Broad Political Implications Of A McCain Victory

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 18:43


I will post on the daily details of the tracking polls later today. However, the short version is that McCain was clearly ahead in Saturday's polling, probably by about 4% in Rasmussen and 6-7% in Gallup. With numbers like that, there can be no doubt that McCain is currently leading in both the national popular vote and in the Electoral College (the Electoral College is not as divergent from the national popular vote as some commenters imply). Before going into the minutia of the numbers, in the extended entry, I list five broad implications for our national politics if McCain were to win.
Chris Bowers :: Broad Political Implications Of A McCain Victory
Five macro results of a McCain victory:

  1. Large Democratic Congressional gains will not break the working conservative majority. Even if a McCain loss is coupled with large Democratic gains in the House and Senate, the working conservative majority will not be broken. Bush has presented McCain with a path to governing with a Democratic Congress: veto anything you don't like, never respond to any congressional investigations, and secure enough Bush Dogs to pass virtually any legislation you want. Over the past two years, the number of Bush Dogs in the House has actually grown from 40 to 70, and there is no reason to expect that number to shrink under a McCain administration. No Democratic majority will be large enough or tough enough to break that level of conservative support. Even sixty seats in the Senate simply wouldn't be even close to enough, given the large, and continually increasing, numbers of capitulation Democrats.

  2. The Democratic Party will move to the right, not the left. There is a rather absurd notion among pundits that in defeat, parties often decide to move further away from the center. This just isn't true. Defeat pushes a party toward the winning the party, as Daniel De Groot wrote two months ago. As imperceptible as it might appear, we have even seen this among Republicans over the past two years. Democratic voting unity now surpasses Republican voting unity in Congress, and McCain won the Republican nomination on the backs of primary voters who were either "dis-satisfied" or "angry" with the Bush administration. A McCain victory would push Democrats more toward Republicans, making McCain's job of recruiting Bush McCain Dogs all the easier.

  3. The old political narratives will remain in place. The new political coalitions that I wrote about in The End of Bubba Dominance in The Nation will not come into being. White social conservatives will continue to be seen as the dominant swing groups, and as such receive the lion's share of attention from the national parties and national media. Get ready for four more years of "Democrats don't understand middle America" editorials, for example. As such, one of the main anchors keeping our national politics firmly on the right side of the spectrum will not be lifted.

  4. Clinton will become the 2012 Nominee. Should Obama lose, the "I told you so's" will rain down hard from the Clinton faction within the Democratic Party. Specifically, reinforcing point #3, the focus will be on Obama's failure to win socially conservative white working class voters. Further, with Palin now on the ticket, a McCain victory would result in claims that Clinton could have also won more women voters, thus making her more electable. Combine these factors with the obvious point that a defeated Obama, a disgraced Edwards, and a disgraced Spitzer would leave Hillary Clinton with no serious challengers in 2012. You can pretty much bet that Clinton will be the nominee in 2012 should McCain become President.

  5. Democrats will shoulder equal blame for national problems. With Democrats in control of Congress for multiple sessions, and with their majorities significantly expanded, the national political environment will no longer be overwhelmingly favorable to Democrats. The country will continue to go down the toilet, but Democrats in Congress will be blamed for it just as much as will the McCain administration. The only congressional gains that Democrats might make will be in the Senate in 2010, because they have to defend so few seats, and in the House in 2012, because they will be able to draw so many new maps. Otherwise, the congressional gains we make in 2008 will be our peak for several electoral cycles.

Overall, even if the country continues to inch to the left due to changing demographics, increasing income inequality, and the failure of right-wing policies, the political infrastructure and center of political power in America will remain firmly entrenched on the right-wing. Our generational chance for a six-year progressive governing window will have been missed, with only a chance at a two-year window still alive in the 2012 elections. A whole host of dangerous policies will come to pass, including the overturning of Roe vs. Wade when John Paul Stevens retires and the Democratic Senate inevitably fails to filibuster his anti-choice replacement (who would probably be an ultra right-wing woman, ala Sarah Palin). The internet will probably be sold of to telecoms, thus putting a serious dent in, if not end the promise entirely, the most progressive political development in decades (not to mention the greatest cultural outpouring in our country's history). Deficits will continue to balloon. Huge residual forces will occupy Iraq for at least another decade. Global warming will worsen. Etc. Etc. Etc.

The only way to stop all of this is to win the presidency. All of the trends that I listed above will be reversed should Obama win. Republicans will move even more toward Democrats. The Democratic Party will move to the left. Socially conservative working class whites will no longer be the most heavily coveted swing voters. Obama will be the nominee in 2012. One thing that will be the same is that we will shoulder all the blame for the country's problems, but at least we will have a chance to pass legislation that will stop those problems first.

There is a lot at stake in this election. I don't know if McCain is the favorite right now, since this could be a very brief polling spike that will reverse in just a few days. However, Obama definitely isn't the favorite right now, because he is losing. These are dangerous, and consequential, times for America.

Update: Since some of you are asking, I didn't mean to imply that there would be anything wrong with Clinton as the nominee. I have as much problem with that as I have with Obama being the nominee. In fact, I would actually be relieved that we would still have a strong candidate for 2012. However, don't expect Clinton to be more progressive in 2012 than she was in 2008. In fact, expect her to be the more right-wing Clinton who showed up toward the end of the primary season.

Update 2: Yes, because I am speculating on what a McCain presidency would mean for the country, that means I am panicking and have given up all hope. Whatever.  


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
As to #4 (0.00 / 0)
I agree with you that HRC would be the nominee in the event of an Obama defeat; as a former HRC supporter, I hope it doesn't come to that but you seem to imply that a HRC victory in 2012 would be less of a victory for progressives than an Obama victory this year.  If take out all the rhetoric, I believe HRC is just as progressive, if not more than, as Obama especially when it comes to social and domestic issues.  Of course, let's just hope it never occurs because I think the over/under on how many wars we are in with McCain/Palin is probably four by 2012.

She won't run as a progressive... (0.00 / 0)
...she didn't in the primary, she won't in 2012...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Yes, but... (4.00 / 3)
...she IS a progressive and her policies would be every bit as liberal - if not more so - than Obama's.

HRC in '12 would help to save the day and cut a McCain/Palin presidency in half. It's not so much a downside of losing, as what must come to pass to save our side if we do lose.

That said, it must not come to pass - we need Obama to rally and win.


[ Parent ]
How exactly .. (4.00 / 1)
would Hillary be the nominee in 2012? .. The Clinton machine has shown to be less than invincible .. Also .. plenty of people would blame her for Obama's loss .. that she didn't do enough to help him .. that she was being a sore loser .. you could go on

[ Parent ]
No you couldn't... (0.00 / 0)
It would be stupid to blame clinton for obama's loss, especially after how she's performed so far.

You could argue that we made the wrong VP choice, however....


[ Parent ]
Why? .. (0.00 / 0)
I am not saying I agree with the reasoning .. but I've heard  Clinton flunkies(The Wolfsons of the world) say that they(meaning Clinton) worry about it .. you can call it stupid all you want .. but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist .. besides ... there are people out there who believe Clinton is trying to sabotage Obama exactly so she can run in 2012 .. you can deny it all you want .. I'm just saying it is out there

[ Parent ]
Sabotage? (0.00 / 0)
Well, I assume you're not one of those people - because Sen. Clinton has clearly gone above and beyond thus far. She's moved on, and quite rightly so.

And did you read Howard's piece in the WaPo about Obama? He's totally on board.


[ Parent ]
Can you read? .. (0.00 / 0)
I said I wasn't one of those people .. I am stating things I've heard elsewhere .. as far as Wolfson goes .. he can take his Faux Noise loving ass elsewhere .. I suppose he was totally on board the Lamont campaign too .. right?

[ Parent ]
Yeah, he was (0.00 / 0)
Howard worked as an unpaid adviser to Ned Lamont, and Clinton's support for Lamont was stronger than Obama's - you can look that up!

[ Parent ]
If Hillary was the VP nominee then McCain would have chosen one of those exciting white men (0.00 / 0)
He only chose Palin in a Hail Mary to go after her voters....she seems at the moment ...and excuse the bawdy, sexist metaphor I can't resist...to be political Viagra to the ticket....she has invogorated the Republican ticket and given it a major propulsive motion.

If Hillary was the VP we'd be coasting and they'ld be treading water.  

If we lose that will be a key mistake....and it will be the nominee's own mistake.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Agreed... (0.00 / 0)
But we're hardly dead yet.

[ Parent ]
Obama/Clinton could have easily led to McCain/Huckabee (4.00 / 1)
and then we're in exactly the same situation -- the GOP picking an incredibly popular, likeable governor who can play "ordinary folks" really well.  In fact, Huckabee would be an even more dangerous VP pick than Palin, because he's actually smart, and an experienced politician and governor, and IMHO is way, way way more likeable and genuine than Palin.  He would be terrific in a debate against anyone.

The only drawback of Huck from the GOP perspective is that the Club for Growth hates him, but I'd bet they hate Hillary more and they could be persuaded to live with Huck if they thought he'd get them the White House for Mr. Magoo.

Don't forget, also, that the entire right wing and much of the media continue to despise Hillary, and that picking Hillary would have been described as an example of supreme weakness on Obama's part.  So you get b.s. MSM coverage of Obama, plus a rabid rightwing base.

Palin's effect on the fundie loons is genuine.  We have yet to see what long-term effect she'll have on swing voters, esp in swing states.


[ Parent ]
Doesn't matter (0.00 / 0)
Exciting the Republican base was bound to happen anyway. The crowds we see in Ohio today for McCain would've appeared whether Palin was on theirs or Clinton was on ours. It was a wash and analysts will point to Obama's not choosing her as his running mate as the key decision that led to his defeat because the excuse for not doing would've been "Republicans would've gotten excited by her on the ticket"

They got excited anyway.  


[ Parent ]
Clinton Will Deserve Some Blame if Obama Loses (0.00 / 0)
Clinton strung out the primaries for months after she had any realistic chance of winning. Obama essentially won in February when he opened up a lead in delegates that she was never able to close. She claimed for months that super delegates would support her while they were declaring 4-1 in favor for Obama. She emphasized the popular vote when that's not what decides the primaries--and Obama won the popular vote under most scenarios anyway. It's ridiculous that the Democratic Convention in late August was dominated by drama about uniting the party and how effectively the Clintons would endorse Obama. That should have been a settled issue months before.

Hillary Clinton has done the right things since her belated concession speech. (Bill Clinton's pouting has been pathetic, but his speech was very good.) If Obama wins, great, but if he loses, Clinton deserves a share of the blame.


[ Parent ]
That did ot weaken Barack Obama (0.00 / 0)
The mistakes if there are any are being made right now...And they are the nominee's and his campaign's mistakes.

As usual Democrats play too nice, underestimate the opponent's viciousness, overestimate their sense of fairplay.  And by not choosing Hillary, Obama opened the door to Sarah Palin, who would not have been his choice if Hillary was the VP nominee.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Oh please (0.00 / 0)
No candidate has ever dropped out with a position anywhere close to as strong as Clinton's.  The idea that she should have dropped out in March is absurd and anybody in politics will tell you so.  And since the end of the primary season, her level of support for Obama has been absolutely unprecedented for a candidate in her shoes.  I mean totally off the f---ing charts compared to people like Teddy in 1980, Jesse Jackson in 1988, Jerry Brown in 1992 (not to mention Reagan in 1976 for the bad guys).  

Just stop it.  She has gone above and beyond to help Obama.  The election is up to him and his team.  If they win, all glory to them.  If they lose, they take the blame.  Fair is fair.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."


[ Parent ]
All of the people wanting to rebel from the Clinton machine (0.00 / 0)
threw their lot in with Obama this cycle.  If he loses, they will be demoralized and weakened.  Meanwhile, the Clinton faction will feel very "I told you so" with them.  

Who the hell would be Clinton's challeneger in 2012?  I guess I could see some governor stepping forward, or maybe a progressive challenge from someone like Russ Feingold, but neither of them would be starting from as far ahead as Clinton would be.


[ Parent ]
As I stated elsewhere in this thread .. (0.00 / 0)
who knew that Obama would be the nominee 4 years ago? .. It's impossible to predict that far ahead in politics

[ Parent ]
That's fair (0.00 / 0)
but I think it's also fair to say that she's have an inside shot at the nomination in 2012.

[ Parent ]
She had the inside shot this year .. (4.00 / 1)
as well .... but playing devils advocate .. if Obama doesn't win this year .. there will be tremendous chaos on the Democratic party .. there will be tremendous bloodletting

[ Parent ]
Bloodletting against who? (0.00 / 0)
Obama? He is the person most responsible for whether or not he wins. If he does lose Obama will already be discredited as a leader in the Democratic party. In the event of a loss I see a demoralized Democratic party but not bloodletting.


[ Parent ]
That I agree with (0.00 / 0)
it's impossible to predict that far ahead....who knows if Senator Clinton would even want to run again.

[ Parent ]
i don't know (0.00 / 0)
I have a feeling that both Clinton and Obama will be blamed for the defeat.  All the anti-Clinton voters that gave Obama the nomination won't suddenly start adoring her just because Obama lost.  From the point of view of a few years ago, it was somewhat hard to imagine Obama as the nominee with a realistic shot at winning (I know some people like Kos did predict it, but it was still not exactly a widespread view), so four years from now who knows what the case will be.  Maybe it will be Mark Warner's turn, or Schweitzer's.  I do think people will have a hard time getting behind Clinton, though.

[ Parent ]
Yes, there is no doubt in my mind.... (0.00 / 0)
...that a presidential loss would be disastrous to progressive policy as a whole...  and with the possibility of Palin becoming president, we may not see the oval office for a long, long time....

I guess it's possible that Americans will wake up and figure this stuff out, eventually... but, they haven't for 30 years, so why should they in the near future?

If McCain wins, and the likelihood of him winning goes up significantly each day, I may have to give up politics, because there will be no point in fighting anymore... If we can't win this year, we can never beat the structural barriers that will allow us to win, ever....  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


the odds of winning (4.00 / 4)
the likelihood of him winning goes up significantly each day

It does not. Obama's bounce - which generated a lot of relief, even excitement - and McCain's bounce - which is generating a fair amount of anxiety and depression - have both been just about average, by historical standards. And bounces fade. So there's no reason to think McCain is any more likely to win now than he was before the conventions.


[ Parent ]
it's still a tossup (4.00 / 5)
Let's remember that McCain taking a lead now doesn't mean squat.  We here are not characteristic of the voters who are causing these shifts.  Our minds are made up and the convention speeches did little other than to cement our already existing impressions of the candidates.  But the voters whose opinions are shifting are fickle and we may never know what will actually convince them one way or the other for good.

But we do know that from here on out are four debates (which four years ago gave Kerry a definite boost) and then the actual ground game before and on election day, which will give Obama another boost based on what we've seen so far.  Yes, these numbers we're seeing now are mystifying and a little frightening, but it's not the end of the story.  It's just the beginning, really.  


[ Parent ]
And that's the thing (4.00 / 1)
The bottom line is, when you put Obama next to McCain on the same stage (which hasn't happened yet for a broad audience), one will look young and vibrant, and the other will look old and perhaps doddering/confused/angry.

I suppose McCain could somehow pull it off in the debates.  But I don't think he's going to look good by comparison.


[ Parent ]
For you (0.00 / 0)
but for many swing voters, one will look like your grandpa and one will look like the guy who mugged you on the subway.


[ Parent ]
we need an explanation (0.00 / 0)
Can someone take a stab and explaining the shift? I don't understand it. Press coverage of McCain's speech was lukewarm, and he didn't have any particularly rousing soundbytes. I understand that the conservative base may be rallying, but that doesn't affect the overall vote, does it?

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

Remember "The People against The Powerful"? (4.00 / 1)
Gore's platform in 2000?

The one that the Villagers sneered at?

The one that won him the popular vote?

Palin basically went with the same message at the RNC.

And waddya know, it resonated.

People like Palin and Paul are the future of the GOP.

I hope they don't represent the future of the country.


[ Parent ]
As soon as it's made clear that it's bullshit (4.00 / 1)
the jig is up for McCain/Pain, though.  Let's hope that Obama and Biden can make that case.  If we get lucky, Palin will look like an idiot in the debates, and McCain will go completely belligerent over some perceived slight by Obama.  

If not, they just need to be hammered for their hypocracy in ad aver ad, and statement after statement.  


[ Parent ]
Which means .. (4.00 / 6)
they can't preface their comments saying how great a guy McCain is .. it's just plain stupidity .. you gotta cut the fuckers off at the knees .. I was hopeful after hearing Obama quote The Untouchables .. but it hasn't shown up yet

[ Parent ]
Keep on pushing harder, you're right (0.00 / 0)
and I do think they laid a better groundwork at the convention and it's aftermath than most do.  They disabled the 'Democrats dont' stand for anything' criticism, and now, with the RNC, are poised to use it against the Republicans.  They are poised to basically say that McCain and Palin don't care, that they will just keep on doing the same old, because things are great for them.  

[ Parent ]
McCain's speech (0.00 / 0)
was a hit for everyone but us.  

[ Parent ]
Your predictions are interesting, (4.00 / 3)
but I don't see the point of a post like this on the basis of a blip in the polls. If the numbers are like this in 4 or 5 weeks, it's time to seriously think about FutureWorld. Until then it just seems defeatist and panicky.

But since you threw the first pitch: if McCain should win I think it will be much worse than your scenario. Dennis Leary's question about whether Americans are too dumb to have a democracy will have been answered. The GOP has gone all in on sentimentality, hate-mongering, and the rest of the soap-opera arsenal. If they succeed, I don't see how any kind of functional democracy survives in America. Not in the economic meltdown that Reagan and the Bushes enabled.


Agree with both your points n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
he's had several posts like this over the last few days (4.00 / 3)
it's what democrats do. they sit around worrying about what can go wrong.

finding a democrat worrying about the sky is falling is like finding a drop of water in the ocean. i think it will take a generation of actually winning before they stop, but even then, i doubt it. it's what they know.

nearly everything he is saying has been said to me even before the gop convention bounce when obama was clearly up. ie, he's going to lose and the policies of the gop are going to suck because obama is going to lose.

it's a sad fact of the weakness on our side. of course, no one ever realize this thought process creates a self fullfilling situation that explains a) the legislative outcomes we see and b) the electoral outcomes we see.

i am not advocating false optimism, but i would for once like to see people not confuse their pessimism for realism.


[ Parent ]
I don't think Chris is saying Obama's GOING to lose (0.00 / 0)
he's saying that it's going to be close, and that there's a lot at state, regardless of your feelings toward Obama.  

[ Parent ]
people reading his blos already know these things (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
I've been noticing a lot of comments around here (4.00 / 1)
to the effect of 'fuck Obama, he's too conservative.'  Or "he's too calculating and centrist, I'm considering nader."

For example, there's this exchange that I got caught up in.  

I think it's worthwhile to pull back and reiterate just what is at stake in this election, rather than getting completely caught up in all the minutae of things.


[ Parent ]
And the real point is: these bad consequences of a McCain victory are a crucial part of our message to swing voters NOW. n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
It's easily Chris's most annoying trait (4.00 / 1)
Chris is on my top ten list for political commentary and analysis.  But yes, he does panic from time to time.

In his defense, I've also been known to do that.


[ Parent ]
I don't think it's weakness (4.00 / 3)
it's the fact that there's no Left in the US, and there's an incredibly strong Right.

So, while a McCain victory would cement authoritarianism and kleptocracy as our means of government, and racism, xenophobic nationalism, and religious fundamentalism as the lifeblood of our political discourse -- it would be like the fulfillment of every cynical, anti-democratic aphorism Menken ever wrote about democracy -- an Obama win would strike a blow for responsible, pro-business government and a political discourse about unity, and post-partisanship.

I've been convinced all along that Obama would win pretty handily.  I'm still optimistic about that, although the fact that so many people like Sarah Palin is depressing, and the fact that it's not baffling makes it even more so.  None the less, I still think Obama/Biden will win.  The problem in the log run is, that the accomplishments of the Obama/Biden administration will pale in comparison to the crises we face.


[ Parent ]
I can't really get depressed (4.00 / 6)
I've know for a quite a while what this country is. I m a black gay guy who grew up dirt poor down South. Nothing keeps it real for me than to remember that. I am very cynical abour our country. As I have said for a while, the problem isn't the politicans, it's the electorate. The fact is I think Obama has a good shot of winning despite the bounce that's make us all jittery. However, I also realized that the type of campaign Obama has run, that Clinton ran, hell even that Edwards ran told me as much as In eeded to know. I am not a super progressive guy. I am actually an old school moderate.

That is to say, I didn't stop bei ng moderate, my country has just become more reactionary. There are three books that I keep in mind when I want to thinka bout humanity and what it is on the more depressing end- those books are "hilter's willing executioners" , "guns, germs and steel" and "the culture of fear."

Each perfectly describes part of the greater picture of what Americans as an electorate are. If you want to k now why there is no left this country- read these three books together. It's really not all that complicated. Too me 9.11 was the perfect way for Americans to continue to do what we do best- be afraid. This fear isn't a conservative thing. It's on the left too. Like I said being of three different minorities in this country gives me a certain catbird seat view.

I will say this- after this election I am pretty much off of being interested in politics or what happens in this country. I barely care outside of donating money now, and next year if McCain wins, i will be done.

You ae right about what we face. There was this guest on bill moyers make this exact point. I agreed with everything he said. The american people are in deep denial, but I would have added it's deliberate denial. I've talked to people who when I mention what's happening, they so they know, but that they are hoping it won't happen in their life time. When I say, what about your kids? They say- well they will have to deal with it. I wish these people were just trying to blow me off. But too many people have said that me so i conclude this is how countries die. When you stop caring about the next generation. That's America.


[ Parent ]
I share none of the characteristics (0.00 / 0)
you describe about yourself, yet your post portrays my view of America's situation almost perfectly. The only difference is that, although I give up on America almost daily, in my heart I can't abide its self-immolation with the kind of nonchalance you seem to have arrived at.

Do you really think you'll be able to not care about politics or what happens in this country? Do you plan to move elsewhere? Join the other side? What's your answer? I don't see any exit strategy for me.

Anyway, getting back to the point, what's so painful is not that bad guys win -- that's the human condition. It is that in this country they win so easily by such childishly simple appeals. Americans had everything and are in the process of throwing it all away because they are so chronically frightened, resentful, isolated, and numb that they choose their own and their nation's fate based on synthesized gossip and manufactured cuteness above all else. All the while yapping ceaselessly about "personal responsibility". Remember when American Idol was going to do a spinoff that would pick the next president? I guess they decided the electoral system was too much competition.


[ Parent ]
Agree it would be bad (0.00 / 0)
However, the election isn't tomorrow, and I think it would be wise to remember they call them "bounces" for a reason.

Clinton will become the 2012 Nominee (0.00 / 0)
I call bullshit .. I think it was you .. or Matt .. that pointed out that the primary losers .. don't fare very well when they run again in the future .. why would this be very different? .. who is going to run the DNC for the next 4 years? .. there is obviously a very strong anti-Clinton streak running through the Democratic electorate .. so I don't buy it for one second .. besides .. who knew 4 years ago .. that Obama would even run this year? .. and even if some people thought he might .. they would have been called insane .. because plenty of people figured Hillary would run .. and everyone just assumed that Hillary was going to be the nominee this year .. and we know how that turned out

Regan ran and lost in a primary in '76 (4.00 / 1)
Didn't Al Gore run and lose in the primary in '88?  Maybe I'm wrong on that one.  

And it's not like many other candidates came as close to winning as Clinton did.


[ Parent ]
I was right (0.00 / 0)
Al Gore DID run.  Also, it's a special case, since he was Reagan's VP, but Bush DID run and lose against Reagan, and later won the Presidency.  

[ Parent ]
Also, John McCain won a primary after losing an earlier primary (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Those were all failed "insurgent" candidacies, though (0.00 / 0)
Reagan as the new avatar of Bang-Bang Barry haunting the Northeastern-style GOP embodied by Ford; Al Gore as a "New Democrat" trying to spin the first (Southern) Super Tuesday into primary momentum.

Bush I, as you point out, is a very different case.  There's no way a pro-choice Republican who called Laffer-Curve/Trickle down theories "voodoo economics" was going to win a GOP primary in '84 or beyond, unless he'd been annointed St. Ronnie's successor.

Hillary was the frontrunner and still lost.  I don't think there's a precedent for someone like that losing the nomination fight on year, then coming back and winning it again later.


[ Parent ]
Not yet anyway (0.00 / 0)
and here's hoping we don't need it....but I'm damned thankful we have her.

[ Parent ]
Al Gore-Willie Horton (0.00 / 0)
You bet Gore ran, and being from Massachusetts, I'll never forget that he was the first to use the Willie Horton smear against Dukakis.

Lee Atwater got it from Gore and the rest, as they say, is history.


[ Parent ]
Could we all (4.00 / 2)
just forget worrying about 2012? If McCain wins, everything will be up for grabs, including the holding of free elections. Not because McCain is a secret fascist but because the American people will have discarded the allegiance to reason that democracy absolutely needs to survive. We will have entered the "everything is possible" phase of devolution.

[ Parent ]
Everyone just calm down... (4.00 / 5)
We are literally in immediate post-convention mode right now.  McCain's numbers will probably even improve tomorrow even if his actually tally for today is worse just because it will probably be better than the Thursday polling.

Do I like the fact that McCain has bounced?  No... obviously I'd prefer he didn't... but this is what typically happens with conventions.  The candidates bounce (both of them).  At least Obama bounced a bit first, as if he didn't, we'd probably be looking at a 8-10 point McCain lead right now that might not subside to where we want it to.  As it is, I think it's probably a slight McCain lead that SHOULD subside to a slight Obama lead.  I know it's tough, and we'll all be wringing our hands for the next few weeks, but that's just what we're going to have to deal... potentially even having to wait for the first debate for the whole bounce to completely subside (or, I suppose, expand, if Obama does poorly in the debate).  

Please read this 538 post and just hang tough for a bit.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

If McCain is leading by at least 4-5 points in a few weeks, then yeah... that'll be really worrisome.  But we're all wringing our hands over what should quite literally be McCain's best polling days ever.  The Republicans got to go last, and that's a big big advantage, but it should fade over time.


Forget spinning the polls (4.00 / 1)
Remember how we all managed to convince ourselves that the 2004 polls were all weighted wrong and Kerry was really winning. The bottom line is things do not feel right given where we should be in this political environment...

...and the Obama creative media team that makes Bob Shrum's team look good by comparison doesn't instill the confidence needed to retake the political dialog...

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.


[ Parent ]
It isn't about spin (0.00 / 0)
History is clear: polling increases after elections fade.

That's why they call them "bounces".

I'd love for Obama to be blowing McCain out right now.  But I'll take a win, period.


[ Parent ]
you're nuts (0.00 / 0)
your point about obama's "creative team" is absolutely insane.

[ Parent ]
McCain is looking like he'll get a.... (0.00 / 0)
....12-15 point bounce... that's just going to be a killer, even if his overall lead is only a few points or so...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
12-15 points?  You're the only one I've seen saying that.  What are you basing it on?

[ Parent ]
McCain is already at 11... (0.00 / 0)
...We were 8 points ahead in gallup a week ago, now we are three points behind... doesn't 8+3=11?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
wait so you are measuring from Obama's bounce last week (4.00 / 1)
to where McCain is this week? That's a litlte bizzare. This cycle is weird due to the closeness of the conventions so I m not sure that is the correct way to view the numbers, but whatever panic away.

[ Parent ]
Yes, exactly... (0.00 / 0)
This is weird...

Look, persuadable voters are... persuadable.  Obama got them during his convention, and then McCain got them during his.  that's what happens.  So I suppose you could look at it that "Well, Obama was so many points ahead at the start of the RNC", but that's really a poor way of looking at it...

Gallup's method seems the best.  What was the candidate's individual number before and after the convention?  So far it looks like their bounces may be similar, but we shall see.

I'm not saying we should rest on our laurels or anything, but seriously... give the polls a few weeks to even out... and the debates are right around the corner too, which will wipe out the current narrative anyway (if something else doesn't before then).


