Over the past few weeks we have seen the McCain campaign flailing, as the economic crisis has forced its way into the political dialogue, forcing McCain and the Republicans to talk about an issue with which they have absolutely no credibility.
We've seen the outcomes expressed in a few ways. We've all seen Obama skyrocket in the polls, as voters have been more impressed and comfortable with his approach to the economy -- perhaps because he understands it. Here is a graph from Open Left yesterday of both candidates' support in an average of four tracking polls (Gallup, Rasmussen, Hotline, R2Kos):
But it's the implicit that truly shows the enormity of the last few weeks in this campaign.
Like the effects of McCain going negative so early. Marc Ambinder gets it:
One worry for Republicans is that McCain has already gone too negative too quickly; you never pull out the strongest punches against your opponent until the very end; it's hard to get tougher than the kindergarten ad... or over-the-top statements about Obama not being fit to lead.
McCain's advisers, perhaps thinking they were listening to their inner-Karl Rove, have already waged the character war in May, June, July, and August. It knocked Obama on his heels for a while, but he and his campaign survived. How do you top those blistering attacks from earlier this summer? Apparently, if you're Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign, you start pounding even harder on the character message, even if it means 1.) citing a source you've disparaged as a pro-Obama advocacy organization, and 2.) exaggerating the scope of the story to make it fit your shrinking narrative. One problem with this approach for the McCain campaign is that Americans have already seen and heard this ad nauseum, and so, to them, it's boring. The other is, unlike the past couple elections, the Democrats are organized and ready to strike back:
So far throughout this entire election cycle, remarkably, we've seen facts and rationality win out over fear. Will that continue over the next 30 days? It's clear that Palin's reference to plural "terrorists" (no comment, of course, from the McCain campaign on who these other terrorists Obama is "palling around with" are) and her evocation of racial cues in her speech yesterday are intended to make people fear Barack Obama, to portray him as "the other" but for that strategy to work, they need the nation to be its old 2004 self. Again, too bad for John McCain, not only is the country in a much different place than it was just 4 years ago, but the left is far better organized with a media infrastructure that has been able to effectively hit back against such attacks in real time. This isn't 2004 anymore.
Todd is right on all of those points, especially when we examine Palin, who just may be the best representative of Nixonland politics since the man himself. Talk about playing up cultural resentment, fear in ordinary, everyday Americans -- Palin's last month and a half of practice at this traditional brand of Republican politics has made perfect. But, again, it's 2008, and it's not working this year. In an economic crisis, it turns out lipstick, hockey moms, and Joe Six-packs aren't what they used to be.
I'll go further than Todd, though, and argue that another significant reason why 2008 is so different than 2004 is the presence of Millennials in the electorate. Jerome Armstrong interviewed Michael Hais and Morley Winograd, the authors of Millennial Makeover, in April. One of the questions Jerome asked Hais and Winograd dealt with the positioning of Millennials in the electorate -- were enough of them able to vote to actually make a difference?
Only third to half of the Millennial Generation will be eligible to vote in 2008. Wouldn't that point to 2012 as the election where this generation will have its greatest impact? On the other hand, if you look at the years of realignments, 1828-1860 was 32 years, 1860-1896 was 36 years, 1896 to 1932 was 36 years, and 1932 to 1968 was 36 years. Now, it's been 40 years since 1968. And we could be looking at 44 years if it winds up being 2012 for the realignment.
Certain fundamental demographical facts about Millennials make it likely that 2008 will be the realigning election. There are currently about 100 million Millennials ranging in age from 5 to 26 years old, making it America's largest generation. Millennials now comprise about one-third of the U.S. population, a percentage that will only grow in coming years as members of older generations pass from the scene. Given the fact that many Millennials will not yet be able to vote this year, it is certainly true that the full force of this huge generation will be most strongly felt in elections beyond that of 2008. Nevertheless, we argue that Millennials will have a decisive impact this year. This will be due, in large part, to the unity of the Millennial Generation. Millennials, unlike Gen-Xers and Baby Boomers, are not sharply divided along gender, racial, or ideological lines. Moreover, a clear majority of Millennials identify as Democrats, while the two next older generations are divided fairly evenly between the two parties. Assuming that the Millennial Generation retains its unity, it should provide the decisive balance between the more sharply divided older generations in 2008 and beyond.
