Moving Goalposts Arrive in Denver

I realize now that those shifting goalposts from the primary season may have been much more media-created than I previously understood.

Last night I was impressed by Hillary's speech after having been firmly ensconced in the ABC (Anybody But Clinton) Camp throughout the primaries. This morning, I found myself amazed, enraged and ashamed by how the media is pushing the PUMA-driven "Clintonistas are bitter" storyline so aggressively.

I'm exhausted by the media's relentless handwringing (and schizophrenic) chorus.

First, they told us, "Michelle must define herself and allow voters to become comfortable with her family"
initial reviews: CHECK
"Good job. But where was the red meat?" Is there any rational human (other than those who receive the RNC's daily talking points email) who believes the image of an angry, on-the-attack Mrs. Obama would have endeared her to undecided voters?

Next they turned their obsession to Hillary's Herculean task. "How can Hillary pivot and transfer the support of her 18-million strong army to become part of Barack's Battalion? Will she look genuine? Or will she come off as readying her 2012 bid?"
initial reviews: missions accomplished!
Well, she was good - maybe her best speech ever, in fact. But, wait, come to think of it, you know she forgot to mention whether or not she now feels Obama is ready to receive that 3 AM call. And, look, here's an angry white woman who still seems dissatisfied that the system robbed Hillary. Cleary, she left some work undone.

Where are all the critiques of the Bush/Cheney administration? Why haven't they hung that 24% approval rating around McCain's neck? They're missing their opportunity! Is this Kerry '04 redux? When will the Democrats learn politics is a contact sport? All the time they're saying this, speaker after speaker is on the podium denouncing Bush, McCain and failed Republican policies.

The media opts to air more of themselves bloviating about the real issue before voters: Bill Clinton feels dissed by the upstart and aloof Barack Obama.

So, today we're treated to "What will Bill say? And, what will he look like while he's saying it? Will he look like he's passing a kidney stone? Will he wag his finger? Even more importantly, what will he be thinking when he says it?

Thankfully, we have Dr. Maureen Dowd to help us with that analysis.

Oh, and by the way, Obama speaking in front of 75,000 people - that just reinforces this celebrity thing dontcha think? Politicians should be serious and not really popular. American leaders should be plodding and boring - not inspirational. Maybe if he had spent time in a POW camp, he would understand how unwise it is to make the most important speech of his lifetime in such a public venue.

The inevitable result is an unwinnable situation where Democrats are confronted by an endgame with bogus goalposts, impossible Catch-22s created by morning after psychologists and manufactured drama driven by a minority who are desperate for their fifteen seconds of fame (yes, in the youtube era, Warhol's prediction has been truncated into nothing more than a sound bite).

I've taken to watching the convention on CSPAN, where there is no bloviating media telling me what to think. I'm hoping Barack and Plouffe have made a similar decision.

UPDATE 3:26, 8/26/08: The Boston Globe's editors share my affinity for CSPAN's convention coverage.

GALLUP: Campaign 2008 Cliff Notes

Gallup's "Quick Read on the Election" provides a presidential campaign overview as we approach the unprecedented "back-to-back" party conventions. After the two week hiatus provided by the IOC, the roller-coaster is about to begin. How do the "experts" see the general election shaping up?

Not surprisingly, the Gallup Gate Keepers reinforce the traditional media's prevailing narrative. Despite the Democrats' "structural" election advantage (Democrats are viewed much more favorably than the GOP and more Americans are identifying as Democrats), Obama is underperforming in national polls. His average lead of three points throughout the summer indicates a third straight close election. While both nominees-in-waiting have solidified their partisan coalitions (despite the coverage some outlets have provided to the PUMAs), neither McCain nor Obama has exhibited either partisan cross-over appeal or the ability to build a significant lead among independent voters necessary to alter this "50/50 Nation" dynamic.

Pattern of candidate support is similar to 2000 and 2004 elections. Obama's strengths: non-white race and ethnic groups, including blacks and Hispanics; 18-29; those with postgraduate educations; women; those with very low incomes; those who have no religious identification/for whom religion is not important/do not attend church; those who are unmarried. McCain's strengths: non-Hispanic whites; 65 and older; those who are married; white Protestants and non-Catholic Christians; whites who attend church frequently/for whom religion is important.

Ever-helpful, the pollsters also raise a couple of red flags for the Obama campaign, reinforcing the nervous hand-wringing among nervous Democrats watching national and state polls tightening.

Current position of the candidates predicts little. In previous two elections, both candidates who lead polls in summer, pre-convention (Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004), ended up losing the popular vote.

History predicts modest bounces for candidates when they make their vice presidential announcements and after their conventions. This year, all of this will be compressed in a short two-week period in late August/early September. Back-to-back conventions are unprecedented. Voters will have a steady stream of election input. Bounce will likely follow bounce. This could be one of most fascinating times in presidential election history. Standings after conventions will be critical.

Earlier this summer, Gallup reminded political junkies that the July polling leader has lost six of the last nine close presidential elections. History clearly isn't on Obama's side, the chattering class warns. The failure to close the deal (despite leading McCain in national polling since February, which is VERY different from the polling swings witnessed in both 2000 and 2004) means Obama's candidacy could be following Gore and Kerry to electoral defeat. As if on cue, a chorus of "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" has risen from Chicken Little Democrats who fear yet another defeat in the wake of what was once deemed near-certain victory.

And don't overlook the 2008 convention calendar quirk. The back-to-back conventions – particularly during this era of the 24/7 never-ending news cycle – may negate the Mile High Convention/VP selection bounce many Democratic activists and media talking heads anticipate. The electorate's short attention span and the media's rapid transition from Denver to St. Paul may lessen (or even erase) the Democratic bounce. If this happens, expect the chattering class to start more clucking about Barack's "failure to seal the deal." The fate of his candidacy will come down to the debates. The punditocracy will fretfully ask, "Will Obama lose the election with a "Gore sigh"? And Democratic partisans will sweat it out, fearful of history repeating itself.

But, wait. Not so fast.

Gallup provides Obama a lifeline. And it's one Team Obama has been aware of all along.

Turnout will be a key factor. Obama would benefit from unusual (and unprecedented) enthusiasm among young voters and minority voters. McCain would benefit from a more typical higher turnout among Republicans, highly religious white voters. Results of likely voter modeling this summer so far have been mixed.

Note what they're saying here. It is young voters (who until this past primary season had historically been one of the least engaged voting blocs) who hold the key to an Obama victory. The Democrats' unprecedented investment in field offices, grassroots organizing, voter registration and Election Day GOTV efforts is critical and unpredictable. If the pollsters can't confidently identify which voters will actually show up at the polls, it is difficult to provide accurate polling numbers. If the Democrats are successful in increasing the youth vote (combined with even a slight uptick in minority participation), the polls may be irrelevant – and horrifically inaccurate. This is without considering the underrepresentation of voters under 35, whose reliance on cell phones places them beyond the reach of traditional polling.

At the same time, McCain is forced to rely on an unmotivated (and shrinking) Republican base. Nothing indicates the enthusiasm gap the Democrats have enjoyed (in fundraising, voter id and voter interest) over the past year and a half has closed. On the eve of the Mile High convention, Pew tells us the electorate is much more interested in the Democratic shindig than the Republican pow-wow. Unless the conventions and VP picks dramatically alter the dynamics, Obama's investment in grassroots infrastructure may be the difference-maker this November.

Finally, Gallup's last point moves beyond the horse race and to the issues which may determine how the electorate will decide:

Top voter issues this year skew towards the domestic, in particular economy and energy. Iraq, healthcare, and terrorism remain important. Obama's perceived strengths: domestic issues, compassion, empathy, bringing about change. McCain's perceived strengths: experience, international issues, terrorism, viewed as capable commander in chief. A continuing uptick in consumer confidence and increase in perceived success in Iraq could benefit McCain.

I don't agree with Gallup's conclusion. Following months of an economy mired in a severe stall, it's rather late in the game for an "uptick in consumer confidence" to make a difference in how Americans feel about the general direction of the country. If Team Obama succeeds in tying McCain to the Bush economic policies, it's difficult to see how the Republican can overtake the Democrat on these domestic concerns.

The electorate's feelings about Iraq also seem firmly set. McCain will continue and elevate the fearmongering. The Islamofascist threat, memories of 9-11, a new Cold War with the Russians on the march – every fear card the Republicans have in their ghoulish deck will be played as they hope to divert the public's attention from the pocketbook issues. Foreign policy remains a wild card, but Joe Biden as a VP pick minimizes McCain's advantage, at least at first glance. Essentially, the last eight weeks of the general election campaign is going to come down to whether Americans want change or the status quo.

Political Junkies Anonymous?

The wind-down to the most competitive nominating contest in American history has me transfixed - and a little worried. Does anyone know of a post-primary 12-step program for political junkies? How will I replace my addiction to polls, 24-hour talking heads and my new gay-man crush on Rachel Maddow?

Personally, today the emotion is one of "delayed relief." While I'm delighted the moment has finally arrived, it's a tad bit anticlimactic. Anyone with the ability to do simple mathematics knew the outcome of this contest in late February.

