Looking Back at 2004 and 1992: Solidifying Support Two Weeks Out

So we hear it everyday now. The wheels are coming off of the McCain campaign. With poll numbers at a seemingly insurmountable level, many pundits are preemptively calling the election for Senator Obama. Though it definitely makes me nervous to agree with them, history tends to agree. I looked back at the 2004 and 1992 elections for reference, and both instances made me feel more confident that polling one to two weeks out is a strong harbinger of the final point spread on election day.

On Thursday (10/23), the New York Times posted the results of their latest NY Times/CBS poll. Obama is up 52-39 in the poll among likely voters. This spread is quite incredible and when you look back at the Times's past polls at roughly the same time in the 2004 and 1992 campaigns, the results seem to provide an early window to the eventual spread. Take this from a similar October 25, 1992 article.

The upshot is a tighter race. Among the probable electorate, which reflects the likelihood of each respondent's voting on Nov. 3, Mr. Clinton now has the support of 40 percent, Mr. Bush of 35 percent and Mr. Perot of 15 percent, the poll shows. In early October, before the debates, Mr. Clinton stood at 46 percent, Mr. Bush at 38 percent and Mr. Perot at 7 percent. Elation in Bush Camp

Bush campaign officials, elated over signs in this and other polls that Mr. Clinton's substantial lead was eroding, predicted that voters were entering a new phase of decision-making that would put a premium on trust. "It's moving our way," said Charles Black, senior adviser to the Bush campaign.

But Clinton strategists disputed the Times/CBS poll, noting that other independent surveys, while showing a closer race, did not show the gap as small as five percentage points. "I never question somebody's polls," said James Carville, senior strategist for Clinton. "But this is the first private or public poll with a margin like this."

The quote from the Bush campaign sounds similar to some of the soundbites coming out of the McCain campaign this weekend. In the end Clinton beat George H.W. Bush 43.0% to 37.7%, a difference of 5.3%. Ross Perot received 18.9%. If according to the poll that 10% were undecided nine days before the election, it seems that each candidate got roughly equal shares of that group. In 2008 this group is standing at 9%. Say they break 5% and 4% for each candidate. The final result should stand at Obama 57% and McCain 43%. My feeling is that the undecideds could break the opposite way just as easily, but really any changes are marginal.

In 2004 the same poll showed President Bush with 47% support and John Kerry with 46%. Again, very much in line with the eventual result, Bush 50.7% and Kerry 48.3%. This is a 3.7%-2.3% break. Again, the undecideds split with each candidate getting a sizeable percentage.

So barring something unforeseen, Senator Obama seems to be solidifying support similar to the winners of the 1992 and 2004 elections in the closing days of this election.

NY Times Endorsements: 1860 to Present

The New York Times just endorsed Barack Obama. Ok, so I know that's not a big surprise, but after I read through the article, I noticed one of those lovely little multimedia tools that seem to be one of the Times's fortes.

This one lets readers scroll through a timeline of all of the paper's endorsements since 1860. You can also link to a pdf of the original article! I found a couple of interesting parts to the multimedia tool.

First, the Times has not endorsed a Republican since 1956 and second, the difference in the tones of each endorsement are rather stark. For instance, the 1860 endorsement of Abraham Lincoln features this quote.

Things will go on very much as they have hitherto - except that we shall have honesty and manliness instead of meanness and corruption in the Executive departments, and a decent regard for the opinions of mankind in the tone and talk of the Government on the subject of Slavery.

The utter boringness of this quote really underscores the man that they are endorsing. It also seems as if they were slow to grasp how divided the country was on the brink of the Civil War.

And how about this rather ominous quote from their 1996 endorsement of President Clinton.

The Presidency he once dreamed is still within his reach if he brings the requisite integrity to the next four years.

The tool is definitely worth a thorough perusal.

What Region is more Patriotic Today?

It's Western Pennsylvania! Check out Senator McCain butchering the latest episode in the McCain/Palin "Who's More Patriotic?" series. This one is from Moon Township, Pennsylvania (a suburb of Pittsburgh).



Yay, at least I can say I was born in the "most patriotic part of the country". Just yesterday I felt like I would have my passport revoked if McCain is elected since I live in San Francisco (i.e. fake America). Luckily though I was born only a few miles from where this speech was delivered, so I guess I'm ok.

Searching for the "Real America"

So much chatter over the last several days over where the "real America" is. For those of you who missed it last week two GOP heavy-hitters, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann made two rather brash statements on out culture. First, from the land of 10,000 lakes. To be fair, Bachmann seems to be more after individual "anti-Americans".



Now let's hear from the GOP nominee for Vice President.



After hearing these comments I thought to myself, "Wow, that pretty brazen. I can't even remember hearing George W. Bush saying something like that." Then I thought to myself, all these two women are doing is spouting (finally) in public, what has been a political strategy of their party for the last forty years.

Richard Nixon seized on the strife surrounding the 1960s race riots and political assassinations to his political advantage. Those groups most easily connected by the rioting (African Americans, young people, academics, etc.) all became the "Other America", the unstable part. An overarching theme of safety and security would frame each of his presidential campaigns, including an overwhelming 23 point landslide in 1972. Though Nixon ultimately overstepped his power, the winning strategy remained - go for the patriotic, pro-security, pro-American angle and you'll win.

It's extremely interesting when you look at this strategy's effect on two counties, one that Gov. Palin would probably consider anti-American and the other perhaps decidedly pro-American. I live in one of them San Francisco, California and my dad lives in the other Huntington County, Indiana. They were in the 2004 election perhaps two of the most politically opposite counties in the country.

In that year, President Bush walloped John Kerry (74.3% to 24.8%) in Huntington County while John Kerry returned the favor in the City by the Bay, defeating the President (83.0% to 15.2%). What's so extraordinary about this situation is that if you look back at previous elections, the diverging Americas seem to have slipped farther and farther apart every four years.

Let's take Richard Nixon's first election in 1968 for example. That year Nixon defeated Vice President Hubert Humphrey by less than 1 percent, 43.4% to 42.7%, with Alabama Governor George Wallace earning 13.5%). In San Francisco, getting over its hangover from the "Summer of Love", Nixon received over 100,000 votes, garnering 33.7% of the vote to Humphrey's 59%. George Wallace received 5.8%. In Huntington County, the numbers were closer - Nixon received 54.5%, Humphrey 37.8%, and Wallace 7.6%. Check out the divergence

In fact this relative non-polarization seems to still have been around in the late 1970s, as Jimmy Carter only garnered 52% of the vote in San Francisco both in 1976 and 1980. In Huntington County, Carter received 41% in 1976 and 34% in 1980.

It really doesn't seem to be until the 1990s, and especially in the last decade that such an extreme polarization has developed. In 2000 Bush received only 51,496 votes in San Francisco, less than half of President Ford's total of 103,561. In Huntington County, John Kerry only received 3,877 votes in 2004, again nearly half of President Carter's total of 6,515 in 1976.

My point is that all this "pro-America" and "anti-American" talk is not really trying to divide us - it already has, politically speaking. Palin and Bachmann are merely letting the cat out of the bag. In a society that is extremely migratory, this approach was certain to get old after awhile. What I think has occurred under the current administration is that all Americans are becoming tired of the stagnation, tired of the division and so I think that this Election Day you will see a blurring of the lines between Sarah Palin's "Real America" and "Fake America".

Last Debate Night: McCain Channels Nixon

Well, it's over. The final presidential debate for this campaign was concluded at Hofstra University in New York last Wednesday. All I can say is I'm glad, for John McCain's sake, that these debates are over. The guy simply is far too transparent emotionally to be a good debater.

Most of the pundits would agree that McCain came out swinging and tried like hell to break Obama's cool and to some degree on points he could be considered the winner. But during the Richard Nixon debates when Richard Nixon came across better over the radio than on television,

This was a problem that Richard Nixon had. Nixon looked disparagingly at John F. Kennedy and it shows. As we all know now, both men disliked each other immensely, but Nixon's condescending attitude towards Kennedy really showed, as seen in the debate clip below.



Compare that to one of the clips from the 3rd debate (you all remember the air quotes clip, right?). The addition of the split screen is extremely damaging.



Especially in an election when many of the policy differentials of both candidates are already so well known, BODY LANGUAGE MATTERS!!

Is it 1980 or 1968?

With Barack Obama's recent surge in national polls, several pundits are trying to decipher what the final electoral outcome will be. Some are saying that a landslide like Ronald Reagan's 489-49 Electoral College rout of Jimmy Carter in 1980 is a distinct possibility. Other's are cautioning that a closer election could still be in the cards. The 1968 nailbiter between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey is often referenced. Humphrey came back from a deficit similar to McCain's current one to nearly defeat Nixon. Humphrey only lost by 0.7 percent in the popular vote, and the networks did not call the election until the Democrat lost Illinois by a little over 100,000 votes early the next morning.

Check out these two post-election analyses from 1968 and 1980.





I guess the safest thing to say is that technically it could go either way. Do I think it will? Not a chance. The night of November 4, 2008 will look more like November 4, 1980 than November 5, 1968.

As you'll hear Walter Cronkite and others discussing on the 1980 clip, the undecideds broke really late for Reagan. There was only one Presidential debate that the two candidates agreed on that year. It was held the week before and the outcome was devastating for Carter - it featured the famous Reagan line, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" The electorate shifted to Reagan over the weekend and ended up giving him nearly 51 percent of the vote. Carter received 41 percent, and Independent John Anderson received 6 percent.

According to the latest Gallup tracking poll, the Obama-McCain numbers are not that far off (51-42). With no third-party candidate enjoying nearly as much popularity as John Anderson, expect the undecideds to continue to steadily break to both candidates over the next three weeks. The reason I'm making this prediction is because so many of the political currents that framed the 1980 race have already occurred or been presented during the course of this campaign. In our media saturated environment, with an electorate that has seen both candidates on television or the internet perhaps twenty times more than they ever saw Ronald Reagan prior to the 1980 election, the process has simply been sped up a bit.

Could McCain stage a Humphrey like resurgence? Perhaps but not likely. Humphrey's resurgence came after he gave a speech harshly critical of LBJ's Vietnam War policies late in the campaign. I can't see McCain making a similar break.

Make no mistake - I'm not predicting that Obama will win by 440 electoral votes. The country is far too polarized for that, but he should win by a similar margin in the popular vote, and probably a comfortable 150-170 margin in the electoral college.

Friday Doomsaying and the Need for Cooler Heads

Ever have a day when you look at the news feed and think, shit according to these guys it's all done, we're finished! Today, was one of those days.

As we all know the DOW headed south again and the world economy is suffering from what can best be described as a chronic form of food poisoning. And guess what every country was at the charity dinner last night and they all ate the potato salad. This week has seen global markets plunge to some of their lowest levels in years and also some of the most depressing newspaper headlines of recent memory.

Just looking at the titles of some of the editorials from major newspapers all over the world just made me kind of cringe, and I kept running through REM's "It's the End of the World as We Know It" in my head (see video below).



Here are a few of today's most paranoid headlines:

Crisis Marks Out a New Geopolitical Order (Philip Stevens, Financial Times)
The End of American Capitalism? (Anthony Faiola, Washington Post)
Walling Off the World: the Era of Ever-Free Trade has Ended (Irwin M. Stelzer, The Weekly Standard)

Something tells me they don't feel so fine. There were some confidence boosters out there who attempted to provide a little context to the situation. In the Wall Street Journal, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, penned perhaps the best call to action of the week. If you're looking to really go back and lay some blame, check out John Steele Gordon's, "A Short History of the American Banking System" (also in the WSJ). Gordon seems to blame our inability to deal with the crisis on Thomas Jefferson's distrust of Alexander Hamilton and centralized banking.

I am not anywhere near qualified to prognosticate about when the crisis will end or whether any of the above authors are overreacting, though I suspect many of them are. Mostly what I'm trying to get across is the extreme statements that are being made are seemingly rooted in fear and little else. Let's see how this plays out and not predict the downfall of the entire world economy following a panic that is less than a month old.

Who's Really Taking a Page From Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush? John McCain

Have you ever heard of the term, "All politics is local"? Well maybe "All politics is cyclical" is more appropriate in describing Election 2008.

Earlier this week, during a speech in Albuquerque, John McCain injected a new theme into the campaign that is sure to increasingly be his campaign's sole mantra as we get closer to election day. Here's the Republican nominee in his own words.

This is all part of the McCain campaign's attempts to "otherize" Barack Obama. According to New York Times columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof in a September 20 op-ed.

What is happening, I think, is this: religious prejudice is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice. In public at least, it’s not acceptable to express reservations about a candidate’s skin color, so discomfort about race is sublimated into concerns about whether Mr. Obama is sufficiently Christian.

The result is this campaign to “otherize” Mr. Obama. Nobody needs to point out that he is black, but there’s a persistent effort to exaggerate other differences, to de-Americanize him.

The "differences" that are being referenced by McCain seem to lack specifics, but when put together into the whirlwind assault delivered in Albuquerque, McCain hits home the point that Obama is not one us. This in turn can be used to reinforce racial and religious stereotypes in voters' minds.

The "otherize" option seems desperate because it is. It's a hail mary pass, it's getting rid of the goalie, and a host of other sports analogies. Though whether it will work with a opposing candidate who is African-American remains to be seen, this tactic is not new. Case in point - this ad by Jimmy Carter from late in the 1980 campaign provided by the Museum of the Moving Image.



Or something similar from George H.W. Bush in 1992.



In both instances, the incumbent lost. They failed to sufficiently otherize their challenger. Obama actually enters mid-October in a better polling position than both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton did. The key difference is that Reagan and Clinton only had to deal with the possibility of being otherized because of their policy positions or lack of consistency, not because of their ethnic backgrounds.