A few minutes ago, Colin Powell announced on
"Meet the Press" that he will
"be voting" for Barack Obama — which I presume is an endorsement.
At least, it's being treated as one by the media. And Powell isn't denying that, by telling everyone that he plans to vote for Obama, he is encouraging others to do so as well.
Powell also said he does not plan to campaign for Obama in the last two weeks of the campaign.
But, aside from Powell's endorsement, I now feel inclined to predict that the Obama-Biden ticket will win the election — for other reasons (which I'll get into in a few minutes).
What effect, if any, will Powell's endorsement have on the election?
Personally, I feel it will have very little impact on what voters choose to do.
Although I still say, as I did
when Powell's planned appearance on the program was hitting the blogosphere a couple of days ago, that the relative value of his endorsement may hinge on what happens in Sen. Ted Stevens' corruption trial in Alaska.
As I mentioned on Friday, Powell recently testified on Stevens' behalf in court. Stevens took the stand in his own defense on Friday.
If a verdict is reached in the case before the election, it may produce an ironic twist. The credibility of a high-profile Republican's endorsement of a Democrat could depend on the vindication of another Republican.
And that leads me to a point that was raised in a segment that followed Powell's appearance this morning.
In a discussion of the electoral map and the shifts that have been occurring (according to the polls), it was observed that a key demographic for both Obama and John McCain is
"older, white voters."To political observers, it's not news that older, white voters represent a major demographic.
The entertainment media focus advertising dollars on goods and services for young consumers, but older voters are the ones who, historically, show up at the polls and vote.
In 2004, 54% of the voters who participated were 45 years of age or older, and the Republican ticket received a majority of the vote from all voters who were 30 or older.
(In 2004, voters in the 18-29 age group supported the Democrat, but they accounted for only 17% of the vote.)
Race will remain important at least until the election results are known, because we have no precedent for a national campaign in which one of the nominees is black. At this point, no one knows what white voters will do when they're alone in the polling booth.
It's clear that what white voters do is important.
In 2004, 77% of the voters who participated were white, and the Republicans received 58% of their ballots.
But if, as was suggested during the program, those voters are shifting their preference, that can affect the electoral map.
What is likely to make older voters change their preference?
- A poor economy. Older voters know — in a way that most young voters do not — that their time is limited. When the economy is bad and those who have retired or are nearing retirement see their investments lose significant portions of their value, that will affect how they vote.
- Integrity. Older voters are not as willing to gamble as young voters are. Much has been said of Obama's "rock star" appeal, but older voters understand that they're not choosing the next winner of "American Idol" on Nov. 4.
And when most older voters act on a recommendation, they do so based, at least in part, on the trustworthiness of the adviser. What would a conviction of Stevens tell older voters about Powell's judgment?
Over the years, though, research has indicated that endorsements have relatively little influence on voter decisions. In my experience, they tend to confirm positions already being taken by the majority in a state or community.
For example, the newspaper in my home city, the
Dallas Morning News, endorsed McCain's candidacy yesterday.
"The last time the nation saw Washington make real progress on deficit reduction was the 1990s, when a Democrat controlled the White House and Republicans held Congress. True, Republicans failed to cover themselves in deficit-reduction glory when they held the executive and legislative branches, but we read that as an argument in favor of divided government."
The Dallas Morning News
However,
"there's little evidence," write Jay Parsons and Theodore Kim in today's
Morning News, that North Texas Democrats will expand, in 2008, beyond their surprising sweep of Dallas County races two years ago and record voter turnout in the March primary.
One of the paper's sources speculates that it may be a decade or more before area Democrats are truly competitive with Republicans.
In a state like Texas, where no Democratic presidential nominee has won since Jimmy Carter carried it in 1976, how much influence does an endorsement of McCain have? Some endorsements, in places where the race is perceived to be much closer, may have more influence on the outcome.
But what I think will truly influence the outcome is something I was reading earlier this morning — before
"Meet the Press" came on.
A couple of days ago, Charles Blow wrote, in the
New York Times, that he sees no plausible scenario in which McCain can win the election —
"[u]nless Barack Obama slips up, Jeremiah Wright shows up or a serious national security emergency flares up."His logic is simple and compelling.
"The wayward wizards of Wall Street delivered the election to Obama by pushing the economy to the verge of collapse, forcing leery voters to choose between their pocketbooks and their prejudices," he writes.
"McCain delivered it to Obama with his reckless pick of Sarah Palin. That stunt made everything that followed feel like a stunt, tarnishing McCain’s reputation and damaging his credibility so that when he went negative it backfired. And, some radical rabble among McCain’s supporters delivered it to Obama by mistaking his political rallies for lynch mobs.
"This perfect storm of poor judgments has set the stage for an Obama victory. It’s over." NOTE: I'm going to wait a little while longer — to see if Obama commits a major gaffe, Wright returns to the campaign discussion or another Osama bin Laden video message pops up — but right now I expect to post my final presidential election prediction, state by state, on Tuesday, Oct. 28.
What I can tell you is that I am inclined to believe Blow when he says the financial disaster has forced the fence straddlers to
"choose between their pocketbooks and their prejudices" — and their choice is likely to be Obama.
I think the jury is still out on the Palin selection, although her candidacy has become as much a media joke as Dan Quayle's was 20 years ago.
But, in 1988, voters picked Bush in spite of his running mate. It also helped that the Reagan economy was doing all right at the time.
I'll say this about
Powell's interview on "Meet the Press." It has taken far too long for anyone to say this about Muslims in America.
"I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, 'Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He’s a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America."
Colin Powell
With 16 days left in the campaign, this election is taking on the look of a foregone conclusion. But it's not over quite yet.
It seems to me, though, that, for a party that has relied on the religious right to provide the winning margin in elections for nearly three decades, it's appropriate that victory this time may depend on divine intervention.
