Bruce_Gordon's Blog

One last, belated, note on the 2008 election- about which, more than enough has already been written...

In the face of withering criticism, the pre-election polls were, in my view, remarkably accurate.  We used Rasmussen Reports almost exclusively during our political reporting, and the last Daily Tracking Poll from Rasmussen showed Barack Obama with a six percentage point lead over John McCain.  The actual popular vote count was almost exactly that.

In Pennsylvania, we used Rasmussen, and also kept an eye on the average of all PA polling published on Realclearpolitics.com.  That average showed Sen. Obama with a double digit lead up till the very last week, when the margin tightened slightly.  IIn the end, Obama won PA by eleven percentage points- just about what the polls predicted.

One other note about Pennsylvania:  this is now the fifth straight presidential election cycle in which the state has voted for the Democrat.  And the margin this time was, as we said, eleven points.  While every election is candidate-and circumstance-specific, it's worth wondering whether the Republcian party will continue to view the state as a true "battleground," or "swing" state.  Recent voter registration gains by the Dems make it very difficult for a Republican candidate to come out of the Philly region alive, even if he/she does very well in the rest of the Commonwealth.   In the 2008 race, John McCain could have won PA outside of Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery counties by 650,000 votes and still lost the state.  Obviously, if the Obama administration fails to deliver on its promises, all bets are off.  But if he enters the 2012 election season with reasonable approval ratings, it's hard to see how the GOP can take back this once- Republican-leaning state.

Less than two weeks till election day, and Sen. John McCain finds himself with a narrow pathway to the 270 electoral votes he needs to win the White House.  One is what I'll call the "Pennsylvania Path," and it explains why Mr. McCain continues to spend so much time in the Keystone State.  Here's the scenario...

We start- as always- with the GOP leading the electoral vote count 286-252-- an acknowledgement that most states will vote this election season as they did last time.  Here's where it gets interesting.  Barack Obama leads McCain in nine different states that went Republican in 2004- providing Obama with more than enough electoral votes to win the White House.

But Obama's lead in most of those so-called swing states is small- within the polling margin of error.  It's possible McCain could come back and win Florida, Ohio, North Carolina,Missouri and Nevada.

But Obama has solid polling leads in Virginia (13 electoral votes), Colorado (9), Iowa (7) and New Mexico (5).  Those pick-ups would give Obama an additional 34 electoral votes, while trimming that number from McCain's total.  Obama wins the White House, 286 electoral votes, to 252.  

McCain must flip a 2004 "blue" state with some electoral weight to offset those losses, and with California (55 electoral votes), New York (31) and Illinois ( 21) safely in Democratic control, Pennsylvania is McCain's only hope for a game-winning flip, that would leave the score McCain 273- Obama 265.

Problem is, every recent poll shows Obama with a big lead in PA- most show double digit margins.  Sen. McCain told me Wednesday that he was "pleased to note that Gov. Rendell said he was a little nervous about things in Pennsylvania.  So he's the smartest politician I know around Pennsylvania, so I think we're coming on here."

Perhaps, but it's an uphill climb, made all the tougher by Obama's  massive fundraising advantage.

Bruce 

With "Decision 2008" just 25 days away, how about an update on the electoral map?

Based on averages of all recent state polling as reported on realclearpolitics.com, there are- as we speak- eight states, worth 101 electoral votes, that voted Republican in 2004 and are now led by the Obama-Biden ticket.

The list of "flips" includes Florida (27 electoral votes), Ohio (20 votes), North Carolina (15), Virginia (13), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), New Mexico (5) and Nevada (5).

Conversely, there is not a single state won by Kerry-Edwards in '04, where the Republican ticket of McCain-Palin now leads.

Under the "realclear" map- if the election were held today- Obama would win the White House with 353 electoral votes, to McCain's 185.

Two important notes:  first, Obama's lead in several of these flip-able states is tenuous- in several cases, within the polls' margins of error.  Two, Obama's strength among young voters may be less important than it would seem, since the 18-24 crowd does not vote in the same kind of numbers that we see from older folks.

