Advertisement

 

White House 2008

GENERAL ELECTION

1. Voter Gans

Voter registration for the '08 election "increased by a moderate and estimated 2.5% but still reached its highest level at least since women were given the vote in 1920. According to a report released 11/3 by American Univ.'s Center for the Study of the American Electorate (CSAE), when all the registration figures are final and official, an estimated 153.1M eligible citizens will have registered or 73.5% of the eligible population, more than the previous high of 72.1% established in '64.

Based on final and official registration figures from 21 states and nearly final but unofficial figures from 11 more, registration, when all states are counted, will have increased by an estimated 5M more American citizens than would have registered had registration rates stayed the same as they were in '04. This marks the second straight WH election in which there was a significant increase in registration. In '04, registration increased by an even greater 3%.

CSAE's Curtis Gans: "And this, in turn, could lead to a turnout of as many as 135 million or 64.8 percent of eligible citizens the highest since 1960 when 67 percent of eligibles voted - the high point since women were given the right to vote in 1920."

Other key findings:

• Based on the 19 states (of 28 states and DC which have partisan registration) and when final figures are available from all states that report registration, Dem registration will have increased by an estimated 1.4% or by 2.9M; GOP registration will have declined by 1.45M; and registration for citizens affiliated with neither major party will have increased by 607K. (Also when final figures are in, there may be some variance with these estimated numbers but the pattern will hold.)

• This marked the third straight WH election of Dem registration increase (but the only significant one) after nearly four decades of decrease from a high of 49.4% of eligible citizens in '64 to a nadir of 35.9% in '96.

• This year marked the 12th successive election where the percentage of those registering for something other than the major parties (for other parties or as independents) increased from a low of 1.6% of eligible citizens in '60 to 22% now.

• The decrease in GOP registration was small and its estimated level not very different from the last two elections when it hovered around 28% of eligibles. The fact that GOP reg declined in this year of intense citizen interest in the election is significant.

• Dem registration increased by the largest amount in the battleground states of NV, PA, CO and the new battleground state of AZ. It also increased significantly in the non-battleground states of NJ and MD.

• Of concern for the GOP, GOP registration decreased in the battleground states of CO, FL and PA. But they did record gains in NV.

• Non-major party registration increased in 16 of the 19 states that reported their registration as of this release, losing ground only in NJ (release, 11/3).

Divining Polls

On 11/4, "the nation's fretful, hopeful voters will finally have their say, and none of the rigorously calibrated polls or demographically incisive analysts out there can tell us with any certainty what will happen" (Bruni, New York Times, 11/2).

New York Times ombudsman Hoyt writes, "'It's over,' wrote Charles M. Blow on the Op-Ed page of The Times 15 days ago." Blow: "I've studied the polls and the electoral map for months, and I no longer believe that John McCain can win."

"Blow allowed as how a serious mistake by Barack Obama, the re-emergence of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or a national security emergency could change the outlook, but he said he was so sure of his prediction that, if wrong, 'I'll take my crow with a six pack of Liquid-Plumr.'"

"Now that is confidence. But could it be misplaced? ... A recent Newsweek cover story explored 'How a President Obama Might Govern a Center-Right Nation.' ... NBC's political director, Chuck Todd, dismissed McCain's chances this way last week: 'It does seem like it's an uphill climb that's just too steep.' Within the GOP and the conservative movement, "the recriminations have already begun."

"For reporters and editors at the Times responsible for news about the election -- as opposed to opinions, like Blow's -- this is a tricky time. They have to walk a careful line, reporting what appears to be current reality without predicting an outcome that nobody can be certain of, no matter what polls indicate.

"I think the coverage over time has created a strong expectation" of an Obama victory and a Dem "sweep" in Congress. "The expectation has been built bit by bit in The Times." Managing editor Jill Abramson: "It is difficult, even when you do the most diligent editing, not to leave the appearance [of calling the winner]."

Chief political correspondent Adam Nagourney: "I don't think it's over, and I think coverage that suggests it is is irresponsible. [Still,] you've got to reflect what's going on."

"What's going on is that Obama is ahead in every national poll; he is drawing huge crowds and raising record amounts of money; he is leading or tied in critical states that McCain must win to have any chance; and McCain is saddled with an apparent recession, an unpopular war and an unpopular president from his party. None of which means he cannot win."

