Comments on: Time To Start Worrying

By: Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:36:05 +0000

The campaign has come to resemble the battle scene in Orson Welles’s Falstaff, which we first see as a sweeping romantic scene in panorama, but then the camera pans in to show in close-up a few exhausted men pounding one another in the mud.

A helluva way to run a railroad.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:55:58 +0000

I don’t know that he ever enjoyed campaigning that much, not that I can blame him. Who would enjoy it? I think you have to be some kind of maniac to enjoy doing this stuff, and I tend to agree with the sympathetic view that Obama is, more or less, a fairly normal person, at least for a politician. His original chant, “fired up! ready to go!” came from a campaign appearance where Obama was definitely *not* fired up at first and seemed to find the whole process rather miserable. This is part of the reason, I suspect, why he keeps away from the press as much as he does–he finds their yammering exhausting and ridiculous, as any halfway sane person would after the first couple of months. Of course McCain loves it–he is vainglorious and unbalanced, and the media feed off of these things.

It is in this light that I understand Obama’s recent complaint that he was not allowed to eat his waffle in peace, which has inexplicably become one of the hot topics of our day. Frankly, it’s moments such as these that remind me that Obama really is more normal than the sociopaths he’s competing against–normal people don’t want to talk to reporters about Jimmy Carter as they eat breakfast. They want to eat their breakfast. Maybe normal people don’t run for President, and perhaps you have to be crazy to do that, but of all the stupid things to criticise him about this “waffle” business is by far the most absurd I have ever seen.

I think he has always hated campaigning, but until now it has yielded enough success to make it seem worthwhile. Perhaps now the value of it doesn’t seem to be as great as it did in the past. In a way, that is is an argument in support of him, because it means that he isn’t like these other pols. Then again, it could be used against him as evidence that he doesn’t have quite the same insane obsession with politics that his competitor has, which means that he is ultimately a less powerful general election candidate.

By: conradg

conradg — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:36:28 +0000

Daniel,

As the visiting Obama flack emeritus here, I must say that I for one am more than a little worried about his chances in November after the PA showing. I’m not much worried about his getting the nomination, but I am worried about the combat fatigue that already seems to be getting Obama down. I notice that he seems not to enjoy campaigning so much anymore, now that it’s basically a slog through the mud. This isn’t what he expected the Democratic primary season to be. He was ready for this from Republicans, but it’s more than a little disheartening to see Democrats behaving this way. The question is whether he has time to turn it around – both in himself and in the electorate. I still have hope, but I admit it’s not as hopeful as it was in February.

As for his poor showing in PA, part of the age problems are that he’s running against Mrs. Familiarity. Thing is, McCain has come to seem very familiar on the national scene as well, and in times of anxiety, people tend to go for the familiar – maybe even cling to it. It’s worth noting that Bush won in 2000 during times of great prosperity, when it seemed like we had the luxury of going with a new, unfamiliar face (though tied to an old name). There may be something “safe” about both Hillary and McCain that reassures that vast swath of voters who either don’t pay attention or don’t like the idea of something too new – such as a black man who talks about change.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:35:48 +0000

I haven't forgotten it. I wrote a post partly about it yesterday. It seems to me that quite a few people have been doing analysis along these lines. Perhaps it has not been as rigorous as it could be, but the basic pattern that Obama tends to do well in the overwhelmingly white states and those with large black populations, but has worse showings in more mixed states and states with large Hispanic populations has not been lost on anyone. I think a lot of people have taken these things more or less for granted for the last two months. But if you're right that it isn't being discussed that much, it isn't all that strange. I would guess that major media outlets don't want to draw more attention to this than they already have, and I also think a lot of them don't want to believe it and are trying to explain it in other ways. Also, the generational difference is not universal. Obama meets considerable resistance with young people in many of these swing states and some of the places, such as Kentucky, where very few people seem to like him. If it is racial attitudes that are hurting Obama in many of these states, and I don't doubt that this is part of it, these attitudes are also being reproduced among the "Millennials" (the most ridiculous name for a generation yet).

By: conradg

conradg — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:37:22 +0000

If we’re going to assess Obama’s negatives, let’s not forget race. A better explanation for why Obama does poorly among whites in Ohio, rural PA, Kentucky, etc., and better in New England, WIsconsin, and Iowa, is the difference in racial attitudes in those states. If you hadn’t noticed, Obama is black, and though the media narrative refuses to go there, it’s having a major effect. This has always been the major problem with his campaign, swamping the niceties of liberal/conservative or elite/working class dichotomies. And that’s why the generational differences in voting seem so huge – racial attitudes are far different among the young than the old. Somebody out there ought to do a serious analysis of the racial factor in all this. It’s kind of strange that no one seems to be doing that.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:18:22 +0000

With all respect to Ross and his analysis, McCain has broken 50% in Rasmussen’s tracking poll and once led Obama by ten points in that poll. Ross cites the RCP average for all national polling, which is fair enough, but he isn’t taking into account the factor that the candidate of the non-incumbent party typically polls better in the spring than he does in the fall. McCain has come back a bit to 48% or 47% in recent days, but I believe he has been above 45% for weeks. According to Rasmussen, the last time he was below 45% was in February when he was still consolidating his position after effectively winning the nomination. If you take the RCP average as definitive, Ross’ point stands, but daily tracking seems to me to be inherently more reliable as a way to get a sense of overall trends.

Also, Ross’ argument applies to Obama with even more force: because it *is* a major Democratic year, and he hasn’t gotten above 46% for months (acc. to Rasmussen), Obama is in some kind of trouble.

I like George McGovern. If they wanted to give him a second chance, I could probably vote for him if he reprised the “Come Home, America” argument. Maybe he can be the great party unifier! (That’s a joke, btw.)

By: vanya

vanya — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:37:06 +0000

I think the Democrats could run George McGovern himself this fall and still win this election. Everything is running against McCain – the war, the economy, gas prices. Ross Douthat made a good point over at the Atlantic – McCain can’t crack 45% even with the Democratic nominees both stumbling around tearing each other down. And I don’t see him motivating the evangelical base the way Bush did. I can’t think of any time in recent history more likely to produce a left-wing President. If we get someone as moderate as Obama I think we’re getting off easy. Really this should have been John Edwards’ year and he is a lot more liberal than Barack.