Open Left - President 2004

Demographic Shifts, 2004 to 2008

Chris Bowers — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 20:15:00 GMT

Where did Obama gain the most relevant to Kerry four years ago? I've seen dozens of theories floating about. but no systematic analysis. Usually, the theories floated are connected to the organization of the person doing the floating. For example, a member of a youth vote coalition will attribute Obama's victory to young voters, a spokesperson for a Lainto coalition will say it was Latino voters, a spokesperson for a women's organization will say it was single women, etc.

In order to try and provide more than just speculation and organizational trumpeting, in the extended entry I provide a table that shows Obama's shift from 2004 across every major demographic. Check it out.
2004 exit poll
2008 exit poll

Note: "Raw shift" means the change in the overall margin Obama earned from a given demograhpic compared. For example, if Obama won a demographic that makes up 10% of the electorate by a 60%-40% margin, than earned an overall +2.0% margin from that group. If Kerry earned an overall 1.0% margin from that group four years ago, then that group had a "raw shift" of 1.0%

Obama's demographic shift from 2004

Demographic	Percent Shift	Raw Shift
Gender
Women	+10%	+5.3%
Men	+12%	+5.5%
Ethnicity
White	+5%	+4.2%
Black	+14%	+3.5%
Latino	+27%	+2.5%
Asian	+15%	+0.3%
Other	+21%	+0.4%
Age
18-29	+23%	+4.6%
30-44	+13%	+3.8%
45-64	NA	+2.7%
65+	-2%	-0.3%
Income
Under $15K	+21%	+0.7%
$15K-$30K	+18%	+1.7%
$30K-$50K	+11%	+2.1%
$50K-$75K	+12	+2.8%
$75K-100K	+13%	+1.9%
$100K-$150K	+11%	+1.2%
$150K-$200K	+14%	+0.3%
$200K+	+34%	+1.2%
Education
No HS	+27%	+1.1%
HS Grad	+11%	+2.3%
Some College	+14%	+2.8%
4 year grad	+8%	+2.1%
Post Grad	+7%	+1.3%
Party
Dem	+3%	+2.0%
Rep	+6%	+6.3%
Ind	+7%	+2.1%
Ideology
Liberal	+7%	+2.3%
Moderate	+12%	+5.2%
Conservative	+11%	+3.7%
Religion
Protestant	+10%	+5.4%
Catholic	+14%	+3.8%
Jewish	+8%	-0.4%
Other	+10%	Even
None	+16%	+2.7%

My quick reaction to these numbers are that Obama's victory was achieved primarily by non-whites, voters under 45, and what seems to be heavily depressed Republican turnout. Obama's victory among those making over $200K is also shcoking. I'll work on tracking down more numbers later on. What are your thoughts on these figures?

Three Big Myths About The 2004 and 2008 Elections

Chris Bowers — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:30:00 GMT

When I tell people how well Obama is doing in the polls, here are three of the most common responses I receive:

"Yeah, but Kerry was winning at the end of the campaign, too."
"Yeah, but Kerry was way ahead among early voters, too."
"Yeah, but Republicans always do better in the final results than in the final polls." (GOTV and / or machine fraud are often cited as reasons for this one.)

All of these responses irritate me, both because they are all demonstrably false and because they are often accompanied by excess worrying. In the extended entry, I attempt to wipe away this worrying by actually showing how all three of those myths are false.
1. Kerry was winning late in the 2004 campaign, too. No he wasn't. I have heard hundreds of people make this claim, but it just isn't true. For perspective on where the 2008 campaign stands relative to the 2004 and 2000 campaigns, Professor Charles Franklin maps the trend lines during all three:

I don't know where this rumor started, but it is both widespread and easily shown to be false. Obama is currently running about 6% ahead, while Kerry was running about 1% behind three days before the election. Obama is 7% ahead of where Kerry was four years ago.

2. Kerry won early voters, too. No, he didn't. Again, I don't know where this rumor got started, but it just isn't true. The final Pew poll in 2004 showed Bush and Kerry running even among early voters. The final CBS poll in 2004 showed Bush ahead among early voters. None of the other final 2004 trial heats seem to have crosstabs for early voters, but there is no evidence that Kerry led among early voters, and most evidence indicates that he was slightly behind. So, Obama is running at least 8-10% ahead of Kerry among early voters. Also, it is important to remember that early voting could be as much of 35% of all voting in 2008, whereas four years ago it only accounted for 22.5%. So, not only is Obama running way ahead of where Kerry was four years ago, but early voting is much more important than it was four years ago.

3. Republicans typically improve from final polls to final results. Again, I have no idea who starts these stupid myths, but this one is completely false. In 2004 and 2006, there were 42 statewide elections that were polled during the final week of the campaign, and where the final outcome of the campaign was 10% or less. In those 42 campaigns, Democrats gained an average of 0.5% from the final polls to the final margin. This study included the 19 states in the 2004 presidential election that were decided by less than 10%. So, on average, Republicans actually do worse from the final polls to the final result.

***

So, in summary:

Kerry was losing by 1% with three days left, while Obama is winning by 6%
Bush either narrowly won early voters in 2004, or it was a tie. Obama is winning early voters by 10%.
On average, Democrats improve from the final polls to the final result, not Republican.

I hope this will settle some people down. I know there is a lot of trauma out there, but the simple truth is that 2008 is not showing the same numbers as 2004, like at all.

Turnout Assumptions: The Truth Is In Between

Chris Bowers — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:00:00 GMT

In terms of polling analysis, I feel as though I have morphed into one of the bi-partisan pundit concern trolls that dominate the big media commentariat whenever Democrats have gained the upper hand in our political discourse (calls for bipartisanship were far less common, of course, during the Republican trifecta). Pretty much no matter what the polling situation is, I stick to my constant refrain "the truth is in between."

Well, I am about to start that refrain again, this time when it comes to the dueling likely voter models floating around the polling universe. Nowhere is the discrepancy between likely voter models more pronounced than in the Gallup tracking poll, which publishes two separate likely voter models every day. One likely voter model, the "traditional" model, includes questions about past voting behavior and assumes 60% turnout of the voting age population. The other, "expanded" model does not ask about past voting behavior, and makes no assumptions about national turnout.

Most Democratic-leaning election websites have decided to use the "expanded" model as the daily Gallup tracking poll number, rather than the "traditional" model. This is the case at TPM, Pollster.com, and fivethirtyeight and, it would appear, among most of the commenters I read on Open Left. I haven't taken sides in this argument before, but I actually think it is a mistake to use only the "expanded" likely voter model and discard the traditional one entirely. As I always say, the truth is in between.

