Marin Forum

This morning the House of Representatives rejected the $700 billion bailout plan by a 228 to 205 vote. Last night leaders from both parties on Capital Hill believed they had enough votes to pass the bill after intense negotiations and deal making over the weekend. When the bill came to a vote it was rejected and the DOW dropped 700 points. As of 4:24 eastern time the DOW was down -777.68 which makes it the single largest drop in history.

The final breakdown of the vote was Democrats: 140 yes, 95 no; Republicans: 65 yes, 133 no, 1 didn’t vote.

On both sides there was failed leadership. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leaders especially the Whips should have been able to convince some of those 95 Representatives to vote in favor. Yet the results of the vote are more indicative of a failed Bush Administration that has lost all clout. This was the Bush Administration’s plan and his party rejected it. Any competent president should have been able to pull his party together on such an important issue. But ultimately those in charge of gathering support for a bill are the House leaders and they failed. Furthermore, the Republican leadership somehow lost twelve crucial votes between yesterday and today when the vote was taken.

Yet it is more than failed leadership but a lack of understanding of the economy. Many members of the House probably had no idea that there would be dire effects if the bailout failed. Leadership cannot compete with ignorance and those who are concerned with their own hides (re-election).

It is uglier, it is going to get uglier, and at the moment everyone is playing the blame game.

This Friday started off the first presidential debate of the 2008 campaign. After the 90 minute debate it seemed that neither candidate had a decisive victory . Barack Obama started off strong, but John McCain was able to fight back once the debate switched to foreign policy. Throughout the night McCain could be characterized as condescending while Obama was rather defensive, and the debate as a whole showed two candidates with fundamental differences especially in Iraq and foreign policy.

The debate started in Obama’s favor with the focus on the financial bailout but neither candidate wanted to address the issue completely. McCain probably just didn’t want to talk about it as its a weakness in his campaign, while Obama was probably content with waiting till the upcoming economic and domestic policy debate. After all this was SUPPOSED to be the foreign policy debate. However, Obama could have seriously weakened McCain if he had taken the opportunity to show that he really is the stronger candidate for the economy. The only real low point for Obama during this part of the debate was when Obama said that cuts would have to be made in response to the current economic crisis but then he could not specifically point to certain programs and instead he said how he would expand programs such as research into alternative energy and education. Meanwhile, McCain failed to make any real connection to working class America which is hard to do when he supports tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

Once the debate shifted to foreign policy Obama quickly found himself on the defensive. Numerous times McCain called Obama naive and dangerous. In fact McCain seemed at times to be lecturing Obama on how to conduct foreign policy. Obama tried to interject objections and clarifications but McCain would continue with his lecture. McCain quickly found himself in command of the debate and it became obvious when McCain began to make fun of Obama’s negotiation stance. That was probably the ugliest moment of the night. It was interesting that McCain kept refering to victory in the context of Iraq. Yes, the situation in Iraq has improved but its a far way from victory. There were many opportunities where Obama could have taken the fight back to McCain but he chose to let those moments pass by which was a significant mistake.

While McCain may have had the upperhand in the foreign policy debate there were many things he said that are very questionable. First, his proposed League of Democracies seems more like a Cold War organization to confront countries such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. Such a league would be dominated by the United States and Europe (which McCain wants), would further polarize relations with Russia, and would undermine the United Nations. Furthermore, authoritarian regimes such as China can prove to be beneficial and helpful in achieving our goals. For example China doesn’t want to see Iran became a nuclear power. Second (and a minor note) McCain mentioned that Pakistan was a failed state before Musharraf became president. McCain clearly does not understand the definition of a failed state since Pakistan has never been a failed state and there are very few actual failed states in the world (Somalia is a good example of a failed state).

In the end of the day, the debate was neither a success nor a failure for either candidate. McCain came across as nasty which may hurt him especially if some of his claims turn out to be false, while Obama was very reserved and found himself backed into a corner. The debate did nothing to help Obama show his foreign policy credibility, but then he even admitted that Joe Biden was the foreign policy guy on the ticket. Going into the debate Obama had a significant lead in the polls, but he was unable to further distance himself from McCain after the debate. At this point a tie for McCain is a win.  It was a very serious debate and John McCain kept his campaign alive.

Governor Sarah Palin’s comments last week during her interview with ABC once again highlight the issue of global terrorism in the context of Iraq. Palin like many neoconservatives believe the war in Iraq is vital in the fight against global terrorism. According to them a loss in Iraq will be a victory for extremism around the world and Iraq would become a haven for terrorists. But what is global terrorism?

The common mistake is to think of global terrorism as one single entity. Yet, most terrorist groups are local or regional. The FARC in Colombia is concerned with Colombian domestic issues, the IRA in Ireland was concerned with Ireland’s independence, and Al Qaeda in Iraq wants to see the United States out of Iraq among other things. How can these various groups with vastly different aims be considered one entity? And yet the United States lists them as terrorist organizations and thus targets in the global War on Terror.

That being said terrorist organizations can be and are global. The internet and cell phones allow terrorist cells to communicate amongst each other and share ideas and spread their message to every nook and cranny in the world. Now it is possible for an American or British youth to travel to Afghanistan, train in a terrorist camp there, and then carry out an attack in Africa. In that sense terrorist organizations are global. The thing that makes terrorism “global” is that a terrorist group can hide practically anywhere in the world and then strike somewhere on the opposite side of the Earth.

Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda is the perfect example. During the 1990s Bin Laden began to coordinate several attacks on U.S. interests (whether it be on the home front or its foreign presence). He gathered mainly Saudi men to train in his camps in Taliban controlled Afghanistan while at the same time he had cells in Indonesia and the United States. He targeted the World Trade Centers twice, U.S. embassies in Africa, and a U.S. naval ship in the Middle East. However, groups like Al Qaeda are rare.

Instead most terrorist groups have more concrete goals when compared to Al Qaeda grandiose schemes for the creation of a Islamic caliphate. Since their goals are more concrete, they also tend to be more local. These groups still carry out attacks beyond their local area in order to gain attention in the international spot-light (hijacking commercial airliners for example), but in the end of the day once their localized goals are achieved they will go home happy. The best example is Iraq; many of the terrorist groups operating in Iraq mainly want to see the United States out of Iraq or in some cases out of the Middle East.

When people think of terrorism they think of Islamic extremism and more specifically Bin Laden’s brand of terrorism (extremely violent attacks by a shadowy, hierarchical organization that wants to spread its ideology around the world). People fail to realize that terrorism takes many other forms and often terrorist groups have very specific reasons for committing terrorism. The Bin Laden archetype is rare as there are few examples of a group of people headquartered in a region coordinating attacks on specific targets around the world.

There is no single “terrorist entity” that is controlling terrorist acts around the world. Thus the War on Terror is flawed. Targeting Iraqi terrorist groups will not diminish the FARC, nor will it eliminate terrorism. Terrorism is a local issue and thus it most be combated on a local level. In this sense global terrorism does not exist.

Terrorism is global but that is because today’s system of globalization made it that way. In fact terrorism thrives on globalization since it allows groups to attract members and resources from a global pool. It also means that through the internet and cell phones groups can remain relatively decentralized. To sum up: terrorism is global since terrorists can send their message to anywhere in the world, but there is no such thing as a global terrorist body that can be targeted by a global military campaign.

Ultimately all terrorism is local.

Yesterday in an interview with ABC’s Charles Gibbson, Governor Sarah Palin linked Iraq to the terrorist attacks on September 11th. She said that a brigade of soldiers including her son would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.” In 2003 many in the Bush administration strongly believed that there was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11, but as evidence contradicted those beliefs even President Bush rejected the link. A more correct statement that fits the Republican and pro-war lines would be that the troops are going to Iraq to combat global terrorism and prevent future attacks.

Palin’s statement is naive of the complexities of terrorist organizations and how they operate. It is quite possible that Palin recognizes that Al Qaeda was not operating in Iraq when we invaded in 2003; instead maybe she believes that Al Qaeda is our mortal enemy and thus we must face them wherever they appear to avenge the atrocities that they committed on September 11th, 2001.

The obvious flaw with this argument is that the Al Qaeda operating in Iraq is not the same Al Qaeda that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda is far less global than most people believe. Yes, cell phones and the internet allow terrorist cells to link up with each other and coordinate attacks or transfer funds, but it is highly unlikely that there is a strong top-down leadership (headed by Bin Laden) coordinating all of Al Qaeda’s cells. True, maybe some of the leaders of the various Al Qaeda groups trained in Afghanistan under Bin Laden, but the day to day activities of these splinter groups are controlled by the local leaders. Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq, but Bin Laden is not dictating how the group operates, nor is he planning each roadside bomb. Al Qaeda in Iraq may ultimately be getting guidance from Bin Laden but it is basically a completely separate group that shares the same name and ideology (although goals are far more localized that Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda goals). The important thing to remember is that the actions of Al Qaeda in Iraq may be looked on with approval by Bin Laden, but ultimately Al Qaeda in Iraq is acting as an independent body.

While Palin’s comment may be naive, it most likely was not a slip on her part. Republicans have long used the tactic of using September 11th and the threat of terrorism to bolster their party. In order to get people to support “their” (although Democrats are equally to be blamed for the war) they have tried to find ways to link Iraq with 9/11. The current belief is that if Iraq falls to extremism then it will become a bastion of terrorism much like Afghanistan was in the 1990s. While the ultimate outcome of the fighting between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq will have an effect on international security and U.S. interests, most people struggle to comprehend the fighting between the groups and how it effects U.S. domestic interests (even McCain has gotten the two mixed up). It is much easier to convince people to support the war by saying “Al Qaeda killed thousands of Americans. Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq.” Both statements are factually correct, but the situation is far more complex. But the American public does not understand the complexities; thus, they see the war in Iraq as an important part of the War on Terror.

Since McCain and Palin are supportive of the war in Iraq, they need to find ways to maintain support for the war. Palin’s comment is an example of such an attempt to prevent further erosion of support for the war.

The white, rural, working class vote will be vital in the upcoming presidential election in November. Both candidates are struggling to tap into this important constituency. They view Obama as too intellectual and elitist. Meanwhile, McCain is burdened with blundering Republican leadership, an unpopular war, and a poor economy. Whoever connects with this group will win the election.

In order to try to look at the impact of the working class vote I conducted a study of every individual state. I looked at their median household income and political trends including how the state voted in the last four presidential elections, which party controls the governorship, how many senators and representatives each party has from the state, and how many seats the Democrats gained in the House of Representatives per state in 2006. Income data was obtained from the 2000 census.

The Methods

The term “working class” is very ambiguous and has many different meanings in different settings. I decided to treat working class and lower middle class as any household earning below the national median household income. In order to find the states where the working class vote may be important, I excluded any state whose median household income was above the national median income. At this point I looked at the political trends because some states are solidly Republican or Democratic thus the working class vote will have little impact. Any state that voted for the Democrats or the Republicans in all four of the last elections was excluded. Also any state where one party controlled the governorship, held the majority of Congressional seats, and voted for one party in a majority of the last four presidential elections was excluded. The remaining states I believe will be important for the working class vote, although some will be hard for Obama to win.

The Results

In 1999 the national median household income was $41,994. States with median household incomes below the national median include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

After the strong Democratic or Republican states were excluded the remaining states (thus the battleground states) included: Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

As a side note all the states that were excluded for having high median household incomes are strongly associated with one party or the other. Exceptions to this include Nevada and Colorado. Also of those excluded states the vast majority are the Democratic strongholds in New England and the West Coast. Exceptions include Alaska, Utah, and Virginia.

Analysis

Nearly every state that I identified as a battleground state for the upcoming 2008 election voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 (Montana only voted for Clinton in 1992 and Arizona only in 1996). Interesting all those states voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and most for Bush in 2000. This means as of today the battle for the working class vote will only play a factor in the so-called red states (the states that John Kerry failed to win). Furthermore, this means that the working class vote is more important to John McCain. McCain needs to hold the states that Bush won, while Obama only needs to win one or two (maybe three) more states than Kerry in 2004 (and those wins don’t have to rely on the working class vote).

It doesn’t seem likely that McCain will be able to turn any blue states into red states since the remaining blue states are strongly Democratic. People point to Michigan and Pennyslvania as battleground states, but the histories of those two states are strongly Democratic. Perhaps McCain can win Minnesota where there is a Republican governor, but otherwise the remaining states are what can be considered as bastions of the Democratic Party. However, this does mean that if Obama loses any blue states then his bid for the presidency is done for unless he can pick up other red states (unlikely if he’s losing blue states).

So now we turn to states where Obama could potentially put up a fight by winning the working class vote. First off if McCain was not running in this election Arizona might well have been a battleground state as the conditions are right, but due to McCain being the Republican candidate, Arizona really should be removed from the list of battleground states.

I am going to lump Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, and Tennessee together. All these states voted for Clinton and many have Democratic governors and in the case of Arkansas, two Democratic Senators. That being said, polling results show Obama struggling in states such as Kentucky and Tennessee. But if Obama picks up one of those states, then he should pick up a few more of them; they are going to be acting like a bloc.

The next two states to look at are Iowa and New Mexico. Up until the 2004 elections both states voted for the Democratic Party. They have Democratic governors and are about even with Republicans in the proportion of representatives in Congress. Historical and current political trends seem to be on Obama’s side (once again I do not having the polling information for these states). In the case of New Mexico other factors will be important such as the Hispanic vote. These states would need to be paired with other states to achieve an Obama victory.

West Virginia is an interesting case. By itself if will not win any candidate an election but it is THE state most associated with white, rural working class America. It voted for Bill Clinton in both elections, it currently has a Democratic governor, both Senators are Democrats, and two of the three Representatives are Democrats. The winner of West Virginia should be indicative of who won the working class vote. However, Obama ran poorly in West Virginia during the primaries, so for him a loss in West Virginia might not signify that he lost the working class vote.

Ohio will probably be the most crucial state in the election. In 2004 if Kerry had won Ohio then he would have won the election. Likewise in 2008 if the results are similar than Ohio will be the deciding state since its twenty electoral college votes can single handily win the race. Ohio has gone Republican the last two presidential elections but its governor and one of its Senators are Democrats. Republicans control the majority of Ohio’s seats in the House of Representatives. Whoever wins Ohio should win the election unless Obama is able to string together victories along the Mississippi River. The working class vote will be vital in this state and it is set to be a close race come November.

Words of Caution

This study is only a small look at the 2008 Presidential race. Other factors beyond economic status will be important. I did not look at which party controls the state legislatures which is a stronger indicator of how the state will vote in the presidental election than looking at seats in Congress. Also I did not look at current polling information or the primary results. While I may have pointed out states that on paper should be important for the working class vote and therefore a close race, polling results may show that the race in that selected state is not close. This analysis is completely independent of the current candidates as I only looked at data up to the 2006 Congressional elections. Thus, my results could be applied to any Democratic candidate x and Republican candidate y. Once again this study was mainly a look at where the working class vote will play a factor in deciding the election.

In Conclusion

The two most important states in the 2008 Presidential election will be Ohio and West Virginia. The results from West Virginia should come in early during election night so we should have a good idea how the candidates did with the working class vote. If Obama wins West Virginia then he should be the next President of the United States. If he loses then there are two outcomes besides a complete loss. One, West Virginia was a fluke and he picks up working class votes in other states. Two, the electoral map will look very similar to the 2004 map with Ohio being the deciding state. Perhaps Obama will do well among Ohio working class voters, or the simple fact that he is a stronger candidate than John Kerry should give him the edge. If Obama wins the working class vote then the electoral map will be similar to Clinton’s victories in 1992 and 1996; if McCain wins then it should be identical to 2000 and 2004.

West Virginia and Ohio will be the key states this election. West Virginia because of its predictive nature on America’s working class and Ohio because it alone can decide the election as it did in 2004.

******

Here’s the data in a viewer friendly format:election-statistics

Wednesday marked the first day of “important” speeches at the Republican nominating convention. Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Rudi Giuliani gave speeches, although the main focus of the night was on Sarah Palin. The night featured a couple of themes: “drill, baby drill,” liberal elitiest New England media, Obama the flip-flopper, and Obama the inexperienced young man. So a brief wrap up of the speeches.

Mitt Romney

He made a rather boring speech. It didn’t really invigorate the audience although it touched upon all the key components of the Republican platform. He made sure to point out the bias of the liberal elitist media centered in New England. Has also painted the Democrats as elitist who are out of touch with the average American (a theme of the night). It seems weird to here those words coming from the wealthy former governor of Massachusetts. All in all though, a decent speech.

Mike Huckabee

With his speech he began to invigorate the crowd. He used his humor to expand upon some of the points brought up by Romney. He continued to complain about the liberal elitist media and he reached out to the rural middle and lower class. It was interesting that he mentioned FDR as a hero. Palin made a similar comment about Truman championing the cause of rural America. Republicans are looking to Democrats as examples of champions of the middle and lower classes. Anyways, Huckabee began to fire up the crowd and started the attack on Obama. At the same time, like all the other speakers, he pointed out McCain’s history and experience.

Rudi Giuliani

The angry and bitter Giuliani completely fired up the convention hall. Giuliani is the type of guy who is unsuitable for national public office because of these types of speeches, but the guy who you want to bring to a fight. He completely unleashed everything on Obama and extolled John McCain. “Drill, baby drill” was especially popular among the crowd. While his speech certainly fired up the base, it is questionable whether it was effective among people outside the base.  Comments such as Democrats will “increase terrorists” make no logical sense and lack any factual backing. Speeches like Giuliani’s fire up supporters but are easily dismissed by the other side. However, his speech did what it was intended to do.

Sarah Palin

The big speech of the night started off slow. Very little of the beginning was memorable or substantive. Comments such as how with her in office working class America will have a “friend in the White House” are empty and completely unrealistic. However, once she got into the middle of her speech she accomplished the two tasks set before her. First, she highlighted her accomplishments (reform, reduction in spending, and selling the governor’s personel plane on eBay) and then she attacked Obama. Interestingly, she never once mentioned Obama’s name; instead she referred to him as “our opponent.” By the end she was pretty brutal and even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did not escape critisim. I ask: who cares about Senator Reid? Most Americans probably don’t even know who is Harry Reid. There was absolutely no substance in her speech; it was all attack and defending her family and “experience.” Like Giuliani’s speech, Palin accomplished her goals. She strongly projected herself on the national stage.

*****

To sum things up. Regardless of what happens in this election Palin will be a rising star in the Republican party (assuming she doesn’t do something to discredit herself). The Republicans are not backing off the experience issue. In fact they are using Palin’s meager experience as governor and mayor as important executive experience. The Democrats need to attack this logic before Republicans regain control of the experience issue. Drilling could be a thorn in the side for the Democrats. The chanting of “Drill, baby drill” is not good for the anti-drilling Democrats. Democrats just need to limp along on the drilling issue for two more months and then they can take the hardline stance against drilling that they want to take. The Republicans are distorting the facts about Obama (his tax policy for example), and the Obama camp needs to quickly respond to those distortions. Finally, Republicans need to stop whining about the “liberal, elitist media.” Of course it is simply an attempt to woo working class America.

And that is this election’s key constituency: white, working class, rural America.