Liberal Values on the Fox interview, Julia Sweeny, Independents, and Voting Behavior

[Dr Ron]

Four posts from Liberal Values from today follow as replies to this post.

[Dr Ron]

1. Obama Reaches Out To Clinton Conservatives on Fox News Sunday

Obama Reaches Out To Clinton Conservatives on Fox News Sunday

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3199

April 27th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Barack Obama did a good job in his interview on Fox News Sunday. With all my criticism here of Fox I should also say that Chris Wallace also did a good job. Sure I could nitpick (and I was annoyed by him repeatedly calling Clinton’s nine point victory in Pennsylvania a big win) but I can think of a number of people from other networks who have done much worse. The interview wasn’t overly adversarial on either side. I certainly never expected Obama to “take on” Fox as some were led to believe.

From my perspective the highlight was when Obama was asked about areas where “Republicans have a better idea.”

Well, on issues of regulation, I think that back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, a lot of the way we regulated industry was top down command and control. We’re going to tell businesses exactly how to do things.

And I think that the Republican party and people who thought about the margins (ph) came with the notion that you know what, if you simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives for businesses, let them figure out how they’re going to for example reduce pollution. And a cap and trade system, for example, is a smarter way of doing it, controlling pollution, than dictating every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.

I think that on issues of education, I have been very clear about the fact, and sometimes I have gotten in trouble with the teachers union on this, that we should be experimenting with charter schools. We should be experimenting with different ways of compensating teachers. That –

WALLACE: You mean merit pay?

OBAMA: Well, merit pay, the way it has been designed I think that is based on just single standardized I think is a big mistake, because the way we measure performance may be skewed by whether or not the kids are coming in the school already three years or four years behind.

But I think that having assessment tools and then saying, you know what, teachers who are on career paths to become better teachers, developing themselves professionally, that we should pay excellence more. I think that’s a good idea. So –

WALLACE: But, Senator, if I may, I think one of the concerns that some people have is that you talk a good game about, let’s be post-partisan, let’s all come together — just a couple of quick things, and I don’t really want you to defend each one, I just want to speak to the larger issue.

The gang of 14, which was a group — a bipartisan coalition to try to resolve the nomination — the issue of judicial nominations. Fourteen senators came together, you weren’t part of it. On some issues where Democrats have moved to the center, partial-birth abortion, Defense of Marriage Act, you stay on the left and you are against both.

And so people say, do you really want a partnership with Republicans or do you really want unconditional surrender from them?

OBAMA: No, look, I think this is fair. I would point out, though, for example, that when I voted for a tort reform measure that was fiercely opposed by the trial lawyers, I got attacked pretty hard from the left.

Obama got it right. He stuck to liberal principles on issues such as abortion rights, opposing the partial-birth abortion ban because it made no provision for the health of the mother. He also understood the politics:

It is true that when you look at some of the votes that I’ve taken in the Senate that I’m on the Democratic side of these votes, but part of the reason is because the way these issues are designed are to polarize. They are intentionally designed to polarize.

On partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother. And many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.

Now part of the reason they didn’t have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion, and I don’t begrudge that at all, they have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral, oftentimes what they are trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people so that they could try to bring an end abortions overall.

So the point I’m simply making is that as president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them. And I don’t think there is any Republican out there who I’ve worked with who would say that I don’t listen to them, I don’t respect their ideas, I don’t understand their perspective.

And I do not consider Democrats to have a monopoly on wisdom. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we are always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

Obama also stuck to liberal principles in opposing the Defense of Marriage Act, while the Clintons have repeatedly ignored principle with regards to gay issues. Where Obama does go against the Democratic mainstream are all areas where I agree with him–on regulation of business, tort reform, charter schools, and merit pay for teachers (if a reasonable way can be done to accomplish this). The influence of the University of Chicago on Obama’s economic thought can be seen here.

This would be likely to receive the approval of others such as myself who are socially liberal and pragmatic economically, and explains why Obama receives the overwhelming support of educated, affluent Democrats. It remains to be seen how much this interview will help him with those supporting Clinton. It does tell a lot that the media by which one reaches out to Clinton supporters is Fox News. Whether or not it is helpful politically, the fact is that Barack Obama is the only liberal left in the race, facing two conservatives in Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

[Dr Ron]

5. Attacks on Obama From Appearing

I've had little patience with the attacks on Obama calling his appearance a betrayal. My response (see original post for links):

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3206

The Loony Left

April 28th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Just in case anyone doubts that segments of the liberal blogosphere are every bit as loony as the right wing blogosphere just check Open Left here and here. Matt Stoller considers Obama’s appearance on Fox News Sunday to be a betrayal of the liberal blogosphere and a case of promoting right wing institutions.

