Second things first. The lead editorial in yesterday's NYTimes chastised ("chided" is too gentle a word for the Times' tone) Barack Obama for changing his positions on (a) financing his own campaign, (b) unlawful eavesdropping, (c) using public funding for religious organizations' use on social issues.
Their arguments are cogent, and I can't disagree with those arguments. These are issues on which Obama has apparently changed the positions he took during the primary campaign. On the one hand, if he has changed his position for political expediency, he should be called on it. On the other hand, as the Times says, "We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election." The editors are calling him, however, on an implied hypocrisy, "because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games."
Give me a break. The Times' editors are being either naive or disingenuous. Whatever else he is, Barack Obama is a politician, and apparently (so far at least) a smart one. He knew, instinctively or intellectually, how to appeal to the left wing of the Democratic party for the states' primary and caucus season, an easy job for him since he has been the Senate's most liberal senator in the short time he has been a member.
Obama also knows how to attempt to seize the center of the political spectrum now on the national level. Which he has to do in order to be elected.
And which, incidentally, the Democrats have been unable to do since Bill Clinton campaigned for president. Al Gore and John Kerry allowed the Evil Karl Rove to manipulate the 2000 and 2004 campaigns so that, unbelievably in retropsect, dubya was able to pose as a centrist. The bottom line is, We can't tell from a presidential campaign what an elected president will actually do under the real circumstances he or she will actually face. dubya claimed to be a "uniter" when he ran in 2000, an ironic use for self-promotion of his own party's national divisiveness by bringing Clinton up on impeachment charges of lying under oath (note that Nancy Pelosi has refused to bring dubya up on impeachment charges despite his violating constitutional rights). dubya has succeeded in one sense only: he has united the electorate against him more strongly than any president in polling history.
Obama has to use dubya's unpopularity, and whatever weaknesses McCain's policies may have, to move toward the political center and to unite enough American voters in order to gain at least 270 electoral votes on November 4.
What a nimble segue to the originally planned topic for this post...
Here, again, are my currently listed TOSSUP states:
Arkansas 6 (Republican?)
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7 (because of Lieberman)
Iowa 7
Minnesota 10 (possibly depending on the Republican’s VP)
Missouri 11 T (Republican?)
Montana 3
Nevada 5
New Mexico 5 (Democrat?--depending on what Bill Richardson does)
Virginia 13 (depending on the Democrat’s VP)
West Virginia 5 (Republican?)
Currently 81 electoral votes are tossups, with 22 leaning Republican, 5 leaning Democratic, and 54 still up in the air.
Arkansas will likely go Republcian, but strong campaigning by Bill or Hillary there might shake up the Democrats enough to vote on election day.
Colorado has normally voted Republican but is beginning to move toward the Democratic candidates, even nationally: its governor and one of its senators are Democrats. Maybe holding the Democratic convention there this year--if the Democrats behave, and clean up after themselves--will convince the voters to go Blue in November.
Connecticut would normally go strongly Democratic, but I don't know how significantly Lieberman's support for McCain will affect the voters. They did elect him as an independent two years ago, so we can't overlook the possibility that they may follow his lead again this November.
Iowa, though normally expected to vote Republican, is currently up in the air in part at least because of McCain's opposition to farm subsidies. Still, aside from flooding, farm states should be doing relatively well economically, with all grain prices at or near record levels. But polls have shown Iowa as too close to call, and how the feds react to recent inundation will have an effect come November.
Minnesota normally should be Democratic. From a Republican point of view, Tim Pawlenty would be a strong Vice President candidate, if they select him, to provide some geographical balance on the ticket and to put the state in play. Besides, the Republican convention is in the Twin Cities a week after the Democratic convention takes place in Denver, so Pawlenty--should he want to run for VP--could mount a subtle favorite-son campaign to be on the ticket. And whoever runs with McCain will be the leading candidate for the presidential spot in four years if McCain was serious about being a one-term president if elected this year. If Pawlenty is not on McCain's ticket, this state goes Democratic.
There's a second significant race in Minnesota this year, Al Franken running against incumbent Republican senator Norm Coleman (who, six years ago, beat Walter Mondale, the last minute substitute for the late Paul Wellstone). Whose coattails--Franken's or Obama's--will carry whom? Or will neither carry the other?
Missouri will likely go Republican (at least right now that's my thinking), but it can be very close, depending on the success of get-out-the-vote campaigns in St. Loo and KC. We saw the vote patterns in the Democratic primary and we can expect to see those patterns again, but intensified in the rural areas which are far more likely to vote Republican.
Montana will probably go Republican, though its recent trend has favored the Democrats. Still, McCain reflects the values of the rugged Montanan: veteran, fiscal conservative, "straight talk."
Nevada: the population growth that Nevada has experienced recently (as long as the housing crisis hasn't caused it to reverse) has brought more liberal voters into the state. There seems to be an increasing chance that the state might go blue this year.
New Mexico, Virginia, and West Virginia are fascinating studies for different reasons.
New Mexico went for Gore narrowly, but then not for Kerry. Bill Richardson campaigned heavily for Gore but not for Kerry. The governor is still popular in New Mexico, though not as popular as he was before moving from Hillary to the Obama camp, and could play a major role in helping Obama. However, Hispanics and African Americans have historically clashed in our larger cities, and Obama will have to spend much time in the state with the governor in order to overcome these historical obstacles.
Virginia -- one word: jimwebb. Okay, okay, so it's two words, but if you've been reading these posts you know what I mean. I think Jim Webb would be a quality VP candidate and would have an excellent chance of helping the Democrats carry Virginia. His now-quarter-of-a-century-old comments about women in the military academies may come up in the campaign if he is on the ticket, but he has long since recanted, and his actions should also speak loudly.
West Virginia has puzzled me for eight years. By all that is holy in labor, this state should be solidly in the Democratic column. Why in the blazing saddles would union members ever vote Republican? Yet, despite a long history of voting Democratic in presidential elections (except 1984, when they joined the Reagan landslide), they voted for dubya in 2000 and 2004. And Obama did SO BADLY against Hillary in the primary that I see the state as currently leaning Republican in November.
If I had to assign these tossup states to candidates, and without VP candidates having been selected yet, I would list the following:
McCain -- Arkansas 6, Missouri, 11, Montana 3, Virginia 13, West Virginia 5 = 38.
McCain would have 240 total electoral votes.
Obama -- Colorado 9, Connecticut 7, Iowa 7, Minnesota 10, Nevada 5, New Mexico 5 = 43.
Obama would have 298 electoral votes, and would be our next president.
If Pawlenty is the Republican VP candidate and Webb the Democratic, we might move Virginia to Democratic and Minnesota to Republican:
McCain would then have 237 votes, and Obama would have 301. Obama would still be our next president.
If Obama chooses a VP who cannot carry his own state, and McCain chooses Pawlenty, and Minnesota votes Republican, McCain would have 250 votes. Then, if I'm wrong about Ohio, McCain would have 270 electoral votes and would be our next president.
Obama has not much margin for error.
Disclaimer? oh my yes. Any major or even several minor events (nationally in particular, but some international problems as well) between now and November 4, and the votes could shift.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment