Okay, I admit it: Part of my indifference to tonight’s debate stems from the fact that I voted yesterday. Ohio, like twenty-nine other states, allows for early voting. It began here on October 6. I like voting early. No line. Walk up, show your identification, fill out two forms, vote, and walk home. So, in a way, for me the election campaign ended yesterday afternoon.
But there’s another reason I was indifferent to this evening’s debate. The fact is, this thing is over.
Back in 1972, Jack Newfield and Jeff Greenfield, two former aides to Robert Kennedy, wrote a whistling-in-the-dark tome called The Populist Manifesto. They looked at a Democratic Party torn asunder by civil rights and the war in Vietnam, two issues that destroyed the old coalition of working class whites and the nation’s African-Americans, and argued that people didn’t have to like each other to vote as a bloc. Economic self-interest, they said, should trump race to bring election to populist Democrats. If those groups came together, they argued, the Democratic Party would be unbeatable.
Barack Obama is not a populist. But thirty-six years after Greenfield and Newfield tried to revivify the traditional Democratic coalition, major voter fears about the economy under a Republican president are doing the job. Working class whites appear to be joining antiwar activists, African-Americans, Hispanics, and, in overwhelming numbers, women, in supporting Obama.
Exit polling among early voters indicate that Obama is winning big. With today’s grim reports on major economic indicators and the third quarter statements about to go to those who hold 401Ks and 403Bs, Obama’s victory margin is only going to grow. Although the financial crisis is nowhere nearly as severe as the economic calamity that confronted the country in 1932, Obama is likely to roll up a Rooseveltian Democratic victory this year.
So, tonight’s debate was anticlimactic, bordering on the unnecessary. Naturally enough, being a political junkie, I watched it.
Going into the debate, you knew that unless Obama committed a major misstep, there was no way he was going to “lose” this debate. He didn’t commit a major misstep.
Neither candidate covered any new ground tonight, something they both desperately needed to do. The two of them continue blithely mouthing their talking points, telling us about their respective spending and taxation priorities, each apparently unaware that, as a result of the recent economic rescue package, when they take office on January 20, they will have an additional $750-billion bill to pay. The bailout plan, like the war in Iraq, is apt to soak up any hint of discretionary revenue in a federal budget already awash in oceans of red ink.
The best line of the night, I thought, was McCain’s insistence that he was not President Bush and if Senator Obama wanted to run against the President, he should have done so four years ago. The problem, of course, is that McCain has spent so much of the past four-plus years ingratiating himself to the supporters of President Bush, it becomes difficult for him now to separate himself effectively from the President. John McCain was the only member of this year’s Republican field who had the ability to outperform the Republican brand and redefine the Republican identity in 2008, possibly winning in an election year even when all the conditions pointed to a Democratic victory, but an unknown entity, Obama, was his party’s nominee. Nobody seriously believes that John McCain would be the same sort of president as George W. Bush. But in a year of economic uncertainty and weariness with war, McCain’s shifts toward President Bush’s positions on a number of issues give plausibility to Obama’s claim that a vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of Bush.
[My personal blog is here.]