Having seen folks on here start to get panicky about national polls showing some McCain, movement, I thought I'd offer a few random, stream of consciousness observations. I'll say up front I started the campaign leaning towards Hillary--I initially shifted to Barack largely as a bandwagoner, on electability grounds. But as time has grown, so has the depth of my support. Despite that, I have never been a Hillary hater--until the last three weeks. The McCain endorsements and a campaign strategy that is now obviously clear to me (took me awhile to really believe it was systematic, rather than extemporaneous) based on exploiting racial divisions, I can barely stand the sight of her. But I'll still vote for her if she's the nominee. Some more specific thoughts about where things stand below the fold:
A Few Observations
- Folks need to be prepared for McCain to take a significant lead in the national polling for a couple months--that's assuming (and it's a huge assumption, one that I hope won't hold true) that McCain doesn't get in his own way. That lead will be the natural byproduct of (A) people not seeing that much of McCain, which IMHO, helps him--once people actually look at that dude, the enthusiasm level drops; (B) the related point that the prolonged dem contest allows McCain to define himself by finding ways to "act presidential" i.e. today in Iraq; (C) a Democratic party that is truly split along pretty stark lines and are at the hardened point of the campaign--hence you're going to see a greater number of Obama supporters for the moment lean McCain or undecided in the Clinton-McCain matchup, and vice versa; and (D) the fact these are hypothetical matchups in the truly hypothetical sense. It's not real yet--believe me, you're going to see, for example, more Clinton supporters going McCain or undecided in the Obama-McCain hypo than you'll see when/if Obama is the eventual nominee.
- That said, it's not panic time yet. There's no question that a valuable opportunity to basically utterly define McCain at a time when he's not really up and running yet, and Obama has such a massive war chest and ready go to organizations in some 40 states. In that sense, the extended primary really does produce some lasting negatives for the dems. Alternatively, though, there are still some net positives to be drawn from this race moving forward to PA, and letting folks in that key state see the candidates up close for 6 weeks.
- In terms of electoral college analysis, to me, this race is all about PA, and to very slightly lesser extent, MI. I think that both candidates bring some real opportunites to expand the map, but that's only going to matter if PA and MI are held. The key thing is those two states (along with WI, and maybe NH) are basically it for the GOP in terms of offensive opportunties. Alternatively, both dems can actively contest IA, NM, CO, NV, MO, VA, FL, OH. I think it's clear that Obama is stronger in IA, CO, NV, VA and might put other parts of the mountain west and plains states--ND, SD, KS, NE--and the south--SC and NC--into play. Alternatively, while it could still change, right now I see HRC as stronger in FL, while also almost certainly bringing AR into the fold, and having real chances in WV and TN. At the same time, Hillary stands a much greater chance of losing in the pacific northwest (OR and WA). The question for me really is whether HRC offsets this with greater strength in the result belt, OH of course, but more importantly PA and MI. My point here is that there's enough out there for either candidate to win, so long as they can hold the Kerry states. First component of a great offense is accurately assessing your own vulnerabilities.
- Given the utmost importance of PA--As an Obama supporter, I'm frankly of the view that his approach to the PA primary should basically be a general election approach. He's almost certainly going to be the nominee, which is great--and he's just as certainly having trouble connecting with the core older white folks in the rust belt. So I think the PA strategy is:
*Big time improvement in expectations management--basically say up front that Hillary has a 20 point lead and the entire state apparatus behind her and say it every day.
*Obama's approach should be: I plan to run a vigorous campaign in this state, but given my already overwhelming delegate lead, my goal is not so much to engage Hillary Clinton but as to introduce myself to PA voters and tell them what I'm all about. He should be running general election type bio ads, like the first wave of Kerry '04 ads. I personally support simple ads, Obama talking to the camera, in various spots discussing where he's come from, emphasis on his economic philosophy, on his belief in reasoned, emprical analysis (tap into a little Bloomberg techocratic appeal), his family--and yes, his faith, and his conception of patriotism.
*I know some folks are begging for Obama to go on the offensive, and I think he should, selectively, but not in PA--in that state, IMHO, he ought to basically ignore Hillary, who'll probably win anyway, and do everything he can to boost his favorables. Elsewhere, I would hit her very hard on the CIC threshold--"Hillary Clinton has had one truly major national security decision to make--whether to trust George Bush--yep, THAT George Bush--and take him at his word on the IWR. She got it wrong--and now she says she wants it back. Is being wrong the threshold? Is being duped by George Bush the threshold? Is not reading the most important document relevant to a vote that could potentially send kids off to war under false pretenses the threshold? If so--I will gladly concede, Hillary, you've passed it, And it's time to change the threshold just like its time to change Washington.
*If Obama can actually use the next six weeks to connect with PA voters, and more generally, with that older core demographic in the rust belt, than having the race drag on six more weeks might be worth it in the end.
- All that said--and yeah McCain's going to go ahead--the most important number to watch is the McCain number, If it's between 40-46, Dems are golden, given that this is in all likelihood the high water mark of the McCain campaign. If he can't get higher than that, it means folks are just waiting to see who the dem nominee is going to be and are going to make the person work for it, but in the end, that's where they're going. Even if he hits 47-50, it's not panic time. 55-60 you start to worry, but---
- Remember how fast these things move. In some ways this race reminds me of 2000, in that it's a year that ex ante, people want to, and know they ought to be, voting Democratic, but because of various holdups (then, Clinton fatigue and Gore's difficult relationship with such, now, this unexpectedly prolonged primary), aren't there yet. Remember that around this time in 2000, Bush had around a 20 point lead--yet going into the debates, it was Gore plus five. Also recall in '04 that after the Repub convention, Bush had a double digit lead, and after the first debate, the race was essentially even again. These things tend to come back to equilibrium. This is not a Republican year--anyone who thinks that the Dem nominee isn't eventually going to enjoy at least Kerry level types of support--which I'd say gives one a 50/50 chance of winning depending on turnout (and I'm not saying that's ideal--is out of their heads. I'm not saying McCain can't win, but if he does, it's gonna be damn close.
- It's early. In my book, two things matter most. First is that the nomination be decided one way or another by June 7, right at the end of the primary season. Let everybody vote, but the party truly won't be able to survive going all the way to the late August convention--there just won't be enough time for folks to come to grips with the primary outcome. So long as there's a nominee in June, there's several months to put the pieces back together--and believe me, that will happen to a large extent. I'm not saying everybody, and some of that will depend on whether Hillary continues to race bait and antangonize, but also on whether Obama can make inroads in at least his favorability ratings w/ Hillary's base. And as an Obama supporter without blinders on, if you think he doesn't need to deal with the outrageous MSM-driven perception that he may just be an angty, black muslim, who's not particularly proud of his country, you're only fooling yourself. But honestly, if I had to pick one political figure who I thought could make those charges look as outrageously ridiculous as they are, its Barack Obama. There'd also be plenty of time to quickly raise a ton of cash and be all ready to go once folks are back from their summer vacations. But if this goes brokered, you need a third candidate, IMHO, or else the two must absolutely be forced onto the same ticket.
- MI absolutely must revote. In my view, MI is more important than FL, b/c its a bedrock of any Dem's eleotoral strategy--like PA, if MI flips, its horrible, probably insurmountable trouble. FL, on the other hand, while it should certainly be contested hard isn't nearly as essential. But because all the candidates were on the FL ballot, the ideal scenario is Obama having a comfortable enough margin to seat those delegates as currently allocated. I also think that Obama to some extent later in the game should be begin to dangle that to the supers, who mostly care about winning--i.e. come out for me in enough numbers at the end of the primaries to ensure I'm the presumptive nominee, and in return, I'll gladly see FL as allocated and we can avoid that whole problem.
- As, I've said, I'm an Obama supporter. I started the campaign lean Clinton--at this point, I'm so digusted with her that I can hardly look at her--though I will support her if she pulls this out. I generally believe that the supers must ratify the elected delegate total, if the lead is significant. BUT--in the unlikely outcome that (A) Hillary wins PA, and most of the remaining battleground states--namely OR and WV (and also wins IN, and runs strong in NC); (B) Both MI and FL hold fair revotes and Hillary wins both significantly and (C) Hillary takes the popular vote lead, she has a case--a really really good case--to make, in the purely political sense. It'll devestate me, but I just don't see how you can't nominate her in that unlikely scenario.