(Stephan Savoia / AP)
Speaking this morning in Cleveland, Ohio, John McCain sharpened an
argument that has emerged in recent days as a central element of the
GOP's case against Barack Obama: that electing him president would give
Democrats--or, more ominously, "liberals"--complete control over
Washington. "This election comes down to how you want your hard earned
money spent," he said. "Do you want to keep it and invest it in your
future, or have it taken
by the most liberal person to ever run for the Presidency and the
Democratic leaders who have been running Congress for the past two
years -- Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?" Together, he said, they represented a "dangerous threesome."
McCain's basic premise
is sound. Right now, Democrats narrowly control both chambers of
Congress, and experts estimate that they'll pick up between 23 and 28 seats in the House and between seven and nine seats in the Senate.
So if Obama wins, it's all donkeys all the time. That said, I'm not
sure how well McCain's "divided government" argument will work from a
political perspective. Why? Because it has to accomplish several
difficult tasks at once.
1. Convince voters that an Democratic government is to be avoided at all costs. Everyone
loves checks and balances--in theory. But after eight years of widely
reviled Republican rule, it's not clear that voters automatically dread
a Democratic regime. In fact, according to the latest NBC/WSJ poll,
49 percent would prefer a Democratic Congress (vs. the 38 percent who's
prefer a Republican Congress); 57 percent say that a unified government
could "work together" and "end the gridlock in Washington"; and only 18
percent blame Congress for the country's problems (vs. the 35 percent
who blame the Bush Administration). All of those forces are working in
the Dems' favor.
2. Convince voters that Obama is a secret radical. According
to the same poll, only 18 percent of voters think Obama is "too liberal
on social and moral issues"; you can bet that all 18 percent of them
are already voting for McCain. When asked to respond to McCain's
divided government argument yesterday in Colorado, Obama said
voters shouldn't expect any "sudden lurches to the left." He continued:
"I think what we need to do is to create a responsive enough
government that we’re dealing with our heath care crisis, dealing with
energy in a serious way, pushing through a more balanced tax program so
that middle class families are benefiting and responsibly ending the
war in Iraq. Those things are going to take up a huge amount of time,
you know when we’re also trying to stabilize the financial market. I
don’t think we’re going to have time to engage in a bunch of crazy
things that people, the McCain campaign specifically, has suggested we
might."
McCain is essentially asking voters to believe that Obama is lying and
that his policies are actually more liberal than they suspect. Not an
easy sell.
3. Convince voters that Reid and Pelosi would control Obama.
Swing voters may not believe that Obama is a liberal in sheep's
clothing, but many do see Pelosi and Reid as too liberal for
comfort. Theoretically, McCain could gain points by arguing that Obama
would be powerless to stop their agenda and that only a Republican
White House could keep things under control. But as New York magazine's
John Heilemann reports, this may be uniquely untrue. "The unconventional way he ran for office,
the whole bottom-up movement thing, may grant him a degree of
independence unique in modern history," he writes. "'Personally, I think the depth
of the Obama realignment is being underestimated,' says the Republican
media savant Stuart Stevens, who helped elect Bush twice. 'They have
basically invented their own party that is compatible with the
Democratic Party but is bigger than the Democratic Party. Their e-mail
list is more powerful than the DNC or RNC. In essence, Obama would be
elected as an Independent with Democratic backing—like Bernie Sanders
on steroids.'" Voters may sense this.
4. Convince voters to punish Obama--and not their Congressional candidates. Let's
assume that voters buy McCain's basic premise that it'd be good to have
a divided government and are willing to vote in part to preserve one.
It's still not clear why they'd vote against the presidential candidate
that they prefer--56 percent are either “optimistic or confident” or
“satisfied and hopeful” that Obama would do a good job, while only 44
percent say the same of McCain--instead of simply voting against their
local Democratic congressional candidate. McCain has an admirable
history of crossing party lines, and he's probably the Republican best
equipped to get things done in what promises to be a massively
Democratic D.C. Still, he's hoping voters will base their presidential
preference on the likely composition of Congress. That seems a little
backwards.
5. Convince voters who already say they support Obama. As I reported this morning, "according to the RCP swing-state averages,
Obama leads by more than eight points and pulls down more than 50
percent support in every John Kerry state as well as the Bush states of
Iowa and New Mexico, bringing his electoral vote count to 263. In
addition, Obama's beating McCain 51.7 to 44.5 in Virginia and 51.3 to
44.8 in Colorado. That puts the Democrat at 286 electoral votes--and
again, that's if we're only counting states where he's polling above 50
percent." Which means that McCain could convince every single undecided
in the country to vote for a divided government--and still lose the
election. To win, he has to convince current Obama supporters to jump
ship. Calling for checks and balances isn't likely to do the trick.
