Five weeks after Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, the parameters of the 2008 presidential contest have been established. The battle will be waged in roughly 33 states and cost more than a billion dollars. The central issues will be gas prices, the economy, and Iraq. And, despite John McCain's ineptness as a candidate, the race will be disturbingly close.
Over the past thirty days, Obama has consistently led McCain by an average of five points in tracking polls: Obama hasn't garnered more than 50 percent of the vote and McCain hasn't topped 46. During this same period, McCain's campaign has continuously made mistakes. Their blunders have varied in severity from McCain and his advisors suggesting that America's financial woes are psychological -- that we've become a nation of "whiners" -- to the Arizona Senator confusing Shiites with Sunnis. The only period when McCain avoided gaffes was during his ill-advised trip to Colombia and Mexico when he dropped out of sight.
Since he won the Republican nomination in March, McCain's campaign has raised less money than Obama. McCain's candidacy has had no unifying focus other than his sacrifice as a Vietnam-era POW. Moreover, a recent poll found registered Republicans have less enthusiasm for their nominee than Democrats do for Obama. Considering all these factors, why is the race so close?
There are two possible explanations. One is that the Obama campaign suffers from its own ineptness. Certainly they have yet to capitalize on McCain's inherent weaknesses. When Phil Gramm, McCain's principal financial adviser, described Americans as "whiners" because of their complaints about the economy, Obama referred to this in one speech and then let it drop; many observers felt the Illinois Senator should have hammered McCain with the whiner remark, as well as his contention that our current financial woes are psychological. Since the Iowa primary, pundits have frequently complained that Obama lacks the killer instinct because he often fails to take advantage of his opponents' gaffes -- a characteristic that led New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd to label him "Obambi."
Of course, Obama may appear lackadaisical because his advisors want him to bash McCain later, during the presidential debates, when more Americans are paying attention to the election. Or Obama may be waiting until he selects a vice-presidential running mate and give him or her the task of attacking the Arizona Senator. Or Obama may reason that if he stays positive, while his opponent descends into churlishness, voters will inevitably reject McCain. Whatever the thinking of the Obama campaign may be, it would be a disastrous mistake to assume that because of his inept campaign McCain is going to disappear. Or that he is any less ruthless an opponent than was George Bush.
What we know about the Arizona Senator should make every Obama supporter nervous. John McCain is the prototypical "good old boy." That's good old white boy. He has positioned himself to represent both the Republican mainstream and its racist fringe. With his attacks on Obama's character, McCain implies the Illinois Senator doesn't have "the right stuff" while McCain does because he's sacrificed for his country -- and has white skin.
Despite his reputation as a "maverick" and "straight talker," John McCain fits the mold of Bush-era Republicans willing to say and do anything to win. Over the last eight yearshe's changed his position frequently. While it's easy to dismiss many of his flip-flops as a calculated move to the right, some of his recent blunders had a more distressing flavor, suggesting McCain's memory has failed to the extent he can no longer be trusted to speak extemporaneously -- he's liable to say anything.
Nonetheless, McCain and Bush share more than similar attitudes about oil, the economy, and Iraq; they now have the same political philosophy. In 2000, it was George Bush who fooled the press and the nation by promising to be "a uniter not a divider", an environmentalist, and America's first MBA President who would restore dignity and honor to the White House. Now it's McCain who's repackaging himself as conciliator, environmentalist, and reformer; McCain who's trying to dupe Americans.
The Arizona Senator has gotten away with so many campaign mistakes and outright lies because he has a long history of cultivating the mainstream media. Correspondents covering his campaign behave like groveling sycophants and typically ignore McCain gaffes and position changes. Many political writers are fans of big John and consistently give him the benefit of the doubt. On a 2006 episode of Hardball, host Chris Matthews explained why journalists constantly give McCain a break, "because he served in Vietnam, and a lot of us didn't."
Despite his maladroit campaign and his association with an unpopular President, John McCain remains a formidable candidate. By retooling himself as a staunch conservative he's retained the core of the Republican Party. By cleverly coded messages he's picked up the racist vote. By manufacturing an image as a "maverick" and "reformer," he's attracted independents. And, he's seduced key members of the mainstream media. McCain isn't going away. He could win.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
either the polls and questions are skewed
or the democrats are doing their quadrennial suidice dance
It's July and unfortunately, some people aren't paying attention yet.
Once the debates begin and we get past the convention, the gap will widen tremendously. Although no one wants to say it out loud, this will be a landslide.
Why is Mccain close?
His opponent is not white, even 'worse', he has a funny terrorist name, and 'worst' of all he's black.
It may remain close but Obama will win because things are so bad in this country that people cannot vote in another Repub.
I like the idea of bankrolling all of McCain's gaffes/ actual stances on issues. Pull it all out in the debates when people are watching so that he has to answer when more than just a few people are paying attention.
Is it possible that the polling tends to be done on older people, mostly retirees, who probably still relate to an era like the one McCain represents, and who still have land lines? Perhaps part of the reasoning for these poll results is because the younger generation, aka, the cell-phone & VOIP generation, aren't being polled. I think there is a huge disconnect between the technology being used for the polls & this election year's voting generation.
