Uncertainty among the states

This morning's New York Times has a front page article discussing how the Palin nomination has shaken up the likely results in a number of states. Well, maybe. And then again, maybe not.

The truth is that the choice between Obama and McCain is not that different from the choice in 2004 between Bush and Kerry. On the one side we have a very liberal senator with fairly standard Democratic liberal positions. On the other side, we have a somewhat conservative Republican who has varied from conservative orthodoxy in a number of instances. Obviously, this is a broad brush comparison and there are particular differences between Kerry and Obama and many more differences between Bush and McCain. Still the overarching comparison is valid.

Voters who view national security questions as requiring a strong push against the terrorists will still gravitate to the Republican. Those who want to withdraw the use of American force from the world will still gravitate to the Democrat. Voters who favor wealth redistribution with higher taxes on the wealthy will favor the Democrat, while those seeking increased growth through lower taxes will go with the Republicans. Obviously, for those who view abortion as the most important issue, the choices are obvious.

There are many voters who hold particular views which fall rather uniformly into the issue basket of one party or the other. They are going to continue to vote for their favored party with no changes from 2004. The real question this time is how will the voters with conflicting positions make their choice. Those voters who favor the Republican view of national security but the Democrats view of the economy will need to choose on the basis of what they consider the more important issue. And it is these voters who will decide the outcome.

As an overlay on this stratification by issues, there is also the deciding factor of the candidate himself. the voters need to feel comfortable with the candidate and view him a someone who will able to handle the difficult position of President. Much of the McCain campaign has been focused (like the Clinton campaign was) on the issue of Obama's readiness for the presidency. Obama has done the same thing in reverse. His campaign tries to tarnish the McCain credentials by making him into a Bush clone. Thus far, McCain's efforts in this field seem to have been much more successful than those of Obama.

Putting all of this together, it seems unlikely that the Palin selection will really change the list of states that are in play in any substantial way. The true determinant will be which issues come to the forefront as we approach the election. If something happens which makes national security the focus of attention, McCain will likely win. If the economic news gets worse and pushes that issue further to the front, Obama will be more likely to succeed.

Obviously, there may be extraneous events that trumph all of these factors. A scandal involving the nominee, a major flub at the debate which swings the question of suitability for the presidency far to one side, or the like could easily swing this close election one way or the other. In truth, however, extraneous events seem most likely to be in control of the outcome here. Will Russia invade another country? Will there be some economic disaster? Will oil spike back above $140 per barrel? These are determinants of the outcome. Assuming no major disasters in the vice presidential campaign, these candidates are not determinative of the outcome.

One last note: Our enemies understand this. Both Al Qeada and Iran know that events between now and the election could be responsible for determining who wins. Al Qeada historically acts as if a terrorist attack will strengthen the hand of thos who want to retreat. Just before the last election in Spain, Al Qeada unleashed its bombers on the train system in Madrid, and the election results two days later swung strongly against the incumbent prime minister who had supported the worldwide efforts against the terrorists. With this as their experience, Al Qeada may assume that an attack against the US would cement the election of Obama and act accordingly. Similarly, we may see increased activity by Iran and its surrogates or total quiet on this front depending on the result that the mullahs in Teheran wish to achieve. One thing is certain: we best be on our guard.