1

Five Myths about the 2008 Elections in the United States Eric M. Uslaner Professor of Government and Politics, University of MarylandCollege Park College Park, MD 20742 USA

A year ago people I spoke with all over the world were convinced that the 2008 elections in the United States would be a referendum on the war in Iraq and that the American people would rise up and replace the Republican administration with one led by Senator Hillary Clinton (D, NY). Most Americans agreed with these predictions. Now people throughout the world still expect the 2008 elections to be a vote of no confidence on Americas Iraq policy and they still expect Clinton to be the next President. The American public is no longer preoccupied by Iraq and Clinton seems very unlikely to be back in the White House. People outside the United States often view the 2008 elections through assumptions that may no longer hold (if they ever did) about American politics. I thus call these assumptions myths and here I detail five of them that might lead people to expect very different outcomes than may occur in November, 2008. The foreign perspective on American elections focuses rather naturally on foreign policy. The preoccupation of people throughout the world with American policy in Iraq is not as widely shared within the United States (myth 1). Foreigners look back with with nostalgia to the Presidency of Bill Clinton, who was more concerned with working toward an international consensus than was his successor, George W. Bush. If Americans no longer support the war in Iraq, they must be ready to restore the Democrats to power in the White House as they did in Congress in 2006 (myth 2). This clearly involves restoring Clinton (through his spouse) to the

White House (myth 3), since Americans would never elect an African-American as President (myth 4). The election of a Democratic President would mark a sharp turn in American foreign policy and toward a greater integration of American policy with those of its allies (myth 5). The 2008 elections so far have been a series of surprises. Clintons nomination once seemed inevitable. Relatively few people had even heard of Illinois Senator Barack Obama, the relatively young (46 years old) son of a white mother and a black father. Obama first gained recognition at the 2004 Democratic convention with a stirring speech about uniting the left and the right, blacks and whites. Today, Clintons nomination is highly unlikely and even some toplevel aides estimate the probability that she will be nominated at no more than 10 percent, according to a report in the widely respected www.politico.com. A year ago most observers thought that John McCains campaign for the Republican nomination was all but dead. McCain had run out of money and was carrying his own suitcases and staying at budget hotels amidst reports that he would soon drop out of the Republican race. The odds-on favorite was former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. As surprising as the fall of Clinton and the rise of Obama and McCain is the fading of the Iraq war as the key issue in the campaign. Both Obama and McCain rose to prominence on the basis of the warObama as a critic and McCain as the strongest supporter in the Republican partys race. In early 2007 President Bush announced a surge of 30,000 extra troops for a limited period of time to quell the violence and stabilize the situtation in Iraq. By the end of the year, the level of violence had subsided, as had the number of casualtiesboth Iraqi and American. In a survey by the Pew Center for the People and the Press in February 48% said that things in Iraq are going well (48% said that they are going badly)--up from 34-38% in the spring and summer, 2007. 47% said that the US should keep troops in Iraq until the situation has

stabilized and 49% say that the U.S. is making progress in establishing a democracy in Iraq (up from 39% last spring/summer). The public is torn over Iraq: 47 percent say that they trust the Democrats (and only 37% the Republicans) to make wise decisions on Iraq and in another poll (Washington Post/ABC News) around the same time, more Americans trusted McCain than Obama (by 48% to 43%) to handle Iraq. There is no consensus on what to do on Iraqeven Democrats Obama and Clinton say that the United States cannot quit immediatelyand the military situation looks more promising than it did in 2006, when concern over the war led the public to give control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats. The public thinks that it was a mistake to invade Iraq, but that it would also be a mistake for the United States to withdraw precipitously, especially as the surge seems to be working. McCains sratement that American troops would remain in Iraq for 100 years did not create the political storm that many observers expected. The war has been overtaken by the sagging economy as the leading issue of 2008 and this is bad news for the Republicans: The Pew survey shows that the public prefers the Democrats to the Republicans on the economy by 53% to 34% and consumer confidence is at its lowest point in more than a decade. Bushs popularity remains lowaround a third of Americans approve of his performance. The war is still unpopular. Add to this a troubled economy, the belief that the country is heading in the wrong direction (three quarters with a clear opinion in a recent poll), and an increasing Democratic lead in party identification (from 14 to 20 percent). Insert these factors into the statistical models developed by political scientists and economists for predicting elections and you get an expected Democratic landslide. However, the Democrats are strongly divided between Clinton and Obama. Public

opinion polls show that about half of Democrats nationally favor Clinton while half prefer Obama, with the leader shifting from day to day (and within the margin of error of the surveys). However, the commanding lead that Obama has established in delegates and vote shares means that he will be the likely nominee. Clinton has charged that Obama lacks experience, especially in foreign affairs. In the Texas primary, she ran a very effective advertisment asking voters whom they wanted to answer the red phone in the White House at 3.a.m. as an international crisis brews. In turn, Obamas supporters have argued that these charges are racially movitated and that Clinton has exaggerated her own experience. Obamas candidacy has been driven by record turnouts of African-Americans and especially of young people, both white and black, who had not been active in politics before. Obama has won more primaries and caucuses than has Clinton28 states to 14, with 49 percent of the vote to 47.5 percent and a 700,000 vote margin. Clinton claims that she has won the big states California, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and likely Pennsylvaniaand these states are critical to a Democratic win in the fall. Yet, she badly trails in delegates to the convention and the only way that she can get the nomination now is to convince the superdelegates (elected officials and party leaders) to overturn the decision of the voters and select her as the nominee. Several key leaders in the partyincluding New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, himself a former candidate for President, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosihave said that such a move would tear the party apart. As many as 20% of Obamas supporters might switch to McCain if he loses the nomination because of superdelegates. The nomination race has become increasingly nasty, with charges and countercharges between the candidates. Clinton has had to apologize for racially insensitive remarks by her husband and by Geraldine Ferraro, the 1984 Vice Presidential nominee who is a prominent

