(Dark Blue (228): Obama +8.0% or more
Lean Blue (36): Obama +3.0%-+7.9%
White / Toss-up (102): Obama +2.9% to McCain +2.9%
Lean Red (76): McCain +3.0%-+7.9%
Dark Red (96): McCain +8.0% or more)
New polls from Alabama, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Wisconsin (2) today. Oregon moves from barely "Solid Obama" to the strongest "Lean Obama" possible. The lack of swing state polls (those closer than 5.0%) means that there is no change in the swing state forecast:
Apart from swing states, I find it interesting that the number of undecideds remains over 10%, even with many polls pushing leaners. The peculiar political environment, with Republicans extremely unpopular, but Obama under-performing under white Democrats, probably leaves an opening for third-parties to collectively reach 4-5% in this campaign, ala the 2000 election. The three "major" third party candidates even all have decent names, as we have two former members of Congress (Barr and McKinney) and also Ralph Nader.
The problem I think they are facing is one of organization, and a lack of grassroots support. In 1992, Ross Perot actually had a huge number of self-starting volunteers that put him on all fifty state ballots. In 2000, Nader raised about $8,000,000, mostly online. That same year, Buchanan also was able to use the millions of dollars in public funding the Reform Party secured by reaching 5% of the vote in 1992 and 1996. There just isn't the same level of organizational strength available to this year's third-party candidates.
The 4-5% opening probably could have been filled by Ron Paul, if he had run as a Libertarian or an Independent. However, I suppose that since that would have meant giving up the Republican nomination for his congressional seat, he didn't do it. Although there is no way to tell how that would have changed the campaign, the most likely outcome is that Obama would have a pretty huge lead right now.
It is interesting, though probably easily explained, that people who say they are supporting Ralph Nader in public opinion surveys overwhelmingly prefer John McCain to Barack Obama. Looking through the entire history of polls that ask both a two-person Obama vs. McCain trial heat, and also a four-way trial heat with Ralph Nader and Bob Barr, McCain is clearly hurt by the presence of both candidates in the campaign:
Comparing Two-Way and Four-Way National Polls
Poll
Date
Two-Way Margin
Four-Way Margin
Difference
NBC / WSJ
Jul 21
Obama +6
Obama +12
Obama +6
ABC / WaPo
Jul 13
Obama +3
Obama +10
Obama +7
Zogby
Jul 13
Obama +7
Obama +10
Obama +3
CNN
Jun 29
Obama +5
Obama +3
McCain +2
LA Times
Jun 23
Obama +12
Obama +15
Obama +3
Fox
Jun 18
Obama +4
Obama +3
McCain +1
Zogby
Jun 14
Obama +5
Obama +5
No Change
CNN
Jun 05
Obama +3
Obama +4
Obama +1
Zogby
May 15
Obama +8
Obama +10
Obama +2
Rasmussen
May 15
McCain +1
Obama +4
Obama +5
Zogby
Apr 12
Even
Obama +2
Obama +2
Average
Obama +2.4
As I explain in the extended entry, this chart is could contain a key to winning the election.
Let me first say that I'm not actually one of those Democrats who thinks that third party challenges need to be squashed, or that the people who vote for leftist third party candidates are somehow actually supporting Republicans. My feelings on the matter are as follows:
A vote for a third party candidate is not the same as voting for a Republican. Instead, it is effectively the same as not voting at all. While no analogy is perfect (the truth is that voting for a third party candidate is the same as voting for a third party candidate), this one holds up much better to logical scrutiny. Other than the extremely rare situations where third-party candidates have a shot at winning, voting for a third party candidate ultimately impacts the outcome of the election in the same manner as not voting at all.
No one is entitled to votes. If progressives or Independents or whoever end up voting for third-party candidates, then the Democratic nominee just didn't do a good enough job winning those votes. Period. It isn't the fault of the voters--it is the fault of the candidate.
We shouldn't expect, or even desire, consensus. We would indeed live in a disturbing version of a republic if no one voted for third parties, if everyone voted, and if everyone was enthusiastic about one of the two major party nominees. Dissent via third parties, via not voting, and via "holding one's nose" is healthy for any republic. While third parties and not voting tend to be just about the least effective forms of dissent available, it would still be a shame if the 1-3% of the country that voted third party every two years went away.
Now, with all of that said, as I explain in the extended entry, I still don't want anything to do with third-parties. While they should not be existentially scorned, for anyone who actually wants to change the American political system, the ineptitude of third-parties is indeed worthy of scorn.
Józef Pilsudski of Poland is one of the most interesting figures of European history during the first third of the 20th century. Variously a communist, a nationalist, a liberal democrat, and a crypto-fascist strongman, he ran the gamut of inter-war European ideologies. He also employed a wide variety of policies to achieve his various aims, the two most interesting of which were Prometheism and Miedzymorze. Here is a quick description of Prometheism:
Prometheism (Polish: "Prometeizm") was a political project initiated by Poland's Józef Pilsudski. Its aim was to weaken Tsarist Russia and its successor, the Soviet Union, by supporting nationalist independence movements of the major non-Russian peoples that lived within the borders of Russia or the Soviet Union.
Between the World Wars, Prometheism and Pilsudski's other concept of a "Miedzymorze federation" constituted two complementary geopolitical strategies for him and some of his political heirs.
Miedzymorze was a project pursued after World War I by Józef Pilsudski, of a Polish-led federation of Central and Eastern European countries. Invited to join were the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), Finland, Belarus, Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and the Czech lands.
The Polish name Miedzymorze may be translated as "Intersea" or "Between-seas" and has also been rendered, from the Latin, as "Intermarum" or "Intermarium."
Neither project succeeded, at least partially because Pilsudski engaged in a series of military conflicts with neighboring states, thus rendering such broad co-operation impossible. However, I admire Pilsudski's audacious strategic goals to defend a series of new and relatively small nations against the massive empires of Germany and Russia, from which many of these states had been recently liberated. Had both plans succeeded, World War Two would almost certainly have been avoided, and the Cold War might have been averted as well. Now, nearly a century later, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent eastward expansion of the European Union, both Prometheism and Miedzymorze have basically been achieved. The peoples of the Baltic, Black and Caspian Sea basins have achieved independence (though some still lack democracy). Most of these new nations have joined with international organizations such as NATO and the EU that provide them with strategic security from what is still quite clearly an aggressive Russia.
I wonder if Pilsudski's goals can be applied to the American political system. For one thing, the pluralist strategy I have discussed for the Democratic Party and progressive movement is reasonably analogous to the international concept of Miedzymorze. Further, the past six months have strongly suggested that a Prometheist strategy might be within reach. At least three major pieces of the Republican coalition have threatened significant breaks with the larger coalition, which collectively would leave Republicans as a rump, minority political party for a generation. Consider the following:
With the rapid growth of both all three House ideological caucuses, Blue Dogs, New Democrats, and Progressives, certainly Democrats have their own balkanization problem. However, in contrast to Republicans where three major third party threats are still on the table, none of the divisions among Democrats have resulted in any serious third-party threats this year. I don't think a total anti-Republican Prometheian strategy is possible in the short term, since I don't know what circumstance would result in the simultaneous splintering of the socially conservative theocons, the country club Bloomberg types, and the American exceptionalist, libertarian Ron Paul types, but it still seems useful to think about. As Democrats expand their coalition to include a series of smaller, very pro-Democratic identity groups, driving deep wedges into the Republican coalition seems to be a natural, complimentary strategy. This is very much what happened to Democrats in the 1980's and 1990's, after all, as Dixiecrats, New Dems, and Naderites all splintered the party in different directions just as Republicans were sweeping to power nationwide.
So, any thoughts on strategies to drive deep wedges into the Republican coalition? This isn't something Democrats have been very good at lately, or really ever, but I think it is a subject worth exploring in more detail.
STATE BLOGS
