1980 was also the last year an election felt quite like this one. The election looked very close, but there was a sense that the Republican Ronald Reagan had momentum on his side as he seemed hopeful, optimistic and positive about the future, compared to Jimmy Carter, the incumbent. Carter had won in 1976 as an outsider, riding a wave of anti-Washington feelings. Yet, despite some accomplishments like the Camp David Accords, he had to deal with major crises towards the end of his term, especially the Iranian hostage crisis and a recession that included stagflation — inflation during a recession.
Still, Carter was pleased that Reagan bested George Bush in the 1980 primary. Reagan was seen as too far to the right, and too inexperienced. Given the more liberal mode of the country in the 70s, many Democrats thought that simply painting Reagan as “too conservative” and “on the right wing of his party” would be enough to get Americans to avoid voting for the California ex-Governor. Up until the two debated in late October the polls were close. Yet Reagan performed well in the debate and ultimately won the election, which took place on November 4, 1980, in a landslide. The electoral vote count was a stunning 489-49. He won the popular vote by 50 - 41.
Moreover, he had coattails. The Republicans shocked the Democrats by winning 12 seats and taking control of the Senate 53-46. The Democrats lost 35 seats in the House and, though retaining control, a coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats gave Reagan a working majority in the House. Later those southern Democrats would disappear, replaced by southern Republicans. The country, in a word, was realigned. The liberal era of the 70s gave way to a new conservatism.
Could 2008 be another realigning election year? (And if so I have another working hypothesis: every time the Phillies win a world series in a year where Presidential elections take place on November 4…). The signs point that way. In almost all state polls Obama holds a consistent lead, save for states that are solidly GOP. He certainly won’t hit 489 electoral votes, but 400 could be within his reach. A nine point popular vote victory is possible. And the Democrats, though already in control in the House and Senate, could pick up significant numbers of seats. We could be on the verge of the second realignment of my lifetime. If so, I’ve been on the right side of both.
This year I find myself connecting to Barack Obama and his message. We’re about the same age, and have the same pragmatic view that we need to stop all the name calling and take a “cooperate and compromise” approach to solving real problems. I find John McCain’s campaign to be mean spirited and devoid of real ideas.
In 1980 I was in Detroit, Michigan, at the Republican National Convention that nominated Ronald Reagan. I was part of a “youth for Reagan” group, seven of us who came from South Dakota in a van to Ypsilanti, Michigan. We stayed at the dorms of Eastern Michigan University, bussed into the convention every day. I saw Reagan, Bush, and Dole close up. I met Tod Koppel. Then when Reagan got nominated we were on the floor of the convention. We didn’t have security clearance, but the Reagan campaign had us “snuck” down there to show a young crowd celebrating Reagan’s nomination. I was down below the podium with the words “Together a New Beginning” touting Reagan’s message of hope.
It was an amazing experience. In the dorms at EMU, I met some really pretty girls from Maine. I don’t recall their names or where they were from, but I traded them a big “South Dakotans for Reagan” button for a little Maine Lobster that I stuck to my camera case. That camera case with a “Maine” sticker went all over Europe and the US with me over the next 15 years, even though I wouldn’t visit Maine until my job interview at UMF in 1995. The night of the election I was thrilled by the result, coloring in the map red (even though the red/blue labels were not yet in place — it was by coincidence I chose red) as the results came in, and it was clear that it was an historic, landmark election.
Yet that election was also one where I felt my own political views shifting. I was excited about Reagan, but I did something odd on election day. First, I refused to volunteer to help get people to the polls, annoying my very active Republican roommate. I’d been working a lot that summer on the election for the Abdnor campaign for Senate, but now distanced myself. I got in the voting booth, and voted not for Abdnor, but for Senator McGovern, who would lose that day.
Over the next decades my political views would shift. Living for awhile in Italy and learning about the world outside of South Dakota convinced me that I’d been a bit naive in thinking we didn’t need government programs and that everyone could succeed if they just worked hard. I came to understand the power of structural barriers, and the complexity of the issues. Yet I couldn’t be comfortable with the Democrats, who seemed too wedded to big government solutions and deficit spending. Ralph Nader became my favorite politician, he at least seemed to stand on principles.