Even so, with time running out, the math favors Obama.  Sen. McCain needs a knockout win in the final debate, a major national or international event that showcases his strengths, or a last-minute Obama scandal to overtake the Democrat and capture the White House.

Bruce

Ready for Round Two?  John McCain and Barack Obama go at it at Belmont University in Nashville, TN Tuesday night, with Sen. McCain needing to fundamentally change the campaign conversation.  Our Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll now shows Sen. Obama up by 8 percentage points (52%-44%)- his largest lead of the campaign and the 12th straight day Obama has been at or above the threshold 50% mark.  Additionally, Obama is making moves in numerous swing states- any combination of which would push him past 270 electoral votes.

Likely voters are telling our pollster they trust Obama-Biden to fix the nation's economic mess, and that makes it difficult for McCain to change the momentum.  Unlike gas prices or the war in Iraq, the economy won't improve overnight- or even quickly.  It can turn sour fast, but there's no indication that the Wall Street/Main Street mess will suddenly disappear.

That means Sen. McCain must go on the attack, and make the race all about Obama:  is he ready to lead?  can he be trusted?

So far, McCain has left the heavy lifting up to his running mate.  Gov. Sarah Palin has been hammering Obama for several days now, on Obama's relationship with the 60s radical William Ayers.  The difficulty here is that the Ayers story- like Obama's Jermiah Wright connection- has been reported before, during the Spring primaries.  Hillary Clinton raised the subject of Obama's associations, and made only marginal headway with it.

More importantly, the fact that these subjects came up during the primaries makes them seem to some, like old news.

Will Sen. McCain raise the Ayers/Wright stories during Round Two?  And if he does, will Obama fire back with references to McCain's involvement in the Savings and Loan scandal of the late 80s/early 90s?

Stay tuned.  With only one more debate left after this one, the time for a "game-changing moment " is running out.

Bruce 

Thursday night's vice-presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden may well be the most interesting candidate showdown of the season.   A few random thoughts...

The goal for Gov. Palin- just like Barack Obama's task in his first debate with John McCain- will be to show she belongs on the stage.  Just like Obama, she's the "fresh-face-with-less-experience" candidate in this match-up.  The debate format (negotiated by the McCain-Palin camp) will allow her to keep her answers relatively brief, and keep folow-ups and interaction with Biden to a minimum.  Gov. Palin has been hammered lately, over her halting answers in the latest series of Katie Couric interviews, and so the pressure is on to appear to be in command of the material in play.

For Sen. Biden, the task is to keep it short and sweet.  Long, windy answers, full of policy details, won't win over voters.  Biden has also been hit hard for a series of gaffes- usually when he speaks off the cuff and lets his guard down.  There's an added danger for Biden:  appearing to be dismissive or demeaning to his opponent.  The hard-hitting zinger that he might use against a male opponent will be viewed as sexist in this context.

The expectation game is already underway, with both camps praising the debating skills of the other, and playing down their own candidate's public speaking skills.  Under normal circumstances, and given Biden's years of debating and speechmaking, Gov. Palin would be declared the winner merely by earning a "tie."  But given the recent polls, which show Obama-Biden opening up significant leads, both nationally and in key "swing" states," earning a tie doesn't change the momentum. 

Round Two is just around the corner.  Sarah Palin's two-part interview on Fox News Channel will air Wednesday and Thursday on the Hannity and Colmes show (FNC, 9pm EDT).

The interview will be Palin's second "exclusive" (in TV parlance, it's a CABLE EXCLUSIVE!) since being named John McCain's running mate on August 29th.  And it will give viewers their second opportunity to see/hear/interpret both Gov. Palin's answers, and the type and tone of questions posed by the program hosts.

 Palin's "introduction" to the nation has been ground-breaking in a number of ways.  The decision by Sen. McCain took most observers by surprise.  That's neither good nor bad- just fact.   And the decision by the McCain camp to keep the governor "under wraps" and away from reporters till several days after the RNC, was completely understandable or an insult to the American people, depending on your political persuasion.

