Obama in the Middle East

Israeli polls have placed presumptive democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama behind Senator John McCain in the latest popularity polls. Obama crossed swords with the Palestinian leadership, after vowing in June that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided,” a comment which seemed to prejudge final status peace talks.

He later walked back from the comments, but the controversy was a reminder of the political minefields lying in wait in the Middle East.

Obama has however hinted at a return to a fully engaged US role in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking, which President George W. Bush avoided until late in his second term.

Hours after clinching the Democratic nomination ahead of rival Hillary Clinton in June, Obama told the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that peace talks would be a priority right from the start of his presidency.

Obama aides have declined to release details of his itinerary, owing to security fears, on a trip getting the kind of blanket Secret Service protection normally offered to a US president.

But he is expected to arrive in Jordan for talks with King Abdullah II on Monday, after making crucial war zone visits to Afghanistan Sunday, and an expected onward journey to Iraq.

Jordanian sources said King Abdullah would take the opportunity to stress the importance of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Such visitations with key Middle Eastern leaders are possibly designed to bring hope to the possibly of a peace agreement during an Obama presidency.

What a Bounce!

Obama opens up a fifteen point lead in the latest Newsweek poll, buoyed by the shifting party sentiments:

55 percent of all voters call themselves Democrats or say they lean toward the party while just 36 percent call themselves Republicans or lean that way.

Yowzers!  Couple this with statistical models granting Obama an average of 343.8 electoral votes, and this election may turn into a landslide.

The Pitfalls of McCain’s Experience Argument

The Democratic primaries witnessed a fundamental question of change versus experience. The electorate could be neatly sliced into those two categories, with each bloc overwhelmingly supporting one candidate. Hillary regularly pulled over ninety percent of voters deeming experience the most desired quality in a candidate; in other words, she essentially maxed out among “experience” voters. To then bolster her numbers, Hillary was forced to either gain ground among “change” voters or shift people’s top priority to experience. Neither happened. Hillary failed to crack the conundrum, which ultimately toppled the campaign.

Translate Hillary’s enigma to the general election. McCain will run a reincarnation of her strength and experience campaign (with outside groups serving up the unpatriotic salsa). Thus, he will likely near or surpass Hillary’s numbers among “experience” voters. But as the primaries revealed, a candidate cannot build a winning coalition solely through the backing of “experience” voters. To broaden his support, McCain holds the same two options that fatally vexed the Clintons.

Consider the first option: improving his standing among “change” voters, a herculean task when tied to an unpopular president and party. McCain has publicly broken from the administration on several issues, hoping his departures from Bush orthodoxy will produce a newsreel of Sister Souljah moments. However, his maverick aura fades on the two crucial issues, Iraq and the economy. This lethal duo is driving the electorate’s disaffection with Republicans, yet McCain firmly adheres to party doctrine on matters of guns and butter.  The Democrats hope to amplify this conformity by tying McCain and Bush in an inextricable knot. 

The other option calls for persuading voters to emphasize experience over change. Bluntly, this requires fear-mongering, a tactic the Republicans have exercised successfully in the past. However, Obama appears as an effective messenger to combat these panic-based ploys. In the appeasement spat this past week, Obama forcefully declared:

They aren’t telling you the truth. They are trying to fool you and scare you because they can’t win a foreign policy debate on the merits. But it’s not going to work. Not this time, not this year.

The aggressive push-back reframes the issue: casting the Republicans as policy-deficient while branding their playbook old politics. The former seizes upon the overwhelming majority (82% of the public) that believes the country is on the wrong track, while the latter fits into Obama’s central campaign theme. Also, repeated use of fear-mongering has blunted its effectiveness, evidenced by the Republicans’ slipping national security advantage since 2006.

Herein lies McCain’s challenge ahead.  A burning desire for change presently exists, and Obama fulfills that want.  McCain, slapped with an “R”, cannot significantly encroach into Obama’s territory.  The appetite for experience exists, but needs to be whetted further for McCain to have a chance at winning.  McCain must run a campaign of convincing, one emphasizing the need for experience.  His campaign’s success hinges on this message’s persuasiveness.   

Bush’s Gift

On Thursday, Bush assailed Obama for his plan to meet with dictators, comparing the policy to appeasement during WWII. The fallout illustrates precisely why the Democrats will unite for the general election, regardless of how the nomination imbroglio concludes.

Take a look at the breadth of the Democratic establishment rushing to defend Obama in the wake of Bush’s verbal assault. The list includes neutral bystanders such as Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and Rahm Emanuel, while even Hillary (!) chimed in with support. A party always unites in the face of an external foe, especially one almost universally despised. If Bush continues to involve himself, the Democrats (and many independents) will constantly revive their fervent anti-Republican sentiment. If Bush doesn’t stop spouting off, the election will turn into a referendum on the past eight years - spelling certain doom for McCain.

Edwards Endorsement: Deft Strategy

Tonight’s political maneuvering represents yet another tactical victory for the Obama campaign.  Now, the story is no longer Hillary’s forty-one point blowout in West Virginia, but Obama reclaiming his momentum with a major endorsement.

Edwards decided to endorse recently, but before last night, indicated by his speechwriter’s Facebook status yesterday morning - “writing a speech.”  Then the Obama campaign held the endorsement in its back pocket, putting it on the table the day after West Virginia.  Hillary is going on all the major news networks tonight to try to capitalize on her victory, but the Edwards endorsement will clearly overshadow that.  Again, it’s a brilliant strategic move by the Obama forces.  There had been speculation that Obama would release his April fundraising numbers to stifle a momentary Clinton surge.  Instead of money, it’s one of the biggest endorsements left.

