By "it", of course, I refer to the great post-election debate: why did we win? Far more importantly, now that we did win, what should we do now?
I have been predicting for six months now that on the Thursday after the election, assuming a win, we would start hearing from conservative Democrats and the establishment punditocracy about how we need to go slow, not over-reach, be careful. The only thing I was wrong about was the timing: with Obama clearly ahead in the polls, the not-overreaching calls began early, and have been well-chronicled on the pages of OpenLeft. Many of these calls, actually most now that I think about it, include references to Bill Clinton's "over-reach" in 1993-94 that caused the Democrats' downfall in the 1994 elections. This post, written from the perspective of someone who was in the Clinton White House and who studied in detail what happened in the 1994 elections, will walk through why this argument is dangerously wrong for Obama and the Democrats in 2009.
As everyone who reads my OpenLeft.com posts know, I am never one to say it's done until the last hour of the last day. I'll be nervous and edgy until the end, worried that McCain will somehow manage to come back in Pennsylvania and win every single close and near-close state, worried that there is some kind of uber-Bradley effect on the Presidential level there is no way to measure worried about all the different ways elections can be stolen.
And I am too wary and too fricking superstitious to ever do the kind of "Obama's won" post Chris did the other day. Just seeing the headline sent superstitious shivers down my spine (trying saying that fast).
Having said all that though, unlike some folks who see evidence of a tightening at the end, the news over the last four days have got my optimistic, non-superstitious side of my brain thinking we might be heading toward a bigger rather than smaller victory. Here's the evidence I see:
Since Chris has put out his predictions today (here and here), I think I should follow up with my own assessment, just to get you really jazzed. Some caveats on my predictions:
I, of course, look at numbers- polling, early voting, etc.- when making my predictions. But I also rely on instinct and emotion, which is why I would never suggest people make big bets on my predictions. There are certain races where my head tells me one thing but my heart absolutely won't let me predict a loss.
I find myself torn between not wanting to be too optimistic on the one hand, and on the other hand thinking all this enthusiasm and field work is going to allow us to really roll up some big numbers. My predictions here are more the former than the latter.
Here is my final assessment on the state of the elections right now:
Newly promoted Chief Organizer Bertha Lewis, who wrote in this space last Friday, took a minute to express ACORN's thanks for the pushback to the progressive movement and we in the netroots.
I've been working on the side to help ACORN in the last few weeks, and I am also truly thankful everyone pitched in. The PFAW ad in the NYTimes was stunning, and I think Paul Rosenberg and the folks at Project Vote here in the diaries have been doing top-notch work. This really is what a movement looks like. I'd also like to thank ACORN for returning the favor through advertising on OpenLeft.
Bertha also asked for an Obama vote on the WFP line in New York, which I do every election. The Working Families Party is strongly supported by statewide labor, and tend to push forward issues like the Brodsky Telecom bill and publicly funded elections that get swept under by Silver and co. Because we have a fusion voting system in NYS, they do cross-endorsements (including for the state legislature), and you can vote for Obama on the WFP line, which helps them get more clout statewide.
Bertha tells me she forgot to thank Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. Props as well for his impassioned defense
This election year is a wild one compared to most of the straight ahead, target the same nine states in the Presidential, target five or six Senate races, target 15-20 House races, focus on the same predictable frequent voting swing voters elections of the past 20 years. The quote of the weekend, maybe the most fun quote of the election, came from a Republican operative saying, "There are no safe Republican seats in this election. That doesn't mean we're going to lose them all, but there is no election we couldn't lose." Wow. It's like the 50 State Strategy on steroids.
So while there is still a slim chance McCain could pull out a miracle (Obama or Biden say something dumb, McCain cuts the national lead by a few points, a bigger Bradley effect then we thought, and we lose all the key swing states by narrow margins-unlikely, yes, but not impossible), the main operative question now in Congressional and Senate races is how big is the wave? This is where it gets wild and unpredictable. In 2006, we had a strong wave, but it wasn't as bad for the Republicans as it could have been-we left 17 seats on the table that we could have easily won. So if Obama fades a bit in the national polling, the Obama GOTV operation doesn't turnout as big as we hoped for, and the Republican GOTV operation is better thought, the wave is pretty modest: 15 or so House seats, five or six Senate seats. But if the wave keeps building, and the turnout among youth and African Americans and Hispanics and single women is huge, we could be looking at big, big numbers.
Here are a few thoughts on some of the wave building stuff out there:
Assuming all goes as we hope, and Obama is our next President; we have bigger Democratic margins in the House and Senate; it is my belief that Obama will either be huge success or a massive failure (not to put too much pressure on you, big guy). I think our problems are just too big, and the decisions Obama and the Democrats in Congress have to make are just too monumental, for there to be any middle ground. Either Obama's going to come out of this mess looking like he saved the country from disaster, and go down as another FDR or Lincoln, or he's going down in history as the Presidents who preceded FDR and Lincoln and failed- James Buchanan or Herbert Hoover- awash in massive problems they were unable to solve. For the sake of the country, the Democratic Party, and the progressive movement, we'd all better hope it's the former.