The governor's first exclusive- with ABCs Charlie Gibson- was, predictably, put under a microscope by partisans of all stripes.  Lots of Liberals found Palin to be scripted, over-rehearsed, yet unprepared for tough questions.  Just as many Conservatives viewed Gibson's questions- and especially his MANNER of questioning- to be condescending- even mean-sprited, as if he were a college professor, looking for an opportunity to find fault with a new student.

I'm curious as to what you- the viewers- are expecting from Hannity and Colmes.  Are you looking solely at Gov. Palin's answers, or is the questioning (and manner of questioning) just as interesting?  It's not yet clear just how often Mrs. Palin will be made available for further interviews, and so, each one of these early sessions gives us a chance to study her- and her questioners- up close.

Bruce

I think it was Harry Truman who once said, "In Washington, if you want a friend, get a dog."

I was reminded of the nature of political "friendship" while watching the party conventions these past two weeks.  Two figures stood out as examples of the fleeting nature of relationships, based upon what they had done for (or to) their old friends lately and whether they could useful to their old enemies. 

 Who am I talking about?

Joe Lieberman.  The popular and highly regarded Democrat was chosen to be on his party's 2000 "ticket," coming within a hair's breadth of becoming this nation's Vice-Presidernt.  Lieberman ran (unsuccessfully) for President as a Democrat in 2004.  But in 2006, his views on the Iraq War caused a falling out with his party, and he was defeated in the U.S. Senate primary in his home state.  Lieberman ultimately won re-election as an Independent and has become a vocal supporter of John McCain's-- even landing a coveted primetime speaking role at the RNC.  Now Democrats who once loved Lieberman view him as a Benedict Arnold- a traitor to his party- even though on the campaign trail, Liberman usually supports McCain without being unduly harsh or personal in his critique of Sen. Obama. 

Democratic leaders haven't yet punished Lieberman, but only because they need him.  The balance of power in the Senate shows 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and two Independents (Lieberman and Vermont's Bernie Sanders, both of whom caucus with the Dems).   With Lieberman in the fold, Democrats enjoy a 51 to 49 advantage.  Without Lieberman, the vote is 50-50, with ties broken by RepublicanVice-President Cheney.  If polls are correct, and the Democrats gain several Senate seats his November, you can expect the Democrats to take away Lieberman's committee chairmanships as payback.  The only way he's safe, is if the Dems are so successful that they approach a 60-seat, fillibuster-proof majority.  Then, they'd still need him, to reach the next threshold of power.. 

Hillary Clinton.  If Bill Clinton is the man Republicans love to hate, surely Hillary sits atop the female "loathing list."  Had Sen. Obama named Mrs. Clinton his running mate, you can bet the just-completed RNC would have been filled with speeches villifying her as the living embodiment of all that is wrong with Washington.   Instead, she was hailed for her guts and determination- for the "historic" nature of her primary campaign.

Why?  Because the McCain-Palin tickert desparately needs disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters to switch sides and back the GOP.  Which is why you heard folks who've been battling the Clintons for nearly two decades, singing her praises.

In both cases, it was simple political expediency and loyalties that turned an old friend into a hated enemy...and a longtime foe, into a hoped-for best buddy.

Bruce

A couple of quick- and random thoughts about the stagecraft on display at the RNC last night...

The Worst- that sickly green backdrop to Sen. McCain during his acceptance speech.  When staging an event like this, it's crucial to understand not just what the crowd in the arena experiences, but what the TV viewer at home will see.  In this case, a huge video screen showed what seemed to be the White House (I didn't get a good look at it, and what it was, wasn't the point).  That's what the audience at the arena saw and it probably seemed to them, to be a perfectly nice image..  But what the TV viewer saw, was the extreme bottom-middle of the image- what was in line with the head-on TV camera angle.  It was the lawn in front of the house, and gave the home viewer an odd, green backdrop to Mr. McCain's speech.   Not an attractive color and I can't believe it's what the event planners were looking for.

