Using Bush’s playbook
"Karl Rove politics" aren't quite dead: Obama's strategy in 2012 will mirror W's in 2004
By Thomas F. Schaller
George W. Bush and Barack Obama (Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing) Barack Obama’s presidency was born from nothing so much as his repudiation of George W. Bush’s administration — its policies and politics, its style and tone. One of Obama’s most effective 2008 stump speech refrains was his promise to end the era of “Scooter Libby justice, ‘Brownie’ incompetence and Karl Rove politics.”
But the political dynamics for winning a second presidential term often differ markedly from winning the first. So don’t be surprised by many eerie parallels between Obama’s 2012 reelection bid and Bush’s 2004 campaign. The president may not rely upon “Karl Rove politics” in the strictest sense, and nobody would confuse David Axelrod with Rove. But Obama’s reelection route and rhetoric may bear more than a few Rovian hallmarks.
Now that Mitt Romney has won the Republican nomination, two key features prevail over the 2012 campaign — and both were also plainly evident in 2004. First, the incumbent president’s reelection fortunes are far from certain; and, second, the incumbent faces a decent but nevertheless weak challenger who is further hampered by internal problems within his party’s coalition.
Because incumbents can’t run for reelection promising “change,” and because “hope” during a lingering recession was also off the menu, the Obama campaign’s 2012 theme of “forward” — a word that often follows “plow,” mind you — was the best available alternative. That said, and substituting the economy for terrorism, Obama is implicitly if not explicitly advancing the same theme Bush did in 2004: America suffered a tough blow, but the situation could have been worse and, more to the point, under my stewardship the nation is steadily regaining its footing.
This counterfactual campaign theme — vote for me not because of what happened, but what might have but didn’t — is a common thread for Bush and Obama. It’s not an uplifting message, but it sufficed in 2004 and Obama is counting on it working again in 2012.
Politics 101 further dictates that when an incumbent’s reelection is in doubt, he must go negative against the challenger. Obama political operatives in the White House and at the Democratic National Committee long ago made it abundantly clear they were willing to do just that. Team Obama may not go negative against Romney to the degree the Bush camp did against John Kerry in 2004. (By mid-summer 2004, 75 percent of Bush’s TV ads were negative attacks on Kerry.) But don’t be surprised if attacks on Romney’s record and even character are plentiful, harsh and relentless. In 2008, America saw candidate Obama’s toothy grin; four years later, expect to see President Obama’s fangs.
Expect the Obama camp to emphasize two major critiques of Romney: that he is a flip-flopper willing to say anything or reverse any position to win; and that he is an economic royalist whose personal and public life suggest a person incapable of understanding the lives and struggles of average Americans. Again — note the unusual parallels with 2004.
Although Romney is a Republican former governor and Kerry was at the time his state’s Democratic junior U.S. senator, the two Massachusetts pols make for similar targets. Each man is an extraordinarily rich preppie and Ivy Leaguer. Each represents the liberal wing of his respective party. Each has shown a propensity for ruining an otherwise valid point with sloppy, backfiring language. And each has a reputation for lacking political spine.
The flip-flop frame is candidate character assassination of the first order. Like the lone negative number in a string of multiplied positives, the critique that nobody can trust any statement or claim made by a politician has the potential to negate every accomplishment or promise. If it sticks, it can be fatal, as Kerry learned in 2004.
Obama and the Democratic National Committee know their electoral history and, sure enough, last November — a year before the election and two full months before a single Iowan had caucused — the DNC released a four-minute “Mitt vs. Mitt” ad and its accompanying website with the damning tag line, “the story of two men trapped in one body.” The site is a brilliant homage to the Bush campaign’s 2004 windsurfer attack ad and the devastating, 11-minute ad the Republican National Committee produced chronicling Kerry’s “evolution” on Iraq.
And then there is what might be called “the Willard factor”: Romney as Richy Rich, the Monopoly Guy with the Bain Capital background and the Swiss bank account. His bio would be political gold to Romney’s opponent any election cycle, but it’s gold-plated platinum in the first full presidential campaign following the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the long overdue national debate over income inequality.
Again, the wealth-personified line of attack mirrors the out-of-touch, Martha’s Vineyard yoke the Bush team put around Kerry’s neck in 2004. Right on cue, in the first public event of his reelection campaign, last week Obama attacked Romney by name and invoked the economic disconnect card with relish. “He sincerely believes that if CEOs and wealthy investors like him make money the rest of us will automatically prosper as well,” said Obama of Romney, adding that “corporations aren’t people – -people are people.” (For the record, Kerry is actually wealthier than Romney, who would become one of the richest men ever to occupy the White House, should he win.)
Obama will also try to shift the national debate toward areas of strength, as Bush did. Historically, this meant the same strategy, but with inverse implications for each party: The so-called mommy party Democrats would encourage voters to focus on more favorable kitchen-table economy issues — healthcare, jobs, education — and away from less favorable “daddy party” Republican issues surrounding foreign wars abroad and culture wars. Because Obama is net-positive in foreign policy approval and net-negative on the economy, rather than mirroring by inversion, Obama will try to duplicate Bush’s shift-in-emphasis in 2004. GOP complaints that Obama is politicizing the killing of Osama bin Laden reveal Republican fears that Obama is going to play the terrorism card in 2012 just like Bush did eight years ago.
The 2004 parallels extend beyond message. Obama will be amply resourced and enjoy a field technology by virtue of his campaign’s state-of-the-art Web, donor, volunteer and social media innovations. Remember the Bush reelection campaign’s vaunted “72-hour” voter turnout model? That seems like an Edsel compared to the Ferrari the Obama team will be sporting this summer and fall. Among the perquisites modern presidential incumbents enjoy is the option to test-drive the best mobilization machines before anyone else.
Finally, what most connects Obama 2012 to Bush 2004 is the stability of the electoral map itself. Only three states — two net to Bush — flipped from one party to the other between 2000 and 2004; only nine states flipped between 2004 and 2008. Split the difference and a good, back-of-the-napkin over-under for number of states likely to flip between 2008 and 2012 is six. And thus, like the lead sailboat during a windless race, Obama doesn’t need or want conditions to change much from 2008: He merely has to replicate the map that swept him into office, with the burden of figuring out how to shake up the Electoral College falling to Romney, just as it did for Kerry against Bush. Even Karl Rove’s mapping of the 2012 election concedes this reality.
The 2008 election was memorable; to borrow the title of one best-selling chronicle, it was a “game changer.” But 2012 will not be. In many respects, it will be a game repeater, with Obama playing Bush to Romney’s Kerry of 2004. The president may be asking Americans to look “forward” in 2012, but the best preview of his reelection campaign can be found by looking backward eight years.
A big November ahead for Senate Democrats
Three experts tell Salon that the party may expand its Senate majority by half a dozen seats, but they also think at least one Democratic incumbent is vulnerable.
By Thomas F. Schaller
To listen to a podcast of the roundtable, click here.
To subscribe: Click here to add Conversations to iTunes or cut and paste the URL into your podcasting software:
In the second of two Salon conversations forecasting the November congressional elections, three experts share their opinions about the prospects for Democratic gains in the Senate. Jennifer Duffy is senior editor of the Cook Political Report, where she covers U.S. Senate and governor races. Since 2001, Nathan Gonzales has been political editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter covering U.S. House, Senate and gubernatorial campaigns. Amy Walter is editor of the Hotline, the premier daily news digest of Washington politics. They spoke to Salon by phone.
Thomas Schaller: I want to welcome everybody to Salon’s conversation. Before discussing this fall’s election, let’s go back one cycle to provide some context. In 2006, the Democrats captured both chambers of Congress in the same cycle for the first time since 1954, and if you don’t count the Jim Jeffords switch of 2001, they recaptured the Senate for the first time since 1986. Did the 2006 Senate results in fact rate along with those earlier cycles, ’86 and ’54 for the Democrats or, say, 1994 and 1980 for the Republicans, as a certifiable tectonic year, why or why not?
Jennifer Duffy: I think it is comparable to ’86 in a lot of ways and even ’94, which was obviously a Republican year. It was a sentiment that had been building literally for almost two years since Bush’s reelection in 2004, where the environment for Republicans was just awful. The problem for Republicans is that not only has it not gotten better, it’s probably gotten worse.
Nathan Gonzales: 2006 is comparable just because of the six seats changing hands. I think that’s [among the] top five partisan switches since World War II. But it’s also amazing that now we’re talking about Democrats having another good cycle and the potential to gain more seats. The shift we’re seeing isn’t just one cycle; we’re seeing this cover two cycles.
Amy Walter: To add to that, two of these states that are now in the presidential battleground for some of us for the first time ever, for others of us for the first time in a long time, Virginia and Colorado, I think are there in part because of the fact that these were two big wins for Democrats. Certainly in Virginia last year with Jim Webb, it’s gotten folks to talk about the state as really potentially becoming blue again. You ask the question about tectonic shifts, the suggestion being that we’re not simply trading chairs for a while until the next party comes in and picks those seats up. We got back to parity here — Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Minnesota, places that are blue, picked up Democrats. But to have a place like Virginia pick up a Democrat was also a very important story.
Schaller: You’re saying that some of the underlying environmental dynamics of 2006 are still here in terms of the partisan advantage arguably for the Democrats and possibly even worse because the Democrats are defending very few seats this time and the Republicans are defending far more seats. Is there any chance that the Republicans recapture the Senate? Does anybody want to take a chance at playing devil’s advocate here and advance any sort of scenario where the Republicans recapture the Senate?
Walter: No.
Duffy: Absolutely not.
Walter: Can I be more emphatic?
Gonzales: No, the reason is, it’s not just the playing field itself, it’s the three Republican open seats in Virginia, New Mexico and Colorado that really make it impossible for Republicans to gain seats. And they really have one opportunity and that’s Mary Landrieu in Louisiana. It’s impossible to see a scenario where Republicans net seats in the Senate.
Schaller: The party money between the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, there’s not as big an imbalance there as on the House side, but [DSCC chairman] Chuck Schumer is crushing it again, right? How much of a factor is that?
Duffy: It is an enormous factor because Republicans are just not going to have the kind of resources they need to go support the incumbents they have that are in trouble, whereas the Democrats will not only be able to help their challengers — and we’ve seen already these ads they have up in Oregon against Gordon Smith that feature their own candidate, Jeff Merkley — we see that they’ve reserved media time in places like North Carolina. But they can also further expand the playing field; they can take some risks at the end if they want to. Republicans just won’t be in that position at all.
Walter: It’s literally just triage. At some point, we’ll get to the point where we’ll say, “Where’s the firewall here for Republicans?” If we’re just going to assume that Democrats are plus three, plus four, right off the bat, OK, what’s the next state where the Republicans are going to put that money, take whatever limited resources they have and just shovel it into a couple of races and be willing to say, even potentially to incumbents, we can’t prop you up, we have to put this money in places we can win? That’s going to be a very tough call.
Schaller: Let’s turn to some specific states. There are some interesting races this cycle. There are a lot of open seats Republicans are defending, including two in the Southwest. If you had to pick someone who is an incumbent running for reelection, who is the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent and the most vulnerable Republican?
Walter: It’s pretty easy. I doubt we’ll disagree that Mary Landrieu [of Louisiana] is No. 1 for Democrats and that John Sununu is the top most vulnerable Republican incumbent.
Schaller: Is there any disagreement there, Jennifer and Nathan?
Duffy: Not at all. Mary Landrieu is No. 1 through 5. She’s it. There is a long drop between her and anyone else that would be considered.
Schaller: Who would be the next most vulnerable, or is it not even worth discussing?
Duffy: It’s not even worth discussing. I still have Tim Johnson in South Dakota rated as a likely Democrat only because I want to remind myself that he isn’t back to 100 percent since his brain surgery and there is some potential to be a slip out there, but I don’t expect it. I just keep it there as a reminder to myself.
Schaller: Nathan, do you have anyone on the radar besides Mary Landrieu?
Gonzales: Not on the Democratic side.
Schaller: What about on the Republican side? After Sununu, if I told you by some miracle the Republicans staved off the Democrats and only lost two seats, and we assume Sununu is one, who’s the other one?
Walter: I’d go with Ted Stevens in Alaska as the second most vulnerable. You just have a political environment in the state right now where ethics issues are front and center. It’s a very good environment for someone who’s not been part of the Republican establishment, especially the Washington establishment, as long as Stevens has. We’ve seen some polling from there that shows a very tough race for him, and on the money front he’s doing OK; he has twice as much money in the bank, but it’s nowhere near the kind of cash that some of these other incumbents who are in trouble have.
Gonzales: I think after John Sununu in New Hampshire there is a whole second tier that it becomes a little bit more difficult to delineate. Norm Coleman in Minnesota, Gordon Smith in Oregon, Ted Stevens in Alaska, Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, appointed Sen. Roger Wicker in Mississippi. I think Amy’s right: Because of the ethical cloud and the investigation surrounding Ted Stevens, it brings a very Republican state into play. There’s been only one Democrat in the last 30 years that’s gotten over 50 percent in Alaska. But as we saw in 2006, in both the House and the Senate, the one thing that can bring red-state states or districts into play for Democrats is ethics. And that’s what we’re seeing in Alaska.
Schaller: Let’s follow up on that Alaska seat. Tell me a little bit about this Democratic challenger. His name is Mark Begich. What makes him a formidable candidate?
Duffy: Mark Begich is the mayor of Anchorage. That gives him some statewide name I.D. He’s kind of a business-oriented Democrat. He’s had a very successful tenure as mayor. He’s a very young guy, so there’s a great contrast with Stevens. He’s very pro-environment; he is also a big advocate of drilling in ANWR, because in Alaska, that’s not an environmental issue, that’s actually a jobs issue. He is sort of talking the Democratic message about doing things differently in Washington. It’s an inexpensive state, he has been raising the money, so that all makes him competitive. Democrats are pretty happy with him as their candidate.
Schaller: By inexpensive, you mean that this is a place where Chuck Schumer can get a lot of mileage out of the next dollar he has over the Republicans?
Duffy: Oh, absolutely. This is a state where a million dollars goes a long, long way.
Schaller: So he’s a certifiable, legitimate challenger? He’s a good candidate, Nathan, not just because Stevens is in trouble?
Gonzales: He would be a good candidate even if Stevens didn’t have the ethical stuff surrounding him, but I think he’s in a position to win because of the ethics stuff.
Schaller: Let’s move west to east, since we’re already out in Alaska. Let’s move to Oregon, where some people, certainly Oregon Democrats, are licking their chops. I see a new Rasmussen poll showing the Democratic nominee Jeff Merkley is basically neck and neck with Republican Gordon Smith, who has tried to moderate and distance himself from George Bush. Amy, is this a tossup race? Can Merkley win it?
Walter: It’s interesting because for a while here this was considered a tossup race simply because you have a very blue state in a very bad year for Republicans. And even though Gordon Smith’s profile suggests he’s a very good fit for this state, the environment may just make that a moot point. But then you started to see this race starting to move more toward Smith, as Democrats struggled here to find a candidate. Merkley took a while to get his sea legs; he didn’t have a particularly strong primary win. And his fundraising had been really slow. Now we hit the second quarter and he has more money in the bank, even though a big chunk of that was his own money. Gordon Smith’s biggest asset here continues to be the cash advantage that he has. He’s been up on TV for quite some time. He’s spent over $2 million and has, what, over $5 million left to spend. So the question here, and we saw this in 2006, you can spend all the money in the world, but when you’re running against a very tough climate, that is not always enough. If Merkley wins here, it’ll be that sort of bellwether contest. How did we know this really was a bad year? We’ll say, well, we have Gordon Smith, who’s not running as a Bush Republican, in fact he’s running as an Obama Republican actually, and if he loses to an underfunded Democrat, it really is because of the environment.
Schaller: Jennifer, do you see it that way? Is this one of the tipping-point races that could take this from a decent year to a great year for the Democrats?
Duffy: In a lot of ways I do, because I really don’t think that Jeff Merkley is Gordon Smith’s problem as much as the political climate is. I don’t think Merkley is a particularly good candidate; he comes across as very awkward and he speaks in talking points, but that may not matter in a cycle like this. So I think Oregon is a very good test case for just how big this wave can get.
Schaller: Do you think Gordon Smith has sufficiently distanced himself from the Republican brand nationally to hold on?
Gonzales: Gordon Smith still has a narrow advantage in the race, and there’s just a lack of polling and numbers so far to know how effective he’s been thus far in positioning himself. I think as the race goes on there will be more public polling, more credible polling, that we can look at to see where he’s positioned, but Oregon will be an indicator that if Democrats win they’ve moved beyond the initial three, four seats, and are marching much further in Republican territory.
Schaller: Let’s fly down to the Rockies. There are Mormon cousins running in two Southwestern states. You’ve got representatives Mark and Tom Udall vying for the open seats respectively in Colorado and New Mexico, made available by the retirements of Wayne Allard and Pete Domenici. If I told you it’s Wednesday, Nov. 5, the day after the election, and there’s one Sen. Udall and one failed Udall candidate, who is the Sen. Udall most likely to win in those two states?
Duffy: That’s an easy one. That’d be Tom Udall in New Mexico. I moved that race today to leaning Democratic. The Republican, Congressmen Steve Pearce, really starts this race as the underdog and probably does not have the time or the means to catch up in an environment like this.
Walter: Totally agree. I would argue that it’s more likely than not that [both Udalls] end up serving together.
Gonzales: The most likely scenario is that they both win. I think that Tom Udall is running a great campaign. His ads are particularly good in my opinion, but the only case I can make to, be the contrarian, [is] that because of the Democratic attacks and the amount of information they have against Bob Schaffer, former congressman, who’s the Republican nominee in Colorado, I wonder if Steve Pearce has a better chance in New Mexico because he isn’t saddled with some of the baggage that Democrats are going after Schaffer with.
Schaller: Idaho became interesting this year because of Larry Craig and his personal problems in the Minneapolis airport. You’ve got Republican [Lt. Gov.] Jim Risch running there and a Democrat that some left-wing, net-roots blogger types like a lot, Larry LaRocco. Is this in the category of Gordon Smith or is this even further out — if you have a megawave, then you take Idaho too?
Walter: I would say is there an Armageddon here. Because that’s the tier it would be in. Idaho is sort of fascinating, I don’t want to diminish it too much. There was a time when Democrats competed here and it was not all that long ago; there was a time when Democrats actually got elected here. For a time in the ’90s and the early 2000s, Democrats really tried to take out people like [Helen] Chenoweth, they tried for the open seat with Richard Stalling — you know, old-time Democrats. Larry LaRocco, again, old-time Democrat. Used to hold the seat. But the state has changed dramatically. Democrats may actually have a shot in one of the [House] districts, Bill Sali sort of following in the footsteps of Chenoweth as a very controversial candidate, but not as well organized as Chenoweth, and he doesn’t have the base of support like she did. That’s a place where maybe Democrats win because of Republican problems. But it takes a lot of problems for a Republican to lose here.
Duffy: If they get Idaho, you’re talking more than 60 seats. You’re probably in the 64, 65 range. Having said that, there are some interesting dynamics in play. LaRocco is a very, very aggressive candidate; Risch is not so much and has not been running that type of campaign. In fact, his campaign concerns a lot of Republicans [in] that he doesn’t realize that he’s playing in a different sphere now. But the more interesting thing is a third-party candidate who is really running against Risch because he has a personal issue with him; he and LaRocco have kind of ganged up on the lieutenant governor. So that’s producing some interesting things.
Schaller: Let’s move east from Idaho, and eventually you run into Minnesota, where we have former comedian Al Franken running there against Norm Coleman. I don’t know what the status of the Jesse Ventura controversy is, but can one of you update me on whether he’s running and whether that will matter and how that race will play out?
Duffy: The filing deadline closed on Tuesday [July 15] and Ventura decided not to run. He said on “Larry King” Monday night that if between Monday night and Tuesday at 5 o’clock, if God told him to run, he’d file, but apparently God decided not to render an opinion. I think this is one of the bright spots for Republicans if there is such a thing for them in this state. Franken has come under fire for a number of things: for failing to pay taxes, for failing to carry workmen’s compensation insurance, for a Playboy article he wrote in 2000, which angered some Democratic women in the state, including Betty McCollum. So you’re seeing the drip, drip, drip that Republicans have always talked about here and promises of more to come. I’m not sure how Franken gets out from under this.
Schaller: How strong is Coleman looking to you, Nathan?
Gonzales: This went from a tossup race in my mind to Coleman having the advantage. Part of it is because of Franken’s hurdles or walls, depending on how you want to view his problems. There will be an independent on the ballot, Dean Barkley. He’s a former senator, he was for two months following the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone. For voters who are dissatisfied with the job Norm Coleman is doing in Washington, they now have two options. Dean Barkley is not going to win, but if it’s close and he takes a couple of percentage points, it could make the difference.
Walter: I agree with what has been said. Now, Franken has raised a good deal of money but he is nowhere near Norm Coleman’s cash on hand, which I think is now over $7 million. Getting to parity is not going to be possible. This is another one of the places we talk about the DSCC, the NRSC money disparity. It’s good news for the NRSC; for the DSCC, they’re going to have to decide too, do we go in now, try to soften Coleman up, give some cover to Franken and see if we can push this race a little bit? Given the environment, this is one of those states that should be in play. It is quite remarkable that we’re lumping in a category below some of these other races we’ve talked about, including Alaska and Mississippi. It is far from over, but either Franken or the Democrats are going to have start playing some offense here.
Schaller: Let’s talk about the South. You’ve got one race there in Mississippi that is in the category of not impossible but an outside shot for the Democrats, and I assume that Mark Warner running is considered a lock at this point. So two completely different Southern races at this point — let’s talk about Virginia and Mississippi.
Gonzales: I don’t think that there’s any doubt in our minds that Mark Warner will be the next senator from Virginia. Just when you think Jim Gilmore can’t run a worse campaign, he manages to outdo himself. I think Virginia could even become a problem for Republicans outside the state, because now the DSCC is not going to have to spend one dime on Virginia. And it’s an expensive state with the Washington, D.C., media market, and now they can go play in any number of less expensive states. For Mississippi, this is one of two Mississippi races. Thad Cochran is a heavy favorite for reelection, but since Trent Lott resigned, Gov. Haley Barbour appointed Roger Wicker, and now he’s facing former Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove. Musgrove lost reelection to Barbour in 2003, but maybe his standing has improved somewhat, or maybe people don’t remember all the way back to 2003, but Musgrove starts with high name I.D. and this is a real race.
Duffy: There are a couple of other reasons this is a race other than Musgrove’s high name I.D. This is going to be one of those races where we see if there is an Obama effect, if Obama does bring out a record number of African-American votes. And if he does that, he makes Musgrove’s road a little bit easier. He’d only have to get something along the line of 24-25 percent of the white vote, which, by the way, is a little harder than it sounds, but it is not impossible. The one advantage that Wicker does have right now is money. He has outraised Musgrove pretty significantly. He has been on the air now for the last month or so trying to build that name I.D. It looks like he’s going to get some help from Cochran and former Sen. Lott. This is not a race that’s over, but just as an incumbent, he starts as the underdog.
Walter: That’s a really interesting point about the Obama factor and the black and white turnout. There’s not party identification on the ballot [in Mississippi]. Virginia is the same way. If you look at polls where they identified the parties of the two candidates, you see Wicker doing better. But if we’re also assuming that black turnout is going to rise significantly, and that you’re going to get new voters or folks that haven’t been a part of the process in a long time into voting booths, I’m curious what that means for Musgrove too — instead of [people] voting for Obama and then going down and voting for anyone that has a “D” after their name, that’s just not possible.
Gonzales: If I could throw in a historical tidbit: Since 1948, there have been 23 times where a state has had both of their Senate seats up for grabs, and 20 of those times it went for the same party. The road is still tough for Musgrove.
Schaller: So Cochran helps Wicker because their names are side by side?
Gonzales: Historically, voters aren’t necessarily picking between the two Senate seats. But there are different factors involved in all these races.
Schaller: Finally, most of you identified John Sununu as the single most vulnerable Republican incumbent, up in New Hampshire. Is there any scenario [in which] he holds on against former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in that race, or is he just a victim of the demographic changes that are turning New Hampshire blue almost overnight?
Walter: It’s a couple of things. Part of it is the environment, but you have some demographic changes in the state. Remember, this is a very transient place, much more so than, say, Maine. Another interesting state we haven’t talked about: Susan Collins, who has been pretty well ahead in her race against Tom Allen. Maine is obviously much less transient, so much so it may actually lose a seat in redistricting, but I digress. You have New Hampshire, not so much. Getting known in New Hampshire is a little bit more difficult even for an incumbent. And you also have all sorts of new people moving in, many of whom are identifying as independent and [are] more moderate leaning [than] in the past. And Sununu, unlike someone like Gordon Smith, hasn’t spent a whole lot of time trying to distance himself from Bush and highlight his independent credentials. Again, in a year like this, that’s just not a great place to be.
Duffy: I don’t think this is an entirely lost cause for Sununu. There are some ways he can win. He did beat Jeanne Shaheen in 2002. One of the things that helps him a little bit here is John McCain — whether or not he carries New Hampshire, he’s going to do pretty well there and that probably works to Sununu’s benefit. Most Democrats I talk to in the state say this is probably going to be a closer race than the polls indicate now, but I still put the thumb on the scale for Shaheen. It’s not New Mexico and it’s sure not Virginia.
Gonzales: Sen. Sununu starts behind, even though we haven’t ramped up and reached the Labor Day point in the race where some voters really start to get engaged. He starts behind in a very difficult environment and that’s one key thing we’ve already talked about that’s very different than in 2002 when he did defeat Shaheen. Sen. Sununu has a plan reminding people what went wrong under Jeanne Shaheen when she was governor. He hopes to benefit from John McCain at the top of the ticket, but ultimately, I don’t know if his reelection is under his control. He has more money than she does, he’s going to run a tough race. But I think he might be in a similar position to Jim Talent in Missouri last cycle. who I think lost because of President Bush, not because of what he had done.
Schaller: Jennifer very astutely noted that in Mississippi there’s a potential down-ballot effect from Obama, and maybe in New Hampshire there could be a potential down-ballot effect from McCain. So I’d like to pull the lens back from these state-by-state races and ask you this question. Many of the key Senate races are in swing states for the presidential contest. In fact, five we’ve already talked about — Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Oregon — are all among the 12 states that were decided by fewer than 5 points in the 2004 presidential race between George Bush and John Kerry. Of course, many pundits, including our panelists here, are putting Virginia and even Alaska on Barack Obama’s possible pickup list — especially Virginia. How much will presidential politicking and money brought in from the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee and Barack Obama and John McCain affect these Senate races, if at all, and which races will it affect?
Walter: I think what’s happening here first and foremost is you have the Obama campaign turning out at a higher level folks who haven’t traditionally turned out. Obviously, [there's] the focus on Hispanic registration and turnout. But we also noted that in a place like Colorado where the Udall campaign is distinguishing itself simply because the Republican has a lot of his own baggage, Mark Udall is already coming into a contest with some advantages thanks to his opponent.
Duffy: In some ways I think this is a chicken-and-egg question. In all of these states, Republicans are hurting because of the bad environment. Which came first, the Obama campaign, or did the bad environment sort of help the Obama campaign? I don’t know if there’s an answer to that. There’s a lot we don’t know about this election in terms of who’s going to turn out. It looks like Republicans are starting to wake up and participate. Do they do it in any kind of meaningful numbers? This is going to be one of those elections that are going to teach us a lot that we may never get to use again. I’ve sort of gone by the motto of approaching it by forgetting everything I know.
Schaller: Let me rephrase the question then. Maybe the question is, obviously, there are a lot of Republicans who do not want Bush campaigning in their state. Are there any Democrats who are perhaps wary of having Obama in their state or Republicans that would be wary of having John McCain in their state, where he could perhaps could hurt them?
Duffy: This is one of the things Republicans did right and it was purely an accident. They nominated the one candidate running for the GOP nomination who hurts absolutely no Republican Senate incumbent or challenger. If you’re a moderate like Susan Collins, you can run with him on some issues and disagree with him on others. Conservatives like Lindsey Graham can certainly run with him. So he isn’t going to be a liability for anybody. I actually haven’t heard any Democrats say they would decline an invitation from Obama to come to the state and campaign with them. But he hasn’t done a lot of that yet.
Gonzales: Like Jennifer said, I think we just don’t know. I think the public image of John McCain and Barack Obama will be different in October and early November from what it is today. I don’t know if it’ll necessarily be for the better or worse for either of them, I just think it will be different and we don’t know then how that will affect the ballot. If you take a state like Alaska, I think Mark Begich could benefit from the better organization and enthusiasm from Democrats. But I don’t expect Barack Obama to win Alaska; if he’s winning Alaska he’s probably won 48 other states. Losing Ted Stevens is going to be the least of Republican worries at that point. I think that even though it seems like the presidential race has been going on for years, we still have a long way to go.
Schaller: Enough with the preliminaries. It’s feet-to-the-fire time for our panelists. I’m going to stipulate all the caveats — lots can change, both at the candidate level and perhaps even at the national environmental level — but I would like to ask each of you to give me your best estimate. It’s Wednesday after the election. What’s the net gain or loss for the Democratic Party this November in the Senate races?
Walter: Do you want a number or range?
Schaller: Why don’t you give me a range.
Walter: I think five to seven is the range right now.
Gonzales: I’ll throw out two different numbers instead of a range. I think the Democratic floor is four seats. I think it’ll be four seats or something closer to eight or nine, and I say that because if it’s four seats, then Democrats sort of won the seats we expected them to win today, and some of these vulnerable Republican incumbents ended up hanging on. But if the environment continues to be poor, then I think you’re going to see a lot of these close races break for the Democrats, and that’s why I think you’re going to see even better Democratic numbers.
Duffy: I’m on the record at five to seven. I think six months ago when people talked to me about eight or nine, I laughed. I don’t laugh at that anymore. I don’t think it’s going to happen, but it’s not outside the realm of possibilities. And as for my range of five to seven, I’d only expect it to go up, not down. If Democrats only win four seats in November, that’s probably a huge moral victory for Republicans.
Schaller: You can see that in all three of those scenarios, the average is six. So the smart person’s money in the November election is to bet on plus six. I’d like to thank our panelists again.
How big will Democratic gains be this fall?
A panel of experts projects the number of seats Democrats will add in the House in November -- and which Democrats are most likely to lose their jobs.
By Thomas F. Schaller
To listen to a podcast of the roundtable, click here.
To subscribe: Click here to add Conversations to iTunes or cut and paste the URL into your podcasting software:
In the first of two Salon conversations forecasting the November congressional elections, three experts — Stu Rothenberg, Tim Sahd and David Wasserman — share their opinions about the prospects for Democratic gains in the House. For two decades, Rothenberg has been editor and publisher of the Rothenberg Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter covering House, Senate and gubernatorial campaigns as well as the race for the presidency. Sahd is the editor of House Race Hotline, a daily update on congressional political campaigns. Wasserman is the House editor of the Cook Political Report, a publication providing analysis of presidential, Senate, House and gubernatorial races. They spoke to Salon by phone. (A separate round table about the Senate will be published later this week.)
Thomas Schaller: Welcome to you all. I recently spoke with Democratic Congressional Campaign chairman Chris Van Hollen, who in a bit of expectations game playing pointed out that after a “wave” election, the party that benefited from that wave historically loses net seats in the House in the next cycle. I wondered if you guys think that the 30-seat gain for the Democrats’ last cycle was a wave election. And in your view, whether you think it was a wave election or not, is it likely or unlikely that the Democrats can put together another back-to-back cycle with a double-digit seat gain in November? We’ll start with Stu.
Stu Rothenberg: Yes, I think the last election was a wave election. It was about a national theme, which is change and throw the guys who are in out, and this benefited the Democrats. I think frankly, we are in a very similar environment. If anything, the president’s numbers have deteriorated. The Republican brand, I hate to use that phrase because it’s now become too commonplace, but the Republican Party’s reputation has been eroded further. I think Democrats still have the advantage of being the change party. Given that, we are either in an extended 2006 election cycle which has gone into 2007 and the first half of 2008, or we are in a new cycle and an identical one. I think it can produce Democratic gains in the double digits.
Schaller: Tim, is this the second ripple of that wave or is it going to quell this time around?
Tim Sahd: Oh no, I agree with Stu: 2006 was by any definition a wave. And 2008, things are looking worse. If you look at the generic ballot, Democrats are up 15, 18 points in some polls. Things are looking worse or about the same for Republicans as they did in 2006. That doesn’t seem to be quelling. That doesn’t mean that Democrats are going to see a 30-seat pickup. The dynamics this year are a bit different in that they have to hold some seats. It won’t be a 30-seat pickup, but that doesn’t mean that the environment isn’t as bad for Republicans as it was in 2006.
David Wasserman: As usual, Stu and Tim are right. I think when we look at the 2008 House elections and compare them to the previous elections, sure 2008 is a presidential year, but the environment looks a lot more like 2006 than 2004. In 2004, last time we had a top-of-the-ticket presidential race, we were only paying attention to possibly 40 to 50 congressional elections. This time around we’re paying attention to I’d say somewhere between 70 and 100. But I think if there has been change between the 2006 and 2008 environments, it’s that the unpopularity of the president and the war has seeped like an inkblot into some of the redder districts across the country.
Schaller: Let me follow this up with Stu and Tim. Are there really more districts in play this cycle than last cycle, even though I don’t see anyone calling for a 30-seat pickup?
Rothenberg: Right now, we have about 65 races on our list of races in play. I think David is correct about the numbers. We have races that we’re watching that are not on our list at the moment because we don’t see the Democrat actually having a chance to win. We see Democrats having a chance in a bunch of other districts to close the gap significantly. But we’re watching at least another 20 races. We’re watching 85 or 90 races. I don’t expect Democratic gains to be that big. I think Tim was right when he said that 30 seats seems like quite a stretch.
But you have to put everything in context. The Republicans are down now to around 200 seats, they’ve already lost a lot of the marginal seats they once held, Democratic seats they once held. There isn’t a lot of fat left. It’s going to be a good Democratic year. The question: Is it going to be a really memorable Democratic year, a great Democratic year? How good is good? I think the Democrats have succeeded in recruiting candidates in districts that we haven’t seen as being even competitive or marginally competitive for many years. I think the Democrats have done a terrific job putting additional seats in play.
Sahd: I’ll just say that there are some races that the media has picked up on that would be in places where we certainly wouldn’t have thought, heading into this year, would be anywhere in play. And they still might not be. But the fact that the Democrats have put them on the radar means that the Republicans have to defend and the incumbent has to raise a lot of money. Then you’ve got the by-product of Democrats thinking that this year they were going to have to defend a lot of their seats in Republican-held territory early in the cycle. And they went out and opened the playing field up and went out to places where we normally don’t see Democrats playing well. Like in South Florida or with Tom Finney [in central Florida]. They’ve successfully expanded the playing field and don’t have to worry a lot about their incumbents being knocked off.
Schaller: A big part of this open playing field is literally open seats and a lot of Republican retirements. It’s commonplace after a change of control for the new minority party to see people who have been thinking about retiring finally retire because it’s less sexy to be in the minority. How much, in terms of the trouble for Republicans, how much of the trouble is just trying to find bodies and money to fill these open-seat races?
Wasserman: I think the biggest problem for House Republicans is definitely retirement. It’s an even bigger problem than finance for them, which is another disastrous situation. But put yourself in House Republican shoes for a minute. Just about every time you thought things couldn’t get any worse this year, they have. First, take a look at the special elections, but the string of retirements kept getting worse as well. For example, in New York’s 13th District, when Vito Fossella admitted to an extramarital affair that led to an illegitimate child, following a DUI, the replacement candidate died. This is sort of a tragic situation for Republicans. It puts an exclamation point on the woes that they have. If you look at the numbers in 1994 and 1996, I think it’s instructive to the open-seat situation this year. Republicans scored actually a net gain of six seats in the 1996 election on open seats [since many Democrats retired after Republicans won control of the House in the 1994 election]. Of course, [the Republicans] lost seats overall, but it’s sort of like [the Democrats] received a card on a board game that said, “Take six steps back before you can actually move forward.” I think the same is true for House Republicans this year.
Sahd: That’s exactly right. These open seats are the bane of the NRCC’s existence at this point. Those seats are the ones everyone is watching this year. Of those couple dozen seats that are open, there are like 18 or 17 or 16 that are highly competitive or at least could be potentially competitive that Republicans actually may have to think about defending. With their finances the way they are, that’s not the place they need to be. Now, they’ve recruited some good [candidates]. Despite their recruitment problems elsewhere, they’ve recruited some really good [candidates] in some of these open seats who have been able to raise a good amount of money, so that’s going for them, but they still have to deal with these open seats, a lot of them in very marginal districts that aren’t looking too good for them right now.
Rothenberg: I agree, certainly, when you look at some of these Republican open seats — Tom Davis in Virginia, Fossella’s seat in New York as well, Tom Reynolds’ seat in upstate New York, the Renzi open seat in Arizona, the McCrery open seat in Louisiana — the Republicans really struggled in a lot of these districts to recruit candidates. And when they finally, at the end of the recruiting process, got a candidate, they’ve gotten maybe a businessman who doesn’t have an established political base, doesn’t have demonstrated vote-getting ability: somebody, who in November may do well, may turn out to be a good candidate, but is a huge question mark, and in other places we don’t even know if they’ve done that well. I think these open seats are a huge problem. It is still difficult to defeat an incumbent. Last year a number of incumbents went down because of the wave, and this year I expect some incumbents to be defeated. But it’s hard to get a really big year without picking up seats in open seats. The Democrats have a terrific opportunity here. If you look on the other side of the ledger, in terms of Republican opportunities with open seats, there are some conservative districts that are going to be open this time that the fundamentals give Republicans a chance … Bud Cramer’s district in Alabama, for example. But they don’t have the type of open-seat opportunities that the Democrats do.
