Alaska, longtime Republican incumbent Senator Ted Stevens is the target of a corruption investigation and faces a serious re-election challenge from the popular Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. Obama is pouring TV money and organizational power into this usually-safe Republican state.
Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico have large Hispanic populations which are trending for Obama 2 to 1. During the Democratic primaries Hillary Clinton was winning Hispanics 2-1 over Obama and it was wondered whether they would switch their allegiance back to him. They apparently have. McCain is also hurt with this group by his party's tough position on immigration. He at first personally supported a "comprehensive" immigration solution but it was defeated in the Senate and McCain after that felt forced to stress enforcement over the path to legal residency in order to succeed in the Republican primary race. Bush won 44% of Hispanics in 2004 but it looks as though McCain will not do nearly as well. These three states are all close right now. Obama has the edge in Colorado and New Mexico while McCain leads narrowly in Nevada.
Montana has an independent libertarian streak and has been trending more Democratic of late. Both U.S. Senators and the Governor are now Democrats. Obama has visited Montana and bought TV time there too. His primary caucus organization is already in place and pushing his message of "change" in a state that seems frustrated with the status quo. A Mason-Dixon Poll back in May had McCain ahead by 8% but the Rasmussen survey conducted July 1 showed Obama up by 5%. Obama clearly feels he has a good shot here. It could go either way.
Oregon is the one Kerry state where Obama is not solidly ahead. The state has gone Democratic in the last five presidential elections, but often only narrowly so. Incumbent Republican Senator Gordon Smith is doing all he can to distance himself from President Bush and assume a moderate posture in order to get re-elected. He has even begun touting his agreements with Obama in his battle to defeat challenger Jeff Merkley. Oregon is divided between the liberal strongholds of Portland and the university towns of Eugene and Corvallis and the conservative rural regions of the rest of the state. It would be surprising if McCain were able to win here, but the polls say he has a chance.
Overall, Obama appears poised to gain some ground in the West. If he can make some inroads here and hold the former Democratic states elsewhere he will only need one or two other pickups somewhere in the country in order to be elected. John McCain is being hurt by the economy and President Bush's unpopularity in a region that is usually safe for the GOP except for the Pacific Coast. Just remember there are still almost four months to go until the election, enough time for a lot to happen.
Monday, July 7, 2008
It Takes Brains
One good thing about the shambles of these past eight years is that it just might make the American people are a little more open to voting for leaders with some intelligence. At least we can hope.
It takes some brains to run a successful business. Not just anybody opens a restaurant or hair salon and makes a go of it. To stay in business these days a farmer has to be acutely attuned to markets and highly scientific about production. No Fortune 500 company would dream of bringing a new CEO on board who wasn't smart as a whip.
So, what kind of brains would it take to run an operation with 1.8 million civilian employees, a budget of $2.7 trillion and some additional responsibilities like maintaining peaceful relations with 200 foreign countries and commanding a military of 1.4 million and a reserve force of 1.5 million while trying to foster an economy sufficient to provide for 300 million people?
That's right. It would take a genius, wouldn't it?
Average Americans know better than to leave their retirement planning to their half-wit brother-in-law, yet when it comes to managing the most complicated job in the history of the planet they not infrequently put their minds in netural and hand it off to a seeming "regular guy," the kind of fellow "you'd like to have a beer with" who talks in disconnected monosyllables, boasts that he "never reads a newspaper" and makes decisions based on "listening to my gut."
No wonder gas is $4, the economy has lost 462,000 jobs this year, the government is another $450 billion in debt, 2 million homeowners face forclosure, 47 million more are without health care, food prices are going through the roof, real estate, the stock market and the dollar are all tanking, we invaded the wrong country, and Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose.
There has always been an anti-intellectual bent in American society, no doubt a carry-over from the original revolutionary antipathy to aristocratic privilege combined with a populist perception of the well-educated not necessarily understanding the lives of everyday folks. That's why political parties that have no new ideas and see their old ones failing start throwing around the "elitist" label.
The reality is that you have to be brilliant to have even half a chance to govern this country well. Brains are a prerequisite. You need heart, too, and nobody should be considered who isn't endowed with a good deal of human empathy. But stupidity is neither cute nor a virtue in high office, as recent events make dreadfully clear. Let's hope the American people take permanent note.
