Election 2012: Causes of American Political Polarization

After the American Century

Jeb Bush has now said what every thoughtful commentator has been saying for some time: the Republican Party has moved far to the Right. Bush is hardly a radical, but he noted that even Ronald Reagan would not fit well into the current climate of the GOP. It has moved so far toward right-wing positions that his father also feels marginalized. The GOP has gone through an internal transformation that has pushed him toward the margins.

This movement toward the Right and the polarization of the two parties will be one of the great subjects for future historians. In a simple-minded sense we can attribute it to the end of the Cold War, which freed Americans to be less cohesive, since there was no longer a common external threat. But if we accept that as the catalyst for this change, it still does not make clear what forces are at work inside the country.

The change can be compared to the slippage along a geological fault, which periodically leads to an earthquake, like the 1994 election with its proclaimed "Contract." To resist this change, the Democrats had to trim their sails and move toward the center. Clinton took some of his program from moderate Republicans, cutting back on welfare, for example, and embracing the NAFTA treaty against the wishes of the labor movement.  But the geological pressures kept building up, and under George W. Bush the country split more completely than before. The bi-partisanship that once was a hallmark of Washington, in contrast to some dysfunctional democracies elsewhere, has largely broken down. 

However, this is only a history of the political surface, not a sociology or history of the forces that have led to this seismic shift. Some of the reasons can be listed:

(1) The increased inequality between social classes. Between c. 1940 and 1972 equality was growing in the United States, as measured in real wages. Since then, the society has increasingly split, with the top 10% benefiting disproportionally, while the income of most of the population has tood still or fallen. 

(2) Greater political focus on non-economic issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, birth control, teaching evolution in the school system, and much else. These issues have been used by the Republicans to mobilize a considerable base. 

(3) The development of large church organizations, often media-based, that offer not only religious services but a community for the working- and middle-class. These mega-churches are typically controlled by a charismatic minister who is not inside a hierarchy like that of the Catholic Church or older, "classical" Protestant denominations. Politically, such churches are seldom on the left. There seem to be few heirs today of the social gospel movement that thrived in 1900, or of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and early 1960s, when in part for religious reasons, millions of white Americans supported social reform.

(4) The persistence of traditional American values, notably individualism and self-reliance, along with resistance to anything that can be labelled "socialist" or "communist." 

(5) The rising cost of medical care and education has increased the difficulties of ordinary Americans. It has become a struggle to educate children and care for the severely ill. One might expect that the Obama medical program would be wildly popular, but it is often seen, instead, through the lens of the traditional values just mentioned.

(6) The persistence of racial and ethnic tensions, which are largely unspoken but a very real part of the shift to the right and the Tea Party demand for  tighter immigration controls.

(7) The transformation of public discussion, changed through the Internet, including Twitter and the blogosphere, which makes it possible, even likely, that people get only the news and opinion that they want to hear, rather than a spectrum of issues and ideas in a newspaper that appeals to a range of readers. Rather than being challenged to hear diverse opinions, the new social media can create on-line communities that share prejudice, rumor, and half-truthes.  "Narrow casting" is becoming the norm, in contrast to the broadcasting, which by its nature was conducive to forming a broader political base that adopted moderate positions. 

(8) The radical increase in campaign spending, along with the sharp rise in the number of negative advertisements. Rather than developing a program, many candidates can get elected by tearing down their opponent. This is not a new idea, of course, but it is more common, and it fosters polarization.

This list is not complete. A historian in 30 years time will be able to look back and identify more social and economic forces that are driving this polarization. It is not only a change inside the Republican Party, but inside the Democrats as well. President Obama understands this and has tried to position himself in the more conservative portion of his party, much to the frustration of many 2008 supporters.  He is a pragmatist, a bit to the right side of the Democratic Party.  On the right side of the Republicans, however, are ideologically driven leaders who reject pragmatism and compromise.

Will coming elections increase tensions and drive the parties further apart? Can the country begin to heal, or will it split further? 

Election 2012: Why Ohio is the Key Swing State

After the American Century

There is a certain justice to the fact that Ohio has become so important in elections, because in many ways it is a microcosm of the country. Ohio is an important agricultural state, but it also has three large cities (Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati). It has been an industrial powerhouse, but suffered a great deal from the outsourcing of factory jobs to Latin America and China. It has suffered greatly since the 2008 financial crisis, with large numbers of home foreclosures. But it has also been bouncing back economically, albeit slowly. It contains many minority groups, and a good cross section of the churches. It gets back from Washington almost precisely the same amount as it pays in federal taxes (unlike New York which gets back only 79 cents on the dollar, or Mississippi which gets back almost twice what it pays in.) Ohio can be seen as the end of the Eastern states and the beginning of the Middle West. Its southeastern region much resembles Appalachia, while its northeastern quarter seems an extension of industrial New York.  It has generally been a moderate state, politically. But while Ohio therefore is in many ways a good representative state, that is not why it has become so important in elections.

In elections, states are not created equal. The American states are unequal in population, and this means that a few of them have an enormous impact in presidential elections, because all of their electoral votes will go to one candidate or the other. Obama can expect to win the largest state, California and its 55 electoral votes, and the Republican nominee can expect to win Texas, the second largest, with 38. The Democrats generally have won the third largest, New York State (29), too. But precisely because these states are somewhat predictable, the focus is on the "swing states" that are not reliably behind one party in national elections. Most important of all are swing states with a large number of electors, notably Florida (29), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20), Virginia (13), Indiana (11), and Missouri (19). (Pennsylvania leans perhaps a bit too much to the Democrats to be a true swing state, but it is moderate.) The smaller swing states can also prove crucial, notably Colorado (9), New Mexico (5), Iowa (6), and New Hampshire (4).

Note that the swing states are not randomly distributed, but are largely in a band just above the middle of the country. They are all marked in yellow on the following map, and as a group they have 96 electoral votes. A candidate needs to win 270.

The Swing States

Here is a map of what well may happen in the 2012 election. It is a prognosis based on how the states voted in 2000, 2004, and 2008, plus my sense of what is going on in the various states, hunches, you might say.  It is based on the supposition that Obama fails to win Florida, North Carolina, New

Hypothetical map of 2012 election, with the electoral vote evenly split. Ohio and Indiana are in yellow.

Mexico, or Virginia. In terms of delegates, this map shows the red states with 254 electoral votes and the blue states with 255. The two yellow states are Indiana and Ohio. Indiana tends to go Republican, but its electoral votes are not enough. If either party gets Ohio's 18 electoral votes, it moves into the White House. (In this example, you could substitute for Indiana Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire or Virginia, and the result would be the same. None of these states has Ohio's electoral clout.

This is not a far-fetched scenario. In 2000, when Gore lost to Bush in a much disputed election, here is what the map looked like:

2000 Presidential election

The final tally in that election was 271 (Bush) to 267 (Gore). If Gore had won Ohio, he wold have won the election easily, without Florida. That particular election was so close that Gore could have won by taking any additional state, but it is the swing states that matter, and Ohio was close.

How about the next election, in 2004?  Here again Ohio proved crucial to Bush's victory:

2004 Presidential Election

If Kerry had won Ohio and Indiana (or Ohio + Iowa), he would have been elected president.

No Republican has become president without winning Ohio. That is why the state is so important.

Update. After Obama led in Ohio during September, Romney won back some of its voters and he is much closer to winning the state - primarily due to his strong performance in the presidential debates. By the last week of October, it seems that Obama is likely to win Nevada and Iowa, while Romney seems likely to win Florida and North Carolina, with Virginia a toss-up.  Current polls still suggest that Obama will win, but the difference is narrow. After the second debate Obama seemed to regain momentum again, but in the meantime he lost ground in several swing states. In short, Ohio once again looks like the key battleground. The candidate who wins there will almost certainly win it all.

See also posting on Oct 11, on the four crucial swing states in the 2012 election. "Can Romney Win: Four Swing States Hold the Key"

Where is the Logic? State's Rights and Gun Control

After the American Century

The Republican Party has long championed "State's Rights," once a code word for racial segregation, but more recently an all encompassing term to indicate opposition to federal meddling in state affairs. But for all but two Republicans in the United States Senate, States' Rights is clearly less important than giving individuals the freedom to carry concealed weapons. The Senate has just narrowly defeated an attachment to a military spending bill that would have permitted anyone with a valid license from one state to carry a concealed weapon (usually a handgun) in all other states as well.

