Five Thoughts for Tuesday
5) "Closing Argument" closes the door: Why all the fanfare surrounding Obama's "closing argument" yesterday, when the speech mostly recapitulated things he's been saying all year? Here's a clue. In a prebuttal, a McCain spokesman hit Obama as "untested and inexperienced," peddling "empty rhetoric," and aiming to form a triumvirate with Reid and Pelosi. That's precisely the dynamic that's worked to Obama's advantage all year, as he levels attacks against McCain counterpoised with his own solutions, and McCain and his spokesmen direct most of their effort to raising questions about Obama without pushing solutions of their own. This past week, McCain actually found some success with his attacks on Obama's tax policy - it turns out that a lie, repeated with sufficient frequency and volume, can be incredibly effective.
But by trumpeting the latest iteration of his ever-evolving stump speech as a "closing argument," Obama recaptured the news cycle, changed the subject from taxation to the economy, and goaded the McCain camp back into its counterproductively aggressive posture. Not too shabby.
4) Appropriations and Appropriateness: The big news about Ted Steven's pending retirement (volitional or otherwise) has been the increased odds of the Democrats capturing a sixty-seat majority. But this morning comes word that the Senate's oldest and longest-serving member (Stevens being the runner-up in both categories) may be eased from his perch atop the Appropriations Committee in the new Congress. There are lots of reasons for Reid to make the change, including Robert Byrd's advancing decrepitude. But it represents a cultural shift for the Senate. (Although at 84, his replacement Daniel Inouye is hardly a young turk, and not precisely a champion of reform.) The two decades during which Byrd has been the ranking Democrat on the panel have coincided with a massive bloating of the earmark process and ballooning deficits, and Byrd has shown neither the inclination nor the ability to curb even its worst abuses. With the panel poised to lose its top two members, though, there's a sudden opportunity to reform its processes. Let's hope the Democrat majority takes advantage of it, to secure that status for years to come.
3) A Big Buy in the Big Sky: Yesterday came word that the GOP is plunking down $300k for ads in reliably-red Montana, viewing the buy as a cost-effective "insurance policy," as one official put it. That reasoning is questionable, to say the least - dollar for dollar, an initial ad buy in Montana probably buys more votes for the GOP than the incremental effect it would have in a battleground state. But who cares? It's impossible to construct a scenario in which Montana is the state that puts McCain over the top, and there aren't key down-ballot races in the state, either. (The same logic evidently applies in West Virginia.) The spending seems symptomatic of a party in full-blown panic, looking mostly to avoid humiliation. Obama, meanwhile, has spent more than $2 million on ads in the state, and lots more on ground-level organizing and his 59 offices.
It's important for Democrats to tamp-down their euphoria, though. The key factor in Montana is the presence of Ron Paul on the ballot, providing an acceptable outlet for disillusioned conservatives of the Western/libertarian bent. There's a lesson in this. In Montana, and elsewhere around the country, voters are firmly and forcefully rejecting the past eight years of Republican misrule, but many aren't terribly more enthusiastic about the Democrats in general, or Obama in particular. The key to transforming this election into a watershed will be governance; constructing effective policies that have a broad appeal, and not simply using new leverage to force through stalled legislation.
2) Plus c'est la même chose, plus ça change: I've been blogging endlessly about early voting, but I've mostly focused on its implications for polling models. The numbers themselves are also worth some attention. In many jurisdictions, the number of early votes already exceeds totals from 2004. In all probability, that's both a sign of increased turnout and of a shift in voting behaviors. And that's nothing short of astonishing. The conventional wisdom (and published literature in political science) has always been that voting is a matter of habit, reinforced by social cues. Altering voter behavior, like expanding the base, has been viewed as a largely chimerical goal. The smart money has always been on reaching the folks who voted last time around. But this year, something - whether the Obama campaign's unprecedented organizing, or the unique political climate - appears to have altered the balance. Track all the returns here, and marvel at the ability of the American people to upend settled expectations.
1) Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose: One thing the early voters almost certainly don't represent is a sudden and unexpected surge in support for Obama. Since the Republican convention bounce wore off and the fiscal crisis began, this race has been an unprecedented exercise in stability. In the words of Prof. James Stimson at UNC-Chapel Hill, "Despite all that daily variation, Barak Obama has held a lead over John McCain of about 7 points over more than a month with virtually no daily variation...as if the race has been frozen since late September." What's particularly interesting about that isn't the falsification of almost everything that pundits have said over the past thirty days - that's virtually a given - but that we witnessed the same thing in the final months of the primary campaign.
Why is that? I'd suggest it's because the race has become a referendum on Barack Obama and his policies. While Obama was still a relative unknown, first to the primary electorate and later to the entire voting population, large shifts in support were possible. But once he was introduced, voters made up their minds. They were either willing to give him a chance, or they weren't. In the absence of effective affirmative arguments from either of his opponents, both of whom devoted most of their campaigns to raising questions about Obama, nothing emerged to shake this dynamic. So, stability. Bear that in mind over this final week, as the controversies du jour bubble up. They're entertaining, but since nothing has yet shaken the stable levels of support for Obama, it's unlikely that anything said or done in the final days will, either.
UPDATE: 1) a) Special bonus baseball thought: There's probably no man in America rooting harder for the Tampa Bay Rays to prevail in the continuation of last night's suspended game than David Axelrod. And it's not (just) because the passionate Cubs fan has it in for the Phillies. Rather, it's because Obama's roadblocked half-hour program is set to air on CBS, NBC, and FOX on Wednesday night (ABC dithered until it missed its chance). If the Rays are able to force a Game 6 for the first time since 2003, the start of the World Series on Fox will be pushed from 8:20 to 8:35pm to accommodate the broadcast. The Series delivers high ratings in some hard-to-reach demographics, but is a particularly big draw in the teams' home markets. For Game 1, also on a Wednesday night, 31.57% of all households in Tampa/St. Pete tuned in, as well as 35.7% of households in the Philadelphia media market. (It also played extraordinarily well in Orlanda, Ft. Myers, and West Palm Beach.) That's an awful lot of swing-state viewers who'll turn on their televisions to catch the start of the game, and find Obama delivering his closing message. Enough to make even a long-suffering Cubs fan find a little love for the neophyte Rays.
If you've enjoyed this, please share it with other readers by clicking the 'recommend this' link. You can find more analysis on my blog. As always, I welcome your comments and corrections, and thank you for your feedback.
Advertisement
5) Excellent question and answer. I would add that regardless of any strategic positioning, branding the speech as his "closing argument" got the media's attention, a valuable achievement in itself. Smart campaign.
4) Many of us have ridiculed McCain for his obsession with earmarks, but it is nonetheless a system in need of reform. Thanks for the reminder.
3) Could be panic, but under any scenario in which McCain would win, the race would be extremely close. 300K isn't chump change, but it won't break the RNC's bank either. (Apologies for the double-cliche.) I imagine that's worth the price if it helps them keep MT red.
I appreciate the word of caution. People are already writing Republican epitaphs, but it was only 4 years ago that the G.O.P. dominated the legislature and aimed for a "permanent Republican majority." Let's hope the Dems don't repeat their hubris.
2) Nothing to say here, move along, move along.
1) I accept your analysis relative to the dynamics earlier in the race, but the polling seems to be more static than in years past as well. What different this year?
October 28, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I was trying to get across (and I apologize if I was unclear) is that we've seen the same thing play out twice, in two different demographic groups. During the primary, we saw two blocs of base voters emerge early on, and large swings in support among less committed Democrats. Those swings stopped by Super Tuesday, as levels of support hardened into fixed patterns. The outcome of every primary thereafter could be predicted using a spreadsheet and some demographic data - and, in fact, the Obama campaign pretty much did exactly that. Once voters got to know Obama, they were either willing to trust him, or they weren't, and levels of trust proved to be virtually a straight-function of demographic variables.
But that was the primary electorate. As surreal as it may seem, most swing voters didn't know much about Obama at the beginning of the summer. We saw major swings in support as the campaigns battled to define Obama, introduced a new variable (Palin), and watched helplessly as the underlying terrain of the race shifted (the economic crisis). After that, the polling has been remarkably constant. None of the attacks leveled by McCain has had discernible impact, and none of the policies about Obama has really increased his support. Voters made up their minds when the economy collapsed. They looked at the two candidates, and more of them decided that they trusted Obama. It's not too hard to shape initial impressions; it's virtually impossible to change them once they've set. Since the race, more than any other campaign in recent memory, has hinged solely on the question of whether voters can actually trust Obama, once they've decided how they were going to answer that question, we've seen remarkably little movement.
October 28, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the detail. Thinking about it, I'm not sure that I agree with you about the primaries. Demographic voting preferences became easier to predict late in the primary season, as you say, but you're comparing predictability in the primaries to poll results in the G.E., which aren't exactly the same things. Primary state-by-state polls continued to show Obama hockey sticks leading up to the election. The only difference in the polling behavior between early and late primaries, as I recall, was that Obama peaked a little sooner in late primaries.
By contrast, we haven't seen any hockey stick in the G.E. poll history. Obama has climbed fairly steadily with a couple of peaks and dips around the primary. McCain's support has been more erratic, with a relatively high convention/Palin boost.
But even if there were a similarity between primary and G.E., it's still only a sample set of two. The claim that recent poll consistency is primarily due to voter trust in Obama is therefore highly speculative. It could also be distrust of McCain. Or the lack of any significant events to change anyone's mind coupled with a failure of the McCain campaign to change the subject. Or most likely, a combination of these factors plus 10 or 11 others.
I'm not arguing that your suggestion isn't plausible, just that it doesn't seem very defensible.
October 28, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The VOTEMASTER comments on the continued linear increase for Obama is essentially a referendum on where the country is going.
Compare Obama's upward climb to this graph.
October 28, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is also a nifty comparison between McCain and the Dow.
October 28, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
great entry (as usual)!
should we also be looking out for claims (by both parties) of unscrupulous election day activities?
i've heard pundits on the teevee say that one of the reasons why sen. mccain was pushing so hard against the evil empire that is ACORN was that they were trying to set up a psychological connection between screwy elections processes and sen. obama. if the mccain campaign seeks to take this route, wouldn't they take that course earlier in the evening, say when the first returns from Virginia and Indiana come in?
also, i've also heard from the almighty punditry that the obama campaign has tons of lawyers on the ground (all the way to the county level) ready to protect ballots and point out any irregularities in tallying.
is it too early to start considering those aspects of the election? should we wait until next tuesday to visit these concepts?
October 28, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are a lot of reasons to pay attention to voting rights, fraud, and abuses - but the outcome of the presidential race this year simply isn't among them. With a week left, and perhaps 15% of the ballots already cast, I can write with confidence that John McCain is going to lose this election by a larger margin than any amount of voter-suppression or fraud could possibly erase.
There are three reasons to pay attention to this stuff, though:
1) The stab-in-the-back myth. Much of the modern conservative movement, or at least its base, has been fueled by - how to put this politely? - paranoid resentment. No matter how much power and influence the movement has amassed, it has managed to nurse its grievances, secure in the self-righteous knowledge that its members are being screwed by the liberal elites. The ACORN gambit is more about fueling this mythos ("We wuz robbed!") than it is about contesting the results in any legal sense. Of course, this sort of thing is incredibly corrosive to the body politic, and to the extent it can be debunked or discouraged, it helps to build a measure of comity.
2) The myth of the dispossessed. Of course, it has its own counterpart on the left - the sense that elections are routinely stolen. There's been plenty of evidence of actual voter suppression and fraud by GOP operatives (contrasted with the paucity of evidence of any actual voter fraud, despite GOP allegations). But there aren't too many races where it's made the crucial difference. The graver danger of suppression is that it feeds feelings of disenfranchisement, and confirms for many of the most disadvantaged Americans that they don't have a voice in the way their nation is run. That is equally corrosive. (That said, sometimes, particularly in downballot races, these measures really can have an impact.)
3) The principle of the thing: More to the point, the morality or legality of suppression and fraud isn't contingent on whether it sways the outcome of the election. Just as I go to the polls to vote, even though I know my vote won't change the outcome, so too I expect it to be counted, even though leaving it uncounted won't change the outcome, either. It's worth stamping out abuses because they're wrong; that's the only rationale we need.
October 28, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those talking of earmark reform, you need only look at the fact that the $700B bailout package required $140B of earmarks to pass.
October 28, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Our economic system is based upon GREED.
2. As consequence, our electoral system is all about PORK -- EARMARKS, REGARDLESS whose gore is being oxed in that regard.
3. If YOUR congressional delegation doesn't bring home the pork/earmakrs, someone else's delegation WILL.
4. If YOUR congressional delegation doesn't bring home the pork/earmarks, you'll elect one that WILL.
So let's all stop the "More pure than thou" on the point.
To analogize from Greenspan's admission that he was wrong that the bankers would regulate themselves:
Greed is, by definition, excessive -- over the line. That being the fact, it is ludicrous to expect it to regulate itself. And, it being the fact that our economic system is based upon greed, how is our greed-based pork/earmark system going to be reformed?
October 29, 2008 6:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't agree with this line more...
The key to transforming this election into a watershed will be governance; constructing effective policies that have a broad appeal, and not simply using new leverage to force through stalled legislation.
And that is also the primary reason I am so enthusiastic and hopeful about an Obama presidency. I think he will absolutely focus on good governance and not just the exercise of power.
This will likely create tension between Obama and some of the old guard in Congress, which I think is healthy. It will also lead to disappointment among many of his current supporters.
If Obama can instill a new sense of leadership and civic responsibility into our government with a focus on results and pragmatic problem solving, his will indeed be a transformational presidency.
October 28, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The agenda of his first year is going to be crucial.
My understanding is that Obama plans to lead with energy policy. I think that's smart. It's a good way to dramatize that you're trying to move beyond cultural divisiveness, and tackle real, looming problems that we've been ignoring for too long.
October 28, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Energy is definitely the smartest lead focus. It is hands down the most important issue we have to solve in the coming decade.
Personally speaking, however, I would love having access to that government health insurance plan he keeps talking about...
October 28, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me thinks there might be a bit more going on in the Northern Plains than Ron Paul.
Ron Paul doesn't explain similar polling in North Dakota. Even South Dakota is considerably closer than recent past. Down ticket Dems have been doing better lately, and again this year.
Minnesota and Wisconsin are becoming bluer, and are more comfortably in the bag for Obama than they were for Kerry or Gore.
Partly 50 state strategy, partly the Libertarians getting sick of the Religious Right nuts they've been yolked to for 20 years or so. Partly a revival of Upper Midwest Progressive / Democrat traditions.
Most "McCain Wins!!" scenarios give him, at best, a very slim EV margin. Those 3 EV's from MT (Or ND) could put the kibosh on those scenarios. They could also help Dems and Obama portray a broader mandate, and a broader governing coalition, than the "Just the Coasts, Maam" image the Republicans hang on us.
October 28, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Fly.
October 28, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are, of course, entirely welcome. It's nice to see some familiar handles.
October 28, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we've had quite a bit of turnover. But in the end, TPM rules.
October 28, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Thera. Thanks a bunch Fly. Fun to watch an active inquiring intelligence at work. I think Fly understands what I've been saying for years. There are many types of play. Physical play, baseball, football and the rest of it. And intellectual play, which would include people in research labs, authors like me, and people like Fly who set about to understand. A bravura performance, Fly!
October 29, 2008 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can still see Ron Paul signs and bumper stickers in rural Wisconsin. Even though I got an e-mail from Congressman Paul asking me to support Michele Bachmann's campaign, I will overlook that. It was Ron Paul who used the "F-word"---Fascism---last winter as he talked with Bill Moyers about what is happening in this country.
And I met a lot of Ron Paul supporters in the Twin Cities during the Crime Families Convention in September. They actually had delegates and alternates who were duly elected from several states. When they went into the convention hall, they were surrounded by Secret Service agents who confiscated their Ron Paul signs and lapel pins, I was told---and even their copies of Ron Paul's books.
It's too bad Ron Paul isn't on a lot more states' ballots!
October 29, 2008 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You were born about noon, yesterday, I take it . . .
Ron Paul is TO THE RIGHT of the Bushit criminal enterprise. So MIGHT be the fascists.
Ron Paul is even MORE for deregulation than that enterprise.
Clue: stop drooling over politicians who tell you what you want to here about paradise right here on earth. THINK about whether their proposals are constructive, realistic, and beneficial to all, not only to extremists who don't know the difference between mainstream and extremism -- the latter being Ron Paul, the "Libertarian" (which the Founders and Framers were most definitely NOT) who can't get elected as that so LIES that he's a Republican.
Ron Paul has the SAME view of DOMESTIC spending as he does of foreign policy spending. He doesn't tell you that because YOU are FOR domestic spending on social programs which are paid for by, and which serve, those who pay for them. Ron Paul is yet another who would lecture those who pay the bills on why they can't have the money spent in ways HE disapproves: on "social welfare".
Hopefully within the next several years the know-it-all twentysomethings will learn enough to know that extremism is not an option when extremes are, by definiton, the views of extreme MINORITIES. Ron Paul is an extremist of the far RIGHT.
October 29, 2008 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, jumping to hasty conclusions, aren't we?
I met Ron Paul twenty years ago. I know all about where he stands on the various issues. I agree with him on some; strongly disagree on others. (There has rarely been a politician with whom I agree completely.) As Libertarians vigorously point out, the old "Left-Right" political dichotomy is over-simplified and inaccurate.
Liberals will put me in jail just as fast as reactionaries will, for things that should not be crimes. We just saw a dyed-in-the-wool pair of liberal Democratic mayors in Mpls-St.Paul capitulate totally to the police state during the recent Crime Families convention. The whole country has seen the spinelessness of Democratic politicians in Congress, caving in time after time, and whining that their "majority isn't big enough!" SOMETHING of theirs isn't big enough!
You say Dr. Paul "LIES" that he's a Republican. I don't think it's a lie, only a delusion. There used to be liberal Republicans, like Fighting Bob La Follette of Wisconsin, who were as out-of-step with the rest of his party, in his time, as Ron Paul is now.
My post wasn't an unqualified endorsement of Ron Paul. My points were, 1. Ron Paul was outspoken and correct on the threat of fascism from this administration [which, permit me to say, only Kucinich among the Democratic candidates raised as an issue--and I'm not sure he used the tag "fascist.'] 2. Ron Paul has a lot of supporters, who are treated shabbily by the Crime Families Party, and who therefore constitute at the least an irritant, and at most a potential defecting element from Republican ranks---and if one hopes for ANYTHING and everything to weaken their ranks, then cheer them on.
And be ready with more convincing arguments, so that when these dissidents are wandering in the wilderness, some of them can be induced to consider a paradigm shift. In the meantime, every vote they cast for Chuck Baldwin (choke) or Bob Barr, is one less vote for the fascists.
I don't resent your ad hominem (name-calling) attacks as much as I would if you had hit closer to home . . . but you're way off the mark. And I think your need to assert a self-assumed political superiority is similar to mine, so I wish you the illumination you so patronizingly offered me.
October 29, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
This wouldn't be a subtle Rush allusion, would it Fly?
For the uneducated, Rush is a BAND!
October 29, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alas, I'm not that cool.
October 29, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink