Sunday, February 10, 2008

That Pesky Fence, The Dems and McCain

While I acknowledge that Obama has had trouble with the Latinos (duh. Even I who has lived under a rock during this primary season knows that), I think it's a little dubious to assert that an Obama nomination will result in a McCain presidency. I would say in fact that there's virtually no way McCain could win even with the Latino votes, and that's if he could get them. And Obama wouldn't have to choose Richardson as a running mate to secure that, though as an insurance policy it's not a bad idea. Anyway, here are some reasons for my position.

1.The conservative distrust. In order for McCain to win as you suggest, he'd not only have to win that Latino vote from Obama; he'd have to earn the trust of the conservative GOP base -- a trust that if the talking heads (e.g., Limbaugh, Hewitt, etc.) are to be believed, McCain ought not have (this is not to say that he cannot get it).

Now, there is the citation of McCain's 82% lifetime ACU rating (as my colleague cited in an earlier post). In the The American Thinker a few interesting points are made to deflate the significance of that rating:

* McCain at 82.3% is 39th of the Senators serving in 2006. In that year, he scored a 65, which at 47th placed him with the likes of Ben Nelson (64) and Chuck Hagel (75). These aren't stalwart conservatives by any stretch. Simply put, McCain sets himself against the conservative mainstream of his party.

* The article points out that he has scored "less conservative" in more recent years and, perhaps most importantly, McCain differs from the ACU (and presumably the mainstream right) on certain key issues: immigration, campaign finance and the environment. These are significant issues for the grassroots; in particular his stance on immigration perturbs conservatives to no end, many of whom who view his position as treasonous (and I'm not being hyperbolic).

I think the Thinker is correct to conclude that he is on the liberal side of the party. We return, then, to the distinction between GOP and conservative movement about which I wrote before. This is an important distinction which has been forgotten since Reagan; we're seeing the split in this presidential race and it's going to make waves within the right.

*If the American Thinker isn't enough, at the grassroots level, one realizes how serious the conservative distrust of McCain is. A recent Salon.com
article points out that

In a January straw poll of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, Mitt Romney won the support of 26 percent of the 721 activists who voted, while McCain came in fifth (behind Fred Thompson, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter), with just 11 percent. McCain did score big in one survey the GOP group did: 59 percent of the activists named him an "unacceptable candidate."


If we extrapolate from these results (and coming in 5th suggests a lot about his credentials), where does he stand with the activists? All in all, they don't believe he is a true conservative on those "core" issues. Essentially, the conservatives have become multi-issue caricatures concerned with those issues of immigration, environment security (Islam/culture). The "conservative" in the US is for the most part an electoral joke.

Given that, nonetheless McCain still needs them for any significant traction against the Democrats. With that group out (or depleted significantly), he would then have to rely upon the moderates and democrats, and there seems little good reason to think that the Dems would hop over to McCain in this election.

2) The primary voter turnouts. The Democrats have overwhelmed the GOP in these primaries, by a margin of 73 percent. Through the primary season the Democrats have shattered their previous records. There is little reason to think that in the general election, especially with a McCain as the alternative mainstream choice, the pattern of high turnout would not continue.

Prior to Super Tuesday, the Democrats had been showing out in record turnout, in fact out pacing the Republicans at about 7 to 5 according to Time.

Super Tuesday was no different.

These numbers come from CNN on Super Tuesday

Turnout for Democratic contests, rounded to the nearest thousand:

STATE: MISSOURI

PREVIOUS RECORD: 528,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 778,000 (98% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +47%


STATE: ILLINOIS

PREVIOUS RECORD: 1,504,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,809,000 (91% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +20%


STATE: NEW YORK

PREVIOUS RECORD: 1,575,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,744,000 (99% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +11%


STATE: NEW JERSEY

PREVIOUS RECORD: 654,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,104,000 (99% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +69%


STATE: MASSACHUSETTS

PREVIOUS RECORD: 793,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,170,000 (98% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +48%


