Vulnerable Obama

Nowhere are voters so frequently and so intensively examined as in the United States.

It produces a permanent flood of numbers and data on their moods and preferences. Food for political scientists and political advisers. But there is also a shady side: sometimes you do not see the forest for the trees. Put differently: From such an abundance of figures, you can sometimes draw completely opposite conclusions.

Rap

Take the governors’ elections that took place this week in the states of New Jersey and Virginia (there was also a salient congressional election in a district in upstate New York). The outcome has been qualified by some as a sensitive rap on the knuckles for President Barack Obama, whereas others argued that hardly any meaning can be attached to it. There’s something to be said for both interpretations.

To start with the sensitive rap, that of course strongly obtrudes itself. In both states, Obama gained a convincing victory a year ago. In New Jersey, which is considered a blue state (which means that the Democrats are normally the dominant party), his lead on John McCain was 17 percent. In Virginia, which has almost always voted for the Republican candidate in past decades, he ended 6 points higher than his opponent.

A year later, the tables are turned. In Virginia, the Republican candidate gained 59 percent of the votes and his Democratic opponent did not get more than 41 percent. In New Jersey, the Republican challenger stayed 4 points ahead of the Democratic governor.

Polls

An unambiguous signal to the White House? It did not take long before the Democratic side strongly modified the election result. Democratic National Committee president Tim Kaine, also parting governor of Virginia, pointed out that the voters of his state, since 1977, never granted the governor elections to the party that controlled the presidency at that moment. He could also add that polls showed a majority of the voters in New Jersey and Virginia were not guided in their choice by national politics or by their opinion of the president – whose personal popularity stays reasonably stable, as other polls point out – but by local circumstances.

In a whisper, the Democrats added yet another argument for the thesis that not too much meaning should be attached to the results. Namely that in both states, the Democratic campaign left much to be desired. The candidate in Virginia lacked style and charm, while the governor of New Jersey lost himself in personal attacks on his opponent. Possibly also because of that, many voters who belong to the heart of the Democratic electorate did not show up.

Ominous

Yet I think the White House does have grounds for concern about the electoral midterm report of this week. The most ominous fact: The independent voters, those who do not identify themselves with either party, this time chose the Republican candidates in large majority. This is a large, crucial segment of the electorate, to which Obama, to a large extent, owes his victory of last year, because 51 percent of the so-called independents supported him, while 47 percent preferred McCain.

I would also not derive too much comfort from the avoidance of traditional Democratic voters. Of course, it cannot be expected that these voters would come out to vote in such large numbers for a not too exciting local candidate as for the charismatic president. But Obama’s splendor should rub off on other Democratic politicians so much that the loyal following would spur the electorate to the voting booth yet again.

That clearly did not happen this time. Many blacks and youth, who voted last year in overwhelming majority for Obama, did not show up, despite the fact that the president himself traveled a couple of times to New Jersey and Virginia for the glory of his party members.

Half-heartedness

The half-heartedness of both independent and loyal voters has the unpleasant side effect for Obama that Democratic members of Congress, who will have to defend their seats during midterm elections next year, will now ask themselves the question whether they benefit at all from a close affiliation with the White House. If the answer to that question is negative, they will show (even) less zest to stick out their necks for the president’s controversial plans.

No, if there is a need for comfort in the White House, something else is more suited for that. Namely, the spastic impression Republicans continue to make, which causes their party, despite the victories in New Jersey and Virginia, to be in bad repute with the voters. The biggest handicap: the rigid right wing that does not realize that for a takeover of power, the voters in the middle are indispensable. Followers of McCain’s running mate Sarah Palin and media blowhards like radio host Rush Limbaugh and Fox News commentator Glenn Beck are so extreme in the conservative teachings that they fight equally hard against more moderate party members as against Democrats – the characteristic feature of a sectarian mentality.

Salient

That is why the congressional election in New York was so salient. Prominent national conservatives, including Palin, promoted a kindred spirit, after which the local Republican candidate joined the Democrat, who then swept the board in a Republican stronghold.

You are inclined to think: with such enemies, Obama needs fewer friends. But to gain a sustainable policy success, he will have to cherish all his friends.