Campaign editor Richard Stevenson: "That's the reality, and we're not going to put our finger on the scale to pretend otherwise" (11/2).

Washington Post polling dir. Cohen writes, Jan. "was a rough month for the pollsters. All the polls showed" Obama "poised to follow up his big win" in the IA caucuses "with a knockout blow" to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in NH. "But he lost, sending the 13 firms that did public pre-election polls there scrambling for explanations. Could polling be similarly embarrassed this month, misjudging the last chapter of this epic presidential election?"

McCain "certainly says that the polls are misleading.... Of course, blaming the polls is standard operating practice for trailing candidates, their partisans and contrarians everywhere. And of course, we won't make the same mistakes that led George Gallup to declare that Thomas Dewey had Harry Truman beat in 1948: We won't use outdated sampling techniques, and we won't assume that the race is over and stop polling. Nor is our polling window as absurdly small as the four nights between" IA and NH.

"Even so, could McCain be onto something? ... Can the polls be trusted? ... One of the trickiest parts of political polling is determining which of the people interviewed in pre-election surveys will really vote. These 'likely voter models' vary widely from pollster to pollster."

"I'm also often asked about the rising use of cellphones. The number of people ditching their home telephones has spiked in recent years, with the highest percentages among young adults and nonwhites. Does this affect the polls? Probably not -- or at least not yet. ... But even if these voters turn out to have been systematically underrepresented in this year's polls, that would actually mean that Obama had an even larger lead, because these voters overwhelmingly back him over McCain. ... (Few state polls include cellphone interviews.)"

"No 'Bradley effect' has shown up for years, and a new analysis ... shows that any such effect that existed in African American politicians' contests" in the late '80s and early '90s "has now disappeared. There is also the possibility of a pre-election 'bandwagon effect.' ... I worry more about a basic concern: whether we are getting a truly random sample of opinion."

"Today, all the indicators -- not just the polls -- suggest that Obama is the candidate with momentum. ... Of course, if the trustworthy polls continue showing Obama ahead and McCain wins, it would be a monumental failure for political scientists, reporters and pollsters alike -- an indictment worse than" NH, "worse even than" WH'48 (11/2).

Getting In The Halloween Spirit

"In the hours before Election Day ... comes an onslaught of dirty tricks -- confusing e-mails, disturbing phone calls and insinuating fliers left on doorsteps during the night. The intent, almost always, is to keep folks from voting or to confuse them, usually through intimidation or misinformation."

• "Complaints have surfaced in predominantly African-American neighborhoods of Philadelphia where fliers have circulated, warning voters they could be arrested at the polls if they had unpaid parking tickets or if they had criminal convictions."

• "Over the weekend" in VA, "bogus fliers with an authentic-looking commonwealth seal said fears of high voter turnout had prompted election officials to hold two elections" -- one on Tues. for GOPers and another on Wed. for Dems.

• In NM, "two Hispanic women filed a lawsuit last week claiming they were harassed by a private investigator working for" a GOP atty "who came to their homes and threatened to call immigration authorities, even though they are U.S. citizens."

• "Other reports of intimidation efforts in the hotly contested state" of PA "include leaflets taped to picnic benches" at Drexel Univ., "warning students that police would be at the polls" on 11/4 "to arrest would-be voters with prior criminal offenses."

• In NV, "Latino voters said they had received calls from people describing themselves as Obama volunteers, urging them to cast their ballot over the phone."

ACLU's Laughlin McDonald: "The Voting Rights Act makes it a crime to misled and intimidate voters. If you can find out who's doing it, those people should be prosecuted. But sometimes it's just difficult to know who's doing what. Some of it's just anonymous" (Hastings, AP, 11/3).

Spoiler Alert

"Third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr have small but tangible followings in a number of battleground states, positioning them as potential wild cards" in CO, GA, FL, MO, OH, "and elsewhere. Both presidential hopefuls qualified for the ballots in 45 states, raising the possibility that even a small showing in a tightly contested state could tip the balance to either" Obama or McCain.

"Urging the crowd in West Palm Beach to 'really turn it on' for Obama in the waning days," Al Gore: "Take it from me, elections matter, every vote matters."

