Caution and Superstition
Todd Gitlin is right, of course, in suggesting to progressives currently giddy about polling trends in the presidential campaign that overconfidence is a bad idea in politics, as in any other competitive endeavor. And every Democrat of a certain age remembers past elections where we managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
But though Todd doesn't come right out and say it, I suspect much of his fear is from the most immediate bad memory: Election Night 2004, when many of us were half-convinced we'd already won a week or so out, and then, on reading those first exit polls, threw caution to the win and declared victory.
It's important, though, to remember why those expectations turned out to be unrealistic, and distinguish caution from superstition.
In the home stretch of the 2004 campaign, expectations of victory among progessives were partly attributable to a projection of our own belief that George W. Bush was a failed president pursuing failed policies which no reasonable person could support. We rationalized the terrible midterm election results of 2002 as an aberration attributable to the proximity of 9/11, and whatever we thought of John Kerry (I happened to like him a lot), figured he was a sufficiently acceptable candidate to harvest the inevitable backlash against Bush.
On a more analytical level, the factor many of us fixated on was the political science truism that undecided voters in the late stages of a campaign tend to break decisively against incumbents, particularly if they are sour about the condition of the country. With undecideds exhibiting very high levels of "wrong track" sentiment at this point four years ago, the thinking was that Kerry would win if he could keep the contest close in the polls, which he did. And that's why those flawed early exit polls had many of us calling friends and relatives and fatuously urging them to ignore the red tide on their television screens, because we had actually won. We were predisposed to ignore adverse evidence, even in the face of actual returns.
Sure, there are three weeks to go in the current campaign, and weird stuff can still happen. But unless you believe in the Bradley Effect (which as Todd notes, is mostly a myth or an anachronism), or really do think the GOP can contrive a terrorist attack or get away with voter suppression or vote-stealing on a vast scale, the situation for Democrats is undoubtedly better than it was in 2004. Polls aside, the "fundamentals"-- including the issue landscape, party ID and registration trends, the unprecedented levels of unhappiness with the incumbent, and the political impact of the economic crisis--are decisively better. And even if you don't drink every drop of koolaid about Obama's "ground game," I don't know a single person in politics who thinks McCain's operation is superior to Obama's. That's totally aside, of course, from the dynamics of the campaign itself, wherein the central contradiction of the McCain candidacy--his effort to simultaneously pose as a supra-party "maverick" while bending to the conservative "base" on every major subject--is blowing up spectacularly almost every day.
Does that mean Democrats can or will start "coasting" and giving the GOP an outside chance to catch up? I don't think so.
We should focus relentlessly on the fact that there's all the difference in the world between a narrow Obama win and mixed "downballot" results, and a big Obama win with House and Senate gains that give Democrats an actual working majority in the former chamber, and a filibuster-proof majority in the latter. It could well be the difference between a successful and unsuccessful Obama administration, and its ability to reverse some of the more toxic Bush-Cheney policies. If you want to dwell on bad memories of elections past, save some mental space for 1994, when the Clinton administration''s early struggles contributed to a disaster that we are only now beginning to overcome.
Avoding irrational optimism is essential right now, but so, too, is avoiding a superstitious pessimism that could obscure the big challenges just ahead.














QUESTION - I've been trying to find out if anyone knows if the Secret Service has to do anything when someone makes a death threat at a McCain campaign rally. Any thoughts???
October 14, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we are naive to believe that the "Bradley Effect" is myth. I am perfectly confident that if the polls in one state show Obama ahead by 2 percentage points he will lose that state. The insurance against the Bradley Effect is to get much further ahead, so the effect can't swing the election.
And, it makes no difference how far ahead Obama is in national polls, since the popular vote doesn't determine the winner. The winner is the one getting the most Electoral College votes. I an encouraged because most of the analyses I have seen show Obama with a comfortable lead in Electoral College votes too.
This is going to be a nail biting 3 weeks for me. I expect a landslide for Obama, but I fear another 2000 election.
October 14, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU&eurl
Funny youtube video about clueless Obamabots.
I was starting to think about voting for Oilbama, who voted FOR the Bush Cheney Energy Bill, when I passed a college kid on the street wearing a sexist anti Palin T-shirt today, it used the c word to describe her, and was reminded what a bunch of dirtballs Obamabots are.
October 14, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am volunteering every single day between now and the election for Obama in Chicago. Believe me, no one I'm working with is taking anything whatsoever for granted. I personally am hoping and praying for a landslide. It's not enough anymore to just win by 10 - 20 in the electoral college. I want a landslide after the hateful, despicable campaign run by McCain. (I'll get an avatar eventually...too busy now.)
October 14, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, fill me in again on what's progressive about Senator Obama. His legislative record? None. His health plan that was attacked by Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, leading to an attack by Obama on Krugman? His support of every military spending bill, his desire for a larger military, his blind support of Israel and AIPAC? His "let's make a deal" approach to Repubs? There must be a pony in there somewhere.
October 14, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Pony is Barack Obama =/= John McCain.
Next question.
October 14, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly my point
October 14, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: And every Democrat of a certain age remembers past elections where we managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Has there ever been a presidential election in recent times when the candidate leading by a ten point margin in mid October was defeated? I don't think so. Not saying it can't happen, but past history does suggest it is quite unlikely.
As for 2004, hopes for Kerry rested on the chance he would lose the popular vote (Bush had been leading for two months), but win in the Electoral College with Ohio and maybe Iowa. Many of us would have relished the poetic justice of that.
