Victory looks increasingly likely for Obama and the Democrats in general, predicts David Dumke Barring a major catastrophe or scandal, it is almost certain Senator Barack Obama will defeat Senator John McCain in the US presidential election. It also increasingly appears Obama's victory will not be of the "nail-biter" variety, but a convincing win by 5-10 per cent that will have significant down-ballot coat-tails and result in significant gains for Democrats in both the House of Representatives and Senate. Given the deep unpopularity of President George W Bush, the 2008 political climate has long favoured Democrats. However, Republicans remained hopeful that Democratic vulnerabilities -- principally an unproven presidential candidate and a poor legislative record since winning majorities in Congress in 2006 -- would allow the party to break historical precedents by extending its hold on the White House and minimising congressional losses. As Republicans left their convention in Minneapolis in early September, it appeared their hopes were coming to fruition. The party establishment remained uneasy about presidential nominee John McCain. But his selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as a running mate, combined with the traditional partisan convention rhetoric, finally succeeded in firing up the party rank-and-file. Thanks to the post- convention bounce, McCain erased Obama's lead (six per cent nationally) and -- according to some polls -- nosed ahead. But over the past month, hopes have faded for all but the most optimistic Republicans. Today's polls show Obama with a commanding 6- 11 per cent lead, holding more than 50 per cent in nearly all polls. Obama also leads in Virginia, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Iowa, is in a statistical tie in Ohio, and is running competitively in Indiana, West Virginia, Montana and North Dakota. All 11 states were won by Bush in 2004. McCain trails by wide margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota -- Democratic-leaning states once thought to be in play. If Obama holds most, but not all, of the states where he currently leads, he will amass far more than 300 electoral votes (270 are needed to win). Moreover, an Obama win of 7.8 per cent -- which is his current margin when averaging current national polls -- would exceed that of 1988 when George HW Bush defeated Michael Dukakis in a race now considered a rout. The McCain campaign banked heavily on Michigan, home of socially-conservative "Reagan Democrats" who helped the GOP capture the state in 1980, 1984 and 1988. But McCain never gained traction in Michigan, where the electorate -- including Reagan Democrats -- is preoccupied with economic issues, an area where the Democrats have a decisive advantage (in Michigan and nationally). Rather than gradually making a quiet, tactical retreat, two weeks ago the McCain campaign publicly announced it was abandoning Michigan -- to the chagrin of the state's besieged Republicans, particularly embattled Congressmen Tim Walberg and Joe Knollenberg. In neighbouring Wisconsin, where Bush narrowly lost in both 2000 and 2004 (by 0.2 and 0.4 per cent respectively), McCain trails by 8-12 per cent. At the congressional level, the situation is equally grim for the Republicans. Conventional wisdom previously held that Democrats would build upon the congressional majorities they captured in 2006, picking up an additional 15 seats in the House and five in the Senate. Despite compiling a weak legislative record, Democrats have recruited stronger candidates and raised far more money than the Republicans. As a result, Democrats have taken full advantage of recent Republican setbacks and are now poised to capture 25-30 seats in the House and up to 10 in the Senate. What has contributed to the apparent Republican collapse? For starters, President Bush's approval rating hovers around 20 per cent, the lowest such rating in 50 years. Bush's unpopularity, coupled with the lingering taint of recent Republican scandals, has badly damaged the party's name brand. Many Republicans see a much bigger problem, which is a battle for the "heart" of the Republican Party -- fiscal conservatives vs social conservatives. The intra-party debate over the campaign's direction and tactics, the selection of the vice presidential nominee, and the legacy of George W Bush are all emblematic of party disunity. Some theorise that a resounding defeat will allow the party to rebuild, refocus and reunite. Otherwise they could head down the path trod by Democrats in the 1980s and early 90s, when the "big tent" could no longer accommodate southern conservatives. McCain has tried to distance himself from the Bush administration, but has failed to convince independents that he differs from the president on key issues, namely, Iraq and the economy. Ironically, he has also failed to convince the Republican establishment of his party fealty. The "maverick" label may appeal to swing voters, but it repels the Republican faithful, many of whom have fresh memories of the Senator bucking the party at inopportune moments. McCain has run an inept campaign which has blended different themes, ideologies, and personnel -- his own and former Bush operatives -- in an attempt to find a winning formula. Thus far it has resulted in incoherent messages, inconsistent policies, and an ever-changing strategy that fails to play to either the candidate's strengths or his opponent's weaknesses. Sarah Palin epitomises the campaign's incongruity. The emergence of Palin excited the Republican base. As a small town mayor, mother of five, and folksy speaker, Palin has considerable populist appeal among what ex- president Richard Nixon once labelled "the silent majority". Selecting a woman was strategically brilliant, particularly after the bruising Democratic primary battle. But the pick has also had negative ramifications. It eliminated the "experience" issue which Republicans had begun using against Obama to great effect. Palin's performance in interviews and the debate has left many -- even notable conservatives -- questioning her competence and fitness. The McCain campaign has compounded the problem by restricting press access to her. And while Palin's incendiary stump speeches appeal to core Republican voters, they have simultaneously energised the Democratic base and alienated independent voters. The Alaskan's divisive approach also seems at odds with McCain, who is willing to take the occasional rhetorical cheap shot but appears uncomfortable running a negative campaign. Of course no issue or development has hurt McCain and his fellow Republicans as much as the economy. Even before the recent crisis, most Americans viewed the state of the economy as the most crucial issue in the campaign, a fact the national security-focussed McCain campaign ignored. McCain's response to the financial meltdown -- stating the economy was "fundamentally strong" only days before suspending his campaign because of the obvious crisis -- raised serious questions about his economic gravitas. His lackluster performances in the debates, particularly on economic-related issues, have been further damaging. His campaign has admitted that if the election remains about the economy, he will lose. And clearly at this stage the election is overwhelmingly about the economy.