More in the extended entry.
In 2004, according to Dave Leip, 72.9% of registered voters had their votes recorded for President. Given ballot spoiling and invalid ballots, probably about 75% of registered voters attempted to cast a vote for President in 2004. It seems reasonable to assume that number will be either the same, or a bit higher, in 2008. However, both of the likely voter models in the current edition of the Gallup tracking poll shoot far on either side of that number. With 2,800 registered voters in their survey, Gallup uses 1,825 for their "traditional" likely voter model (65.2%) and 2,437 for their "expanded" likely voter model (87.0%). Both numbers strike me as highly unlikely, with one far too low and one far too high.

Yet again, I think the truth is in between. With the "expanded" model showing Obama +7%, and the "traditional" model showing Obama +5%, my best guess would be Obama +6%. This difference also probably goes a long way toward explaining the widely varying national polls of late, with current numbers coming in between Obama +3% and Obama +11%. The different polling methods and various forms of polling error appear to be balancing each other out, as Obama currently leads by 5.9% in Pollster.com's national regression line.

The Obama campaign will bring a lot of new voters to the polls. However, we are simply not going to reach 87% attempted turnout among registered voters. 80% might just be within reach, but 87% simply isn't going to happen. As someone who argued for months that Kerry would win 80% of the undecided vote, I believe we are all doing a disservice to ourselves by assuming such an implausible turnout wave. The best expectations are the most realistic expectations, and right now I am not at all convinced that we are being entirely realistic.

State and National Polling Are Not Divergent

Chris Bowers — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:00:00 GMT

There is no question that the tracking polls have tightened compared to where they were from October 21st through October 27th (though not from where they were from October 15th through October 20th). However, I just did the 2:00 p.m. update to the Presidential Forecast, and state polling has pushed Obama out to his most secure lead of the entire campaign. And I added a lot of polls:

Five new Pennsylvania polls, four new Ohio polls, two new Florida polls, plus one new poll each from Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin added. Obama drops slightly in Florida, holds steady in Ohio, and improves everywhere else.

Obama's state by state situation is improving, even as the Pollster.com national tracker has dropped from Obama +8.8% on Saturday (his all-time peak) to Obama +5.8% today. However, according to my forecast, Obama now reaches 273 electoral votes in states where he leads by 8.3% or more, and hits 311 electoral in states where he leads by 6.5% or more. As I will discuss later in the day, I'm not alone in showing this vast Obama statewide lead, either. No doubt, on the surface it appears difficult to reconcile the tracking polls over the last couple of days with the state polling released over the same time period.

A partial explanation comes from the 2004 election, which Kerry lost nationally by 2.5%. Given 2004 results in the three most heavily polled swing states, Florida (Bush +5.0%), Ohio (Bush +2.1%) and Pennsylvania (Kerry +2.5%), and given an 8.3% national swing, those states are almost exactly where they should be right now. In my forecast, I have Obama +3.3% in Florida, which is 0.0% away from the expected result. In Ohio, I have Obama at +6.5%, only 0.3% away from the expected result. In Pennsylvania, I have Obama at +11.2%, only 0.4% away from the expected result. So, a partial answer is that there is no discrepancy between state polls and national polls, at least in the largest swing states. Earlier state and national polling diverged from one another in these states, but current state and national polling does not. This explanation also works for Wisconsin, where Obama is within 0.2% of his expected result given the national swing from 2004, and Missouri, where he is within 0.8%.

Still, that leaves a bunch of state polling in conflict with national polls. This week's polls from Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina are all 2-4% more favorable to Obama than a simple 8.3% swing from 2004 can explain. In these cases, it can probably be chalked to a combination of several factors, including polling error, changing demographics, and improved Democratic campaign organization in these states. While 2-4% is a bit of a shift, it is not so large that a combination of such factors fail to provide a complete explanation.

This leaves Indiana, Montana, North Dakota and Virginia, where Obama is running between 7% and 12% of where he should be. However, Obama is equally under-performing relative to 2004 in a different handful of states, including Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Rather than a broad difference, it seems to simply be a regional shift.

So, there is your explanation for the state poll and national poll discrepancy: there isn't much of one at all.

Why I'm Thinking 4% As The Final Polling Margin

Chris Bowers — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:46:24 GMT

A few days ago, I proclaimed that I expected the national polling margin to drop to 4-5%, and then stabilize. So far, my prediction is a little off, as the now eight tracking polls show a slightly larger, and growing, margin for Obama:

Complete Tracking poll average

Org	Obama	McCain
ABC	53%	44%
Gallup*	51%	44%
GWU	49%	45%
Hotline	47%	42%
Rasmussen	50%	46%
R2000	50%	42%
TIPP	46.7%	41.4%
Zogby	49.8%	44.5%
Mean	49.6%	43.6%

* = Gallup is an average of their expanded and traditional likely voter models

So, right now Obama's margin appears to be about 6.0%, a number with which every polling aggregation site comes with a couple tenths of a percent. So, at least for now, it turns out I was wrong about how much Obama's lead would drop. That's cool.

However, I still think that there is a good reason to expect the final polling margin to be 4%. The theory goes like this: in presidential elections, the average poll margin during the campaign equals the final poll margin at the end of the campaign. So far in this campaign, the all-time average has been Obama by 4%. As such, I predict it as the final margin.

In the extended entry, I explain my theory.
The reason is that, since Obama clinched the nomination on June 3rd, the average polling margin appears incredibly stable to me, with only occasional major events temporarily changing the margin. And, according to an email I received to from Charles Franklin of Pollster.com, check out the average polling margins in from the start of June through Election Day in 2000, 2004 and 2008:

2000: Bush +2.4%
2004: Bush +1.4%
2008 (so far): Obama +3.8%

Now, click here to compare the final polling margin in 2000 and 2004 to the average polling margin in both elections. As you can see, the final polling margin in both elections was identical to the average polling margin from June through Election Day. The differences are, at most, one or two tenths of a percent.

My theory is that virtually everyone knows who they are going to vote for in a presidential election as far back as June, and that elections in our contemporary political environment are only altered by major events like conventions or, in our case, a financial crisis. Undecideds make up a very small percentage of hte electorate, and so much money is spent wooing them on both sides, that neither group can gain much advantage.

This year, I see 4% as the likely final polling margin, given that has been the average margin along the way. Now, that doesn't mean the final voting margin will equal that number, as both 2000 and 2004 deviated more than 1% from their final margins (about 1.1% in 2004, and about 3.0% in 2000). However, 4% should be enough for Obama to win in really any scenario you can dig up from that point.

Now, this isn't exactly a well-tested theory, but I thought I would throw it out there. I won't be surprised if the final polling margin tightens to around 4%, but hat Obama will still win. In case the polls do tighten toward the end, at least I can use this theory as a security blanket. The average poll margin equals the final poll margin.

On Voting Machines

Chris Bowers — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:31:19 GMT

Cries of "they stole the election through voting machine fraud" are a pet peeve of mine. To show why, I conducted a study of final week polls in the 42 Governor, Senate and House elections since 2004 that were decided by 10% or less. You can see the report here, and read the methodology here. These were among the findings (more in the extended entry):

Average polling error from final polls to final results: 2.0%
Number of states where polls favored a candidate other than the winner: 1, Wisconsin 2004 Presidential shifted from Bush 0.7% to Kerry 0.4%
Average partisan shift from final polls to final results: Democrats +0.5%
Largest pro-Republican shifts: VA-Pres (-4.2%), FL-Pres (-3.4%), AR-Pres (-3.3%), AK-Gov (-3.0%), MT-Sen (-3.0%). NC-Sen (-2.5%), MO-Pres (-2.2%). No other pro-Republican shifts greater than 2.0%.
Largest pro-Democratic shifts: KY-Sen (+7.0%), MD-Sen (+5.75%), MD-Gov (+5.5%), RI-Sen (+5.0%), NV-Pres (+3.7%), NV-Gov (+3.0%), WA-Pres (+2.2%). No other pro-Democratic shifts greater than 2.0%.
Most accurate polling: OH-Pres 2004. Yes, that's right--Ohio 2004 was the most accurate polling of these 42 averages. There was a difference of 0.0% from the final polls to the final result.

In other words, the research I have conducted on my own actually suggests a slight pro-Democratic shift from final polls to final results in close statewide elections. This doesn't exactly instill me with a lot of fear that a Republican conspiracy has used voting machines to shift elections in their favor. In fact, I don't see much of a conspiracy at all, given that two-thirds of these campaigns ended up with results that were different from final week polling by 2.0% or less. That actually instills me with a lot of confidence in final week polling averages, rather than a lack of confidence in voting machines. As such, it serves as the rationale behind my presidential forecast methodology.

Now, I am completely in favor of election reform. In fact, along with the Employee Free Choice Act, media reform, and immigration reform, I have repeatedly identified it as one of the four "progressive positive feedback loops." Those who raise concerns about election error and election tampering in order to either pass legislative reform and / or support election protection measures are engaged in solid issue advocacy and / or election activism. Good for them. I support their efforts whole heartedly.

However, those who only selectively claim fraud in cases where their candidate lost, those who offer up voting machine fraud as a singular rationale for progressive and Democratic defeat, and those who fatalistically raise these fears without offering a legislative and / or activist solution to the problem--well, I just find stuff like that annoying. I certainly understand people's concerns, what with the many behind the scene power grabs by Republicans over the years, but in this case I am pretty sure people are barking up the wrong tree. There absolutely are widespread Republican attempts to suppress the vote, but as far as pro-Republican voting machine fraud goes, I just don't see it.

Expected State Polls Based On National Polls

Chris Bowers — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:23:58 GMT

Looking at the twenty states most commonly described as swing states in this election, the following table compares current, actual state polling to "expected" state polling. The "expected" numbers take the 2004 state-level result, and shift it 5.96% in favor of Democrats, given that Kerry lost the national popular vote by 2.46% but Obama leads the national popular vote by 3.5%. The current or "actual" state polling is taken from Pollster.com.

Expected Vs. Actual State Polls

State	Expected	Actual	Difference
Alaska	McCain +19.6	Obama +2.7	Obama +22.3
Colorado	Obama +1.3	Obama +0.9	McCain +0.4
Florida	Obama +1.0	McCain +1.4	McCain +2.4
Georgia	McCain +10.6	McCain +5.5	Obama +5.1
Indiana	McCain +14.7	McCain +0.6	Obama +14.1
Iowa	Obama +5.3	Obama +6.0	Obama +0.7
Michigan	Obama +9.4	Obama +5.4	McCain +4.0
Minnesota	Obama +9.4	Obama +9.4	As expected
Missouri	McCain +1.2	McCain +2.8	McCain +1.6
Montana	McCain +14.5	Obama +2.9	Obama +17.4
Nevada	Obama +3.4	McCain +2.7	McCain+6.1
New Hampshire	Obama +7.3	Obama +6.1	McCain +1.2
New Mexico	Obama +5.2	Obama +8.2	Obama +3.0
North Carolina	McCain +6.5	McCain +4.4	Obama +2.1
North Dakota	McCain +21.4	McCain +2.4	Obama +19.0
Ohio	Obama +3.9	Obama +3.6	McCain +0.3
Oregon	Obama +10.1	Obama +6.8	McCain +3.3
Pennsylvania	Obama +8.5	Obama +8.5	As expected
Virginia	McCain +2.2	Obama +0.9	Obama +3.1
Wisconsin	Obama +6.3	Obama +10.0	Obama +3.7

There is a lot to say about this table, but I am struck by Alaska, Florida, Montana, Nevada and Virginia. The reason these five stick out to me is that their changes actually result in the state slipping to the unexpected party. Overall, this a 32 electoral vote gain for Republicans, and a 19 electoral vote gain for Democrats, making for a net gain of 13 "expected" EVs for Republicans.

McCain is over-performing the most in Michigan and Nevada, while Obama is heavily over-performing in Alaska, Indiana, Montana and North Dakota. Otherwise, the states are petty much all where one would expect them to be. What do you see in these numbers?

Flip-Flop Attacks Are Generally Ineffective

Chris Bowers — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:50:13 GMT

Remember when Bill Clinton was portrayed as a waffle in Doonesbury? I bet you probably don't:

When Clinton was elected in 1992, Trudeau gave his readers the chance to vote on what his presidential Icon would be. The choices both reflected Clinton's reputation for being wishy-washy: a flipping coin or a large waffle. The waffle got the most votes and became Clinton's official avatar. However, the waffle appeared infrequently after a while when Clinton's "waffling" became less of a hot-button issue and fewer people got the joke. Thus Clinton was most often portrayed by the "White House Dialog"

Also, remember when the 2004 Bush campaign ran ads of John Kerry windsurfing, and spent months trying to label Kerry a "flip-flopper?" During that phase of the campaign, Kerry's numbers actually steadily rose:

Remember when Barack Obama was attacked for "moving to the center?" The McCain campaign even held regular conference calls detailing Obama's many flip-flops. However, in the twenty-two days since July 17th, the day the McCain campaign released a web video accusing Obama of flip-flopping on Iraq, "move to the center" is a phrase that has only appeared in Google News twenty-one times. On most occasions, it appeared in small, alternative news organizations. In fact, not only has McCain entirely dropped that line of attack on Obama, they are now criticizing him mainly for being too resolute on issues like energy and Iraq.

I argued recently that Obama's mid-July downturn began on July 8th, and was a result of the "move to the center" meme peaking in the media. However, a look at the polling trend chart above shows that Obama actually reached his national polling peak on June 22nd, and has a been in a slow decline ever since. Given that the move to the center meme didn't really enter the discourse until about June 27th, in retrospect it is difficult to argue that the flip-flop or move to the center attack on Obama was responsible. Combine this with the failure of the attack against Bill Clinton and John Kerry, and also combined with the McCain campaign dropping the line, and it is worth calling into question the overall effectiveness of the flip-flop charge against any politician.

Do flip-flop attacks hurt politicians? I'm not seeing much evidence of it. I could be wrong, but I at least wanted to float the thesis: flip-flop attacks are generally ineffective. They also form large percentage of the attacks that people seem to be suggesting, and even engaging in, against McCain. If my thesis is right, they probably won't work.

What attacks might work against McCain? I don't know for sure, but probably that he is a liar and a Republican. Obama has opened the liar line of attack today, even tinged with a hint of partisanship:

This ad is a lie, and it's part of the old, tired politics of a party in Washington that has run out of ideas and run out of steam.

While I don't know for sure that this line of attack will work, it seems very promising.

Polling Trends: 2000, 2004 and 2008

Chris Bowers — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:54:39 GMT

Charles Franklin has a new graph up that shows the national polling trends during the entire 2000, 2004, and 2008 campaigns. It is definitely worth a look:

The graph shows Kerry's, Gore's and Obama's national polling margin against the Republican nominee during the final year of each campaign. There are some very important lessons from this graph:

As of today, August 4th, Obama's current position (+3.3%) is superior to the best polling either Gore or Kerry ever enjoyed.
As of today, August 4th, Obama's current position is superior to any position he was in during the nomination campaign.
For all the talk of a polarized electorate, there has actually been substantial movement in the polls during the final three months of each of the last two campaigns. This could very well happen again, and it could happen in either direction. So, the campaign is nowhere near decided.

If there is a broader lesson to learn from this, I think it is that each campaign is different. We latch onto analogies from past elections, but 2000 and 2004 were completely different from each other in terms of their broad trends, even though they had similar results. And 2008 has started completely differently from either of those campaigns.

To get a bit tautological, the 2008 election is like the 2008 election. Obama is ahead by more than other Democratic nominees from this decade, but he is slipping. The situation would be better if he had 527s to attack McCain, but it is too late for that now. The Obama campaign probably does have an attack strategy on McCain prepared, but they might want to hurry up the timetable on that one, and ratchet up the rhetoric a bit. Otherwise, it is a little late for strategizing, and it is time to start executing plans that were developed months ago.

The New Electoral Map

Chris Bowers — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:00:00 GMT

There has been a decent amount of discussion about "the new electoral map" that the 2008 election will create. Certainly, removing the polarizing George W. Bush from the ticket, adding an African-American nominee into the mix, and combining it all with a fifty-state strategy four years in the making, and there are bound to be changes in the partisanship of many states. In an attempt to determine just where partisanship is shifting, last night I spent the last three hours creating this map:

State by state partisan voting shift, 2004 election to July 2008

Solidly More Democratic (8.0% or more better than expected): 90 electoral votes
Somewhat more Democratic (3.0%-7.9% better than expected): 90 electoral votes
No significant change (Within 2.9% of expected): 230 electoral votes
Somewhat more Republican (3.0%-7.9% worse than expected): 95 electoral votes
Solidly more Republican (8.0% or more worse than expected): 33 electoral votes

In the extended entry, I provide an explanation for this map.
This map takes the "expected" margin in each state, and subtracts it from the current polling margin in each state. The "expected" result is determined by taking the final margin of each state in the 2004 election, and shifting it 7.06% in favor of Democrats (Obama is currently ahead by 4.6% nationally, while Kerry lost by 2.46%. Thus, a shift of 7.06% is "expected" in each state.) The current polling margin in each state is taken from Pollster.com or, in cases where Pollster.com does not provide a regression line, from the averages in my most recent presidential forecast. The blue states are where Obama is performing either somewhat or solidly better than expected, and the red states are where Obama is performing either somewhat or solidly worse than expected.

It is an interesting map, and somewhat closely parallels the results of the nomination campaign. Obama is very strong, for a Democrat, in the southeast outside of Florida. He is also very strong, for a Democrat, west of the Mississippi outside the Pacific Coast. He is relatively weak, for a Democrat, in the Mississippi Delta, Florida, and the northeast. To put it in Robert David Sullivan's ten political region terminology, Obama is relatively strong for a Democrat in Sagebrush, the Farm Belt, El Norte, and the Southern Lowlands, but relatively weak for a Democrat in Southern Comfort, Appalachia, the Northeast Corridor, and the Upper Coasts.

Anyway, I hope you found this map interesting and valuable.

Republicans Go Retro With Hapless Flip-Flop Attack

Chris Bowers — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:33:50 GMT

The new line of attack from Republicans on Barack Obama is that he has flip-flopped on Iraq and a host of other issues. Charles Krauthammer's column from Friday is a good example of this, as is the McCain conference call today:

On a conference call with reporters a few moments ago, a senior McCain surrogate, Steve Forbes, recited a litany of things that Obama has supposedly flip-flopped on, and said that Obama had "changed his mind" on troop withdrawals from Iraq.

I think I have seen this line of attack before. In honor of the new, retro 2004 campaign, I will break out my American Idiot album, watch some old Arrested Development DVD's, and go to the matinee showing of Fahrenheit 911. I guess this retro craze is so severe that we really are running out of past.

Four years later, I have grave doubts that a "flip-flop" charge is actually effective in a political campaign, especially in an Obama vs. McCain campaign. Consider the following:

If Obama is Kerry, then McCain is Bush. Bush argued that John Kerry was a flip-flopper, and everyone remembers that charge quite well. As such, for the McCain campaign to argue that Obama is a flip-flopper should actually cause voters to compare McCain to Bush just as much as they might compare Obama to Kerry. Right now, being tied to Bush is a lot worse than being tied to Kerry.
Doesn't contradict Obama's image. Obama, unlike Kerry, has been running on his willingness to engage in bi-partisan compromise for over a year. So, it isn't clear how the "flip-flop" charge even goes against Obama's longstanding campaign promises. He has told everyone repeatedly that he will compromise, so it is unclear how attacking him for doing so will hurt him. (That isn't to imply that I think things like FISA are actually compromises, but it is how they are being portrayed in the media).
Do people even dislike flip-floppers? A January 2007 poll from Pew showed that 75% of voters like candidates who "are willing to compromise." That was slightly higher than the 67% of voters who like politicians who stick to their principles.
Has anyone flip-flopped more than McCain?: There are few politicians in the last twenty years who have flip-flopped more than McCain. E. J. Dionne covers some in his column today--taxes, offshore drilling--and a classic video by Brave New Films covers several more.

Overall, it is very hard to imagine this new line of attack against Obama will hurt him at all. In fact, looking at the national poll trend lines at Pollster.com, the only line of attack that has ever clearly damaged Obama was the Reverend Wright flap back in March. Outside of a precipitous, but temporary, drop in Obama's numbers during March, Obama's polling trends have been straight upward. So-called "Bittergate" in mid-April might have also caused a second, small, very brief drop.

Republicans are going to have to come up with something better than this kitsch, retro flip-flop line of attack if they want to beat Obama. Not to concern troll or anything, but if the only clearly demonstrable way that Obama has been damaged in this campaign was Reverend Wright, that is probably the type of attack they should be exploiting. It would be highly unsavory, race-baiting sorts of attacks, but just because it is unsavory and laced with bigotry hasn't stopped conservatives in past elections.

Is Obama's Targeting Strategy Really That Different From Kerry's?

Chris Bowers — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:09:10 GMT

Last week, I produced the following map outlining Obama's targeting strategy:

Obama Targeting Strategy

The black states are receiving both organizing fellows and television ads. The gray states receive either organizing fellows or television ads, but not both. The red and blue states are receiving neither, and are allocated according to their 2004 (and 2000) results. The fourteen highly targeted "black" states are all included in the eighteen states which the Obama campaign publicly claims it will target heaviest:

Hildebrand and Obama campaign manager David Plouffe have, in recent days, outlined the shape of the campaign. In an interview with Politico, Hildebrand said Obama would focus largely on 14 states George W. Bush won in 2004, plus one state Kerry won in 2004: New Hampshire, where Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton stage their first joint event Friday.(...)

"We're going to go in and play Nebraska 2, which is Omaha and surrounding [areas], in the hopes that we can pick up that one electoral vote," he said.

A presentation by Plouffe to donors, and Obama's own early advertising expenditures, add three more to that list of states to defend: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

In an interview, Hildebrand listed states in order of the margin by which Bush carried them: The closest four - Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Nevada - he said, would see "a ton of attention."

But he said Obama would campaign hard in 10 more states, with the candidate and his top surrogates spending time on the ground and his campaign spending money in the air. Those states are Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, Georgia and Alaska.

The only real differences between the public Obama campaign statements and the targeting map are that the public statements remove New Jersey, Oregon and Washington (33 electoral votes), while emphasizing Alaska, Indiana, Montana, Nebraska-02 and North Dakota (21 electoral votes). Given that the highly targeted, black states are worth 177 electoral votes, and the "safe blue" are worth 167 electoral votes, this is really just trimming around the edges.

It is also worth noting that the highly targeted "black" states are actually pretty similar to the 2004 swing state map. In fact, if North Carolina and Georgia are removed, and the nearly identically sized Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon and West Virginia are added, then there is no difference between the highly targeted Obama states and the highly targeted Kerry states. In summary, the entire targeting difference is quite small:

--Newly targeted states (51 electoral votes): Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, Nebraska-02, North Carolina, and North Dakota.

--Targeted states no more (31 electoral votes): Arizona, Arkansas, Minnesota, West Virginia

Given that John Edwards was Kerry's VP selection in 2004, it could be argued that Kerry targeted North Carolina four years ago, making the differences in the maps even smaller.

Overall, all this talk of a new electoral map seems a bit overblown to me, as Obama's targets match up about 80% of the time. The biggest difference, in my estimation, is the underlying, fifty-state effort from the DNC and the Obama campaign alike. With better funded state parties, DNC field organizers, Obama campaign staff, and a voter registration effort taking place across the country, we have a national, long-term effort in place working not only to win the White House, but also to build a working majority both in Congress and on the ground. That is the way the map is truly expanding, not just because Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, Nebraska-02, North Carolina, and North Dakota are in competitive in this campaign.

Obama's Takes Expected Lead

Chris Bowers — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:56:07 GMT

Over the past week, a series of state polls with extremely positive results for Barack Obama have been released. If these polls are accurate, then Obama has taken large leads in New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, a decent lead in Florida, and even a narrow lead in Virginia. Given earlier polls that showed Missouri to be a dead heat, this all seems to good to be true. After all, I am a Democrat, and so a lead like this makes me feel as though I am about to wake up in bed next to Susanne Pleshette.

Actually, however, this state polling projection is precisely where current national polling would project it to be. Pollster.com's national polling projection, which corrects for "house effects" from different pollsters and takes all polling firms into account rather than just those with the most recently released polls, currently shows Obama ahead by 5.6%. A 5.6% Obama lead would be a swing of 8.1% from 2004, when Kerry lost the national popular vote by 2.5% (actually 2.46%, but rounding is necessary in this case). If there was an 8.1% swing in every single state from 2004, we would end up with the following electoral college map:

Obama 336, McCain 189, Too close to call 13

With the exception of Nevada, this is precisely what current state polling projects. The two closest states in the above map would be Virginia (within 0.2%) and Missouri (within (0.9%). Remarkably, all polling conducted since Obama clinched the nomination actually shows Virginia and Missouri to be the two closest states in the nation, and all other states, except Nevada, falling into their above projected categories.

So, the state polls released over the last two weeks, which fladem today called "the best day of State Polling a Democrat has had since 1996," are not too good to be true. It is, instead, exactly where one would expect Obama's lead to be given current national polling and 2004 results. Even though Nevada might be out of whack, the above map really is where the election currently stands. We may be Democrats, but at least for now we can rest assured that we are winning.

On The Ground In Pennsylvania

Chris Bowers — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:54:42 GMT

Since everyone knows I live in Pennsylvania, over the past month, whenever I have talked to someone in politics who hails from a different state, I am always asked how intense campaign in Philadelphia is right now. My truthful answer is that it is a major event, and we are getting a lot of attention, but it still doesn't compare to either the final month of the 2004 general election or even the final two weeks of the 2007 mayoral and city council primaries.

