Here's my current take: It looks like McCain has late-closing momentum with some Pennsylvania polls narrowing to a handful of points; McCain also has some momentum in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia. I do think that McCain will benefit more as undecideds break on the election, because they will likely view McCain as the safer, more experienced choice. That is, if they still had serious questions about Obama by this time, it's likely the results will reflect that. I think I need to see some national polls within the margin of error, say 3%, e.g., Obama 47 McCain 44, to believe that McCain has a shot at a 1948 Truman-like surge.
Right now I think it's unlikely McCain will pull it out; my Maryland vote will be easily trumped in a heavily Democratic state. For one thing, we don't see any late McCain move that could resonate with the voters leaving Obama with little opportunity to counter it. (Kerry is convinced that Osama bin Laden's untimely message just before the 2004 election tipped the election to Bush.) I was halfway hoping we would see something the equivalent to the infamous LBJ "Daisy" spot (which was used to frighten voters over the prospect of a nuke-bombing Goldwater), where we see a mushroom cloud, with a deep voice saying "Over the next 8 years, new nations, possibly Iran, will join the nuclear arms race. In these dangerous times, we need an experienced, steady hand at the wheel--McCain." I also think a reprise of the Hillary Clinton 3AM call would have been in order.
I've seen some reports that maybe 1 out of 7 votes are flexible. If true, McCain has a shot. He has made some headway with Obama's unforced error, the "spread the wealth around" kerfuffle, and the almost comical shifting tax increase floor by Obama, Biden, and Richardson.
However, I'm seeing enough national polls with Obama at above 50% (only one poll, a Zogby, giving McCain a 1% lead) and only an occasional McCain lead in a battleground state that it would would take an even more profound upset than what Truman achieved in 1948 for McCain to pull this out. I would need to see some "wild card", maybe an international crisis, some unexpectedly good news on the economics end (e.g., a huge day on Wall Street), the US takes out Osama bin Laden, or (heaven forbid) an assassination attempt by some fanatics on one of members of the Democratic ticket. (In terms of the latter: I'm sure the Secret Service is on the job and I don't expect any such nightmare scenario. But suppose, for instance, Joe Biden was critically injured. Would he be replaced? If so, by whom? Voters really wouldn't have time to vet the change, so there would be an enormous amount of uncertainty, especially since the Democrats have promoted Biden as being the experienced anchor of the ticket.) However, the fact is that the McCain team seems strategically inept, misplaying the Ayers connection and seeming only to discover the redistributionist part of Obama's agenda because Obama walked up to Joe the Plumber's driveway.
I would have even put an ironic twist on a contentious issue. Imagine if John McCain looked straight into the camera and said, in an incredulous tone, "A tax cut? For people who don't pay any taxes? You know what I call earmarks, government goodies and handouts for which Obama is writing a check on your grandkids' backs? Pork. A pig wearing lipstick is still a pig. Here's Obama promising a chicken in every pot, everything he thinks you want to hear, anything to get your vote--promises you know he'll never keep. Aren't you tired of politicians doing that? Isn't that more of the same?"
I don't think anyone in the McCain campaign is reading my blog, but if so, you might want to read my "Advanced Peek at Post-Election Analysis" section below.
The Bradley Effect?
And it is possible that there is a so-called "Bradley effect" (when black Democrat former Los Angeles Mayor Bradley lost the gubernatorial race to Republican Deukmejian, despite a nearly double-digit poll lead in 1982) or the blip in New Hampshire's Democratic primary when Hillary Clinton won despite a huge lead by Obama in the polls. I would prefer the term "social desirability" effect, e.g., some whites might want the pollster to believe they are enlightened enough to vote for a black man for President, but will actually vote for another candidate for other (not necessarily racist) issues. I'm not going to comment on the race question, but I suspect it will be a factor for some white and some black voters. For instance, early in the campaign, Hillary Clinton was largely outpolling Obama among blacks, my guess largely to the affection of many blacks to Bill Clinton's tenure as President and to a perception of Obama's narrow experience. I believe that the dynamic totally changed with Bill Clinton's ill-considered "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen" remark, which many blacks took as a personal shot at a politically ambitious black man.
There is no doubt there is certain ethnic/cultural pride in play, just as heavily-Mormon Utah cast a gravity-defying 89.5% of votes for fellow Mormon Mitt Romney in the Republican primary (McCain was second with just over 5%). Similarly we are now seeing over 90% of blacks voting for Obama, the first politically viable black candidate for President, in probably the largest black turnout ever for a Presidential election. We are not seeing over 90% of whites voting for McCain. With almost every national poll showing Obama pulling 45% or better--a multiple of the percentage of blacks nationally, attributing any McCain upset to racism would be unconscionable, especially since Obama has had far more money and organization to beat McCain under conditions heavily favoring any Democrat--including the last quarter with an economic contraction and a financial tsunami, not to mention a deeply unpopular Republican President. No, if Obama loses, it will have more to do with his inexperience and inability to close the sale.
However, Hillary Clinton did not consistently score actual/poll discrepancies on a consistent basis. Plus, Obama has a formidable ground operation and superior finances.
Advanced Peek at Post-Election Analysis
--McCain Missed the Major Campaign Theme: SECURITY
Security is on several levels: personal/home security, job security, economic security, health care security, financial security, social security, and national security. In a time of economic insecurity, McCain gave little reassurance beyond not forcing retired people to make mandatory withdrawals during periods when stock prices have collapsed. I think prospective solutions are beyond the scope of this post, but, for example, suppose we established or guaranteed a federal Hardship Loan, say, for newly unemployed household heads where matched amounts could be applied to living expenses (mortgage, utilities, moving, insurance, etc.) For health care, we could establish market-based individual/small group cooperatives and risk pools (for preexisting conditions). These concepts are an example of a theme discussed below ("Tangible Benefits for the Lower/Middle-Class").
--Republicans Have Not Found a Good Response to Predictable Attacks
The Democrats ALWAYS run a fearmongering campaign on social security. (I would like for once for a Republican to question one of these Democrats demagoguing "gambling" in equity investments whether they themselves own any stocks or mutual funds or whether pension funds are "gambling" in equities.) Class warfare. The environment.
It is beyond the scope of this post to provide a definitive response to a problem the GOP has largely ignored or feebly responded to for the last several election cycles.
First, I would argue the social security issue as one of empowerment, fairness and flexible options, just as you have your choice of brands in a store; point out the return on US Treasury bills relative to equity returns over time. We should argue you'll always have the option to invest in Treasuries--but we empower lower/middle-income taxpayers with more options, as richer people do, to invest, not as some government bureaucrat decides, but as you decide, just as you now control your family spending and investment.
Second, I would call for a referendum on the New Deal and Great Society: Have these government programs worked as intended? Why do we still have failing schools with large attrition rates, single-parent families, tough neighborhoods, etc.? We look at other countries whom have invested less in education, health care, etc. The issue has more to do with ineffective government programs, and we need to rethink market-based alternatives.
Third, I think the Democrats to some extent are a loose coalition of special-interest groups, some of which have intrinsically incompatible differences; e.g., coal miners and environmentalists. Many groups, e.g., minorities and Catholics, identify more with the social conservatism of the Republican Party. There are some obvious divide-and-conquer tactics that could be utilized.
--Need for a Coherent Strategic Campaign Focusing on the Middle Class
One of the things one cannot deny is the Obama campaign, despite an inferior candidate, was brilliantly organized, funded, and executed. McCain should have realized when Obama, who generally underperformed against Hillary Clinton in most primaries, dominated caucuses where he got the lion's share of delegates; even when Clinton won a primary, proportional delegate rules put her at a competitive disadvantage. Even with legendary Republican get-out-the-votes, there's no doubt that Democrats have used early voting to lock in votes, particularly in targeted Obama-friendly segments like young adults and minorities.
The fact is that McCain is running himself ragged having to defend Red States which should not even be in play except Obama has bought himself market share by saturating the airwaves with virtually no GOP response. Other than Pennsylvania, McCain is trying hard simply to hold George Bush's 2004 states, while Obama is trying to buy his way into other states, including McCain's own Arizona, sort of rubbing salt in the wound.
But even though Obama has been running a campaign mostly focusing on change from the Bush/Republican years and running down the economy, exploiting the current chaos for political gain, the McCain team has run a rather confused campaign focusing on seemingly disjointed messages about pigs wearing lipstick, Ayers, sex education for kindergarteners, Paris Hilton, etc. I know the idea is to identify Obama as an extremist--the problems is that Obama is able to manipulate the media and can come across as even-tempered, measured, reasonable, etc. Even though there were substantive reasons behind the critique, the fact is McCain let Obama recharacterize the scenario in a way that benefited him. For example, Obama explained what was meant about sex education for kindergarteners was "inappropriate touching"; that's a misleading characterization of the actual bill.
