us elections
19 Jun 2008
Don't Write the Old Man Off Yet
Sexism may trump racism, but does race trump conservatism? Obama's victory is far from assured, writes Michael O'Keefe
John McCain can win the 2008 US Presidential Election.
This may come as a shock to many readers, but that's only because the debate so far has concentrated so much on the vagaries of the Democrat primaries that we've lost sight of the main game. The "other" candidate is not Clinton - it is McCain.
In fact, the most significant conclusion from the primaries is that Barack Obama's nomination could actually play into McCain's hands.
To prompt debate, what follows are six reasons why McCain can win (or, more accurately, why Obama will lose). They're not exhaustive and in no particular order.
1. The primaries do not reflect the voting intentions of the general public. The Democratic primary vote tells us a lot about Democrats' support towards their candidates and their opinions on various election issues, but this partisan sample does not reflect the general electorate. The general public has much more conservative views about God, guns, race, abortion and Iraq than this sample of registered Democrats, and where we have evidence in the primaries of voting intentions along these lines, the results have not been good from Obama.
2. Clinton was the stronger candidate on many issues that could really damage McCain - the aforementioned God, guns, race, abortion and Iraq. Despite being a "soft" conservative (or perhaps because of this) McCain is on par or does better on all of these issues than Obama, with his greatest weakness being Iraq. Our view of these issues should not be clouded by our location in Australia. Issues such as gun ownership and abortion are extremely divisive in the US and mobilise groups that view Obama as a potential threat to their values.
Even on Iraq, things are not as clear as they seem from our vantage. The perception in the US is that things are finally going well in Iraq, that the surge worked, and that the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming train. This may very well change, as the insurgency reorganises and escalates attacks, but will it change before November?
3. Killing your own. Even the Democrats were almost evenly divided between their top two candidates. And in many States it was caucuses that decided the outcome, not even a majority of registered Democrat voters. The drawn-out Democratic primaries have revealed the deepest divisions in the Party for 30 years, and they have been displayed for all voters to see. This division does nothing to build the credentials of the self styled "healer" of the Party and of the nation. McCain may even resurrect Clinton's 3am crisis call advertisement to ram this point home.
In stark contrast, one by one McCain's opponents threw themselves behind him (often with a hug for good measure) and he never looked back. Of course, Republican Party unity shouldn't be overstated. Division was clearly evident in Ann Coulter's notorious comment about campaigning for Clinton against McCain (which was echoed by other conservative commentators). What is sidestepped here is that these doyens of the right never countenanced voting for the old-style liberal candidate: Obama. Conservative commentators and the religious right may not like McCain, but does anyone seriously think that they want a Democrat of Obama's ilk choosing the next Supreme Court Justice? McCain isn't a conservative but Obama is a liberal. McCain will be the least worst candidate for conservatives and the religious right, giving him much room to manoeuvre.
4. Poisoned planning for a running mate. Division among the Democrats will play themselves out in the choice of Vice President. Obama will need a Vice Presidential candidate who will preach to the converted and reach out to swing voters. He or she will certainly placate at least one major group within the Party, one geographic area of the US and one demographic group, but with so many interests clamouring for representation, a suitable candidate will be nearly impossible to find. A Clinton supporter? A female? An older, more experienced operator? A war veteran? Someone from the South? A Hispanic? An older, female, Hispanic, war veteran, Clinton-supporter from the South? And all of this rigmarole to gain the support of groups which could be viewed as existing Democrat voters.
By contrast, the ambivalence of many Republicans means that McCain has much more freedom to manoeuvre. Someone younger than himself? Definitely. Someone more conservative? No doubt. More overtly religious? Yep. From a swing State or the South/Northeast? Sure. Will they be the best candidate for the job? Maybe not, but the candidate's appeal will be broad and reach further into important demographics than Obama could hope for.
5. Campaign angles. In the US today, sexism may trump racism but does race trump conservatism? Youth can equal exuberance and/or inexperience. Age can be seen as antiquated and/or wise. Idealism can be viewed as naivety or vision and conservatism can be seen as anachronistic or realistic. McCain isn't Bush. Obama isn't Clinton. Do both candidates represent change? The maverick and the outsider certainly think so. This confusing mix of campaign angles is enough to make many voters retreat to tried and tested political positions or to simply turn voters off. And we must never forget that America's voluntary voting system has a major impact on outcomes. So either option probably favours McCain.
Geography: Obama needs roots, fast. For over a generation, every successful Democratic Presidential candidate has come from the South. It's a fact. And geography has become more important in recent years as the Republican stranglehold over the South has weakened. Race is just the issue that could reverse the seeming end of the permanent Republican majority in the South. Where is Obama from? Illinois? Hawaii? Indonesia? Africa? (Not even the bravest spin-doctor would suggest that that was the deep South).
The preceding points coalesce into a fine example of the enduring ideological divide in modern US politics. They also point to the reinvigoration of other old debates and fissures, such as race, and to the growing influence of new issues in the Presidential race, such as age and gender.
All of this makes for a very interesting election.
Are the preceding arguments convincing? Maybe, but that’s not the point. What they do is provide some relief from the incessant triumphalism we’ve been hearing at the end of the Democratic primaries.
All we really know at this point is that we now have a two horse race. It’s still a long way to go and Obama’s unprecedented victory does not mean that McCain should be underestimated or written off. Far from it, in fact.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
shakira
I’m actually not at all convinced by this "sexism trumps racism" line, on the basis of the result of the competition between two particular candidates. It is a pretty small sample. I agree that there was a lot of sexist dog-whistling directed at Clinton, but it was more than balanced out by the racist dog-whistling directed at Obama (including from Clinton - that snide line about how he wasn’t a Muslim "as far as I know"). Racism and sexism both featured in the campaign, but people were choosing between a particular black man and a particular white woman - not "black man" vs "white woman".
And people making this claim need to explain just why it would be that the United States would be so very different to other Western societies in this regard, quite a few of whom have had female leaders, but are still a very, very long way from having a leader from a marginalised race or ethnicity. I find it hard to believe that the US is more sexist/less racist that Britain, for example. #5 raises some interesting issues in that regard - I wonder whether "conservative woman" might have trumped "non-conservative black man".
And heaven help the Democrats if McCain picks a woman as VP! Anyone know any high profile (white) businesswomen with working class cred from Ohio or Virginia perhaps? This identity-politics fest could continue on into November that way.
Mind you, I’d agree that McCain’s ability to sidestep the identity politics of the Democrats this season is probably one of his strengths in the next round.
I can’t believe the amount of lies and smears that are allowed in the US campaigns. The Swift Boat Veterans rewrote history and were allowed to get away with it. Right wing commentators repeat lies about Obama’s religion, schooling and now some nut job is claiming to have had homosexual sex with him in a limo. This will be reported by all commentators as ‘probably’ a lie but it will get so much coverage in the media that the average half backed Fox viewer will believe it and condemn him.
Maybe it would have been better to choose Hillary as she would have faired better against McCain but she is so entrenched in the system that it will be more of the same. She worked for the virulently anti-union Walmart. She’s earnt so much money that she lent her own campaign $20 million and no doubt thought to get a good return on her investment. She had many ‘misspeaks" showing she is a win at all costs person.
Obama may lose and that would be bad for the whole world but it will stop the Democrats from a further drift to the right as we in Australia chose to do just to get rid of Howard.
Michael O’Keefe’s comments are logical at a superficial level, but not backed up by data.
Re (1): O’Keefe ignores that Obama won by winning a massive majority of independents, and even some Republicans were more excited in him than in voting on their own field.
Re (2): the two major election issues are shaping up (loosely) as the economy and ‘are we heading in the right direction?’ (answer=no). Both will hurt the representative of the same party as the current Administration, eg. McCain.
Re (3): Obama leads McCain among Catholics and holds level among Protestants - that’s a massive swing from 2004 that will shape the map. Furthermore, Clinton supporters have fallen in very quickly behind Obama, so the damage of division seems minor. O’Keefe is also forgetting that Christian Conservatives like Dobson et al. have no interest in McCain, which will impact on volunteer mobilisation and fundraising, and probably turnout.
Re (5): see comments on 3.
Further to what would continue under Hillary, this article from the Los Angeles Times.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/18/9710/
"WASHINGTON - When delegates travel to the Democratic and Republican nominating conventions late this summer, they’ll enter a cocoon of corporate largesse. Democrats will fly to Denver on reduced-fare tickets provided by United Airlines. Many will be picked up in plush new vehicles donated by General Motors that run on fuel made from “waste beer” donated by Molson Coors Brewing Co.
Like their GOP counterparts, they’ll communicate using state-of-the-art technology provided by Microsoft, Google, Qwest or AT&T. And they’ll party at corporate-funded events surrounding a carefully calibrated convention that has become, basically, a multimillion-dollar infomercial underwritten by corporations and lobbyists whose influence both presidential candidates decry.
But for Democrats, at least, this may be the last year for such massive corporate funding. Presidential candidate Barack Obama says he wants things to change."
There comes a time when you have to take the risk and aim high. If you continue to aim low just to get an easier target you will end up shooting yourself in the foot.
I feel stupid for having read this article !! Does Michael O’Keefe know anything about US politics ? Is this the same laughing hyena doing cricket commentary?
Coz Kerry is funnier than this !!!
1. Hillary was the weaker candidate, she would have brought anti-clintonites out in force in November.
2. Hillary dealt out all the race cards she could find against Obama who was hamstrung by the Superdelegates who hated Clintons but didnt want Obama to attacke her;
3. The woman vote will vote for Obama because the Supreme Court is stacked against the precious Roe vs Wade abortion decision and they cant lose that !!
So to say that it was a win of sexism over racism is total rubbish of the highest order. Obama and Hillary were so close on most issues it was merely identity politics. And a 60% dishonesty vote for Hillary is NOT sexism
LOL what a joke the only successful democrat in the last generation was Bill Clinton; so thats a trend of ONE from the South!! The other two white dudes could NOT even beat the moron Dubya with the traditional democrats.
Obama has a broader coalition of supporters than the young, educated and left of the McGovern coalition derided by Hillary.
Like Australia, there is hardly and left and right of Politics in the US.
If McCain wins its because the racists in the US (like Australia) have their bellies full, but this is unlikely to be the case and will likely get worse in November.
1. Obama is the least experienced, least credentialed Presidential candidate this century. He simply is no Jack Kennedy who when he first ran for President had a strong record in the senate and was a war hero.
2. Americans do not elect a President they a Commander in Chief. McCain is unbeatable on this front. He got tortured in his twenties for his country while Obabma was organising community events in south side Chicago.
3. Its not about the popular vote its about the electoral vote. Obama might be loved in liberal college towns but winning 90% of the vote in Portland does not translate to the electoral votes you need.
4. Demographics - Obama’s numbers amongst key Democratic groups such as working class males and suburban mum’s are very poor. These were the same voters that delivered for the presidency for Bill Clinton.
5. Obama himself and the Republican attack machine. The reverend Wright scandal is an example of how he has not been vetted properly. Look what happened to Kerry in 04 and he was a war hero ….
Addendum …
expat "Like Australia, there is hardly and left and right of Politics in the US"
Have you heard of the pro life lobby ?
The pro life lobby is jaded thru ALL the reaganism and the neocon antics. After all those years abortion and Roe vs Wade are still going strong.
The religious right has realised thery have been taken for the ride for corporate interests.
Reaganism and conservativism are dead as they know it or wanted it.
Kerry lost 11% "democrats" and lost the election, Gore may or may not have lost, Obama will likely lose that 10+% based on race alone, but he will win enough indies and women to hold what Kerry got plus 3-4 states without needing OH or FL which Hillary desperately needs.
If Obama wins OHIO he will blow the election
Oh and for a junior senator, Obama got legislation thru the senate more than Hillary ever got, and got the support of his fellow senators and superdelegates who knows Hillary for the fraud that she is.
As for Rev Wright issue, i wont bother with it coz McCain will not risk putting the religious right of Falwell, etc on trial by media
war hero my ass !! At a time when the Americans cant pay their mortage and their sons and daughters are dying in foreign places. Tis not a time to talk about war from a manchurian candidate who when he got back home ditched his crippled wife for a young model from a rich family to further his political career.
How will McCain face the religious right on his adultery?
McCain will be a bigger FlipFlopper than Kerry
in the age of youtube, McCain is a dead man walking
Big Oil Fuels John McCain’s Straight Talk Express
http://kangaroocourtaus.ath.cx/kangaroo_court_australia/index.php?showto…
McCain’s YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare
http://kangaroocourtaus.ath.cx/kangaroo_court_australia/index.php?showto…
McCain’s biggest selling point, unmentioned so far in these posts I think, is that Americans are only fed up with Iraq because they’re perceived to have been losing there. I don’t think Americans are ready to give up on the idea that they rule the world. The more depressing the news is from Iraq and Afghanistan, the more worrying China’s rapid rise in economic power, the more seductive will be the candidate who can say: "I’m going to whip Iraq, whip the Taleban, whip China and make America great again!" Americans don’t want to withdraw from the world. They want the whip to be put back in their hand and to get it cracking again. Obama won’t be promising anything like that, but McCain might. In that situation his experience will count, and even his age might make him seem stronger. Daddy will kick the nasty burglars out of the house, shoot the noisy neighbours and everything will be all right again. I’m fearful that this might be how the election plays out.
the americans are fed up coz after having invaded Iraq, they are paying for higher gas prices.
when they loot iraq’s oil reserves, we all will still be paying higher prices
I fear that Americans might imagine that the candidate who can make them walk tall again can fix everything, including the price of fuel. The sheriff rides into town, pulls his rifle from his boot, shoots all the baddies dead and peace and prosperity reign again across the land. If that means shooting the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Chinese and even the French then so be it. Americans don’t dislike wars, they just dislike losing them. The lesson they seem to have learned from Vietnam is that if only they’d stayed the course and ignored the cowards they would have emerged victorious. That’s what McCain’s now telling them about Iraq, and there’s a tsunami of national regret and shame that’s carrying the sentiment along. They’re not hoping that good sense and decency will prevail, they’re hoping that American power will. My concern is that the candidate who talks tougher will seem to be the one who can solve all America’s problems, and McCain will talk tougher. I hope I’m wrong, though democracy makes wimps of those who hope to lead and Obama may well be just more of the same.
Why does almost everyone assume Obama will be a better president than McCain? What evidence is there that he will be a good president? Particularly when it comes to foreign affairs and the environment, the two areas Australians should care most about American policy, there is no evidence at all that Obama will be particularly good. In fact, there is every reason to worry that his inexperience will prove disastrous.
On the other hand McCain’s not so bad. The fact that Republicans have nominated a Moderate, and the Democrats responded by nominating their most Liberal candidate ever (on paper anyway - who knows what he really stands for) is the main problem.
I agree that Obama’s an unknown quantity but who knows what McCain really stands for either? He’s been moving steadily rightward on every issue for the last couple of years and he’ll still need to throw a lot more bones to the mad millenarian Christian lobby to get elected. You could call him a Moderate, but that sounds a bit like the people who thought that Mussolini was OK because he made the trains run on time. What does he believe in? He believes in getting himself elected. All other articles of faith are available for sale. Is Obama any better? All I can say is that it’s possibly an advantage that he’s wet behind the ears. He might be still young enough and innocent enough to listen to others, to have a bit of idealism that doesn’t just consist of blind faith in America’s destiny and the glory of the military. It seems from all of the books that have poured forth about GWB, from embarrassing hagiography to vicious character assassination, that he will not listen to anybody but God, who he solemnly believes talks to him and guides his steps. Could any president be worse than George W Bush? I doubt it. McCain has a lot more in common with GWB than Obama does. Do we need a better excuse to vote for him?