This is normally the type of absurdity which I prefer not to waste time responding to, figuring that people either recognize the absurdity or are beyond reasoning with. This falls in the same category as believing whether one wears a flag pin or has ever associated with a 60’s radical is a legitimate issue. Kyle Moore did take the time to respond, and I appreciate the fact that he spared me the bother.

Incidentally Big Tent Democrat agrees with Stoller, which pretty much proves my point. The TM Experience notes that Taylor Marsh’s reaction was just as silly, which hardly comes as a surprise.

Incidentally, the Clinton supporters who see Obama appearing on Fox as a betrayal should keep in mind the fact that Obama appeared in order appeal to the Clinton voters on the “news” network they watch. Besides, appearing for an interview is hardly the same as portraying Fox as the leading news network as the Clinton campaign has now done twice.

[Dr Ron]

2. Julia Sweeney Is Officially Anti-Hillary

Julia Sweeney Is Officially Anti-Hillary
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3198

April 27th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

This is a week old but I didn’t find out about Julia Sweeney’s post on Hillary Clinton until now. She begins:

Okay, as of today, I am officially anti-Hillary. I have held out. Most people I know really can’t stand her. I was always quick to add that if she were the nominee I would support her. But after last night’s debate, how she was pushing things all out of context, I just couldn’t take it anymore. I really hate what she’s doing, and I feel her worst self is being revealed. Now, if she does become the nominee, I would vote for her. She is far better than McCain. But I am not a real supporter.

The way she is relentlessly pounding on Obama about this off-hand remark about bitter people, the way she is going after him about his pastor’s remarks, it’s just embarrassing at this point. It really made me angry.

[Dr Ron]

3. Obama More Electable As Appeals to Independents

Obama More Electable As Appeals to Independents

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3200

April 27th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

John Avlon, author of Independent Nation: How Centrism Can Change American Politics has an op-ed in The New York Post explaining why Obama is more electable that Clinton. (Hat tip to Joe Gandelman).

It’s electability, stupid.That’s what Hillary Clinton and her surrogates have been spinning to super-delegates and anyone else who will listen since she lost her grip on once-inevitable nomination.

There’s just one problem – when it comes to independent voters, those crucial swing votes in swing states, Hillary doesn’t hold the electability edge: Barack Obama does.

Independent voters favor Obama by a 2 to 1 margin over Hillary – 49% to 24% – according to a NBC/WSJ poll taken after the Jeremiah Wright scandal in late March. His approval rating among Republicans is almost twice Hillary’s as well – 19% to 10%.

Crossover appeal is the key indicator of electability – especially for Democrats. Despite Democratic dominance of Congress during most of the 20th Century, no Democratic president managed to win more than 51% of the popular vote, with the exceptions of FDR and LBJ. What’s the lesson? Democrats especially depend on Independent voters and even some centrist Republicans to win the White House.

That’s true now more than ever: Independent voters are the fastest growing and largest segment of the American electorate, as detailed in former Clinton and Bloomberg pollster Doug Schoen’s new book “Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System.”

Avlon notes how John McCain also appeals to many independents, while Clinton will not receive their support:

Despite her largely centrist voting record in the Senate, Hillary Clinton is kryptonite to independent voters because she is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics. She is a brand-name reminder of Bush-Clinton-Bush era of hyper-partisanship that most independents want to leave behind.

“Hillary Clinton has the least traction with independents because her political persona calcified a long time ago,” says GOP strategist Rick Wilson. “She appeals to constituencies the Democrats already own and possesses none of her husband’s charisma and ability to connect with voters in the middle of the political spectrum. Hillary is John Kerry in a pantsuit to most independent voters.”

Obama, on the other hand, as a matter of style and substance represents a new generation of post-partisan politics. While Obama is certainly a center-left politician, he analyzes problems in a way that coolly criticizes the extremes of left and right. He reflects a more pragmatic approach to problem solving and brings an uncommon principled civility to politics. All this translates to unusual crossover appeal – Obama even managed to get 9 write-in votes at the conservative Family Research Council’s Values Voters Summit.

A presidential campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain would be a win-win for America’s rising tide of independent voters. They present clear policy differences, but they are decidedly non-polarizing political figures, offering a healthy competition for cross-over votes and a welcome break from the hyper-partisanship of the Bush-Clinton-Bush era. Nominating Hillary Clinton would deepen our domestic political divisions –that’s a data-driven conclusion that’s difficult for her supporters to spin their way out of.

[Dr Ron]

4. Voting Behavior and The Losing Candidate

Voting Behavior and The Losing Candidate

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3201

April 27th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Megan McArdle and Arnold Kling consider voting behavior by Democrats should their candidate lose the nomination. Megan writes:

Arnold thinks that as soon as the dust has settled, the party will unite behind the nominee.

I would guess that this will be less true of a Hillary Clinton nomination than of a Barack Obama nomination. The identity politics just doesn’t resonate the same way for her base. For reasons that I can’t quite articulate, I think that even the sixty year old women who strongly personally identify with her will be less angry and disappointed with a Clinton loss than blacks will at an Obama loss. If Kennedy had had the nomination snatched from him at the last minute because the party elders thought a Catholic couldn’t win–or worse, because some Democratic voters were uncomfortable with a Catholic president–you’d have had a great deal of trouble motivating Irish-American turnout come November.

There are also the swingy Democrats who liked McCain in earlier Republican primaries. Those people are in the Obama camp right now. The war has changed the picture somewhat, of course, but Hillary will have a much harder time keeping Obama’s supporters from defecting to the other side than he will hers. Obama also appeals to some of McCain’s support among independents.

That said, I’m overall unconvinced by the large numbers of people who say that they’ll vote for McCain if their candidate doesn’t win. Most of them will fall back in line, and of the ones who don’t, most of those will stay home. What problem there is comes down to turnout. If Barack Obama is the nominee, I expect that blacks will react the way the Irish-Americans, and to a lesser extent the Catholic community, did about Kennedy–i.e. if they had to stand in line on a bed of hot coals to vote for him, they’d happily do it. You’d barely need an urban turnout machine. Hillary motivates some women this way, I think, but not as many, and too dispersed to do the party much good.

Meanwhile, if Clinton is the nominee, the Republican turnout problem is largely taken care of–even people who are sick of Bush and don’t much care for McCain will hustle to vote against her. No obstacle will be to great for those people to overcome; the polling place could be destroyed by a flash flood, and they’d just swim to the next town.

I think Megan is correct about black voters. It would be one thing if they had a candidate who ran a valiant campaign and came in second. Prior to this year it might even have been seen as a good sign if a black candidate could have come in second. However far too much has occurred this year for Clinton to possibly win the nomination anymore without it being perceived (most likely correctly) as having stolen the nomination.

There’s just something about a stolen election which quite naturally does not sit well. Back in 2000, when George Bush was running as a compassionate conservative, I still favored Al Gore but I wasn’t all that enthusiastic about him and didn’t care all that much about who won. I could have lived with a Bush victory (not knowing what that would really bring). I cared far more about the election after voting day when I saw the Republicans go to court to block a recount, and when I realized how unfair the situation was in Florida.

I can’t imagine blacks and other Obama supporters tolerating a stolen nomination and turning out to back Clinton. I also agree with Megan that most will sit at home as opposed to voting for McCain, although some independents will vote for McCain over Clinton.

The Democrats will probably have the greatest problem with blacks sitting out the election if Clinton is the nominee, but they will also lose the votes of others. The most obvious voters who would be lost would be the young who have not voted before and independents who are only voting in Democratic primaries because of Obama.

To a lesser extent a loss by Obama will also exacerbate another division in the party. The more educated, affluent, socially liberal Democrats (who I discussed in more detail a few days ago) will also have some reluctance to vote for Clinton. The degree to which this harms Clinton, should she win the nomination, would depend upon how strongly they identify as Democrats and to what degree they see the nomination as having been stolen. Those who regularly vote straight Democratic are likely to do so regardless of who wins the nomination, unless they see the nomination as having been stolen. However others, such as myself, who only vote Democratic when satisfied with their candidate, are more likely to stay at home.

In the heat of a primary battle, many people will say that they will not vote for the other candidate if they should get the nomination. I think this is far more convincing when coming from someone such as myself, who also refused to vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, than by someone who regularly votes Democratic. While some Clinton supporters might stay home if Obama wins the nomination, I also think that the Democratic Party regulars who tend to back her will stick with the party even if she loses.

Most importantly, I think that many of the superdelegates realize this. They know that Obama will bring in far many new voters than Hillary Clinton can, while either candidate will turn out their base. They also know that they need more than the usual Democratic base to ensure a victory. Democrats from red states and battle ground states particularly realize that having Obama as the nominee will greatly help Democrats running down ticket, while Clinton would harm them. It will take a major change in the dynamics of the race for the superdelegates to back Clinton over Obama.