Principles. That’s why drew people to Ronald Reagan in 1980. The country was in a bad place, and needed a change. Reagan seemed to have something that appealed to people. The Democrats dismissed it as learned lines by an actor. Carter had experience and substance, Reagan was simply a ‘great communicator.’
Now, in 2008, we seem on the verge of another realigning election. The Obama candidacy feels to me a lot like how the Reagan campaign felt in 2008. The Republicans are throwing everything they can at Obama: Wright, Ayres, too liberal, etc. But just as Reagan was the “teflon President,” these attacks seem to slide off Obama. He’s enunciated some core principles and proposals and sticks to his message. People sense in Obama the same thing they sensed in Reagan in 1980: a candidate who looks able to deliver a change the country needs. They sense optimism, pragmatism, and hope.
Of course, I may be wrong. The Republicans say McCain still has a chance to come back, and the polls are close enough that things could change. But just four days before the election this has the feel of something big. I have no idea where Tug McGraw ended up — relief pitchers fade away. But when I heard the Phillies won the series I had a flashback to 1980. Somehow, it feels like we’re in for a big change next Tuesday.
October 30 -Early Voting and Obama’s Ground Game
As a football fan I’ve always thought that a strong ground game wins championships. In politics, it’s absolutely essential. While some people vote all the time as a matter of course, many decide it’s not worth it. If lines are two or three hours long, like they often are, one can make a strong argument that it’s not rational to spend so much time in line when one vote isn’t really going to make or break the election. But if a lot of people make that decision, which is rational at the individual level (one person not voting doesn’t mean others won’t vote too), then low turnout can swing an election. This is known as the ‘collective action’ problem — actions that have negative collective consequences might be rational at the individual level. I get NPR on my radio, it’s not rational for me to pay, the service will be there anyway. But if a lot of people choose not to become members, programming will suffer.
There are two ways out of this bind for voting. First, though, one has to avoid trying to make the argument that it actually is rational at the individual level. Those arguments fail. “What if everyone does that” Answer: My actions don’t affect what others do. “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.” Answer: the First Amendment says I can complain whenever I want. “If you don’t vote, you can’t be part of the decision making progress.” Answer: what is the probability anything I vote on will be decided by one vote? The bottom line: at the level of individual choice, voting is irrational.
The first way out is to emphasize one’s duty. Yes, you’re sacrificing time, but it’s part of being an American. It is how this great country works. This builds a sense of community, ethics, and belonging. If you don’t vote, you’re not really doing what Americans need to do to preserve this great democracy over time. The second way out is to focus on making voting an event. Bus a group to the polls, go with friends, enjoy talking to the people there, have voting be fun. I voted early, but for many of my friends or colleagues, going and voting is a joy.
Both of these methods have traditionally worked better for Republican voters than Democrats, and for older voters rather than younger. There is a huge chunk of the population — rural poor minorities, inner city minorities especially — who feel alienated from the country and its culture. They don’t see a lot of hope in their lives, so standing in long lines to vote makes no sense. They don’t feel that duty, they don’t feel America has earned it from them. Younger voters tend to focus on personal gratification over duty anyway, and generally make the “rational” (in an individual sense) choice. They also aren’t as connected to the ritual and community aspect of voting, so that doesn’t draw them. Pollsters know this, and thus limit their likely voter sample by weighting for age, ethnicity, and voting history.
Back in early September when the polls were suggesting a slight lead for McCain, my view was that Obama was likely to outperform the polls, thanks to his ground game. Although some of the national polls show signs of a slight tightening, the state polls seem to suggest real Obama strength. Given that the contest is really about the states, not overall popular vote, that’s good news for Obama. Yet state polls are far less reliable than national polls, and have shown real fluctuation. For instance, New Hampshire had within a week a poll that showed a 4% Obama lead and a 25% lead (others showed 11% and 18%). So if the national polls tighten more, one can’t take the state polls for granted. How will Obama’s ground game impact the result?