It takes some brains to run a successful business. Not just anybody opens a restaurant or hair salon and makes a go of it. To stay in business these days a farmer has to be acutely attuned to markets and highly scientific about production. No Fortune 500 company would dream of bringing a new CEO on board who wasn't smart as a whip.
So, what kind of brains would it take to run an operation with 1.8 million civilian employees, a budget of $2.7 trillion and some additional responsibilities like maintaining peaceful relations with 200 foreign countries and commanding a military of 1.4 million and a reserve force of 1.5 million while trying to foster an economy sufficient to provide for 300 million people?
That's right. It would take a genius, wouldn't it?
Average Americans know better than to leave their retirement planning to their half-wit brother-in-law, yet when it comes to managing the most complicated job in the history of the planet they not infrequently put their minds in netural and hand it off to a seeming "regular guy," the kind of fellow "you'd like to have a beer with" who talks in disconnected monosyllables, boasts that he "never reads a newspaper" and makes decisions based on "listening to my gut."
No wonder gas is $4, the economy has lost 462,000 jobs this year, the government is another $450 billion in debt, 2 million homeowners face forclosure, 47 million more are without health care, food prices are going through the roof, real estate, the stock market and the dollar are all tanking, we invaded the wrong country, and Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose.
There has always been an anti-intellectual bent in American society, no doubt a carry-over from the original revolutionary antipathy to aristocratic privilege combined with a populist perception of the well-educated not necessarily understanding the lives of everyday folks. That's why political parties that have no new ideas and see their old ones failing start throwing around the "elitist" label.
The reality is that you have to be brilliant to have even half a chance to govern this country well. Brains are a prerequisite. You need heart, too, and nobody should be considered who isn't endowed with a good deal of human empathy. But stupidity is neither cute nor a virtue in high office, as recent events make dreadfully clear. Let's hope the American people take permanent note.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Rove Team Takes Charge of McCain Campaign
The recent shakeup in John McCain's campaign leadership points to the road map he will follow in his presidential bid. The primacy of issues-oriented former lobbyists is over; the ascendancy of politics-oriented campaign professionals has begun. Given the realities of the 2008 election environment, the change is a smart move for McCain and will increase his chances for victory against Barack Obama in November. It also gives us a good idea about the kind of campaign McCain will wage, for the new team is heavy with the proteges of George W. Bush's election wizard Karl Rove.
Rick Davis retains the title of campaign manager but will yield the day to day control of the campaign. Davis headed McCain's 2000 presidential effort. A lobbyist, he founded Davis Manfort in 1998, which has earned $2.8 million lobbying Congress. His firm represented SBC and Comsat in 1999 while he was McCain's campaign chief and the two companies had merger proposals before the Senate Commerce Committee which McCain chaired. The committee gave them the approvals they sought. Davis Manfort also represented Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich and other East European business interests.
Now in as CEO of the McCain campaign is Steve Schmidt, a member of the Bush team's inner circle. Schmidt learned the ropes as a daily attendee at Karl Rove's morning political meetings. He ran the Bush-Cheney "war room" in the '04 campaign. After that he served as counsel to Cheney and shepherded the Rogers and Alito Supreme Court nominations through the Senate. Showing a lot of flexibility, he next headed Arnold Schwarzenegger's California re-election drive in 2006, managing the governor's successful effort to, ironically, distance himself from the Bush-Cheney White House. Schmidt is a pro and a practitioner of no-nonsense hardball. Also joining the McCain campaign from the Rove circle are strategist Terry Nelson, media specialist Mark McKinnon and communications expert Brian Jones.
The McCain operation, which Davis had decentralized into 11 semi-autonomous regional units, will now become highly unified under Schmidt's central control. As in the Bush campaigns we have witnessed under Rove, there will be a message of the day and the candidate and all his surrogates will be briefed on the common talking points to deliver. McCain being McCain, he will still engage in a lot of the question and answer which is one of his campaign strengths, but he will try to open and close his appearance remarks on the daily message. His surrogates will have to maintain much stricter message discipline.
Just as importantly, that message will have to change focus. McCain has taken little advantage of the past four months since he putatively clinched the Republican nomination while the Democrats continued to battle. The reasons for that are simply that the American people generically prefer the Democratic Party over the Republican and trust Barack Obama over John McCain on the issues this year.
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken June 6-9 of 1,000 voters found the Democrats with a 10% identification advantage, 44 percent to 34 percent. The Republican Party was viewed favorably by only 28 percent, unfavorably by 47 percent and neutrally by 24 percent. The Democratic Party enjoyed a 15 percent advantage, as 43 percent had a positive view, 32 percent a negative and 24 percent a neutral one. Much of this no doubt was related to the unpopularity of President Bush, who had a 28 percent favorable rating to 66 percent negative.
A Gallup/USA Today survey on the candidates conducted June 15-19 gave Obama a 25-point advantage on "understands the problems Americans face," 22 points on "cares about the needs of people like you," 16 points on "is independent in thoughts and actions," 13 percent on "would work well with both parties to get things done in Washington," 10 points on "has a clear plan for solving the country's problems," 8 percent on "shares your values" and 4 percent on "is honest and trustworthy." They were tied on "can manage the government effectively." McCain's only edge was 6 points on "is a strong and decisive leader."
The same poll asked who would do a better job on eight issues. Obama led by 25 points on health care, 19 points on energy and gas prices, 16 points on the economy, 9 points on taxes, and a statistically insignificant 1 percent on moral values. The two were tied on "the situation in Iraq." McCain had his own statistically insignificant 2% lead on illegal immigration. The only issue where he clearly held the advantage was on terrorism, which he won by 19 points.
With these factors in mind and considering that a Karl Rove-trained campaign team will be running things, there are a few things we can expect in the months ahead.
First, we can expect McCain to distance himself from President Bush and the Republican label. He will do this by burnishing his "maverick" and "Straight Talk Express" reputations. This will be done in mostly general terms along the lines of his past statements about lobbyists and special interests in Washington. McCain has already retreated from the actual stances he took that were not in line with Bush, such as on taxation, campaign finance and the religious right because his former views tend to anger the Republican base.
Second, he will hammer away at the only truly winning issue he has, terrorism. He has begun doing this, taking questions on the economy, for instance, and finding ways to weave the threat of terrorism into his answers at every opportunity. To paraphrase what Joe Biden said about Rudy Giuliani, a lot of McCain's sentences will come to consist primarily of a noun, a verb and terrorism.
Third, an all-out effort will be made to destroy Barack Obama's credibility. This will not be undertaken primarily by McCain himself. It will be left up to surrogates and "unafffiliated" advocacy groups. If the issues are against you the only way to win is on personality factors, and no one has mastered the art of character assassination better than Mr. Rove. His political progeny, now in charge of McCain's national effort, have learned this at the feet of the master.
Expect any statement by Obama or his supporters that can be misconstrued or twisted into something untoward to be given that spin right away by McCain's surrogates. We are already seeing the beginning of that. If Obama doesn't wear a flag pin, why does he "hate America?" He has a Muslim middle name. Rove himself has taken to describing Obama as "that guy at the country club." Obama's appeal will be minimized as being "mainly to the inner city" (i.e. to blacks). His wife will be derided for being too outspoken. Count on this. These guys are very good at this kind of politics and they know it is their best, and perhaps only, avenue to victory.
Rick Davis retains the title of campaign manager but will yield the day to day control of the campaign. Davis headed McCain's 2000 presidential effort. A lobbyist, he founded Davis Manfort in 1998, which has earned $2.8 million lobbying Congress. His firm represented SBC and Comsat in 1999 while he was McCain's campaign chief and the two companies had merger proposals before the Senate Commerce Committee which McCain chaired. The committee gave them the approvals they sought. Davis Manfort also represented Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich and other East European business interests.
Now in as CEO of the McCain campaign is Steve Schmidt, a member of the Bush team's inner circle. Schmidt learned the ropes as a daily attendee at Karl Rove's morning political meetings. He ran the Bush-Cheney "war room" in the '04 campaign. After that he served as counsel to Cheney and shepherded the Rogers and Alito Supreme Court nominations through the Senate. Showing a lot of flexibility, he next headed Arnold Schwarzenegger's California re-election drive in 2006, managing the governor's successful effort to, ironically, distance himself from the Bush-Cheney White House. Schmidt is a pro and a practitioner of no-nonsense hardball. Also joining the McCain campaign from the Rove circle are strategist Terry Nelson, media specialist Mark McKinnon and communications expert Brian Jones.