[ Parent ]
From 8-10 down to 4-6 up... (0.00 / 0)
That's a big road that McCain will have traveled...

[ Parent ]
Thank you for saying it Chris (4.00 / 3)
We are losing.

Say it. And get ready to own it.

Except for the period between McCain's houses gaffe and the end of the DNC, we have been losing the general election campaign.

Our candidate may be gifted a speechwriter and orator, but the media/messaging team overall is losing the election.

We are losing creatively. There's only been one real theme: More of the same. None of the themes/opening in Obama's acceptance speech (see examples here) have been advanced with paid media.

We are losing tactically, missing entirely the 30-second video press release development that McCain has been using to great effect. We're banking heavily on GOTV efforts that will fail if there aren't enough Obama votes out there to get.

Finally, my old saw -- we have failed entirely to discredit and disqualify McCain's core Maverick and Straight Talk brands. Had that been done the Palin pick and McCain's repositioning as agent of change/reform would not have been possible. The failure to discredit "Straight Talk" is so glaring that McCain and Palin feel free to repeat the same lies over and over without concern for political fallout.

Baring a debate blowout performance or a substantial change/improvement in the Obama media/messaging efforts we are going to lose this election.

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.


yes let's say we are losing (0.00 / 0)
because saying youa re losiing is how winners wi n. its should all jus tslit our wrist now.

the thing is this sort of stuff really does fit many natural temperments here doesn't it? we all knew this all a long. if only obama had did x or y or z - he woldn't have lost the race on sun, sep 7.  


[ Parent ]
Refer to my post above... (0.00 / 0)
Please... you are hyper-ventilating over what are quite literally, historically, some of the best polling days for a candidate during a presidential campaign.

Honestly, did we all just forget that Obama led by EIGHT points just a few days ago?  The electorate is obviously pretty volatile, and both conventions did their jobs and both led to bounces.  Since the Republicans went last, they happen to get the advantage of keeping their bounce for a bit longer... but it will also likely fade.


[ Parent ]
The polls will indeed settle down (4.00 / 4)
However, my specific critiques are still correct (feel free to rebut them), the McCain campaign has managed to drive the political debate (silly as it has been) and the Obama campaign to date has been reactive and spectacularly uncreative content-wise. Polls absolutely aside, the trajectory and feel just doesn't seem right.

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.

[ Parent ]
This I agree with (4.00 / 1)

  The Obama campaign's messaging has been nothing short of abysmal. It's amazing, given how effective they've been in just about everything else.

  I supported Obama over Clinton in the primary because Obama promised to be a fighter, and represented a break from previous timid (and losing) Democratic presidential campaigns.

  Apprarently I was very, very wrong about that.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Precisely... (0.00 / 0)

...my reasoning too.  They're making Bob Shrum look bold and creative...

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.

[ Parent ]
I completely agree with you, Steve in Sacto (4.00 / 2)
Polls aside, this campaign is freaking me out and it has been ever since Obama became the nominee-in-waiting. I have no idea why, but for some reason, Obama and his advisors will play defense if they have to -- very, very reluctantly -- but they categorically refuse to play any offense. It's almost as if it's a deal-breaker for them: no way, no how, no offense. All they're going to do is respond to McCain's attacks. THAT they will do, but they will never attack themselves, and make McCain scramble to deal with the incoming. McCain has made so many jaw-dropping gaffes that I've lost track of them, and the Obama campaign refuses -- literally, consciously, explicitly refuses -- to capitalize on them.

God, when you think about all the lost opportunities! The ads that are just begging to be made!

The 8 houses blip on the screen was the exception that proved the rule. I can only assume from that event -- which could have been turned into such a great and effective narrative because there are so many comparable statements that reinforce it!!! -- that whoever is normally in charge was on holiday. Anything comparable emerge since? I didn't think so.

And as Bush does everything he can to make the federal government work for McCain's victory, does anyone see Pelosi and Reid manipulating the Congressional agenda to support Obama? Nope. Why? Because Pelosi and Reid aren't tough enough to offer, and Obama's not tough enough to ask. Yeah, I heard about the fair pay vote, and it's a great start, but the entire Congressional agenda should be tailored to maximizing political damage to McCain. Anyone have a shred of confidence that will happen? And if so, what is it based on? Past experience?

Because of this breathtaking vacuum of passivity -- Democrats are congenitally submissive, I swear -- the McCain campaign has turned this election into a referendum on personality, and when the Republicans do that, they win, every time. Happened in 2000 when things were good; happened in 2004 when things were much worse; and it's happening now in 2008 when Bush, McCain and the Republicans have lead the nation into the toilet -- which is flushing faster and faster, even as we speak. Issues? Please. If the campaign were about issues it would be a 70-30 split for Obama. This election is, like McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said, "not about issues and all about personality." And he and his team MADE IT THAT WAY. That's genius, as far as I'm concerned. They manipulated political reality to suit their needs, and you have to admire them for it. Axelrod, Plouffe et al are absolutely no match for Rove-Schmitt. Not even close. They're sending out rainbows and unicorns to fight the Wehrmacht, and the results are there for all to see.

Who knows, maybe in the last week of September/first week of October Obama will be told in a very, very grim meeting that he is going to lose, and will then suddenly understand that he must play by the rules his opponent has forced on him. If not, the only area where this hot-house flower campaign hasn't ceded the field to McCain is the ground game. (And literally, everyone I know is clinging to the GOTV hype with increasing panic.) God help us that it's as effective as we're hearing, because it's the only thing we've got going for us. I pray that I'm wrong -- nothing would make me happier -- but my gut tells me I'm not. When all is said and done, Obama's political epitaph will be "I could've sworn I'd win by playing great defense."


[ Parent ]
I am not trying to bring this up to be..... (0.00 / 0)
I don't know how to phrase it nicely....But the entire post partisan idea was not about fighting but about cooperating and coming together.....It is a fine thing to say about Democrats to Democrats...but dangerous when talking about dealing with Republicans both in general elections and governing.

Nothing ever led me to think that Barack Obama was planning on fighting Republicans...

I was always baffled as to why anyone would see that in him....I hope I am wrong. Maybe it's still enough of a Democratic year to carry us to voctory.  Now ,  as I realize how much is at stake,  I very much want Barack Obama to win.....I think, as I have always thought, which is why I didn't support him, that he was not the fighting Democrat I have long thought we needed.

And not choosing Hillary as VP, as much as I personally like Joe Biden, may be seen as a linchpin error becasue it opened the door to Sarah Palin and invigorating the Republican party.

I hope that start attacking McCain hard...really hard.....snide, snarky and pointed.  The world is depending on it.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
McCain makes that argument too, though (0.00 / 0)

 McCain's ALWAYS flouting his maverickness and his across-the-aisle reaching. Never mind that it's completely bogus, he still pushes the idea, and that's a big part of the public impression of him.

 But that's NEVER stopped him from launching VICIOUS attacks on Obama. He and his surrogates rip his face off almost daily.

 Obama just has an abysmally bad messaging team. That's all.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
McCain has been wallowing in the DC cesspool for 26 years (0.00 / 0)
If he's a reformer he's a lousy one, because the place is worse than ever.

Is there an ad there, or am I crazy?


[ Parent ]
Seeds (0.00 / 0)
I've been saying this for a long time now, but the seeds for the Dems loss were sown in 2004 when he was Kerry's first choice for VP.

Voters reasonably perceive him as a centrist Republican, and it has proven very difficult for the Dems to know the bipartisan halo off of McCain's head, since they welded it on.

Given this fact, on one level, it is hard to understand what all the hand wringing is about: the Dem will either get the DP nominee, or a top choice of VP in 2004.  

Of course, there has been a huge shift in McCain's rhetoric since which was necessary for him to get the extra-chromosome contingent on board.  

If that's the explanation, there are reasonable grounds for hoping that the usual rule (prior to 2000) of the presidents governing from the center will apply to McCain. And with a Democratic congress this might result in policies more or less similar to Bush I.

The rejoinder to that is that McCain's current crop of advisors (e.g. Kagan, Gramm, Lieberman, etc) make the centripetal trajectory unlikely.  

It is depressing to realize that we may see how this scenario plays out in a few months.


[ Parent ]
I thought that the story was that he offered to be Kerry's VP (0.00 / 0)
and that offer was rejected

[ Parent ]
The opposite (0.00 / 0)
The story I heard was the opposite: McCain nixed Kerry's offer:

See, for example,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...

Either case argues for McCain's bipartisan bona fides, which he continues to trade off of.


[ Parent ]
Not to be a nay-sayer (0.00 / 0)
And yes, I am one that has little truck in tracking polls vis-a-vis electoral college calculations, but...

I believe we are putting the cart before the horse.

These new polls are not reflective of anything other than people STARTING to tune in.

We still have quit visible debates and a couple of months to work it all out (people still aren't certain what to make of Obama, a la 1980).

And I disagree particularly with your first point: I don't think the dynamics of the Congressional delegations, the Republican party or the relationships of each with McCain afford him the scenario Bush established.  Even with Palin, McCain's appeal with the conservatives in both the Republicans and the "Bush Dogs" isn't strong enough to survive some of the strains that Bush's relationship with them has.

I mean, my GOD, why are these people still aligning with Bush when he is clearly wrong and under 30% popularity?  Its because they've all swallowed the conservative kool-aide, which McCain, Palin notwithstanding, has never convinced anyone he has (hell, I still think many of his positions are dictated by political necessity- he IS conservative, he just isn't as "values" or "socially" conservative as the core would like).

And yes, I do think a McCain presidency is a bad thing, particularly as he seems another Bush, but differently than as you have pointed out- he is easily manipulated by those around him into making decisions he either does not like or does not care about (i.e. VP Lieberman?).  Too many shadowy practices will be the result.

A McCain presidency scares me as I have absolutely no idea what it will be.


Its all over, we've lost, there is no hope - lets all go and kill ourselves!!!!!!!!!!! (4.00 / 1)
Please give me a break.  Guess its a slow news day and somebody is having an post convention emotional fit.  Its simply time to remember that it ain't over yet and there will be ups and downs.  The right wing wacko Sarah Palin is at here high point - its all down hill from here as people really find out what she believes.  

To counter the nonsense above how about we do this instead:

1) we go out and tell everybody we know that Sara Palin represents the final transformation of the Republican Party into a fundamentalist Christian Party.

2) we explain to everybody that bipartisanship is impossible with a Party that feels it receives its instructions directly from God.

3) the economy is on the edge of a disaster and we need to remind them that McCain and Palin are no different for the Bushies with respect to economic policy.

4) we go out and register as many nonvoters as possible and convert as many Independents and Republicans to Democrats as possible and make sure they get tot the polls.

5) we need to remember that even if only 10% of the new voters that we have registered as Dems vote that way in the Fall we will win.  If the percentage is much higher we could be looking at a landslide.

6) we stop thinking that Saint Hillary is gonna ride into the future and save us.  Many of "her" voters were gonna vote Republican in the Fall anyway even if she headed the ticket.  I could say more but those that talk about her running in 2012 drive me nuts - they are not our friends or allies they just want Obama to loose.

Mike


Actually, I think Obama had more GOP votes (4.00 / 1)
He was the big crossover leader - indeed, it was often touted (rightly) as a strength.

I was a strong Hillary backer, but I fervently want Obama to win, fort all the reasons Chris lists above (save the gratuitous slap at Clinton, who is the more liberal of the two Democrats, in my view).

Let's not refight the primary - let's win the damned general.


[ Parent ]
The only thing I'd add... (4.00 / 3)
...is that this list is almost trivial next to the actual stakes. The world is watching us choose a leader, and we're seriously considering McCain over Obama. Words are not sufficient to express the contempt with which the entire rest of the world would view us if we made the wrong choice. Or the consequences of that contempt. This could be the last meaningful election in American history, and no, that's not hyperbole. America is prepared to lay itself low through arrogance, stupidity and spite.

That said: the day following what has long been predicted to be McCain's best polling day ever is perhaps not the best time to get into this kind of analysis, unless it's a preface for "...so that's why we have to win this race."


Agreed (4.00 / 5)
If McCain wins on November 4, on November 5 I will begin making long-term plans to live my life overseas. I know it is annoying when people talk about how they are going to move out of the country if their candidate loses etc.  But if in 2008, in what is essentially a moment of national emergency, the majority of Americans can be made to fall for the typical right-wing bullshit, I can only conclude that the nation is doomed, that it is headed off a cliff and has no interest in turning around, and that it would be best for me to be elsewhere when the plunge finally happens.

It's not so much that there would be another four years of GOP rule; it would be that my fellow citizens have proven themselves incapable of responsibly driving this democracy, and that is a death sentence. If we can't see through the bullshit this time around, when the stakes are higher than ever and the bullshit is more obvious than ever, we are never, ever going to.  


[ Parent ]
Adding (4.00 / 1)
that I am still reasonably optimistic about Obama's chances; the current polling probably represents McCain's high-water mark, and there's no reason to think Obama can't overtake him.

The above will be my reaction IF the unthinkable comes to pass.


[ Parent ]
I'm optimistic too! (0.00 / 0)
I think this is a big convention bounce for mcCain, coupled with the Palin surprise - so he's dominated and Barack's message has been less than super-strong of late.

He must simply win the debates. I think he will.


[ Parent ]
I still think Obama is going to win, too (0.00 / 0)
Despite that, however, I think we're doomed in the bigger picture.  Though the schadenfreude at a McCain/Palin loss will be sweet.

[ Parent ]
Where would you go? (4.00 / 2)

 I'm not being snarky. The same thought has crossed my mind. I just don't know where I'd go.

 Ideally, I'd prefer a developed country with a good health-care system in place and the least amount of police-state crap possible. In other words, a free country. And preferably geographically far, far away from the US.

 That's, say, Australia/New Zealand. But it's very difficult to become a permanent resident -- and that's true of just about any first-world country you can name.

 Canada is nice, but it's (a) run by a wingnut today, and (b) way too close to America. Canada is to the US what Poland was to Nazi Germany.

 The EU? Again, try becoming a permanent resident. Not easy. And they're in a VERY precarious situation regarding climate change and energy supplies.

 I'm seriously considering Uruguay/Argentina. Higher-end developing countries, very far away from the US (think nuclear fallout). And I personally speak the language, at least. Best of a tough lot...

