Democrats Still Have Work to Do to Win in November

RSS stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com Share this on Facebook

Posted June 19, 2008 | 03:52 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

I have a word of advice for my fellow Democrats, and here's a hint: It involves chickens, counting and eggs.

I recently attended the National Conference for Media Reform in Minneapolis, and it seemed like every speaker's presentation, as well as all my conversations with fellow attendees, started with the premise that Barack Obama is a lock to win the presidency in November.

In the last week, this site has featured a great article by Arianna Huffington comparing John McCain's 2008 campaign to Bob Dole's candidacy in 1996 (no, I'm not kissing up because she's the boss; read the article, it's very persuasive) and a fascinating piece by Steve Rosenbaum arguing that McCain is so sure to lose, by August he will drop out of the race in favor of another candidate.

Don't get me wrong: I think that the Democrats have an amazing opening to win back the White House. After all, as I frequently point out, George W. Bush's approval rating is at a historic low (28 percent in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll), and 81 percent of the country thinks we are on the wrong track, according to a recent CBS/New York Times poll. And Obama is certainly a better candidate than John Kerry, already showing that he has a better rapport with people and a willingness to fire back at Republican smears as they happen, rather than letting the right-wing attack machine define him the way the "swift-boaters" nailed Kerry.

It's just that there are also a lot of challenges to overhaul, and I don't want Democrats to take things for granted and have regrets in November. Or, put another way, I don't want the party to be the next 2007 New York Mets (who blew a seven-game lead with 17 games to play), or the next Leon Lett (fumbling while prematurely celebrating a potential touchdown after a fumble recovery), or, gulp, the next Kerry.

What scares me is that on the left there seems to be the pervasive idea that it is common knowledge among Americans across the country that McCain has become a joke, a Bush clone with a campaign loaded with lobbyists who has become so addled that he comes off as desperate and out of touch when he speaks. It makes me uneasy, because it is dangerously similar to the mood on the left in 2004, when so many of us figured that the country couldn't possibly return to office someone as incompetent, deceitful and destructive as Bush. The problem was, while the left knew about Bush's lack of fitness for office in 2004, the rest of the country hadn't reached that conclusion yet. They did, and by November 2006, the voters had tossed the Republicans out of power in Congress. But it was too late for the presidency, and we have had to endure four more years of scandals, incompetence, a sagging economy, and an ongoing debacle in Iraq.

I hope, in time, the rest of the country will come around to the point of view of McCain held by those of us on the left. I think it's pretty accurate, and with more light on McCain, it will become obvious to more voters. But, like Bush in 2004, I don't think everyone is there yet.

There is still this idea in the culture (reinforced by the mainstream media) that the current McCain is not far off from the the 2000 version of the candidate, the independent reformer who did break from his party on environmental and campaign reform issues, rather than the guy he is, who voted with Bush 95 percent of the time in 2007 and 89 percent of the time since Bush took office (according to a Congressional Quarterly voting study), as well as voting 98 percent of the time with his fellow Republicans (43 of 44) in 2007. Too many Americans still think of McCain as a maverick rather than as the senator who voted against health insurance for children, against a ban on torture, and against a farm bill that contained a repeal of the so-called Enron Loophole that has been partially responsible for the current high gas prices.

There is also the problem of the right-wing smear machine, which has been effective in scaring independent voters in presidential elections in the past few years. Fox News has already started a fear campaign, between the "baby mama" reference to Michelle Obama and the claim the Obamas engaged in a terrorist terrorist fist bump. The right is already trying to scare Americans into being fearful that Obama is in league with scary figures like Iran, Hamas and Jimmy Carter.

Much like Dana Carvey's Garth in Wayne's World, many Americans fear change. They may say they want it, but the reality of something innovative and different can drive them to something familiar and comfortable, especially if they are afraid. And especially if they are senior citizens. And that is what the GOP is going to try and capitalize on. They've started already. McCain and his surrogates are sending the signal that it's a dangerous world now, and he'll keep you safe, while the new, young guy will not.

And let's not be naive and ignore the fact that when it comes to change, asking some older folks (and younger folks, for that matter) to vote for an African-American guy named Barack Obama is a factor. Twenty percent of voters in Ohio admitted that race affected their votes in the state's primary. That's how many admitted it. But how many more either are embarrassed to say they are uncomfortable with a black president, or are not even aware that their predispositions about race affected their decision-making process? If you don't believe me, take a walk around a retirement community in Florida and listen to what some of the old folks have to say.

I think America has made great progress on race, and I believe that enough Americans are ready to elect an African-American to the presidency. But it is a real issue that Obama and the Democrats will have to overcome in November.

Finally, the Democrats will have to overcome a recent history of failure in presidential elections if Obama is to win. Since 1968, only three Democrats have been elected president. Jimmy Carter won in 1976, and he had the extraordinary circumstances on his side of running just two years after the Watergate scandal destroyed trust in the federal government, especially in Republicans. And Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, but he never received a majority of the votes. In each election, Ross Perot ran and siphoned votes away from the GOP candidate. That's it. Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry all went down to Republican opponents during that time, and, based on the circumstances, you would have to say that Dukakis, Gore and Kerry all blew great chances to win. Is the debacle of George W. Bush enough to push 2008 into the column of the Democrats? I think so. I hope so. But only time will tell.

Remember, even though Obama is doing better in early polling against McCain than Kerry did at this time against Bush, according to Real Clear Politics, Obama is up by only an average of 4.2 percent in national polls by Rasmussen, Gallup, Reuters/Zogby, ABC News/Washington Post and Cook/RT Strategies. These numbers don't scream that a win is inevitable. Rather, they look like the mark of a close race. Even more troubling, some of the polls covered by Real Clear Politics have McCain ahead in Michigan, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida, Missouri, New Mexico and Nevada (with McCain ahead on average in Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire and Nevada). Again, not numbers that lead to a conclusion that McCain is done.

I understand that Obama has been surging in the polls lately. I am optimistic that as time goes on, and as the voters get to know Obama and see what McCain really stands for, Obama's campaign will get even stronger. And I believe that if things go well, the Democrats have a great chance of winning in November. But that is a far cry from the sense of inevitability that I have sensed on the left.

Which is why I besiege Democrats not to take an Obama win for granted. We can't assume everyone in the country is aware of McCain's weaknesses and fidelity to the Bush agenda, or know that the Internet rumors about the Obamas are false, or understand the real positions Obama and McCain have laid out. It is our job to get out there and make sure as many people as possible are as informed as possible, and how they don't have to be afraid of voting for Obama. If word gets out, I think the conditions favor the Democrats. But that's a big "if."

We, as Democrats, cannot count our chickens before they hatch. If we do, we might have to endure four more years of a Republican president laying eggs.

 
 

Comments
22
Pending Comments
0

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

View Comments:
- Yohomegirl See Profile I'm a Fan of Yohomegirl permalink

We are the rabbit, they are the turtle, but we learned from an earlier race so now we run circles around the turtle the whole way. That turtle is slow and lethargic. We are quick, and have quick minds. Every Hour, Every Dollar, that is our mantra from now til Nov and beyond. Give every hour, every dollar 'til it hurts, and then take a short breather, get up and make another call, knock on another door, give/raise another dollar, bend another ear.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 PM on 06/19/2008
- Michale32086 See Profile I'm a Fan of Michale32086 permalink

"We are the rabbit, they are the turtle,"

Hmmmmm

I seem to recall that tale..

If I recall correctly, the rabbit got cocky and the turtle plodded on thru to the finish line, winning the race.

Michale.....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:10 AM on 06/20/2008
- Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Mitchell Bard permalink

Ha ha, clever Miachael32086. And Yohomegirl, I admire the spirit. My whole point is that Yohomegirl's spirit has to be infectious enough to reach everyone, and it has to sustain to November. Democrats can't take an Obama win for granted.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:12 AM on 06/20/2008
- XME See Profile I'm a Fan of XME permalink

Absolutely. Assume nothing...this will be an uphill battle all the way, despite this being a "Democratic year". Sadly, Obama's biggest negative is his race. America is still a racist country, and right off the bat, 20% of the people simply won't vote for him because of his race. Others will be skeptical for just that reason, but can be convinced that he isn't all that "different" from them. But it will take work and Obama getting out there to let them meet him to dispel the fears. This won't be no cakewalk!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:08 PM on 06/19/2008
- Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Mitchell Bard permalink

Thanks for the comment, XME. I think you hit the nail on the head. Obama will have to get out there to show people who he is. He's done a good job so far. He has to keep it up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:13 AM on 06/20/2008
- rbloom See Profile I'm a Fan of rbloom permalink

It's "beseech." The Democrats will be "besieged" if we win in November and then can't end the Iraq debacle and turn the economy around.
BTW, I'd be happy to offer my copyediting services to HuffPo and it's contributors, for a competitive fee.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:04 PM on 06/19/2008
- standard See Profile I'm a Fan of standard permalink

Good catch on "besiege". If you want to edit copy for a fee, however, be sure to spot every last misuse of the contraction "it's" when the possessive "its" is intended, as in your third sentence. But please keep at it! If you could just get all the folks who mix single subjects with plural adjectives ("No one wants their name misspelled.") to stop doing that, you'll deserve a Medal of Freedom.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:56 AM on 06/20/2008
- Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Mitchell Bard permalink

Ha ha. Touche, rbloom. My bad. Thanks for pointing that out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:16 PM on 06/19/2008
- rbloom See Profile I'm a Fan of rbloom permalink

My pleasure. The first one's free.
Thanks for the post -- you're absolutely right. I attended the '88 convention in Atlanta that nominated Dukakis. He walked out of there with a 17-point lead, and we were all euphoric that the Reagan aberration was finally going to be over. Carter's lead coming out of the '76 convention was on the order of 20%, if I recall correctly (and my memories of the '70s are shall we say fuzzy) and he barely won in a squeaker.
And thanks for sticking around and mixing it up with the commenters. I enjoy it when the contributors do that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:12 AM on 06/20/2008
- DrVeruju See Profile I'm a Fan of DrVeruju permalink

Don't forget Diebold.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:40 PM on 06/19/2008
- Michale32086 See Profile I'm a Fan of Michale32086 permalink

Oh jeeze... Wasn't this myth laid to rest during the 2006 elections??

Don't tell me, let me guess..

Diebold is ALWAYS in play, but it's ONLY a factor when the GOP wins, right??

Michale.....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:57 PM on 06/19/2008
- Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Mitchell Bard permalink

Michale32086, if there is no paper trail, do you really believe that there is not a chance that an election could be corrupted?

I understand reacting negatively to a claim that an election was stolen by Diebold. But the fact is we don't know, and we can't say with certainty that the vote will be fair.

It's not like election rigging is a new thing. Remember Daley in Chicago.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:19 PM on 06/19/2008
- Michale32086 See Profile I'm a Fan of Michale32086 permalink

The simple fact is, if Obama loses in NOV (which I think is likely, despite my intent to vote Obama) it will be because of the hysterical and totally irrational actions by the Hillary Clinton supporters..

Just an small example:

"Tim Russert was murdered by the Obama camp because he dared to be rough on Obama during an interview"

"T. Kennedy & T Russert are experiencing 'karma' because of their support of Obama"
(I know that conflicts with the first, but these are actual Hillary supporters)

"George Bush is better than Obama"

I shit you not, these are actual posts from Hillary supporters... And this is just a small example of the posts..

Given this, I can't see how Obama can win...

Michale.....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:05 PM on 06/19/2008
- mmerose See Profile I'm a Fan of mmerose permalink

The Democrats will also have to overcome a not-so-recent history of spinelessness and outright double-crossing of the hopes of their own constituents in order to maintain the mobilization of the primaries.

So what do the incumbent representatives do? Hand one more silver platter to the President with telecom immunity on it. And you didn't think lame ducks had teeth.

I'm an engaged person, and this news today has me wondering whether I'll even bother to come out in Nov. for Obama. Why bother, if all the same slugs are his cohort in Congress?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:48 PM on 06/19/2008
- Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Mitchell Bard permalink

I understand your anger, mmerose. I agree that the Democrats have not shown the backbone they should have since they have taken control of Congress (even though the majority in the Senate is barely existence, certainly not close to the 60 votes you need to close debate).

But I think it's a leap from these fair points to the "it's all the same" argument. Looking at it broadly, do you think Al Gore would have invaded Iraq? Given tax breaks to the oil companies and deregulation loopholes to Enron? Botched the post-Katrina situation? Put industry hacks in governmental regulation positions? Politicized the Justice Department?

Don't let your valid and true complaints obscure the real differences between the parties.

Thanks for commenting.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:05 PM on 06/19/2008
- djarvis See Profile I'm a Fan of djarvis permalink

This is a very good blog and it points out that we can't get overconfident in an Obama win. I still believe that as we move closer to the general election and more people get to know Obama, they will want to vote for him. It also seems logical that people will not want to vote for McCain when they get to know his stance on the issues. Obama is already doing pretty good in the polls when you consider that it was just over two weeks ago that he clinched the nomination, while McCain was already his party's presumptive nominee back in March.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:32 PM on 06/19/2008
- kristycu See Profile I'm a Fan of kristycu permalink

Not only that, As long as Obama does not get complacent that is all that matter and right now it seems as though he is taking nothing for granted. and that is all that matters as long as we see him take it very seriously, others will continue to as well.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:00 PM on 06/19/2008
- Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Mitchell Bard permalink

That's a good point, kristycu. If Obama take winning for granted, there is nothing anyone can do to help. It starts with him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:22 PM on 06/19/2008
- Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Mitchell Bard permalink

Thanks, djarvis. I agree with you. Obama supportes have to be active in getting the message out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:49 PM on 06/19/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

Related Tags