Nader "could have the most significant impact" in MO, where he drew 4% in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll this week that shows McCain "leading Obama by a slim" 48% to 46%. Barr, "who has criticized McCain for being too moderate," was at 3% "in his home state" of GA in another CNN survey, which showed McCain ahead 50% to 46% (Kranish, Boston Globe, 11/1).

Will Obama's Props Make The Difference?

Obama "opposes amending state constitutions to define marriage as a heterosexual institution, describing such proposals as discriminatory. McCain, however, has been active in such efforts: On the most expensive and heated battle to ban same-sex marriage this year, a proposed constitutional amendment" in CA "known as Proposition 8, he has endorsed the measure and sharply criticized a State Supreme Court ruling that granted same-sex couples the right to marry."

Obama "has spoken out against Proposition 8, and opponents of the measure hope that a huge" Dem turnout in CA -- "and, possibly, depressed turnout among conservatives -- will help defeat it. At the same time," some Dems "say that if many socially conservative blacks and Hispanics turn out to support Obama, but oppose same-sex marriage, the amendment's chances for passage could improve" (Healy, New York Times, 11/1).

More Divining

Washington Post's Will writes, by 12am on 11/4, "millions of conservatives probably will believe that the nation, foundering on the reefs of sin, is ruined. And millions of 'progressives,' emboldened to embrace truth in labeling by again calling themselves liberals, probably will have decided that Heaven is at hand, the nation revived like a flower in an April shower" (11/2).

Washington Post's Broder writes, "I remember the precise moment when I became convinced that this presidential campaign was going to be the best I'd ever covered." Obama "had imported Oprah Winfrey from Chicago to make the first of her endorsement appearances," in Des Moines, IA, on 12/8/07. Families "were bundled in winter coats against the chilly temperatures, and the mood was festive -- like a tailgate party for a football game. But the lure here was not a sporting contest; it was a political rally."

"It was startling that almost a year before Election Day," 18K people "had given up their Saturday shopping time to stand (there were no chairs) and listen to an hour of political rhetoric. In all the eight" IA caucuses "I'd covered over four decades, I'd never seen anything like this. In fact, I'd not seen voters so turned on since my first campaign as a political reporter, the classic Kennedy-Nixon race" (11/2).

Washingon Post's Hoagland writes, "No presidential election is about one thing only. It takes many strands fused together to account for victory or defeat. But when the last ballots are counted, that will not stop a judgmental world from using one criterion above all to analyze the outcome: Did the United States elect a black president or not?" (11/2).

New York Times' Friedman writes, "Given that Times columnists are not allowed to 'formally' endorse candidates and given that the context of this election has changed so much from the policy positions the candidates started with, all I can suggest is that you vote for the candidate with these character traits:"

"First, we need a president who can speak English and deconstruct and navigate complex issues so Americans can make informed choices. ... Second, we need a president who can energize, inspire and hold the country together during what will be a very stressful recovery. ... Third, we need a president who can rally the world to our side."

"So, bottom line: Please do not vote for the candidate you most want to have a beer with (unless it's to get stone cold drunk so you don't have to think about this mess we're in). Vote for the person you'd most like at your side when you ask your bank manager for an extension on your mortgage" (11/2).

Bush, Doing Really Well At Preparing To Leave Office

While Pres. Bush is "being assailed by both of his would-be successors," he "is engineering what may be the most carefully considered and potentially successful presidential transition in modern times," both Dems and GOPers close to the process say. Bush "started the preparations last spring, ordering federal agencies to get ready for a new" admin, "with deadlines for various tasks." By 8/08, WH CoS Joshua Bolten "had persuaded" reps of McCain and Obama "to join in. The advance work may get the new president off to a fast start, participants say."

Obama adviser/ex-WH aide Harrison Wellford: "I do feel pretty good about this one. The White House and the agencies are doing a good job, learning from mistakes of the past" (Chen, Bloomberg, 11/3).

Even for a "declared optimist," Bush "has appeared remarkably sanguine in this season of discontent." According to allies inside and outside the WH, Bush's mood "remains buoyant and his attention is focused on the global financial collapse. In private meetings with business leaders, Bush has made a point of saying that he is happy the crisis happened on his watch so the next president and a new economic team do not have to grapple with it."

Bush comm. dir Kevin Sullivan: "His high energy level and spirit sets the tone for the rest of us. There's been no time to worry about any of this other stuff. . . . He believes the American people expect us to finish strong and to leave things in the best possible position for his successor."

