A Republican VP nominee for Obama?

I'll start with a quote.

"....I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we're in. I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country."

p. 39-40, The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama

Anyone who has read Senator Obama's personal manifesto will be amused at the accusations of flip-flop/ sell-out that have been levelled at him over the last couple of weeks. He protests that if anyone had listened to a word he said then they wouldn't be making these accusations. He's right. He appeared more liberal than Hillary mainly because his foreign policy stances were more progressive. Actually, he is a centrist and always has been.

More critically, he is comfortable with the notion of reaching across the partisan divide. So would he consider appointing a Republican Vice Presidential nominee?

Absolutely he would. And there is one candidate that is getting a considerable amount of attention.

Travelling with Barack Obama to Iraq in the next few days, will be a Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. He is a Vietnam war veteran, highly respected on foreign policy, and he has been a vocal critic of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. Famously he said:

"To question your government is not unpatriotic- to not question the government is unpatriotic."

So he has VP credentials coming out of his ears. What does he offer the Obama ticket? Well, it would signify 'change' as it would be a post-partisan manoeuvre, he would bolster the security and foreign policy credentials of the campaign, and he could neutralise some of John McCain's biography positives. The downside? How wouldObama's supporters react? More importantly, while quotes like the above get you in dictionaries of political quotations, they can also make good text to overlay some really threatening music on a campaign ad.Obama is desperately trying to establish his 'lapel pin' patriotism. Could Senator Hagel undermine that?

My guess is that Senator Obama would love to go for such a bold mood as appointing Chuck Hagel his running-mate. The politics may just end up being too risky.

Crying wolf over Obama's 'betrayals'

Another piece, in The Observer this time, draws attention to Obama's apparent political re-positioning. A similar argument is made in the LA Times. The liberal left often seems at its most comfortable when screaming betrayal at one of their own and so it will be with Barack Obama.

As I argued a couple of days ago, these accusations do not have much depth to them. What the argument amounts to is that his language on issues like Iran, Nafta, and Iraq has become 'more moderate' and his attitude towards recent Supreme Court judgements is not conventionally liberal. Michael Crowley's piece in the The Observer makes reference to a recent Rolling Stone interview of the presumed presidential nominee where he reveals his eclectic taste in music. Strange then that in the same interview Barack Obama is asked how to judge him at the end of his first term and he said:

Obama: "If I haven't gotten combat troops out of Iraq, passed universal health care and a new energy policy that speaks to our dependence on foreign oil and deals seriously with global warming, then we've missed the boat."

Seems pretty explicit on Iraq. Some will make much of the 'combat' qualifier on troops but this is consistent with where he's been positioned previously.

Michael Crowley sees Obama's alleged political re-positioning (as opposed to a rhetorical re-positioning) as a direct pitch to independent voters amongst whom McCain is in the lead. Firstly, it is worth saying that a lot of these 'independent' are actually Republican. There is currently a shift from Republican identification to independent identification as a result of the disastrous performance of the Bush administration.

More importantly, it would be crazy not to have the construction of a winning coalition in mind in all this but, given 22 debates with Senator Clinton, goodness knows how many hours of speeches, press and TV interviews, any substantive shifting of his positions will be walloped by the McCaincampaign and the media. He's anchored and that's it.

He is doing the right things and he is running a highly professional but principled political campaign. Let's just be careful about throwing around accusations of betrayal that don't have much behind them. If he did fundamentally shift by, for example, capriciously reversing his commitment to engage in dialogue with America's adversaries, then criticism would be justified. In the meantime, let's not cry wolf. All that does is prick up the ears of the Republican wolf in the forest.

Political enthusiasm

Democrats always start off well so Barack Obama's early lead could evaporate quickly. But a very interesting stat in the latest LA Times poll:

Are you enthusiastic towards your candidate?

Barack Obama Yes=81%, No=17%
John McCain Yes=45%, No=51%

Here's the analysis:

Obama's 'betrayals'....

Liberals are getting to stuck into Barack Obama for a series of positions that he has adopted that could be interpreted as political manoeuvring. Michael Tomasky takes issue with this, arguing that winning is a principle in itself.

I have already argued that refusing public funding was the right thing for Obama to do: it engages people in his campaign in huge numbers and, more expediently (but this is politics ladies and gentleman) could enable enable him to protect and build a more secure Democratic position in Congress, and lay the foundations for Democratic domination of US politics for some time.