October 14, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tortoise_and_the_Hare
The Tortoise and the Hare is a fable attributed to Aesop.
The story concerns a hare who one day ridiculed a slow-moving tortoise. In response, the tortoise challenged his swift mocker to a race. The hare soon left the tortoise far behind and, confident of winning, he decided to take a nap midway through the course. When he awoke, however, he found that his competitor, crawling slowly but steadily, had already won the race (although in some versions, he may have also been bragging to some other people).
October 14, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone think a terrorist attack before Nov. 4 would actually help McCain, as Ed suggests briefly? God forbid such a thing should happen, but McCain is losing in large part because Americans are seeing him as unsteady and erratic in times of crisis (take your pick of crises: the financial mess or McCain's mess of a campaign, for starters).
Obama has demonstrated the kind of steady, thoughful, clear-headed demeanor that will serve us well come January and beyond, particularly when the next domestic or foreign crisis (inevitably) comes around.
McCain's campaign is doing only one thing well: Giving Americans a clear sense of who and what he is. And that's why he's trailing so badly.
October 14, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did anybody else perceive the significance of the Oct. 9 NY Times article by Ian Urbina, "States' Actions to Block Voters Appear Illegal"? Unless there's a truly overwhelming Obama landslide, I fear a humongous mess on Nov. 5; I fear it could be worse than eight years ago.
I seem to remember four years ago at this time getting a solicitation for contributions to help pay for legal help against what might happen. Does anyone know if anyone is preparing for this, this time around?
October 14, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Unless there's a truly overwhelming Obama landslide, I fear a humongous mess on Nov. 5; I fear it could be worse than eight years ago.
Unless the vote is exceedingly close in one crucial state (as it was in 2000) I don't think there's anything to worry about. Sure, some wingnuts will whine about vote fraud, but there will be no "there" there, because Obama's margin of victory will be sufficient to make the point quite moot.
He's on track to win somewhere between 300 and 360 electoral votes. That's well beyond the territory where a vote dispute would be met by anything except disbelief and disgust by the vast bulk of the population including most GOP voters).
I really wish I knew why so many folks are trying to in defeat in victory, by dredging up Bradley effects, fretting about possible vote disputes, fearing some future impeachment, even foreboding a rightwing coup. Yes, it isnt quite won yet, but progressives need to start acting like winners instead of people who forebode that they really don't deserve to win.
October 14, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet you didn't realize that Where They Stand on "America's Forgotten Epidemic" ranks right up there with financial bailouts, impending recession, Iraq, Afghanistan, a new Cold War, energy policy, and world hunger among policy differences which should decide the contest.
CBS focuses on the HIV/AID's epidemic in 59% black Washington, D.C. and introduces the viewer to two HIV positives, a gay* black guy and an unmarried black woman with 5 children.*
There doesn't seem to be any real distinction in the candidates' positions -- the purported driver of the Where They Stand segments -- but Obama's interest in the problem is emphasized (archived interview). The piece ends with the woman telling Dr. Sanja Gupta that "Sen. Obama speaks specifically to the community of which I belong; [it] makes me know he cares about the African-American community."
CBS asks: Barack Obama, your candidate or the candidate of sexually irresponsible and/or ignorant African-Americans looking to cash in on his sympathy for the black community?
* No; CBS didn't say he was "gay." What CBS said was that the woman contracted HIV from "sexual intercourse"; the man got his from "unprotected sex."
* The child whom she infected with HIV because, as she put it, the community thinks "we have medicine we can take, it's okay to be HIV positive" wasn't interviewed. We did get to see his photograph, though.
October 14, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am watching the trend lines very gradually inch up. A week ago I was watching the tracking polls move by a point or so around 49-50, and now I am watching them move around 51-53. So long as it stays in that range, moving ever so slightly up every few days, I am ok with it, and in the end I suspect the undecideds will more than likely fall in that direction. But all in all, I am ready to vote, and for this whole process to be over, because the one thing I fear is peaking too early in the process.
October 15, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am watching the trend lines very gradually inch up. A week ago I was watching the tracking polls move by a point or so around 49-50, and now I am watching them move around 51-53. So long as it stays in that range, moving ever so slightly up every few days, I am ok with it, and in the end I suspect the undecideds will more than likely fall in that direction. But all in all, I am ready to vote, and for this whole process to be over, because the one thing I fear is peaking too early in the process.
October 15, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The federal appeals court decision just gave Ohio to McCain no matter what the polls say. They don't need the Bradley Effect when they have the Purge Effect.
October 15, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: The federal appeals court decision just gave Ohio to McCain no matter what the polls say.
You don't know that. There may be no significant purge of (real) voters at all-- just the elimination of "Mickey Mouse" and the like from the rolls. Also, Obama could still take the state without some of these newly registered voters-- polls do show him up (or at least neck-and-neck) among Likely Voters, a category which excludes the newly registered.
But again, he can easly win with or without Ohio. This election shows no sign of coming down to just one crucial state.
October 15, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you, ScarletFever. The '04 election was stolen from Kerry because of voter suppression, challenge, intimidation, purging, caging, diversion, machine rigging (aka "malfunctioning"), and outright fraud.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election; the people who count the votes do." Josef Stalin
Why do we refuse to face the fact we will all be voting with the same machines and scanners put in place by Bush's HAVA?
October 15, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink