The Candidates
Today’s Gallup Poll boasts some interesting internals regarding the McCain/Obama race to 270:
Both contenders have largely solidified their standing among party regulars. Obama is backed by 84% of Democrats, McCain by 87% of Republicans; 9% of Democrats and 9% of Republicans defect to the other side.
Among independents — the group that usually determines election outcomes — Obama leads 48%-36%.
The poll shows sharp divisions between the two candidates’ support along lines of sex, race and age:
• Women support Obama by 14 points while men back McCain by 3 points.
• Whites support McCain by 6 points while blacks almost unanimously back Obama, who is the first African-American to claim a major party’s presidential nomination. Of 130 blacks surveyed, 129 support the Illinois senator.
• Young people back Obama while seniors support McCain. Among those 18 to 29 years old, Obama holds a better than 2-1 edge. Among those 65 and older, McCain leads, 49%-40%.
There were significant regional differences as well. McCain leads in the South, Obama on both the East and West coasts. In the battleground Midwest, Obama is ahead 48%-40%.
So McCain, the candidate who is supposedly driving away his base, seems to be doing a better job of shoring up his own party than Barack, with nearly 90 percent of Republicans supporting the Arizonan. Meanwhile, the center remains with the Democrat. It seems to me that McCain could get every single Republican vote in the country and still lose to Obama unless Independents are convinced to move in McCain’s direction. Right-wing pundits love to talk about the “mythical” Independent vote, a view that becomes more and more laughable each day as Republican numbers dwindle, unaffiliated voters continue to grow, and as Indies show that they can singlehandedly hand the White House to the Democrats regardless of what the Republican base does.
There is no combination of base conservatives that can put McCain over the top in November. As I’ve said so many times this year, the center will decide this election. Like it or not.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Part of the reason the Republican party is so unpopular right now is because of the Iraq War. Even despite the success of the surge, the latest Rasmussen poll shows 59% of Americans want the troops brought home within a year, and only 35% think the troops should stay until the mission is complete. McCain has moved to the center on many issues, but he has shown no indication of moving to the center on this issue, and this is the one that is hurting the Republican party the most. 2006 was not a rejection of conservatism. It was a rejection of neo-conservatism.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
DaveG, you are the best.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Not.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Clarence,
If this presidential election was (R) vs. (D), the only question to be answered in November would be the margin of defeat for the GOP.
McCain, the maverick man of the middle, and fiercest backer of the surge, would actually be well-positioned for a landslide victory over an inexperienced and dangerously naive left-wing candidate like Obama if he wasn’t burdened with wearing the scarlet letter ‘R’.
The Rasmussen poll you cite from late May is broken down further (and was of adults, not registered or likely voters):
35% say the troops should stay until the mission is complete.
34% say they should be brought home within a year.
25% would like to see the troops brought home immediately. (a position even Obama finds indefensible)
In the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll released this week, respondents were asked:
Which candidate do you trust more to handle the situation in Iraq?
46% said McCain; 40% named Obama.
Among independents, 47% said McCain, while just 26% said Obama.
The Washington Post/ABC News poll from earlier this week asked:
Do you think the United States is winning or losing the war in Iraq?
Look at the trendline…
Percentage of those who said the US is winning in Iraq
1/10/07 29%
4/15/07 32%
9/7/07 34%
6/15/08 38%
Percentage of those who said the US is losing in Iraq
1/10/07 57%
4/15/07 53%
9/7/07 48%
6/15/08 46%
I would also note that, because of the surge’s success and the reduction in American casualties, the Iraq war, which was the top concern of voters for a long time now ranks a distant third behind the economy and gas prices.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:45 pm
The Facts in Iraq Are Changing
By Michael Barone
June 21st, 2008 at 6:47 pm
The Facts in Iraq Are Changing
By Michael Barone
As we enter the second half of the campaign year, facts are undermining the Democratic narrative that has dominated our politics since about the time Hurricane Katrina rolled into the Gulf coast — most importantly, the facts about Iraq.
During the Democratic primary season, all the party’s candidates veered hardly a jot or tittle from the narrative that helped the Democrats sweep the November 2006 elections. Iraq is spiraling into civil war, we invaded unwisely and have botched things ever since, no good outcome is possible, and it is time to get out of there as fast as we can.
In January 2007, when George W. Bush ordered the surge strategy, which John McCain had advocated since the summer of 2003, Barack Obama informed us that the surge couldn’t work. The only thing to do was to get out as soon as possible.
That stance proved to be a good move toward winning the presidential nomination — but it was poor prophecy. It is beyond doubt now that the surge has been hugely successful, beyond even the hopes of its strongest advocates, like Frederick and Kimberly Kagan. Violence is down enormously, Anbar and Basra and Sadr City have been pacified, Prime Minister Maliki has led successful attempts to pacify Shiites as well as Sunnis, and the Iraqi parliament has passed almost all of the “benchmark” legislation demanded by the Democratic Congress — all of which Barack Obama seems to have barely noticed or noticed not at all. He has not visited Iraq since January 2006 and did not seek a meeting with Gen. David Petraeus when he was in Washington.
I can remember how opponents of the Vietnam War simply tuned out news of American success when at Richard Nixon’s orders Gen. Creighton Abrams pursued a new strategy. Opponents of the Iraq war, including Obama, seem to have been doing the same.
That’s not true of all critics of the Bush administration and its military leaders. The editorial writers of The Washington Post have been paying close and careful attention. And even though they may be temperamentally more inclined to favor Obama’s candidacy over John McCain’s, they have not been unwilling to take Obama to task for his inattention to American success. Obama, the Post noted tartly on June 7, “has become unreasonably wedded to a year-old proposal to rapidly withdraw all U.S. combat forces from the country — a plan offered when he wrongly believed that the situation would only worsen as long as American troops remained.”
On June 18, a Post editorial made the same point again and noted that Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyard Zebari told Obama in a phone conversation that a precipitate withdrawal would embolden al-Qaida and Iran. But Obama told ABC News’ Jake Tapper he said no such thing. Perhaps he’s still trying to avoid facing facts that undermine his narrative. Which might also explain why he said he was willing to meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions while he has not been able to find time to meet with Petraeus.
Other examples of facts undermining Democratic narratives readily occur. Last week charges were dropped against the seventh of eight Marines accused of atrocities in Haditha. The narrative, peddled by Democratic Congressman (and Marine veteran) John Murtha, of depraved American soldiers massacring innocent Iraqis seems to be falling victim to the facts.
And the fact of $4 gasoline has undermined the narrative that alternative forms of energy can painlessly supply our needs. Public opinion has switched sharply and now favors drilling offshore and, by inference, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Democrats are scrambling to argue that drilling wouldn’t make any difference — and that anyway the oil companies aren’t drilling enough on federal land they currently lease.
All of this matters because the rejection of the Republicans in the 2006 elections was a verdict on competence more than ideology. The Republicans seemed incompetent at relieving victims of Katrina, producing success in Iraq and even policing the House page programs. The Democrats could not do worse and might do better. But in the 19 months since November 2006, some important facts have changed.
If George W. Bush was wrong about the surge from summer 2003 to January 2007, Barack Obama has been wrong about it from January 2007 to today. John McCain seems to have been right on it all along. When asked why he changed his position on an issue, John Maynard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” What say you, Sen. Obama?
June 21st, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Aron, these polls on Iraq may propel McCain to victory. Obama has staked a hard left position. The problem for Obama is that he cannot drastically change his position, as he cannot afford to lose the Move-On crowd.
June 21st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Actually, McCain’s path to the White House isn’t in the center, it’s simply significantly to the right of Obama. If he was slightly to the right of Obama he would lose. Obama has a more engaging personality and inspires more confidence in the naive. McCain needs to focus on those issues that are to the right of Obama, and which poll better for us than for them. Domestic drilling and keeping the Bush tax cuts in place come to mind. During the course of the campaign he can also reframe the Iraq debate as a choice between a man who wants to retreat in the face of victory and a man who wants to seal the deal on victory.
June 21st, 2008 at 7:03 pm
GMM - please explain yourself.
June 21st, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Anyone know where Tommy Oliver has been recently?
June 21st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
This information doesn’t suggest in any way McCain needs to move to the center.
Independent does not mean moderate.
Collectively polling indicates many of the new independent voters are anti-war and anti-Bush Republicans. Anti-war Republicans range the gamut from social conservatives to Arlen Specter moderates. Anti-Bush Republicans are just as varied ideologically.
McCain will lose if he attempts to run as a cross between Arlen Specter and General Patton.
He’ll simply be encouraging more Republicans to surrender to apathy and drop out of politics. Many people don’t vote for the lesser of two evils. They just don’t vote.
June 21st, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Drilling for oil, public financing, spending and taxes for the indies and judges for the base. That’s a pretty good place to start and hammer Obama on.
June 21st, 2008 at 8:25 pm
McCain has gotten the support of his base by making plays to the right. If he screws up, by defending amnesty, campiagn finance, etc. - or by picking a non-conservative Veep…
well, lets just say the Conservative base won’t appreciate that.
June 21st, 2008 at 8:58 pm
The way for McCain to invigorate the base AND the center is to go Sarkozy on Bush and attack him for out of control spending and the GOP for problems of ethics.
June 21st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
McCain needs to start attacking Obama, he needs to lay off the GOP - that is a good way to hurt your support.
June 21st, 2008 at 9:59 pm
What makes you think that independent=center?
June 21st, 2008 at 10:07 pm
#16 is correct. Indy’s are pragmatic, not centrists.
June 21st, 2008 at 10:19 pm
I’m with Metro’s “Go All Sarkosy” strategy. It would have an appeal to both economic and social conservatives as well as some of the independent Perot/Bloomberg crowd.
June 21st, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Dear John: They’re not that into you
June 21st, 2008 at 11:28 pm
I completely agree. McCain/Bloomberg ‘08.
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:43 am
DaveG,
What you seem to conveniently ignore, is the massive party ID gap in these polls. Presumably, you think this gap is a result of the horrible Republican brand. I think it’s far more likely, given that the Republican has probably gotten mildly better since 2006, that the huge difference R/D differential is a result of an utter lack of enthusiasm by those who might identify as R’s. Obama has brought millions of New Democrats into the electorate, McCain has failed to bring millions of New Republicans into the electorate. Not because Obama is more moderate, but because Obama is more compelling to those willing and inclined to accept his ideological presuppositions. He’s just a more interesting candidate.
Correspondingly, millions of Republicans have gone into hibernation, and McCain has shown no capacity to bring them out of it. In other words, when the worst midterm elections in 40 years only showed a 4 point party gap, and the presidential election two years later shows a 15 point party gap (even though our brand has revived quite a bit on it’s most unpopular point), and when this occurs even in the face of us nominating a mavericky moderate, it’s probably a good bet that the problem is more conservatively oriented folks simply tuning out the election or, in protest, withdrawing from the party. McCain’s locking down 87% of the people who identify as Republicans, but it’s no coincidence that considerably fewer people identify as Republicans now; it’s a consequence of a nominee who’s a thorough disappointment to massive segments of the party.
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 am
I agree with #21 - Matthew. My problem is why is this so difficult for people to understand?
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 am
McCain’s locking down 87% of the people who identify as Republicans, but it’s no coincidence that considerably fewer people identify as Republicans now; it’s a consequence of a nominee who’s a thorough disappointment to massive segments of the party.
Sorry man, but I just don’t buy it. Blaming McCain for the fact that millions of people who used to self-identify as Republicans no longer do so seems like something concocted in the spin room of the Bush White House. Iraq has improved to some extent over the past two years, but the economy has tanked and voters now prefer Democrats to Republicans on most if not all issues. The idea that this is the result of selecting a moderate nominee is just a bridge too far for me. Had a generic Republican who never deviated from the orthodoxy been nominated, he’d be losing by 15 points right now.
Incidentally, had GWB lost Indies by 12 in 2004, Kerry would be president right now, even with partisan parity, even with 93 percent of Republicans in his corner, even with the supposed unprecedented turnout of base voting blocs.
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:43 am
While its true that the “Bush Republican” is unpopular - I think the Democrats are going to find it far easier to tie McCain to Bush than, say, Romney or Huckabee.
I’ve never been happy with having McCain as the nominee, but at least at first, I could see how he gave us a better chance at winning. Now, I don’t think he offers much advantage at all. He supports Bush on the issues he is unpopular over, and continues to show leftist tendencies that could alienate the base.
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
DaveG - nice supposition in #23 but you have NO proof to support it. I know you are just trying to prop your man up and that is commendable but Matt Miller seems to be spot on on this one.
And Act brings up a good point - all the pundits said we have to elect the Maverick; he can win. Well, what happens when that Maverick has 26 years in D.C. He doesn’t seem quite so maverick anymore compared to the new guy on the block for the other side. We should have gone for the DC maverick not the party maverick - and anyone other than McCain would have fit that bill this time around.
When the country hates Washington and politics as usual the GOP decides to pick the most entrenched politician available - great job!
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
82% of the country says we are going in the wrong direction.
Pres. Bush has a 29% approval rating
Yet we are within the margin of erros in the POTUS polls, ahead in Cash on hand (candidate and party), and people on this blog are down on McCain?
Obama seems to be stuck in the mid-40’s (%), yet is setting fundraising records, 1.5 million donors, has all the issue polling and the better party brand behind him, and receives 70% positive news coverage. His supports are beyond enthusiastic.
Tell me again, why should we not be the positive group? This is amazing for us! This has nothing to do with being a maverick. It is the life story of a true American hero, and if you do not think that this amazing life story is enough to elect McCain, you are wrong. Wait for the convention. When they line the Convention stage with former POW’s telling stories about McCain’s acts of heroism, it will dwarf any “great speech” Obama will give.
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Its not only that an “outsider” may have fared better but also that its what we need in Washington.
As to McCain’s life story, at some point a campaign must be about the people and the future.
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
#27, it is not. This entire election is about identity politics. Obama made is so. McCain then spend the last 3 months making it about his identity.
As Joe Biden sid this morning, “If I can help elect the first African American President (asked about the VP choice)”.
I would remind you that early this year, the other Republican contenders were polling around 35% when matched against Obama or Clinton.
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Blaming McCain for the fact that millions of people who used to self-identify as Republicans no longer do so seems like something concocted in the spin room of the Bush White House.
I agree. If McCain is down because millions of disaffected Republicans don’t want to vote for him, where were these people during the primaries? Were there no candidates who could rally this allegedly highly-excitable conservative base? McCain beat Romney (with his huge bank account), Thompson (who had Hollywood star and Southern appeal), and Huckabee (who’s a natural talker and Baptist preacher), which is no small feat.
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
DaveG and Big S,
Does no one recall Fred! and the Huckabee phenomenon? There were quite a few Rerpublicans eager, even desperate, to be rallied by SOMEONE. Which is why we had conservative saviors popping up to try to derail Rudy and McCain. I still think Fred could have claimed the Republican mantle, and rallied just about everyone, had the late December, early Jasnuary, Fred shown up in September. Huckabee could have rallied folks, even with his awful record, had he A.) not emphasized religion so much pre-Iowa in an attempt to play to anti-Mormon bigotry, and B.) not actively attacked fiscal conservatism, but instead focused more on a positive formulation of his economic populism. Even Romney and Rudy had a few opportunites to claim the mantle of the party with some vigor. McCain was literally the only possible nominee almost guaranteed to send the entire Republican coalition into a massive slumber. He rallies no one, because his brand of Maverickyness doesn’t have a political constituency within the party because it has no consistency. He just darts aimlessly between liberalism, moderation, and conservatism, without any undergirding philosophy. I’m not arguing, as some would, that if only we’d nominated a pure conservative, we’d be in good shape now. I’ve consistently rejected that proposition as foolhardy nonsense. Pure conservatives don’t play in this environment. But, when over 50% of the GOP primary electorate says the next president ought to be more conservative then Bush (as opposed to something to 25% who say he should be less conservative) we shouldn’t be surprised when, after nominating John McCain, we’re seeing a GOP that hasn’t grown a jot. As always, the ticket to victory is expanding the base, AND enthusing the current base. And when facing Barack Obama, focusing almost exclusively on the this is essentially a fools errand even for a Mavericky guy like McCain. If we’d nominated Romney, or Fred, or perhaps even Huck, I suspect we’d be looking at a 10 point party ID gap instead of 15. Any of those candidates would be losing independents by 20-25 points right now, which is why, at the end of the day, Mac’s probably a better nominee. But, even a theoretically better nominee has the potential to do considerably worse, if they misunderstand the nature of the task ahead of them, and I think that saying that the “center” is the key to victory in November, is precisely that sort of misunderstanding. The key to victory involves re-invigorating key elements of coalition, without turning off the center. And Mac’s team seems to understand this to some degree. Notice that he’s running to the right on a number of issues now, notably energy, where the center is either indifferent, or actively favors his position. He’ll keep doing this all the way until November if he’s smart. He’ll run as far to the right as he can without ticking off the center. If he’s stupid, he’ll run farther to the left, trying to pick off starry-eyed centrists, who can’t get enough of Obama’s mellifluous voice, and sagely demeanor. There’s a limit to the amount of the center any Republican nominee can win against a guy like Barack Obama in 2008. In McCain’s already running against the edges of that limit.
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:21 pm
“McCain beat Romney (with his huge bank account), Thompson (who had Hollywood star and Southern appeal), and Huckabee (who’s a natural talker and Baptist preacher), which is no small feat.”
Actually, it was. From day one, this election was McCain’s to lose. Even after Giuliani jumped in, McCain ran close behind. As for beating the others - Romney was an unknown who was supposedly mistrusted by a huge segment of the party, and Huckabee was only at the top of the third tier until virtually the last two weeks. History was on McCain’s side, and the field was on McCain’s side (since Conservatives were divided).
The fact that it was as hard as it was for McCain to win the nomination, the fact that he needed a last minute spoiler to win, and the fact that he had to basically lie about his opponents to win - that all says something.