STATE: ARIZONA

PREVIOUS RECORD: 239,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 314,000 (67% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +31%

Compare this to the Republican turnout on that same day:

STATE: MISSOURI

PREVIOUS RECORD: 475,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 576,000 (98% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +21%


STATE: ILLINOIS

PREVIOUS RECORD: 859,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 825,000 (93% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: -3%


STATE: NEW YORK

PREVIOUS RECORD: 772,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 604,000 (99% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: -21%


STATE: NEW JERSEY

PREVIOUS RECORD: 310,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 551,000 (98% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +78%


STATE: MASSACHUSETTS

PREVIOUS RECORD: 503,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 462,000 (95% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: -8%


STATE: ARIZONA

PREVIOUS RECORD: 347,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 398,000 (67% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +15%

Yes, the Republicans also had high turnouts in these cases, but overall not nearly as high as the Democrats (and I realize Mass and NY are traditional Dem strongholds, but the high turnout is across the board). Whatever the source of this phenomenon if the trend continue, Obama won't have to worry about the Latino vote. He'll have an overwhelming percentage of voters in his favor already. The Republicans would have to increase their voter turnout by a large margin (unlikely if McCain is the nominee given the conservative distrut of him), while betting that all those voters that came out to vote in the Democratic primaries will stay home. If the latter doesn't happen, then the percentage of Republican voters turning up for the general election will have to be higher than the percentage of voters who turned out for the primaries in addition to the voters who will turn out for the general elections (a really long way of saying that the Republicans need more votes than the Dems but that is not likely to happen). If one considers the conservative distrust of McCain, the last 8 years of Bush and the McCain foreign policy, I don't think that's likely.

3) The Latino Vote. With the voter turnout expected to be 9 million (last election it was 6 million), the bloc is significant. And McCain has done well compared to his GOP rivals



Despite his positive showing compared to his rivals, Latinos are more likely to vote Dem. A USA/TODAY GALLUP poll had Latinos voting Democrat over Republican 3 to 1. The Republicans made serious political errors early on in declining to participate in a forum held by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials; and, no more authoritative a source than Sen Mel Martinez, general Chair of the RNC, is quoted in the USA TODAY:

Martinez, a Cuban émigré, says Republicans can't win the White House with today's level of Hispanic support. "It would be in my view virtually impossible," he says.


In other polls, Republicans do no better. A recent poll (conducted by the Pew Hispanic Survey in October and November of 2007) found that 57 percent of Latinos stood behind Democrats while only 23 percent supported Republicans. Why?

• Latinos say the Democratic Party shows more concern for Latinos on the issue of illegal immigration.

• They say Bush administration policies have harmed Latinos.


Yes, McCain has courted the Latino vote before. But he's now courting the conservative base (which is far more immediately relevant to him). His rhetoric has shifted, so much so that at CPAC he stressed the importance of border security and other issues which appeal to the conservative movement within the GOP, so states the WSJ states. Can you guess which constituency is more important to him?


The Latino vote, in general (nevermind the inter-ethnic nuances: yes, I know Cubans generally support Republicans while Puerto Ricans gather round the Democrats. Got the memo, I'll get back to you later), is a Democrat lock.


So with all of this said, I don't think McCain can win riding the Latino vote to victory against Obama. The edge is not to be found in the first place. Even with the woeful performance Obama has shown in his party's primaries, the Democrats are simply opening their house to the constituency while the Republicans are sitting on their front lawn with a shotgun at the ready. I think Latinos will remember that, and may overlook their negative perceptions of Obama. Which will it be, border fence or not?


In the end, McCain can't overcome his own party's distrust of him; Democrat votes will probably continue to outpace Republican votes at the polls; and, a significant Latino vote won't go to McCain because a) too high a percentage already identify with Democratic party and b) his own party has shut that bloc out. What is more important to McCain? Winning his party or winning the presidency?

I suppose put another way, no matter who they nominate, the Democrats have a solid chance against the Republican front runner.

No comments: