How much for a gallon of milk...gas...OJ?

When I worked on a presidential campaign, one of my duties was to put together a memo for the candidate whenever he came to the state. The memo would include the price of a gallon of milk, bread, and a gallon of gas. Why did my candidate need this information? Because if he didn't know the price of these things when asked by the media, he'd be accused of being "out of touch" with the concerns of average Americans.

Well, it's begun again in this political season:



Symbolism is powerful in politics: Gerald Ford munching into a tamale without taking off the husk, George HW Bush in awe of a grocer scanner, Mike Dukakis in the tank. But, let's be real here: wouldn't you rather have your candidate concerned with knowing what's going in Iraq or Afghanistan than whether they pump their own gas?

Ike and Mac; Korea and Iraq

In 1952, the country was deeply entrenched in an unpopular war across the globe. Opponents of the Korean War called it, "Mr. Truman's War". The country wasn't in the best shape economically, either. Steel strikes threatened production, and Truman took an expansive view of executive powers to seize the mills to keep them in production, fearful that if they shut down, the troops wouldn't have the materials to fight the war.

Does this sound familiar? 2008 is similar--economic troubles, an unpopular war, and an administration that has sunk to near historic lows in Gallup approval ratings. Both in 1952 and in 2008, an unpopular incumbent was leaving the White House, and the party's nominee had to deal with the fallout. The only difference is the unpopular administration in 1952 was Democratic, today it is Republican.

Despite a wide-advantage in party identification, Eisenhower was able to beat Adlai Stevenson in 1952. How? In part, Eisenhower was enormously popular personally, as he lead the Allied forces in defeating the Germans in Europe. And, his background as a general provided him with an advantage over Stevenson: he could credibly claim that he would go to Korea personally and end the war.

If McCain wants to seriously contend in the fall, perhaps it is time for his own Ike moment. Iraq may have receded as a problem in the minds of voters, but Iraq is intimately tied to the economic concerns that are at the forefront of the campaign. Instead of saying we need to stay in Iraq, McCain needs to say he has the experience, the ability, and will to go to Iraq and get us out of the quagmire. At the very least, it might help him neutralize the advantage Obama has on this issue. While Obama can rightly say he was against the whole episode from the start, it is less clear that voters are willing trust that he has the experience necessary to produce a favorable outcome. McCain's claim has the potential--by the dint of his experience--to be viewed credibly by the voters.

Who owns who? Tuesday's Onion Funny.

I went to grad school in Madison, WI and read the Onion every week. Now they have video!

I like this video because, while it makes fun of the notion that lobbyists aren't getting what they want from politicians when they donate money, it gets closer to the truth than the average citizen might think. First, interest group money tends to flow to politicians who are already ideologically aligned with the interest group's goal. Money doesn't "buy" votes per se. Second, politicians also wield an incredible amount of control over the lobbyists themselves. In the 19th century, it was not uncommon for lawmakers to pass legislation designed to blackmail corporations or other interests. The corporations would be forced to donate money to the party in order to have the law, which undermines the corporations interests, repealed. Today, what lobbyist in DC ignores a summons to the fundraiser hosted by the chair of the House Appropriations Committee? Just look at where corporate money has flowed after the 2006 elections: the Democrats. Why? Corporations would certainly prefer a Republican majority as more favorable to their interests, but woe is the corporation and its lobbyist firm that ignores giving donations to the new majority in town.

And that is the true power of money: it may not buy votes, but it most probably buys access and a seat at the legislative table. For all the ink that is split on the power of lobbyists and their money, in fact, we'll never know which bills or amendments are NOT offered because a donation is given.


In The Know: Are Politicians Failing Our Lobbyists?

The Real Ralph Nader of 2008: Bob Barr

Now that the nominees for both the major parties are settled, it's time to talk about another nominee who has largely escaped notice: Bob Barr.

In late May, the Libertarian Party nominated for president former Republican Congressman Bob Barr. Barr's nomination will undoubtedly cause John McCain problems come November, and he may very well play the role of spoiler that Ralph Nader did in 2000.

McCain is viewed warily at best among conservative Republicans, particularly those who are religiously conservative. But he is also viewed with suspicion among Hayek-espousing libertarians who don't support the war in Iraq. These folks, of course, contributed heavily to Ron Paul's campaign and routinely delivered 20 percent of the vote or more in late Republican primary states well after the nomination had been all but delivered to McCain.

The problem for McCain is these Ron Paul supporters are clustered in states where he needs to do well to win in November. Additionally, it is interesting to note the relationship between Ron Paul's support to Ross Perot's support in 1992.

