The View from Caterham

This is my first contribution to our joint blog, and perhaps an appropriate place to start my part of this venture is with a few comments on Anglo-American relations. The ‘special relationship’ is certainly very much alive and well as far as Caterham and the WRA are concerned, and the next chapter in our ongoing exchange begins in just four weeks time. Those of us who are coming over met last week, and we are, understandably, very excited. Of course it’s even better this time because we have an American Presidential election in full swing; our only regret is that we have to get back just before November 4th and will miss the voting and the result.

You’d expect us to be excited because we’re all students of American Politics and we have a real academic interest in what’s going on the other side of the pond. You might be surprised, though, by how much interest there is among our general public in your election. Until very recently when it’s been dwarfed by the monumental upheaval in the financial markets, the US election has regularly been making headlines. I don’t think that’s just because America is so important in the world, or because the next President can claim with some justification to be a ‘World Leader’; it’s largely a reflection of the fact that your politics is just much more interesting than ours. Those of you who know me are well aware that I’m no great fan of Gordon Brown, our beleaguered PM, but it has been excruciating to watch him in recent weeks. He’s like an exhausted boxer, clinging on for dear life in the vain hope that he might survive until the final bell without being knocked out. His goal, of course, is 2010, when he will have to call an election, although I have no idea what he thinks will happen by then to improve his chances of a victory in our next general election. He cuts a sad shambling figure, overwhelmed by circumstances, undermined from within by his colleagues and increasingly incapable of doing anything to stem the tide flowing against him. In that sense he reminds me very much of George W Bush. They both have a zombie-like appearance at the moment; they are in charge, but only in name; they have lost the confidence of those around them and the general public, and the spotlight in which they once revelled has long since passed them by. The big difference is that you don’t have to focus on George Bush; he can to some extent suffer in silence; the spotlight really has moved on to Barack and John (and Sarah!). We have another two years of agony before someone else can have a go. We could, of course, replace the unelected Brown, or at least the Labour Party could, but don’t hold your breath, no one really wants the job. The big-hitters are keeping their powder dry until after the next election because they know Labour has no chance of winning in 2010 whoever is leader. If he is replaced it will be because he’s plumbed new depths in incompetence and has become not just a failure but a laughing-stock. Over there, you know from the start that the worst you can have with Obama or McCain is eight years, and if they really mess up you can kick them out after four years without having to change the Party ruling Congress. That’s a real advantage that we don’t have.

So- it’s at least in part to take our minds of our own suffering that we are revelling in your race at the moment. It’s revealing that we stand for office, but you run for it; there’s just so much more pace about US elections. Sarah Palin has appeared in a whirlwind from nowhere; that could never happen over here. If McCain loses she will presumably disappear again into relative obscurity (the career prospects of failed Vice-Presidential candidates is pretty grim; when you’re bored one evening see how many of them you can name…). Win or lose, though, she’s certainly interesting! Contrast her with Harriet Harman, Gordon Brown’s Deputy, or Jacqui Smith, who holds one of the top three jobs in UK Politics. You’ve probably never heard of them. Don’t worry, you haven’t missed much!

I recently played some clips of US & UK Party conferences to my students. The American version resembles a soccer play-off match; raucous, exciting, full of passion and commitment. Our Party Conferences resemble a County Cricket match; polite, restrained, well organised and guaranteed to put even the faithful to sleep. There’s probably more quality on display in our Conferences (who can forget Jenna Bush’s extraordinary display in 2004 at the Republican Convention?). But who cares? They bore the pants off us. Our elections are marked by daily Press Conferences when the same issues are discussed ad nauseam. Yours are punctuated by outrageous revelations and personal attacks that would make Rupert Murdoch blush. And, of course, yours really matter; at least this one does. For once we know that it will make a difference who wins. If McCain wins he will have little chance of getting much done at home, with hostile majorities in both Houses of Congress. He will focus on foreign policy and the war on terror; he’ll need to do something abroad to make his mark. Obama will be under enormous pressure to get out of Iraq quickly, and to do something useful at home. Interestingly, neither Obama nor McCain seems to have a coherent strategy for dealing with the Credit Crunch and the mountain of debt. The debates will be fascinating watching when this topic comes up!