Historically, realigning elections occur when a new group of voters enters the electorate in significant numbers for the first time and their unified attitudes tip the balance of power decisively to one party or the other. Keep in mind that in American presidential elections a 53/47 victory is considered decisive. Consequently, a realigning generation's numbers don't have to be overwhelming to cause this outcome. Normally, in the subsequent national election after the realignment, this shift in party fortunes and policy attitudes is ratified by an even larger victory for the newly dominant party. For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt won big in 1932, but the New Deal realignment was reaffirmed in a much larger landslide in 1936. Richard Nixon won relatively narrowly in 1968, but he won in a landslide in 1972, reconfirming the electoral shift to the GOP. Whichever party wins in 2008 will do so clearly, and then will likely win a landslide victory in 2012, bringing with it a mandate for sweeping changes in policy that will be debated intensely in the years between the first victory and the second.
Emphasis added. I think we should also remember that Millennials not only are more unified in their political preferences than previous generations, but they're also more serious -- more meritocratic and pragmatic -- in their approach. They want the best product for its money. There's clearly a job that needs to be done, and rebuilding the country is going to take a huge effort. Millennials, an optimistic, can-do, collaborative generation, want someone who's willing to take on the challenge and prove their competence in doing so.
So when we revisit the latest McCain campaign strategy, is this mold of young voters really going to be convinced that the best hope for our country during these troubling times is the candidate who won't even talk about it?
Not only is this campaign slipping away for McCain, but he's quickly becoming a Herbert Hoover -- the candidate who tried to push away and resist destiny; the candidate who maintained that deregulation was the best way to go; the candidate who said the fundamentals of the economy are strong; the candidate who was the weakest on using the latest technology of his time; the candidate who just didn't understand.
In yesterday's Quick Hits I posted a link to a story coming out of Montana this week, where the state Republican Party has challenged the registration of 6,000 Montanans in the Democratic strongholds of the state.
On Friday, the GOP apparently decided their initial suppression effort wasn't enough.
A state Republican Party official said Friday that the party plans to expand its challenge of registered Montana voters who have changed their addresses, beyond the 6,000 voters challenged in six counties this week.
"These counties are the beginning, not the end," said Jake Eaton, executive director for the party. "We're looking at this across the state."
While Eaton goes on to say that the Montana GOP merely targeted those counties with the most discrepancies (and that the fact that they're Democratic strongholds is a coincidence), we can't ignore the context in which this is happening. A Great Falls Tribune article does a good job of explaining:
According to news reports from across the country, courtroom battles over voter registration, absentee ballots and the integrity of state voter lists are happening in politically strategic states such as Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and New York.
In Ohio, the state GOP tried to overturn a new state law that allows same-day registration and voting. State and federal courts upheld the law last week.
In Michigan, the state GOP reportedly plans to challenge the registrations of people who lost their homes to foreclosure.
In Wisconsin, the Republican attorney general is suing the state agency that oversees elections, saying that federal law requires that the agency check the names of more than 240,000 voters against driver records. Election clerks there say it is impossible to perform those checks by Nov. 4.
The problem with the GOP's explanation is that we've seen too many like it over the past few decades to take it at face value. Every election year we get reports of calls and fliers that purposely confuse specific demographics by giving them incorrect information regarding when they can exercise their right to vote. We have local election chairs telling college students they can't vote in the county where their institution is located.
And there's a twist to this particular story out of Montana that demonstrates how un-American this crusade is. Kevin Furey, a 1st Lt. in the Army from Helena, was told that his right to vote was being challenged. Furey found out just before he was to leave for his second tour of duty in Iraq.
"It is ironic that at the same time I am about to return to Iraq to help build a democracy that my own right to vote is being challenged at home for partisan purposes. These challenges are a blatant and offensive attempt to suppress the rights of voters," Furey said in a telephone interview from Chicago, where he was on leave visiting his ailing grandmother.