The McCain operation, which Davis had decentralized into 11 semi-autonomous regional units, will now become highly unified under Schmidt's central control. As in the Bush campaigns we have witnessed under Rove, there will be a message of the day and the candidate and all his surrogates will be briefed on the common talking points to deliver. McCain being McCain, he will still engage in a lot of the question and answer which is one of his campaign strengths, but he will try to open and close his appearance remarks on the daily message. His surrogates will have to maintain much stricter message discipline.
Just as importantly, that message will have to change focus. McCain has taken little advantage of the past four months since he putatively clinched the Republican nomination while the Democrats continued to battle. The reasons for that are simply that the American people generically prefer the Democratic Party over the Republican and trust Barack Obama over John McCain on the issues this year.
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken June 6-9 of 1,000 voters found the Democrats with a 10% identification advantage, 44 percent to 34 percent. The Republican Party was viewed favorably by only 28 percent, unfavorably by 47 percent and neutrally by 24 percent. The Democratic Party enjoyed a 15 percent advantage, as 43 percent had a positive view, 32 percent a negative and 24 percent a neutral one. Much of this no doubt was related to the unpopularity of President Bush, who had a 28 percent favorable rating to 66 percent negative.
A Gallup/USA Today survey on the candidates conducted June 15-19 gave Obama a 25-point advantage on "understands the problems Americans face," 22 points on "cares about the needs of people like you," 16 points on "is independent in thoughts and actions," 13 percent on "would work well with both parties to get things done in Washington," 10 points on "has a clear plan for solving the country's problems," 8 percent on "shares your values" and 4 percent on "is honest and trustworthy." They were tied on "can manage the government effectively." McCain's only edge was 6 points on "is a strong and decisive leader."
The same poll asked who would do a better job on eight issues. Obama led by 25 points on health care, 19 points on energy and gas prices, 16 points on the economy, 9 points on taxes, and a statistically insignificant 1 percent on moral values. The two were tied on "the situation in Iraq." McCain had his own statistically insignificant 2% lead on illegal immigration. The only issue where he clearly held the advantage was on terrorism, which he won by 19 points.
With these factors in mind and considering that a Karl Rove-trained campaign team will be running things, there are a few things we can expect in the months ahead.
First, we can expect McCain to distance himself from President Bush and the Republican label. He will do this by burnishing his "maverick" and "Straight Talk Express" reputations. This will be done in mostly general terms along the lines of his past statements about lobbyists and special interests in Washington. McCain has already retreated from the actual stances he took that were not in line with Bush, such as on taxation, campaign finance and the religious right because his former views tend to anger the Republican base.
Second, he will hammer away at the only truly winning issue he has, terrorism. He has begun doing this, taking questions on the economy, for instance, and finding ways to weave the threat of terrorism into his answers at every opportunity. To paraphrase what Joe Biden said about Rudy Giuliani, a lot of McCain's sentences will come to consist primarily of a noun, a verb and terrorism.
Third, an all-out effort will be made to destroy Barack Obama's credibility. This will not be undertaken primarily by McCain himself. It will be left up to surrogates and "unafffiliated" advocacy groups. If the issues are against you the only way to win is on personality factors, and no one has mastered the art of character assassination better than Mr. Rove. His political progeny, now in charge of McCain's national effort, have learned this at the feet of the master.
Expect any statement by Obama or his supporters that can be misconstrued or twisted into something untoward to be given that spin right away by McCain's surrogates. We are already seeing the beginning of that. If Obama doesn't wear a flag pin, why does he "hate America?" He has a Muslim middle name. Rove himself has taken to describing Obama as "that guy at the country club." Obama's appeal will be minimized as being "mainly to the inner city" (i.e. to blacks). His wife will be derided for being too outspoken. Count on this. These guys are very good at this kind of politics and they know it is their best, and perhaps only, avenue to victory.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Celebrating Independence
The United States of America turns 232 today, and birthday celebrations will be held across the country. There is much to celebrate. The great experiment in self-government and liberty launched in Phildelphia in 1776 has indeed kindled a fire that has spread to illuminate much of the world.
All around this vast nation, the patriotic displays of fireworks, music and speeches will meld with the merriment of picnics and ballgames, somber memorials to the fallen and hopeful paeans to the future in a panoply that is as distinctly American as hot dogs and apple pie.
Americans remain among the most nationalistic people on earth, united not by ethnicity or religious creed as are many other nations but by pride in a shared set of values that include liberty, equality, opportunity, generosity, justice, tolerance, community and democracy.
The twin contexts of our celebration continue to be the accomplishments of the past and our dreams for the future, and the tension between the two have often produced rancor among us. Yet it should not and must not be so.
The bold men who staked their lives on independence enunciated some of the highest ideals ever put forth, even though they did not fully live up to them. When many of the same men wrote the Constitution eleven years later they bore this in mind. Elections were to be held at regular intervals. The importation of new slaves would be ended after twenty years. An intricate system of checks and balances was designed to stem the dangerous aggregation of power in too few hands. A process for amending the Constitution itself was included. These provisions served to permit mistakes to be rectified and progress to be made toward the "more perfect union" they all envisioned.
On Independence Day, traditionalists emphasize the accomplishments of the past and the glories of the present. This is appropriate and good, and there is much to celebrate on both counts. Progressives often highlight the areas of American life where reality has not caught up with ideals, where there is still work to be done. This is good and necessary too. It is therefore as important that the celebratory mood of the traditionalist does not become a smug refusal to admit the nation's deficiencies as it is that the approach of the progressive avoids degenerating into a cynical view that the nation is irredeemable or the source of all the problems in the world.
Instead, to celebrate inpedendence, let us join hands to revel in the precious gift we have been bequeathed by our forebears while at the same time rededicating ourselves to those causes which have thus far been, as Lincoln put it, "so nobly advanced." Let the United States of America celebrate its freedoms and resolve to spread them, together with justice and propserity, to every corner of this most blessed land.
All around this vast nation, the patriotic displays of fireworks, music and speeches will meld with the merriment of picnics and ballgames, somber memorials to the fallen and hopeful paeans to the future in a panoply that is as distinctly American as hot dogs and apple pie.
Americans remain among the most nationalistic people on earth, united not by ethnicity or religious creed as are many other nations but by pride in a shared set of values that include liberty, equality, opportunity, generosity, justice, tolerance, community and democracy.
The twin contexts of our celebration continue to be the accomplishments of the past and our dreams for the future, and the tension between the two have often produced rancor among us. Yet it should not and must not be so.
The bold men who staked their lives on independence enunciated some of the highest ideals ever put forth, even though they did not fully live up to them. When many of the same men wrote the Constitution eleven years later they bore this in mind. Elections were to be held at regular intervals. The importation of new slaves would be ended after twenty years. An intricate system of checks and balances was designed to stem the dangerous aggregation of power in too few hands. A process for amending the Constitution itself was included. These provisions served to permit mistakes to be rectified and progress to be made toward the "more perfect union" they all envisioned.
On Independence Day, traditionalists emphasize the accomplishments of the past and the glories of the present. This is appropriate and good, and there is much to celebrate on both counts. Progressives often highlight the areas of American life where reality has not caught up with ideals, where there is still work to be done. This is good and necessary too. It is therefore as important that the celebratory mood of the traditionalist does not become a smug refusal to admit the nation's deficiencies as it is that the approach of the progressive avoids degenerating into a cynical view that the nation is irredeemable or the source of all the problems in the world.
Instead, to celebrate inpedendence, let us join hands to revel in the precious gift we have been bequeathed by our forebears while at the same time rededicating ourselves to those causes which have thus far been, as Lincoln put it, "so nobly advanced." Let the United States of America celebrate its freedoms and resolve to spread them, together with justice and propserity, to every corner of this most blessed land.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Where Do Our Rights Come From?
In America there is a good deal of preoccupation with rights. The American Revolution was primarily fought over a conception of rights. The Declaration of Independence mentions "inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Constitution's first ten Amendments were passed as a package and seek to spell out what the nation's fundamental rights are. They are usually called the "Bill of Rights." Both our major and nearly all our minor political parties compete in part by promising to adhere to what they consider to be the correct interpretation of the original meanings of these rights.
The most popular belief about the origin of these rights among the American people is that they come "from God." We hear mention of our "God-given rights." The Declaration says that the "inalienable rights" apply to "all men" and have been "endowed by their Creator." There is no question that Judeo-Christian thought is an important underpinning in the idea of individual rights. The belief that people stand equal before God and have value to Him long predates the United States, and has much to do with the ideals of individual rights appearing primarily in the Western World.
