 |
McCain Knows He’s In Trouble |
 |
In the wake of his widely panned speech Tuesday night, John McCain tried to change the subject by challenging Barack Obama to a series of one-on-one town hall appearances. Generally the candidate who is trailing in polls does this kind of thing, hoping that a debate can help them seize momentum. I think McCain is right to feel that he needs to change the dynamic of the campaign– there are a lot of signs that are bad for him: (1) Americans are enormously dissatisfied with his president, the Iraq war, and the direction of the country; (2) energized Obama supporters, including many small donors, are giving Obama a huge financial advantage over McCain; (3) the Iowa electronic trading market (which lets investors bet on a presidential winner, and which has a strong track record for accuracy) gives Obama a more than 60% chance of winning the popular vote. (Another political futures market agrees, giving Obama a 60% chance of winning the election).
I think Obama should seize the opportunity to debate McCain at unmoderated town halls. Moderated debates have been a disaster. I hope Obama does this–in fact, I think he should reject the Tim Russert/George Stephanopoulous/Charles Gibson format entirely and challenge McCain to only one-on-one appearances.
caution–by no means am I cocky about Obama’s chances. There is a very, very long way to go and I expect to see lots and lots of media-abetted Obama sliming. That’s McCain’s only chance–on the merits, Obama will beat him handily. I do think town halls are a great format–no more idiotic moderator questions about bowling scores, flag pins, or “bitterness”. I like the one-on-one format a lot for Obama–I think McCain is making a mistake.
I’m not so sure.
Gun control lost us Dems the election in 1994 (Congress), 1996 (Congress, though Clinton as an incumbent won), 1998 (Congress), 2000 (Gore), 2002 (Congress), and 2004 (Kerry).
In 2006, gun control was finally off the table, and we won Congress.
In 2008, we have Obama running, who is publicly on the record as favoring a handgun ban, a ban on assault weapons, a ban on concealed carry, etc.
Even Bill Clinton knows that gun control causes us Dems to lose, lose, lose, as he said in 2004:
“The fights I fight… cost a lot… the fight for the Assault Weapons Ban cost 20 [Democrats] their seats in Congress.”
39% of gun owners are Dems (source: Gallup).
80% of gun owners have a gun for neither hunting nor sport - that is, they have it for defense (source: NRA-ILA).
There are 100 million gun owners in the USA (source: UN Small Arms Survey).
Therefore, there are about 31 million Democratic gun owners that own a gun for neither hunting nor sport. Obama is in a position right now to give these 31 million Dems a reason to stay home or vote third party, giving McCain 31 million free votes.
Obama is in a big big hole right now WRT gun owning Democrats. He can save himself by picking a pro-gun VP like Richardson or Schweitzer, as well as saying he supports Americans’ right to own firearms for all lawful purposes.
Yes, the election is Obama’s to lose. McCain has the Bush legacy around his neck as well as being an inept leader. But
Obama might lose the election all by himself.
While important, I don’t see gun control as being that important. At least in 2002 and 2004, the Republican victory was all about national security - people were afraid in the wake of 9-11 and they capitalized on that fear.
Certainly, McCain will lean heavily on this tactic, although I hope and believe the people won’t fall for it again.
agreed Jim–I’ve been trying to post a comment on this as well. I don’t agree with slippy that gun control was the key issue in the elections cited, and I don’t think it’s a key issue this time–key issues will likely be (1) the economy (2) Iraq (3) changing direction of country away from Bush’s failed policies (even McCain concedes this is a “change” election)
Obama has said he supports individual gun rights and I haven’t seen either candidate focus on this–I really doubt it will be a decisive issue
“Obama has said he supports individual gun rights”
…for “hunters and sportsmen”. Again, nothing about defense. 80% of Dem gun owners own a gun for neither hunting nor sport. Obama thinks that he can placate gun owners with “hunters and sportsmen” language, and that isn’t going to fly. Obama has an inescapable anti-gun past, and it’s going to follow him around and cause all 31 million Dems that own defensive weapons to start looking at him squinty-eyed:
Obama said this 4-27-07:
“It’s hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic.”
Language like this is going to lose him the election, period. Americans do not want another Assault Weapons ban, and voted out Congresspeople that voted for it the first time around. It’s dead and failed policy, and us Dems need to stay away from it if we want to win.
Repeat after me, Obama: “I support the right of Americans to own firearms for lawful purposes.”
as noted below, Obama made no such qualification–he said he supports individual gun rights and did not limit this to sportsmen and hunters only. it’s hard for a lot of Americans to find a rationale for private ownership of semiautomatic weapons–a majority of Americans support a nationwide ban on such weapons
What lawful purpose could anyone have in owning a 17-clip semiautomatic?
First, he gets the terminology wrong.
A “clip” is a metal band that holds rounds together, a “magazine” is what holds the rounds in a gun’s receiver, and a “round” is the combination of powder, primer, casing, and bullet that is fired.
A 17-round plus capacity firearm is used by virtually every civilian target shooter in the United States - the most common model is the AR-15, of which over 15 million exist, and over half a million *more* are manufactured each year and sold to civilians. Police also use this model rifle.
And they’re almost never used in crimes - 0.18% of violent crime offenders used a military style semi-automatic rifle (Kleck). There are several pistols for which a 17 round magazine is manufactured, and these pistols are commonly used in target shooting events - and again, almost never used in crimes. Of course, it isn’t “sporting” to fire 15 rounds at a deer in trying to kill it, but we don’t use that rationale to ban others from owning them.
I as a flaming liberal Democrat have no problem with any lawful citizen that wants to own a semiautomatic military style rifle - in fact I own one myself.
test
sorry–have had trouble posting comments
Slippy, we’ve gotten way off topic here, but wanted to respond to two of your assertions
I can’t see Obama having any problem if he supports a ban on semiautomatic weapons–a majority of Americans support a nationwide ban. There is polling info available at various places on line, including the Brady Campaign, but I can’t post the links for some reason
also, Barack Obama didn’t limit his support for individual gun rights to hunters and sportsmen. there is a quote from him in an article saying he supports this right without such a limitation. again, this is available on line but I can’t get the link to work here
I see absolutely no evidence that Obama faces any electoral problem on these issues.
Simply put, it doesn’t matter what people think, it matters what (a) they will vote on and (b) what’s right.
People who want more gun control simply don’t vote on it as a major issue. While the people that want less gun control have it as their first voting issue.
Second, it’s not right to support gun control - it’s racist, classist, sexist, ageist, intolerant, anti-gay policy that has no place in the Democratic Party.
What do guns have to do with race, class, sex, age, intolerance or sexual preference?
It seems to me that the only reason to have a gun is because you want to shoot something or somebody. Why should that be anyone’s right?
agreed PM
you’re not offering anything to back up your assertions. when people are asked what are the most important issues to them in voting, they are consistently saying economy, Iraq, health care. I don’t think gun ownership even registers. It obviously matters to you but there is simply no evidence that it is impacting the election
I don’t know if your second point is serious or not, but it doesn’t merit a response
I’d also like to note that guns, which are legal, seem a lot more dangerous than drugs, which are illegal. I don’t have anything to do with either one, but it seems like a fine line.
and unfortunately a lot of guns end up being used in the illegal drug trade–shades of Prohibition. I don’t have anything to do with either guns or drugs either, but I don’t think we have great policy answers on either front