It's quite apparent that as Election Day approaches and the future of the Republican Party gets bleaker, the voting rights of minorities, college students, the poor, and all other oppressed voters will be in jeopardy. Isn't it interesting how the first party to question patriotism is usually the first to want to undo the very fabric that holds our country together? While a sad turn of events, it's an opportunity for progressives and the Democratic Party to demonstrate their principles by pledging to fight for an inherently American right.
UPDATE: This post at CBS's Youth Vote '08 blog has more detailed information on how this development affects college students. Matt Segal further explains why this is, in fact, a partisan effort.
Matt Segal, CEO of the Student Association for Voter Empowerment, said he was told of the situation in Montana when he was at his Washington D.C. office earlier this week.
"This is clear voter caging," Segal said. "What we are seeing here is Republican Party taking advantage of a loophole. This is legal. But, I think as a society we need to be cognizant that few people barely stay in one place. Voter right could be challenged every time someone moves every election year. What is being done is legal but hardly nonpartisan."
As we move closer and closer toward Election Day, I’ve found myself zooming out of the daily back-and-forth of the campaign, focusing on the larger meanings of this election. Since Obama began to seriously challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, I have observed a few different dynamics that, should Obama go on to win the election, would lead to a groundbreaking shift in American politics. I’d like to examine these over two posts -- one today and one next Saturday -- with the understanding and acknowledgment that we still have much work to do and that nothing in presidential politics (including an Obama victory) is a given.
Setting the Stage – Nixon’s Contribution
Earlier this summer I read Nixonland by Rick Perlstein, and I found it fascinating (if you’re at all into politics and current affairs, you must read it). Perlstein looks back at our modern political history, tracing the culture war dynamic present in our politics to Richard Nixon’s campaign for president in 1968, and eventually clear back to his childhood. Prior to running that campaign, the curiosity of Nixon’s strategists was peaked by a memo written by a young, former aide of conservative Bronx congressman Paul Fino named Kevin Phillips; the title was “Middle America and the Emerging Republican Majority.” The effects of that memo have shaped the political battlefield of the last forty years.
The language was new, but the theory was as old as the crusade against Alger Hiss: elections were won by focusing on people’s resentments. The New Deal coalition rose by directing people’s resentment of economic elites, Phillips argued. But the new hated elite, as the likes of Rafferty and Reagan grasped, was cultural – the “toryhood of change,” condescending and self-serving liberals “who make their money out of plans, ideas, communication, social upheaval, happenings, excitement, at the psychic expense of ‘the great, ordinary, Lawrence Welkish mass of Americans from Maine to Hawaii.’ (Perlstein 275-76).
As Perlstein would go on to note, the cultural resentment fostered by the Nixon campaign capitalized on the humiliation many Americans were feeling at not being able to defend what, to them, were obvious American values: “Nixon described the ‘silent center’ as ‘the millions of people in the middle of the political spectrum who do not demonstrate, who do not picket or protest loudly.’ They were loud. You were quiet. They proclaimed their virtue. You, simply, lived virtuously” (275).
Emphasis original. At a time when a crevice was already developing within the electorate, Nixon sought to create a canyon. And he was successful. We all know what happened at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and the 1968 election was one of the closest decisions in history: Nixon nabbed 301 electoral votes to Humphrey’s 191 (George Wallace had 46), but the razor-thin margin in popular vote told the story. Nixon received 43.42 percent of the popular vote, while Humphrey collected 42.72 percent. America was divided, and Perlstein, throughout his book, demonstrates the coalitions’ hardening into the two red-blue political camps we see today.
Gridlock – Red Versus Blue
These red and blue camps, formed in the 1960s, have organized our political culture for the past forty years. If you’re a Millennial, it's all that you have experienced. The two sides slug it out: the party’s candidates and his/her supporters are seen as the “cultural elite.” This candidate is portrayed by the other side as out of touch, and his/her followers are painted as weak and un-American. The other candidate and his/her supporters are seen as stupid fools, voting against their own self-interest and doing it proudly, while lining the pockets and inflating the egos of the conspiring elites.
The most important dynamics in presidential elections since 1968 have not been stances on issues; the “game-changers,” instead, have been the results of the rational-efficient approach taken (the Republicans have been better than the Democrats at applying it, winning seven out of the ten elections over the last forty years). Cheating, preying on fear, and limiting the political discourse to symbols and character assassination have all been incorporated in these campaigns at one time or another since 1968. Republicans, in particular, have their own greatest hits album of win-at-at-all-costs, short-sighted politics (mainly because they've been the party to benefit from this approach): Watergate; Reagan’s “bear” ad in 1984; the Willie Horton ad sponsored on behalf of the Bush campaign in 1988; Pat Buchanan’s speech pushing the culture war at the RNC in 1992; the Bush ad emphasizing the word “rats” in connection with Al Gore in 2000; the “Swiftboating” of John Kerry in 2004; and, in 2008, the attempt to paint Barack Obama as a mere celebrity, and therefore, “not ready to lead.”
The shrinking of the political dialogue is not limited to presidential campaigns. In numerous confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill (especially those of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas), in the filibuster showdown that erupted in 2005, and in Dick Cheney’s directing the phrase “Go f**k yourself!” to a Democratic senator, we have seen the breakdown of the collegiality and devotion to the common good needed in order to make any kind of political progress.
Let’s be clear: the Baby Boomer generation’s relationship with this approach to politics is symbiotic. We know, from Neil Howe and William Strauss, that Baby Boomers inject morals into their politics. Fiercely ideological, they will dig in and refuse to compromise for the greater good, because, to them, the greater good is their cause. Nixon’s emphasis on cultural warfare while in pursuit of drilling a chasm within American society played to the Boomers’ moralistic and individualistic tendencies. And with the political dialogue repeatedly calibrated to Boomers’ minds, the Boomers reinforced, again and again, their brand of politics.
We’ve seen the divisive approach to politics in 2008, especially given the racial and sexual tensions in the nominating contests and the general election thus far. But with the emergence of 1.) the Millennial generation, the civic-minded counter-balance to the values-driven Boomers; 2.) various traumas to the country (9/11, The Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, the Financial Meltdown) that have combined to serve as Howe and Strauss’s “crisis,” and 3.) presidential candidates representing both brands of politics, a perfect storm may be about to strike that transforms the political landscape for years to come. What might this transformation look like?
Please read Part II next Saturday to find out.
Sources cited:
Perlstein, Rick. Nixonland. New York: Scribner, 2008.
As we're moving closer and closer to Election Day -- one month from today! -- make sure to go over to the website for the November Fifth Coalition. Here is an excerpt from the front page of their site that explains their objectives:
The November 5th Coalition is an all-partisan alliance committed to civic partnerships that address our biggest challenges. The Coalition is named for the day after the election in 2008 when a new chapter of America's civic history begins. Wherever the people gather they should be able to ask candidates “November 5th questions” about how they plan to tap the talents of the whole society, instead of posing as superheroes who will solve our problems for us. We will also develop leadership networks and civic policies that can serve as resources for a new administration. We encourage our fellow citizens to join with us in calling on candidates to rise above excessively divisive partisanship and to promote the common good.
In the 18 to 24 age group, for example, Democrats have 54,192 registered voters compared with 31,405 Republicans, or 45 percent of the total registered voters for Democrats versus 26 percent for Republicans. That's a 19 percentage point difference.
More youth attempting to be politically engaged. More youth being told not to. This time in Texas.
Prop 8, the evangelical-led effort to amend California's constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, has gradually grown less and less popular; this Washington Post article explains that young voters are the main reason for the decline in popularity.
In Thursday night's debate, Sarah Palin told America that she favored dropping assets connected to the Sudanese government within the state's large investment fund as a means of protesting the genocide occurring in the country. But, of course, she was misleading.
ABC News looked into this claim, and found out that she was -- shock! -- against divestment until it was politically convenient for her to be for it.
The Gara-Lynn Sudan Divestment bill was reviewed in February at a public hearing. A Palin administration official testified against it:
"The legislation is well-intended, and the desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination," testified Brian Andrews, Palin's deputy revenue commissioner, before a hearing on the Gara-Lynn Sudan divestment bill in February. Minutes from the meeting are posted online by the legislature.
It took some time, but Palin finally came around to it, even if it was very late in the legislative year.
Gara said that after it was clear the bill had stalled, he and others pressed the administration directly on Sudan divestment.
"We were outraged," Gara recounted. "We went to the Commissioner of Revenue and said, 'What the hell are you guys doing? This is genocide. We're going to keep pushing this until we divest."
Two months later, at the end of the legislative session, the administration softened its position. Appearing before a Senate committee which was considering a companion measure to Gara's bill, Palin's Revenue commissioner, Patrick Galvin, stated the administration supported such a measure, though it hoped to amend the bill to allow for investments held indirectly, for example in index funds.
Thanks to WireTap, here's how passionate youth feel about the ongoing genocide in Sudan:
Three years after the United States classified the situation in Darfur, Sudan, as a genocide, students are still organizing to make sure the crucial cause doesn't get ignored. In April, two thousand white-clad activists played dead in Boston Commons for five minutes of silence. In December, thousands of students worldwide fasted to raise money to fight rape in the African region. STAND, a student anti-genocide coalition, helped organize those events and hundreds of others this year. Students have been signing petitions, lobbying representatives, staging events -- anything to keep Darfur in the news. And the coverage has paid off. Companies have started divesting in ventures that support the government that allows the genocide to continue, and awareness is at an all-time high. As long as the violence rages, so will the activism. "The world has been slow to act to protect the people of Darfur," said STAND student director Scott Warren, "so students across the globe will be taking protection into their own hands."
After being on the road for most of the day, I came back and found this election analysis from McClatchy in my RSS reader. It made for a good end to the weekend, and I thought I'd share it.
Five weeks before election day, the tide may be turning toward Barack Obama.
Several things still could swing the contest back toward John McCain, most notably the remaining debates. But as of now, forces are coming together to help Obama just as the long campaign enters the final stretch.
Among the key developments in recent days:
* His performance in Friday night's debate helped assure some nervous voters that he is experienced enough to be commander-in-chief, a critical threshold for the young, first term senator to meet;
* The continuing focus on the economy plays to his political advantage. The Wall Street crisis and proposed bailout guarantees intense attention by voters, and the remaining debates will overwhelmingly focus on it and domestic issues;
* The initial burst of Republican enthusiasm over Sarah Palin may be dampened by shaky performances in TV interviews and skepticism, if not outright hostility, from some conservative columnists.
[...]
But some fundamentals may be changing late in the campaign that could help him hold and perhaps even build his lead.
For one, the debate may have started to settle the question of whether Obama could be commander-in-chief, a critical test.
One survey of poll watchers for CBS News, for example, found a jump in the ranks of people who believed Obama was prepared to be president. More people still thought McCain prepared, by a margin of 18 percentage points — but a majority for the first time in that poll said the same of Obama.
These past two weeks have obviously allowed Obama to flex some political muscle and grab the control of the campaign back from McCain.
Of course, there is still much work to be done. There are doors to be knocked on, phone calls to be made, and votes to get out. But in this one moment in time, I think we have reason to be confident in our efforts so far. Keep working hard!
This year, in an effort to mobilize voters in this historic presidential election, Usher launched the "I Can't But You Can" voter registration campaign geared towards youth ages 17 and under. This nationwide campaign began this summer in Atlanta with 350 youth registering nearly 1,000 new voters. The Campaign will be expanded to 8 cities simultaneously on September 27th and is projected to educate more than 4,000 youth and register 17,000 new voters nationally.
In conjunction with ServiceNation's Day of Action ( www.servicenation.org), the "I Can't But You Can" Campaign will host voter registration rallies and drives in cities across the US on September 27th. Participating cities include: Atlanta, Boston, Kansas City (KS), Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, New Orleans and Oakland. At the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, the USC Marching Band will perform, MTV's Quddus will serve as Emcee for the Voter Registration Rally while KIIS-FM's DJ Drew will get the crowd pumping. All across the nation, we're engaging youth to make certain their voices are heard on Election Day!
"This is such a historic election that I wanted to find a way to give youth 17 and under a voice," says Usher. "I wanted young people to understand, that this election does impact their life. It affects the type of education they receive, if they'll receive healthcare when they're sick and if they'll have help getting into college."
Count me as a fan. I like that Usher is 1.) spreading the word that one does not have to be able to vote to be politically engaged, and 2.) reaching young people even earlier in their lives than most GOTV campaigns. Also, when you think about it, many of those young people too young to vote in this election will certainly want to vote in the next election after registering voters during this cycle.
It goes without saying, the more politically engaged young people we have now, the better citizenry we'll have in the future.
Newsweek just put out an open letter to young Obama supporters from a Millennial born on the cusp, Jonathan Darman. I like it all but this part, which unfortunately happens to be the crux of the letter.
With the new fiscal reality, neither he nor John McCain should get away with promising everyone what he or she wants. In debates they will be pressed to explain their priorities. Seize this opportunity. To get the best of Obama, young people, cut out the blind devotion. Get off the Huffington Post. Stop the Facebook blasts. If you really want to be the change you've been waiting for, start holding Obama to some of his promises to our generation. In these waning days of the campaign, ask not what you can do for Barack Obama, ask what Barack Obama can do for you.
This once again assumes that internet activism doesn't get anything done. Not cool.
Is Friday night the best night to have a debate in order to attract more youth attention and involvement?
A Columbus Dispatch piece visits a debate-watching party near Ohio State University to get feedback from both College Dems and College Republicans organizations on campus.
His words at the end dovetailed with the coverage of Obama's performance in the debate so far:
All of these elements make the presidential debates so crucial for Mr. Obama — and so potentially dangerous for Mr. McCain. Unlike an acceptance speech before a partisan crowd or campaign advertisements, debates are the single best opportunity for a relatively inexperienced presidential candidate to show the electorate their qualifications for America’s top job. Indeed, Mr. McCain’s debate performance will be of almost secondary importance. If Mr. Obama, who already has the political wind at his back, is able to show that he has the proper facility with the major issues of the days to go head-to-head with Mr. McCain, he will go a long way toward erasing the doubts that many voters still have about his experience.
Since June this election has been Barack Obama’s to lose. Because of his consistent message discipline, Mr. Obama has ensured that with approximately 40 days until Election Day, this is still the case.
An actual example -- in Frederick County, MD -- of the energy from this election reinvigorating local parties.
A piece on the Student Voter Act of 2008 -- Rep. Jan Schakowski's the lead sponsor -- that would require all institutions of higher education receiving federal funding to offer students the opportunity to register to vote while registering for classes.
An article from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern examines preparations being made for another surge in the youth vote this November.
One thing that stuck out to me in last night's debate is the refrain of "just doesn't understand" that McCain kept using on Obama. Clearly a premeditated line, I question its effectiveness.
First -- poll numbers from last night show it clearly didn't work. From the CNN poll, thanks to TPM:
Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one better described Barack Obama or John McCain during tonight's debate:
• Was more intelligent: Obama 55%, McCain 30%
• Expressed his views more clearly: Obama 53%, McCain 36%
• Spent more time attacking his opponent: McCain 60%, Obama 23%
• Was more sincere and authentic: Obama 46%, McCain 38%
• Seemed to be the stronger leader: Obama 49%, McCain 43%
• Was more likeable: Obama 61%, McCain 26%
• Was more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you: Obama 62%, McCain 32%
The last one is the most important here. This thirty point spread indicating Obama is the candidate that is more in touch with needs and problems is political gold, especially when its in the face of McCain's repeated declarations that the Democrat doesn't understand. Not only did the last point bear out the ineffectiveness of this strategy, but so did the leadership question. McCain's "not ready to lead" theme may have been disproven by Obama's threshold performance -- clearly the leadership people gleaned from the debate didn't scare anyone. But, of course, we can expect the McCain campaign to bring up the fact that Obama is a master wordsmith and point out we shouldn't have expected anything different.
Second, for someone that doesn't understand, Obama's body language was superior. The senator was mostly looking into the camera, speaking directly to the viewers at home. And when he wasn't doing that, he turned to look directly at his opponent. McCain, meanwhile, was looking anywhere but Obama's eyes and the camera. He was acting like the event was not televised, looking out at the crowd for most of the debate. Not only that, but TPM had some readers well-versed in psychotherapy and psychology write in with their own analysis of McCain's inability to look at his opponent for any amount of time. Quite interesting:
As a psychotherapist and someone who treats people with anger management problems, we typically try to educate people that anger is often an emotion that masks other emotions. I think it's significant that McCain didn't make much, if any, eye contact because it suggests one of two things to me; he doesn't want to make eye contact because he is prone to losing control of his emotions if he deals directly with the other person, or, his anger masks fear and the eye contact may increase or substantiate the fear.