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Irish citizenship is pretty easy to get if you'r ethnically Irish (0.00 / 0)
Italian citizenship, also.

[ Parent ]
And Argentina has it's own dark history (0.00 / 0)
the desaparecidos didn't meet their end too long ago

[ Parent ]
Personally, I love the Scotland (0.00 / 0)
Again, I realize the immigration laws are extremely strict, but Scotland is such a beautiful nation. A country with a real strong social safety net, clean cities, and one that takes care of its own people. Especially now that that Scotland has its own parliament controlled by two left-of-center parties such as the Scottish National Party and Scottish Labour. Both of which are far more progressive than our lovely center-right democrats.

I have the ancestry to get dual citizenship, but my career really doesn't transfer well to Britain, nor do I have much money.  


[ Parent ]
maybe i'm wrong (4.00 / 1)
But I think the point of this post is to serve as a reminder of the stakes. You can always look for reasons to think it will all turn out well in the end....and it may, but only if people actually do stuff to make it happen.

You actually think (4.00 / 1)
people hangin out around here need a reminder of the stakes? Like we were all thinking, "Hey -- Obama, McCain, it's all good in this best of all postpartisan worlds"?

No, I think it was a pure panic attack. When political geeks panic they start writing scenarios.


[ Parent ]
if you were hanging out "here" (the Web) ... (4.00 / 3)
In 2000 then you heard all about why Gore was going to win because of his superior message, because the 1990s were all peace and prosperity, because he was Clinton without the scandal baggage. etc. And every poll that showed a problem for Gore was dismissed by some because the likely voter screen wasn' wrong, or they undersampled Dems or the pollster was clearly biased and on and on.

Or in 2004 you heard "here" that Kerry was clearly going to win because people were rejecting Bush, the "wrong track" numbers were historically high, people liked Edwards as VP a lot more than Cheney and Kerry wasn't a loser like that Gore guy (boy has that switched now). Again any empirical evidence to the contrary was met with (sometimes) blind optimism and twisted rationalizations for why things were actually better than they seemed.

It's not so much panic as an unwillingness to blink away the negative news.


[ Parent ]
I thought we were talking about (0.00 / 0)
the stakes, not the odds on who's going to win. I think everybody here knows the consequences of a GOP victory this time around. The way Chris coupled the McCain bounce with the "stakes", it's like he thinks people here somehow let go of the switch and let the bounce happen. That kind of preaching to the choir gets irritating, is all.

[ Parent ]
Remember (0.00 / 0)
...how we convinced ourselves all the 2004 polls were weighted wrong and Kerry was really leading? I'm not smokin' that shit again.

Right now it's quacking and I'm calling duck...

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.


[ Parent ]
Don't forget that the netroots will be purged.... (0.00 / 0)
...as a consequence of going with the wrong horse!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


You are SERIOUSLY (4.00 / 1)
underestimating the changes we'll see with a McCain victory. For the first time in history, a reactionary party will actually have control of all 3 branches of the US government. Stephens will not be the only Supreme Court vacancy, and a reactionary court and President will:

1)write Christian language into the Constitution
2)recriminalize homosexuality and premarital sex along with adultery.
3)remove safeguards on freedom of the press (remember Palin's library books!)
4)actively pursue war anywhere on the globe where American interests are seen as at risk by 5)reinstituting a draft, with provisions for wealthy Americans to gain exemptions, most likely through perpetual "higher education".
6)make it much harder for lower income citizens to attend anything except a trade oriented post high school institution.
7)allow the wealthy to opt completely out of Social Security, and reduce the amount paid to beneficaries with language about personal responsibility and "so sorry, you should have planned better and saved more".
8)further erode American infrastructure "cause it ain't the gment's place to pay fer it, let the market do it", and as we know the market ain't gonna do anything about roads, utilities or much of anything else as long as the wealthy can pay for their own capital improvements.
9)remove all limits on campaign contributions to the GOP by corporations, while severely limiting the amounts than can be given by private (Democratic) citizens.

It'll all be done in the name of States Rights, and by the time 2012 rolls around the GOP will be so entrenched a returning Jesus couldn't unseat the GOP nominee. All that's saved us so far has been a hairs edge in the judiciary, mostly named before the rise of the Born Again voter when knee jerk Christianity wasn't a requirement for an appointment by either party. The Dems in charge in the House and Senate will go happily along with whatever McCain demands, scared to death of being painted as weak or effeminate  and losing their own seats. There will be no fillibusters, and no defense, we'll quietly slip into the arms of a man who makes Hughey Long look progressive.

Gentlemen, if these polls are right, we are truly living through the American descent into fascism. Get scared, get active. Our luck may be about to run out. We are living with America's Weimar Republic.



Uhmm, no... (0.00 / 0)
The Republicans will only control 2 of the 3 branches of government.  It seems likely the legislative will stay firmly (or even more firmly) in the hands of the Democrats.

I don't put as much faith in the Bush Dogs transferring their allegiance directly to McCain, and even if they did, the Congress still wouldn't be in the hands of the conservatives.

Remember, the prez can have legislation introduced by friendly legislators, but that's not the same as controlling the apparatus of the system.  

Just ask Joe (R-CT) as he loses his chairmanship next Congress.


[ Parent ]
And the Weimar Republic's legislative was filled with "Anti-Facist" Communists and Social Democrats (4.00 / 1)
As Chris said, this congress is full of Bush Dogs and a assortment of democratic conservatives with no respect for the rule of law. In addition to this problem, the Bush unitary executive seems to believe that congress has no constitution powers and deals effectively to minimize congressional effects on his policy.

And as the republic further decays, I doubt the all powerful executive will have much respect for the sanctions of congress.    


[ Parent ]
Yeah, not to mention (4.00 / 1)
John Paul Stevens being replaced by some Scalia-junior, war with Iran, the rich getting even richer at the expense of everyone else, and continued corruption and incompetence.

I think that the implications of a McCain victory should be a big part of Obama's message. Hope is fine, but fear is probably a better political motivator, as the GOp figured out a long time ago (the difference being that people have legit reasons to fear McCain.)

I was disappointed not to hear more at the Dem conventions about coat hangers and women taken away in handcuffs, and an unstable, hairtrigger rage-meister with access to red button. That kind of thing.

Dems use the (legit) scare-care on social security; they should use it on other issues as well.


Oy, already the sky is falling (0.00 / 0)
Someone needs to count up the Chris Bowers' polling posts in which he either freaks out completely or gently surrenders to the Repubs. This is one of the latter (even if he says it isn't). I just don't get that line of thinking. The GE campaign began on Friday, with both candidates officially nominated. McCain is getting his bounce - after having the advantage of the second convention.

Look for a lot of "Obama must do..." posts next week. But if you're inclined to write one, remember that there's very little time left for hand-wringing and chicken-littling. Better to just take the offensive and hammer away at McCain. And hammer hard. Don't forget: the economy is in the toilet and it ain't coming out by election day. We need to become a unified front that does nothing but talk about gas prices, unemployment, rising costs, the mortgage crisis, falling incomes, energy costs, healthcare, and how John McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time over the last eight years. Every American should know that. And we need to do this even if McCain is up in the polls, or throws out the daily distraction-talking-point, or Obama is called uppity or a Muslim or unpatriotic. It's all going to come at as. We just need to be up to it and keep moving the ball down the field. No matter what.


