Why Democrats Will Win in November 2008

A friend wrote me yesterday, just hours after I had put up a post in support of Jeremiah Wright, to point out that the latest news makes Wright look like a complete idiot, and suggests that Obama may be in trouble.

See this report on the matter from Bloomberg.com.

I agree that it is very sad. It is sad to see a preacher of such obvious gifts and intelligence wind up so confused.

What loses me in the case of Wright is just one item: his support of the conspiracy theory about AIDS. Everything else I regard as pretty understandable either in context or as straightforward analysis.

As for Obama, this is his new mantra vis a vis Wright: "renounce, deflect, distract"

The renunciation began immediately yesterday.

Obama will survive this by publicly denouncing Wright (this is a form of humiliation, but few will care), by pointing to the McCain/Bush ass (a fun game), and by constantly talking about Iraq, health care, and trade (game plan A anyway).

This strategy isn't designed to convince conservatives that Obama and Wright are different men; it doesn't matter what conservatives think. Obama does not need the conservative vote. Anyway, don't underestimate the number of people who will actually hope Wright and Obama secretly do agree (maybe 18% of the population, see below).

"Yes we can!"

Obama wins in November by motivating the progressive and minority voters to get out to the polls. And he wins by being the anti-Iraq candidate. Period. McCain will go down in a spray of Grecian Formula.

Some analysts say Obama can't beat the voter demographics but I look at it differently.

Here are some stats:

A. Census Data (source)

About 74% of Americans are of voting age (209,128,000 people).

37% of Americans are between 20-44, i.e. roughly half of the voters. This group overwhelmingly supports Obama, gaffes and Wright notwithstanding.

I think about 28.4% of Americans are Black, Asian, and Latino, but this group may be slightly smaller. I don't know what percentage of these are voting age. They will support Obama in a true landslide of 80% or more.

B. Party Affiliation and Political Leanings Data (source)

There have always been more Democrats than Republicans in America.

But there aren't enough Democrats or Republicans to decide any contest.

Most recent data (2004 elections): Democrats 34%, Republicans 31%

In other words, unaffiliated voters decide which party takes power.

Self-reported affinities matter too:

Conservatives: 36%

Liberals: 18%

Moderates: 41%

If 36% are conservative, but only 31% are Republicans, while 34% are Democrats yet only 18% are Liberal, what does that tell you?

It tells you that Republicans have to have a "conservative" candidate, because the Republican party is where the conservatives congregate.

But moderates are likely to actually BE Democrats. And that means that the Unaffiliated voters, most of whom are moderates, are more likely to vote Democratic, unless Republicans go moderate, which they don't like to do since they are all "conservative."

This year, Democrats will defeat McCain by calling out his hypocrisy in his tack to the right, and they will put his own mealy mouthed appeals to the Conservative "base" all over the airwaves, and he will hem and haw his way through the debates, hoping not to alienate the "base."

He used to be considered moderate and many of his supporters think is still a moderate. But he has hitched his horse to the conservative platform. His female supporters think that he supports abortion rights; he doesn't. His gay supporters think he supports gay marriage; he doesn't. Etc. These things will come out forcibly in the debates.

Obama or Clinton, it doesn't matter; they speak the moderate line, and will appeal to common sense and to moderates, while Liberals (deluded just as conservatives are deluded about their Republican candidates) vainly imagine that Obama and Clinton are secret lefties.

C. Candidate Preferences (source)

Obama remains ahead of Clinton according to all the polls taken in the last 10 days, he will be the Democratic candidate.

Clinton beats McCain according to all the polls taken in the last 10 days.

Obama beats McCain according to all but one of the polls.

Mind you... the battle has yet to begin.

An average of Polls suggests that 65% of Americans disapprove of Bush. Which candidate is closer to Bush?

70% disapprove of Congress. Which candidate most represents Congress?

Democrats have a whopping 11% lead in questions about which party candidate voters will support in upcoming congressional elections. The congress is going to get markedly more "Democrat."