Others inside and outside the admin, however, "say the upbeat talk masks disappointment and frustration" among many WH staffers, "who believe Bush's reputation has been unfairly maligned for a series of calamities ... that were beyond his control and that he handled well." McCain's escalating attacks on Bush's tenure "have added to the irritation, these people said" (Eggen, Washington Post, 11/2).

Since Bush endorsed McCain in the Rose Garden on 3/5, "the two have appeared in public only three times for a total of 12 minutes. That's in stark contrast to the scores of fundraisers and rallies" Bush did for GOPers in '02 and '06. The last time they were seen in public was on 9/25, when Bush, McCain and Obama met at the WH with cong leaders "to talk about the economic crisis" (Riechmann, AP, 11/1).

18 Million Stories About Hillary's Future

For friends and allies already thinking about Hillary Clinton's political future, "the possibility of a McCain victory ... would upend an array of assumptions, not least of which that Clinton -- if she were to run again -- would not do so until" '16, when she would be turning 69. "At the same time, under a McCain presidency, Clinton could be well positioned, given her friendship with him and good standing among DC GOPers "to help him" with a Dem-led Congress.

While Clinton's high profile in Dem politics "has been fortified by her work" for Obama, "her friends say it is too soon to say what the future holds for her. For one thing, they say, she is not over her primary loss: some days it is hard for her, even a little heart-breaking, to campaign for Obama, given how much she wanted to be president."

"Others say that she is being a good soldier because she wants to be a power player" in DC if Obama wins "but that she is not sure what her role might be." HRC friend/supporter Jill Iscol: "She is a human being. She's a real person, and so she has her feelings, but what matters to her most right now is making sure Obama wins" (Healy, New York Times, 11/3).

Washington Post's Kornblut writes about Clinton and Sarah Palin, whose campaigns both "devolved into such strife, their candidacies provoking such frenzied passions and mocking caricatures along the way, that it's only fair to ask whether the first woman's path to the WH "was eased this year -- or whether Clinton and Palin simply unearthed the land mines without defusing any of them." If Obama wins 11/4, "he will have broken a huge barrier. But another one still awaits."

On 11/4, Palin "will emerge, win or lose, as the figure most transformed by her brief time in the public eye." After "bursting" onto the nat'l scene "as a moose-hunting mother of five who could rescue McCain's campaign, she "wound up sinking in the polls and getting entangled in a classic 'girl story'" about her "now famous" RNC-financed "shopping spree." Her handlers "promptly threw her overboard and anonymously declared her a 'whack job' and a 'diva' -- hardly a moment of profound advancement." In the end, Palin seems to represent less 'an explosion of a brand-new style of muscular American feminism' (in the words of the contrarian feminist Camille Paglia) than the stereotypical former-beauty-queen-made-good who seeks affirmation about her abilities while people just titter about her clothes."

Clinton "moved along a different trajectory, from the lofty status of former first lady and commanding frontrunner to the scrappy underdog" in the Dem primaries. But her "uncharacteristically tearful moment on the eve" of the NH primary "will forever be linked to her victory there, deservedly or not. And after her campaign ended, some of her supporters threatened to revolt if Obama picked a woman other than Clinton as his running mate."

In the months and years before she announced her candidacy, Clinton was often asked whether the country was ready to elect a woman president of the United States. "Well, we won't know until we try," she always said.

Having tried, heading into '09, "the question is still out there" (11/2).

The "Bradley Effect" Defect

In yesterday's Washington Post, atty/ex-Reagan aide/ex-Deukmejian '82 senior strategist Ken Khachigian writes that he's had "enough" of speculation about the so-called Bradley effect" on polling in the WH'08 campaign. "This urban legend ... deserves to be banished from our political conversation. [And] I'm happy to send it packing once and for all."

"There were several reasons why" ex-L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley (D) lost the CA GOV race in '82, "and none of them had to do with race. In the last two weeks of that campaign, Bradley was cruising through" CA "on a languid victory tour. Conventional wisdom and early polling had made him smug and complacent. ... You could hardly blame them. Deukmejian's campaign manager had resigned three weeks before Election Day, and the political obituaries for [Deukmejian] had become routine."