That's a great observation. I feel a litle less worried now.
I'm not convinced about the cell phone theory, however an important concept of how poll results are complied is the pollster's assumptions about the composition of the electorate. In other words, if the pollster assumes that the electorate will be composed 50% republicans and 50% democrats, they will make sure they poll 50% republicans and 50% democrats about their presidential preference. I wonder if pollsters are adjusting their composition of the electorate assumption numbers based on the gigiantic movement in party identifcation towards the democrats and the huge disparity between the parties in terms of the number of new voters being registered.
CORRECTION: Earlier in this blog, I posted that Obama is polling ahead or tied in NINE Bush 04 states and that McCain is polling ahead or tied in no states won by John Kerry in 04. Just released poll from Rassmussen has Obama now ahead in Nevada (a 5 point upswing from last month), so now Obama is leading or tied in TEN Bush 04 states. McCain? ZERO inroads into blue states.
Now how is it close again?
CORRECTION: Earlier on this blog, I posted that Obama is leading or tied in NINE states won by Bush in 04, and McCain is leading or tied in no states won by Kerry. According the the latest poll released by Rassmussen just minutes ago, Obama is now ahead in Nevada (in a 5pt upward swing from this time last month). That makes TEN states won by Bush in 04 that Obama is currently leading or tied. McCain - still ZERO inroads into blue states.
Now how again is it close?
I think the most solid explanation is that in many left-liberal areas, Obama's support has softened, but not to the extent needed to change the electoral math. Disaffected liberals and churlish Hillary supporters in solid blue states are withholding support. Maybe he'll win them back over time, but for right now, it hasn't happened.
QT
Here is why McCain is close, 49% of Americans are Republicans, factor in the old, white vote and you have your answer. Simple.
Um... No, 49% are NOT republicans anymore. The most recent breakdown that I saw had the republicans being identified with about 25-30%, Democrats with about 40-45%, and the rest with Independents.
I believe the breakdown is more like
30 M Repos (25%)
40 M Demos (33%)
50 M Indepos (42%)
but don't quote me. These are hard
numbers to track down.
According to 'The USA Today', in 2004:
'(There were) about 55 million ... registered Republicans.
About 72 million registered Democrats. About 42 million
are registered as independents, under some other minor
party or with a "No Party" designation.'
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/neuharth/2004-01-22-neuharth_x.htm
2006 - 28% Democratic, 35% Republican, 27% Independent.
Of the Independents, the following groups were identified:
- 24% Disengaged
- 24% Disguised Partisans
- 16% Dislocated
- 18% Disillusioned
- 18% Deliberators
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/independents/index.html
Correction: 38% Democratic.
If the MSM narrative were that this presidential election is going to be a blowout for Obama, their viewership and readership might just tune out. They need a horse race. It's why McCain remains the foreign policy expert despite all of his gaffes relating to foreign policy. It's why every word or gesture associated with Obama is put under a magnifying glass.
The thinking is that this campaign is all about Obama--that he has something to prove. He either measures up as a commander-in-chief or he doesn't. He either relates to working class people or he doesn't. He either comes across as patriotic or he doesn't. He has to dodge slings and arrows to win this election.
No such measure is taken of John McCain. No such scrutiny given. No questions asked like, "Without being computer literate, is he capable of leading our country in the 21st century? Does he have a real accountable strategy for erasing the deficit while ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Where does he stand on rights for women, and why has he changed his position on everything from tax cuts to torture to refusing to sign his own immigration bill?"
I keep hearing that the media is so kind to Obama and so inattentive to McCain. Such kindness can kill a campaign. McCain should be grateful for the inattention. Imagine if the MSM really did its job covering him.
So, so true.
Excellent comment. Precise and truthful. Please keep posting this, and while you are at it, send it to all the pundits and media execs that need to hear it.
A couple of observations (absolutely open to debate):
1. Obama's move to the right (whether actual or perceived, bi-partisan, post-partisan, or pseudo-partisan) has earned him nothing from what one writer called "the empty center" and dulled the support of a once energized base. Obama should be knocking the leather off the ball, but McCain stays close.
2. America is not in the mood for a group hug; it wants real change, not new yellow stripes down the road twisting right -- approval ratings for both Bush and the Congress illustrates this better than I can. The reason people vote Republican is because they KNOW what they'll get; Obama has demonstrated from week to week that the same is not true of him.
Yet aversion so deep` to anything republican
A quick retort, lemeritus:
1. Obama hasn't moved right. But that's neither here nor there. According to these polls, McCain has always been fairly close with Obama, even BEFORE the FISA thing. So I seriously doubt that "progressives" taking issue w/Obama is a reason...those folks are NOT going to vote for McCain.
2. I've saw nothing that would lead me to believe that Obama wants everyone to do a group "hug" (aka he's weak, or soft). The reason people vote republican varies. Most vote because of one or two particular "wedge" issues (see gun laws, abortion). Further, with McCain, actually, I don't see how anyone with a brain can possibly know what they would be getting if he got elected (other than more of the same).
I do want to add that these polls are very misleading. I find it odd that the polls show Obama winning in "swing" states like WI, OH, PA, MI, CO, WA, IA, (some polls even have him up in AZ). How is this possible if the race is so close? Remember that of the largest states in population (CA, TX, NY) Obama is winning heavily in two of the three. FL is closer than McCain would like it to be. VA is neck and neck. Missouri is neck and neck. How does all of this possibly equate to Obama only up by 4pts? Who are they polling???
"How does all of this possibly equate to Obama only up by 4pts? Who are they polling???"
I wish I knew! I've offered two theories -- one, a perceived shift to the right (although you're absolutely right -- I cannot imagine progressives voting for McCain or diluting the vote such that McCain is elected) and, two, a concern that Obama is just more of the same (I didn't mean to imply that he was seen as weak or soft -- sorry about that).
Of course, polls are like soap operas, constanting changing. But it does concern me that he hasn't moved more dramatically ahead.
They're polling old poeple with land lines.
It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to see: that the media gives more coverage to unfounded rumors and negative attacks by all sorts of folks on Obama's family and his personal life/beliefs than it gives to relevant issues of concern to the American people, and this causes voters to develop negative perceptions; that it takes time for voters who have harden their hearts against Obama to soften those hearts as Obama defines himself; that Obama represents a "new, innovative approach" to politics/campaigning and folks are slow to accept or understand the paradigm shift; and, that racism is STILL alive in this country. As voters become better informed relative to FACTS and not fiction about Obama, coupled with the reality of their suffering from a decline in their quality of life and safety, they will vote AGAINST four more years of George Bush!
Why is it so close? Is it? An Obama win by 5% (where he has been steadily situated in the national average of polls since the beginning of June) would be double the Bush margin of victory in 2004 and translate to an electoral college margin of about 100 votes- the closest thing to a blowout that could be acheived given the current polarization of the country along partisan and ideological lines. Since June 1, there has been no polling trend or movement in favor of McCain in any state won by John Kerry in 2004, nor in any of the advertised "battleground" states. Obama is currently either tied or polling ahead in NINE states that were carried by Bush in 2004, while McCain isn't even close in a single state that was carried by John Kerry in 2004. Also, the "ethusiasm gap" currently suffered by McCain will have an effect on ground game and turnout operations, which was a particular Bush strongsuit.
A 5% margin means nothing when it comes to the electoral college map and the electoral votes that decide the whole thing.
It is still shocking that McCain, who most conservatives don't like, is still in the game.
Why is McCain close . . . maybe because people really don't know who Obama is yet. He is new on the scene with little to no voting record or significant accomplishments as a US Senator. People are skeptical and why not, there is really no record to go off of.
HUNH? If you don't know who Obama is by now, then you've had your head in the sand. I can see folks who "don't know" Obama still saying this 30 years from now. 'Yea, he was president, but we didn't really know anything about him then, and still don't now--he's just an empty suit'.
Second, what has McCain done in his 20+ years in the Senate? Hasn't he gone against the few legislative pieces he put forth?
If you want to know Obama's legislative history, the facts are there. All you have to do is look for them. The Google would be the quickest way to find this stuff out. Or go to his website.
One more thing: I love how Obama haters in one breath say that he has no record, but then turn RIGHT around and say he has the most liberal voting record of any senator...err, whaaa???? If his voting record is very liberal, it means he HAS A RECORD!
He is only close in the national polls that are taken talking to about 1,000 Americans. The studies that predict the electoral college are all starting to look like a cake walk for O'bama. The reason why national polls still have Mc'Cain close to O'bama is because there are still many people in this country who think that Mc'Cain is a "maverick" and a "moderate". This is because the MSM refuses to cover Mc'Cain's flip flops on all major issues and the fact that he knows little about foreign affairs (confusing Suni/Shia, Czechoslovakia, etc). But I think it's all a moot point. I don't think the Republicans have any intention of running Mc'Cain. I think they are going to pull a switch at the convention.
I believe you have a point. Considering the current NYT/CBS poll of just 1500
voters, compared to (say) Rasmussen which has polls in practically every
state and other arrangements which do averages of 'all' national polls,
one ought to consider the 'small' polls somewhat inconsequential.
Both of these guys have been flipping all over the place so I fail to see Obama's upside on this one . . . as for the Czech thing, Obama said there were 57 states in the USA so that won't stick.
Did it ever occur to you that when Obama said 57 he actually meant 47, referring to the 47 contiguous states that he'd already visited for the primary campaign? I know, it's so simplistic that it boggles the mind. Don't hurt yourself trying to figure it out.
As for the "Chech" thing, McCain chronically touts how much foreign policy experience he has... don't you find it odd, then, that he still refers to a country that has been defunct for 15 years as existing? And not once, but MULTIPLE times!
Posted July 17, 2008 | 06:41 AM (EST)