Obama's Chances

"But in the end, Obama wheezed across the finish line. He lost nine of the last 14 primaries, and although Democrats are uniting behind their nominee, there is a lot to make them nervous about Obama's ability to beat rival Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, in the fall.

Leon Panetta, who served as White House chief of staff under former President Bill Clinton, says Obama still faces problems with swing voters in swing states.

"By virtue of having lost some of those big states and some of those very important constituencies that are important — Latino, white, rural, a lot of the blue-collar women's vote — he can't afford to not get those votes back in the Democratic Party. … Those fault lines have cost the Democrats, I think, seven of the last 10 presidential races," he says.

"If they open up and stay unhealed, then there's no question that he ultimately loses," Panetta adds."  Mara Liasson

--------------------------------------------------------------------

If you think that smoldering resentment towards the trashing of the United States by the Bush Administration will necessarily elect Barack Obama to be president, then I think you are wrong.  His appeal is more limited than his urban, liberal, coastal, and black admirers are willing to admit to themselves.  The country remains very nearly evenly divided in basic sentiment no matter how much the Bush Administration and things like the "K Street Project" have angered many citizens.

Control of Congress is a different matter.  "Throw the bastards out" is likely to be the thought of the day on 4 November.  An even more strongly Democratic Congress is probable.

The presidency is another matter.  Many Americans have been propagandized into seeing the president as a temporary king, the CEO of America, the father, the Commander in Chief.  This last in spite of the fact that the president is CinC of the armed forces, not the United States.

As a result, many people think they are electing a semi-divine being to rule them from the Olympian setting provided by the White House, Air Force One, the Secret Service, etc.  People going to meetings with POTUS (What an ugly term!) are told not to speak unless spoken to.  The John Adams view of the image of the presidency has at long last prevailed.  Will "court" uniforms come next?  The presidency is thought by many to be effectively all-powerful.  It is said the new president will change this, or that, or perhaps that.  The idea that the presidency is limited in its power has become an unfamiliar concept.

As a result, the fear of electing the "other" is stronger than ever.  This is a fear of consenting to rule by an alien being.  Obama is a bit exotic, a creature of the intelligentsia, someone who does not seem inclined towards plebeian ways.  He has a strange name.  He has strange associations.  His rhetoric is, if anything, too good, too skilled.  And then, there is the undeniable blackness of the man.

Thomas Jefferson was a man for the people, not a man of the people.  So was Franklin Roosevelt.  Perhaps Obama would be the same.

Unless he manages to communicate that as a probability, I would rate his prospects as no more than 50%.  He should choose a Vice-Presidential candidate carefully.  That person will have to "translate" Obama to the men and women in whose hands his fate will rest.  pl

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91366795

Comments

[Bill Wade, NH]

Ron Paul, having been excluded from a speaking opportunity at the Republican convention, will hold his own "alternate" convention. One has to wonder where he's going with that, could get interesting.

If I were Obama I'd pick Caroline Kennedy for VP. The combination would be unbeatable.

[Michael]

Neither Obama nor McCain appear to offer much in the way of leadership, which is very disappointing. There is much work to be done (to get the US back to its former glory) and I don't think either man is fit for the job.

M

[Curious]

NPR, now there is a radio that should confine itself to pottery and silly word game show. They don't report, they make nice sounds to fill 30 seconds of air.

This is the so called "wheezing" end. (the delegates, the various state win and margin)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008

Hillary big wins? WV, KY, PR. (Hillary delegates gain after PA? 40 or so. That's after 11-0 lost plus unable to get Texas.)

The so called Hillary wins? Here is the chart. Her only high margin win is in one area: the Appalachia. (unfortunately nobody post this sort of chart in the press)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34457952@N00/2515140172/in/photostream/

This is the current statistical analysis
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/11/105023/784/387/533532
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Don't get me wrong, Obama still need to fight hard. But no number says he is in impossible position. All number says, if he applies people on the ground and work proper campaign strategy, he will get a lot of swing states. Under optimum condition, McCain is not even close. Worst case scenario 10 delegates or so. (And we are still 5 months away)

[William R. Cumming]

Excellent analysis. It seems that both parties have very very high stakes in this Presidential campaign. Loser likely to be out of power another 8-12 years because whoever succeeds Bush has one major thing going for them-they are not Bush. Accordingly expect real trench warfare where fighting occurs for every single vote and hoping for a narrow electoral college win. This could be another election where like that in 1876 gets thrown to the Congress which of course makes Congressional campaigns also of extreme importance. Also expect a long startup for the DEMS if they win. Certainly Ms. Clinton would have brought in many known faces, some of them the same that helped keep Arkansas #48 or 49 in most salient categories throughout the 12 years of the Clinton governorship. I must say they certainly did a nice job laying the groundwork for Bush. The sooner Obama acts like he is going to win and reassures the voters that he is a very serious person with the correct gravitas he makes it more likely he will win over independents, and win the squeaker. I really don't think it is the usual campaign, both McCain and Obama must convince the voters who is the best politician in the deepest sense, who listens best to the voters and captures what they want for the future of the US! That man will win the election but only by inches or yards and not by miles in anycase. The fog of war and the spin of campaigns are close relatives in this instance. This is truly a turning point for the American Republic if it intends to maintain its status and traditions now virtually destroyed by 30 years of weak Presidential leadership and the rise of the corporate state with only the lack of ethnic genocide keeping it from being regarded as facist. Wow the thought that Richard Nixon was the MAJOR US President following the Eisenhower era. Vietnam killed Johnson and Kerry. A grip on the trees but not the forest killed Carter and Clinton. And a pardon delivered before rather than after the election killed Ford. Few Americans remember that Ford almost won. Carter came closer to Reagan that most remember. And of course thanks to Ross Perot running twice, we had a Clinton Presidency. Ifs don't count of course. I will skip over 2000 and that outcome but it really would be nice if someone won going away but not going to happen. So let's just see who is ready to govern, not just fly a plane or head the Harvard Law Review.

[lina]

Obama has opened up an 7 point lead in the Gallup national tracking poll.

He's also opened up a bigger lead in women since Clinton dropped out:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107806/Obama-Gains-Among-Women-After-Clinton-Exit.aspx

All he needs is a slightly larger youth turnout, and a slightly larger African American turnout, and he wins.

Furthermore, Bob Barr is going to take some votes away from McCain.

I can't think of a single state won by Kerry in 2004 that will flip McCain's way. There are a handful of Bush states that could flip to Obama.

Obama's campaign out-organized the Clinton people in most of the primary states. Clinton won the big states that had established Democratic Party machines. That machinery will now be working for Obama (see Pennsylvania). Obama had to build his state organizations from scratch. Because the primaries went on so long and all 50 states competed, he now has functioning campaign offices in all 50 states. Plus, he's undertaking a massive voter registration drive:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/vfchome

It is estimated that 20 million women eligible to vote did not vote in 2004. Biggest obstacle to getting those women to the polls - childcare. You think the Obama braintrust won't find a way to provide childcare for voters in those swing states? Ha!

There will have to be a massively damaging October surprise way more toxic than Rev. Wright to hand this election over to John McCain, a.k.a. Bush III. Also, Obama can calm the fear factor voters by putting some macho military type on the ticket as VP.

Yes, there are racists in Appalachia who will stay home. There are right-leaning independents who will go for McCain. But, c'mon, Obama only needs two new states to go his way and he gets to 270 electoral votes.

Col. Lang!! Get with the program !! This train is leaving the station!

[Farmer Don]

I'll put a $100.00 US dollar bill down at 50/50 odds for Obama against McCain.
Any takers?

Love him or Hate him, Obama's the man.