Sure, back before the March 24th voter registration deadline, it was difficult to walk anywhere in Center City without a young, eager Obama volunteer asking if you were registered to vote. Sure, the sight of cable news trucks driving around the city has become a regular occurrence. Sure, frequently you will run past people talking about the primary on street corners, hear them on mass transit, or in pretty much every cafes or bar. Sure, there is at least one, and frequently more, campaign events to attend every night in the city. And yes, there are even a few campaign commercials. However, it still isn't anywhere near what happens to Philadelphia during a Presidential general election.

What I think some people miss is that if you live in a swing state, especially if you live in the second largest swing state in the nation (Pennsylvania), not to mention in the largest city in a swing state in the entire country (Philadelphia), then no primary could ever possibly reach the level of intensity of the 2004 general election. Four years ago, campaigns and outside groups spent more than $50,000,000 in Pennsylvania. Nearly six million people in Pennsylvania voted. The entire city of Philadelphia was one long parade for John Kerry during the month of October, culminating in a 120,000 person rally featuring Bill Clinton one week before the election. During the final two weeks, it quite literally was difficult to walk down the street even in my West Philly neighborhood without being canvassed, seeing a pro-Kerry / anti-Bush sign, or hearing a van drive by promoting the Democratic ticket. That was an intense campaign. What is happening here now, while certainly a spirited election, just isn't in the same league of intensity. Turnout, spending and campaign rallies won't even reach one-third of the levels they hit in 2004.

As intense and record-breaking as we perceive this primary to be, it still doesn't compare to general elections. To put this in perspective, so far roughly as many people are voting in Democratic primary states as voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988 (source). While that is excellent for a primary, it just doesn't compare to a general election, much less a general election in a top five swing state. Consider, for example, how Obama has gained significant ground in both Pennsylvania and North Carolina over the last two weeks. This isn't just momentum--it is also part of the longstanding pattern in this primary campaign where Obama makes up ground in states once the campaigning starts in earnest. This is bears such a strong resemblance to the way that challengers always make up ground on incumbents once the campaign begins in earnest, that it is difficult to draw any other conclusion that a large percentage of primary voters are not paying very close attention until the campaign shifts to their home state.

Just wanted to offer that perspective. Sure, it is a spirited campaign here in Philadelphia, but it just doesn't compare to what the city is like during general elections in presidential campaigns. Anyway, I'm off to my local ward meeting, where tonight we make our endorsement for President. I will be arguing the case for Obama, and wearing the cool button on the right, which the President of the Drexel Democrats made for me. It is in the best spirit of DIY online, progressive campaigning. I'll be back with an update on the meeting at around midnight, after pub trivia.

Can The Pennsylvania Interval Be Avoided?

Chris Bowers — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:06:35 GMT

Four years ago, John Kerry became the presumptive Democratic nominee on March 2nd. His Republican opponent was George Bush, who had already united the Republican Party, built the largest financial warchest in Presidential campaign history, was hovering at just over 50% in approval rating, and had been running against John Kerry for a entire month based on over two years of opposition research. Given all of those advantages, George Bush still only defeated John Kerry by 2.46% nationwide, and narrowly won the Electoral College in Ohio under dubious circumstances.

Considering the far more favorable climate to Democrats have in 2008, the growing conventional wisdom that the still undecided Democratic campaign will somehow hurt the eventual Democratic nominee strikes me as bogus. If we have a nominee on March 4th instead of March 2nd, that is a difference of only two days. Further, during the next few weeks, both of our candidates will be running advertisements and receiving huge press in key swing states like Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. When it is all over, we will have a Democratic nominee with a lot more money than Kerry, a much higher name ID, a far less unified Republican Party, and a much more favorable political climate. Adding on an extra month actually strikes me as very good for Democrats, rather than something to worry about.

However, what happens if the nomination goes on after March 4th? As I explain in the extended entry, this could be something of a problem.
There is a six-week interval between Mississippi on March 11th, and Pennsylvania on April 22nd, Forty-two days is a lot of empty space to fill, especially if the campaign is just as undecided then as it is now. News coverage could shift back toward McCain, and one the media's all-time favorite narratives, "Democrats divided," will have a lot of credibility for a long time. Both Democrats can spend a long time campaigning in the key swing state of Pennsylvania, but McCain won't be so restricted to one state. Fundraising isn't a problem, since Obama is now raising money at a rate equal to John Kerry in 2004, but spending it might be. Since both Clinton and Obama would still need to throw everything just at winning the nomination, in a post-March 4th campaign Democrats will be effectively spending less money targeting the Republican nominee in 2008 than they did in 2004.

So, I like this overtime, but I am a little worried about what could happen if the primary continues to be undecided after March 4th. The odds of either candidate dropping out on March 5th are not very good, either. In order to knock Obama out, Clinton probably needs to take about a 75-100 pledged delegate lead after Ohio and Texas. However, since Obama looks set to build an even larger pledged delegate lead over the next two weeks, that just isn't bloody likely. On the other side of the coin, Obama could conceivably knock Clinton out if he sweeps every state through March 11th, building a clear advantage in pledged delegates, popular support, fundraising and momentum. However, polling in both Ohio and Texas look pretty good for Clinton right about now, If she wins either state, and stays within 150 pledged delegates of Obama, she will probably soldier on to Pennsylvania. Expect talk of super delegates and Michigan / Florida to only intensify during that period, too.

I am really feeling good about this campaign right now, as most of the country is allowed a meaningful chance to vote, as both campaigns recover from multiple major setbacks, as both are now rising huge waves of grassroots support, as media attention solidifies around Democrats, and as the political climate stays very strong for Democrats. However, if we enter the six-week Pennsylvania Interval, I'm not sure if I will be feeling good anymore. Convince me either that the campaign will end before we reach that six-week break, or that it is a good thing if we reach that six-week break undecided. My gut reaction is not positive, but perhaps I am just being pessimistic.

It Worked Out Just As Planned (Almost)

Chris Bowers — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 06:30:00 GMT

I don't entirely trust poblano over at Daily Kos, because the way s/he uses numbers sometimes reminds me as much of a partisan as it does of an electoral analyst. However, I still think poblano put together an incredibly salient bit of analysis on the composition of the Obama coalition this season:

What follows is a multiple regression analysis that attempts to predict a candidate's 2008 vote share based on the 2004 vote shares of candidates in the same city. I've run the regression on all New Hampshire towns that had at least 100 Democratic voters in 2008, weighting larger towns more heavily.

This regression produces a number of coefficients that represent how much support was transferred from one candidate to another. For example, if the coefficient between John Kerry and Hillary Clinton is .73, that means that for every percentage point that Kerry had in a district in 2004, Hillary tended to pick up .73 percentage points in 2008.(...)