Republicans claimed that this was only fair, resembling the fact that a driver's license from one state is recognized and valid in all others. However, no one is driving a car concealed under his armpit. States do not issue hunting or fishing licenses that are recognized in all other states. Indeed, even lawyers must pass the bar exam in any state they want to practice in. The right to practice law in Massachusetts does not confer the right to do so in Connecticut or California or anywhere else.

If passed, this law would be profoundly undemocratic. Two thirds of the States, 35 of them, have passed laws that prohibit gun ownership (concealed or not) to certain individuals - notably those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors. Furthermore, many states insist that gun owners must have training courses. The narrowly defeated provision would have permitted someone who had been in prison for armed robbery or murder to go to a state with lax gun laws, acquire weapons, and carry them legally anywhere in the United States. Even more frightening, it would have allowed Dick Cheney to carry a concealed weapon in Massachusetts, where all such weapons are outlawed.

This bizarre legislation was supported by almost all Senate Republicans and by most rural Republicans. However, it was vigorously opposed by the Mayor of New York, who is Republican, but for some reason does not like the idea of allowing concealed weapons in his city. And fortunately Richard Lugar, Republican Senator from Indiana, did not support this bill either.

Lugar's opposition was needed. For Republican support would not have mattered if the Democrats were opposed. But their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, was all for more concealed weapons, and several of the sponsors were Democrats as well. Indeed, all together there were 58 Senators eager to have more concealed weapons on America's streets. Only 42 voted against, but that was enough to defeat a rider to the bill. For this was not an amendment or a refinement of the bill being voted on, and it had not been vetted by a committee that heard from expert witnesses. In such cases, Senate rules require 60 votes in favor. It was a close call.

In case anyone believes the rhetoric about Democrats being the liberal party of big government, keep this near fiasco in mind. And anyone who thinks the Republicans do not want the Federal Government to meddle in the states, think again. It depends on the issues. Republicans would be happy to have Washington legislate definitively against abortion, gay marriage, or gun control. There is seldom a logical political philosophy guiding the Republicans, or, for that matter, many Democrats.

Even more troubling, majority bi-partisan support that would effectively eliminate gun control suggests that the Senate is not thickly populated with intelligent individuals with high ideals. Can we count on such people to create a new and better health care system?

Ranking the States on Energy Efficiency

After the American Century

Energy is a central part of the announced Obama program, so it is useful to know which states (and their representatives in Congress) are most disposed to support him. A new report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy rates all 50 states, not in terms of their energy use per capita, but in terms of their utility regulations, transportation legislation, building codes and other laws that require or at least encourage better energy practices. The most conscientious states turn out to be those that Obama won, led by California and Oregon, and including New York, New Jersey, the New England States, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. These are quintessential "blue states" in other words, and they all receive scores of at least 25 out of a possible 50, California being the highest with 40.5.

And those at the bottom? All are "red states" with the worst score going to Dick Cheney's Wyoming, a perfectly dreaful 0. But there are remarkably low scores also for Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and so on. To make the symmetry rather complete, swing states are in the middle, with higher scores if they are in the North and lower if they are further south. Thus Missouri had an anemic score of only 4, and was 45th in the nation. The most northern swing state, New Hampshire, had the highest score among them, with 16.5, and came in 18th. Another northern swing state, Ohio, scored scored 16 and came in 19th.

These are not merely statistics. The states spent just under $3 billion on energy efficiency in 2007, almost four times what George Bush budgeted for it. In short, the states that supported Obama most strongly are also those most prepared to take advantage of any new energy programs.

There is one interesting exception to these generalizations, the State of Michigan. It ranks just 38th overall, in contrast to its more environmentally conscientious neighbors in the northern tier of the US. Center of the American car industry, Michigan seems wedded to energy profligracy.

Will Americans Get an Accidental President?

After the American Century

In 2000 Americans did not elect the president, the Supreme Court did, by a vote of 5-4. For democracy to retain legitimacy, it was crucial that the 2004 election ended with a clear result, which it barely did. However, there were charges that Republicans played games with the balloting in Ohio, and the contest was close. This time around, Americans rather desperately need a clear choice that will give a mandate to the winner.

If the candidates have their way, the election will be decided by clever advertising campaigns and speeches. But accidents and unforeseen events may play a decisive role. For example, if John McCain has health problems between now and November, it would devastate the Republicans. If either of the presidential candidates collapsed from exhaustion on the campaign trail, such a small health failure could undermine them. But let us hope and assume health will not be an issue. In that case, there are four categories of disaster that are beyond the candidate’s control: economic collapse, natural disaster, a terrorist attack, and bizarre events. Let us look at all four, to see who might have an advantage in each case.

The worst disaster for the Republicans would be massive economic failure. The American economy is teetering between recession and recovery, the most dangerous possibility is a stock market collapse, perhaps caused by the persistent housing crisis. Historically, the American market has not been strong in October, and twice it has crashed in that month. In late October, 1929, the market collapsed, devastating the economy for years, and dooming Herbert Hoover to be a one-term president. Likewise, in October 19, 1987 the New York Stock Market lost 23 percent of its value in two days. Nothing quite like that has ever happened in an election year, but McCain would almost certainly lose if it did. Al Gore’s campaign was hurt by the rapid fall in computer technology stocks in March 2000. When the dot.com bubble broke, many realized that the “new economy” was over. Had the market kept surging until after November, Gore presumably would have won more popular votes. If stocks fall in the month before the election, expect Obama to win, assuming he has not made a major mistake.

Natural disasters can also play a role in the campaign. September and October are huricaine season, and anything remotely resembling the Katrina (mismangement) disaster would also hurt the Republicans. However, in general, natural disasters tend to help the party in power, assuming it makes the most of the opportunity to show compassion and leadership. Just as importantly, a disaster can release huge sums of money to help an afflicted region, while the party in power can tour the area to inspect the damage, sweeping opponents off the front pages of the newspapers. The current floods in the Midwest thus favor the Republicans if they respond credibly to the disaster. As fate would have it, at least two swing states are affected by the surging waters, Missouri and Iowa.

The most unpredictable event would be a terrorist attack. Potential terrorists might try shape the outcome of the election, as they did in Spain with the Madrid train bombings. Depending on the target, the timing, and the administration’s response, would an attack strengthen McCain or hurt him? To put this another way, would an attack be more like an earthquake, giving the Republicans a chance to look heroic and sympathetic in the face of adversity, or would it be more like a stock market crash, a sign that the party in power is incompetent and unable to preserve the nation from harm? These are not easy questions to answer, and each party would try to put political spin on any attack. However, assuming that an attack did not reveal an egregious, gaping hole in Homeland Security (in which case Republicans get the blame), any terrorist activity would make national security, not the economy, the main issue. This presumably would favor McCain, because of his military background.

Finally, in America one cannot rule out the bizarre event. Any number of things might take everyone's mind off the election. A major sex scandal; a police case resembling the O.J. Simpson murder, chase, and trial; a major riot in an American city; a high-profile disaster in the space program; some new Brittney Spears antics; the authentic return of Elvis to a major shopping mall; a surreal hostage drama involving Osama bin Laden himself in Pakistan - who knows? A bizarre event that distracts the voters could have unpredictable consequences. One should even include the weather. Generally speaking, bad weather means a lower turnout, which is good for the Republicans, who as a group are wealthier and more able to get to the polls. An early blizzard sweeping through the "blue" states would not be good for the Democrats.

In a close election extra-political factors could be decisive, and the result might be an accidental president. You think this is impossible? Before the 2000 election, who thought the hanging chads in Florida was possible? This time around, what if the new computerized voting machines are erratic? We must hope for a decisive victory, not a roll of the dice. After Bush, Americans need a new president with unquestionable legitimacy.