McCain repeatedly let Obama say things without seeming to challenge the assertions, e.g., his tax plan was better than McCain's for the middle class. Obama constantly repeated the same for weeks before someone finally understood we were talking about tax credits to people not paying income taxes. Any time McCain talked about budgets and earmarks, Obama would shoot back that earmarks make up a trivial portion of the national budget. Any time McCain talked about Obama not taking on his own party and interest groups, Obama would encounter by talking about merit pay for teachers, tort reform, etc. On the other hand, Obama often made claims that McCain never seemed prepared to respond to, e.g., McCain was 4 more years of Bush economic policy, McCain was calling for huge giveaways to oil companies (i.e., modifying the highest business income tax rate). For example, McCain should have responded that by increasing taxes on job creators, Obama was repeating the same mistake as Herbert Hoover and possibly turning a recession into a depression. On the other hand, cutting business and individual taxes during the JFK/LBJ term resulted greater economic growth and lower deficits. As for Obama's demagoguery on oil company profits, point out those companies are paying record taxes, too. The issue is having oil companies in the US paying taxes comparable to international oil companies and having an incentive to further explore and produce new domestic energy supplies, in the process adding good-paying American jobs and reducing our reliance on volatile, unfriendly suppliers.
--Negative Attacks Need to be Retooled
Let's take for a starting point the McCain's campaign which has focused large on Ayers and earlier primary campaign focuses on Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger. Obama has been largely able to foil off these ties by co-opting or lowkeying them, e.g., in the case of Ayers, note that other politicians and businessmen have also had casual relationships with him, or denying he had knowledge of Wright's more controversial sermons. There were more direct ways to challenge Obama's integrity with his professed idealism, e.g., the fact that he is sending his own daughters to private school, the fact that he got a sweetheart deal on a mansion and its financing in an upscale Chicago neighborhood, away from those neighborhood he sought to organize, or the fact that his fairly low charity contributions (about 1% as a liberal Illinois state senator).
It's interesting to note these excerpts from philanthropy.com: "Sen. John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee, in 2007 reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity...Sen. Obama, and his wife, Michelle, donated $240,000 in 2007, or about 5.7 percent of the couple’s $4.2-million in reported income...Senator Biden, the Democratic nominee for vice president, claimed $995 in charitable gifts in 2007 on the joint return with his wife. That figure is 0.3 percent of the couple’s claimed income of nearly $320,000. The 2007 contributions were significantly higher than the couple’s gifts in previous years, which ranged from $120 to $380." It should be noted that McCain's income is separate from his wife, a heiress and executive for a large beer distributorship (McCain signed a prenuptial agreement). I've cited before Albert C. Brooks' Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism where conservatives, although making somewhat less overall, gave more, donated more blood, and volunteered more time than liberals. The big difference is that liberals seem to want to bureaucratize social economics in order of their preferred special interests.
I think there is a case to be made that Barack Obama is low-keying suspect relationships and engaging in a number of thin, sham excuses. But the McCain campaign doesn't seem to be addressing, as the 2004 Bush campaign did, Obama's more notorious flip-flops, e.g., on the second amendment (after supporting a total handgun ban in DC), FISA, and windfall profits on Big Oil (after supporting the 2005 Energy Bill, with Big Oil subsidies).
--The Republican Election Themes Need to be Revamped
I think we need to retool the basic message. Take, for example, taxes. John McCain got completely outmaneuvered on the tax cut issue and past populist statements he made against the 2001 tax cut. First of all, the GOP did not have the votes to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. The tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. The Democrats don't even have to vote to raise the upper tax bracket back up to 39.6%; it will happen if they simply run out the clock with all polls showing with Democrats cementing a lock with increased numbers in both Houses of Congress. So McCain was saddled with the baggage of supporting a tax cut for the upper two tax brackets, far above the median household income. Even if McCain had a lock on the upper 5% (and we know billionaire Warren Buffett and Hollywood heavyweights have drunk the Obama Koolaid), it's difficult to get much sympathy for the upper 5% whom will see their income tax rate go up just under 5%. McCain needs to argue there are good reasons for keeping rates low, e.g., the effects on job creation. And he needs to point out the absurdity of the Obama's carrot-and-stick approach to job creation while increasing tax rates.
Second, McCain found that Barack Obama met him on the Bush lower level tax cuts and raised him additional goodies (plus is promising goodies to the 40% of working Americans not paying income tax). Now McCain could have said that Obama is pulling a rerun of the 1992 Clinton bait-and-switch "middle-class tax cut", writing a check he knows the Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans will never let him cash; that Obama, after the financial bailout, has held firm on his commitment for over $800B in fresh program spending, his social economic giveaways to non-taxpayers, and paying lip service to the budget deficit. McCain should have said, "Barack Obama must have learned some of that new math being taught in our failing public schools..."
But McCain didn't do as effective a job as I would have liked linking Obama's ethanol subsidies to food inflation, and linking Democratic resistance to nuclear power plants and domestic energy exploration and production (and with them, many good-paying middle-class jobs) to higher import energy costs. One could argue the difference of NOMINAL taxes and REAL taxes, including the failure to rein in spending, a trade deficit, and loose monetary policy. In addition, McCain is not doing a good enough job framing implicit costs (really, implicit taxes) associated with government reporting requirements and other mandates on business.
