Published: August 03, 2008 03:28 am            

A pivotal year for the Democrats

As your reporter read the umpteenth piece this week wondering why Barack Obama’s lead in the polls (six points among registered voters, according to Gallup’s latest) isn’t “bigger,” I remembered how Robert Redford recently said that you “could kiss the Democratic Party goodbye’ if Obama, its presumptive presidential nominee, goes down in defeat this Election Day.

This may be overstating the case — the Democratic Party would not cease to exist if presumptive Republican nominee John McCain emerges triumphant on Election Day. But a presidential loss in an election year when so many indicators are going its way (an incumbent Republican president with approval numbers in the 20 percent range, an electorate focusing on the economy, and on and on) would likely lead to a prolonged wander in the wilderness, akin to what the British Labour Party experienced in the pre-Tony Blair years. The post-election recriminations within the Democratic Party, taken alone, would see to that.

That scenario and eight years of the Bush administration have a lot of Democrats viewing this year’s contest as the most important presidential election in years — a veritable “must win.” To achieve this must-win, Democratic primary voters and superdelegates opted not for one of the “safe” choices among the large and varied field of primary contenders, but for a history-making candidate. (The same would be true if the party had ultimately settled on Hillary Clinton.)

For the Democrats, there is a lot riding on bringing history to fruition. Maybe anxiety provoked by this fact is at the root of some of those columns wondering why Obama’s polling lead over McCain is “only” a few points, three months before Election Day.

A few words about these polls. First and foremost, no matter whom one wants to see in the White House, paying close attention to summer polls is pure folly. Some say to this line of reasoning, “Sure, but look at Michael Dukakis, for example: He was up 17 points over George H.W. Bush in 1988.” And Dukakis lost — so what, precisely, is the point here?

If you must search for historical antecedents, you could also look at 1980, when unpopular incumbent Jimmy Carter ran a close race against Ronald Reagan until very late in the campaign, when voters evidently decided they were comfortable with the former actor and onetime governor of California. Reagan went on to win by nine points in an electoral landslide.

But as they say in the disclaimers that run at the end of ads for investment services, past performance does not necessarily serve as a predictor of future results. And it’s worth remembering that polls haven’t exactly been the most reliable indicators so far in this election season. Perhaps this is advantage McCain, as Obama polled better than he performed in the run-up to the New Hampshire and California primaries ... and perhaps this is advantage Obama, as one theory has it that pollsters, who only call land lines, are missing a lot of Obama’s younger, cell-phone-only supporters.

Obama, a relative unknown on the national stage until only recently, is running against a well-known senator and war hero who — whether you agree or not — has an image as a straight-talking maverick.

McCain’s campaign hasn’t been strong out of the gate, but he remains a formidable candidate and well-matched opponent to Obama. Given the two previous presidential elections, no one should be surprised that this race is close now, no matter what the indicators. And those who know their history also know that, in this historic campaign, any number of things could happen between now and Nov. 4, including several reversals leading to a photo finish.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.