The difference will be whether he pushes to be, and succeeds at being, a transformational President, or whether he goes toward what Digby calls neo-Hooverism: that sense that we need to be frugal, cautious, slow, careful, and all other things center-right. Massive problems cannot by solved by halting half-steps, crisis cannot be resolved by too much caution.
One question the McCain campaign's decision to keep targeting Pennsylvania in spite of his 11-point deficit is whether a race can be considered done when there is a double-digit deficit with two weeks to go. The question also applies to Senate races like the Collins-Allen race in Maine, the Inhofe-Rice race in Oklahoma, and the Johanns-Kleeb race in Nebraska, all of which have about 11-14 point leads for the Republican according to the most recent public polling.
In keeping with my overall theory about politics and polling, I think the answer to that question is that it depends on what other factors are in play in the state in question and the race in question. Here's three of the biggest variables that need to be considered in all four of the above state contests:
Chris Bowers wrote two posts (here and here) this morning which do a terrific job of analyzing why McCain is targeting Pennsylvania and making other Electoral College decisions. The McCain campaign is truly in a box, and their range of options are narrowing.
I have been asked by a number of donors, as well as some people deciding where to go for GOTV, what the most important overall states to put money into at the end (either to state parties, ballot initiatives in the states, or outside organizational projects). Here's my list of the top states overall at this stage of the race:
1. Ohio. Dead heat in the Presidential, four-to-six big Congressional races, State House in play.
2. Florida. Close in the Presidential, up to seven Congressional districts in play.
3. Virginia. Close in the Presidential, three Congressionals in play.
4. Colorado. Close in the Presidential, contested Senate race (although moving strong in our favor), one big Congressional race.
5. North Carolina. Close in the Presidential, contested Senate race, one big Congressional race.
6. Missouri. Close in the Presidential, governor's mansion up for grabs, two big Congressionals.
7. Nevada. Close in the Presidential, one big Congressional, State Senate up for grabs.
8. Indiana. Close in the Presidential, big governor's race, State House up for grabs.
That's all I'm going to list for now. Lots of other states have at least one major thing going on, but these seven strike me as the ones that have multiple important things happening, and they all matter in the Presidential.
With the last debate over, an Obama lead strongly established, and GOTV being the biggest thing left for the campaign to do, the Players- inside the campaign and out- are beginning to maneuver in earnest for power in an Obama administration. Hell, this kind of maneuvering was happening in the Gore campaign, who was down in the polls, and the Kerry campaign, who was essentially tied, so you know it's happening in Obamaland. It's just in the nature of politics, and while the distance between pre-election and post-election is in many ways a million miles apart, chronologically it's only 2.5 weeks, so while an old campaign guy like me cringes at this kind of thing going on before the election is done, I understand it at some level.
As those of you who read my stuff know, I have been haranguing people like a madman in recent weeks that this thing isn't over, that we should never let up, that we should not be cocky or take anything for granted. And I will say down to the last day that anything could happen, that we don't know what the Bradley effect will be on the Presidential level, that we should keep pouring our heart out until the very last hour. But even I am starting to listen for the sounds of the Fat Lady singing. Even I am reaching for the fork to stick in this turkey.
Barring a truly catastrophic last-minute event or mistake, or a Bradley effect on the Presidential level completely beyond the realm of expectation, this thing is done. To those pundits who said this was McCain's best debate, or that he held his own with Obama, I have to ask: what were you smoking during last night's debate? Obama crushed McCain in that debate, adding to the cumulative effect of the two other Presidential debates and the VP debate: the Democrats are calm and steady and talking about the things that matter to the American people; John McCain is, in the words of Democracy Corps focus group participants last night, a "grumpy old man" (must have read my blog post the other day) and "a jerk." Obama won over undecideds and even McCain leaners last night in all the surveys and focus groups that were done, dominated in his responses to McCain's attacks, and dominated in his discussion of the most important issues, especially health care and the economy.
So with this thing moving so much in our direction, here's what I would do if I were running the Obama campaign:
An earlier version of this had been posted but deleted due to technical difficulties... apologies for any comments that were lost.
With everybody starting to celebrate the victory, the old curmudgeon in me is demanding to be let out for a run. So here is my obligatory "it ain't over 'til it's over" speech:
I am starting a series of blog posts today on what I think are the most effective ads, mailings, and other forms of communications with voters are in this late month of the campaign. I wanted to do this because outside organizational ads rarely get the attention that campaign ads do, but frequently have a huge effect because of the credibility an independent voice can bring to an issue.
I think after the election, John McCain should sign up for a blockbuster movie deal, Grumpy Old Men 3. You know, the 3 is a play on words because there used to be only 2 grumpy old men, but now there are 3. It would be a regular laff riot. The only problem is that Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau are dead, which might make it less funny, but I'm sure McCain is up to the challenge.