I believe that future campaigns must go beyond hanging tough on 2001 tax brackets. We have to do more than pay lip service to balanced budgets. A deteriorating dollar builds inflationary pressures (such as the increasing price of commodities), which serve as an implicit regressive tax. I believe in future campaigns we'll need to discuss: (1) simpler, flat flat systems as advocated by politicians such as Forbes and Huckabee; (2) spending, including the need for improved performance criteria (e.g., if a major bank can give us our current checking or investment account to the penny, why don't the same criteria work for employer validation of social security numbers?), doing away from budget-plus government funding, business reprocessing, including streamlining redundant functionality across government, business-standard cost containment features and best practices implementation across government, and whiteboxing any period-ending transactions/funding requests; (3) bipartisan task forces for addressing our chronic operational deficits and trade deficits.
In addition, I would like the Republican Party to explicitly address the need for ideological diversity. I believe in the long run we will not be able to grow the party, particularly with respect to ethnic diversity if we are seen as antagonistic to immigrants, and although I am pro-life, I think we should show more accommodation of sincerely-held pro-choice views of fine patriots and leaders like Rudy Giuliani and Colin Powell.
If Republicans learn anything from a prospective Obama victory, it's this: tone and respectfulness make a difference to voters. Voters not yet recognizing Obama's narcissism and his deliberately manipulative, phony image are buying into his disingenuous post-partisan rhetoric. I remember being one of the lone conservatives defending John McCain during the runup to the Florida primary, seeing him savagely attacked by Ann Coulter and other media conservatives for his heresies of providing bipartisan leadership to tax cuts, campaign finance and immigration reform; Ann Coulter was claiming she would support Hillary Clinton, whom along with Obama is rated below 10% lifetime (7.7%) by the American Conservative Union, vs. John McCain (82.2%). Now, to be honest, there is reason in Ann's madness; Ann and others are rooting for the Democrats to sweep the elections, overplay their hand, and give way to a new age of Reaganesque Republican conservatism, purged of "Republicans-in-Name-Only" like John McCain, Susan Collins, and Rudy Giuliani. What Ann does not recognize is that's a Pyrrhic victory. Former California Governor Pete Wilson and the 2007 Immigration Reform Bill, which died, have created huge problems in promoting ethnic diversity in the Party of Lincoln. Hispanic American Catholics and Christians are natural constituents to the GOP's social conservatism message and the work ethic; Asian Americans are particularly receptive to small business concerns, academic excellence and traditional American values of duty, honor, and country.
I would also like to see a more focused, market-based, problem-solving approaches to resolving issues, such as urban decay and a vicious poverty cycle. Jack Kemp made a great start in terms of tax-advantaged enterprise zones. One of the shocking revelations of the general government failure in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was the exposure of desperately poor people left behind, with nursing homes unevacuated, school buses unoccupied and flooded out, private companies like WalMart, willing and able, blocked from providing relief services, and President Bush, who provided strong leadership in the aftermath of 9/11, deferring to dysfunctional local and state leaders, whom had not executed an evacuation plan, instead of taking direct charge of the situation and then infamously caught on camera, saying in front of an incredulous nation, "You're doing a great job, Brownie." We need to work on what I'll term the American Renaissance Project
--The GOP Cannot Allow Major Allegations to be Unanswered
I will have to parse all the debates and campaign speeches, but I was silently fuming that McCain was consistently letting Obama get away with repeating that 95% of working Americans would receive tax cuts, when 40% pay no income taxes. Obama constantly charged that workers with health insurance company would be pay higher taxes under McCain's plan.
--Tangible Benefits for the Lower/Middle Class
I don't think that the Republican Party can afford to be viewed as catering to the propertied class and Big Business. I think ultimately we need to be able to explain and show to American citizens our ability to deliver services in ways they can see and measure. Let me provide some examples (not intended to be exhaustive) of the point I'm trying to get across:
- communication closure in an emergency situation: in the event of a national catastrophe of the like of 9/11, we must provide a centralized interface where victims and/or displaced people and loved ones can post location and contact information
- fully, adequately staffed food and drug safety staffing
- an omsbudsman function for investigating and resolving veteran (especially disabled veteran) medical issues and complaints, bureaucratic issues with paperwork, employer National Service compliance issues (e.g., returning to civilian life from an Iraq tour), etc.
- improved status queries and turnaround on deliverables, e.g., tax refunds and passports
- online tutorials and taxpayer-friend Internet application processes for applying for national service registration, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, food stamps, and other services
- improved methods for communicating positions on issues and upcoming votes to one's Congressman or Senators
