Today, for the first time, Obama has a tiny lead in the polling average in North Carolina. Early voting has been overwhelmingly for Obama. That margin will narrow to a few percentage points come Election Day. Obama's average polling lead is only 0.8 points, well within the margin of error, and McCain certainly could still stage a comeback in the state, but Obama's chances in North Carolina are better than even.
This is astonishing. North Carolinians haven't voted Democratic for president since 1976, when they sided with the Democratic governor of Georgia. In 2004, they went for Bush by double digits even though their own Senator, John Edwards, was on the ticket against him. A Democratic African-American Senator from a midwestern state carrying North Carolina would be epochal.
North Carolina is a big chunk of change, electorally speaking. With 15 votes, it's tied for 9th biggest state in the Electoral College. If Obama were to take North Carolina, he would win even if McCain's crazed assault on Pennsylvania succeeded in carrying the state for the Republicans, and even if Florida, Ohio, Nevada, and Missouri all shifted back to McCain. Obama's chances have never looked so good.
Nominating McCain was an extremely high-risk, high-reward gamble for the Republican party. The reward side was that McCain was by far the best chance the Republicans had of salvaging the 2008 election; Rudolph Giuliani was the only GOP rival even close to Arizona's senior senator in popularity. Romney or Huckabee would be down 15 to 20 points by this time in the campaign, and Thompson would in all likelihood have dropped out from sheer ennui by now. The press loved McCain, and he had substantial support among Democratic voters. With Obama and Clinton tearing each other up and expending their resources in the primaries, it looked like McCain had a real chance. If the economy had managed to keep running on fumes for another six months, McCain might have pulled the Republicans back from the brink of disaster.
But it looks now like the gamble has not paid off. Nate Silver, whom I trust, judges Obama to have about a 95% chance to win in November. And then McCain's high risk side comes into play. McCain was the Republicans' best chance to win, but if he loses anyway, the consequences of his defeat will be far worse for the GOP than any other candidate's loss would have been.
This debate was a clear victory for Obama. He played it cautiously; far ahead on points, he wisely did not run the risk of trying for a knockout. Still, he clearly articulated a new vision for America that breaks free from the failed policies of the past eight years while avoiding the pitfalls that liberal leaders have stumbled into in the past.
Obama dominated as usual on the economy, laying out a detailed common sense plan focused on the middle class, while McCain was not able to get beyond short term solutions, which Obama successfully criticized as wasteful. Obama simply destroyed McCain on taxes, cornering him as the man who would cut taxes less on the middle class and more on the rich. This may be the night that Republicans finally lost onwership of their last winning issue, low taxes.
I support Barack Obama for his character and his temperament as much as for his stance on the issues. As best I can judge, he is the most intelligent man running for president, and the calmest. He is open-minded without being gullible, and while he is much more liberal than I in his ideology, ideology does not appear to be a prison for his mind as it is for so many politicians both liberal and conservative. On substantive issues, I support him principally because he recognizes the basic fact that government has to be paid for by taxes, and that those taxes should fall chiefly on people most able to afford them. I also support him for his realistic and pragmatic foreign policy and his rejection of theocratic government.
Obama's stance on economic regulation is not among the reasons I support him. He, and many of his supporters, tend to blame the current financial crisis on the Republicans' decision to let the market "run wild." Tighter governmental regulation, it is presumed, must be the answer. Very little is said of exactly what regulation will be imposed or exactly how it will solve the present crisis or prevent future ones.
There was talk yesterday that the financial crisis might be over because the Dow rebounded 936 points on Monday. I'm no economist, but I don't buy it. I don't see how the financial crisis can be over until the housing market bottoms out. Until people know how much the banks' mortgage-backed securities are actually worth, those banks are going to have a hard time lending or borrowing money, and people won't know the value of those securities until housing prices stop falling.
I believe I can see the conservative Republican narrative taking shape now. Bush, they will say, had the financial crisis licked. He licked it by relying on the free market, they will say; the nationalization of Bear Stearns, Fanny and Freddie, and AIG will be conveniently forgotten, because everybody knows that anything Bush does is pro-free-market, simply because he has an R after his name. And then that rotten, no-good socialist Obama took office, and ruined all Bush's good work. Even if Obama is successful cleaning up Bush's mess, it will probably take a year or two at least, and the Republicans will insist that Obama added a year or two to the recession.
