Goodbye John McCain? Why the White House is now Obama's to lose
Not convinced? Then let me explain what I’m basing that on.
About a month ago, when Obama and John McCain were neck and neck and many were beginning to seriously panic about a Republican victory, I said that (a) Obama was still better placed to win, and (b) we should not discount the possibility, however small, of his winning by a landslide. Amongst other reasons I gave for saying this, I noted:
- First, that McCain would have problems mobilising his lukewarm Republican support to come out and vote for him in numbers, and the choice of Sarah Palin as running mate may not make much difference to that; and
- Second, that McCain's perceived strength, Iraq, will do him little good as Americans made their mind up about that issue a long time ago. Now they're more worried about the economy, which favours Obama.
Recent polls appear to bear out and even reinforce what I was saying a month ago. Obama has now broken clear of McCain, with his lead outside the margin of statistical error. But what's more important is that when we drill down into the detail we see much going well for Obama and next to nothing going right for McCain. Obama is building on his strengths while McCain's are shrinking or being nullified. In other words, there are many reasons to think that Obama's lead still has room to grow and few reasons to think that McCain could make a comeback.
There are a million polls flying about at the moment. I’ve concentrated on two from CBS News dated 26 September and 1 October 2008. I go through the poll findings in detail in a separate post. Read that to see just how bad things are for McCain. Here, I’ll cover the most important points.
Obama has fought the election on domestic issues while McCain has tried either to talk about Iraq, national security and his own experience, or just attack voters’ confidence in Obama. That puts Obama on far stronger ground than McCain, according to these figures.
Voters are much, much more concerned by the economy than they are by Iraq and national security, and Obama is strong on the economy, whereas McCain has a serious image problem on this topic.
61 per cent of voters are very or somewhat confident in Obama's ability to handle the economy, while 39 per cent are not too or not at all confident. 49 per cent of voters are very or somewhat confident in McCain's ability to handle the economy (only 15 say "very" against 26 for Obama). 50 per cent - one half of the electorate - say they are not confident that McCain can handle the economy.
So, on the absolute number one election issue Obama is seen positively and McCain is seen negatively. On polling day, this could well be the bottom line.
McCain’s strong suit is supposed to be foreign policy. Indeed, he polls better than his rival in terms of who understands these issues and who is more ready to be commander in chief of the US military. But voters also have confidence in Obama in this area, albeit less than for McCain. Obama does not score negative here, as McCain does on the economy. He scores positive.
Moreover, voters are (quite rightly) not convinced by McCain’s big foreign policy line that the “surge” of additional US troops into Iraq is bringing “victory”. Nor do they share McCain’s hawkish views on diplomacy, Iran, and the “war on terror”. And they view McCain as having lost the first presidential debate – whose topic was foreign policy – to Obama. McCain actually lost supporters over that. If this is McCain’s strong area, then he doesn’t have a great deal to go on.
Then there’s George Bush. The sheer depth of Bush’s unpopularity is historic, and the financial crisis has made this even worse. The Democrats can credibly link McCain closely to the Bush presidency in people's minds by saying that McCain has voted with Bush 90 per cent of the time, and Biden and Obama have been hammering away at this theme. This could be electoral poison for McCain, who effectively has no answer to the charge.
How does all this translate into the voters’ view of the candidates? The latest CBS poll gives Obama a 9 point advantage, but to get the true picture we have to look at the nature and strength as well as the level of support.
Obama's supporters are far more enthusiastic than McCain's, which means that on the day they're more likely to make the effort to go out and vote. 61 per cent of Obama supporters are enthusiastic about their candidate (up 8 in a week) while 29 per cent (down 4) have reservations. Only 36 per cent of McCain supporters are enthusiastic (no change) while 47 per cent (down 2) have reservations. Turnout is a big deal in elections, and it doesn't look at all good for McCain. His supporters are stuck in a state of ambivalence, while Obama’s are getting more and more enthusiastic.
Asked whether Obama understands their needs and problems 67 per cent of voters said yes and 28 per cent said no (both up 1). For McCain, 46 said yes (down 3) and 49 said no (up 4). That's decisive for Obama and ambiguous (and getting worse) for McCain. Not good for the Republican in a national economic crisis.
Obama's favourability rating amongst voters was 3 per cent better than McCain's a couple of weeks ago; by last Friday it was 19 per cent better. McCain, whose rating is minus 3, is not in a good position to personally attack Obama, whose rating is plus 16. Yet this is the tactic the Republicans are now starting to accentuate, apparently in desperation.
The choice of Sarah Palin was a gamble on McCain’s part, an attempt at pulling a dramatic game-changer. It hasn’t paid off. Palin's approval rating was plus 10 two and a half weeks ago. By the time of the vice-Presidential debate it was minus 1. Joe Biden's approval dipped over the same period, but remained solid. It was plus 21 two and a half weeks ago, and by Friday just gone it was plus 15.
What about the vice-Presidential debate? As with the first Obama/McCain debate, the pundits called the Biden/Palin clash a draw. This on the absurd grounds that Palin had exceeded expectations by managing to speak in coherent sentences. That's clearly an achievement for her, but not for someone who plans to be a heartbeat away from running the world's most powerful country. At least that was the view US voters apparently took, with snap polls giving the debate to Biden by a distance. Its fair to say that Palin hasn’t recovered that early excitement around her, and probably isn’t going to.
Now of course, polls can never be exact. But nor are they a licked finger in the breeze; not if they are done properly. These polls look pretty professional, and in serious polling, a lot of careful work is done to get the numbers right.
But will the issues even matter? Won’t they be shunted aside in favour of trivialities (which of the candidates you’d prefer to have a beer with; whether one of the candidates “looks French”) thus favouring the Republicans? That’s the view of Noam Chomsky, the political commentator I have most respect for, but here I personally think he’s wrong. Yes the Republicans are desperate to avoid the issues, for reasons that are obvious. But there are limits to how successful that tactic can be. Can you convince Americans who are losing their homes and jobs that they should care instead about the personalities and trivia? Michael Tomasky argues very persuasively here that this election is just too big for people to be distracted. I think he's right, and the polling figures seem to support him, at least for now.
Another important note of caution would be that there is still a month to go before polling day and a lot can happen in that time. Obama could make a mistake or gaffe, or have something he says convincingly portrayed as such in the media. There could be a major terrorist attack, which might shift the debate onto McCain’s marginally stronger suit.
But McCain doesn’t want to be left hoping for a bolt from the blue at this stage. He needs a tangible chance of getting back in the game, and its hard to see where that comes from based on these numbers. The fact that McCain has abandoned campaigning in Michigan, a key swing state, speaks volumes, as does the fact that Obama is now competitive even in North Carolina and Virginia. There has been a seismic shift over the last two weeks, due in part to the collapse of the investment banking industry and McCain’s gimmicky and erratic response to the crisis. That was a test of Presidential character which he failed and Obama passed. He probably won’t get another chance like it.
I’ve criticised Obama in the past – strongly - and I’ll certainly do so again. But it cannot be claimed that there is no difference between these two candidates. Its right to hope for an Obama victory and now legitimate to believe, albeit still with caution, that that’s what we’re about to witness.
Labels: Barack Obama, Economics, Iraq, John McCain, US Imperialism, US Presidential Election 2008
posted by David Wearing at 7:53 PM
6 Comments:
David,
Much of what you write here is correct and well argued.
Notwithstanding, this election changed dramatically the week that Secretary Paulson asserted the need for emergency action. McCain was all over the place, politically speaking. Obama was firm and steady. That, not Obama or McCain's policy proposals, was a game changer.
As for Palin, I think the evidence is pretty clear that she is a net positive for McCain, given that he would likely be further behind but for her. Her job is primarily to seduce her party's base of support, something about which she has done a rather extraordinary job. To know this, one need only view the size of the rallies she holds, even with McCain's appeal dropping like a stone.
On foreign policy, Obama's approach has been largely to adopt the same views as McCain, further removing foreign policy as an issue in the campaign. And, that is a smart strategy because, in fact, no one much cares at the moment about foreign policy in the US, so taking the view that disputes between parties end at the water's edge is good politics if not also good for the country.
Of further concern for McCain, mutual fund statements have now gone out to the public from investment companies covering the period ending September 30. The losses are staggering and everyone knows that the losses do not include the losses so far in October, which are even more staggering. So, Obama - who is the candidate of those who best fits the billing of the anyone but a Bush clone candidate - needs only to take steps to freeze the conversation on the economy to have the better argument, at least for for now.
Of course, should lunatic terrorists strike at this point, the conversation might return to McCain's strong suit. Then, it is far from clear what would occur, since, as is a well known adage in US politics, Democrats do not normally win elections if the topic of foreign policy becomes dominant. Not enough of the public trust Democrats. And, that is likely true even still although, combined with the economic disaster, it would be a very close call who would win.
thanks
on your last point, I agree that a terror attack could be one of the few things that suits McCain, but I also agree that it would still be very close. I'm now (changing my mind even from a day or two ago as things continue to evolve) not sure that McCain would win even in those circumstances. I think McCain's brand is becoming poisoned and Obama is looking more and more like the next President. Its hard to see anything changing that now.
As you note, Obama handled the last crisis better than McCain (who just flailed around like a total loon). If another major crisis comes along - including a security crisis - I think that past performance might just stick in the back of voters minds.
I agree that Palin was primarily there to fire up the base (I think marginally she was also there to win over Clintonite women, which I sense she's failed to do). But the thing about firing your base up is that you can start firing your opponents base up too if you overdo it.
For every couple of Republicans who are excited by Palin I think there'll be one moderate conservative that's dismayed by her. And for every one Republican that's excited by her I think there'll be a couple of other Americans determined to cast their votes to keep her from office.
You can see how the pundit industry gets so big and bloated. With this many variables you can speculate til the end of time.
Here's an interesting anecdote from Ben Smith at Politico
An Obama supporter, who canvassed for the candidate in the working-class, white Philadelphia neighborhood of Fishtown recently, sends over an account that, in various forms, I've heard a lot in recent weeks.
"What's crazy is this," he writes. "I was blown away by the outright racism, but these folks are f***ing undecided. They would call him a n----r and mention how they don't know what to do because of the economy."
One person comments underneath the post: "McCain is SO bad, he's getting racists to consider voting for a black guy. Wow."
david
i defer to your expertise on the polling analysis. i would just like you to comment on two things that i think you may have overlooked.
1) having read the chomsky interview that you linked to your article, i believe you are right to disagree with him on this particular point. however i was hoping that you might pick up upon a slight contradiction in chomsky's analysis which suggests that these comments were not entirely consistent with his broader analysis.
that is that bush has been a total disaster for US elite interests. it was recognised very early on for instance that the doctrine of pre-emption was (while hardly being different from the Clinton doctrine in principle) represented a huge risk to US's global standing/reputation.
At home serious economists (krugman et al--who are hardly radicals lets face it) have been criticising the gung-ho running of the economy for years.
the situation has reached its apex now where the US (as chomsky notes) is in probably the weakest position it has been in since the second world war.
the point being that actually a large part of the establishment realises it must move against mccain/palin. i haven't been scanning the maerican media particularly closely recently but what bits i have seen have shown (an otensibly) surprising amount of criticism of the republicans. i don't think it is that surprising. i think serious, established interests recognise the threats to US power Mccain/Palin represent. As Chomsky notes, obama will almost certainly revert back to the more quiet/considered clinton strategies which proved far more successful.
2) The other thing is that, apart from a piece on democracynow, i have seen no discussion on voter fraud. by greg palast's estimates millions could be disenfranchised by the republicans. naturally they are concentrating on swing states. now i have disagreed with palast's analysis in the past, but i don't have really a way to gauge the significance of this. all i do know is that voter fraud was significant in 2000 and 2004.what is your opinion?
Thanks - on your first point, I very much agree and actually said more or less exactly this a month or so ago:
"But the major factor, as ever, will be the will of the people and institutions that really run the United States and its historic imperial project: the major corporations, investment banks, and concentrations of socio-economic power which, among other things, own the mass media that will be covering the election. The Bush presidency has been a historic disaster for US power. It is losing its grip on South America, challenged by a resurgent Russia, massively in debt to China, and humiliated in the Middle East by the defiance of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iraqi insurgents; the latter of whom fought the greatest military force of all time to a standstill with automatic rifles and rudimentary explosives. And it is still fighting the Afghan war 7 years after it began. In the imperialist euphoria post-9/11 the US ruling class threw everything behind a Bush administration drunk on the idea that the world could be subdued by the might of Washington; that a few punishment beatings meted out to the likes of Saddam, the Taliban, maybe Iran and Syria later on, would provide the necessary example to quickly bring the planet to heel, ushering in a "new American century". It didn't work out. Quite the opposite, in fact, and my suspicion is that when it comes to the crunch, the people and institutions that run the United States will come down strongly in favour of a return to the safety and pragmatism of the Clintonite status-quo, managed by Obama and Biden, over a continuation of the self-defeating recklessness of the Bush era under John McCain."
Its worth noting that many milder conservatives (David Brooks in the NYT springs to mind) have been highly critical of McCain, to the point where you could be forgiven for thinking that they may not mind an Obama victory all that much. Sections of the media are very critical of the Republicans (within the usual limits) and, althoguh some might say that that's just the liberal end of the media, you have to remember how dissent was virtually non-existent for a couple of years after 9/11. Elite criticism of the Republicans has increased markedly since that time.
I've not read much on voter fraud, but I'm sure there'll be efforts made by Republicans to disenfranchise potential democrat voters in swing states. By now that appears to be standard procedure. One thing I did read, though I'm not now sure where, was about people who'd lost their homes also losing (or having challenged) their right to choose their President. There are clearly few depths to which the GOP won't sink.
p.s. recall also that that paragraph about US power turning against Bush was written before the collapse of the banking system
Post a Comment
<< Home