If you had told me, say, ten years ago, that an African-American president, vilified by huge swaths of southern and midwestern Americans as a socialist who doesn't really love his country, would run on a platform that included higher taxes, gay marriage, and easing restrictions on illegal immigrants, I would have had a simple reaction.
"Are you out of your freaking mind? That idiot will lose in a landslide."
If you had told me further that campaign finance laws would be gutted so that billionaires and corporations could donate unlimited amounts of money, and that hundreds of millions would be pledged for campaign ads against this candidate, that the No. #1-rated cable news network would abandon all pretense of being fair and balanced and launch a jihad against the candidate, that voting laws would be changed in a number of states in a clear effort to discourage turnout by young people, minorities, and the elderly, I would be shaking my head in despair.
I am not in despair today.
By running a smart, modern campaign that focused on winning swing states and getting a broad coalition of voters to turn out; by presenting a message that appealed both to Americans' sense of fairness and their economic self-interest; by providing steady, competent leadership over his first term that stood in stark contrast to the bizarre caricature of Obama that has been pushed relentlessly by Fox and other right-wing media outlets, President Obama convinced Americans that he could be trusted, and conversely, that his detractors could not.
When he first ran for President, Barack Obama talked a lot about change. He said semi-mystical stuff like, "We are the change we seek." This approach earned him some mockery from the right; notably in the form of Sara Palin--who is almost the complete opposite of Obama in many ways--when she said, "How's that hopey-changey stuff working out for you?"
Turns out it's working fine. Barack Obama did bring change, but he would not have been returned to office if the electorate hadn't itself been part of that change. America is changing. The electorate last week was younger, less white, less male, less conservative, less likely to be regular church-goers, than the electorate of past years. There are still white male voters like myself who will vote for Obama, but what allows him to win is that the rest of America prefers him strongly over what the Republican party offered this time around.
And it's not just demographics. It's ideas, positions, that are changing. Republicans can no longer win by bashing immigrants. They can no longer win by promising tax cuts. They can no longer win by rousing their base with anti-gay laws. I have to say, when the GOP-dominated Minnesota Legislature passed constitutional amendment referendums on gay marriage and voter ID last spring, I thought the cause was lost. I braced myself for both measures to win in November. But as time went on, I saw an amazingly energetic and committed marriage equality movement take shape in this state. The Voter ID debate was more muted, but with a savvy strategy (don't say Voter ID is wrong, say it's poorly written and needs to be fixed) and some effective late advertising, the anti-voter ID forces surged in the last weeks. And both amendments were defeated.
And it's my suspicion that the GOP's strategy of exclusion is itself one key as to why turnout was so favorable to Obama and Democrats last week. In Minnesota, there is evidence that the marriage and voter ID amendments actually increased turnout and brought more "No" votes to the polling booth--voters that also supported Obama and returned the Minnesota's Legislature to complete DFL control for the first time in decades. Nationally, it seems reasonable that the media attention given to voter-ID laws and the suppressive effect they have drove minorities and young voters to be even more motivated to vote.
The country still faces grave challenges, not the least of which is gridlock. Many in the GOP will retrench and return to their obstructionist ways, knowing that their safely-red districts will reward them for it. As time goes by, though, it seems likely that these dead-enders will become increasingly irrelevant.
But even with the difficult issues we face, Obama's promise is being fulfilled. We have seen change in America. Better yet, we have seen progress.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Monday, November 05, 2012
Final Predictions
President of the United States:
As of today, Obama leads nationally by 0.4 percentage points nationally, according to Real Clear Politics. Yes, this is a close race.
But the race is not decided by the national vote, it's decided by the electoral vote, and there Obama leads in 10 out of the 12 states listed as battleground states by RCP. We can speculate all day (and some will) about voter enthusiasm, margins of error, ground games, expanding the map, and independent voter share, but clearly, being ahead is better than being behind.
I find that RCP polling averages give a little more weight to R-leaning pollsters, so I'll use them instead of HuffPost/Pollster, or the folks at Talking Points Memo. Just from the RCP analysis; if we choose an arbitrary cutoff point, say anything at 2 percent or above for Obama, give him those states and give Romney *not only* the states where he leads but the states where Obama's lead is below 2 percent, what do we find?
Obama wins the electoral college: 281 to 257.
I personally think Obama has a good chance to win Virginia and Colorado (303-235) and would not be shocked if he also won Florida (332-206).
The polls could be wrong. There could be a Romney wave, or Obama voters could not turn out as expected. I'd be shocked to see Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania end up in the Romney camp. But a Florida/Ohio/Colorado combination could get Romney there.
In the end, I'll give Romney Virginia and Florida, and predict a 290-248 Obama win. I expect the winner of the electoral college will win the popular vote. If not, well, I believe there is some historical precedent for that.
Minnesota Races
Frankly, I'm no expert on these; I haven't followed the polls closely. But I'll take a shot. I never bet against Michele Bachmann, so I'll predict she holds on for a win. Ellison wins. Walz wins. Peterson, Paulson, & Kline (not a folk group) -- they return to Congress. The really interesting race is Chip Cravaack (R) versus Rick Nolan (DFL). I'm inclined to think Nolan, a former congressman, can turn this traditionally DFL district back to blue, but after hearing the two debate, I'll admit that Cravaack seems smart and in-touch with the district. He may pull it out.
Amy Klobuchar will win by perhaps the biggest margin of any Senate race this cycle as she tromps Kurt Bills. Bills is a sincere and smart guy, but seems out of his depth. His somewhat radical stands (he got the nomination after the state Republican party was taken over by Ron Paul followers) have not helped at all. Another example why embracing its libertarian wing has really been a handicap for the Republican Party. The R's would have a Senate majority if they didn't keep having to deal with Tea Party and Libertarian candidates who are just clearly outside the mainstream.
Constitutional Amendments
In Minnesota, voters are being asked to vote on whether to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriages, and to require a photo ID system for voting. Both amendments are horrible ideas for this state, where gay marriage is already illegal (sadly) and one of the best voting systems in the nation would be thrown ass-over-teakettle with the passage of the amendment in question.
Unfortunately, both types of referendums have a history of passing. This year, a large campaign that includes the business community, part of the faith community, and a wide range of Minnesotans have rallied to solidify opposition to the marriage amendment. I believe it will be blocked. I am less optimistic about the photo ID amendment, and I predict it will pass narrowly. Polls show a close race on both, which is encouraging, but I suspect voter ID will pass. Then it will be up to the courts and next year's Legislature to either find a way to block it or make it less onerous. We'll see.
Well, that's all I got. Please feel free to share your predictions in the comments section.
And VOTE!
As of today, Obama leads nationally by 0.4 percentage points nationally, according to Real Clear Politics. Yes, this is a close race.
But the race is not decided by the national vote, it's decided by the electoral vote, and there Obama leads in 10 out of the 12 states listed as battleground states by RCP. We can speculate all day (and some will) about voter enthusiasm, margins of error, ground games, expanding the map, and independent voter share, but clearly, being ahead is better than being behind.
I find that RCP polling averages give a little more weight to R-leaning pollsters, so I'll use them instead of HuffPost/Pollster, or the folks at Talking Points Memo. Just from the RCP analysis; if we choose an arbitrary cutoff point, say anything at 2 percent or above for Obama, give him those states and give Romney *not only* the states where he leads but the states where Obama's lead is below 2 percent, what do we find?
Obama wins the electoral college: 281 to 257.
I personally think Obama has a good chance to win Virginia and Colorado (303-235) and would not be shocked if he also won Florida (332-206).
The polls could be wrong. There could be a Romney wave, or Obama voters could not turn out as expected. I'd be shocked to see Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania end up in the Romney camp. But a Florida/Ohio/Colorado combination could get Romney there.
In the end, I'll give Romney Virginia and Florida, and predict a 290-248 Obama win. I expect the winner of the electoral college will win the popular vote. If not, well, I believe there is some historical precedent for that.
Minnesota Races
Frankly, I'm no expert on these; I haven't followed the polls closely. But I'll take a shot. I never bet against Michele Bachmann, so I'll predict she holds on for a win. Ellison wins. Walz wins. Peterson, Paulson, & Kline (not a folk group) -- they return to Congress. The really interesting race is Chip Cravaack (R) versus Rick Nolan (DFL). I'm inclined to think Nolan, a former congressman, can turn this traditionally DFL district back to blue, but after hearing the two debate, I'll admit that Cravaack seems smart and in-touch with the district. He may pull it out.
Amy Klobuchar will win by perhaps the biggest margin of any Senate race this cycle as she tromps Kurt Bills. Bills is a sincere and smart guy, but seems out of his depth. His somewhat radical stands (he got the nomination after the state Republican party was taken over by Ron Paul followers) have not helped at all. Another example why embracing its libertarian wing has really been a handicap for the Republican Party. The R's would have a Senate majority if they didn't keep having to deal with Tea Party and Libertarian candidates who are just clearly outside the mainstream.
Constitutional Amendments
In Minnesota, voters are being asked to vote on whether to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriages, and to require a photo ID system for voting. Both amendments are horrible ideas for this state, where gay marriage is already illegal (sadly) and one of the best voting systems in the nation would be thrown ass-over-teakettle with the passage of the amendment in question.
Unfortunately, both types of referendums have a history of passing. This year, a large campaign that includes the business community, part of the faith community, and a wide range of Minnesotans have rallied to solidify opposition to the marriage amendment. I believe it will be blocked. I am less optimistic about the photo ID amendment, and I predict it will pass narrowly. Polls show a close race on both, which is encouraging, but I suspect voter ID will pass. Then it will be up to the courts and next year's Legislature to either find a way to block it or make it less onerous. We'll see.
Well, that's all I got. Please feel free to share your predictions in the comments section.
And VOTE!
Republicans buy the Brooklyn Bridge
One of the things that has struck me as this campaign has wound down is how Republicans have come to embrace Mitt Romney, a man who in some ways embodies everything they hate about politics and politicians.
It has always seemed to me that conservatives and Republicans have tended to hold politicians to higher and possibly more unrealistic standards than, say, Democrats or the mythical independent voter.
Republicans claim to be disgusted by political spin. They can't stand flip-floppers. They disdain anyone who can be seen as a career politician. They are cynical and distrusting of politicians because, as they sometimes say, they're all a bunch of liars who just tell people what they want to hear.
Enter Mitt Romney.
I mean, really. Mitt's record is so full of flip-flops, about-faces, doubletalk and dishonesty, it seems redundant to go over it all again. Abortion. Health Care. Cap and Trade. Gun Control. Over and over again, Romney has changed his position to fit the race and the moment he's in. He's told outright lies, been called on it, shrugged and repeated the lies again.
And yet conservatives have seemed to embrace him here in the last months and weeks of the campaign. It this just a sign of how desperate they are to defeat Obama?
I have to say, at one point I didn't expect this race to be close. Yet Romney pulled it together and came into that first debate with a whole new persona and approach, and suddenly it was game on. The electorate saw a moderate, articulate, passionate candidate, who bore little resemblance to the Mitt Romney who appeared at the Republican National Convention. And that seemed to make the difference.
And I think the subsequent bump in the polls was enough to bring along the Republican base, because they started to hope. They decided that if Romney really could pull it off, they could live with a little betrayal of their principles. It's a human thing; goodness knows those on the left have put up with flawed candidates. One of those flawed candidates has been Obama's best surrogate, and Barack's going to owe Bill big time when this is all over.
So they let go, and let Mitt. They trusted him. That's all a candidate can ask for, and Romney responded with a sometimes-inspired (sometimes not-so-much, as in the foreign policy debate) October that brought us to this: a very close race, in doubt until almost the end--some would say still a tossup on the day before.
Still the irony is something I find striking. The epitome of a slick, say-anything candidate, supported and loved by his principled, no-spin-zone base. Politics is truly strange.
It has always seemed to me that conservatives and Republicans have tended to hold politicians to higher and possibly more unrealistic standards than, say, Democrats or the mythical independent voter.
Republicans claim to be disgusted by political spin. They can't stand flip-floppers. They disdain anyone who can be seen as a career politician. They are cynical and distrusting of politicians because, as they sometimes say, they're all a bunch of liars who just tell people what they want to hear.
Enter Mitt Romney.
I mean, really. Mitt's record is so full of flip-flops, about-faces, doubletalk and dishonesty, it seems redundant to go over it all again. Abortion. Health Care. Cap and Trade. Gun Control. Over and over again, Romney has changed his position to fit the race and the moment he's in. He's told outright lies, been called on it, shrugged and repeated the lies again.
And yet conservatives have seemed to embrace him here in the last months and weeks of the campaign. It this just a sign of how desperate they are to defeat Obama?
I have to say, at one point I didn't expect this race to be close. Yet Romney pulled it together and came into that first debate with a whole new persona and approach, and suddenly it was game on. The electorate saw a moderate, articulate, passionate candidate, who bore little resemblance to the Mitt Romney who appeared at the Republican National Convention. And that seemed to make the difference.
And I think the subsequent bump in the polls was enough to bring along the Republican base, because they started to hope. They decided that if Romney really could pull it off, they could live with a little betrayal of their principles. It's a human thing; goodness knows those on the left have put up with flawed candidates. One of those flawed candidates has been Obama's best surrogate, and Barack's going to owe Bill big time when this is all over.
So they let go, and let Mitt. They trusted him. That's all a candidate can ask for, and Romney responded with a sometimes-inspired (sometimes not-so-much, as in the foreign policy debate) October that brought us to this: a very close race, in doubt until almost the end--some would say still a tossup on the day before.
Still the irony is something I find striking. The epitome of a slick, say-anything candidate, supported and loved by his principled, no-spin-zone base. Politics is truly strange.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)