His condemnation of the Supreme Courts decision to oppose the death penalty for child rapists is consistent with previous positions that he has adopted on the issue. Even the support for the 'clarification' provided by the Supreme Court yesterday, which outlawed Washington DC's ban on handguns is consistent with his previous positions. Ultimately, he is a constitutionalist and Amendment 2 of the US constitution is at best ambiguous, a seemingly qualified right to bear arms as it is. It can be read either way, and Obama respects the Supreme Court as a constitutional authority on this.

There is, however, a contradiction between the two positions he has adopted on these two Supreme Court judgements that can't be ignored: going with the Supreme Court on one and against on another. My suspicion is that there is some politics in his condemnation of the Supreme Court on the death penalty for child rapists. He can be forgiven for that- remember the Willie Horton ads which brought Michael Dukakis crashing down in 1988?



I wouldn't go quite as far as Michael Tomasky in arguing that winning is a political 'principle.' However, Obama can be forgiven for the position he has adopted on this. Anything else would not change a single thing, would have no chance of changing a single thing even if he were President (it's a Supreme Court judgement.......!), and could potentially cause major harm to his bid for the Presidency. Do we really want it to be John McCain who replaces the elderly Justices who currently occupy the Supreme Court? Absolutely not.

Obama's all-out attack

There has been much controversy about Barack Obama's refusal of public funds for his campaign. Public funds come with Federal spending limits of $84million and Obama's phenomenal fundraising power dictates that he would be foregoing serious campaign capital if he accepted them. Obama's campaign had raised $265million by the end of April from a mind-blowing 1.4million donors.

Many see Obama's refusal as a betrayal. That is an overly harsh assessment. The point about Obama's fundraising is that it is fuelled by millions of small donations rather than heavy fundraising from a limited number of sources. What this means in practice is that his campaign finance doesn't come with a political price tag unlike a candidate who is heavily financed by lobbyists, corporate interests, wealthy donors, and Political Action Committees. The more than 1million donors to his primary campaign are engaging in an active and constructive way with the democratic process and that is ultimately very different to the corrosive chicken dinner and K Street deal mode of raising campaign finance of the past.

John McCain will accept public finding and the $84million spending limit. He is no angel on this either. He declined Federal matched funds for his primary campaign (which come with a $50million or so spending limit) having said that he would apply for them. Expediency cuts across the political spectrum. Moreover, the $84million spending limit only applies once he is officially the candidate come September. He can raise and spend money with impunity until then and he will.

Now, what is Senator Obama going to use this massive pool of campaign cash for? This is where things get really interesting. An interview with Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager, Steve Hildebrand, reported on www.politico.com, reveals that the strategy is to focus resources on fourteen states that George Bush won in 2004. He will defend the previous blue (Democratic) states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Alongside that, he will make a play for fourteen of 2004's red states: Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, Georgia and Alaska. He will also try to pick up some votes in Nebraska where electoral votes are distributed in accordance with congressional district votes. At the very least, this focus of resources will turn John McCain on his heels- they can't afford to suppose that all this is just an elaborate Obama bluff.

Even more interestingly, Obama is going to target certain congressional districts in the hope of shoring up Democratic dominance in the House of Representatives by winning seats in places such as Wyoming. He will also look to win the Texas state Legislature ahead of congressional re-districting in 2010.

Essentially, the Obama campaign strategy is tremendously ambitious and well-resourced. It is worth contemplating when feeling a bit squeamish about his eschewing of public funds that this is built on the largest pool of donors ever amassed which enable the most ambitious electoral strategy ever. If it works, this strategy will secure the Presidency, Congress, and build the foundations of a Democratic epoch.

How should Obama play it?

A really interesting poll appeared in the Washington Post yesterday on the Obama-McCain head-to-head. Two features particularly stood out: (i) Independent support for Obama and McCain is split evenly between the two candidates; (ii) Eight out of ten Democrats support Obama but nine out of ten Republicans support McCain. So there seems to be a challenge for Obama: shore up the base, pitch for the centre-ground or can he pull off both?

Actually, from the detailed poll data there is evidence that Senator Obama is very well placed: leads on the economy (the most significant issue by a 14-point margin), gas prices, age is more significant that race according to these poll findings, levels Iraq War policy (though underlying attitudes seem to be more in his favour), ties leadership, crucifies McCain on change in an election where voters want change and a massive number believe the country is headed in the wrong direction (85% or so.) In fact, if one were to induce Obama's poll rating from the these factors, you would expect a much greater lead than the 6% lead that he has.