The Best-  The finale.  John McCain does not have the razzle-dazzle of a Barack Obama or (as we now know) a Sarah Palin in terms of delivering a prepared speech.  But he built to a strong finish, and- with the crowd roaring its approval- the balloon/confetti drop looked fantastic.  The DNC got its "money shots" from the size and scope of an outdoor venue- which allowed for an impressive fireworks display- but being outdoors made a balloon drop impractical.  The RNC "solved" the dilemma of not being able to use fireworks indoors, by showing video of a display on the big screen- a nice touch.  It occured to me as I watched, that the McCain camp could have shot video of the DNC fireworks, then used THAT footage on THEIR big screen-- now that's saving donors/taxpayers' money!

Bruce

Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) is just hours away from delivering the most intriguing political speech in years-- her acceptance of the VP nomination at the RNC in St. Paul, MN-- and the backdrop to that address may- MAY- be starting to shift.

To be sure, the revelations about Palin's unmarried-but-pregnant teenaged daughter, and the probe into Palin's firing of Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner, will be juicy enough to keep most of the media busy for weeks- maybe months.  But the flood of reporters now boosting the Frontier State's population is beginning to bring back information of a more substantive nature.  Will it matter?

Among the stories coming out of Alaska, is news that- as governor- Sarah Palin was an early supporter of the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," a classic pork-barrel project that would have used federal dollars for a bridge that was of little value- even to those who live in the state receiving the money.  And we've now learned that- as mayor of Wasilla- she worked hard- and successfully- to get her community its share of "earmarks."

Why should we care?  Because Palin has already made it a big part of her stump speech that she is a staunch opponent of pork-barrel projects and wasteful federal spending.  and she has specifically made an example of her opposition to the "Bridge."

Palin's fans will explain that her support for earmarks makes her no worse than lots of other elected officials- including many Democrats- who see it as part of their job to "bring home the bacon."

Her critics will cry "hypocrisy," noting that the man at the top of the GOP ticket is one of the biggest- and loudest- critics of pork-barrel spending.

Whatever your view on the subject, doesn't it beat talking about pregnant teens?

Bruce

It's a safe bet Sarah Palin has never given a speech anywhere near as important as the one she'll deliver to Republican delegates at the RNC in St. Paul, Minnesota, Wednesday night.  The Alaska governor will be under immense pressure to regain the momentum that seemed underway when she was introduced as John McCain's running mate last Friday.

While the surpise pick was criticized in some quarters right from the start, Gov. Palin's Opening Day performance seemed solid:  a young, reform-minded "maverick" unafraid of ruffling feathers- even within her own party.  Then came Monday. 

Bad enough that Hurricane Gustav wiped out most of the opening festivities at the RNC. But Palin found herself hip-deep in two separate storms not of Mother Nature's making:  first, the news that her 17-year old unmarried daughter Bristol was five-months pregnant, and second, that Gov. Palin had now hired a private attorney to represent her in a state probe of allegations that she abused her power in the firing of Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner, because he had refused to fire a state trooper who had divorced the governor's sister..

The "pregnant daughter story" may or may not be your idea of "real" news.  On one hand, it is, by definition, a private, family matter.  On the other hand, Gov. Palin has been quite vocal in her support of "abstinence only" sex-ed in schools.  The argument goes like this: presumably, abstinence-only was taught in the Palin household, with disappointing results.

As for the state probe, Gov. Palin may well be exonerated.  But the investigation will drag on for weeks- surely up to, and beyond Election Day.    It is not likely to produce the kind of headlines the McCain camp wants.

So far, all the daily tracking polls show Barack Obama's lead over John McCain has actually grown a bit since the introduction of Gov. Palin.  The race is still tight- even tighter when you translate state-by-state polls into likely Electoral votes.

Bottom line?  A Home Run speech by Palin may turn the tide and result in a nice convention "bump" for the GOP.  Anything less, and the questions dogging Sen. McCain- "what were you thinking when you made this pick?"- will only get louder.

Bruce

With John McCain having now chosen Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, both veep candidates are in place, and it's time for a quick historical reminder of just important these "number 2s" can be. Since 1900, no fewer than five U.S. vice-presidents have ascended to the presidency under emergency circumstances...

-1901, Teddy Roosevelt becomes president when William McKinley is assasinated.

-1923, Calvin Coolidge becomes commander-in-chief when Warren Harding succumbs to illness.

-1945, Harry Truman becomes POTUS when Franklin Roosevelt dies in office.

1960, Lyndon Johnson becomes president when John F. Kennedy is murdered.

1974, Gerald Ford enters the Oval Office when Richard Nixon resigns in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

Now, with Joe Biden and Sarah Palin in place, the 2008 McCain-Obama debate can continue with an added question:  In the event of illness/assasination/scandal, which-if either of- these VP choices is ready to be the Leader of the Free World?

Bruce

As the nation awaits the historic nomination acceptance address by Sen. Barack Obama in Denver Thursday night, I'm struck by the setting as much as by the speech.  Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium is a massive venue best suited for football, not political speeches.  The stage area has been designed to resemble an ancient temple- complete with large columns.  It makes me wonder whether the Obama campaign will- someday soon- regret their decision to move the DNC party here, from the more intimate (?) Pepsi Center. Twice now, the Obama camp has come up with a clever, outside-the-box idea, only to take it one step too far and suffer the consequences. 

Remember Sen. Obama's overseas trip back in July?  Obama was greeted by world leaders as something more than a mere candidate-- he was greeted as an equal.  Then the campaign decided to wrap things up with a huge outdoor rally in Berlin.  It seemed like a great idea at the time:  show off the then-presumptive nominee's massive appeal to our European allies.  But then a funny thing happened.  The GOP turned the event on its head- using the visual imagery to attack Obama as a "celebrity," loved by Europeans and so, not quite American.  Ask yourself this: Which campaign has used the video from that rally more often and to greater effect since the event?  McCain's.

Then there was the clever, 21st century plan to notify supporters via email and text messages of Sen. Obama's choice of a running mate, so they'd be the "first to know."  Good idea.  Cutting edge.  But the Obama camp took it too far, trying to keep news of the choice a secret for nearly two full days after the candidate had made up his mind.  The result?  The text messages/emails went out to supporters at 3 am Saturday in the East- Friday midnight in the West.  The vast majority of Obama supporters were fast asleep when the message was sent.  And by then, the dreaded Mainstream Media had already learned the secret and broken the news, rendering the whole exercise a waste for those frustrated supporters. (of course, the campaign got a whole new list of  potential donors).

The idea behind the Invesco Field speech is to allow regular folks- not just delegates and party insiders- to experience this moment in history.  But if Sen. Obama comes off looking like a rock superstar, with 75,000 swooning fans begging for a brief glance or wave, we may once again see that a good idea- taken too far- can quickly turn into a bad one.

Bruce

Forget the national polls.  The Democrats, meeting this week in Denver, will win the White House if they figure out a way to "flip" a tiny handful of states this November-- maybe just one!

George W. Bush won re-election in 2004 by beating John Kerry in the Electoral College 286-252 (270 electoral votes gets you the prize).  Assuming- and this is a safe assumption- that the vast majority of states will vote in 2008 the way they voted in '04, the Dems start this election in a 34 electoral vote "hole."  That means they must find 18 "new" electoral votes to win the White House, since their added 18 would also mean 18 fewer for the Republicans (18+18=36-- enough to overcome the 34 vote deficit-- you get the idea).

Where do the new votes come from?  States that voted "red" (Republican) in '04 that can be flipped to "blue" ( Democrat) this time around. Florida is worth 27 electoral votes.  If the Democrats flip Florida and keep what they won last election, they take the Presidency.  Ohio, too, is a big enough "flip," since it's a "red in '04" state that's worth 20 electoral votes.  Or how about some combinations?  Like, for example, Virginia (13 electoral votes) plus Nevada (5) or New Mexico (5).  Or, say, Indiana (11 electoral votes) plus Colorado (9)?