So: who’s going to win? I’ve been teaching ever since I can remember that the polls a week after the Party Conventions accurately predict the winner. On that basis it’s McCain, just. I wonder though. There are dark rumours here of worse news to come on Sarah Palin. Her approval rating has plunged from +15 to +1 in just two weeks. Will she yet prove to be a liability rather than an asset to McCain? But when it comes to the crunch, will the South really vote for Obama in sufficient numbers to give him the crucial States he needs there? I have never been less sure of the outcome. If I were a betting man I’d be keeping my wallet tightly closed on this one. I hope Obama wins. Not because I’m a Democrat, or even because I think he’ll be a better President, but because America needs Obama to improve its image in a hostile world. It’ll be much harder for the anti-American propagandists to rubbish Obama than McCain. They can portray McCain as more of the same, but they can’t do that with Obama. I’m afraid, though, that while my heart says Obama, my head says McCain. Just. But I’m really not confident. It is exciting, though, isn’t it? If it all gets too much for you and you need to calm down, spare a thought for us, with two more years of Gordon Brown, and be glad you’re American!

Posted by Jim Bunting for Tom Murphy.

CHANGE? -- WHAT CHANGE?

Throughout this lengthy presidential campaign, the word most frequently used by the various candidates almost certainly is “change.” Barack Obama soared onto the political scene in January with “change we can believe in.” Thereafter, all the other Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton, rushed to wrap themselves in the change mantle.

John McCain, after running initially on national security and experience, has pivoted of late. Now, he and Governor Palin are the twin mavericks, offering reform and “real change” in Washington. The battle, for the next seven weeks, likely will focus on which campaign’s “change” message most resonates with the public.

But, despite the constant change mantra, what hasn’t changed is the shape of the American electorate. In fact, if anything, the last few weeks have produced both a Republican bounce and an increasingly ossified electoral battleground. Taking my data from the hyper-statistical http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/, here’s where things stand. If the election were held right now, in mid-September, Obama would win every state Senator Kerry carried in 2004. Similarly, McCain leads in all but two of the states President Bush secured in the last election. The Bush states in which Obama leads, Iowa, (fairly comfortably) and New Mexico, (narrowly) are two of only three states – New Hampshire is the other – that changed party allegiance from the 2000 election to 2004.


So, what does all of this mean? With the crucial caveat that many states remain close, the bottom line is this: as of now, we could have a situation where 47 states (and the District of Columbia) vote exactly the same way in three consecutive elections. Subject to confirmation through some research (note to my dear readers: help me out here and see what you find), this development -- if it does occur -- is quite astonishing and probably unheard of. A reasonable expectation, I think, is for five or six states to switch parties from one election to the next. Apparently the newness of the candidates (the first time in over half a century when not one of the four presidential and vice presidential contenders isn’t an incumbent), is making scant difference in the shape of the electoral map. Typical blue states are either solidly or slightly for the Democratic ticket and, with the two minor exceptions noted above, all of the red states look likely to vote Republican.

By the way, the scenario I have described results in McCain winning with 274 electoral votes; Obama receives 264. Stay tuned.

Starting Up

Well, the last couple of weeks, from a political perspective, have seen a whirlwind of activity.

As promised in my last post (June 13), we are re-starting the politics blog. And, as mentioned earlier, we’ll have expert commentary on the American political scene from “across the pond.” Look for frequent postings here from my good friend and a real expert on American politics, the Caterham School’s Deputy Headmaster, Tom Murphy. Speaking of that last blog, I’m still indulging in some smirky satisfaction at having picked the Sarah Palin rabbit out of the hat as John McCain’s Vice Presidential nominee. Whether her enthusiastic but still untested candidacy actually helps him, of course, remains to be seen.

Picking up where we left off in June, here’s my sense of where we are, less than 60 days from the election. Despite the enormous excitement and many twists and turns the race has provided to date, it’s likely the final result will look a lot like the last two presidential elections. What this means, I think, is that only about ten states will be hotly contested. If Senator Obama wins all the states John Kerry won four years ago, he’ll be at 252 electoral votes. Similarly, if McCain wins the Bush states from 2004, he’ll have 286, with 270 needed to win. (I should add that there’s a very slight chance the electoral vote ends in a 269-269 dead heat. In that unlikely eventuality, Obama probably wins -- we’ll discuss why this is so in a future blog.)

Two of the ten states “in play” – Michigan and New Hampshire – are blue states that McCain has a chance (but, I think, less than a 50-50 chance) to turn red. Two states, Iowa and New Mexico, are states Bush won last time but, as of now, appear ready to flip to Obama. If that happens and Obama holds Michigan and New Hampshire, he’ll be at 264 electoral votes. Then, well have to see what happens in the half dozen Bush states where Obama either trails closely or is narrowly ahead: Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada. An Obama win in any of the first five puts him over 270; a Nevada victory, coupled with the other assumptions mentioned above, gives us a 269-269 tie. All that can be said at this point is – stay tuned, it should be entertaining and exciting.

On a trial basis, we’re instituting a comment thread for Tom’s and my postings this year. We want to hear your observations, insights and questions. We’ll monitor the comments and publish many of them. More soon!