Antiwar.com Blog

I must register my dissent on Sam Koritz’s thesis — explained in a two–part post on antiwar.com —  that “what the country wants” is a white, Protestant, male of northern European descent who is “mildly” opposed to the Iraq war. From what I can make of it, Sam’s argument seems to be that you can’t win the election without winning the South, but I believe Obama could at least make inroads into the GOP’s electoral hegemony in the region, and he’s certainly mobilizing a lot of voters who haven’t voted in previous elections.

This “science” of “demographics” as a predictive tool is bollocks, pure and simple. The “country,” whatever that is, doesn’t know what it wants — which is why we have these odd things called political campaigns.

Listen to Philip Weiss, one of the smartest writers around, on the Israel lobby and Obama: the Lobby, he says, considered Obama “a green no-account,” and they all jumped on Hillary’s bandwagon without realizing that the wheels were about to come off, while the neocons went first to Rudy and now are attaching themselves to the McCain campaign. The Lobby never saw what was coming straight at them:

“Barack Hussein Obama was always low on the Haaretz Who-loves-Israel ratings. Which is to say, Obama rose without the active support of the lobby. Much as Ned Lamont did in Connecticut. Now the lobby is freaking out and trying to claim him after all. Marty Peretz is writing articles saying he is good for the Jews, because Marty hates to feel left out of the Democratic Party party, and Obama himself is making a good show of it. But Marty is a romantic and an enthusiast not a shrewdy, while Malcolm Hoenlein, a very shrewd man, knows better, and sees the writing on the wall. These guys really don’t know whether to shit or shine their shoes right now. It’s too late to embrace Obama and really make a difference (he’s already won, per the theory). And if they follow Joe to McCain, they could get swamped in the fall…”

Weiss goes on to say that progressives of his sort “aren’t worried about Obama’s lip service re Israel. They know in their hearts that a man with a Muslim parent who grew up in, among other places, the largest Muslim country on the planet, Indonesia, cares about Palestinian human rights. And what’s most important– he will owe the lobby nothing….”

Which is precisely why the Obama campaign had better get ready for the Barack Hussein Obama business — that is, if the Clintonites haven’t already started it before this gets posted. Yet this much-anticipated low blow is likely to boomerang if anyone, of either party, dares say it out loud: the backlash will help Obama, or, at least, blow away his enemies, who will finally discover that change is not a platitude.

In my previous post I argued that since (1) the only Dem candidates who’ve been able to win the presidency in the past 4 decades have been white, Protestant, southern males; (2) the country strongly prefers a Democrat for Pres in ’08; and (3) most Americans regret invading Iraq, the Dems should have selected an antiwar, white, Southern, Protestant male candidate — & should keep this in mind next time. I received some good replies to the 1st post, so in this post I’ll continue the discussion & reply to some of the replies.

In writing the 1st post I stumbled on “Why the GOP’s Southern Strategy Ended” (Part I & Part II) by (the late) Jim Chapin, which is full of interesting, relevant info. (The strategy ended because it was a complete success.) Chapin wrote: “[I]n the entire post-Civil War period, the only candidates who required Southern electoral votes to overcome a loss in the rest of the country were Grover Cleveland (twice), Woodrow Wilson (once), Jimmy Carter in 1976 and George W. Bush” [in 2000 & 2004]. This surprised me. Even though the Dixie Rules rule applies to past 40 years, it’s only been in the past 2 elections that Dixie reversed a GOP loss in the rest of America. This suggests a few things to me. First, as has been widely noted, Dixie’s electoral power has risen with the population shift to the Sun Belt. Second, the Democrats’ selection of a white, Southern, Protestant candidate signals to swing states outside of Dixie that the candidate is less beholden to the party’s constituency of Yankees, cosmopolitans, ethnic minorities and union workers. Third, Dixie’s new power has freaked out Democrats, thereby pushing them to select a demographically anti-Dixie candidate — nonwhite, non-Southern, semi-foreign, Muslim dad, secular upbringing, liberal, etc.

On to the replies:

Eugene Costa wrote:

“Actually it much simpler than that and boils down to Ohio, which was stolen twice. That will be harder to do this year.”

Reply to reply:

McCain is very popular in New Hampshire. If he wins New Hampshire, loses Ohio, and gets all of the other states Bush won last time, McCain will win.

—

SubHuman wrote:

“Clinton and Obama are pro-corporate, pro-AIPAC and pro-WAR candidates, Kucinich, Gravel and Dr. Paul were the ONLY anti-WAR and pro-America candidates.”

Reply to reply:

I believe that war & empire hurt most corporations’ profits — though they certainly enrich politically connected parties — so it’s not necessary to be anti-corporate to be antiwar, and it’s entirely possible to be anti-corporate and pro-war. I haven’t seen anything that suggests that Obama is pro-war. (I don’t buy the Obama wants to attack Pakistan meme.) But, sure, if Clinton is the Dem’s candidate, any anti-imperialists who don’t believe in voting for the lesser evil should register a protest vote. My view is that the Dems are complicit but less responsible for Iraq, Guantanamo, torture, etc., so all things being equal, the Repubs should be voted out as punishment.

—

Eugene Costa wrote:

“Obama … already has a built-in Southern Strategy, as both the Republicans and their bellicose and born-again Southrons know very well.

“Thus the fantasy and distraction of the above mapping and prediction as any longer pertinent …

“Kucinich apparently sent an early feeler to Paul about an independent run. Paul rejected it.

“Kucinich is now more important out of the race than in.”

Reply to reply:

I don’t know what the Obama Southern strategy is. If it’s to rally the African-American minority, seems to me that’s a losing strategy, as the majority is likely to win any racially charged contest.