It won't matter too much. I don't think housing prices are going to take four years to stabilize, so chances are that by 2012 the economy will have recovered. The electorate tends to attribute the economy's performance to the president, so Obama will be re-elected if prosperity has returned four years from now. The Republicans' narrative will inspire the party base, but it won't win them the next election.
Every canvasser will encounter voters, often undecided or indifferent, who say they don't trust politicians. Can you blame them? After George W. Bush promised that he would be a "uniter, not a divider," and assured us that he would not spy on U.S. citizens without a warrrant? After Jack Abramoff, Iran-Contra and Watergate? And, yes, these voters also remember William Jefferson's $90,000 freezer and Bill Clinton's promise to stop coddling the "butchers of Beijing." It's no use telling these voters how far superior Obama's health care plan or economic plan would be when they don't believe anything that Obama (or McCain) says.
What do you say to such voters? I always tell them that there is one thing you can trust every politician to do. You can trust him to do whatever it takes to get re-elected. All three voters I've used this line with readily, even enthusiastically, agreed. Then I point out that Obama needs the votes of the poor and middle class to get re-elected. If Obama doesn't come through on turning the economy around or providing health care, he's not going to get those votes and he's not going to get re-elected. So you can count on Obama to fight for these programs, even if you don't believe in his honesty, so long as you believe that he wants to win re-election in 2012.
In 2004, George W. Bush did not run against John Kerry. He ran against Michael Moore. That would be the guy who looked at the pro-Saddam Iraqi insurgents who slaughter unemployed Iraqis and their children wholesale and saw Minutemen. The guy who openly entertained the idea that 9/11 was a U.S. government conspiracy, and who was and is unable to understand the U.S. economy in any other terms than a vast conspiracy of the rich, who somehow all work together harmoniously against the rest of us. John Kerry, who for all his faults was clearly the better candidate, didn't dare denounce Moore and his faction for fear of splitting the Democratic party, and that cost him the election.
The Democrats couldn't have dreamed up a better revenge scenario. For now, Barack Obama is not running against John McCain, but against that far weaker and more vulnerable candidate, George W. Bush. Obama's policy is complex and well thought-out, but his campaign is brutally simple: "McCain = Bush." Two nouns and one verb; that's as simple as it gets, and extremely effective when Bush has a 25% approval rating.
I scored this debate a tactical draw. Strategically, that's a win for Obama. Obama is up about five points nationwide. He's now narrowly ahead in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Nevada, and he was already winning even before those states started leaning his way. McCain's lead in Missouri, Indiana, and even North Carolina is slipping away. McCain needed to decisively turn the momentum in this debate, and he couldn't. Obama was up by two touchdowns in the fourth quarter; now he's still up by two touchdowns and he just ran five minutes off the clock.
Obama mostly played defense this time; he launched some quick raids but no frontal attacks. McCain did his best to play offense, but tended to get sidetracked a lot from the question at hand.
Neither candidate was very impressive in discussing the number one issue, the economic crisis. McCain immediately veered off point into energy policy; Obama gave a fair and accurate summation of the nature of the problem, but had little new to offer about the bailout plan and his talk of new regulation had no real specifics on how it would fix the problem or prevent it happening again.
Many voters will tell you that they vote for the person, not the party. There are obvious, compelling reasons for thinking this way. Everybody except the most rabid partisan knows that there have been good and bad presidents from both parties. No thinking Democrat would say that President James Buchanan reflected any credit on the Democrats; every honest Republican will admit that Warren G. Harding was a black mark against the Republicans. Conversely, most Democrats admire Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, and all but the most fanatical Republicans concede the virtues of Democrat Harry Truman.
And yet, parties do matter. Tremendously. You can't predict what kind of president either John McCain or Barack Obama will be without considering the parties that nominate them, support them, and do 90% of the work to get them elected. Can you imagine John McCain picking Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential candidate if he were running on the Democratic side? Did Palin add any value to the McCain campaign at all besides invigorating the religious conservative base of McCain's party?
Jonathan Rauch, one of the smartest, most independent-minded columnists in America, satirizes the McCain campaign.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/socialstudies.php
When I joined this website, I wrote that one reason I support Barack Obama is that his victory would be a victory over racism and prejudice. I realize now that I could be misinterpreted as meaning that Obama's opponents are generally racist. That's not what I meant at all. I have known a lot of conservatives and Republicans in my life, and most of them were not racist. Indeed, the unprejudiced majority of Republicans eagerly seek out and embrace African-American conservatives, to show to others and themselves that their policies are not motivated by any dislike of other races.
Nevertheless, while only a minority of Republicans are racists, the Republican party's program is much more attractive to racists than the Democratic. You don't have to hate black people to be against affirmative action, or in favor of states' rights, but both positions are easily capable of being abused by racists, and often have been. Racists are only one faction, and a small one, in the Republican coalition, but they still must be beaten for Obama to win.
I first started working for the Democratic side in 2004, in the Kerry campaign. Before that, I considered myself a conservative. In many ways, I still do. I am a gun owner, a 2nd amendment supporter, and a card-carrying member of the NRA. I don't support affirmative action, I am lukewarm at best about environmental protection, and I view government economic regulation skeptically. I am well to the right of most Democrats, and do not consider myself a "progressive."
My first clue that I was on the wrong side came in October, 2001, when Bush ordered military tribunals for anybody he designated a foreign terrorist, and was answered by roars of approval. That was when I first began to realize that most so-called conservatives don't really believe in freedom or limited government. When a Republican is in power, they will happily grant him the same tyrannical powers that our founders refused to submit to in the Declaration of Independence. And the assaults on limited government kept coming: signing statements where the President claimed the right to ignore the law, the Secret Service being used to cart off protesters, illegal warrantless wiretaps on American citizens. Now we have "free speech zones" around the party conventions; I was raised to believe that all of America was a free speech zone. I was raised to believe in liberty and justice "for all," not liberty and justice at presidential discretion.
Here are some things I said about abortion with a pro-life voter. I have no evidence how effective (or counterproductive) this approach may be. I'm just describing it as one option to try for canvassers who feel stuck.
Two weeks ago I canvassed a very pleasant young undecided voter. Her most important issues were ending the war in Iraq and ending abortion. Naturally, I talked about the war and foreign policy first before moving on to abortion.
I have always thought that the first step with a pro-lifer is to take their feelings seriously. Only a minority of pro-lifers are faking their concern for fetal life as an excuse for confining women to the role of mothers and housewives. The considerable majority really believe that abortion is the killing - the murder - of a baby. That is the reason that condoms, IUDs and oral contraceptives, all of which are far more vital to women's control of their reproductive lives than abortion, do not generate the same passions.
Yesterday, Oct. 4, was my fifth week canvassing door to door for the Obama campaign. It has been a richly rewarding experience. One reward is the feeling of being part of history, of making change in America. No matter who wins on Election Day, our political landscape has already been altered by this campaign.
Talking face to face with voters is a lot more fun than I ever expected it would be. Once I got the hang of it, that is. The first time I tried to persuade a voter who was leaning toward McCain, I tried to recite the canned talking points on my walk sheet. Big mistake. I didn't even convince myself, much less the voter. After that, I ditched the talking points and followed the walk sheet's advice: Tell the voter why you are supporting Barack Obama. That led to fruitful conversations. I don't know if I have actually convinced anyone to vote for Obama, but I think I've put the case for Obama forward to several people more convincingly than a barrage of 30-second campaign spots could.
It's wonderful to find Obama supporters at the door, especially in my very conservative hometown. And it can even be interesting to find McCain supporters. I've only encountered one really rude voter. Some of the McCain voters are fearful; you can sense that they're afraid of hearing anything that you might say. Others are bold and secure. I had one extended conversation with a McCain supporter, and while we predictably failed to convince each other, we were able to debate amiably and without partisan bitterness, which is part of the change I am hoping Obama can bring about. We need to bury Rove-ism and bring back spirited but unspiteful, unrancorous debate between our parties.
But one of the best things about canvassing has little to do with politics. It's just getting to know your neighbors. I've encountered old friends who I haven't seen in years or decades. I'm getting to know both the beautiful and the ugly parts of my town better than ever. And I've made new friends at Democratic HQ as well as reconnecting with old ones. I am very glad I've been a part of this.