The following table looks at Perot's 10 best states in 1992, lists the percentage of the vote George Bush got in 2004, and Ron Paul's performance in the Republican primaries (or caucuses, as the case may be) this year:



I then added the latest polling in these states on the matchup between Obama and McCain. The highlighted states, four in number, represent those states where Barr might possibly draw enough votes to tip the balance away from McCain in favor of Obama. Voters here have displayed a propensity to support third party candidates in the past, and have indicated a willingess to support a maverick member of the Republican Party this year. You can add Kansas to that list should Obama pick popular Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

The point of all of this is to say that Barr can help Obama in his effort to increase the number of states in play this fall. If McCain can't win Nevada, Alaska, and Montana, not only will he lose, he will likely lose big. Even more troubling from his perspective is Minnesota, a state that Republicans have tried to put into play since 2000. The latest polls indicate that Minnesota is again a swing state, but if Barr can pull even 5 percent of the vote (certainly not inconceivable given Perot's 26 percent in 1992 and Jesse Ventura's surprise gubernatorial victory a few years later), McCain's ability to put more "blue" states in play to force Obama to play defense himself will be severely hampered.

Add to this Obama's decision to opt out of public financing, and suddenly, the hill for McCain to climb becomes even steeper.

I should note that it appears that the Obama campaign has noticed this, too. Their recent ad buy reintroducing Obama to voters covers 18 states. Two of those states, Alaska and Montana, are Ross Perot-Ron Paul friendly states. One of those states, Georgia, is home to Bob Barr's former congressional district.

Tim Russert, RIP

I think this says it all.

I'll miss you on Sunday, and I'm sorry you won't be here for the big dance in November.

Indiana in play?

Last night, Hillary Clinton pulled off a razor thin victory in Indiana, beating Obama by about 2 percentage points. The effect is a toss-up, which damages severely Hillary's chances to continue her bid for the nomination.

On MSNBC last night, Chuck Todd drew a line across IN from about Terre Haute, south of Indianapolis, to just south of Muncie and announced that the line appeared to be Indiana's own "Mason Dixon" line. That is, white voters behaved very differently to the south of that line. In short, Hillary racked up huge margins in the Southern parts of the state (essentially, the 8th and 9th Congressional districts) that appears to be the result of older, white, blue collar workers who couldn't stomach Barack Obama's candidacy. The question is why? Was the issue race or class?

Exit polls indicated that in Indiana, BO did better than in PA on the question of the economy: 53% supported HRC if they thought the economy was the number 1 issue, while 47% supported BO.

What's interesting is voters were also asked whether race mattered in their vote. Overwhelmingly, those who said yes voted for HRC--and here's the interesting part: 70% of those over the age of 65 who said race mattered voted for her.

As someone who has lived a number of years in Indiana, the Mason Dixon line that Chuck Todd "happened" upon last night is nothing new. Anyone familiar with the history of the Civil War knows that Indiana south of Indianapolis was Confederate friendly country and probably would have seceeded if left to their own devices. Martinsville, IN was the home of the KKK's Grand Wizard, and the KKK dominated state politics through much of the 1920s. Surely BO's comments about bitterness and clinging to faith were not helpful. But race has always been an issue in the southern reaches of the state.

Looking at the results a bit differently, however, portends some possible problems for BO come the fall. BO won Tippecanoe (Purdue), Monroe (Indiana University), Marion (Indianapolis), St. Joseph (South Bend and Notre Dame), Allen (Fort Wayne), Lake (Gary), Hamilton (Indy suburb), Boone (another Indy suburb), and Elkhart counties. That's it folks. EVERY other county went to HRC. Jefferson county, a suburb of Louisville, went 66-33 for HRC (which might tell you how Kentucky will go). The margins elsewhere were similar.

Unless BO can change the dynamics of this election once he wraps up the nomination, he will have a tough time changing the electoral map. To win Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, and Virginia, he's going to have to reach out to those rural, white, lower class voters. McCain's biography is compelling to those voters, and BO is going to have a tough time topping him in this area. This means BO will have to beat McCain on the issues. Given the toxic nature of the Republican brand name these days, this should not be hard to do IF he can get off the nomination battle and onto the general election campaign. Last night, he signaled that he was prepared to do that.

HRC, unfortunately, seems less than willing. But given that campaigns are funded by resources (read The Power of Money in Congressional Campaigns, 1880-2006 for my take on this), she's going to have a tough go of it in the next few weeks. Money will begin to dry up and then she'll have little choice but to bow out.

And then BO can begin to repair the wounds of the primary and get his ducks in order for the fall campaign. Will Indiana be in play this fall? I would have to say, given the primary election results, that it is not very likely.

Hoosiers for Obama

Last night, I had the opportunity to see Barack Obama’s campaign rally here in South Bend. Tickets were gone within ten minutes on Tuesday, but because of my longstanding relationships with the local media, I was able to get credentials in return for some live post-event analysis.

As I sit here and begin to form my thoughts, I am reminded of the pitfalls and cautions of the participant-observer method of social science. Political scientist and congressional scholar Dick Fenno spent the bulk of his professional career following politicians around at home and in Washington to better understand their perceptions of representation. In a particularly interesting methodological piece (Watching Politicians: Essays on Participant Observation), Fenno has written how difficult it can be to put your own emotions aside and not become invested in the success of those you spend considerable time observing. Fenno notes that he came to like the senators and congressmen he travelled with, and found himself wanting them to win and to succeed regardless of their particular politics. To do good political analysis, it is important to remember to keep your own emotions and passions in check and not get caught up in the “moment”.

And yet, a political rally is perhaps the hardest place to keep those passions at bay. The very activity is designed to pull you up, to get you excited, to stomp your feet, to clap your hands, to say “Yes, We Can” with the crowd. I saw members of the media wearing Obama stickers and clapping with the crowd. I did my best to remain detached and stick to my main purpose for being there: to understand the sensation that is Barack Obama and why he might come out of the political wilderness and capture the presidential nomination.

In terms of Obama’s speech, I did not hear much that I hadn’t heard or read elsewhere. The speech was his standard spiel, and not particularly tailored to Indiana. Contrast this with Hillary’s speech, which had a laser-like focus on the economy and certainly was meant to stir the union folk in the crowd to action.

No, the speech itself did not tell me much about Obama. Rather, it was his unscripted moments that spoke volumes about the man. Unlike Hillary, Barack did not take questions. The questions allowed Hillary to showcase one of her strengths: the ability to talk policy. What struck me about Barack was his poise and confidence. But do not confuse confidence with arrogance. I’ve read elsewhere that Barack thinks he’s all that and a bag of chips. It will shock no one that politicians have egos; a healthy dose of ego is required put oneself through the gut-wrenching and exhausting daily slog that is a campaign.

Arrogance is not what I sensed. Instead, I sensed that this man knew who he was and was sure of his leadership abilities. And he was human. Barack was funny, engaging, and witty. At one moment, he said that he’s shaken tens of thousands of hands, and kissed hundreds of babies. Then he stopped for a moment and pointed to a baby in the crowd in front of him, saying, “And I’m going to kiss that baby, too. He’s a cutie”. The crowd roared its appreciation, and he chuckled. When he wrapped up his speech, the crowd began to shout, “NO, NO”. Barack just smiled and said, “C’mon guys, it’s late. We need to get some sleep so we can get to work.” Barack was, quite simply, engaging. He passes, I think, the beer buddy factor. I wanted belly up to the bar with him and quaff a brew or two with him.

The difference, though, is I felt I could talk about anything with him at that bar. Sports, religion, politics, faith, problems at the office—you name it. Barack seemed to me more like the close friend you confide in and share your problems with than the buddy you talk sports with while watching the game. Perhaps this explains some of his attraction: his ability, in a short period of time, to develop an attachment with people. Bill Clinton has this—some call it “EQ” or emotional intelligence. Presidential scholar Fred Greenstein has pointed out that EQ is something that is in short supply, but something that is particularly useful for successful leadership. A lack of EQ, on the other hand, can be devastating (witness Nixon).




For those looking for policy details, there were none. But the crowd didn’t seem to care. 3,500 folks turned out in the middle of the week and waited until 10:45 to see Barack. Some probably didn’t get home until after midnight. Yet no one left. The crowd was electric and the cheers for Barack upon his entrance deafening. This crowd didn’t need the details: it had largely made up its mind already. They wanted Barack, and they wanted him now. If the energy in that room translates into volunteering and voting, Barack may very well win Indiana—a state demographically more to Hillary’s favor.

This morning, as I conclude my thoughts on last night’s rally, I think back to Fenno: Did I keep my emotions in check? Could I stop myself from rooting for Barack? And the answer is no. But I rooted for Hillary after her rally, and suspect I would do the same after seeing John McCain. The simple fact of the matter, I am biased, but not in the normal way one might expect. Sure, I have particular policy beliefs and an ideological slant. But as I spend more time observing the political process, I’ve learned that I have another bias, too. I like politicians and I want to see them succeed. It’s too bad that they all can’t win.