"With our backs to the wall, the 'Duke's' campaign regrouped. We got a large infusion of late cash from loyal supporters and shed our defensive posture in favor of hard-hitting messages homing in on Bradley's two principal vulnerabilities: non-Angeleno antipathy toward Los Angeles and the mayor's 'soft-on-crime' liberalism."

"In the end, voters managed to sort everything out -- and Deukmejian's ancestry and Bradley's race may have canceled each other out. Polling errors, absentee votes, gun rights activists, anti-L.A. sentiment and Bradley's liberal positions all added to his narrow defeat ... by a better-run campaign that created driving momentum in its final days. Any notion of race as an issue was put to bed when Bradley sought a rematch" in '86, and Deukmejian trounced him by 23 percent -- the biggest gubernatorial landside" in CA in the last half of the 20th century. As GOP pollster Lance Tarrance "recently wrote, the 'Bradley effect' is a 'theory in search of data.' If we want honest debate about the role of race in elections, it's time to put a stake through its heart"

Throwing Money On The Ground

Wall Street Journal's Farnam/Haynes write, the nat'l and state Dem parties "are spending far more heavily" than their GOP counterparts on field operations, "after years of ceding the advantage in ground-level organizing" to the GOP voter-turnout machine. Records show Dems "have hired five to 10 times more paid field staff in swing states" than GOPers. Dems have set up 770 offices nationwide, including in some of the most GOP areas of traditionally "red" states.

"The focus on the ground-game is a change from past election cycles," when Dems' "prime objective was getting as many broadcast ads on the air as possible." In recent campaigns, Dems "outsourced their ground organization to outside groups, such as labor unions and liberal activists" (11/3).

Finessing Campaign Finance

New York Times' Luo writes, as Obama "spends the last of hundreds of millions of dollars donated" to his WH campaign, "the debate over how future campaigns will be financed is set to begin in earnest. The outcome promises to have a profound impact on future" WH runs, "either upping the fund-raising ante irrevocably or forcing sweeping changes to prevent such large amounts of cash from coursing through campaigns again. But just as it has in this election cycle, it is quite likely that politics, as much as principle, will shape the jockeying."

Dems, in particular, "who have traditionally supported limits on campaign spending, are grappling with whether they can embrace Obama's example without being seen as hypocritical. They are keenly aware that they have developed through the Internet a commanding fund-raising advantage" over GOPers, "much like the direct mail money machine that conservatives used to lord over them." '04 Kerry-Edwards adviser Tad Devine: "I think there is going to be tremendous reluctance on our side to yield any of that advantage" (11/3).

Asking To Ask Not ...

Christian Science Monitor's Marks writes, "the notion of sacrifice - asking Americans to give something up for a greater good - appears to be coming back into political vogue after decades of being seen as a poison pill."

Both WH'08ers "are emphasizing the need for individuals to shoulder responsibility for changing the direction" of the country, "though they do so in different ways." Personal sacrifice and service to the nation "are central themes of" McCain's candidacy. Obama "cites the merits of sacrifice, calling it central to patriotism and urging Americans to help change the country's direction - whether by turning off the television so children can study or by supporting higher taxes for wealthy corporations and individuals." Whoever wins 11/4, "levels of public involvement in the campaign so far and high voter turnout could indicate a fundamental change in American political discourse and expectations" (11/2).

 

Editor-in-Chief: Amy Walter

Executive Editor: John Mercurio

Managing Editor: Quinn McCord

Senior Editors: Maura O'Brien, Tim Sahd, and Reid Wilson

TV Editor: Abby Livingston

Senior Writers: Holly Noe and Rachelle Douillard-Proulx

Staff Writers: Ian Faerstein, Sean J. Miller, Steven Shepard, and Felicia Sonmez

Online Producer: Carrie Dindino

Executive Assistant: Meredith Nettles

Associate Writers: Cyra Master, Michelle Price, Beth Sussman, and Kurtis Lee

Registering with NationalJournal.com enables subscribers to view our up-to-the-minute analysis and unparalleled coverage of Congress, politics and policy in its entirety. If you would like to continue reading please click on the "Register" button to the right and create a username and password, then activate your subscription(s).

This one-time registration is required to access subscription content on NationalJournal.com and will only take a moment. Subscribe now: Call (800) 424-2921 or email subscriptions@nationaljournal.com.