Liberman
.66 Clinton
.15 Obama
.05 Richardson
-.16 Edwards

It might also be helpful to turn these numbers around and look at where each of the '08 candidates' support is coming from.(...)

Obama
.93 Dean
.45 Clark
.38 Edwards '04
.15 Lieberman
.09 Kerry

Poblano's analysis means that Barack Obama is winning virtually all Dean voters from 2004, and a plurality of Clark voters from 2004. In other words, Barack Obama has combined the coalitions of the two main netroots fueled candidates in 2004. It certainly shows, too, given that Obama has raised more money from small donors than Dean and Clark combined from four years ago, and that he is drawing crowds even larger than the ones for Dean that caused the media to ooo and aaahhh four years ago.

So, let's see here: a campaign that uses extensive internet organizing, huge campaign rallies, heavy youth and creative class support, a record breaking number of small donors, a fulfilled promise of record turnout, and combination of Dean and Clark voters to force the best possible candidate the Democratic establishment could offer down to the wire?. Correct me if I am wrong, but in terms of structure, that seems to be exactly what the emergence of the progressive blogosphere suggested could happen in a Democratic Presidential primary in 2004. Just because the campaign in question was not, seemingly, single-handedly plucked from relative obscurity by a few prominent bloggers does not mean the Obama campaign is not using the exact same energy and exact same new, political trajectory that the blogosphere was riding back in 2003-2004.

Barack Obama's campaign is the manifestation of the contemporary progressive movement after it exploded from its original early adaptors and disseminated widely into American culture at large. What Obama is doing would simply not be possible without the explosion of new progressive activism that started in the late 1990's with such seemingly disparate events as the founding of MoveOn.org, the Seattle WTO protests, and the multiple outrages over the 2000 Presidential election. Hell, no matter the problems we have with him at different time, Obama was really the first netroots candidate to be elected to the Senate. In Chicago in early 2004, I saw him use the Dean coalition plus African-Americans (and a colossal, timely, flame-out by a self-funded front-runner) to win his Senate primary. Obama was also the only top-tier candidate who opposed the war from the start this time around, and I don't think you will find Obama's campaign is to the right of Dean's on pretty much anything.

It feels like the butterfly effect, the Frankenstein monster, or some sort of self-mutating computer virus. The political zeitgeist that the progressive blogosphere first seized upon five or six years ago was released into the population at large and came back, unexpectedly, as the Barack Obama campaign. That energy certainly didn't turn out with the same rhetorical approach it started with, but otherwise it is nearly structurally identical. In other words, the whole people-powered thing turned out exactly the way we planned it would, only that it sounds a little different. It is like a bunch of loose molecules forming a cloud, once the energy that started almost ten years ago grew, it took on a like of its own, reached a critical mass, and seized onto the first available nucleus. Soon enough, we will find out whether that could covers the Democratic Party in a flood.

National Journal Ranks Obama Most Liberal Senator

Chris Bowers — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:01:23 GMT

In shades of Kerry and Edwards from four years ago, National Journal has produced new rankings that show both Clinton and Obama shifting their voting record to the left during an election year:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.

Of course, it should be noted that this means they only differed on ten votes:

In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter," said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist.

Also, it should be noted that Progressive Punch produces very different rankings between Clinton and Obama. According to their metrics, Clinton ranks 29th in 2007-2008, while Obama ranks 43rd. When the "chips are down" on the most important votes, Lifetime, Clinton comes in at a tie for 17th, with Obama ranks 24th.

Still, I think the National Journal results are a hopeful sign that progressive and liberal pressure had a positive impact on how Clinton and Obama both voted in 2007. Primary campaigns are one of the few instances where we can leverage pressure, and just like in 2003 it seems to have worked. Their rankings make me feel a bit better about both Clinton and Obama, and a bit better about preferring Obama to Clinton.

Nevada Happenings: Debate, Polls, Lawsuit

Chris Bowers — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:59:57 GMT

Kucinich will be in the debate tomorrow night:

A Nevada judge says Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich must be included in Tuesday's candidates' debate in Nevada.

Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson says if Kucinich is excluded, he'll issue an injunction stopping the televised debate.

I think this is the right decision, even if I'll be watching the Michigan returns more than the debate. If nothing else, Kucinich does offer a different perspective. Further, a four-person debate won't be that crowded.

Also, I was looking at the polling history of Nevada, and I think the results of the Research 2000 poll (O 32%, C 30%, E 27%) that came out today is even more significant than first thought. While Mason-Dixon showed a close campaign in Nevada well before Iowa (Clinton only led 34%--26% in their most recent poll), the previous Research 2000 poll from mid-November has shown Clinton ahead 45%-20%-12%. While there is good reason to doubt all primary polling after New Hampshire, and good reason to doubt a new frontier like the Nevada caucus in particular, it now seems likely to me that Obama is ahead in Nevada.

Also, I wonder if this is a pattern we will see in more upcoming states: Clinton does worse in causes than she does in primaries. In 2004, John Kerry took 50.2% of the caucus vote, but 61.0% of the primary vote. Dean, by contrast, took 13.9% of the caucus vote, and only 5.5% of the primary vote. In fact, four of Dean's five second place finishes all took place in caucus states: Michigan, Washington, Maine and Nevada. Now, as analysis from poblano suggests, Clinton seems to have many of Kerry's voters, while Obama has many of Dean's voters. I think campaigns that are heavy on activist volunteers, like Dean and Obama, have something of a built-in advantage in caucus states. Activists are more likely to attend low turnout caucuses, while primaries have a larger rank and file population. If this is the case, it should bode well for Obama in the following February 5th states, all of which are caucuses: Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico and North Dakota. Edwards should also do better in caucuses than he does in primaries. Still, both of them will need to start winning primaries in order to take the nomination.

Update: Bill Clinton defends the Nevada lawsuit filed a few days ago to shut down the at-large precincts on the strip:

Bill Clinton today defended a state NEA-backed lawsuit over caucus sites, saying that all Democrats should play by the same rules.

Clinton was asked about the suit this morning by a student at Green Valley High School, located in the Las Vegas suburb of Henderson. He said that, in essence, state Democrats made "a special rule only for" members of the Culinary union, the most powerful in the state, to be able to caucus at their work sites rather than at their home precincts. "I think the rules oughta be the same for everybody," he said. "I question why you would ever have a temporary caucus site and say only the people that work there -- i.e. the people that we know are going to vote in a certain way or we think they will -- should be able to caucus here. I think that we oughta make it more possible for everybody to vote."