I noticed him doing the same thing in the Republican primary debates. The perception observers are likely to have is that he is unwilling to acknowledge the opponent's legitimacy and/or is contemptuous of the opponent.
Afraid of Obama?
I think people really are missing the point about McCain's failure to look at Obama. McCain was afraid of Obama. It was really clear--look at how much McCain blinked in the first half hour. I study monkey behavior--low ranking monkeys don't look at high ranking monkeys. In a physical, instinctive sense, Obama owned McCain tonight and I think the instant polling reflects that.
Obama demonstrated that he did understand the issues, especially when he was asked to name legislative priorities for his presidency, even with the financial crisis tying his hands. Obama talked about healthcare, the energy issue, and the economy; McCain talked about minutae in defense spending? This is about 7:22 in. (Apologies for using Faux News's recording -- it was what I could find in a short amount of time.)
Finally, I know I've discussed this repeatedly in the past, but I keep going back to what Millennials and young voters would think. How often do you think these serious young activists, trying to get a seat at the table and be taken seriously, are told "you just don't understand?" Keeping that in mind, it's even less difficult to see why McCain just wouldn't appeal to young voters who seek to work within the system to create change.
Yes, young voters that seek to act as change agents within organizations might be predisposed to support Senator Obama anyway; but with these comments, McCain doesn't give his campaign any chance to be seen as a credible alternative to a young voter who doesn't quite agree with Obama.
Yes, young voters are just as diverse (and maybe even more so) as the rest of the electorate and so to make generalizations can be dangerous. But being a young voter myself, and having surrounded myself with young voters both at my place of employment and in my own social life, I notice that while we're by and large not a big proponent of civil disobedience, we're still headstrong and stubborn. We don't like to be told by our elders that we can't do things or that we're too naive to understand issues. And so it's not a huge stretch to assume that McCain's patronizing tactic didn't play well with young voters.
All in all, I thought the debate was a tie. Both candidates had a few good moments. But the fact that it was a tie on the scorecard actually favors Obama in the grand scheme of things. He didn't make any mistakes, he came off looking in touch with America and as a credible leader, and he held his own against John McCain on a subject that is supposed to be McCain's strong suit.
Check out this latest gaffe from John McCain: He boasted that he intends to "whip" Barack Obama's posterior at the debate this Wednesday. "We're going to spend a lot of time and after I whip his ...
Earlier today, ThinkProgress criticized Politico.com for publishing a story that claimed John McCain’s proposed tax cuts for capital gains and dividends would be “aimed directly at the ...
From NBC/NJ’s Matthew BergerST. CLAIRESVILLE, Ohio -- Palin focused on the economy Sunday, suggesting Obama would raise taxes, increase spending and add to the national debt.“Folks, in times like ...
Sen. John McCain vowed to "whip" Sen. Barack Obama's
"you-know-what" when the two presidential candidates meet Wednesday in
their final televised debate, according to the Associated Press.Said ...
"He has to make the case that he's different than Bush and better than
Obama on the economy. If he
doesn't win that case, it's all over, and it's going to be a very bad
year for Republicans."-- Newt ...
Matthew Segal from SAVE sent me this video of a debate that his organization the Student Association for Voter Empowerment had with the College Republicans three months ago. In the debate, Segal ...
One of today's Quick Hits was a piece by Ari Melber in The Nation examining Obama's tech-savvy campaign and its operation. I thought Melber did a great job of penetrating behind the scenes to ...
If you've been on here lately you've seen Mike's hit on 20/20's Libertarian reporter John Stossel for his questioning of whether young voters are smart enough to actually vote.
Well.... Trick or ...
Your Sunday reading. Enjoy!
All those new Democratic voters are emerging as a huge force for Obama everywhere, especially in Pennsylvania.
Time's "battleground" profile on the race in ...
The conservative republican blog Political Party Poop (despite not being able to come up with a polite name for their blog) is attacking me for my account of the truth behind the attacks against ...