supporter. Clinton also has argued that Obama is trying to disenfranchise voters in Florida and Michigan. These two states held primaries too early in the primary season and the Democratic National Committee refused to recognize the results. Clinton won both primaries because she disobeyed party rules and campaigned in both states while Obama did not (his name was not even on the ballot in Michigan). The two states could not agree on new primaries and Clinton will not be able to gain delegates from these states. Obama has become embroiled in his own controversy, since the pastor of his church in Chicago has made inflammatory statements about the United States, its role in the world, and about Hillary Clinton. Obama disavowed these comments but refused to quit the church. Many voters saw his positions on the pastor to contradict his role as a post-racial candidate, yet it is unclear that the voters most upset with the Senator would have supported him in any event. Many observers are convinced that Clinton cannot win the nomination and that Obama is certain to be the Democratic nominee (violating myths 3 and 4). People who are willing to put money on the line agree: The website intrade (www.intrade.com) gives people the opportunity to wager on a wide variety of economic and political events (including elections in Italy, India, Canada, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and Germany). The market as of March 23 gave Obama an 80 percent likelihood of winning the Democratic nominationa slight increase in the past few weeks. The in-fighting between the two nominees will favor McCain, who already is running even withor even ahead of--both Democrats in several national polls (myth 2, that Democrats are secure in their quest for the White House). This is surprising since Republicans have embraced McCain reluctantly. McCain is disliked by many Republican conservatives. He fought a bitter battle with Bush for the

Republican nomination in 2000. He worked with Democrats on campaign finance reform and immigration. He voted against Bush's tax cuts early in the Presidents first term. Many conservatives call him a RINO (Republican in Name Only)especially since he briefly discussed accepting the Vice Presidential nomination of the Democratic Party in 2004 (he was close to John Kerry). McCains temper is legendary and he is just as likely to take it out on his own colleagues-- for asking for too many benefits for their statesas he is to attack Democrats. He has few friends in the Senate from either party. He won the Republican nomination largely because all of the other candidatesespecially Giulianiwere even less acceptable to the party base. Giuliani was too liberal on social issues for many Republicansand he had a very controversial personal life. Former Massachuetts Governor Mitt Romney at first seemed like a strong candidate, but his adoption of conservative social positions seemed at odds with his earlier very liberal stands while serving as Governor of the most liberal state in the country. McCain didnt have the widest support. He had the fewest enemies. While many Republicans are divided over their nominee, Democrats are far more badly divided. Almost every conceivable sign points to a Democratic victory in the fall. Perhaps ironically, even if the Democrats lose the White House, they will likely pick up 3-4 Senate seats and 15-20 House seats, mostly where Republican incumbents are retiring. Many Democrats believe that a strong Presidential candidate could help the party to win even more seats, especially in the Senate. People willing to place bets still expect the Democrats to win the 2008 election: The Intrade likelihood on March 23 was 58.5 percent. But it is a long way from March to November and polls in the spring have a very mixed record of success in predicting the fall outcome. There are too many factors that remain unresolved. First, will the economy be better or worse in

November? Some economists predict a quick recovery, others a long recession, and still others a recovery for the stock market but not for the average citizen. Electoral history suggests that a sagging economy brings bad news for the party in powerand if the economy is hurting badly, the incumbent party will be punished severely. Second, some observers are concerned that Americans may tell pollsters that they would vote for an African-American, but would refrain from doing so in the privacy of the voting booth. Obama has been able to attract white voters in many states (especially Iowa, Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin, among other states), but not in others (many Southern states as well as Ohio). Third, will voters in Michigan and Florida really turn away from the Democratic party because their primaries were not recognized? Fourth, will Hillary Clinton embrace Barack Obama as the nominee enthusiastically or will she give him a pro forma endorsement as Senator Edward M. Kennedy gave to President Jimmy Carter following their duel for the Democratic nomination in 1980? Each of these factors will shape the outcome of the election and no one knows the answer to any of them now. As television commentators say, the election is now too close to call. Ironically, for the international community, the elections in the United States may not make as much of a difference as they might expect (myth 5). There are clear differences between McCain, on the one hand, and both Obama and Clinton, on the other, on Iraq. Yet, McCain will face a Democratic Congress that will press for a more restricted role for American troops and both Obama and Clinton agree that it will take at least 16 months to withdraw American troops from Iraq. Obama and Clinton have pledged closer cooperation with other nationsbut so has McCain. All three candidates pledge their support for a more engaged role for the United States on global warming and each promises strong support for Israel. No

candidate has been specific on how to handle Iran. As millions of people throughout the world are enthralled by the 2008 elections in the United Statesclearly the most interesting in my lifetimewho wins will matter far more for domestic economic policy and nominations to the Supreme Court than it will for American foreign policy. Eric M. Uslaner is Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland College Park. He is the author or editor of 12 books and over 100 articles. He is widely quoted in the press and lectures throughout the world on American elections, the U.S. Congress, and corruption.