From July 2007 to the Election: What Happened?

The aftermath of any major contest involves a dissection of the turning points leading to the final result. This is particularly true for the recently concluded 2008 election. There is no lack of such viewpoints. Probably there is no one decisive dissection. Rather, each dissection is like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle. Carefully placing each piece will eventually reveal a pattern that allows you to make sense of the whole.

This writing will offer one of three pieces to the pattern puzzle, with the other two pieces to follow. This first piece involves a USA Today/Gallup Poll taken in July 2007 and insights provided by the Bipartisan Panel at Oklahoma University in January 2008.

The Poll revealed (remember this was taken before the front runners in the Presidential race had begun to emerge) 43% of all Americans were so disgusted by both Democrats and Republicans nationally they called themselves Independents. This trend was reinforced by actual pre-election voter registration. For example, Nebraska’s 2d Congressional District Independent voter registrations grew 7.57% (as of Oct 8, 2008) from 2004 to 2008.

Here is one interpretation of what those numbers mean. First, the numbers say a significant national block of voters exists who are only 8 percentage points short of being a majority in and of themselves. Second, (given America’s national elections seem to split right down the middle) the existence of this large block in the center rejecting affiliation with both major parties means the balance of the voting public should be comprised of about 29 percent each Democrats and Republicans.

Strategically looking at numbers like these in July 2007 resulted in posing these questions for November 2008. (1) Might a third party candidate emerge who would appeal to the 43% and win the election with a three way split of 28.5%, 43% and 28.5%? (Obviously, the existence of a viable third party choice might siphon even more votes from the two traditional parties for a 51% majority.)

The January 2008 Bipartisan Panel, therefore, offered a great deal of intrigue towards question #1 and also provided data for question #2. The intrigues stemmed from the fact two of the attendees were New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel. At the time, rumors were persistent the pair were considering running independently as President and Vice Presidential candidates. Their presence led to substantial attendance by the national media.

As an attendee at the event, this writer noted the palpable electricity in the air and the yearning for a political alternative. The data contributing to the second question came not from Bloomberg or Hagel, but rather from former Senator Jack Danforth of Missouri. Danforth, discussing the polarization between the two major parties, noted how those parties used to put forth policies and candidates designed to appeal to the uncommitted voters in the center. “The two parties don’t do that anymore,” said Danforth. “Instead they promote policies and candidates intended to appeal to their true believers.”

In other words, Danforth revealed the two major parties and their true believers were saying to the Independent 43%, “Take it or leave it. This is what we have for you. If you don’t like what we have, then stay home.” This knowledge leads to the second question.

(2) Would one of the major parties and its candidate make a major effort to find, modify and/or eliminate the policies keeping the 43% from wanting to associate with them? Could doing so cause that party and its candidate to forge a decisive victory at the polls in November?

Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, the answers to those questions are now evident. No third party Independent candidates emerged.

Barack Obama, however, found a way to appeal to a sufficient percentage of the 43% to forge a decisive victory. While admittedly a simplistic way to look at the results, Obama held his 29% base. He then added 22 of the 43 percentage points in the middle to lead McCain overall 53% to 46% as of this writing.

To a large degree, Republicans assisted in their own demise by their own actions. The second piece of analysis will address what actions Republicans could have taken well before 2008 to have avoided the election results of 2008. The third analysis will be about why Republicans failed to take those actions and how the actions they are taking may be detrimental to the long term health of the states they represent.

2. What If We Allocated Electors Differently?

This election settled nothing. The game goes on with a different Administration holding serve in this tennis match we call politics.
 
But wasn't Obama's win decisive? Yes and no.
 
See what I mean by reading my blog entry about what the results would be like if we allocated the Electors to the Electoral College based on the results of the popular vote within each of the states. Here's the link.
 
http://thecenterstrikesback.com/2008/11/05/a-closer-presidential-election-than-reported.aspx
 
Here's one thought about making this system a reality. The only way you will be able to implement this is through a referendum at the state level. The two major parties controlling the legislatures will not willingly give up power. Further, when the referendum is written, the referendum must specify the only way the law created by the referendum can be changed is by another referendum. Otherwise the legislature will go back to the old system at the first opportunity.