Schaller:I was looking at the end-of-May cash on hand for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, and it’s 7 to 1. Now “cash on hand” can be misleading sometimes because you could have invested a lot of money, but I don’t think the NRCC have raised nearly what the Democrats have raised. How much of the Democratic advantage is just pure cold hard cash?
Sahd: I think we’ve seen that in the list the DCCC put out about media buys: $35 million for 31 seats. Now a lot of that could have been showmanship, but it shows you … Republicans have $7 million on hand right now, Democrats are going out and spending and reserving time, $35 million worth in 31 districts. That shows you the huge problems Republicans are going to have. Places like, these metropolitan districts in metropolitan areas, like Chris Shays’ in Connecticut or Mark Kirk’s in Illinois. Those places Republicans have spent a lot of money traditionally in holding those seats. That costs millions of dollars to successfully go in there and go on broadcast TV and stuff like that. I don’t think they’re going to be able to play as much in those districts in 2008 because of that short end they have on the financial side.
Wasserman: I think the money gap does two things fundamentally: There’s no denying it’s hurt Republican recruitment. It is intimidating for a Republican looking at running a race, especially if you’re running in an open seat where candidates tend to be less well-defined. The second thing is it’s enabled Democrats to target races outside a normal orbit of targets. Democrats are thinking big about the playing field, and one of the reasons that they can — and have any shred of credibility when they discuss these raises — is that they do have this financial edge that really gives them the megaphone. I think the question here is to what extent the Republican National Committee or Freedom’s Watch or any other outside group is going to be able to bail out the NRCC à la Freddie Mac.
Schaller: Van Hollen and his people have said to me they’re worried about Freedom’s Watch. Is that just moaning and complaining, or is there a legitimate threat that Freedom’s Watch could bring the Republicans some sort of parity with the outside money?
Wasserman: We’ve been hearing this for months now from the [Democrats] that Republican 527s are going to come in with big dollars, they’ll come in late and change the nature of the game. I’m really skeptical of that. Look, there are 527s, they will participate, they will be a factor. Some of this what you’re getting is professional paranoia from campaign strategists. It’s their job to worry about what’s around the next corner. There is certainly Republican money out there and 527s and Freedom’s Watch and business groups. Some of the concern is legitimate, and some of it is an effort to raise more Democratic money. To try to manage expectations. I think the Democrats do have and will have a significant financial advantage.
I think one big question that we haven’t mentioned is sometimes you get a slew of late-breaking races. Do the Democrats hold some of this money until October 15th to see whether in the final two, three weeks of the election cycle, there are five or six races that develop and that they hit? Do they splurge early and try to make these races? There are some tactical and strategic decisions that they have to make. But I think there’s no doubt that the financial advantage is real and it may well be important, and the question is how much money the Republicans will raise in their outside groups. We just don’t know the answer yet.
Schaller: Now the 2008 election cycle has actually already given us three results, and the Democrats have won all three special elections, including in some tough districts — two in the South and one in, amazingly enough, former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert’s old seat. A lot of people want to extrapolate from that and say, “See, that’s an early warning that it’s going to be a great cycle for the Democrats.” Are these really indicators of what’s to come, or are they exceptions?
Wasserman: I think a lot of the hype after the final special-election victory in Mississippi was simply hype. I think turnout in November as opposed to any special elections will be universal rather than unilateral. Keep in mind that special elections place a high emphasis on the quality of the candidate because it tends to be the only race on the ballot. In all three of these districts, Republicans emerged really battered and bruised from their primaries. Now do I think these losses are a big problem for Republicans? Yes. Because they’ve exposed a winning formula for Democrats, which is to run, in the case of the two Southern races, [candidates] who are socially conservative and are able to take advantage of splits in the Republican Party. I’ll be very curious to see whether Democrats can hold on to those two seats in the South in November in an election in which they’ll have to win plenty of votes from McCain supporters.
Rothenberg: I think it’s very dangerous to read into specials. The three together remind us that the public’s mood still favors change and it’s easier for Democrats to talk about change. All things being equal, the Democrat has the advantage of the change message. But I think in at least two of these cases you had very specific factors. In the Mississippi and Illinois specials, you had divided Republican parties, where the eventual Republican nominee had a lot of enemies within the party. And in Louisiana you had a disastrous Republican nominee who probably couldn’t have gotten elected dogcatcher. So I think Democrats deserve to feel good about the results, use them for fundraising and other recruitment and mobilization, but I’d be careful about projecting from those three wins to the size of the Democratic win in November.
Schaller: Let’s go around the horn and each of you give me an answer to a three-part question. First, tell me one or two Democratic incumbents you think could lose. And then, two: one or two Republicans who you think are most likely to lose in November. And then finally, give me what I’m calling the J.D. Hayworth pick, which is an incumbent or two from either party who most of the country isn’t paying attention to right now who might lose. And this could be a Democrat or a Republican. Someone who we wake up Wednesday after the election and can’t believe he or she lost.
Rothenberg: A Democrat who might lose, just to give you one: I think Nick Lampson in Texas’ 22nd Congressional District, won on a mega, mega super-duper fluke. This is the former Tom DeLay open seat. And I think he’ll have a hard time beating Pete Olson, who is a credible enough candidate. If you’re a credible Republican and you still have a pulse and you don’t have a long prison record, you probably ought to win in Texas 22. I think Don Cazayoux in Louisiana’s 6th District, this is one of the three special election victories we just mentioned, I think he is now going to face a very credible Republican state legislator in a pretty good Republican district. And then if I was to pick a long-term Democratic candidate who should watch his or her behind, there are a number of freshmen I could mention too, but I’ll just throw out a different kind of candidate, and that would be Paul Kanjorski in Pennsylvania’s 11th in the northeastern part of the state. I’d worry. He’s running against Lou Barletta, the mayor of Hazleton, big on anti-immigration issues. I was just up in that part of the state — Kanjorski is doing some advertising already, an interesting indication that he acknowledges some vulnerability.
Wasserman: I agree with Stu, I think Nick Lampson is the most endangered Democratic incumbent. He represents a district that is the most Republican out of the 30 seats the Democrats picked up in 2006 and that district is simply a political minefield for Democrats, especially one with as liberal a voting record as Nick Lampson, who served a much more Democratic district in the 1990s up until 2004. If I had to take a look at other Democrats who are vulnerable, I think you can make the case that Chris Carney, Nancy Boyda, Carol Shea-Porter, Steve Kagen, these are all Democrats who could face a really serious race. I think Democrats are going to have to lose a few seats this time. And those are all freshmen I mentioned.
If we had to look at a few Republican incumbents who are in real trouble, I tend to think that Tim Walberg in Michigan and Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado are really vulnerable incumbents. If we had say nine columns on our chart, as opposed to seven columns, I would consider Tim Walberg, or Marilyn Musgrave or Don Young, who faces a competitive primary, but if he were to make it through, is more vulnerable than guys like Steve Chabot or Chris Shays, but just the climate puts them all in serious danger. And then if I had to pick a Republican who people are not paying a lot of attention to right now but could be in trouble, I would tend to look at Republicans who have not had a tough race in a while and are really going to have to produce real campaigns to survive this year. And I’m not suggesting that people like Bill English or Sam Graves will lose this year, but I think they will face competitive races. Tom Feeney is another one.
Sahd: I’d agree with David on who he picks for Republicans. They would be more the ones who are causing themselves their own problems. In 2006, a lot of Republicans lost not because they sat in bad districts but because they were their own worst enemies. And the ones that prepared themselves, like Chris Shays or Mark Kirk, they hung on. This time, people like Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado and Tim Walberg in Michigan, those are the ones. Marilyn Musgrave is raising the money but she’s also trying to change her profile and her image. I don’t know how well that’s going over. But in a district the Democrats claim is not as socially conservative as Musgrave is –and they have a great candidate, Betsy Markey — I think this could be the year Musgrave loses in a year where Democrats and Barack Obama are going to be heavily targeting Colorado.
Rothenberg: Musgrave, Kuhl in New York, Robin Hayes in North Carolina. The Phil English race in Pennsylvania is a good example of someone who’s been relatively safe over the years. I can remember when I first came to Washington, we always paid attention to Phil English in that northwestern Pennsylvania congressional district, Erie stretching south, but over the past decade that we’ve pretty much taken it for granted that Phil English was going to be reelected. He’s got a real race this time.
Schaller: In 2006, we had Heath Shuler, sort of a celebrity, former University of Tennessee and not-so-great Redskins quarterback: ran and won as a Democratic freshman from North Carolina. And then George Clooney’s dad ran and lost in Kentucky before that. And of course we’ve had former actors and former football players run for Congress in many elections. Are there any interesting biographies out there, people who are not incumbents obviously, as congressional candidates this cycle?
Sahd: In Alabama’s 5th District, there’s an open seat, where state Sen. Parker Griffith is running to take over the district of Bud Cramer, who’s retiring. He’s another one of those socially conservative Democrats. He’s a state senator but he’s also a funeral director.
Wasserman: I would add that on top of being a funeral director, he’s also an oncologist and has his own radio station, so talk about a jack-of-all-trades. He could add Congress to his résumé and it’d be on the second or third page. If you had to take a look at some really interesting biographies, I’d pick out perhaps a couple Democrats with stories to tell, such as Ashwin Madia in Minnesota’s open 3rd District, who is only 30, I believe, and came back from Iraq and is formerly a Republican and served as the president of the student body at the University of Minnesota. His parents came to America with, I think he said, $19 in their pocket. It’s a sort of a by-the-bootstraps story, but he’s someone with a profile that’s compelling.
Schaller: Where is his family from, what’s his ethnic background?
Wasserman: He’s Indian. And he’s a Democrat. And then if you head to Illinois’ 8th District, there’s a candidate on the Republican side. Steven Greenberg is a Jewish former minor-league hockey player who’s running, and his campaign has sort of stalled for the last couple months, but if he gets his act together and decides that he wants to contribute a lot of his own money into the race, he could still make things interesting. But I think a lot of people have already written off that contest.
Rothenberg: I think the two general categories we’re seeing are lots of repeat candidates, so on the Republican side you have John Gard in Wisconsin, you have Melissa Hart in Pennsylvania 4. And on the Democratic side, my goodness, we’ve got a lot of people who have run before, whether it’s Mary Jo Kilroy in the open seat in Ohio or Darcy Burner in Washington. And then you have a number of mayors and state legislators, which leads me to the second category: Democrats are making a major effort with this one profile of socially moderate candidates who are trying to inoculate themselves against charges that they’re too liberal, too far left. They’re running as cultural moderates. Pro-guns, often pro-life, but at least not easily identifiable as knee-jerk liberals. I think the Democrats have done a really good job recruiting those kind of candidates too.
Schaller: Let’s move on and talk about two candidates who everybody knows about, the presidential nominees. One of you alluded earlier to Colorado about potential down-ballot effects. Obviously, the presidential race isn’t really run in all 50 states. How much of an effect, down ballot, will either Barack Obama or John McCain have, if they do have one, and what will that effect be?
Wasserman: I think that’s the $64 million question of congressional elections this year. If we take a look at sort of the localized effects that the presidential race could have, there are places in a lot of districts where Democrats are going to have to perform better than Barack Obama if they want to win, including a lot of freshman Democrats. I think a challenge for them is really going to be walking that tightrope and negotiating their support for the Democratic nominee with the needs of their own district and the desires of their constituents. In some other places, the likelihood of a Barack Obama wave really puts Republican incumbents in danger. As we get closer to the election, we can expect the races in Illinois 10, Mark Kirk, Connecticut 4, Chris Shays, and some other districts, to really more closely track the standing of the presidential election in those districts. I think those races are likely to tighten, and those Republican incumbents will need to outperform John McCain by say 5 points in order to survive, which is something that is not impossible for them to do, but it’s still going to require a serious effort.
Rothenberg: I don’t think it’s a question of Barack Obama helping the Democrats, as much as other Democrats will benefit from the same mood and environment that is fueling Obama’s candidacy. Those two things are very different. For example, just to cite the two examples David just mentioned, the Chris Shays and Mark Kirk seats, it’s not as if voters in those two districts — and let’s point out those are two of the most upscale, affluent, educated imaginable in the country — it’s not as if those voters are so silly and lightheaded that they will simply say, “I’m voting for Barack Obama, so I have to vote for the Democrat.” But they may say, “We really need change here. And while I like Chris Shays, or I like Mark Kirk — I think they’ve done a pretty good job — we just have to sweep Washington clean.” It could happen again, given additional turnout in these districts. Casual voters — casual voters are more likely to be mood voters. Maybe they’ll get all happed up about Obama. They’ll come out and say, “We want change,” and that will hurt the Republicans.
But let’s remind ourselves, we don’t have a lot of indication of Republican voters defecting from Republican candidates. It didn’t happen in 2006. It did happen in some of these specials, but as we argued, they are unique cases. Until we get closer to November, I’m hesitant to speculate. I really don’t think it’s the top-of-the-ticket candidate who will benefit the down-ballot candidates so much as the mood that’s benefiting the Democrats at the top of ticket will also benefit down-ballot candidates.
Sahd: I agree, but I think if there are places where Barack Obama doesn’t play well — Pennsylvania, or some of those places where Hillary Clinton did well — I think this is where the Democratic fundraising edge comes in, because they already have a good organization up. They have their own get-out-the-vote operations that are independent of these coordinated campaigns that Barack Obama is running in these places where he’s likely to do very well. They’re well set up in some of these places where he’s not quite as popular and most likely won’t bring out the demographics he’s suggested in other places. That’s where their money edge comes in.
Schaller: Let me just be clear: Some people are talking [that] having the Udall cousins on the ballot will help Obama perhaps in New Mexico and Colorado. Are any of you suggesting that there’s a potential reverse effect, that there’s sort of an up-ballot effect — arguably for the Democrats because of their investments and field plans — that could actually help Obama, given what’s going on the ground locally?
Wasserman: I think that Stu made an interesting point earlier about casual voters. And I think a key question is, How will the voters who did not turn out in 2006 but will come out in 2008 for a presidential election, how will they view what’s going on at the lower levels, and what kind of patterns can we expect to see? Fundamentally, I don’t think turnout will be driven by congressional races in any circumstances. Turnout will be driven by the presidential race in the states where it is likely to be competitive, including Colorado, which you mentioned. We can expect to see casual voters help some Republican and Democratic candidates in places that are extremely favorable to one party or another. For example, I think Jean Schmidt in Ohio’s 2nd District, who has had a lot of problems convincing voters that she is stable, could benefit from a presidential race because it takes away some of the tension from her. Voters in that district are fundamentally very conservative and it’s a very Republican district.
Rothenberg: I didn’t mean to suggest that the down-ballot races would help Obama. I think turnout will largely be determined from the top. But when people talk about coattails, often they seem to be thinking that voters come out and they don’t evaluate candidates other than who’s running at the top of the ticket. I think the top of the ticket can be a factor in turning out these voters, so I would agree with that. But also I agree that there is a flipside here. I don’t know how Barack Obama is going to be evaluated at the end of October. If the Republicans successfully pin him as a Northern ultra-liberal Democrat, and big taxer, then he could turn out not to be the huge asset. But right now, Democrats figure he adds to enthusiasm, he’ll bring out new voters, and if that’s what you mean by coattails, then he could have some coattails. But I think it’s pretty early to determine that.
Schaller: Last question. I’m going to put your feet to the fire since this is what you guys do for a living. I realize circumstances change at the national level — what’s your prediction right now, net gain for one party or the other, presumably the Democrats, on Wednesday morning after the election?
Wasserman: I think our current outlook, which projects a Democratic gain of 10 to 20 seats in the House, is more of a punt than a prediction. If I had to say where the pendulum of possibility in the House stands right now, it would be about 15 seats for the Democrats. Unlike 2006, when Democrats held all of their own seats — I think the Rothenberg Report researched this and found a year all the way back in the earlier part of the last century where this was the case, and you can tell me, Stu, when that was — but unlike 2006, Democrats are going to have to lose a handful of seats before they start gaining any ground. So I could see Democrats losing five seats and gaining 20 Republican seats to come to that number. But a lot could change between now and then.
Sahd: I’d say 15 to 18. I think for Republicans to keep this in the single digits as we speak now would be a major accomplishment for them, and I would consider it a win for Republicans if they could keep the losses in the single digits. But the way expectations are ratcheted up right now and the mood of the electorate, notwithstanding the seats the Democrats do have to hold, I would say around 15, 17, 18 for Democrats.
Rothenberg: Well, Tom, I never make these sort of predictions, but because of my admiration for your work, I think you do such a good job, I’m actually going to crawl out on a limb, and allow you to saw it off, and I will then deny I ever made this number. But right now, if you asked me to guess — that’s what it is, a guess — I’d guess 12 to 15 for the Ds. Which would be a very good year for them. They ought to be extremely happy. And the Republicans could probably feel relieved that they don’t lose another 25. I think we’re all in general agreement about the magnitude of this year. It’s going to be quite a good Democratic year. Is it going to be 25 or 30, as some Democrats have said to me? I don’t see it yet. I think that’s unlikely, but something in the low to mid-teens. If Tim wants to take us into the upper teens, we don’t have hard numbers right now, so we’re all kind of guessing. It seems to me this is the ballpark we’re in. And I say that with the caveat that the ballpark may get torn down and rebuilt with a very different range three or four months from now.
Schaller: This has been a very illuminating conversation. I want to thank our guests.
The swing states of 2008
Salon asks a round table of experts to predict where the presidential election will be won or lost. It's not just about Ohio anymore.
By Thomas F. Schaller
To listen to a podcast of the round table, click here.
To subscribe: Click here to add Conversations to iTunes or cut and paste the URL into your podcasting software:
The presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 were unique in American history in how little changed on the electoral map. States that were red in 2000 stayed red four years later, and states that were blue remained blue. Only three states changed hands. Will 2008 be more of the same, or will the candidacy of Barack Obama transform the map? Which states will prove crucial to the outcome? We asked a panel of analysts to give us their short lists of swing states for November. Frequent Salon contributor Tom Schaller agreed to moderate the round table. Participants include Democratic pollster Paul Maslin, co-founder and principal of Fairbanks, Maslin, Maullin & Associates, who was Howard Dean’s pollster in 2004 and worked for Bill Richardson this cycle, and who wrote on a similar subject for Salon in May; Andres Ramirez, who is vice president for Hispanic Programs and director of the Hispanic Strategy Center at the progressive think tank NDN; and conservative blogger Ross Douthat, who is a senior editor at the Atlantic. –Mark Schone
Tom Schaller: We have our two nominees now and people are starting to look at the electoral map again very closely. We have had the two most stable presidential elections back-to-back in American history. Only three states changed colors from red to blue or blue to red between 2000 and 2004, those being New Mexico and Iowa and New Hampshire. That’s the fewest states to change in back-to-back presidential elections since George Washington ran the table twice in the first two elections and there wasn’t popular voting. But a lot of pundits and analysts and the candidates themselves are talking about a looser, more open map. So that’s where we’re going to start this conversation today. I would like to ask each of our participants to give us a general sense of what parts of the map look most intriguing to them in terms of where either Obama or McCain will be on offense and/or on defense.
Ross Douthat: There’s sort of an emerging conventional wisdom on this front, but I think the conventional wisdom is correct, which is always helpful. Basically, the idea being that McCain has the best chance to expand the Republican map in the eastern Rust Belt, in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Those are probably the places that he has the best chance to pick off a state that went blue last time around. And then Obama seems to have more potential options and we’re still looking at the polling data to see how stuff shakes out. But he’s clearly going to run stronger than Kerry and Gore did in the old Northwest — by which I mean the Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa area. And I think that means that Minnesota and Wisconsin, which both went for Kerry last time but were very competitive, will be less competitive this time. And Iowa, which went for Bush last time, will almost certainly flip. There’s been some loose talk about that pattern extending westward in the Plains states — that seems less likely than that Obama will do better in the Southwestern region. New Mexico, obviously not Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, states like that. There’s also Virginia, where Obama did tremendously well in the primary against Hillary Clinton, did very well in the suburbs of Northern Virginia, which have been trending Democratic for a while. That’s how I see things shaping up.
Paul Maslin: I’ll talk about Virginia later, which is clearly in play. I look at three troikas here: the Southwest, mountain desert states that were just mentioned — clearly, I think one of these candidates is going to wake up the day after and say, “What happened?” because they both have opportunities in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. It could be a sweep for either side. But that’s going to be a place where McCain and Obama both go all out. [Then w]hat I’ll call the flood plain — again just mentioned. I wouldn’t say yet that the Republicans are just going to give up. They have a convention in Minnesota, they’re going to make a major effort in Wisconsin, which has been decided, where I live, by less than 10,000 votes two times in a row. I agree that Iowa has a good chance of changing. But those three states are going to be battled over. And then coming east to where I think, ultimately, John McCain’s hopes will either rise or fall, and that is in the three industrial states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Republicans have always viewed Ohio as their critical, have-to-win state — in fact, no Republican has ever won the presidency in recent years without winning Ohio. But I do think McCain and the Republicans perceive an opportunity in either Michigan or Pennsylvania. They’re going to make a major effort in both states. They may be in a situation where they have to break through in one of them to get to 270 electoral votes. And if Obama can hold two of those three states, and certainly all three, but if he can hold two of those three states, there may be enough pickup elsewhere for the Democrats to win this thing.
Andres Ramirez: I’m based out of Nevada, Las Vegas. I certainly think that the movement that we’re seeing out in the Southwest and the DNC’s and the Democratic Party’s efforts to make the Western region much more competitive by putting the DNC convention in Colorado, adding Nevada to the early calendar — we’ve seen a lot of movement. So I think that in terms of states that will likely flip and change, we will see some tremendous movement, at least in Nevada and New Mexico. Colorado will be a lot tougher. But it still has a likelihood of moving over to the Obama camp. I also think that one of the states that Bush picked up in 2004, Virginia, will switch. If you look at the Quinnipiac poll that was released early this week, Florida is going to be much more in play and much more advantageous for Obama than many people had been assuming.
Schaller: We’ve covered quite a bit of territory there. Let’s take a look at six states in particular that come from all parts of the country. They are Colorado in the Mountain West or Southwest, depending on how you define it; New Hampshire in the Northeast; Virginia, which has already been mentioned several times, in the border or rim South; Georgia, a Deep South state that some people actually think will be in play; Ohio, from the traditional Rust Belt area; and Michigan, a state where John McCain seems to be doing better than expected. Anyone want to take a shot at any or all of those states, or a couple of them and talk about what specifically is putting them into play and where the risks and opportunities are for either candidate?
Maslin: One point about New Hampshire. You’re talking about only four electoral votes. But as we’ve seen before, and certainly in 2000, four electoral votes could be everything. That’s the one place where if John McCain has a second political home, it’s in New Hampshire. It basically propelled his candidacy in 2000 against George Bush. It saved his candidacy in many ways this time. It’s a place where he has terrific appeal to independent voters. I think, by the way, that Barack Obama also, even though he lost that primary, because Hillary Clinton brought people back to her in a way when she was being counted out, I do think he is a popular candidate there. And certainly, I’m not going to rule it out as a prospect for the Democrats. But if there’s one place in the Northeast, which has trended very Democratic in recent years, where McCain could swing back and win four votes that have been Democratic, it is New Hampshire. It’s a natural fit for him; they like him there. And John Kerry did better in New Hampshire last time than Al Gore did, largely because of a New England, Boston connection that doesn’t exist this time. I think New Hampshire is a decent shot for McCain.
Douthat: One of the things people have been talking about recently is Georgia, where you have this interesting dynamic: On the one hand, Bob Barr, former Georgia representative, Republican turned Libertarian presidential candidate, is running reasonably strongly in the initial polls there, picking up 5 to 6 percent of the vote. On the other hand, Georgia has a very large African-American population. The Obama people are talking up the voter registration drives they’re doing and there have been polls that show, with Barr factoring in, that state being very close. I’m pretty skeptical about it, only in the sense that when push comes to shove, even in Georgia, Bob Barr is not going to get 6 percent of the vote. He’s going to get 1 to 2 percent of the vote and I don’t think that’s enough to tip that kind of state. Over the long run, Barr is not your ideal third-party candidate. He’s not a sort of celebrity figure, he’s not a terribly appealing figure. So I don’t think that will be in play at the end, but it is an interesting potential dynamic.
Maslin: Kerry lost by 16 points in Georgia. If Barack Obama wins Georgia, he won’t be worrying about the Electoral College on election night. It’ll be a 400-vote Electoral College landslide.
Douthat: Which is possible. I don’t think people should discount that possibility at this point.
Schaller: Andres, the Latino vote is growing in parts of the South but it’s still pretty small. Is it enough, along with the Bob Barr factor and increased black turnout, to move a state like Georgia or only a state like Virginia?
Ramirez: I think Virginia is a much more likely state, especially because you have Jim Webb, who just won, and you have Mark Warner on the ballot. In Mark Warner’s gubernatorial race in 2001, he did a phenomenal job of organizing and mobilizing a Latino constituency in Northern Virginia that was really put to use during his campaign. Obviously, he had the resources to organize them. But the fact that he’s on the ballot again means Hispanics will play a much larger role in Virginia. And again, we need to recall, Virginia was one of the few states where Obama actually won the Hispanic vote during the primary. He’s incredibly popular with that community there; it’s increasingly getting more active. There’s a significant African-American population in Virginia as well, and so I think with that combination of facts you have a trending state. You have Governor Kaine in there, you have Mark Warner on the ballot and you have Obama’s appeal to the African-Americans and Hispanics. I think Virginia is one of the states that was red that will likely benefit Obama this election.
Maslin: I agree with that. But I think you also have the colossus of the Northern Virginia suburbs, which are growing year by year and are clearly a moderating [influence] on that state. And where Obama ran extremely well; remember he won by huge margins in Virginia and Maryland over Hillary Clinton in the primary. You can’t always extrapolate primary results, but I think that was a hint of some real potential for this Democratic ticket, which may end up with a Virginian as vice president. I think McCain’s going to fight back, though. Obviously there’s a military component in the Tidewater area in the Southeast; parts of Virginia, the mountains and elsewhere, are still pretty strongly Republican. It’s clearly a battleground; McCain will fight to the death there. It is the best chance in the South, leaving Florida aside — which is not really a Southern state — and I agree with the earlier comment about Florida, which we’re not going to talk about much here, but there’s clearly better prospects for Obama in Florida than some people give him credit for. But there’s no question that Virginia is going to be a real close fight all the way.
Schaller: I’m wondering on Ohio and Michigan, two states that are very similar. They’re usually one-two in terms of the economic deprivation numbers we’ve seen in recent years; they’ve really struggled as post-Rust Belt economies. And yet Ohio went for Bush twice. Michigan went for Kerry and Gore, and yet, it looks like McCain is extraordinarily competitive in Michigan. Is that just because of the fallout from the primary where Obama wasn’t on the ballot there? Or is there something happening that’s distinctly different in one or the other of those states that is potentially making Ohio more blue and Michigan more red?
Maslin: I’d be real wary of polls at this point, and I’m the pollster on this call. I just think it’s way too early to draw too many conclusions from polls. The traditional order of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio has always been Ohio as the weakest state for the Democrats. The last time that was not true was with Jimmy Carter in 1976 and that’s because Gerald Ford was from Michigan. So I’d be wary of thinking that Ohio is a better prospect for Obama than Michigan. I do think there has been some fallout because of the way the Democratic Party botched — and I’m not blaming anyone in particular, just the overall net effect was to botch this Michigan primary horribly. And I think that’s given an opportunity for McCain. Clearly, the one thing I’ve said before, I do think that Ohio is more problematic simply because of geography. I do think that white voters in southern Ohio are going to be, not just for racial reasons, but culture and class as well, are going to be tougher to win over for any Democrat, and certainly for Barack Obama, than their counterparts in the Upper Peninsula or similar demographic areas of Michigan. There is a slightly bigger African-American population in Michigan as well. At the end of the day, I still think Ohio is the tougher one, but there’s no question that McCain and his campaign perceive an opportunity in Michigan and Pennsylvania. If they had to pick one of those two, they’d probably think that Michigan might be the better chance.
Douthat: One other dynamic that Paul just touched on a bit. There’s a dynamic in the race that we haven’t seen before and may not see again, which is the age dynamic and the extent to which Pennsylvania, for example, is one of the oldest states in the union. And to the extent that the race issue ends up mattering in this campaign, it’s going to end up mattering, it seems like, to 40 and older, 50 and older, 60 and older voters. That’s the demographic where you’re more likely to see people who usually vote Democratic not being willing to vote for a black candidate for president. I don’t think that’s a particularly huge chunk of the electorate; it’s a slice of a slice that will tip that way. But in so far as it matters, it will probably end up mattering in those Rust Belt states and that’s an advantage for McCain, obviously.
Schaller: So that’s the scenario, that despite the economic situation and despite the percentage of people who are saying they are unhappy with the direction of the economy, that Ohio and Michigan could still go Republican? Is that what you’re saying, Ross?
Douthat: That’s part of the dynamic. I think there’s a broader cultural component, especially in Ohio, the closer you get to that Appalachian belt that everybody talked about in the Obama-Clinton campaign; there’s a dynamic there that isn’t just about race. It’s about patriotism and nationalism and the military vote and so on. That’s the dynamic, for instance, where Jeremiah Wright matters not because he’s a crazy-seeming black preacher but because he’s a very left-wing, anti-American-seeming black preacher. So I don’t want to overstate the not-voting-for-a-black-guy racial dynamic, but that obviously plays in as well there.
Maslin: One thing we should understand is, if the economy and the performance of the economy will dictate ultimately the outcome of this race, then again we’re looking at, maybe not an FDR-like, but certainly a historic Democratic victory of large proportions. The polls are closer than that and there’s some belief that this still could be a very close race. That’s sort of the assumption of this call. And that must mean that McCain and the Republicans, through some mechanism — Bush did it essentially by scaring people about the war in 2004, about terrorism — but through some mechanism [McCain] is going to convince people who otherwise would vote Democratic because of their beliefs about the economy to stick with the Republicans. And that is one of the central dramatic pieces of this race, how that could happen.
Ramirez: I think the other dynamics we need to look at as well. We talked about the race issue and, as you mentioned, there’s a slice of a slice who will play that. We’ve also seen the Obama phenomenon be able to bring out extraordinarily much larger numbers of voters who had not participated before. And I think that many of these pollsters are conducting their modeling based on traditional demographics of who had voted in the past. We’re seeing more millennials vote, we’re seeing more Hispanics vote, we’re seeing a lot more new demographics vote, but I don’t think the pollsters are actually calculating them in their new numbers, which could throw a lot of these numbers and a lot of these assumptions out the window come November. It’s a dynamic we also need to keep in mind.
Maslin: Andres is absolutely right. Some are and some aren’t. You don’t really know which poll is and which poll isn’t. I think that’s part of what makes this whole process very strange. I think that if you take the Kerry-Bush margin, which was 2 and a half points, that turnout alone of young people and African-Americans and potentially Latinos as well wipes that margin out. That’s Obama’s advantage right from the start. And in some cases, he may even do better than that. Even before we get to whether the same people will vote the same way from 2004 to 2008, I just think the interest and the enthusiasm and the Obama campaign’s proven ability to get that vote out virtually wipes out the Bush-Kerry margin right from the get-go.
Douthat: And then you factor in the flip side of that, which is the extent to which there was an enthusiasm for Bush in 2004 in certain demographics — conservatives in general, evangelical Christians in particular — [and] I think it’s clear that the McCain campaign isn’t going to have anything near the kind of ground game in terms of turnout and organization that the Bush campaign did in ’04. So the McCain campaign is sort of getting it from both directions there. The Democrats are more excited and turnout is probably going to be up. Republican turnout is probably going to be down from what the Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman machine was able to gin up for Republican in ’04.
Ramirez: And then the third dynamic is that Obama obviously will raise more money than McCain this cycle, which puts the Democrat at a huge advantage that we haven’t been able to do in the past three cycles.
Maslin: He’s taking all the editorial hits for public financing, but believe me, [the Obama campaign has] already factored that into their equation.
Douthat: There’s no voter in America who casts their vote based on whether or not a candidate takes public financing. Or if there are, I’d like to meet them.
Schaller: Let’s use that as a transition point. I’m going to ask you to play political prognosticator, Electoral College forecaster. I’m going to handicap all of you. Obama’s team let it be known that they thought they could win without either Florida or Ohio. We know that in the last two elections, you sort of had to have two of the big three for the tiebreaker — those three being Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. So I assume that means they’d still have to win Pennsylvania, but could win without the other two. And so I want to open it up, and we can take either McCain or Obama or both of them — is it possible that Obama can win without Florida and Ohio and if so, how and where? And alternatively, could McCain theoretically win without, say, Pennsylvania and Ohio, holding Florida, of course? And if so, how and where and with what sort of voters could he do it?
Maslin: I’ll take the Obama side of this. I happen to believe that if this happens, he’ll probably win Florida or Ohio as well and maybe both of them, but the states we just talked about, if you flip Ohio and win Virginia and you win either Colorado or Nevada and you hold everything else, there you are. It gets a little more complicated if you lose New Hampshire, but basically, you’re holding Michigan and Pennsylvania as well, but Virginia and Colorado, Nevada become sort of the key states here. I think there’s an assumption that he’s going to win Iowa and I think he will. He was strong there in the caucuses, it’s close to Illinois. I think there’s a regional advantage. But you win Virginia and Colorado and Nevada, you’ve made up for any failure to win Ohio and Florida. But I happen to believe that if he won those states, he’s going to win either Ohio or Florida and maybe both of them. Sometimes there are individual nuances with states, but generally everything is going to rise and fall with an overall national trend and Ohio and Florida were both close enough last time that if Obama is showing that kind of strength elsewhere, he’ll probably win one or both those states as well.
Schaller: Andres, do you see it that way as well?
Ramirez: I would say there is some opportunity for Obama to win without winning Ohio and Florida. If you’re looking at the Kerry map from ’04, he lost both of those states but he ended up with 252 electoral votes [Editor's Note: 251 because of a so-called "faithless elector" in Minnesota]. So if you simply add New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, the Southwestern states where Obama is playing very strongly right now, that gives him the 19 electoral votes to put him at 271. That’s even if he loses Florida and Ohio, and that’s just maintaining the states that Kerry won, and there’s an assumption that Obama will perform just as well if not better than Kerry. Nevada has seen a profound transformation from where it was in 2004 when Republicans outnumbered Democrats statewide. That has now flipped. Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 50,000 votes in that state. New Mexico has also increased their voter registration. We’ve seen incredible momentum in Colorado. I think it’s definitely possible with his appeal in the Southwest and the polling that’s showing he’s doing well in New Mexico and Colorado, and with McCain’s stance on nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, especially with his opposition to sports wagering in Nevada. Those are just two issues that will hurt him even among Republicans in that state.
Schaller: Ross, do you want to take a crack at McCain? I mean, if you subtract Ohio’s 20, it still only puts Bush’s number from 286 to 266, so in theory it’s not that far if McCain can hold every state but Ohio, right?
Douthat: In theory, it’s not that far, but here’s the thing. Not to be overly pessimistic about McCain, but the fact is if you look at the areas where he could pick up votes and pick up states, it seems most likely it’s going to be in the Appalachian corridor that stretches up into Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. So, essentially you have a situation where if he loses Ohio then he needs to probably tip Pennsylvania or Michigan, and the trends that will make him lose Ohio will presumably make him lose those other states as well. It seems pretty unlikely. I think McCain’s best hope is that this is still an ’00, ’04 election. And I think it’s also easy to get caught up in the way the last two elections played out, which was very unusual. In general, trends in the Electoral College tend to track trends in the popular vote and if Obama is dramatically expanding the Democratic edge in certain regions, it’ll probably be a sign that he’s headed for a landslide and then he’ll win Ohio too.
Schaller: Let’s talk a little now about V.P.s. We’ve had a lot of talk about Hillary Clinton, obviously, on the Democratic side. There’s always talk each year about a V.P. being selected who will in and of him- or herself deliver a particular state — the quintessential example being LBJ in 1960 giving Texas to Kennedy, crucially. Maybe Al Gore helps Tennessee. But your Dan Quayles, your Dick Cheneys, they’re delivering states that are already delivered. So I’m wondering if in the field of people who are under consideration, there’s some candidate out there on either side who you think, boy, if so and so picks that person, it delivers the state to the Republicans or the Democrats.
Maslin: I think we’ve mentioned the one place for the Democrats that seems most likely to produce a victory, [Virginia] … [The] two names that make the most sense to me, one may surprise you, but actually one would be either Jim Webb, who we’ve talked about obviously because of his military background and his recent victory in that state. But also Mark Warner. [Former Democratic Gov. Mark Warner is running for the Senate seat being vacating by retiring Republican incumbent John Warner, no relation.] And people may squawk and say we’re giving that Senate seat away. Well, Democrats are going to have a pretty big victory in the Senate anyway. We’re not going to be up to 60 members in the Senate and a filibuster-proof margin, but we’ll certainly be better off than we were. Warner is the architect of a lot of the Democratic gains, and a lot of the growth in that state came from his first race for governor. He preceded Kaine and, in some ways, he may be the best of the three. Either of those two, even more so than the current Governor Tim Kaine, would be enough to tip the balance in Virginia. And with 13 electoral votes, it’s not a minor consideration. It may not be as much as LBJ was in ’60, which may be the last time that a vice-presidential candidate — for some reason, the Republicans have this predilection to go for people who have no electoral impact whatsoever. I can’t understand that and I think McCain may try to throw a long ball here. He may be more in the mold of I’ve got to show something and I’m not going to just bow down to the conservatives. I have to show something in this choice of vice president that may be a breakthrough. And there’s an obvious person who comes to mind, who happens to be in the current administration. Which is Condoleezza Rice. I think there is a legitimate chance for Obama to go into Virginia and secure those votes with a choice that would help him on other grounds as well.
Douthat: I would like to hear the case for McCain picking Condoleezza Rice. Because I agree with you, he may want to throw a long ball. But what does picking Condoleezza Rice get him?
Maslin: Suburbs. It’s partly for women, it’s not for African-Americans, but it’s by saying in this context where there’s been so much discussion about gender and race — by going for a two-for, he’s essentially saying to the suburbs, Listen, I’m new and moderate as well. I may be 71 years old but I can also play on this turf. And by the way, I’m also getting someone who’s an extremely experienced hand in what is my biggest asset versus this newcomer Barack Obama, which is national security. That’s the play. It comes with risks. It’s not perfect. But, you know, he’s got to do something. We’re all talking here, if not a double digit, but certainly the possibility that this race is headed toward a 5, 6, 7, 8-point win for Barack Obama when you look at the structure of it. And McCain, I don’t think they’re naive over there. I don’t think they think it’s automatically 2000 and 2004 and will revert to a close election again; they may have to cause it to happen. That’s the one thing about throwing a long ball, which Condoleezza Rice would be, that makes me wonder if he wouldn’t end up going in that direction rather than a more traditional choice.
Schaller: I was going to raise the issue of Charlie Crist. Andres is pointing out that Florida may come back; it’s a state that moved away from the Democrats. I don’t think McCain will pick him, but just for the sake of argument, let’s say that he does. Does that take Florida out, or can Obama still win despite the McCain-Crist ticket?
Ramirez: I would think that adding Crist to the ticket will help McCain secure Florida. I don’t think it will make it automatic, but Governor Crist’s operation in Florida helps and will make it much more competitive for Obama. On the converse … I’m not saying Obama will pick him, but someone like an Evan Bayh from Indiana — I think if you add an Evan Bayh to a ticket, Bayh would help deliver a state like Indiana for a candidate. Now, Obama is already strong in the Midwest, so I’m not sure adding Evan Bayh helps him overall. But in terms of flipping a state that historically has been for another party, I think a candidate like Bayh would help accomplish that task.
Douthat: I’m pretty skeptical, and maybe this is why Republicans haven’t been doing it because conservatives are skeptical of the idea, but I think if you look at the attempts to pick running mates who would deliver states, it hasn’t worked out well for either party really in decades. The most important thing a vice-presidential pick does is to establish some kind of narrative. If you look at the successful picks, Bill Clinton picking Al Gore in 1992, in a sense it seemed like too much of a good thing; you were picking another Southern white guy. But in the end, it turned out, doubling down on the theme of youth, generational change and so on. And Joe Lieberman is obviously persona non grata in the Democratic Party these days, but I actually think Al Gore picking Lieberman in 1999 and 2000 was a similarly savvy move. It got him the kind of separation, however temporary, from the Clinton administration that he was looking for. I look at McCain and I look at a pick like Rice, and yes, on sort of a demographic level you can see how it makes sense. But [not] for a campaign that’s doing everything in its power to disassociate itself from the Bush administration and to say this is not another Bush term. Now obviously Rice isn’t a hate figure like Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, but some of that issue is that she just hasn’t been exposed to press criticism in the same way because she’s not a target like Rumsfeld and Cheney. I think there may be some narrative out there for McCain and I completely agree that he needs to consider long balls, but it’s hard for me to see how the Rice pick would manage that.
Maslin: But he can’t double down on age.
Douthat: No, he can’t double down on age. My wild-card pick, not in the same league as Rice or Lieberman, but Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, is actually one of the more interesting wild-card choices out there for McCain. It gets you a young, female reformist Republican. She’s enormously popular. She’s attractive, which obviously never hurts. She’s somebody that nobody knows anything about, [and she has an] interesting political story, running against a corrupt Republican machine in Alaska, a former high school athlete and beauty queen turned mother of five. I think you can see how that story helps McCain in a way that picking Eric Cantor or Rob Portman or some of these safe, white male conservative choices wouldn’t.
Maslin: But I tell you, just listening to this, you got a bunch of unknowns. Not that these Virginia Democrats or even Evan Bayh are tremendously well known nationally, they’re not. But I’ll tell you, if McCain is forced to go for somebody who essentially has no standing with the American people whatsoever —
Douthat: There’s a Dan Quayle problem.
Maslin: Yeah and with an early September convention, with only two months to go, she’s going to be behind anyway; that’s a dicey proposition for him. Anyway, we’ll see.
Schaller: OK. We’re at the bonus round here. I want to go around the horn, sort of John McLaughlin style. Four questions; you can clarify your answers but keep them quick. I want you to tell me predictions: 1) the state you think will most likely flip from red in 2004 to blue; 2) the other, blue to red; 3) which state, whether it changes parties or not, will be the big surprise because it was closer than we expected or more of a blowout or whatever; 4) and then finally, from 0 to 100 percent, what is the chance that we have 2000 repeat, where one candidate is the popular vote winner but is not the president because he loses the electoral vote. And who is the George W. Bush candidate finishing second but still president-elect in your scenario?
Ramirez: The most likely state to flip from red to blue would be New Mexico. As I discussed earlier, New Hampshire is the most likely state to flip from blue to red. I think you have to put Virginia in there; it’s going to be a big surprise, it’s going to be much more for Obama than people think.
Schaller: Any chance we have what political scientists like me call a “misfired election,” where the popular vote winner loses the Electoral College?
Ramirez: With the demographics we’re looking at, with Latinos and younger voters participating in the states where they concentrate, I don’t think this time it will actually be possible to win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College.
Maslin: I agree. Iowa slightly over New Mexico, though I think both will flip. I also agree that it’ll be New Hampshire most likely to go the other way. And I’m going to come up with a state that no one has mentioned today for a surprise, not because Obama is going to carry it, but I think the margin is going to be greatly reduced, and that is the state of Texas. The last time there was not a Bush on the ballot, and there’s only been one time since 1980, was 1996, and Clinton only lost the state by 5 points. I think Obama will come surprisingly close in Texas and everybody will sort of shake their heads and say, Wow, looking down the road. I think there’s about a 2 percent chance that there’s any kind of Electoral College, 2000-like nightmare. It would obviously be Obama winning the popular vote. He will gain in the South in a lot of places where he won’t win, so those votes from an electoral standpoint are kind of thrown away, but overall, no, not much of a chance that it’s going to happen.
Douthat: To be unoriginal, I’d say, yeah, Iowa followed by New Mexico flipping from red to blue. New Hampshire followed by Pennsylvania flipping from blue to red. I agree with what the others have said, but I would throw out the possibility of one of the plains states, Kansas, for instance, or one of the upper plains states in the Dakotas being closer than people think as well. With Obama coming closer. Five percent, 3 percent, 2 percent on the Electoral College question. I think it would be a disaster, though, for American democracy, at least in the very short term, if that happened in a way that simply wasn’t the case in 2000. 2000 was obviously a disaster of sorts in its own right. I think if McCain won in that situation there would be enormous pressure on him to make some kind of strange, unprecedented gesture — whether it’s the composition of his cabinet or whatever it may be. And obviously there was some pressure like that on Bush, but it wasn’t the case where the national media was anywhere near invested in Al Gore’s candidacy at that point, as they would be; in fact I think the media was kind of happy to see Al Gore concede in Florida. Whereas, I think with Obama, barring something dramatic changing, there’s just going to be a flood of coverage in the lead-up to the election on the historic nature of this race, and for him to win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College, well, it would be interesting to say the least.
Schaller: Well, that was great and while I’m tempted to yell, “Wrong!” and call on Eleanor Clift to clear up all the answers on your responses, I think it’s exactly right in terms of New Mexico, Iowa and New Hampshire. And I’m with Ross; I think North Dakota will be the big surprise. And I don’t think we’ll have an Electoral College misfire. I want to thank all of our guests.
Why Obama should NOT pick Hillary Clinton as veep
He would lose his claim to being the candidate of change -- and probably wouldn't get any swing states in return.
By Thomas F. Schaller
All the Democratic presidential contenders this year ran against George W. Bush and the policies of this decade. Only one offered himself as a departure from the politics of the past two decades: Barack Obama, now the party’s nominee.
Positioning himself in this fashion was risky. After all, many Democrats still adore Bill and Hillary Clinton, and recall the 1990s with a certain fondness. Having drawn this distinction, however, Obama cannot go back.
There are other arguments to make against picking Hillary Clinton to be his vice presidential running mate — and I’m about to make them — but Obama’s decision to cast himself as a fresh alternative to both the Bushes and the Clintons is reason enough for him to choose somebody other than Hillary.
Let this be said for Hillary Clinton: During the primary’s final three months her grit and determination earned her the right to serious consideration, perhaps first consideration. Yes, there were comments by her, her husband or her advisors that created tensions with Obama’s campaign and his supporters. (Notably among these was her tendency not to congratulate Obama when he won states, and her thinly-veiled implications that he was unprepared to be commander in chief.)
But overall, Clinton forced Obama to work harder and be more policy-specific than he was during his whirlwind run through the January and February contests. Nonetheless, and despite her strong appeal to the half of the Democratic coalition Obama struggled to impress — women, seniors, working-class whites and Hispanics — the risks of picking Clinton outweigh the possible benefits.
Here, in no particular order, are four major problems with an Obama-Clinton ticket:
1. Picking Clinton undermines Obama’s independent, “new politics” image. If Clinton really wants to help Obama, her people should leak out the notion that she expects to be picked, even if it’s untrue. That way, when Obama picks somebody else it will reinforce his image as a candidate who doesn’t bend to political pressure — exactly how he must project himself to fair-weather Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans. After his pick, Clinton can utilize dog-whistle politics to reassure her supporters that she was fine with being passed over. In exchange for this delicate dance, Obama ought to promise her whatever she wants, including if not especially the first shot at a Supreme Court seat. She’d be a great justice.
2. The Clintons — plural — are a potentially dangerous campaign distraction. The Clintons are great campaigners and clever strategists, but Obama has already put together a first-rate campaign team without relying on the Clintons’ stable of advisors. The unavoidable truth is that having the Clintons on the campaign trail will draw too much of the spotlight away from Obama. Inevitably, some comment or episode involving one or both Clintons will dominate the news cycle for days, maybe weeks. Worse, John McCain and the Republicans would love to play the anti-dynasty, Clinton-fatigue card while not-so-subtly raising the question, “If Obama can’t control them during the campaign, what makes you think he’ll be able to control them once they’re back inside the White House?”
3. Clinton delivers demographic groups, but not necessarily any swing states. With the notable exception of Arkansas and its six electoral votes, what state would Hillary deliver that Obama is not already going to win? Forget all this talk about the parts of the Democratic coalition to which she appeals. If he cannot pull together the elements of that coalition himself he’s going to lose anyway in swing states, whether those are states that he won in the primary, like Colorado or Virginia, or states that he lost, like Ohio, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. Conversely, if Obama can reassemble the two halves of the Democratic coalition, he’s going to win the swing states and the election, despite the intraparty tensions that arose during the primary. (The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll seems to indicate he’s already made substantial progress.)
His fate in swing states does not hinge on having a polarizing figure like Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Whatever advantage she offers him in bringing in skeptical Democrats will be offset by losses among Clinton-fatigued independents and soft Republicans. Many despise her, and if they’re looking for an excuse to vote against Obama, picking Clinton as his running mate will provide it.
Then there are those three states where Hillary Clinton has personal ties. There’s no scenario in which Obama loses Illinois and New York and wins 270 electoral votes. Her help in two of the three states is moot. As for Arkansas, political scientist Jay Barth, an Arkansas native who teaches at Hendrix College in Conway, says the level of skepticism toward Obama is so high locally that an Obama-Clinton ticket might not take the state’s six electoral votes anyway. Put simply, Hillary Clinton is not this year’s version of Lyndon Johnson in 1960.
4. He can call Clinton’s bluff. Hillary Clinton repeatedly promised that, should she lose the nomination, she would do whatever it takes to elect a Democrat this November — a promise that, in theory, she can deliver whether or not she’s on the ticket. Though Obama should not opt for somebody else to spite Clinton, picking another running mate gives her the chance to prove to him and the rest of the party that she’s not the self-absorbed, nakedly ambitious politician Republicans portray her to be. Oh, and it’s also in her self-interest anyway: If Obama loses this November, Clinton’s options for an I-told-you-so candidacy in 2012 are significantly improved if she shows herself to be a true-to-her-word surrogate these next five months.
A final point in the form of a recommendation about the timing of his selection: If Obama intends to pick somebody other than Clinton, he should do so as quickly as possible once the vetting process is complete. Why? Because if Clinton’s supporters — some of whom still nurse hard feelings about the outcome of the primary — are led to believe all summer that she’s the leading contender for the vice-presidential nod, and then learn a week before the national convention that Obama has opted for somebody else, those wounds could reopen at the worst moment. “Hope” is the campaign message that propelled Obama this far, but false hope is the last thing he wants to impart to Hillary devotees.
Barack Obama should pick another running mate, and he should decide upon that person quickly. A lot of voters — Democrats or otherwise — remain unsure about him, and his selection will signal to them what kind of president he would be.
How Hillary Clinton botched the black vote
Her failure to challenge Barack Obama's huge momentum among African-Americans -- not a given at the start -- may have doomed her campaign.
By Thomas F. Schaller
If Hillary Clinton fails to wrest the Democratic presidential nomination from Barack Obama, there will be plenty of second-guessing about how she ran her campaign. What if her loyalty to campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle and chief strategist Mark Penn had not prevented her from demoting them sooner? What if her electoral strategists had better understood the power of caucus states and the way in which votes cast there translated into delegates? What if she had actually planned for the month following Super Tuesday, thereby preventing Obama from posting the 11 straight wins after Feb. 5 that provided him the pledged delegate lead he enjoys today? But beyond these questions, one little-discussed factor (with direct or indirect relation to all of the above) appears to have had fatal consequences for Clinton’s campaign: She failed to mount a strong enough challenge to Obama’s claim on the African-American vote.
Though a majority of black voters may inevitably have gone for Obama, nothing precluded the wife of the so-called first black president from keeping Obama’s margins among blacks significantly narrower — say, losing to him by 4-to-1 or even 3-to-1, rather than the devastating 9-to-1 margins by which Obama has often won African-American Democrats. “The Clinton campaign has been focused on Barack Obama’s performance with white working-class voters in a few states, but they fail to mention Senator Clinton’s abysmal performance with black voters all over the country,” says political consultant and Obama supporter Jamal Simmons. “She has gone from leading among black voters to losing them 90 percent to 10 percent in Pennsylvania. One would expect Obama to win these voters, but 90-10 is a total collapse that Obama is not experiencing among any constituency. Simply put, Hillary Clinton has a black problem.”
Outside of Missouri and maybe Delaware, staying competitive among black voters wouldn’t have tipped any states for Clinton from the losing to winning column. But had she improved her performance to just 20 percent, she would have significantly reduced, if not eliminated entirely, her national popular-vote deficit (even without the disputed Florida and Michigan returns). And because the formula for assigning delegates favors the candidate who wins delegate-rich urban areas, Clinton could have limited the lopsided delegate-per-vote ratio Obama enjoyed in states ranging from Alabama to Maryland to Wisconsin.
Since the days of Adlai Stevenson — which is to say, since the civil rights movement finally guaranteed the franchise for black voters — the fate of candidates favored by so-called wine-track Democrats usually ends the same way. From Eugene McCarthy to Ted Kennedy, from Jerry Brown to Howard Dean, they make a big initial splash with the white liberal base, only to end up high and dry when working-class whites and blacks together align behind somebody else. What makes Obama different is that he has unified white liberals and African-Americans — a powerful coalition Clinton needed to prevent. Given that roughly three in five black Democratic voters are women, Clinton’s blunder here was preventable, and it may well have doomed her 2008 bid for the White House.
With Indiana and North Carolina voting tomorrow, the consequences of Hillary Clinton’s low standing among black voters will once again be on display. She may win Indiana (polls show a tight race) and keep her expected loss in North Carolina to single digits. But with a better showing among black voters, these two outcomes might be a solid win and a narrow victory, respectively, and a net gain rather than a loss of delegates in the two states combined.
For all the talk now in the post-Rev. Jeremiah Wright phase of the campaign about the reasons for doubting Obama’s electability, it is worth noting that black Democrats were initially among those most skeptical — maybe “cynical” is the better word — about the prospects of Illinois’ junior senator. The widespread apprehension among African-Americans was not personal to Obama so much as it was historical, rooted in the deeply held suspicion that neither America nor even the multicultural Democratic Party was ready to nominate, let alone elect, a black man for the presidency.
This reality was made plain to me last December at an Obama rally headlined by Oprah Winfrey at the football stadium on the campus of the University of South Carolina. Tens of thousands of African-Americans came to Columbia that Sunday morning, many driving hundreds of miles from points elsewhere in the state or region, to see Obama and Winfrey appear side by side. I expected these black attendees to be already in lockstep behind Obama, and some were. But many people I interviewed said they were not convinced he would be the nominee or president; some said they came out that day to pay witness to the historical fact of his candidacy, not his inevitable presidency.
In fact, poll results as late as October 2007 showed a solid majority of African-Americans expressing their support for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. This was a natural reflex, of course. The former first lady, after all, is the wife of a president once almost universally beloved of African-Americans. So what went wrong?
In quick succession, three things happened in the month and a half between Thanksgiving and the New Hampshire primary. First, Oprah’s unprecedented mid-December endorsement of Obama sent a clear signal to her mixed-race female-dominated audience that they should feel as comfortable having Obama on their living room television screens for the nightly newscast as they do having her there during late-afternoon coffee talk. Next, in January, white Iowans sent a safe-harbor signal to black Americans wary about the Democratic Party nominating a black candidate that it was OK to get behind Obama. Hillary Clinton had no control over either of those developments, of course. And a top Obama advisor confirmed to me that the campaign was already tracking movement by black voters toward Obama by Thanksgiving.
But Clinton did have (or should have had) control over the third factor: the behavior of her campaign and of Bill Clinton from that point forward. Yet, through a series of intended or unintended developments — from Bill’s “fairy tale” and “false premise” comments concerning Obama’s stance on the Iraq war, to hints of black-brown animosities between African-American and Hispanic Democrats, to Hillary’s incessant “not qualified to lead” insinuations about Obama — the Clinton campaign signaled that if they were going to lose the black vote, they might as well turn it into an advantage with other elements in the Democratic coalition, notably white working-class voters.
Consequently, in a short span Hillary transformed from a celebrity into an object of scorn among numerous black Democrats. Was it inevitable? “I think once Obama became perceived as a viable candidate by the African-American community — that is, after Iowa — Clinton never had a chance to get any significant black vote,” electoral analyst Charlie Cook, of the “Cook Political Report,” told me. “I think President Clinton’s statements, and the interpretation of his statements, hurt with white liberals. But she was already hemorrhaging her black support and ultimately was destined to get very little.” Cook’s “perceived as viable” qualifier here is crucial. Obama was never guaranteed to be perceived as viable, even by African-Americans, as those October 2007 polls amply demonstrate.
That may help explain why South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, went from cautioning Bill Clinton to “chill out” in January to lambasting him by late April. “I think a lot of Clinton surrogates have been marginalizing, demonizing and trivializing Obama,” Clyburn bristled recently. When the former president complained that the Obama camp was playing the race card, Clyburn responded by dismissing the assertion as “bizarre” and reminding the public in a New York Times report that “it was the black community that bellied up to the bar” when Clinton faced impeachment. “I think black folks feel strongly that this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation,” Clyburn scoffed.
To understand the power of the black vote thus far in the 2008 Democratic primary, consider the fate of the two candidates in their own home states, both of which voted on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.
Unsurprisingly, a whopping 93 percent of African-Americans in Illinois supported Obama. And even though New York was and surely will remain his low-water mark for black support, 61 percent of black New Yorkers still voted for him. Maintaining that level of support buffered Obama against the disparity in his performance among white voters in the two states, which were mirror opposites: 57 percent of whites backed him in Illinois, but in New York 59 percent of whites voted for Clinton. Consequently, despite their nearly identical home-state levels of white support, Obama netted more pledged delegates from Illinois (55) than Clinton did from New York (46), even though New York had far more delegates at stake.
In fact, by combining the delegate-earning power of Obama’s black support in the metropolitan New York area — along with the African-American pockets along the I-90 corridor from Buffalo to Syracuse to Albany — with his black support in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh two weeks ago, Obama’s Illinois victory effectively neutralized his net delegate loss in New York and Pennsylvania. That’s right: Clinton squeezed out the same number of net delegates from her 17-point win in New York and 9-point win in Pennsylvania as Obama did in his 31-point win in Illinois — even though New York and Pennsylvania combined (232 and 141 pledged delegates, respectively, for a total of 373) awarded nearly two and half times the delegates that Illinois did (153).
Nor can the results in those three states be dismissed as a case of Obama’s manipulating the caucus system to squeeze out delegates from low-turnout contests, because Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania were all primary states — and closed, registered-Democrats-only primary states at that. The combined returns from the three states, in fact, produced 118,603 more popular votes for Obama than for Clinton.
What might the situation look like now if Clinton had managed to keep Obama’s 90 percent black support just to 80 percent? It’s impossible to know for certain, because it depends on where specifically — in which states and districts — she garnered those extra black votes. But NBC News political director and delegate math expert Chuck Todd ventured a conservative, back-of-the-napkin estimate. “I’m not sure how many more delegates she would have gotten at 20 percent performance, but I’d guess roughly 25 to 30,” Todd told me. “That may not seem like a lot, but it would have swung the net delegate margin by 50 to 60, or about a third of his current pledged delegate lead.”
To supplement Todd’s delegate estimates, I looked at something much easier to compute: the extra popular votes Clinton would have amassed in 13 primary states with significant black populations — Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin — had she won just 20 percent of the black voters in those states. For obvious reasons, I kept Illinois and New York off the list, but you’ll notice that Arkansas, South Carolina and Tennessee are also missing. Why?
Like New York, Arkansas was a home game for Clinton and, at 25 percent, she exceeded the 20 percent threshold. In South Carolina she came pretty close (19 percent), perhaps because at that early juncture, and following her comeback win in New Hampshire and her caucus victory in Latino-dominated Nevada, some cynical black voters remained unconvinced that Obama had the juice to win the nomination. (The morning of the South Carolina vote, Bill Clinton made his controversial Jesse Jackson comparison in an effort to pre-spin Hillary’s expected loss, but it’s unclear whether many blacks in South Carolina would have heard about his comments prior to voting.) As for Tennessee, it voted on Super Tuesday, long after Obama was viable, but Clinton again exceeded the threshold (with 22 percent), perhaps as a result of her husband’s connections to the state via Al Gore. But whatever the reasons, the notion that Clinton was doomed to 10 percent or less of the black vote everywhere is simply untrue. The above figures strongly suggest that she could have done better.
And the difference it would have made is striking: In those 13 other states, had she drawn just 20 percent of the African-American vote, Clinton would have shifted more than 270,000 votes from Obama to herself, a net swing of more than half a million votes. Which, by the way, is roughly the amount by which she trails Obama in the overall national popular vote right now. Just imagine how hard Clinton’s spokesman Howard Wolfson would be spinning right now if Clinton were tied in the popular vote without Florida and Michigan, while still trailing among pledged delegates.
All of which brings me to a final point about the concentrated power of the black vote in the 2008 Democratic primary: The black vote was to Obama what small-state white voters in the Electoral College were to George W. Bush in 2000 — namely, a concentrated bloc of voters whose power magnified their preferred candidate’s electoral support beyond their absolute numerical value. For African-Americans, this should come as a pleasant irony, given the controversies about the counting of their votes in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio four years later.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has not given up on African-American Democrats. As Indiana and North Carolina approached, she seemed to be trying to build on her Pennsylvania victory by reaching out anew — perhaps especially to African-American women. The most obvious evidence of this is Clinton’s new television ad featuring America’s most prominent contemporary black poet, Maya Angelou. “She intends to help our country become what it can become. She dares to say human beings are more alike than we are unalike,” says Angelou in the ad. “I have found the person I think would be the best president for the United States of America.”
The problem for Clinton is that too few other African-Americans, male or female, have reached this same finding. In her inimitable meter, Angelou proclaims in the ad that she “watched [Clinton] become interested in public health and in education for all the children — and I watched her stand.” But Clinton failed to stand for African-American Democrats when the chance presented itself late last fall and into early January, even if doing so meant firing key staffers or dressing down her own husband. Doing that might have denied Barack Obama the near-universal claim to their support he now enjoys, and the black-white coalition he built from it. For Hillary Clinton, the price of that failure may turn out to be nothing less than the nomination itself.
Page 1 of 4 in Thomas F. Schaller
Recommendations
SALON ® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark of Salon Media Group Inc.
Associated Press articles: Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