So there is something holding back Senator Obama. Something which is not revealed in these polls. It could be the overhang of Hillary support from the primary campaign which he hasn't yet been able to dislodge. Maybe voters just like John McCain despite their ratings of him when its broken down into sub-issues. Maybe they just haven't quite taken to Senator Obama yet. The one area where Senator McCain enjoys a significant lead over Senator Obama is on counter-terrorism. Perhaps, despite misgivings about his economic policy, they just feel a bit safer with John McCain.

Looking at these polling data, Obama may be able to pitch both left and centre by driving home his advantage on economic and gas price policy. This feels like an economy election with the normal caveat of 'events, dear boy, events.' He will have to accept a score draw on foreign policy I suspect (which given where John Kerry was is a monumental achievement if he can pull it off.) On the economy, that is where he can build a real coalition of support. Given it is area of self-confessed weakness for John McCain also, the sun could well be shining on such a strategy.

Post script: I have changed the Electoral College counter to Real Clear Politics data. The www.electoral-vote.com data seemed to be too generous to Senator Obama and I'd rather go with the cautious assessment. Nothing scientific, just a hunch.

What on earth are John McCain and Barack Obama so happy about?

So asks David Brooks of the New York Times. Obama has yet to define himself in a way that captures the imagination of working-class voters. John McCain has not yet been able to demonstrate that he is a clear break with the past. Tactical differences with George W Bush such as on climate change and immigration are all well and good but on the big issues: the economy and foreign policy, where are the great divides with Bush?

It's interesting because underlying the analysis is the position that John McCain is the personality candidate and Barack Obama is the policy candidate. If you read most of the press, certainly in the UK, you get a very different perspective.

Obama now projected majority

I've updated the latest electoral counter (to the left) as I'll do every few days. Obama's projected electoral vote is now over 270. Just a bit of fun but it is a key indicator.

Clinton beats Obama in the electoral college

I've just seen an absolutely fascinating analysis about the US Presidential race. The site www.electoral-vote.com has done an analysis of who is better placed to beat McCain this Autumn based on the available polling evidence. There needs to be an enormous health warning attached to this: polls now do not necessarily indicate how things will go come November. Actually, 'not necessarily' is not strong enough. They do not.

But what it shows, hold your breath Obama supporters, is that Hillary Clinton would win the electoral college by 327 to 194 as polls stand. Obama's lead would be only 266 to 248. That is four short of a majority.

In addition to the health warning, I would also make the comment that Hillary currently secures more of the lower income, white Democratic base than Obama and they are not moving over to him quite yet. I believe they will but he has a hell of a job to do to convince them. He has all but sealed the nomination but he hasn't sealed the deal with the voters. Far from it.

These maps also show that his superior national lead over McCain when compared to Hillary does not translate into a superior performance in the electoral college.

I'll keep an eye on this website as it will graphically demonstrate how the Obama campaign is going state by state. But the campaign has a long way to go. He has time to do it.

I have put a permanent counter on the site (top left) which I will update periodically.

Obama and McCain spat continues

The war of words between Senators Obama and McCain has continued into today. John McCain accused Senator Obama of 'inexperience and reckless' judgement.

I find two elements of the McCain position confusing:

i) President Ahmadinejad is in power and it really is irrelevant whether the US hands him a 'propaganda victory' by meeting up with him if that is indeed all it would be. A meeting doesn't change things with regard to Ahmadinejad's position in Iran in the slightest either way. The bellicose approach has failed so what exactly is there to lose?

ii) What is McCain proposing instead? Do what we say or else? What if Iran doesn't comply? Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran (as McCain once hilariously sang to the tune of Barbara Anne by the Beach Boys)?

In no way am I suggesting that any recourse should be taken off the table or under-estimating the threat posed by Iran (in the Middle East at least) but I just don't see how the McCain strategy leads to anything other than embarrassment for the US, an uneasy and probably unsustainable deadlock, or a military strike on Iran. If stand-off diplomacy is the way we are going to continue, then the options and outcomes are narrowed drastically.

The only amazing thing about this spat, is that Senator Obama's position is portrayed as so extreme. It has its risks but there really is very little to lose and everything to gain.

Bush's neo-McCarthyism is now failing

I have a contribution on The Independent's Open House today on Bush's failing neo-McCarthyism that I alluded to in the post below.

The article is here.