Financing Obama and McCain

After the American Century

From abroad, the cost of American elections is unbelievable, appalling. In 2008 more than $1 billion will be spent just on the presidential primaries and general election. But I will spare readers a sermon on this matter. The media world has been actively discussing Senator Obama's decision not to accept public financing, established back in the 1970s to eliminate fund-raising and create a level playing-field. It has never worked well, but it seemed a step in the right direction. All along Obama has refused to accept any money from lobbyists (in contrast to McCain), but he apparently accepted the idea that campaigns should be financed by the government. Taking public money means accepting a cap on spending, however, and Obama has found that he can raise vast sums from private donors. He does not need public financing, which would cap his spending.

Obama is the first candidate who has understood how to use the Internet to reach potential donors, and to involve them in his campaign as partners. Anyone who gives begins to receive a regular stream of emails with information about campaign events, opportunities to join others in raising money, and chances to meet fellow supporters (both on-line or in person). So while Obama himself seldom needs to eat a rubber chicken and make a speech in person, the virtual Obama has been prodigiously successful at eliciting donations. By comparison, McCain is computer illiterate. For more on how Obama raises money, see Joshua Green, "The Amazing Money Machine" The Atlantic.com Alternately, give Obama $10 or more and you can experience it first-hand.

Obama presented his campaign funding decision not as a change of heart about campaign reform, nor as a proof of his on-line wizardry, but as a recognition that the public financing of campaigns has not worked. It has not worked because it is too easy for an "independent" group to raise money and spend it lavishly to help a candidate, who thereby can get both the public financing and the benefits of private funds. Anyone who looks at how John Kerry was "swift-boated" in 2004 knows that this is true, yet a surprising number of commentators, such as John Brooks in the New York Times, are taking Obama to task. They want him to play by the Washington rule book. But he has decided not to work with an ill-conceived, broken system.

Fortunately for Obama, most voters seem to agree with him. Indeed, his fellow Democrats are most likely to be upset that he has abandoned public support, while Republicans have never supported it much. So the decision might even help him with swing voters. In any case, subsequent polls have not detected any loss of support since he decided not to take public money. In fact, most voters are not that interested in the issue. Americans generally do not mind if a candidate says he is independent, can stand on his own, needs no assistance, or is individualistic.

The irony is that for decades the Republicans have always been better at fund-raising that the Democrats. McCain is the first GOP presidential candidate I can remember that has had trouble getting contributors. That is what derailed him last year, when it looked like his campaign was over, due to near bankruptcy. Even now that he has been the nominee for months, he has raised less money than either Obama or Clinton. As of May 31, McCain had raised $121 million, only a little more than Mitt Romney, who dropped out of the race long ago. By comparison, Hillary Clinton barnstormed for $221 million by the same date, and yet had run out of funds even as she lost the nomination to Obama.

By the end of May the Senator from Illinois had put together contributions of $295 million, all of it from small donors. He has also shown good financial management, keeping costs under control. He has a rather tidy surplus, too, with $43 million in cash at the end of the primary cycle. McCain was almost as well off, however, because he sewed up his nomination much sooner and could use far less of his money against fellow Republicans. At the end of May he therefore had $31 million - less than Obama, but not so much less.

So no one should be surprised that Obama has decided not to subject himself to the restrictions of public financing, when he does not need it. That leaves the Internet-challenged John McCain to take the government handout, like a charity recipient, because he has not been able to motivate his base.

McBush and Appeasement

After the American Century

Senator McCain has endorsed George Bush's attack on the Democrats for "appeasement." I will return to this, but only after looking at the many absurdies in this attack. Bush chose to go after the Democrats while making a state visit to Israel to mark the 60th anniversary of that nation's independence. Partisan attacks are to be expected from now on until the election, but it is poor form to go to another nation and distract attention from their celebrations to engage in electoral politics. However, where Bush made his statement had a special resonance when he chose to compare the Democrats to those who appeased Hitler. The implication was that if Americans elect Obama, they will be responsible for another holocaust. But there is no historical sense to these assertions.

It was the Republicans far, far more than FDR's Democrats, who were in the appeasement camp. In the 1930s many Americans, especially Republicans, wanted the nation to remain neutral. It was Roosevelt and the Democrats who have the more honorable record. Who wanted to negotiate with Hitler? Republican Senator Borah! Yes, that wonderful party leader who also helped to sabotage Wilson's League of Nations. He was from Bush's party.

And another thing. Just which leader or which nation today can realistically be compared to Hitler? Iran's leaders deny the Holocaust. They sponsor terrorist groups. Democrats and Republicans would all agree aboout these things. But Iran simply does not have the geopolitical clout that Germany had in the 1930s. Because we are talking about a nation, not an amorphous group of terrorists, they could conceivably be negotiated with. The Neo-Conservative Republicans seem to have forgotten that the Cold War was won not by arms, but by a much slower process of dialogue, trade, cultural interchange, and, yes, negotiation. The Berlin Wall came down without a shot being fired. Bush's continual refusal to talk to Iran's leaders has pushed them into the willing arms of the Russians, who are happy to help them build oil and gas pipelines and trade with them. Furthermore, many in Washington, even some Republicans, have come to recognize that it will be impossible to forge a peace in Iraq without somehow involving the Iranians.

Leaving aside historical analogies, Bush himself has at times been a negotiator, so that must make him "an appeaser." At almost the very moment the President was declaring one should never negotiate with terrorists, his administration announced that it was sending massive food aid to North Korea. This is part of the complex negotiations that have, with some success, sought to turn that nation away from its nuclear program. Thus Bush's own administration has been doing the very thing for which he criticized the Democrats.

Bush is trying to distract attention from his foreign policy failures. But his shoot-first-preemptive-strike-cowboy approach to the world has not yielded success in Afghanistan or Iraq. His administration arrogantly refused to listen to its allies. France and Germany both tried to dissuade him from invading Iraq, but Bush told the world that US intelligence information was more reliable than theirs and charged ahead. However, the French and the Germans got it right. There was no pressing national security reason to rush into that war. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. Bush either lied or his intelligence services were incompetent. Either way, it was an expensive mistake that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and led to the deaths of more than 100,000 people, the vast majority civilians. The Iraq War has increased instability in the Middle East and served as a training ground for terrorists. Bush's interventionism has also indirectly driven up the cost of oil, because the Iraqui oil fields are not producing as much as they might. Anyone who thinks the US is more secure or better off economically than it was before the invasion of Iraq has not been paying attention.

John McCain had an oportunity to show he was not like the President, but he has endorsed Bush's attack on the Democrats. So much for his claims to represent "straight talk." Perhaps the fall ballots should read "McBush" so voters will know what he represents. For McCain's remarks show once again that he is a throwback from another age, living in the mental universe of the Cold War where he was trained as a military man. McCain by temperment and education is not prepared to be a negotiator or to understand the world as a complex place. He is the candidate who thought it was funny to sing "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" to a Beach Boys tune. He is unfit to be President precisely because he has all that Cold War and Vietnam military experience. The world is a different place now.

Finally, suppose we were to evaluate Bush by his own Rambo standards. Seven years after the 9/11 attacks, he has been unable to find Osama bin Laden. By any measure, he has been a miserable failure.

What is at Stake in November?

After the American Century

The race between Clinton and Obama should not distract from the fundamental oppositions between McCain and the two Democratic candidates. Party divergences are so fundamental that this election seems to be a defining national moment. Count on the Republicans to try to find some symbolic controversy to distract the voters, such as respect for the flag, prayer in schools, gay marriage, and the like. One can only hope the American people will not be easily distracted. Here is what they should be thinking about.

One. The Bench. Will a conservative, strict-construction of the Constitution be cemented more firmly in place, with four more years of Republican judicial appointments? This concerns not only the Supreme Court but the many appointments to the other Federal courts as well. It is not just about whether abortion will continue to be legal, but whether the courts will agree to hear cases dealing with social inequality, racial discrimination, and free speech, broadly defined. In a worse-case scenario, conservative judges (whose terms to not expire until they decide to retire) could become the dominant force for a generation. A conservative bench is potentially dangerous after eight years of Bush's attacks on civil liberties, along with continual attempts to place both the President and the Vice-President above scrutiny and the rule of law.

Two. Will the destabilizing tax cuts that Bush enacted become permanent, or will more progressive taxation return? Under the Bush plan, the rich keep getting richer and the national debt grows, the middle class and the poor lose ground, and the next generation gets the bill. McCain has pledged to keep the Bush cuts, while the Democrats want to return to the system that served the nation so well in the 1990s. Recall that from 1992 until 2000 the economy grew, the middle class did not lose ground, and the national debt was rapidly paid off. The Republicans have evolved into a party of fiscal irresponsibility. Under both Reagan and the Bushes, they have run up huge deficits and given the wealthy tax breaks. In effect, they keep imposing a tax on the next generation. That was the central issue that got Ross Perot to run in the election of 1992, siphoning off enough Republican votes to get Clinton elected. However, the Republicans shamelessly keep calling the Democrats "tax and spend liberals". This rhetoric worked a generation ago, but since 1980 have become "tax and spend conservatives." The difference is that their spending is for the military rather than for social programs.

Three. Will the Iraq war continue without any end in sight (McCain) or will the US seek to negotiate its way out of the mess Bush created there (Clinton and Obama). Back in 1968 and again in 1972 the Republicans railed at any suggestion that Vietnam could not be won, and they stuck to their guns for six years after Nixon came in. The Republican "plan" for Iraq now seems like "deja vu all over again." Remember "Vietnamization?" The US is now spending billions on building up a new Iraq army and police force with the same idea in mind. The Democrats want to end the conflict and put the money saved into social programs, notably medical care. How much is Iraq costing? About $15 million an hour.

Four. Will the US fix its medical system? Costs are out of control, malpractice insurance drives some doctors out of business, patients in rural areas are underserved, employers have begun to eliminate health care from worker benefits - the list could go on, but this is a national emergency must be solved. It is a terrible problem at the personal level, but failing health care also makes the US less competitive in the world. The Detroit automobile companies spend as much money on health care for their workers than they do for steel. In many other nations health care is paid by the state, and corporations do not have that expense.

Five. Will corporations be regulated? The 9/11 attacks saved Bush from a major investigation of his close financial and political ties to ENRON. Its executives were frequent guests at the White House and advised Bush and Cheney on energy policy. Yet that corporation's rapacious and illegal activities cost California billions of dollars, and such predatory behavior emerged again in the behavior of the mortgage industry. Likewise, this government cut back funding for inspectors in many areas, making actual enforcement of the laws difficult. The Republicans are so in thrall to the special interests that they no longer protect the public. Only a few Enron executives were punished even lightly for their felonies. If the Republicans stay in the White House, they will continue to resist government oversight of corporations and environmental inspections will be under-funded.

Six. Energy policy. The Bush government has squandered eight years when the US could have moved toward sustainable energy use. With two former oil executives in the White House, the nation fell behind Europe and Japan in creating the next generation of energy systems, notably wind and solar power. For those curious about what is possible, see Scientific American's article on how solar power alone could supply most of the US electricity needs. ("A Solar Grand Plan," January 2008). Such creative thinking has been anathema in Washington. Republicans have resolutely hung on to a national energy model from c. 1950. For example, they have resisted for 25 years higher mpg requirements for cars, and Detroit makes gas-guzzling automobiles that are not competitive in the rest of the world. The Republicans should accept responsibility for those thousands of jobs lost in Michigan and Ohio. (There is a silver lining for some Republicans personally: Exxon-Mobile's profits for the last quarter topped §100 billion.) This election will determine whether the oil industry will continue to hold back economic development and have an undue influence on foreign policy, and whether the US will actually do anything about global warming.

Those are all vital issues for any candidate. After winning ten straight states, it does seem that Obama is the more likely candidate. At his Tuesday night rally in Houston, attended by 20,000 people, tickets were free but in such short supply that some were scalped for $100. I don't think anyone is paying that kind of money to see Hillary. Yet whether the Democrats ultimately choose Obama or Clinton, both oppose John McCain on all these issues. Either would be far, far better than McCain.

For more on "The Bush Economy" see this blog for Dec. 12.

Can Clinton "Come back" in Wisconsin or Hawaii?

After the American Century

Tomorrow the last primaries in February take place in Wisconsin and Hawaii, with 74 and 20 delegates respectively. For Obama, it has been a spectacular month, starting with a strong showing on Super Tuesday, followed by victories in eight straight primaries. The polls suggest that he can make it ten in a row tomorrow, which would give him even more momentum. For Hillary this month was supposed to be a triumph and instead has bordered on disaster. Rather than being crowned as the nominee, she found herself nearly bankrupt, fired her campaign manager, and lost every primary after February 5. If she can win either election tomorrow she can claim it as a second comeback. In New Hampshire she made her first comeback, after coming in third in Iowa. 

In Wisconsin the economy is the main issue for 4 our of 10 voters, while only a quarter of them focus on the War in Iraq. This emphasis is good for Hillary, as voters seem to like her on economic issues. No doubt they remember the prosperous Clinton Presidency. The polls also indicate that the same pattern we have seen before recurs. She is leading Obama among women and older voters. He does better among men, younger voters, and African Americans. Overall, it appears to be a close race. Several different polls puts him ahead by just 4%, which borders on being statistically insignificant, as there is always a margin of error.  Moreover, in another pattern familiar from the previous primaries, 25% of the voters remain uncertain and say they might still change their minds. In short, Hillary might pull off an upset.

On the other hand, the trend in the polls over time suggests otherwise. Clinton consistently led in the Wisconsin polls until Super Tuesday, when she fell behind. Obama appears to have momentum, and he also tends to bring out marginal voters such as young people and African-Americans, who are both under-represented in polling samples, because they often do not vote. Another problem for pollsters is their data bases focus on land-line telephones, which means that voters under 30 - heavily for Obama - may also be under polled. So the margin of polling error may be greater than 4%, and it may favor him, not her.

Hawaii is less problematic, because Obama was born there. He represents the multiracial integration of Hawaii, which has been far in advance of the rest of the United States in developing multicultural harmony. There seem to be no polls for Hawaii, however, where 20 delegates are at stake in caucuses. The local newspapers predict that the turnout will be at least 50% higher than in 2004, and the Democratic Party there fears it will be overwhelmed. Obama has won every other caucus, and it seems hard to believe Hillary has a much of chance. She did send daughter Chelsea out to enjoy the good weather, however, while she slogged on through the heavy snows of Wisconsin. 

Of the 94 delegates at stake, Obama will likely get a few more than Clinton, but neither is likely to gain a decisive statistical advantage from these contests. More important, at this point, is the psychological victory for Obama, if he can make it ten in a row, or for Clinton, if she can make a second "comeback." 

Obama and Clinton: Dangers of a Long Race

After the American Century

Obama has now won a string of impressive victories. Ahead for the first time in the race, however, he faces new kinds of problems. The front runner never gets a free ride. He has been the media's darling, but now they may begin to play a little rougher. Where before the Republicans were busy with their own race, McCain has now begun to attack him directly, by name. Obama has seen the advantage in that kind of attention, and is responding to McCain. It seems to say that Hillary is history. She is not, and Obama will now need to fight them both.

Clinton will likely have trouble winning in either Wisconsin or Hawaii, but when the battle shifts to Texas and Ohio on March 4, she will be in states where polls show her well ahead. Texas has been a Republican stronghold since at least the 1980 presidential elections, and there is little chance that the Democrats can win there in November. But take away the Republican majority, and the voters left include a large Hispanic population that now votes more than in the past, plus a sizable number of working class southerners who are comfortable with the Clinton name. For Obama, it will be an uphill fight in Texas outside of the Black community and college towns. Since Hispanics greatly outnumber African Americans there, Hillary starts with an advantage. However, Obama has been doing better with the kinds of voters who earlier went for Clinton. In Virginia he drew more women voters and started to attract more Hispanics and older Democrats as well. Still, the game for Obama in Texas is probably not to lose by too much, getting as many delegates as possible so that Hillary does not catch up.

In the crucial state of Ohio, Obama needs a better showing. If he can wrest Ohio from Hillary, such a victory might convince super delegates that he is the best standard-bearer for the party. However, if he looses in both Texas and Ohio, then Hillary has a real chance to raise additional money and rally for a showdown in the Pennsylvania primary. Even more than Ohio, Pennsylvania is a place the Democrats must win in November to ensure safe passage back into the White House. But Pennsylvania has a conservative history. It went for Herbert Hoover in 1932, in what was otherwise a Roosevelt tidal wave. Pennsylvanians also liked Ike in the 1950s and Reagan in the 1980s. In recent times the Democrats have carried it (1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004). With more than 12 million people, it is a crucial state, where polls now show Clinton in the lead. Bread and butter issues will be important there, particularly in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and among the remaining steel workers and coal miners.

In short, Obama has had all the momentum of late, but if Clinton holds on to her current leads in both Ohio and Texas, then it will stretch out the decision at least until at least April 22, and do possible damage to the Democratic Party. The super delegates may even wait it out to see who wins what in May.

Granted that neither candidate can attain the magic total of 2025 delegates through the primary process alone, the hope must be that one of them convinces the super delegates that he or she is the best choice. Ideally, whoever that is ought to have won a plurality of the pledged delegates as well. Unfortunately for the Democrats, however, it might not happen that way at all. Obama has the most delegates, but Clinton has the most super delegates. Roughly 390 of them have not made up their minds, and both candidates are wooing them non-stop.

Ominously, in the long gap between primaries from March 4 until April 22, other than vying for super delegates, the festering question will be: What to do about Florida and Michigan? There are no good choices. Playing strictly by the rules, these states held their primaries too early and were sanctioned for it: neither was to get any delegates. Abiding by this decision, Obama did not even get his name on the Michigan ballot. That made it easy for Clinton to win there, since she essentially ran unopposed. Now that she is behind, her camp has begun to call for giving Michigan delegates again. This seems grossly unfair. But if you are from Michigan, it no doubt seems just as unfair to be kept out of a close election. Florida offers almost the same connundrum, except that Obama at least was on the ballot there, though he did not campaign. Should Clinton win the nomination by getting Michigan and Florida seated - reversing the party's earlier decision - then Obama's camp would rightly feel aggrieved. But if they are not seated, Clinton's supporters will feel that two states where she was strong unjustly were excluded. I happen to side with Obama on this one. Don't change the rules in the middle of the game. But watch for unpleasantness on this issue.

Finally, because it is not likely to end soon, the campaigning, especially from Clinton's side, may get negative. That would also be a danger to the Party, not only because it will make it hard to unify for the fall campaign, but in October the Republicans will gleefully repeat whatever charges have the most destructive force. If it is not over, then, the Democrats will have to conduct themselves with some dignity. If it becomes a dogfight, they risk losing to McCain.

Clinton vs Obama: How Long the Race?

After the American Century

As the candidates make their final appearances before Super Tuesday, it appears likely, judging by the polls, that John McCain will have an insurmountable lead over Romney, Huckabee, and Paul, after the Republican voting. In contrast, the polls also suggest that neither Clinton nor Obama will be anywhere near a majority on February 6. Whether selecting the nominee first is an advantage is the subject of an earlier blog. The question I will take up here is how long the Democrats may have to struggle.

In theory, the nomination process for the Democrats could last until their convention late in the summer. In recent posts I have pointed out that the Edwards delegates and the super delegates would then hold the balance of power. Together, these unpledged votes constitute one fifth of what either Obama or Clinton needs to reach the magic total of 2025. They might be fighting to get those votes all summer, culminating on the floor of the convention. This happened to the Republicans in 1976, when Ford and Reagan battled all the way to the last possible day, with Ford winning by a small margin. The same thing happened to the Democrats in 1960, and there are other examples from earlier decades.

In practice, convention cliffhangers are rare. Usually, the candidates have been chosen through the primary process, and the convention is scripted as a display of unity. That is what any nominee would prefer. However, there are simply not enough delegates being chosen on Super Tuesday to declare a winner to this contest, so, let us look at the contests after 5 February. Seen from a candidate's perspective, what lies ahead is going to be exhausting. It will be long and it will require a great deal of travel, because the states holding primaries on the same day are often far apart. It will also be ferociously expensive.

Here is a summary of what comes after Super Tuesday. Note particularly 4 March when more than 10% of all the delegates will be selected. This might close out the process, but even at this point there will be 650 more delegates to choose in the remaining primaries, plus the uncommitted super delegates. Should Clinton and Obama keep running neck and neck, this race could go all the way into June and still not have a certain winner.

One hopes, however, that either Obama or Clinton will manage to build a majority by 22 April (Pennsylvania) or 6 May (North Carolina and Indiana). By that time, conceivably, one of them will admit defeat and gracefully withdraw. But it might go all the way to the Convention.

Primaries after "Super Tuesday"

9 February, 194 delegates at stake in widely separated Washington, Louisiana, and Nebraska.

10 February, 34 delegates at stake in Maine, up on the Canadian border, as far from the previous three states as it is possible to get.

12 February, 238 delegates at stake in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington DC. Note that for once the three elections are in contiguous locations.

19 February, 121 delegates at stake in Wisconsin and Hawaii

4 March, perhaps a decisive day with 444 delegates at stake in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

8 March, just 48 delegates, in the widely separated Wyoming and Mississippi.

22 April. If the decision still has not been reached, the primary in Pennsylvania might well be the most important of the entire election, with 188 delegates at stake. The candidates will have ample time to campaign here - six weeks!

6 May. Two weeks later, even more delegates are at stake, 218 in North Carolina and Indiana.

13 May. If the candidate has not been chosen by this point, West Virginia may become an unlikely battleground for just 39 delegates.

20 May. With 125 delegates in Oregon and Kentucky, this is the last time a substantial number of delegates can be won

3 June, the end of the process, with just 47 delegates at stake, in the neighboring states of Montana and South Dakota.

Does the First Nominee Have the Advantage?

After the American Century

There is a myth floating around in conversations I have heard in the US, that the party which decides on its candidate first has a decisive advantage. In other words, the party that unifies first behind one candidate can then consolidates its troops, while the other side is still fighting amongst themselves. It seems plausible. If true, then the Republicans might have an advantage, because their primaries are often winner-take-all contests, like Florida, where Romney got 31% of the votes but no delegates.

In contrast, the Democrats divide up the delegates from a primary roughly in proportion to the votes each candidate received. I say roughly, because the division is made at the local level, and can lead to small anomalies. For example, Clinton got the most personal votes in Nevada, but Obama got one more delegate (13) than she did (12), because of the way the vote broke down in particular districts. In other words, McCain (or conceivably Romney) might assemble the needed delegates in the next few weeks much more quickly than Clinton or Obama can. The Democratic race could easily take several months after Super Tuesday. If it is really close, then the decision might be made in balloting at the Democratic national convention in the summer. In other words, possibly neither Hillary nor Obama will get a majority, even when the primaries are over. In that case, the delegates who are pledged to Edwards would become crucial. He could be the power broker, deciding who gets to be the nominee, in exchange for something he wants - such as being the Vice Presidential nominee (again).

With that sort of scenario a possibility, the myth of early consolidation sounds appealing, but it is simplistic. The myth may be true if a party's candidates broadly agree on policy and are only fighting for the right to be the nominee. But what if the candidates fundamentally disagree about policy, as they do in the Republican Party right now? McCain is the front-runner, but I have met people who are furious at him, for example because he has a liberal approach to immigration policy. One angry woman told me that all the illegal immigrants should be thrown out, that they should have gotten in line for a green card and not entered the country before then. In her view, and that of millions of other conservative Republicans, McCain is completely unacceptable on that point. They will not much feel like rallying behind him, even if he does sew up the nomination. The question asked on a CNN Poll today was, "Can McCain Bring the Republicans Together"? Three out of four did not think so. There are too many fundamental issues that divide them. In addition to immigration, they disagree on what for them are fundamental moral questions: the theory of evolution, abortion, and gay marriage. Nor do they agree on how to deal with Iraq. Ron Paul's vocal minority wants withdrawal, but McCain will stay as long as it takes. I do not expect to see Huckabee or Paul supporters put much energy into a McCain candidacy. Or, if the candidate is Romney, many McCain supporters will sit on their hands, because he is too conservative for them.

In short, either Romney, or more likely McCain, might get the nomination early, only to find that party support is lukewarm. Weak enthusiasm from the Republican base would not stand up well to either the Clinton machine or the Obama wave. Moreover, the media are not going to give as much attention to an already-selected Republican as they will to a dramatic battle between the two exciting candidates on the Democratic side. And note that Obama and Hillary do not have radically different policy statements. Supporters of either one could in good conscience go out and work for the other.

An interesting historical comparison makes the same point. In 1960, Richard Nixon was the clear, early front-runner and early got the Republican nomination. On the Democratic side a fierce battle for the nomination went all the way to the convention and was only decided on the third ballot. In other words, the Republicans had unified early and, according to the myth, should have won, because the Democrats were fighting each other all summer. Moreover, Nixon could claim far more experience than his younger but less well-known rival. The winner? Jack Kennedy, a charismatic candidate demanding change. His vice-presidentail running mate? Lyndon Johnson, a Southern Senator who had the delegates needed for a majority. It might be "deja-vu all over again."

The Bush Economy, Part 2

More than one month ago, on December 12, I put out a blog on the failings of the Bush economy.(See the archive.) In the past week the failures of his economic policies have been driving down the stock market, and have prompted the head of the Federal Reserve to call for an economic stimulus package as quickly as possible.  Bush's immediate response has been to call for an across the board tax cut. Now, recall that the foolish tax cuts of his first year in office helped to over-heat the economy, and recall that these overwhelmingly favored the very rich. The immediate problem is not that these same rich people need yet another tax cut, but that relief is needed specifically by the middle class. More specifically still, people who bought houses recently need help in paying their mortgages. Rather than give a tax cut to everyone, in other words, Bush should be focusing on those families who are on the brink of going under. If they default on mortgages, the ripple effects will further destabilize the entire economy. What to do?

First, Congress should step in and guarantee mortgages, helping banks and borrowers to renegotiate the terms of their debt. Neither banks nor borrowers gain anything if the mortgage market collapse. Rather than just give some money to everyone, including rich people who already have received a terrific tax cut, and then hope that the economy as a whole will be stimulated enough to help people with big mortgages, why not attack the problem directly?

Second, Bush should admit that the US cannot afford to keep spending $1 billion a day in Iraq. There were strong military and strategic arguments against going into that war in the first place, but they made no impression upon the true-believers who directed policy. Perhaps the Republicans will listen to an economic argument, especially in an election year.

Third, the Democrats should seize this opportunity to attack the Republicans for their mistaken foreign policy and their failed economic policy. During the last week in the Nevada Caucuses we have witnessed some rather pitiful in-fighting, especially from the Clinton side. It is time to tell the American people just how bad a President Bush has been. The Democrats have to attack the neo-conservative policies that have weakened the United States financially and hurt its international image. Obama must move beyond "feel good" unity and hope toward a more detailed vision of what will change and how. And Clinton should stop crowing about her vast experience and start to show the American people that she has the courage to confront the Republicans and hold them accountable for their mistakes. 

Unfortunately, I doubt that any of these things will occur. In an election year Congress is likely to be distracted, and the Democrats may not want to rescue the Republicans. They may calculate that the worse the economy gets, the less chance there is for McCain or Romney or whoever it turns out to be. Nor should one expect that Bush will retreat from Iraq. He will no doubt stubbornly "stay the course," just as Richard Nixon stubbornly stayed in Vietnam, convinced that a victory and vindication would eventually come. Even if Bush suddenly did change his mind, it will take more than a year to get the troops out in an orderly fashion, and that $1 billion a day will continue to hemorrhage out of the economy. Finally, it seems that the Clintons may lower the tone of the Democratic primaries. Bill Clinton in particular has become more aggressive toward Obama. In contrast, McCain and Huckabee on the whole seemed to be take the high road of civility in South Carolina.  (But note the latter has begun to embrace the Confederate flag!)

In short, while the economic woes of the US continue to worsen, there is no clear sign yet of intelligent policy or good leadership from Bush. Meanwhile, the Democrats may squander the opportunity to lead in an internal war of attrition. 

The Michigan Results

Romney has won in Michigan, with 39% of the votes, and so he keeps his hopes alive. McCain had 30%, Huckabee only 16%. It was a convincing victory. Romney was the strongest candidate in all age groups except for those over 60, who went for McCain. Romney also beat Huckabee among both Protestants and Catholics. Meanwhile, McCain carried the Republicans who never go to church, with 39% of that little constituency. Furthermore, as noted in an earlier blog here, Huckabee did extremely poorly among the Catholics, getting less than 10% of their votes. And these are the very conservative, Republican Catholics, who represented about 30% of the vote. Huckabee would have even less appeal to the larger group of Democratic Catholics. In short, Michigan's results suggest that Huckabee may have been a one-win wonder in Iowa, who now must redeem himself in South Carolina next week, if he is to look viable. 

McCain, on the other hand, did respectably in Michigan, which after all is Romney's former home state. It is hard to beat an opponent who can bring his old schoolteacher and classmates up on stage. Nevertheless, if we probe these results further, it turns out that voters who think the economy is on the right track and who are generally satisfied voted for Romney. The unhappy voters were more likely to be for McCain, whether they were upset by Bush in particular, the poor Iraq results, or the economy.  McCain also was relatively successful with Independents and Democrats, some of whom crossed over to vote for him. Finally, McCain defeated Romney in urban areas (40% to 31%), which is obviously important in the coming contests for New York and California.  So while he lost, McCain showed that he can appeal across party lines, and remains in a good position for the contest in South Carolina.  In terms of money, however, Romney has $60 million to McCain's $31 million, a difference which could begin to be a real problem for McCain by February. 

There are also three footnotes to these Republican results. The first is the strange failure of Giuliani to put up any fight at all, as he dropped to just 3%. Perhaps if neither Romney nor McCain can win an advantage soon, this strategy will yet be vindicated, but it looks like a long shot. Only slightly better was Fred Thompson's 4% showing. He seems unable to ignite his campaign, and one suspects that he is staying in the race in order to have a shot at being the vice-presidential nominee. Indeed, perhaps that is Giuliani's idea as well. If he can show he is strong in Florida, he becomes an attractive VP who can deliver that vital swing state and help carry New York. Finally, there is Paul's fascinating maverick candidacy. He describes himself as an old-fashioned strict constructionist of the Constitution. He is so far to the right that he emerges on the left on some issues, notably Iraq, where he advocates withdrawal. If you have not seen him in the debates, pay more attention, for the Texas congressman has some vocal supporters, as he calls for balancing the budget, an end to military adventurism abroad, and a return to the foreign policy of Thomas Jefferson. I strongly doubt that he is seeking the vice-presidential nomination, and he is smart enough to know that he is but an articulate gadfly. If nothing else, he shows how boring Fred Thompson is by comparison.

Meanwhile, Hillary won, running unopposed, and will get zero delegates, because the Democratic Party is punishing Michigan for advancing its primary date, as discussed a few days ago here. A notable 43% did not support her in the absence of other candidates. The real action was out in Nevada, where delegates can be won or lost, and where a debate took place yesterday. It apparently was a particularly friendly affair, as the three main candidates made a point of not attacking one another. After some un-pleasantries earlier in the week over the relative contributions of Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson, it seems that Clinton and Obama have returned to their senses. Arguing about events that took place 40 years ago, and bringing up race, were just not going to sell either candidate to the electorate.

One final aspect of the Michigan vote needs to be emphasized. Fully 46% of those exit-polled admitted that they did not make up their minds until this week. Indeed, more than 30% made up their minds during the last three days. As in Iowa and New Hampshire, this remains a fickle electorate, one that can be swayed by small events or media images right up to the end. The last minute shifts on the whole favored Romney. McCain outpolled him (32% to 28%) among those who had decided more than one month ago, but Romney garnered 41% of the voters who decided on the last day, as they neared the ballot box. McCain only got a quarter of these votes, and that represents much of the margin of difference between them.

Voting Patterns May Favor Clinton and McCain

Forty years ago I worked briefly for the Eugene McCarthy campaign in New Hampshire. That was a heady experience, because the primary became, in effect, a referendum on the Vietnam War. And McCarthy did something no one had thought possible. He embarrassed a sitting President, who won with 49%, by getting more than 42% of the vote. This was hardly an expected result in a conservative state. It was only possible because of massive support from college students and other young people. It did not hurt McCarthy that he had a good education in Catholic universities, so he could appeal to that constituency as well.

Working in the campaign made me acutely aware of the differences between voters. The problem for any candidate is, "How can I appeal to as many groups as possible?" The usual practice is to come up with a general campaign slogan, such as "New Deal," "Fair Deal," "New Frontier" or, this year, simply, "Change," and then develop a variety of specific proposals, which the candidate trots out or barely mentions, depending on the particular audience being addressed. Yet, in the end, each candidate appeals more to some social classes, religious faiths, or racial groups than to others. Some appeal more to men than women, or vice-versa. If only men could vote, then Bill Clinton would never have been president.  What can we learn about the major candidates' constituencies, based on Iowa and New Hampshire? 

Who voted for Obama instead of Clinton? For Huckabee or McCain?  Iowa and New Hampshire voting behavior suggests some patterns to think about. Consider that Hillary's New Hampshire victory essentially was won in small industrial towns, where she got twice the support Obama did. She is also emerging as a working-class candidate who speaks to bread and butter issues. Since the American economy is fading at the moment, with falling house prices and higher unemployment, this aspect of Hillary's appeal bears watching. Another area of strength for her is in terms of religion. The Catholics clearly preferred Hillary (44%) to Obama (27%), with Protestants more evenly divided. In New Hampshire, these Catholics are mostly French-Canadian and Irish. Will Obama find a way to reach out to such voters? Will he have more success with Catholics that have other ethnic backgrounds? He will have to re-think his basic message a bit if he wants to appeal to the less educated and to the working-class. To put this in a more positive way, Obama outpolled Clinton among college students, the better educated, and the wealthy. Among those who have gone to graduate school, he defeated her soundly, 46% to 27%. But could he win a Presidential election primarily based on that kind of support? Perhaps, for Obama seems to attract votes from people with higher incomes, many of them Independents. Among voters earning more than $50,000 a year, Obama had a margin over Clinton of 43% to 27%. 

These kinds of preferences are not written in stone, and candidates can modify their speechs and presentations to woo voters whom they failed to attract early on. For example, Hillary discovered in Iowa that the young were flocking to Obama by a radio of 2 to 1, while she was busy targeting women over 45. To improve in this area, in New Hampshire Hillary began surrounding herself on stage with young people. That may seem a rather minimal change, but it seems to have helped her. 

Overall, one can see that while the total vote for Obama and Clinton was close, support varied greatly within specific groups. Men strongly preferred him, but women brought her the victory. Clinton may be a bit better positioned, with strong support from Catholics, women, and the working class. But Obama will presumably adjust his campaign messages in an attempt to reach more of these voters, all of whom traditionally have been more Democratic than Republican. If he fails to do this, he will have troubles down the road that may undercut the boost he can expect to get from Black voters, who were scarcely present in Iowa or New Hampshire.

On the Republican side, for the last three decades religion has been a particularly important influence on voters. New Hampshire Catholics taken as a whole are rather conservative, and in 2004 gave more support to Bush (52%) than to Kerry (47%). In theory, Huckabee could do as well as Bush. In practice, he did far worse. Huckabee received most of his support from Evangelical Protestants, while in New Hampshire only 8% of the Republican-voting Catholics selected him. McCain literally got five times more Catholic votes, suggesting that he is far more electable in a national contest. More to the point, in the Michigan Primary next week there are three Catholic voters for every two Evangelicals. Furthermore, if one looks at Protestants as a whole, McCain has roughly the same appeal as Huckabee.  In short, Huckabee's born-again Baptist religion ultimately may be a limitation, not a strength. Nevertheless, the latest Michigan polls show Huckabee and McCain in a dead heat along with Romney, with all three getting about 20% of the vote. 

Michigan Primary

Michigan is much different than Iowa or New Hampshire: it is more like the rest of the United States. In that sense, the Michigan Primary could function as a reality check. How might these candidates fare in an industrial, multicultural state? Unfortunately, the Michigan Primary will not function this way, because when it was moved to an earlier date, this was against party rules. Both parties have punished Michigan by taking away delegates to the national nominating conventions. The Republicans took away half, the Democrats took away every one of the delegates. As a result, Obama, Edwards and Richardson have taken their names off the ballot, while Clinton did not. So, on the Democratic side, there is no contest, though voters may choose to vote "uncommitted." In a curious way, the vote then turns out to be a referendum on Hillary. Her or "uncommitted"?

 

In the first two contests, the candidates could reasonably expect to come into personal contact with a good deal of the electorate. On a good day in Iowa or New Hampshire, they might be seen and heard by 15,000 people or more, and multiply that number by the days they spent in the state, and it compares rather well with the turnout in Iowa and New Hampshire. Fully half of the voters in each state got a first-hand impression of the candidates, and anyone who wanted to do so certainly has the opportunity. A friend of mine in New Hampshire wrote me that he and his wife managed to see Obama three times, Clinton, Richardson, and Edwards twice each, plus McCain and Giuliani.  He decided for Obama, saying, "When we first saw him, a year ago at a book signing event, I was underimpressed. But he grew into his candidacy. His Welcome Back to New Hampshire rally the morning after the Iowa caucus was rocking - and actually very moving." 

The voters in the first two states are the lucky ones, because they can really study the candidates and talk about them based on direct contact. Michigan is another matter, and more typical of the campaign for the presidency from now on. To begin with, there is the sheer scale of the State. Michigan is six times larger than New Hampshire, though about the same size as Iowa. More to the point, Michigan has 10 million inhabitants, more than twice as many as Iowa and New Hampshire put together, and they are not going to get many chances to see the candidates in the six days between primaries, no matter how intensive the campaigning. This means that the candidates will have to use the media to reach the voter, and that fact favors candidates with deep pockets.

Since there is no Democratic contest, we should focus on the Republican side. Huckabee and McCain do not have much money, and they will need to calculate carefully how to use the scarce resources. Huckabee will presumably be mobilizing the churches, as he did in Iowa, and McCain can count on support from veterans organizations. By comparison, Romney has more, and apparently plans to spend heavily.

Not only does Michigan demand more money to run a campaign, but it has a more varied electorate. More than 800,000 people in Michigan do not speak English in their homes, including many of the 400,000 Hispanics. Iowa and New Hampshire basically do not have Black people, which makes Obama's success there almost astonishing. Michigan's 1.4 million African-Americans traditionally vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party. Had there been a three-way contest with Edwards and Clinton, Obama presumably would have received far more than a third of the Black vote. Even more intriguing, Michigan also has a sizable Arab population, more than 400,000 in the Detroit metropolitan area. Dearborn, where Henry Ford once built his largest factory, today is 30% Arab. It seems reasonable to think that because of his cultural background, Obama would have appealed to such voters. But because the Michigan Primary is meaningless for the Democrats, we will never know how Obama might have done. However, the Arab voter is not necessarily a Democrat. The Arab population is better educated and more highly paid than the Michigan average, and half typically vote for the Republicans. This group may choose Romney, rather than the Bible-thumping Huckabee or militant McCain.  

The Republicans will battle it out in a state whose economy has been struggling for decades. Detroit is the headquarters for General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, and as they have lost market share to Japanese and European firms, jobs have been disappearing. This is a blue-collar state, where only one adult in four has a BA (in New Hampshire it was one in three), and where the number of jobs has shrunk 7% during the Bush years, at a time when the country as a whole has created more than 2 million jobs. Given these local hard times, the populism that Edwards brought into the campaign and that other candidates have picked up, should play well in Michigan. That ought to favor Huckabee and McCain more than Romney. Note also that while Detroit dominates Michigan, it has a large rural area as well, and an entire penninsula, Upper Michigan, that has no large cities. This population is less multicultural and more conservative, and it will be interesting to see how Huckabee and McCain do in these areas. Romney's father was once governor of Michigan (and an unsuccessful Presidential candidate), and the resonance of the name, plus old family connections, can only help his faltering campaign. Indeed, the news today is that Romney has pulled his advertising off the air in South Carolina to focus all his energies in Michigan. This seems to be a recognition of the fact that if he cannot win there, his campaign may be over.

The Michigan Primary could have been the dramatic third act of an electoral drama, pitting the Clinton machine with its strong ties to the labor unions against the Obama wave. Instead, it will be a sort of referendum on Clinton by herself, and if half the Democrats are "undecided" that is a kind of defeat for her. At least on the Republican side there is still a contest, and a very interesting one, between Huckabee, McCain, and Romney, who each have around 20% in the average of all polls, with Giuliani running at about 10% and assorted others garnering a few votes, too. If one looks back over the polls for a year, McCain had a high point of 30% back in March of last year, before his finances collapsed and his campaign seemed hopeless. After falling as low as 10%, his numbers are rising rapidly now. Romney peaked at 26% at the same time that McCain waned. But Romney has been fading a bit ever since then, even before his losses in Iowa and New Hampshire. Giuliani once had 28% in Michigan, but he has been falling to his present 10%. Huckabee, in contrast, has not suffered any relapses. Starting at 0% in June of 2007, his numbers have continually risen to his present tie with Romney and McCain.  If the electorate in Michigan is as volatile as that in New Hampshire, the next week should be very interesting.

Iowa Caucuses: Not Clinton, Not Romney, but Obama vs Huckabee?

The Iowa caucuses have spoken. The clear winners are Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama. The clear losers are Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, both of whom spent a lot of time and money in Iowa and came up wanting. She was judged the front runner both in Iowa and nationally until a few weeks ago. But Clinton came in third, slightly behind John Edwards, even though she spent vastly more than Edwards did. It is worth noting that Edwards did slightly worse this time around (30%) than he did in 2004, when he garnered 32%. But Edwards is very much alive, having exceeded polling expectations. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, failed to win, although she had her husband and heavy-weights such as Madelaine Albright at her side.  

Hillary desperately needs to do well in New Hampshire next week, for there is nothing worse in the presidential primary process than losing momentum. Edwards gained some of that last night, while Obama definitively became the front-runner. He is already the most successful Black candidate for the Presidency that the US has ever seen, and he is developing three campaign themes that Americans have always liked: restoring national unity, time for a change, and throwing out the rascals in Washington. What makes his campaign especially interesting is the surge of college students supporting him. Young people do not vote as reliably as older people. But when thousands of them become excited about a candidate, as happened with John Kennedy in 1960 or Eugene McCarthy in 1968 or Bill Clinton in 1992, such students can have a disproportionate influence on the election. For students have more time and energy than most others, and they will throw themselves full time into a campaign they believe in. Will New England's college students also turn out for Obama? If so, that will be a sign that new energies are going to redefine American politics in 2008.

Obama received the same percentage of support (38%) that John Kerry had in 2004. Recall that the front runner before the Iowa caucuses that time was Howard Dean, whose candidacy faded rapidly after his poor showing. This time around the Iowa voters have shown that Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich have virtually no traction with the voters. Together, all of them managed to garner only 3% of the delegates. They are effectively out of the race, which will be further clarified on Tuesday. Should Clinton continue to falter, then it might become a two-man contest between Obama and Edwards.

On the Republican side, the clear winner was Mike Huckabee, the affable Arkansas governor. He is a charming salesman for banning abortion and other conservative causes. The latest avatar of the "compassionate conservatism" that George Bush claimed to represent in the 2000 election, Huckabee garnered passionate support from evangelicals and other religious minded conservatives. They turned out for him and defeated the far more heavily financed Romney campaign. He has lost some momentum, but has a chance to regain it in New Hampshire, which in theory ought to lean his way. After all, Romney was the Republican governor of Massachusetts, which normally votes Democratic, and he evidently knows how to talk to the Yankee voter. By comparison, the Baptist preacher Huckabee with his southern accent will sound like a foreigner in the Granite State.

However, Romney's main opponents in New Hampshire are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani skipped the Iowa caucuses, calculating that he would be better off using his time and money on the later primaries. McCain almost skipped Iowa, but decided to make a partial effort there, once he saw that he might place a respectable third, which he did.  So Romney runs the risk in New Hampshire of coming in second again. In that case, he might be through. For Huckabee showed that Romney cannot excite the conservative religious Republicans, even in Iowa; he would surely appeal to them even less in Alabama. Quite possibly either McCain or Giuliani will demonstrate that Romney is also the second choice among the more secular Republicans.

It is early in the campaign, and almost all the votes are still to be cast. But Iowa has suggested the possibility of a presidential race between a White Baptist preacher and governor from Arkansas and a Black lawyer and Senator from  Illinois. For US politics, that would be an absolute (and polarizing?) contrast in political goals, personality, and values. But if these turn out to be the candidates, then Obama will already occupy the middle of the spectrum, while Huckabee will have to work hard to show he represents more than the evangelicals.

What Does Iowa Mean?

The caucuses in Iowa this week will be the subject of every political reporter in the US, and each of them wants to convince us that the Iowa results are very important. But what exactly do these caucuses mean? To a considerable degree, the result reflects the depth and organization of a politician's local staff. That is why Hilary Clinton has been flying around the state in a helicopter, trying to inspire and energize her people, as well as the more obvious goal of meeting with the public.  Four years ago Kerry did well in Iowa because he inspired a strong local organization. This is one important thing for a candidate, but we found out that Kerry did not run a very good campaign once he got the nomination.  

One of the curious things this year is that Kerry's VP candidate, John Edwards, is running so well. Consider that he failed to deliver a single Southern state to the Democrats, and therefore cost them the election. In 2004, Edwards could not carry his home state, and yet he is considered one of the top three candidates at the moment. 

As of this writing the polls put Edwards in a statistical dead heat with Clinton and Obama, with each getting slightly less than one quarter of the vote.  The problem in Iowa is that knowing who is tied for first is only part of the equation. In the actual caucuses the room is full of people who can, and indeed often must, change their vote, based on the passions and arguments on that night. Iowans are not fickle. Rather, they must assemble at least 15% of the vote in any given hall for a candidate's supporters to be counted at all. So the roughly 30% of the voters who do not want Clinton, Obama, or Edwards all have to switch their votes as the evening progresses. And given the fact that no one has more than 24% of the vote right now, quite possibly in any given meeting one of the leaders will fall short of the 15%.  In other words, Iowa culls out the weaker candidates, and suggests who is acceptable, but it seldom discovers the winner all by itself. The results can surprise, but one should wait to see how voters respond in New Hampshire, where for the first time they use a secret ballot and they have only one chance.

As for the Republicans, things are even more volatile, and my sense is that many voters could change their minds in the next four days or on the night itself. Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney all have such obvious flaws for some Republicans and most Democrats, that one cannot write off Fred Thompson, even if he has run a rather lackluster campaign until now. Overall, based on my extensive conversations with ordinary Americans last week, all of the Republican front runners generate considerable bad vibes among many voters. Giuliani is by no means everyone's hero, and has even been attacked by some members of the New York Fire Department. He has skeletons aplenty that are not well hidden in the closet, both personal and political. For the Southern wing of the GOP, he is too liberal, too soft on abortion, and too divorced. For Northern Republicans, Huckabee is almost a joke, a caricature of the poorly educated Bible-thumping snake oil salesman, who has no international experience at all. Hardly the sort to put in charge as the US faces such a volatile world.  Romney seems to lack principles, flip-flopping on issues. Many people in Massachusetts, where he was governor, really hate the guy. In any case, polls indicate that more than a third of Americans, perhaps as many as 40%, are not ready to vote for a Mormon. In short, the Republicans have a flawed field, and the average voter is not very excited by anyone in the group, nor the group as a whole.  

All these observations aside, my personal preference as of the moment is Obama, who seems to me the brightest of all the candidates. He is a wonderful breath of fresh air. Besides, we have had Yale in the White House continuously since 1988! Twenty years of Yale, and Hilary would just be more Yale. This being a democracy, it is time to give the former editor of the Harvard Law Review a chance.  However, this particular argument will likely have little weight with the Iowa voter. Which is as it should be.