Kucinich = Nader. In 2000 I thought there wasn’t much difference between Gore & Bush, & I now think I was wrong.

—

Dmaak112 wrote:

“McCain will win. In spite of what we Americans like to believe about ourselves, we love war.”

Reply to reply:

Polls show that Americans regret invading Iraq, dislike the president that ordered the invasion, & want to replace his political party. I don’t know why people would be lying to pollsters about this — & the Dem takeover of Congress supports it.

—

Nuttyone wrote:

“Those of us who support Obama because we dislike Clinton will vote for him but will stay away, or even worse, vote for McCain if Hillary is the other choice. Polls or not, I’m telling you what the people on the street are feeling, not the party-faithful, but keep pushing Hillary if Democrats want to lose again. “

Reply to reply:

I’m not pushing Hillary. I said that the Dems should have selected an antiwar, Southern, male, white, Protestant (being a military vet wouldn’t hurt either). Hillary is a semi-Southern, female, more-or-less pro-war candidate.

—

Thanks for your politeness — we’re showing the blogosphere how it’s done.

 

Wikileaks.org, which has published documents such as the Rules of Engagement for Iraq and Guantanamo Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, has been ordered to remove its content from that URL by a California court. The court issued an injunction at the request of a bank in the Cayman Islands. Fortunately, foreign versions of the page, including this one, remain online. Read more here.

The national Libertarian Party (LP) organization has taken their strongest position in favor of withdrawal from Iraq. At their national committee meeting yesterday in Las Vegas, the following resolution passed overwhelmingly.

WHEREAS the government of the United States should return to its historical libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, foreign quarrels, and military adventures and;
WHEREAS the armed forces of the United States have invaded Iraq, a foreign nation that neither directly attacked nor imminently threatened to attack the United States and;
WHEREAS the injustice and imprudence of this invasion cannot be undone by the continued presence of the armed forces of the United States in Iraq and;
WHEREAS the stability and security of Iraq lie outside the jurisdiction of the government of the United States;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party National Committee calls on the government of the United States to withdraw the armed forces of the United States without undue delay.

Former GOP Congressman Bob Barr, now a member of the LP national committee, strongly supported the resolution. Barr is essentially a “born-again libertarian” who has reversed his statist positions. He now strongly supports ending the US occupation of Iraq and opposes further adventurism in Iran and elsewhere. He now works as a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Marijuana Policy Project.

Barr is rumored to be considering a Libertarian Party run for President this November. The LP nominating convention will be held in late May.

UPDATE: Bob Barr issued this statement following the passage of the resolution:

“Given the lack of action by both the Democrats and Republicans to find a swift and safe conclusion to American adventurism in Iraq, it is imperative that the Libertarian Party stand resolute in its calls for ending the war without undue delay. The Libertarian Party refuses to back down on this paramount issue, even if we are the only Party standing up for the safety of our troops, the respect of our nation, and the stability of our economy. If President Bush wants this war, then he needs to go through Congress, as the Constitution requires the president to do. The lives of our troops and the wealth of our nation need protection from the adventurous whims of single individuals. Our current course of foreign policy jeopardizes the future of this great nation, and as long as the Libertarian Party has a voice, we will continue to fight to bring our men and women in uniform home as quickly and as safely as possible.”

Polls & the politics betting markets suggest that Obama is the candidate most likely to be elected president. I think a McCain victory is more likely so, to get my 2 cents in before the post-McCain victory deluge, I’ll explain in advance why I think the Dems will lose, & what they can do about it.

First, where are we now? The polls I’ve seen indicate that Americans want the next president to be a Democrat rather than Republican by a margin of 16 to 18 percentage points. Asked to choose between Clinton & McCain, however, potential voters consistently choose McCain by a small margin. Obama beats McCain in hypothetical head-to-head contests, by somewhere between a (statistically insignificant) few points and about 10 points. So, right off the bat we can see that either the Dems have picked candidates that are liked less than their party, or the Repubs have picked a candidate who is more popular than his party — or both.

Election futures markets have the best prediction track records — better than pundits or polls. The Intrade market currently gives Clinton a 17% chance of winning the presidency, McCain a 34% chance, & Obama 49%. The odds of the Dems, as a party, winning are 66% to 34%. Strong stuff, but I believe that the Democratic candidates’ demographic profiles are likely to lead to a Republican upset.

What type of president does the country want? A Southern, male, Protestant, Democrat, of northern European descent, who was moderately opposed to the Iraq war.

The demographics are straightforward. Since the Democrats led in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ending their support from the South, there have been ten presidential elections, in which the Democrats have nominated 8 candidates. Five candidates were from somewhere other than Dixie, and all 5 lost. The 3 remaining candidates are white male Southern Protestants. Two of them won outright at least once, & the third (who was hurt by running with a Jewish Yankee and against a Southerner) won the popular vote.

It’s very unlikely that a candidate will lose the entire South this year yet still win the national election. Since neither of the Democratic candidates fits the demographic profile of a winner in the South, an obvious question is: have Southerners’ preferences changed? And the answer, judging by the past 2 elections, is: no. The Bush/Cheney ticket was more Southern than both the Gore/Lieberman and the Kerry/Edwards tickets, and every Southern state went to the former, while Bush lost both elections outside of Dixie. (Gore/Edwards would have won either election.)

It’s hard to put odds on this year’s election. McCain isn’t a Southerner; Clinton is sorta half-Southern; the mood in the country is pessimistic; the Repubs are discredited… In a normal year, & just going by demographics, & not knowing the VPs yet (Gore would be perfect), I’d say Obama would have a 1 in 5 chance of winning the election; Clinton would have maybe a 1 in 4 chance. This year? Obama or Clinton will have about a 1 in 3 chance of winning, I’d guess.

The Dems need a Southern strategy.