TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 8:20 PM
January 08, 2009 | 8:00 PM
January 08, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 08, 2009 | 6:31 PM
January 08, 2009 | 4:13 PM
January 08, 2009 | 2:50 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 08, 2009 | 5:12 PM
January 08, 2009 | 3:25 PM
January 08, 2009 | 1:16 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
24.07.2008
Michigan, Minnesota, and Maliki

Chris Cillizza writes up a somewhat disturbing-for-Obama Quinnipiac poll showing him basically tied with McCain in Michigan, Colorado, and Minnesota. I don't believe Minnesota is tied (most other polls show Obama way up there, and it's culturally and demographically similar to Wisconsin, where Obama still has a healthy lead), but the results are in line with a general tightening trend in key battleground states, so they can't be dismissed.

One of the reasons for what we're seeing, suggests Cillizza, is Iraq:

McCain's campaign has hammered home the idea that Obama was mistaken in his opposition to the surge of U.S. troops last year and is wrong now about his proposed 16-month timetable for withdrawing troops.

Voters in all four states seem to agree. Asked whether they would prefer a "fixed date" for withdrawal or to "keep troops in Iraq until the situation is more stable," majorities in all four states preferred the latter option despite the fact that similar majorities in each state say that America was wrong to go to war in Iraq.

Those results suggest that while Obama's initial opposition to the war plays well with voters, his plan to remove troops from the country within 16 months of taking office as president is less well received.

I agree. But that's also why the Maliki endorsement of Obama's withdrawal timetable is so important. My read of public opinion on Iraq is that Americans don't want to stay any longer, but they don't want to "lose the war" either, as vague a concept as that is. Prior to Maliki, McCain could say Obama wants to concede defeat at the very moment we're starting to win, which played to the latter sentiment. But Maliki's statement tells Americans there's no tension between leaving and winning. You can leave now and still claim victory, which is what they really want, and which is what Obama is offering.

A quote from Tom Davis in yesterday's Washington Post gets at this dynamic another way:

In private, said Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), Iraqi leaders continue to tell U.S. officials that they want and need U.S. forces to stay. But Davis admitted that because of Maliki's comments, "there are some members who feel, because of what is happening out there, a little hung out to dry."

Now that Maliki is assuring Americans they can leave without suffering defeat--the avoidance of which is the only reason to stay--it becomes very tough politically to opt for staying (even though, as Davis suggests, the on-the-ground reality might recommend it).

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:27 PM with 9 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

miceelf said:

July 24, 2008 12:45 PM

virginiacentrist said:

This poll was taken before the media effect from the current trip took hold. I'd classify these polling results as taken during the "OMG OBAMA IS A FLIP FLOPPER ON PUBLIC FINANCING AND CHURCH STUFF?!??!?!" period.

July 24, 2008 12:56 PM

propositionjoe said:

VAcentrist, where have you been? Good to see your posts again in any case.

It's going to take time for Obama's position and Maliki's position to fold into the political consciousness and for people to abandon the idea that victory in Iraq equals an unending commitment of combat troops to the area. If Maliki holds the line and Obama hammers home their agreement, then Obama can defuse Iraq as a major issue. In the meantime, he has to come home and make it explicitly clear that he has a domestic agenda that addresses the needs of the American people. I think he can do that. He has a health care plan, he has views on education, he has energy ideas that are not perfect but that are real. McCain has little to contribute in these cases and will suffer eventually for it.

Obama has so far done a good job on this trip; he has demonstrated that he has a broad strategic vision for America's future. Now he needs to come home and contrast his domestic policies with McCain. No time should be lost on this score.

July 24, 2008 1:23 PM

jbutler28 said:

or the tightening of the race could be due to the fact that the insanely protracted and intensely media-covered Dem. primary has been over for a while now...come on...why hasn't anybody else mentioned that yet?

July 24, 2008 2:05 PM

jyunis said:

But Noam, wasn't there just a WSJ/NBC poll that had voters overwhelmingly favoring a timeline for withdrawal by 60 to 30? Perhaps the tightening has less to do with Iraq, and more to do with either the "flip-flop" meme that struck Obama in the previous week (as VAcentrist pointed out), or perhaps the mere fact that Obama hasn't been campaigning in the states? He also, to my knowledge, hasn't been releasing new ads with the frequency that McCain has been (negative ads, that is).

My fear is that these tightenings are merely reflecting the electorate, which is scary. I was extremely surprised to see Obama trailing in Colorado.

July 24, 2008 2:20 PM

Noam Scheiber said:

I think this gets at precisely what I'm talking about. The Journal question asked about a timetable without alluding to any negative consequences. To the contrary, it reminded people that Maliki supports such a timetable, suggesting you could both withdraw and achieve victory. That's the ideal scenario for most Americans.

But when you put it the way the Quinnipiac poll put it -- fixed withdrawal date versus staying until Iraq stabilizes - then people clam up. Again, voters both want to leave and want to win. If you suggest a tension between the two, you're going to detect a lot of ambivalence.

July 24, 2008 2:47 PM

lsernoff said:

Maliki is playing his own game, for his domestic audience, not an American audience.  He's sending the message that he doesn't want an occcupation ad infinitum; the quicker that's over, the happier he is.  All this occurs while he is negotiating, or non-negotiating, a status-of-forces agreement with the US.

Which leads me to the dog that hasn't barked.  If all were to go swimmingly and Iraq were to become, say, an approximation of Jordan, would Obama want longer-term security arrangements there?  Bases?  McCain (of 100 years fame) rather clearly would.  Maybe Noam should ask Maliki what he thinks, before he trumpets him as Barack's bosom buddy.  

July 24, 2008 3:25 PM

jyunis said:

I see your point Noam. I still can't help but think this has less to do with Iraq and more to do with a basic comfort with Obama as Judis has been arguing recently. Obama really should be winning on the issues, including Iraq, and yet this is not reflected in the polling; this is why I tend to believe the whole "referendum on Obama" theory basically holds true.

I do think however, there are ways to reverse this. One, would be to go after McCain more vigorously and to attack his record, in much the same way that Bush did in the 2000 primaries (without the smear tactics)--to go after McCain as a double-talking Washington insider. I also think that it really wouldn't be such a bad idea for Obama to do one, or two town halls with McCain. So, McCain will get free media for 2 days, but again, Obama wins on the issues. I think people assume that McCain is just so in his element at town-hall events, but this ignores Obama's own considerable skills at these events. So, if Obama really is winning on the issues, why not draw some sharp contrasts with McCain standing right there next to him? It will certainly make the vast differences between them more sharply defined in the minds of voters (rather than abstract caampaign speeches and conference calls inaccessible to the average voter). And finally, thinking more about the primacy of economic worry in the minds of voters (another reasons I remain skeptical about the Iraq argument effecting polling so significantly) I've become more and more convinced that it wouldn't be such a bad idea for Obama to eschew a foreign policy voice as his VP, and instead go with a competent governor who can communicate and identify with the economic woes of working class voters; a Tim Kaine, or Sebelius type (Mark Warner, Ted Strickland, and Jim Webb were all better choices I think--but alas, they all took themselves out. And Webb would've brought both foreign policy and economic working class credentials).

July 24, 2008 4:40 PM

GSpinks said:

"Again, voters both want to leave and want to win. If you suggest a tension between the two, you're going to detect a lot of ambivalence."

This is probably exactly the card that McCain has been trying to play against Obama; You have to choose between Withdraw and Win, We Choose Win, Obama wants to Lose (Withdraw).

The sad part is that, in reality, the "Withdraw" will be more or less identical no matter who wins in November; Obama's plan really does depend on conditions on the ground because Obama wants to be as careful getting out as Bush was careless going in, and McCain's plan would really have a timeline to it because you cannot plan an activity like this and not have a solid estimate of the time it will take to accomplish.

In the end, its all about "posturing".

July 24, 2008 4:50 PM