With Barack Obama riding high in the polls, Senate Democrats thinking of an eleven-seat sweep and their House counterparts hoping to expand their majority to historic levels, things could hardly be going better for the Democratic Party. But did Obama’s surge come so soon that it could backfire?
There is first the issue of complacency, as Democratic turnout could decrease if voters think that Obama has essentially won the election; since Obama is relying on sporadic voters more than is McCain, that could hurt not only his totals but those of down-the-ballot candidates as well. And while I am not convinced that Obama has that much too fear about his supporters no longer feeling motivated because of soaring poll numbers, the campaign is at the very least taking the threat seriously and talking (contra most of the recent data) about “tightening” polls.
But the most significant problem I see in the growing conventional wisdom that Democrats are poised for huge gains is that it could lead some voters to pull the Republican lever - at least in congressional races. One of the main reasons Democratic candidates up and down the ballot are so well positioned is that voters want to punish the Bush Administration, but if it starts to look certain that Obama will be the country’s 44th president, that could remove the urgency of punishing Republican congressmen.
As I have pointed out a few times over the past week, this is a strategy the GOP is starting to explicitly employ, particularly in a new NRSC ad airing in North Carolina. And it is a strategy McCain is hoping will save him as well, as he warned today that “We can’t have Obama, Pelosi and Reid running Washington.”
Had Obama emerged in this strong a position in late October rather than in late September, there would have been no time for the prospect of Democratic dominance to trickle down to the electorate. How can Pelosi and Reid emerge as effective boogeymen when the electorate is so focused against President Bush? But while it is still unlikely that voters integrate the probability of an Obama presidency to such an extent as to alter their voting behavior, the Democratic surge occurred early enough for the unified government narrative to take hold. Over the past two weeks, plenty of media outlets have had time to write some version of a “beware of the coming Democratic super-majority” article.
The most alarmist one was written - surprise - by the Wall Street Journal lengthy lament of all the reforms Democrats will implement. Newsweek has been the site of a few warnings against liberal overreach as well: Jon Meacham cautions Obama to govern from the middle, and Howard Fineman of Newsweek warns that Obama’s supporters may (gasp!) “expect to have a voice in governing.” The liberal-leaning Oregonian endorsed Sen. Gordon Smith, and I doubt that the usually-Democratic Star Tribune would have endorsed Sen. Norm Coleman if McCain had been favored to win the presidency. The word “overreach” is being thrown around by countless of commentators before Democrats have had the opportunity to pass a single bill - and certainly before Obama has secured the presidency. Articles summarizing the Democrats’ prospects at reaching 60 seats are popping up all over the place, and that might not be the best way for Democrats to secure independent voters.
All of this said, Obama’s surge has also occurred early enough to give the GOP plenty of time to freak out, internalize defeat sabotage itself, engage in a firing squad and undermine its last hopes of pulling this election through. And any votes Democrats lose because of a fear of unified government will likely be offset by the sorry picture the McCain campaign has been displaying over the past two weeks.
Most of the tension that is now spilling open in the media concerns Sarah Palin, with some McCain loyalists ascribing their candidate’s troubles to the Alaska Governor (CNN quotes McCain aides accusing Palin of improvising and “going rogue,” and others charging, most notably in Politico, that Palin is setting herself with the base and against McCain to prepare a future presidential run). Tomorrow, Scott Draper’s New York Times article will provide a detailed (and must-read) behind-the-scene look at what went went in the McCain campaign over the past two months, the type of article that campaigns would rather see published after an election.
It is not surprising, of course, to see a losing campaign engage in the blame game before the ballots are counted. It is true that Al Gore and John Kerry’s campaigns did not engage in such a firing squad eight and four years ago, but neither campaign looked to be out of the game in mid-to-late October. The more valid parallel is Hillary Clinton’s spring campaign, as the New York Senator prolonged the race months after it became apparent that Obama was the probable nominee, leading to an intense and quasi-public civil war between Clinton staffers.
Such a civil war has obvious crippling effects, as it prevents the entire campaign team from focusing on the election, spills in the media and proves to be a distrastion and can certainly lead to a depressed base turning out in lower numbers - all things a losing campaign cannot afford in what is an uphill effort to pull a comeback. Given that the McCain campaign is already behind organizationally, its current lack of team spirit could further hinder the GOP’s ground game. That also proved to be Hillary’s undoing.
the McCain camp has been sending mixed signals since it’s inception… Sarah Palin can’t even keep up with McCain’s endless wavering between “straight talker” and crooked politician
I don’t feel there is much danger that independents will cast a vote for a Senator based on the fear that Obama, Pelosi & Reid will hold total power. This could appear to them as a good thing because we have just come through a number of years in which the Senate has been completely gridlocked and nothing of note has been accomplished. To get any real changes passed through the Senate he will need at least 58-59 Democratic votes.
The real check, on going to far to the left, will be in the house where the newly elected members, many of which will be blue dog Democrates, will have a center to conservative bent.
One word… “History.”
I’m thinking a lot of people who would normally think the Democrats have won so they won’t bother to vote will be voting this time so they can be part of history.
I don’t think the “threat” of one-party control will have much of an effect on down-ticket races, even among independent voters.
While some voters are skeptical of government generally and are wary of giving one party too much power, the climate of this election may be very different than usual. The “change” message has resonated, and voters have seen that a Democratic Congress alone is insufficient to enact legislation. I think some voters, including some independents, recognize that one-party control isn’t just preferable for change, it’s a necessity.
Among independents, the question is whether the instinctive government-skeptic crowd outnumbers the we-need-change-now crowd. With no data to back up any speculation in this area, I’d be skeptical as to whether the numbers really favor the RNC’s argument scaring people about the Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime. Some folks may decide that that’s exactly what the nation needs right now to get anything done.
And I think Fritz correctly notes the moderating influence of the House. They’re up for reelection every two years, so any swing too far left can be punished at the polls. (Note that when the economic rescue package went through, it was the House moderates who tried to stop the extra $150 billion in unpaid-for programs and tax cuts tacked on by the Senate.)
Moreover, Obama is not the left-winger depicted by conservative talking points. Both in his policies and his political history, he’s been a pragmatist and an incrementalist. That’s not to say Republican scare tactics won’t have some effect anyway, since we’ve seen that attacks without any basis in reality can gain some traction.
If I was on Obama’s campaign, I’d bring to the public’s attention the recent evidence of the race tightening (given the possibility that FL and OH will go to McCain), and then I’d cut an add warning the voters to beware of having a weak Senate and House if McCain wins the election. I reaize Obama is ahead in the race, but I’d go with adds playing him as the underdog - I guess you could call it a kind of reverse scare tactic. That way you alert the public to the advanatages of having a strong Democratic Congress that will stand up to the right wing Supreme Court nominees McCain has pledged to send to the Senate.
Speaking of scare tactics, the ugly racist comments of the past few weeks (the only thing that has been consistently part of the McCain campaign) may not sink Obama but I suspect the rage stoked by McCain and Palin rallies will plague him after the election.
We should not forget that Jerry Farwell cut a television add for a book/video (I can’t remember which) that allegedly had proof Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster. I suspect we will see a similar line of attack if Obama wins the presidency. Bill Ayers is still out there and his book will be published soon after the election. I anticipate Fox News initating an “Ayers Watch” on their network show and demanding Obama come clean. As you note, Taniel, this may only plant a seed in the minds of independents but the base will eat it up.
If anything, the threat of unified government will help McCain. Voters have already decided that they are going to give Democrats huge majorities in the House and Senate, there is no question of that. However, many of them may decide to vote for McCain as a check on a heavily Democratic Congress.
However, many of them may decide to vote for McCain as a check on a heavily Democratic Congress.
I think that’s a trade most Democrats will take since there probably won’t be enough of those voters to change the outcome of the presidential race. If some voters are thinking about voting that way, it’s already probably reflected in the polls.
The question raised by the original post was whether the prospect of a Democratic president would cause people who might otherwise vote Democratic in congressional races to vote Republican instead. Since it’s clear Democrats will control Congress anyway, I don’t see it as much of a factor. Also, if people are voting Obama because they want change, it would seem odd for many of those to vote Republican in congressional races in order to prevent it.
Yeah, that is pretty much my point dsimon. I have already heard a few people say that because they believe the Congressional elections will be a landslide for Democrats, they are going to vote for McCain because Obama would not do anything to “stop” them.
Another thing you touched on is that this is a “change” election. This is not 1996 where people are happy with the way things are going so they are willing to vote for Republican incumbents to keep Clinton from making big changes. This is different. People want change and they know electing Republicans will not get them change.