Here's the problem:  All of the polling shows that while Barack Obama is putting lots of time/energy/money into these flip-able states, polling shows none of them is going to be an easy win.  In fact, most of the states are at best "toss-ups."  Without flipping Florida or Ohio, or some combination of smaller states, Sen. Obama cannot win the White House.

Bruce

You'll hear a lot about national polls, as the 2008 Presidential race rumbles toward November.  They will be great fodder for cable TV's political pundits and for barroom debates.  In fact, the latest polls show Barack Obama and John McCain in a virtual dead heat.  Pay these polls little mind.  The Race for the White House is not- despite what you may have heard- a single, national election.  It is fifty separate elections- each one, winner-take-all.  That's why a relative handful of states are all-important in determining who wins.

Most states are solidly blue (dem) or solidly red (rep).  We know how they will vote this year, long before the polls open.  Candidates who pay too much attention to these states are wasting their time and money.  But there are several states that seem poised to  "flip" this year- and that may spell good news for Sen. Obama.

George W. Bush won the White House in 2004 with 286 electoral votes, to John Kerry's 252 (with 270 neded for victory).  This election cycle polls suggest at least six states that went Republican in '04, are now considered "toss-ups."  The list includes Florida (with 27 electoral votes), Ohio (with 20), Virginia (13), Indiana (11), Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).

If all else remains the same as in '04, Barack Obama can win the White House by "flipping" either Florida OR Ohio, OR some combination of smaller states on this list.

If that "flip" from red state to blue occurs, McCain must counter by "flipping" a blue state to red, to overcome the loss and keep the White House in GOP hands.  That's why he's spending so much time in Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes).  He knows Obama was swamped here in the April primary, and that exit polling showed Obama has a real weakness among rural white voters.  If Obama takes EITHER Florida OR Ohio, McCain MUST win Pennsylvania or he's in big trouble-- no matter what the national polls say.

Bruce

Would you care to dance?

It's likely one or both of the presidential nominees-to-be will announce their vice-presidential selections within the next few days.  The think is that, come August 8, the Beijing Olynmpics will begin sucking up all the headlines and as soon as the games end, the DNC gets underway in Denver- followed immediately by the RNC in St. Paul.

And so, the shining stars of both parties believed to be on the candidates' "short list" for VP have begun their "dance" for the media.  Here's how it works:

Step one, make clear you're not actively pursuing the job.  Recently, I had the opportunity to talk with Democratic "short lister" Sen. Joe Biden (D-De).  When asked about the position, he could not have been clearer:  "I do not want to be Vice-President of the United States of America."  While that may be true, it's also part of the "dance."  Back in the 18th century, in the earliest political contests of our young nation, a Founding Father would consider it terribly unseemly to actively campaign for a position like President or Vice-President.  The idea was that others should consider you such an obvious choice that they would spread the word on your behalf, then come to you and ask that you accept the will of the people.  Which brings us to Dance Step two:

Say you'd accept the position if asked.  As Sen. Biden told me, "How do you say no?"  The idea is that you'd be fulfilling your patriotic duty to accept an important role in a new administration.

Step three:  play it coy.  All vice-presidential short-listers are thoroughly "vetted" by the campaigns, to make sure there are no financial/political/sexual  skeletons in their closet.  So anyone who's really a VP finalist is probably undergoing the review even as we speak.  When I asked Sen. Biden about the process, he cut me off with a smile.  "I think that was the last question," he said as he retreated from the cameras, "Thank-you."

Virginia's governor Tim Kaine- another presumed Obama-ticket finalist- has recently "done the dance" as well.  In the days leading up to the actual announcements, there will be several more examples to come- right up to the day the candidates actually choose their dance partner.

One more thing- as for who will get the nod(s)?  I agree with the old saying that  "those who know aren't talking and those who are talking, don't know."

Bruce