I've been angry at the Clintons at many moments during this campaign, perhaps never moreso than watching Harold Ickes' hypocritical and nasty performance at the RBC meeting on Saturday. However, it has completely evaporated over the past 24 hours, replaced by a surprisingly bittersweet sympathy. I am relieved the Democrats have finally removed the "burden" of Bill and Hillary by rejecting and renouncing her coronation march. My party has proven we are America's small "D" democrats, the true defenders of the Jeffersonian ideal. No single person - or family - is more important than the party, or the country.

As I write this, MSNBC is reporting Hillary is letting it be known she would accept an invite to be the Veep. I hope Barack resists this temptation. I believe he is smart enough to understand the danger of bringing Bill's baggage to the Democratic ticket. My sincere desire is that this last dance between the two candidates to be graceful. Hillary can have a great future in the Democratic party. The Senate will be in desperate need of a powerful Democratic voice.

Now, my nerves are redirected to the general election and a climatic November moment ... anxiously anticipating a Democratic victory. Will Democrats find a way to snatch defeat despite overwhelming macrotrends pointing toward a Democratic sweep?

Maybe I don't need that 12-step program yet, after all.

With Friends Like These...

Karl Rove's take on the decisive Basketball Primaries (from the RCP Blog):

Fox News's "Fox and Friends"
Karl Rove on Obama's win in North Carolina: "He had a big victory last night. ... On the other hand, he won because of the dynamics of the state. There's a state that has 35 percent African American population, probably closer to 40 percent in terms of those that voted. And his vote among [blue collar], working-class people is terrible. He basically got a quarter and a third in the two states. ... It's a very big problem for him. The industrial Midwest -- from Pennsylvania through Wisconsin -- becomes in play if he's the nominee."

Is it just me, or is Rove sounding a lot like Howard Wolfson and Lanny Davis?

I hope Republicans buy into this analysis and build their general election strategy along the same lines as Hillary's. Obama will shake his head and shrug, "this again? can't they come up with something original?"

On the other hand, Rove did acknowledge the Clinton-Obama extended tussle has been good for Obama (again, from RCP):

On the downside to Clinton staying in the race: "I'm not certain there's a downside if she remains in, and he has a tone that he had last night. ... They continue the dialogue, they continue to dominate, and he gets to be a better candidate. Part of this process is to make yourself a better candidate, and he has become a better candidate than he was at the beginning."

Chuckie Says: Hoosier State in Play???

During last night's coverage of the Indiana squeaker, MSNBC's political bean counter extraordinaire Chuck Todd made a stunning statement (just prior to Barack's victory speech):

"This state could be in play in the fall. You're going to have over a million people turn out in this primary. That's even two hundred thousand people more than they expected in a high turnout election."

Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Limbaugh.

Could you imagine Election night coverage that doesn't start with the network anchors quadrennial pronouncement, "With the polls now closing in the State of Indiana, the XYZ Network calls the Hoosier State's 11 electoral votes for the Republican nominee?"

If that's the case, John McCain should consider forfeiting now.

KeithO: The Magical Moving Goalposts

Olberman determines which voter counts:

Is Anyone Welcome Aboard HMS Hillary?

One of TeamHillary's primary themes developed during this interminable nomination battle (alongside the concurrent Magical Moving Goalposts strategy) has been the shrinking number of people who matter.

The campaign's willingness to toss overboard key constituencies from the HMS Hillary is counterintuitive to any campaign whose only remaining argument is based on ELECTABILITY.

Despite arguing she wants every Democrat in all fifty states to have a chance to vote, Senator Clinton continues her march into oblivion by dismissing every voter (or voting bloc) who votes for "her opponent." By the way, does it annoy anyone else out there that Mrs. Clinton can't seem to remember Barack Obama's name unless he happens to be in the room? It has that "nails across the chalkboard" effect on me similar to when Republicans use their juvenile "Democrat Party" label.

TeamHillary's laundry list of Those Who Do Not Matter has grown with each passing contest.

First, she dismissed caucus state voters.

Then, it was African-Americans.

Next, we learned that small-state voters don't count, either.

Activists were next forced to walk the plank from the HMS Hillary when they proved mutinous to the Clinton Party restoration.

Red State Democrats, who began to believe they may actually play a role in a rejuvenated national party, were told they weren't welcome.

College educated, middle and upper income liberals soon joined the ranks of the "to-be-disenfranchised."

Now, after her ridiculous GOP gas tax holiday proposal, economists and policy experts who have universally criticized her for shameless, if not dangerous, political pandering, we can add policy wonks to the list of Those Who Do Not Matter.

How ironic that the renowned policy wonk herself has tossed aside the experts? More ominously, doesn't this seem frighteningly similar to the current Oval Office occupant's behavior vis-a-vis military and foreign policy?