[Buzz Meeks]

A new Democratically controlled Congress will have to significantly more progressive to make their new majority worth anything to this country. The 2006 election results were acted upon as the will of the people by the craven leadership. Impeachment off the table, my rump.More of the Pelosi-Reid appeasement will not help correct the grievous wrongs and damage committed these last long seven and a half years.

A strong Democratically controlled congress could have stopped a lot of the criminal and treasonous acts of the Bush-Likud cabal. A strong congress could also stop Wet-Start McCain. I am not counting on much if the Congressional elections don't replace the Pelosi appeasers.

Don't underestimate the common folks, they have figured out who is buggering them. Hammer home McCain's responsibility for the USS Forrestal fire with 134 dead seaman and his father's cover up of the USS Liberty massacre by the Israeli AF and it will be a Democratic landslide. I am not a big fan of Obama but I would cut my right hand off before I ever voted Rethuglican.

Speaking of court uniforms, Nixon's zeppo costumes. Walt Kelley did a great job of putting the Agnew hyena into Nixon's court uniform.

Buzz Meeks

[Arun]

I hope Col Lang and other readers here will take a look at this

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-at-his-best-few-comments-1.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-at-his-best-few-comments-1.html

and opine whether Obama's remarks will connect with the voters or not.

[Buzz]

" And then, there is the undeniable blackness of the man."
I'm not an Obama expert so please correct me if I am wrong but I believe it is the case that Obama's mother was completely white, while his father was completely black.
The reality is that he is undeniably a 50/50 mix of two races. Undeniably both black and white. It may be true that for many Americans his physical features make him "undeniably black " despite the truth of his background.
I'm sure that there are some Americans who will not vote for him based on this alone.
Personally I could care less about this.
He is at least an intelligent, compassionate person, who I don't think will make war in order to prove his Macho Man credentials.
I also don't think he will pursue "the President as King" theory of the federalist society.
That's enough "change" for me.
Buzz G.

[zanzibar]

IMO, this is going to be either a very close race in terms of the electoral college or its going to be a blow out since many states are pretty close and the voting could swing in either direction in those close contests.

The fact that Obama even managed to squeeze across the finish line is rather amazing. Hillary had all the star power, the Clinton name recognition and the entire establishment support including all the big corporate donors. Note that even Murdoch did a fund raiser for her. Obama's campaign team out organized her. Since the traditional big money donors were already taken by Hillary he had to focus on getting citizens to fund his campaign and was successful in getting around 2 million people to fund and provide the ground troops. That was itself an incredible feat. His campaign team planned for a long contest and competed for votes in every district. Despite all the disadvantages of lack of name recognition, the color of his skin, his "exotic" name and background as well as lack of institutional support his campaign got across the finish line as the winner. This was no ordinary win.

One of the keys that Obama has going for him for the general election is his opponent. John McCain unfortunately for the Republicans is a weak candidate with too many contradictions and very gaffe prone. From issues with the Keating 5 corruption and getting the evangelicals to come around he is walking all over any clear message line. Yes, the Republicans will come around and rally for McCain but he will have to compete in every state. Obama due to the long and heavily fought primary has campaign organizations in every state and an incredibly motivated funding base that will not make it easy for McCain. This will not be a standard electoral map that we are so familiar with. States with large black populations, the Mountain West and even states like Virginia which have been trending Democratic are all in play. A small change in turnout will make the difference.

This election no doubt will be vicious. Charlie Black and his smear campaign model will make the Obamas the issue. Their "foreigness", their "black power" inclinations will be central to their characterizations. He will be made into the candidate for the Muslims and terrorists, Old Europe and others - the non-American candidate. Note Tom Friedman's recent note in the NYT and Fox's "terrorist fist jab"- this will get played out throughout the corporate media. Fear of a new wave of affirmative action and economic transfer to the blacks will drive the McCain campaign. Their hope will be to throw enough mud that a wedge will be created in the electorate and rural, low information and blue collar white voters will vote their fears and prejudices en masse.

Obama on the other hand will be walking a tight rope. He'll be fending off the identity and character attacks while trying to paint McCain as Bush III within the context of his unity and kumbaya message theme. He will have to do this with a campaign team that has not had the experience to compete at this level of intensity nationally and as a result could make mistakes in the heat of battle that could be costly. The next 4 months will determine how he is going to handle it. The state of the campaigns in October will provide a good indicator of the possible outcomes in November. I would say the odds right now are for a narrow McCain electoral college win but Obama should not be under-estimated. This race can turn easily.

[Stephen Calhoun]

Yes, Pat, as you say: Obama may have limited appeal as divine leader. I suggest that many unconsciously may be very unsure about whether BO possesses any CinC qualities at all. Or better: that the qualities collectively projected on the 'usual' prospective CinC may not fit BO.

I am afraid McCain may be similar to Mr.Bush in that he seems to also itch to be a 'general of the generals' rather than be the civilian upholder of the Constitution and CinC. He may also see himself as a 'world historical' adventurer. I don't like that if it's true!

We're caught as a country between: realizing Eisenhower's nightmare of an unfettered military-industrial complex, and, effectively deploying our military to mitigate and defeat threats. And, to do the latter within the constraints of our Constitution and our laws.

Whatever are our collective projections based in fantasy and cast upon a candidate, I hope we end up with leadership and a leadership team that is completely reality-based.

In a way, it's amazing when we end up with a reality-based leader after all the fantasies play out.

[Steve]

Colonel,

A provocative post.

One problem with the US system of government is the fact that the head of government is combined with the head of state in one person--the President.

I don't say that a parliamentary system doesn't have its own problems. For example, in that system, one can argue that the "head of state" operates independently of politics. To me, that is equally erroneous in the sense that it creates an aura of the state removed from politics. Imho, that's not good either.

Just my two cents.

Beyond that, I live in Iowa in a small town of 27,000 and teach at a community college. My students are not elite by any means, and are not particularly "young" by university standards. Nonetheless, with rare exception those students translate their distaste for Bush into support for Obama. I would also add anecdotally that those students appear to represent the feelings of my blue collar town--old, young, student, non-student.

[Curious]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/11/175435/528/707/534229

MSNBC has just released a new national survey (NBC/WSJ poll) showing Obama leading McCain 47% to 41%.

Obama leads among women: 52-33%
Obama leads among those who voted for Clinton: 61-19
Obama leads among Hispanics: 62-28
Obama leads among white women: 46-39

---
Today's tracking polls (four day Rasmussen and three-day Gallup) have Obama ahead by 7. The Pollster.com average is Obama leading 47.5% to 43%.

Along with today's Rasmussen poll on Michigan, these show a significant bump for Obama. By tomorrow, http://www.electoral-vote.com/ will show Obama leading in the electoral college by 304-214.

[jon]

Obama could win big and look good doing it. Sort of like Michael Jordan, without the traveling. What Obama has done so far is masterful - I'd say that he's demonstrated much more maturity and political adeptness than McCain.

More likely, this will be a long, hard, dirty ground war of a campaign, with a full display of race baiting usually not on public display. There is a deep and broad current of conservatism that is loyal and not easily discouraged. Much as McCain might not be every conservative's cup of tea, they will still vote for him over Obama. And then there's various monkeying around with voter registration and voting machines to attend to.

The game is in the electoral votes and both teams can count. Democrats seem intent on running a 50 state strategy, which will help pick up as many congressional and senatorial seats as possible, and make the Republicans play a lot of defense in places they generally consider their secure base. Democrats should also be able to match, and maybe exceed Republicans in fundraising, which is rare.

Obama will also have to leverage his grass roots organization and work hard to keep his staff and volunteers energized. The convention will have to balance keeping the party rank and file, while not turning off the new arrivals with stale DLC positions that try to have it both ways.

BTW, I thought that Nixon outfitted his honor guard in something out of the Pirates of Penzance. Got a lot of guff for it, and helped introduce the term 'the Imperial Presidency'. We've also a Supreme Court justice who's added gold braid and stripes to his robe like some British admiral...

[Cieran]

Good thoughts, Colonel. Thanks for yours... here's mine:

I'm a reluctant Obamaphile, and what caused me to come to support him was the fact that he graduated from Harvard Law and chose to work on behalf of poor people in Chicago instead of in the high-profile opportunities he could have pursued instead.

That's important to all Americans of any political stripe, because one of the most important truths about this country (and one that few of its citizens or its media mavens care to talk honestly about) is that we're all rapidly becoming poor people courtesy of huge budget deficits and stupid federal accounting tricks -- so Obama, of all the candidates, has the right skills to help us where we're unfortunately headed.

We've seen where Presidents who grew up dealing with nothing but wealth have taken us as a nation (not to mention Vice Presidents like Cheney who became addicted to big money later in life), namely "borrow, spend, waste, and then borrow some more". And John McCain's solution to financial security was to dump his first wife so he could marry a rich new one, so he's part of the problem, not part of the solution.

And frankly, if Obama would pick Jim Webb as VP, I'd follow his sage Windy City political mentor's advice and "vote early, and vote often" for him!

[otiwa ogede]

The "undeniable blackness" of Obama?

Eureka! Obama should pick someone even blacker as VP..maybe Danny Glover?

Wesley Snipes perhaps? He's got real blackism, or does the tax fraud disqualify him?

[DeLudendwarf]

Colonel:

Sorry I missed your birthday. Congrats!
Keep saying it.

Been hanging out at Larry Johnson's shop.

We've got a bunch of PUMAs loose and running over there.

I'm with the Duke of Wellington on this:

"I don't know what they'll do to the enemy; but, by God, they frighten me."

[Nancy K]

I am 61 years old and a life long Democrat, living in California. my husband is Israeli ane we are both supporting Obama. We have a daughter who is half Hispanic, voting for Obama and a daughter living in North Carolina voting for Obama, and all of her family, who have lived in North Carolina for generations are voting for Obama.
I think it very naive to believe that caucasian Americans will not be voting for Obama. To believe that Jews will not be voting for Obama. To believe that Israeli's will not be voting for Obama. to believe that woman will not be voting for Obama. To believe that Southerner's will not be voting for Obama.
Obama in 2008

[Publius]

Sometime in 2007, after Nancy Pelosi had become speaker, I was discussing politics and other areas of mutual interest with an old friend, who is Republican, but whose faith has been shaken (and I work on him) in the past few years. He was upset that Pelosi had said something he viewed as disrespectful of Bush. When I asked him why Pelosi should be respectful of Bush, my friend, retired from corporate America, said, in referring to Bush, "He's the boss."

We then launched into a lengthy discussion, wherein I had to remind this college graduate about how our country works, that Bush was not Pelosi's boss, and that in fact, she was not what he was thinking of—a VP or something—but was Bush's equal in our system. The problem my friend had, the problem to which you refer, Col Lang, is that we have a president as CEO (in the corporate sense) mindset in our nation.

This tendency to view the president through a corporatist lens is a problem we all have and I'm not sure what we can do about it. Our Founders rejected the parliamentary system for good reason. Further, inasmuch as it was expected that Washington would be the first president, one can't imagine that they envisioned a weak presidency. I think they wanted a strong presidency, but one with significant and, if needed, show-stopping, oversight from the legislative branch.

The party system has pretty well strangled any hope for significant oversight of the president, who is, after all, the "leader" of his party. Legislators of the president's party are all beholden to him for money and for actual continuation in office. Many legislators in the opposition bide their time until they get their own president and are thus loath to take chances.

We need a strong presidency, but we also need the oversight provided for in our Constitution. The legislative branch has abrogated its resonsibilities and it's hard to imagine a change in the future.