D. Issues (various sources)

Let me start with a blanket statement: the polling data makes it plain that the Democrats should win the general election. If they don't it will be because of unacknowledged racism, open stupidity, rampant fear, or some other irrational basis.

Here's the breakdown:

1. The Economy: 81% of Americans are unhappy according to the latest NYT/CBS poll. But that means nothing. Which do you favor, more tax cuts and deficit spending? or education, job training, health care, child care, and fair trade policies? 70% of Americans disapprove of Bush's economic policies. 55% of Americans say Democrats are likely to do a better job on the economy (source). Winner: Democrats.
   
2. Health Care: 47 million Americans have no health insurance for various reasons (source). 74% of Americans view this as a very serious issue and 81% report being dissatisfied with their health care (source). 47% of Americans support a Mass. style plan to force ownership of healthcare. (same source). 59% support an even tougher plan which requires public and private cooperation in a forced health insurance plan. 65% support a plan to force Parents to insure their kids. 64% agree with the claim that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to make sure we have health care. These are not libertarian or conservative ideas. As near as I can figure, McCain's health care plan is based on incentives to private individuals to spend more of their own money on health care. It is laughable. McCain is out of touch. Winner: Democrats.
   
3. Environment: 86% of Americans think some action should be taken; 49% say environment is a greater concern than economic growth. (source) Winner: Democrats.
   
4. Energy: everyone is hurting from gas prices; but 61% say conservation is the answer; 29% say production is; 5% say a combined approach. (source) Winner: Democrats.
   
5. Iraq: come on. True, public support has been growing, or had been, as of last month (source). But it's been a cruel April. And by November the Surge/Pause is just going to be described by one word: Snafu. Mark my words! Anyway, here's where Obama crushes Clinton and McCain, in the latest USA Today / Gallup Poll, 63% of Americans agree with the statement that "America made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq" (source) Only Obama can win their hearts on that point. Winner: Democrats (if Obama is their man; otherwise: a draw).
   
6. Abortion: as a litmus test abortion is a thing of the past, yet McCain still panders rightward on it. Why? Americans overwhelmingly favor Abortion rights; even Republicans take a moderate stance on Abortion rights (source). Winner: Democrats.
   
7. Gun Rights: Americans are moderates. 65% say we have the individual right to own weapons (no duh!). But 51% say laws could be tougher. (source) Winner: tie. This is a non starter. It will have no impact on the election.

Ditto for all the other special interest issues: gays, etc.

I've made my point! Wright is a distraction. Nobody really cares about this, except that it makes for really good news. When you step in the voting booth, you're not thinking: "I am voting for or against a man who hangs out with Jeremiah Wright." If Republicans think they can win the election by tying Obama to Wright, they are in for a bit of a surprise.

Jeremiah Wright and the Roosting Chickens

As some of my readers may or may not know , back in my Chicago seminary days I saw Jeremiah Wright preach, and I studied his preaching as exemplary.

Wright was a well-respected figure in Chicago church circles until the recent flap over his anti-American preaching got Barak Obama in trouble.

I support Wright's right to dissent — or to "describe" as he would put it — and to speak with a prophetic voice about race and inequality in America.

No American patriot, and I count myself as one, likes to hear a preacher screaming "god damn America!" But also, when a respected leader begins to scream, before we call out the paddy wagons, we need to listen, and consider the overall context.

In the case of the "god damn America" sermon you must consider the historical context of the speech. Wright was responding to the brutal economic inequality and discrimination in American society, and to well documented racial disparities in policing, prosecutions, and incarcerations — both of these situations hit the south side of Chicago (which is probably 80-90% black) especially hard.

In the case of the "chickens come home to roost" speech, the context is "literary," in that, although conservative radio loves to play the clip over and over, it actually the case that Wright was quoting a former Ambassador of the US to Iraq, Edward Peck, who said these words in an interview on Fox News Network!!!

Here's someone else's blog, with the details:

Jeremiah Wright Quotes Ambassador Peck in his Post 9/11 Sermon

Or try the Huffington Post:

Meet the White Man Who Inspired Wright's Controversial Sermon