Man, he was bad. In terms of that whole looking Presidential thing, he really is in sorry shape.
Obama, again, was solid, confident, steady. I'm very happy this morning overall.
My only complaint is that I still think Obama needs to be more aggressive in driving the debate and pounding on McCain. There were too many "McCain was the aggressor" headline today. As I've said before: don't hit back, hit first. But overall on the 27th day out, it's feeling more like a big win than a nailbiter on Election Day.
Obama was very solid, very steady in the last debate. He reassured people about his knowledge and judgment, which is great. Unlike some folks, I didn't even mind all of the nice talk towards McCain (although I thought he did too much of it), as I think it made him look like a nice Midwestern boy who was kind to his crazy uncle. But he also pulled his punches at a couple of key times.
In this debate, he can pretty much end this race. McCain is teetering right now, Obama has the chance to end this thing right now. Classic example from very early in the first debate: when McCain was talking about the need to hold people accountable on the economy, Obama's follow-up was soft and non-specific. What he should have done was nail him right there: "John, if we need to hold people accountable, why not you? You helped your economic adviser Phil Gramm de-regulate the banks. You helped confirm all these awful appointees. Where's the accountability for you?"
Another example: the format in that debate allowed you to be aggressive. When he was explaining his policy to take out Osama even if it pissed off the Pakistanis, he should have just done that simple explanation, and turned to McCain and said: "John, you don't believe we should take Osama out if we have the chance?"
Do not be cautious, do not hold back in this debate because you are ahead. Democrats have a history of getting cautious when they get ahead, but coasting and playing prevent defense is going to endanger your lead. Finish him off. Take it to him. Do not let him up off the mat. His record on economics is horrendous, nail him with it. Whenever he tries to distract people with the Ayers stuff or the Jeremiah Wright stuff, push back hard and make him defend a sleazy campaign while the economy is going down the tubes. Your momentum allows you to finish him off: just do it.
A month out from Election Day, we are standing on a path that is diverging down two directions:
• We could either more toward a tightening race dominated by classic slash and burn culture war tactics by the Republicans that results in a shrinking margin and closely fought battles in a few key swing states. Under such a scenario, McCain could win and Democratic gains in the House and Senate would be dramatically shrunk.
• Or we could see a historic landslide on both the Presidential level and big gains in the House and Senate, and down-ballot, as well.
Democrats should not be counting their chickens before they are hatched, confidently telling each other it's done. Instead they need to seal the deal over these last few weeks, and drive a stake in the heart of right-wing Republican politics as it has been practiced since the hey-day of Richard Nixon.
Joe Biden is a good debater, and there's always the chance that Palin will say something incredibly stupid, but my strong bet tonight is that she does well and stops or at least slows down her meltdown in the polls.
I actually think this debate is set up extremely well for her:
Incredibly low expectations
Short answers on broad predictable topics
Lots of prep time with smart GOP operatives giving her zingy one-liners that will play well on news clips in the days following the debates
Biden feeling a need to walk on tiptoes because he doesn't want to seem condescending
Even if all of this comes to pass, it won't change the basic dynamics of the race. I do think, though, that it will stop the bleeding and stabilize her approval rating... at least until her next incredibly stupid answer to someone's question.
Some of you might have caught this story from Greg Sargent last night, or the mention of me in the New York Times this morning, and wondered what I was up to. Here's my quick take on it.
Pretty much every election cycle since the 2000 cycle I have played a sort of liaison role between donors and organizations, working with a variety of smart and innovative people, I have tried to figure out what the best role outside money and groups can play in shaping the electoral debate in a progressive direction. In 2008, as in the past four cycles, I have worked with outside organizations whose voter contact and/or ads might have the biggest impact on the nature of the elections. This time around, I think it's older blue collar women, so that's my focus, but I have always also been a huge supporter and big fundraiser for registering and turning out people of color, immigrants, and young people. I'll be getting ideas on ads and mail from lots of people, and will be passing the ideas that make the most sense to pursue to relevant groups and the donors who want to move money. This kind of role- pulling together conference calls of donors, giving groups ideas and info on messaging that might work- is one that I have done in several elections, so in some ways it's just a repeat of a role I have played in the past.
In the meantime, I'll be looking for creative ad and mail from all over, so your thoughts on all this are welcome.
The Democratic political world, more networked and faster-reacting than ever before (rumor and worry used to spread slower by phone than it does by internet) is- at least among my various networks- in a state of fast-moving panic regarding the Presidential campaign. While there is no reason to panic- it's close, we're not way behind; we still have almost two months before the election; we still have lots of meta-dynamics in our favor, etc.- there are some very legitimate reasons to be concerned.
For each DVD you purchase, Brave New Films will donate $5 to OpenLeft.com to support our various projects. Please click on the buttons above to make a purchase.
SEIU will donate $1 to OpenLeft for each individual who signs up for their campaign to pass health care for all Americans. Sign up here.