Yet these ideals did not translate into legal and political rights for a long time. Feudalism defined a rigid class system in Western society for centuries even though that society was strongly Christian. After that, the idea of monarchs ruling by "divine right" was the pre-eminent political understanding in Western Christian society after feudalism began to decline. It was only when Enlightenment rationalism was applied to moral and political discourse that a connection between Christian morality and political freedoms was established in most people's minds. Up to that time ideas like rights and liberties were mainly restricted to the realm of theology and relations between kings, nobles and the Church. It was only after philosophers like John Locke demonstrated the logic of applying these concepts to civil society that they caught on in the popular mind. He is, after all, the writer who came up with the "natural rights" formulation that included "life, liberty and property," and which formed the basis of Jefferson's similar formulation in the Declaration.
The important thing to keep in mind is that historically, nobody has ever been "granted" any of these rights. Freedom of speech and religion, equality under the law, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause, habeas corpus, the right to vote, in short, every limit on royal or representative governmental power over individuals has only come after persistent and often bloody resistance to that power. And once achieved, such limits have had to be maintained and supported by consensus or they have been lost. A citizen asked Benjamin Franklin what kind of government had been set up by the Constitutional Convention. "A republic, if you can keep it," was the great man's reply. The record shows that rights are won and maintained only if they are staked out and tenaciously defended.
For example, the 14th Amendment's mandate of "equal protection of the laws" was of little avail to African Americans for nearly a hundred years after its passage due to the hostility of much of the majority to the measure, or to Japanese Americans during the war hysteria after Pearl Harbor. The Bush administration's disregard for habeas corpus and constitutional requirements for jurisprudence and the prevention of torture show just how easily "inalienable rights" can be abridged by a government that whips up fear in order to increase its power and latitude for action.
No, rights are not granted by God. Peoples' idea of what is godly may underlie the rights they demand, but rights have to be fought for by humans here on earth to be won and often fought for again to be sustained. As John F. Kennedy said in his Inaugural Address, "Here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
The most popular belief about the origin of these rights among the American people is that they come "from God." We hear mention of our "God-given rights." The Declaration says that the "inalienable rights" apply to "all men" and have been "endowed by their Creator." There is no question that Judeo-Christian thought is an important underpinning in the idea of individual rights. The belief that people stand equal before God and have value to Him long predates the United States, and has much to do with the ideals of individual rights appearing primarily in the Western World.
Yet these ideals did not translate into legal and political rights for a long time. Feudalism defined a rigid class system in Western society for centuries even though that society was strongly Christian. After that, the idea of monarchs ruling by "divine right" was the pre-eminent political understanding in Western Christian society after feudalism began to decline. It was only when Enlightenment rationalism was applied to moral and political discourse that a connection between Christian morality and political freedoms was established in most people's minds. Up to that time ideas like rights and liberties were mainly restricted to the realm of theology and relations between kings, nobles and the Church. It was only after philosophers like John Locke demonstrated the logic of applying these concepts to civil society that they caught on in the popular mind. He is, after all, the writer who came up with the "natural rights" formulation that included "life, liberty and property," and which formed the basis of Jefferson's similar formulation in the Declaration.
The important thing to keep in mind is that historically, nobody has ever been "granted" any of these rights. Freedom of speech and religion, equality under the law, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause, habeas corpus, the right to vote, in short, every limit on royal or representative governmental power over individuals has only come after persistent and often bloody resistance to that power. And once achieved, such limits have had to be maintained and supported by consensus or they have been lost. A citizen asked Benjamin Franklin what kind of government had been set up by the Constitutional Convention. "A republic, if you can keep it," was the great man's reply. The record shows that rights are won and maintained only if they are staked out and tenaciously defended.
For example, the 14th Amendment's mandate of "equal protection of the laws" was of little avail to African Americans for nearly a hundred years after its passage due to the hostility of much of the majority to the measure, or to Japanese Americans during the war hysteria after Pearl Harbor. The Bush administration's disregard for habeas corpus and constitutional requirements for jurisprudence and the prevention of torture show just how easily "inalienable rights" can be abridged by a government that whips up fear in order to increase its power and latitude for action.
No, rights are not granted by God. Peoples' idea of what is godly may underlie the rights they demand, but rights have to be fought for by humans here on earth to be won and often fought for again to be sustained. As John F. Kennedy said in his Inaugural Address, "Here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)