How Divided Are the Dems?

The Obama campaign released a memo today, both pre-spinning tonight’s blowout and attempting to dispel a series of myths. The chief canard:

MYTH 1: The Primary has left Democrats divided.

FACT: Democrats are united behind Barack Obama, even more so than Republicans are united behind McCain

May 12 Washington Post poll shows that Obama wins 81% of Democrats in a matchup against John McCain.

Indeed, more Republicans crossover to vote for Obama (15%) than do Democrats for McCain (13%).

Tonight’s exit polls revealed deep rifts in the Democratic party, at least in the mainly white, less educated, and relatively poor West Virginia.  However, some are erroneously extrapolating these divisions to the general election.

For the past four presidential elections, the Democrat defection rate has been about ten or eleven percent. According to recent polls, with Obama as the nominee, the Democratic crossover to McCain ranges from eleven to fifteen percent. And, this is in the midst of a heated primary. The number of party deserters will only fall from here, and it’s already at a good level relative to history.

Roundup: The Day After

Via The Page, Hillary said today, “It’s still early…. This is a dynamic electoral environment.” Forty-seven contests in, and she characterizes the race as “early.” Mathematical reality has solidified, and she calls the race “dynamic.” There is a clear disconnect here, bordering on ridiculous.

What’s Hillary’s rationale for continuing?  Dianne Feinstein, a California Senator and Clinton-backer, wants an answer.

Combined, Clinton and Obama received 300,000 more votes in Indiana than Kerry did in ‘04. Look at a couple of polls showing Obama beating McCain there in the general, and a state Bush won by twenty could be in play this November.

Obama netted 230,000 votes from North Carolina, offsetting Hillary’s margin of victory (215,000) in Pennsylvania. By doing so, he dismantled any popular vote argument the Clintons had hoped to make.

David Plouffe sends a memo to superdelegates, hitting on electability:

It is important to note that Senator Obama leads Senator Clinton in superdelegate endorsements among Governors, United States Senators and members of the House of Representatives. These elected officials all have a keen sense for who our strongest nominee will be in November.

An excerpt from Obama’s poignant victory speech, illustrating his patriotism:

That’s why I’m in this race.  I love this country too much to see it divided and distracted at this moment in history.  I believe in our ability to perfect this union because it’s the only reason I’m standing here today.  And I know the promise of America because I have lived it.

It is the light of opportunity that led my father across an ocean.

It is the founding ideals that the flag draped over my grandfather’s coffin stands for – it is life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Evaluating Obama Campaign’s Predictions

Back on February 6th, the Obama campaign leaked an internal spreadsheet (.xls) projecting the rest of the primary season. Since then, the predictions have proved prescient, calling races with remarkable accuracy. The campaign has correctly picked the winner of every single contest, with the one exception of Maine (projection - Clinton; actual - Obama). Beginning March 4th, the average error in calculating Obama’s share of the vote is a minuscule 1.71%. To put it into perspective: the projections, made more than one or two months before the actual voting, are more accurate than any pollster’s record.

Using the spreadsheet to examine upcoming contests, both Indiana and North Carolina should be Obama victories by respectable margins. Plugging the percentages into Jay Cost’s handy spreadsheet, Obama could net 150,000 votes out of the two states - partially offsetting Clinton’s 200,000+ gain in Pennsylvania. Though more importantly, winning both could spell an end to the nomination fight.

Note: Here’s a closer look at how the predictions stack up.

Five Superdelegates for Obama

The coalition grows, as the following endorse Obama today:

Brian Melendez, chair of the Minnesota DFL
Donna Cassutt, associate chair of the Minnesota DFL
Renee Pfenning, DNC member from North Dakota
Rep. Yvonne Davis of Texas
Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia

Rockefeller is the most notable supporter, as the West Virginia Senator is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a longtime Clinton ally. He’s the second senator to endorse Obama this week, the other being Chris Dodd of Connecticut. Both are experienced legislative hands, clearly not discouraged by Obama’s short stay in Washington.

Obamanomics - Retirement Savings

In a recent Portfolio piece, Matt Cooper explains the rare policy where Obama and Clinton differ, retirement savings. The summary:

Clinton has proposed new 401(k)-style savings vehicles. But seeing that most people don’t sign up for the plans available to them, Obama wants to make 401(k) enrollment automatic unless one opts out.

After digging through some material, it’s clear that Obama’s minor tweak of changing opt in to opt out has significant repercussions.

Consider the case of organ donors. Take Germany and Austria, two bordering countries that share language and culture. Yet only 12% of Germans are potential donors, compared to 99.9% of Austrians. The difference? In Germany, it’s an opt in policy; someone must register to become a donor. In France, everyone is a potential donor unless they opt out.

A similar effect, although not quite of the same magnitude, occurs involving 401(k) plans. Auto enrollment leads to higher participation, as numerous studies have shown. A 2004 report by the Investment Company Institute found the participation rate jumped to 92% from 66%. Among 20-29 year olds, automatic enrollment more than doubles participation, according to Fidelity.

For more Obamanomics reading, check out this BusinessWeek article from a few weeks ago. A telling anecdote starts the story:

On Sunday, Feb. 10, after he found out he’d won that day’s Democratic Presidential caucuses in Maine, but before his appearance on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) sat down at the keyboard of his computer to write an e-mail. Not to a media consultant or a delegate counter, but to banker Robert Wolf, CEO of UBS Americas. The two men exchanged notes about the Senate-passed economic stimulus package and that weekend’s G-7 economic summit, Wolf says.