Obama’s ground game looks amazing on paper. He has offices all over the country, an army of volunteers mounting an effort that has Democratic insiders saying they’ve never seen or even imagined anything like this before. He has taken the skills and methods of community organizing and built a national campaign. The long primary fight helped him do it, as it brought him to states where he organized and built alliances while McCain was sitting back and watching Clinton and Obama duke it out. He also has the money due to his record setting fundraising to build a real infrastructure for the get out the vote (GOTV) effort. It has not been tested. But neither was Karl Rove’s targeted and well structured GOTV plan in 2000, and ultimately that’s what won it for George W. Bush — both in 2000 and especially in 2004. This goes far beyond what Rove built, and McCain seems to have a less solid organization that what Rove gave Bush in 2004.
Add to that early voting. Early voting allows your GOTV effort to span weeks rather than to focus it in one day. That creates an advantage for the team with the best GOTV plan. Places like Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Georgia are seeing surges of early voters, and these are states McCain must win to have a chance. Georgia, which had over 3 million voters in 2004, about a quarter of them black, have seen as of the morning of October 29th over 1.4 million early voters, 35% of them black. They are likely to hit a mark that is 2/3 of their total 2004 vote even before election day, meaning lines will be shorter for those who wait. In Florida Republican governor Crist has expanded early voting due to long lines to continue on Sunday, and go from 7 to 7. One Republican grumbled that this kills McCain — a sign that that GOP knows that early voting creates a structural advantage for Obama.
What is striking too is how many voters are waiting hours to vote early. Voting early was designed as a way to reduce election day congestion, but large masses of people are going out and standing in line in a way that completely defies the “individual rationality” point made above. The reason seems to be that voters have a strong sense of enthusiasm to vote. It appears there are a lot more early Democratic voters than Republican, suggesting that Obama has succeeded in making this election feel like an historic event people want to be part of. That means they will be more likely than not to stand in line, and take the time to vote. That means that voter turnout may break records. Moreover, if McCain voters are not as enthused, they might not be as willing to stand in long lines — especially if they feel McCain is going to lose anyway.
This gets me to believe that despite my warnings in the last week that McCain could still pull it off (and he could!), I’d place my bets on an Obama landslide. Gallup has an interesting poll which measures the “traditional likely voter” and an “expanded likely voter.” The traditional likely voter model shows a pretty tight race (Obama up three as of October 29). But given all the early voting and youth voting likely to take place (young people like to be part of something historic), I would bet that the expanded likely voter (Obama up by seven) might actually itself be under representing Obama’s support.
This is only an hypothesis. A race where McCain outperforms the polls will disprove my hypothesis. If Obama performs about as the polls expect (especially the expanded likely voter model from Gallup), then I’ll need to look at whether or not the Democrats picked up a surprising number of Congressional seats to see if voter turn out was a major factor. The Georgia Senate race, for instance, could be telling. I’ve always believed that if the Democrats could find a way to get especially young and minority voters to go to the polls at the same rate or near the same as other demographic groups, it would render major electoral shifts. Obama has done about all anyone can do to try to make it a reality. That makes this election fascinating — it’s the first real test of an hypothesis I’ve held for over 20 years.
October 29 - Obama a Socialist?
Whew. Those are just some of the attacks being made by either John McCain or groups supporting John McCain in the last week of the election. It is the kitchen sink of fear, trying to do all they can to assure that when voters go into the voting booth they decide, “you know, I’m just not sure about Obama…I don’t really like McCain, but he’s safer.” Will it work? We’ll know in less than a week.
First, though, the “socialist” attack is obviously fatally flawed. Socialism as an ideology is for the government to control the means of production, and plan how the economy operates. No candidate advocates that, and even so-called Social Democrats in Europe have abandoned that approach. McCain’s argument seems to be that any government involvement in the economy is socialism. Yet, of course, he’s voted himself for large budgets and a bailout of the US financial system, a piece of legislation that directly gives government ownership and the ability to control to some extent banks and financial institutions.
Both McCain and Obama are fundamentally “liberal” in economics — believers in capitalism, markets, and individual rights. They do differ on what amount of government involvement is necessary to make the system work in a way that provides real opportunity to all Americans, and what kind of governmental programs should exist. That difference is minor; the fight is over about to allocate a relatively small percentage of US government spending.
In some cases, both candidates are extremely free market. Both health care proposals are far more “capitalist” then most of the rest of the industrialized world. Hard core conservatives in Europe almost always support their “socialized” medical systems, seeing it as a part of what should be socialized. In America we’ve socialized protection (police), education (public schools), emergency relief (FEMA), protection of the homeland (military spending), transportation (roads and interstates), and a large variety of other things that the public thinks needs to be provided to all. Europeans, left and right, tend to put health care in that list, Americans resist. But this does not make the system socialist.
Socialism is NOT about government spending, it’s about the way in which the economy functions. If goods are allocated and prices set primarily by markets, then you have a market economy. Go to a local shopping mall and it’s clear markets dominate. Government involvement in fundamental economic activity is rare, and usually involves things like health regulations (e.g., the market is pretty bad at protecting people from unsafe products or dangerous foodstuffs), the environment, and other areas where the market is not considered able to achieve the public good.
One can argue for or against the level and type of regulation on some market activities. Should food have labels disclosing its nutritional content? Many believe that regulation helps the market function better, because it increases consumer information, and one of the reasons free markets don’t work on their own is that information is not only imperfect, but often pretty bad. It’s not just that people don’t take the work to know, but on many factors they can’t know, the information isn’t out there. The level and sort of regulation is a political issue. But regulations are not socialist, they simply set ground rules for how markets operate.
But, of course, this is an election year, and the McCain campaign is losing. They also see that they are not outside striking distance, if they can only find a way to move the polls a few points. At this point, it’s too late to make a positive case for McCain and Palin. Palin has dragged the ticket, and news within the GOP is a story of division and disagreement. Therefore, there is only one strategy possible: go negative hard.
The robo-calls make claims like “Obama has a domestic terrorist as an associate” or follow scripts so bad that people working at telemarketers (in states that don’t allow recorded calls) making these calls often walk off the job. Also, many sabotage the calls by talking in a way that is hardly understandable and clearly without enthusiasm. In states where recorded versions are allowed, they sound nasty and scary. Almost everyone says they don’t like these calls, but they are used because the goal is not to create a message where someone says “gee, that call is right, I’ll vote McCain.” Rather, they want to plant a seed of doubt in peoples’ mind that might push them away from Obama once they get in the voting booth.
Nothing is off limits. A 2001 interview about the civil rights movement is twisted to make it sound like Obama wanted the Supreme Court to “redistribute the wealth.” That’s absurd, the McCain camp knows it, but the lawyer speak Obama used in that interview can be framed in a way that McCain can interpret it as he wants. A quip about “spread the wealth” gets grabbed to create the narrative that Obama wants to “redistribute” to “spread the wealth” and is thus “socialist.”
All of this is trash. It’s dishonest. It ties into subthemes of race and questions about how “American” Obama really is. It competes with viral e-mails accusing Obama of ties to Hamas and other radical groups. But that’s American politics these days. Whether Obama wins or loses, the McCain campaign will be remembered as one of the most nasty and negative of all campaigns in recent history. That is a bit unfair, in that Obama has vastly outspent McCain, meaning he could mix a positive and negative message. But McCain’s recent robo-calls and scare ads slip into the gutter. And it may work.
I tend to think, though, McCain may end up doing the GOP more harm than good. Not only does negative campaigning usually not work unless combined with a strong positive message, but given the distrust Americans have in the Republican ability to run the economy, charging “socialism” may not sound so bad to a lot of people. The Cold War is in the distant past, and the idea that there are “communists” out there wanting to take over the country is a fear from an earlier age. That was a mid-20th century fear, one that doesn’t resonate well today. Also, the time to effectively define an opponent is early in the campaign; it’s a bit late to change a lot of minds.
But we really don’t know. For the next six days we’ll see a steady assault on Obama with one goal: ignite fear that Obama is a risky choice. It could backfire on McCain by looking his campaign look desperate and shrill. It could win enough votes to get McCain to 270 electoral votes. It will be a very ugly week. If Obama wins as expected, he will have to work quickly to convince those who oppose him and believe the attacks that they have nothing to fear from an Obama administration. If McCain wins, he’ll have to work hard for reconciliation because Democrats and Obama supporters will have a hard time forgiving such tactics and, to be blunt, campaign dishonesty. In each case, the next President will face severe challenges. Not only will he have to deal with Iraq, Afghanistan and the world’s financial crisis, but also with the fallout from an historic, but intensely emotional, campaign.