(Of course, we'll ask again: If the Culinary Workers had endorsed Hillary, would there even be a lawsuit? And if so, would Bill be defending it?)

Ugh. Once again, I'll just wonder why there is such a big hub-ub about these at-large precincts now, several months after they were first instituted. I'll also wonder what defending this lawsuit will do to Democratic attempts to prevent Republicans from suppressing voters in the general election. Doesn't anyone remember that this is why Bush is in the White House at all? Gross.

The Clinton, Obama and Edwards Coalitions

Chris Bowers — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:43:46 GMT

Poblano has conducted an interesting analysis of the New Hampshire vote in 2004 and 2008, using a multiple regression analysis on a town by town basis. The purpose of the analysis is to estimate who 2008 supporters of Clinton, Obama and Edwards backed in 2004. Since the study is based at the town level, rather than the more precise individual voter level, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Still, it is a compelling insight into the different coalitions within the Democratic Party:

This regression produces a number of coefficients that represent how much support was transferred from one candidate to another. For example, if the coefficient between John Kerry and Hillary Clinton is .73, that means that for every percentage point that Kerry had in a district in 2004, Hillary tended to pick up .73 percentage points in 2008. (…)

Clinton
.73 Kerry
.66 Lieberman
.18 Clark
.12 Edwards '04
-.05 Dean

Obama
.93 Dean
.45 Clark
.38 Edwards '04
.15 Lieberman
.09 Kerry

Edwards (2008)
.37 Edwards '04
.37 Clark
.24 Kerry
.15 Lieberman
.00 Dean

As Matt noted yesterday, the campaign seems to be coming down to identity politics. Activists and campaigns seem ready to play full hands of age, race and gender cards. With Obama relying primarily on non-Kerry supporters in New Hampshire, in order to win the nomination nationwide he will need both the overwhelming backing of African-Americans and a large influx of new primary voters. Otherwise, Clinton's domination of the Kerry vote will simply be too much. In 2004, Nevada was one of Kerry's best states, as he secured 64% in the February 14th caucuses. If Clinton's campaign really is the Kerry and Lieberman coalitions reborn, while Obama and Edwards are splitting the remainder, then Clinton probably wins out. Older women are the largest identity group in the Democratic primary electorate. It will take both a nearly unified, and greatly expanded, progressive creative class plus African-American coalition to have any chance against her.

Obama As Repudiation Of A Generational Failure

Chris Bowers — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:04:54 GMT

Obama is surging to victory in New Hampshire, currently holding a 7.6% lead across a remarkable eleven polls taken since Iowa. That makes his post-Iowa bounce anywhere from 10.6%--16.2%, depending on how one calculates polling averages. At this rate, he should be able to surge into a national lead by Friday, at the latest. While there is no guarantee that such a lead will last, and no guarantee that Obama will go on to win the nomination, clearly he is the frontrunner right now. An Obama nomination appears to be the most likely outcome of the Democratic primaries right now.

In some ways, an Obama victory would be a very, very good thing. The truth is that, as a nation, we failed from 1994 to 2007. We failed to expand health care coverage. We failed to stop the increasing corporatization of our lives and vicious exploitation of the Third World. We failed to close the income gap, either nationally or internationally. We failed to stop global warming. We have failed to respond to the threat of peak oil. We failed to stop a Presidential election from being stolen. We failed to stop the war in Iraq. The end result of these failures is that the Apollo Program of this era in American history is the war in Iraq. That's right--instead of doing something like, say, going to the Moon or stopping global warming, we invaded Iraq. In every political aspect, America has failed its generational role as a world leader in the post-Cold War era. While I refer to this as a generational failure, it is not limited to Americans of any age group. It isn't a failure of Boomers or Gen X or the Silent generation, or any of that. It is a generational failure in the lifespan of our country where we failed to live up to the promise of our nation. All adult Americans alive during that time period share a role in our failure.

More in the extended entry.

It wasn't all bad during this era. While we failed in the political realm, we do have the amazing cultural and intellectual achievement that is the explosion of self-publishing content on the Internet. I fully believe that this is a cultural outpouring equal to that found in any other generation of human history. Optimistically, it also seems to possess the ability to rebuke and displace the leaders who led to our current state of failure. The Internet has become the nexus of self-organizing for all those movements and campaigns that have sought to overthrow our ruling regime of failure in America. The Barack Obama campaign, even though it is somewhat more "in house" than other movements and campaigns, is no exception to this rule.

If Barack Obama wins, it is absolutely a repudiation of the existing regime of failure. Our Apollo program, the Iraq war, is such a colossal mistake, waste, and humanitarian catastrophe that it is possible that there is simply no way that one of its facilitators could be the leader of the next regime. No matter how many apologies or denials have been issued, both Clinton and Edwards were facilitators back in 2002 and 2003. It is also possible that there is no way that one of the key players in the previous regime, Hillary Clinton, could be the leader of the new regime. Further, John Edwards was one of the key players in previous attempts to bring down the current regime, but along with others he failed in 2004. Barack Obama is not just younger and representative of a new class in American politics, he just isn't anywhere near as connected to the failures of the past fourteen years as any other candidate running for President in either major party.

Now, there are those of us online, myself included, who are not convinced that Obama is either a clean break from the old regime, or that he will be successful in his efforts to change the direction of our political institutions. However, at least as a personal symbol, he is the cleanest break with the current regime we could possibly hope for among the current crop of candidates. He is younger, has a different background, has been in Washington for a shorter period of time, opposed the war from the start, and has the largest activist following. He has a good energy program, a good media program, and, while it isn't nearly as good, he does want to remove most American troops from Iraq. Although I remain unconvinced at his ability to adequately fight the right-wing movement in this country that put the current regime in power, I suppose it is fair to say that I don't see anyone else out there who has successfully fought it either, including Hillary Clinton. I think that Senator Russ Feingold at least came close, and that is why I wanted to support him for President.

Obama isn't a perfect repudiation of our ongoing national failure, but I think it is justifiable to say he is a start. It certainly has been a long time since I remember anyone talking about the importance of the youth vote (like, since Bill Clinton's 1992 victory), and that certainly has to be a step in the right direction. It won't be an easy campaign, since the old regime appears set to score the candidate they wanted all along, John McCain, on the Republican side. McCain has caught Obama in general election polls on both the national and statewide level, so it might be time to start getting ready for another very close campaign. Media supporters of the old regime may like Obama now, but if and when he is matched up against Daddy McCain, they will start to hate his guts pretty quickly. The current regime hasn't failed for everyone, and those who benefited from our national failure won't go down without a fight.