Joint Canvassing

First off, my apologies for my two months of not posting. I had run out of analysis and was spent with a thesis. The stories, I thought, were fairly repetitive, so little actually crossed my mind to post during that period. But with the general approaching, I think that it's a good time to get this going.

Semi-regular posting (hopefully 3-4 times per week) will resume as of Thursday; I am traveling until then and am currently writing from a Super 8 Motel in Michigan.

There are a bunch of things in politics that I find absolutely fascinating, and over the next few months, I hope to hit on as many of them as I can. One, though, comes from my training as a history major: I love looking at what is seen as normal in politics and wondering why it is seen as such.

John McCain has alluded to the reputed Kennedy/Goldwater agreement for the '64 election. In a far-fetched fantasy, Barry Goldwater, before winning the GOP nomination in 1964, suggested a "joint canvass" with then-President Kennedy, where the two would campaign in the same places and respond to one another.

This would be a good thing, I think. It would put policy matters at the center of the discussion, forcing the media out of the coverage of the horse race and into more substantive matters (at least a little bit).

Of course, this sort of thing used to happen a lot more than it does now. Lincoln wanted a joint canvass with Douglas in 1858's Illinois Senate race, and the suggestion wasn't that far out of bounds.

Douglas, however, decided against the joint canvass, deciding instead on 7 joint debates. Why? He was the favorite. The odds, as the most powerful senator facing an unknown, were clearly in Douglas' favor. A joint canvass levels the playing field. The two candidates are seen as equals and, ideally, are throwing away their previous advantages and, in some ways, are throwing caution to the wind.

Intrade has the race at 61/39 in favor of Obama winning; Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com has it at 64/36 in favor of Obama. The economy is perceived as bad, with a Republican president at the helm. An unpopular war has been raging for 5 years. This is absolutely a Democratic year, as Jay Cost has written. Additionally, thanks to the grassroots enthusiasm he has generated, Obama can raise money at obscene levels. McCain may well be tied to public financing restrictions that Obama will avoid.

So, Obama has the advantages. If he runs a solid campaign, he will probably win the election. A joint canvass? You're putting the financial advantage aside (think of all the free media coverage dominating the discourse), and, to some extent, the latent 2008 Democratic advantages. Most critically, you're severely rocking the boat with this.

If Obama really is all about a "new style of politics," he would take McCain up on this offer. In the long run, it would be better for the polity and the discourse. But for Obama's chances at winning the presidency, I would stay away from this.

The modern media campaign is now normal. It wasn't always, but in a year where the stars are lining up for Obama, it would be quite unexpected to see him rock the boat that much.