Obama's gaffe and what it means

Unsurprisingly, Barack Obama's comments about people in small town America being bitter about their economic hardship then clinging to verities of old such as guns and God and becoming hostile towards immigrants, free trade and people who are different have been gleefully seized upon by his opponents. Is it not concerning that John McCain and Hillary Clinton are now hunting as a pack?

That aside, perspective is urgently needed. Ed Kilgore on Real Clear Politics provides it. The gaffe (and it was a gaffe: a much too sweeping a comment that left him open to his opponents' attacks) has presented the Clinton campaign with an opportunity to emphasise that Obama has had some relative difficulty in swaying white, middle-class America to vote for him thus far. There is an under-current to all this but the argument neutralises a core element of Obama's claim on the nomination. He has emphasised that there is large portion of his vote that just won't transfer to Hillary. Now she is emphasising the same and what's more those white, small town, economically alienated, socially conservative Democrats will be attracted to McCain. For some figures see the 'Obama and Clinton's petulant vote' post. Super-delegates get ready to play piggy in the middle (but you're used to that, right?)

Where does this leave things? In limbo really. Clinton will win Pennsylvania by a healthy margin. She will probably win Indiana by a narrower margin. Obama will have a very healthy win in North Carolina. Narrow advantage Clinton on April 22nd/ May 6th. Obama still well ahead overall. Things will have moved a millimetre towards Clinton.

More broadly, either Democrat candidate will face a challenge in converting all their opponent's vote later in the year. In this, both Clinton and Obama have a point. But they both have a three month Presidential campaign in which to achieve the shift. The polls in August rarely relate to the result in November. As James Carville never tires of pointing out on Meet the Press, Clinton was third place in the polls in July 1992 and Kerry was 14 points clear in Summer 2004.

So what to do? How about deciding the nominee on the basis of who has the most delegates? And it would be a very brave decision indeed for the super-delegates to flip the candidate with the most pledged delegates....

Is that John McCain I can hear whistling in his bath?

Postscript: Clinton's ad following Obama's comments can be seen below:

John McCain must choose wisely

Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George Bush (Sr) are all twentieth century Vice-Presidents who made it to the top. So it's actually quite an important role in US politics, frustrating as it is for the post-holder. There are some huge names in that list- Teddy Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon obviously stand out (not all for the right reasons.) You get there by your predecessor finding a stray bullet or meeting his maker. So you can understand why Lyndon Johnson felt like a raven on JFK's shoulder.

John McCain must choose wisely. His running mate will be a huge issue. It will be less of an issue for his opponent.

Just a salutary thought but imagine if George W. Bush hadn't made it to the end of his Presidency. He has been an abysmal President but can you imagine Dick Cheney?

Condoleezza Rice to balance John McCain's ticket?

Well, the Democrats will be making history with either a black or female candidate? How do you go one better? Well, you put a black woman with formidable foreign policy experience on your ticket. There's quite a bit chatter about the possibility of Condi Rice balancing John McCain's ticket. It's seductive.

The main problem? The election becomes about Iraq and US foreign policy. Oh, and there's the small matter of the fact that's she's as tied to George W Bush as it's possible to be without being the man himself. Also, John McCain's weakness is not exactly foreign policy expertise. It's economics. Depite his warm words for Ms Rice, this one should be treated with some scepticism as it just doesn't seem to stack up unless we're only looking at things through that racial/ gender prism which occasionally obscures our view in this remarkable election.

John McCain gains on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton

Well, it was expected but a McCain surge has begun. There are two reasons behind this: the continuing rancour between the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns and Ralph Nader entering the race.

Yes, that's Ralph Nader, green and consumer rights activist who takes on powerful vested corporate and political interests and stands in Presidential elections, taking enough votes from Democrats to put George W Bush in the White House. A true hero of the left......and prize wally. I've heard that Halliburton has a Ralph Nader bust in the reception of their US HQ in Houston. Workers plant a respectful kiss on his right cheek as they arrive for work every morning. The biggest new business generator in the company every year receives the Ralph Nader Shield. And high-flying new graduates are placed on the 'Nader Leadership Program.'

Anyway, this is all rather frustrating. Clinton and Obama are heading for an almost dead heat with Obama's nose just ahead (he has gained another 8 or so delegates in Iowa for example who were previously uncommitted.) But will either of the campaigns have the energy and momentum to prevent a third term for the neo-conservatives in the White House?

Delegates, Momentum, McCain, Popular Vote

On another website yesterday there was a discussion about whether Obama had done well to get so close in one of 'Hillary's states.' It is intriguing how easy it is to get diverted by opinion polls. But no-one 'owns' a state until they have won it. Only four things matter at this stage in this order:

i) Delegates
ii) Momentum
iii) Head to head with McCain (admittedly based on polls)
iv) Popular vote

Now, as reported yesterday it is almost impossible for Hillary to win on the delegate count. That is why Obama's campaign sent out an email entitled 'The Math' yesterday. David Plouffe says:

Anthony --

Our projections show the most likely outcome of yesterday's elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and we gained 183.

That's a net gain of 4 delegates out of more than 370 delegates available from all the states that voted.

For comparison, that's less than half our net gain of 9 delegates from the District of Columbia alone. It's also less than our net gain of 8 from Nebraska, or 12 from Washington State. And it's considerably less than our net gain of 33 delegates from Georgia.

The delegate numbers on Real Clear Politics don't quite stack up with this email but David Plouffe's point is still the same and it's a strong one. Hillary can't win on the delegate count.

But she can win on momentum going into August and the head to head with McCain (though she has been consistently behind up until now.) She can also grab the overall popular vote as explained here. It's a slightly unfair comparison given that a good portion of Obama's success has been in caucus states. The Clinton camp would argue that this demonstrates that Obama is less successful when facing the popular vote. There's not a lot of evidence for this- he would be behind overall if that were true and at this stage he's narrowly ahead. It is more likely that he happens to be popular in many states that have caucuses rather than primaries. Difficult to say either way.

So what should Obama do to remain ahead on the popular count? Actually, what should he do to stay ahead period? Well, what he's doing seems to be working. In fact, what he's doing seems to be working amazingly well. He needs to tactically calibrate- maybe focus a bit more on economic issues, beef up a bit what political change will actually mean in concrete terms, but we are talking emphasis rather than strategy at this stage. All of the Clintons' negatives are well established so there is no real gain in going there anything other than occasional or when he needs to parry. It is probably worth drawing attention to her credentials to be Commander-in-Chief (what real experience does she have? honestly?)

Yesterday, I estimated that Hillary's chances of success were 25%. That means Obama's are 75%. A 3/1 odds-on bet is worth taking. So Obama should stick to the strategy and drive towards the finish.

Post script: See this article for the latest state of play on Florida and Michigan. There might be a re-run....

Democratic nomination decided today?

The honest answer is that I would be absolutely amazed if it is. Clinton maintains a smallish but consistent poll lead in Ohio. Obama's poll lead in Texas is minuscule and may now actually have reversed in the closing stages of the campaign. It is down to turnout and how the early voting has gone. My gut instinct is that Clinton will win Ohio fairly comfortably and Texas will be almost a dead heat with Clinton winning by a squeak on the vote and Obama winning more delegates (it's to do with the apportionment- see my piece in Tribune this week for further background on that).

See also an analysis on www.mydd.com about early voting and the poll numbers that are coming through. It's inconclusive but tends to suggest a narrow Clinton win in Texas.

Where would the scenario above leave us? In a really bad situation for the Democrats. For five reasons:

i) Obama is still likely to win on pledged delegates but will have to endure months of the type of negative Clinton campaigning that he has experienced in Texas over the last few days. McCain can just sit back and enjoy.
ii) Obama will be drawn into battle over issue after issue. This will tarnish his reputation as the change candidate and make him look 'just like the rest.'
iii) Michigan and Florida. Clinton's people will try to get the Democratic National Committee to re-seat the delegates in Denver in August. There will be a row about this and the Democrats will look incompetent and undemocratic. As Bob Shrum described it, the primaries in Florida and Michigan were like 'a Soviet style election- there was only one candidate.'
iv) The nomination will be decided by the super-delegates. If they go for Clinton when Obama has more pledged delegates that will severely damage a Clinton Presidential bid. Perhaps fatally.
v) Clinton and Obama will start to drift leftwards as the key state of Pennsylvania becomes Obama's last chance at a knock-out and Clinton's final firewall. Eight weeks of hedging to the left will be a further gift to McCain.

Overall, if Obama fails to win Texas on both the popular vote and delegates it will be an awful situation for the Democrats. Whoever emerges as the candidate in August could and probably would be severely handicapped against McCain. Obama stands to lose the most. If the process 'normalises' him which it will start to do then his momentum is punctured. Should he win Texas, no matter how narrowly, I hope that the Clintons do the responsible thing. The chances of that? Start at zero then work back.