[PeterE]

McCain will probably win for reasons H.L. Mencken spelled out nearly a 100 years ago. The majority of American voters continues to vote as a mob, and as Mencken wrote, "it is the ultimate source of all political power. Even the plutocracy cannot make war upon it openly or forget the least of its weaknesses. The business of keeping it in order must be done discretely, warily... In the main that business consists in keeping alive its deep-seated fears -- of strange faces, of unfamiliar ideas, of unhackneyed gestures, of untested liberties and responsibilities." The Republicans are attending to business.

[rjj]

"I don't know what they'll do to the enemy; but, by God, they frighten me."

Me, too. But same can be said of the Obamanates. The consumer society has spawned and nurtured a nation of wankers.

as the still small voice admonisheth me: "be mindful of motes and beams, gnats and camels."

[rjj]

"the Olympian setting provided by the White House, Air Force One, the Secret Service, etc."

During the Reagan inaugural "The Most Trusted Man in America," said: fie, fie, a pox on that populism we've had of late, this is what we need -- more pomp and majesty. [paraphrase]

[lina]

Our friend George Will has done the math for us this morning (what a guy):

"251: That was John Kerry's electoral vote total. Barack Obama stands a better chance of holding Kerry's 19 states and the District of Columbia, and finding 19 more votes, than John McCain does of holding all 31 of Bush's states. Obama might capture the 2004 red states New Mexico (5 electoral votes), Nevada (5) and Colorado (9) -- George W. Bush won them by a combined 127,011 votes -- giving him 270. McCain, who in his 10-year campaign for the presidency has lingered in New Hampshire long enough to vote as a resident, might turn it red, gaining 4 votes. Obama, however, has reasonable hopes of winning Iowa (7), which Al Gore won by 4,144 votes out of 1,315,563 cast in 2000. Bush won it in 2004 by 10,059 out of 1,506,908 cast. And Obama's estimated 90,000 caucus votes this year almost equaled the combined118,167 won by Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, McCain, Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who finished in that order. Furthermore, Obama might carry Virginia (13). Bush won it with 54 percent in 2004, but rapid demographic changes favor Democrats and Obama won this year's primary with 623,141 votes while McCain was beating Mike Huckabee with 244,135. And should former senator Sam Nunn be his running mate, Obama might win Georgia. Obama's 700,366 primary votes were more than Huckabee's 326,069 and McCain's 303,639, combined."

[Buzz]

" The legislative branch has abrogated its resonsibilities and it's hard to imagine a change in the future."
Posted by: Publius

Publius,
The question is: Why would the Congress abrogate it's responsibilities?
I believe that the members of Congress are in fact engaged in fulfilling their responsibilities to represent the interests of the wealthy corporate and private donors that fund them.
There's nothing new about this but I believe that the problem we have is that the interests of the country as a whole are diverging from the interests of our now multi-national corporations and our wealthiest citizens.
While it may have been true in the past that "What's good for GM is good for America" I don't think that this kind of statement is true anymore.
It appears to me that many of the wealthy and powerful in America (along with their oil rich foreign friends) no longer share a common interest with the American middle class and are pusuing their own economic self interest with no regard for the effect on the country as a whole.
Many now pledge their allegiance to "The Invisible Hand of the Free Market" instead of to The United States of America.
This being the case it is not surprising that Congress chooses to fulfill it's responsibilities to the funders instead of to the voters.
Buzz G.

[TomB]

Publius wrote:

"Our Founders rejected the parliamentary system for good reason."

Publius:

Given the situation you complain about with the non-parliamentary U.S. system, I'm wondering why you think a parliamentary one would still be worse? Certainly from the Brit experience at least it seems to fragment things, including the party system, but then the (admittedly de facto only) two-party U.S. system is exactly what you mostly blamed for the current U.S. situation. So where do you see the rub with a parliamentary arrangement?

Cheers,