If we win, it will be because we have a better ground game. (0.00 / 0)
That being said, in Florida, we have issues with the way the ground game is being run.  We do not have a coordinated campaign and the field staff doesn't seem to have its act together (with some exceptions).  If they don't wake up soon, it will be too late to pull this out.  Wake up, Chicago, and tell your Florida field organizers it's okay to hand out lit for Obama and the down-ballot candidates.  If you don't, you are going to lose this election.  

disagree (0.00 / 0)
point #1 will be true even if obama wins.  obama has already capitulated on fisa so point #2 is already correct in one very important way.  the old political narratives didn't go away under a clinton presidency.  i doubt that they'll go away under an obama presidency.  clinton will challenge obama in 2012 if a president obama gives her any kind of opening.  & democrats are already shouldering blame for their past 2 years leading congress ... the first talking point for most right wingers i know, is that the democrat (sic) congress did nothing for the past two years so what can we expect them to do now.

this is a generational struggle, never forget that.  one battle, especially an epic one like this, might be able to change the battlefield, for good or ill, but it will not, to use the old adage, win the war.  obama's victory will be a major strike against racism, for example, but it won't completely erase the racist sentiments in some of our country men & women.  similarly, obama's defeat, if it comes to that, will not lead to wholesale slavery in the country & in fact he will have paved the way for a new generation of black leaders.

that's one example but there are many others.

let me add that in politics, as elsewhere, all or nothing thinking is ineffective at best.  i humbly suggest that you take a more nuanced view, one that realizes that an obama victory will not turn this country into a progressive nation roots to top; & an obama defeat will not destroy the progressive movement.  
s.


Hillary's fault (0.00 / 0)
If she had not screwed up her primary tactics and skipped the caucuses she would have been the nominee.

She knew this was a base election, and a time when the populist, working class Democratic base message she worked so successfully in the later primaries would win the General Election. She knew that Obama's 90's style post-partisan campaign was likely to come up short against the McCain campaign. She knew how critical women are to any Democratic majority.

There are not many more opportunities for Obama to change the dynamics of this campaign, the convention was great but may have come up short. Obama is generally weak in debates, McCain connects best in that setting. I think they've reacted poorly to the Palin pick, and it looks like the effect on women is just beginning to show up.

I hope the polls next week prove me wrong.


Get a grip (0.00 / 0)
With support like this, we will lose. Pull yourself together and stay focused on the issues. If Obama loses it won't be his fault, it will be yours.

[ Parent ]
Obama's run a character campaign (0.00 / 0)
Had he run an issues campaign we wouldn't be seeing posts like this. The DLC style post-progressive campaign has nothing to do with it?

Obama's got my vote, and I'm working full time to get him elected. Intellectually I'm completely committed, and if most of the country had my political views Obama would win in a landslide.


[ Parent ]
OFA would make DFA look like a kindergarden class. (0.00 / 0)
What happens with the huge Obama-machine? Look what happened with the Dean-machine: DFA and the 50-state strategy. Does Obama walk away from it after a loss? Not likely.

Jeff Wegerson

Polls (0.00 / 0)
Chris,

Forget those stupid polls.  They flucuate wildly day-to-day, and do nothing but cause needless anxiety.


Actually, as far as generational goes, I'm (0.00 / 0)
undoubtedly one of the few here that remember the Goldwater election, and, just having read Vidal's political essays for the second time, that's what's got me worried.

Remember, my point is that most of this stuff will be done in the name of state's rights, as the Supreme Court moves all the way to the reactionary end of the spectrum. Not all states will go along with all of this, but those of us south of Mason Dixon are screwed, blued and tattooed. Even the present court refused to challenge the Georgia law making consensual homosexual acts illegal. Plus, most of my points are extensions of what is happening right now.

I'd love to think that a Democratic House or Senate would fight to protect us, and some of them would, but as FISA proves, not many. Even Obama caved in. Mention unpatriotic or effeminate and watch the little dems fall in line.

Twice in the last century a Palin was almost elected. Goldwater later proved to have a mind of his own, but Bryan was Palin made male. In both cases what worked was proving the basic insanity behind the person running for office. It's time to goad McCain into chewing the carpet and Palin into another "Sambo" remark. Whatever it takes, we've got too much to lose to let them take the Court.


Nothing to fear from a McCain victory, then (0.00 / 0)

1.  The working conservative majority will be in place under Obama.  Obama can't push any major progressive legislation through the Congress, and he won't try.  McCain will fail to push through seriously regressive legislation as well.

2.  The Democrats would shift right, but there isn't any space left.

3.  The political narratives will remain in place, probably because they would have been determined to still be valid.

4.  Hillary might be ordained as the nominee, just as she was ordained the nominee for 2008.  

5.  Democrats already shoulder equal blame for our problems.  No difference there.


? (0.00 / 0)
McCain was clearly ahead in Saturday's polling, probably by about 4% in Rasmussen and 6-7% in Gallup. With numbers like that, there can be no doubt that McCain is currently leading in both the national popular vote and in the Electoral College

You're kidding.  Oh my god


Explaining the bounce instead of panicking (0.00 / 0)
OK, just a couple brief points:

1. McCain and Repubs in general continue, through all channels, to claim that Obama will increase your taxes - this is the ONLY economic messaging that they have, and it is a flat-out lie. It needs to be called as such, strongly, so that the media starts pushes the narrative of McCain distorting Obama's plans.
2. Has anyone thought of novelty value? What McCain managed to do - and the Dems did not - is introduce a novelty into a campaign that has been going on a long time. Obama is no longer a novelty. So, like popular novelty songs, we get something different, and it takes off. They are capitalizing on this. Like most novelty songs, Palin is terrible as a song. Will this work? I don't know. But the novelty will wear off. It is perhaps sad that people are swayed by emotions and intuitions in making such an important choice, but they are.
3. I don't know what to do about the maverick label. It is the one thing that sticks. If we were running Obama against Bush or Mitt or Fred, it'd be a different race, but when we keep trying to attack the brand, we also keep putting the brand out there. I personally think the CORRUPTION angle - rather than just the "voted with Bush" mantra - is key. The "corrupt Repubs" messaging seems almost like a no-brainer, and it centainly puts both of them on the defensive.
4. Obama's primary battle was won not just because of careful ground work, but also because the campaign had a pretty goood sense of timing. We're still a ways out from the election, but I trust that they still have this sense of timing, and that they won't let this thing get out of hand.


I Agree with all the McCain Victory Consequences Except Hillary (0.00 / 0)
If McCain were to win, the decades old media mantra of "The Democrats are way too far left for middle America, when will they ever learn" will beat loud and clear for the next four years.  There will be calls for "new blood" and "a new direction" and the likely nominee will probably be some obscure southern governor who'll make progressives wish it were Hillary

That's probably true (0.00 / 0)
it's entire possible we see someone to the right of Harold Ford running in 2012 and progressives won't be able to do a damn thing about it. Whenever we open our mouths, we'll get slammed;

"WE TRUSTED YOU WITH OBAMA! YOU'VE LOST CREDIBILITY"


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search