archived: 5 - 11 Feb, 2006         Back                 Next

UPDATED:  February 7, 2006                       

                        2004 REVISITED 

David Gopoian has authored what may be the best analysis of the Kerry/Edwards defeat. It appears at The Emerging Democratic Party Majority.  Gopoian is a political scientist who previously served on the faculty of Kent State University's Graduate Campaign Management. 

For the purposes of Gopoian’s study, he used geographic regions that are used for sampling purposes.  He then calculated what vote the standard Democratic presidential candidate could expect to receive in those regions, using data from the past five elections. His conclusions: 

Altogether, there were 202 geographic regions for the 50 states plus DC in the state-level exit polls.

The expected outcomes in these 202 regions were evenly split by partisan tendency, with 103 (51%) leaning Democratic and 99 (49%) leaning Republican. In southern and border states, 27 of 62 regions (44%) leaned Democratic. In northern states, 76 of 140 regions (54%) leaned Democratic.

Kerry received a majority of the two-party vote in 85 of the 103 regions that leaned Democratic (or 83% of them). Of the 27 regions in southern and border states that leaned Democratic, Kerry received the majority of the two-party vote in only 9 (or 30% of them). In northern states, where 76 regions leaned Democratic, Kerry actually exceeded that number, carrying 77 regions.

In a nutshell, Kerry was expected to win 51% of all regions nationally, and won in only 42%. In northern states, the Democratic nominee should have carried 54% of all regions, and Kerry captured 55%. In southern and border states, the typical Democrat should have won 30% of the regions. There, Kerry received the majority of the two-party vote in just 13% of them. 

Where did Sen. Kerry do best? 

Perhaps the best showing of the Kerry campaign was in the Republican-leaning Philly suburbs, which proved essential to carrying Pennsylvania. In general, Kerry did better than expected in urban centers, pivotal to winning such states as Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Even in the uncontested states of Missouri and Colorado, Kerry held his own in urban centers. The Florida data suggest that the Kerry campaign succeeded in the Miami media market, but fell flat in Tampa Bay. 

Gopoian focuses attention on the critical State of Ohio.  Why did Sen. Kerry lose (emphasis added)? 

At the end of the day, the key demographic that explained most of what may be observed about Central Ohio simmered down to religiosity. More than one-third of the region's voters claimed born-again status, including 41% of all women and 28% of the men. This gender breakdown explains one of the major ironies of the vote preferences of central Ohioans - a reverse gender gap.

Among men, Kerry ran about one percentage point better than expected, and gained 45% of their votes, but among women Kerry ran eight percentage points below expectations and finished with only 37% of their votes. Kerry's percentage of the vote from men who were less religious was two and one-half times what he received from born-again men; his percentage among less religious women was four times as great as the share of the vote he obtained from born-again women in the region.

Collectively, from voters who were not born-again, Kerry ran even with expectations, and took a slight majority of the vote (51%). From the 35% who were born-again, however, Kerry ran thirteen percentage points below expectations and took only 17% of the vote.

In Central Ohio, as in the nation as a whole, the social issues agenda of the Republican Party did not define the motivations of most voters. But more importantly than anywhere else in 2004, the moralistic agenda of the GOP generated the margin in Central Ohio that provided Bush with four more years.  

This article is well worth reading in its entirety.

_____________________________________________

                        THE DONKEY SITTING IN THE ROAD 

Democrats are overlooking that our donkey is sitting in the middle of road.      

Democracy Corps’ latest strategy memo, Corruption at the Center of the Case for Change, makes a case that Democrats should center the mid-term elections on Democratic Party values versus the every growing corrupt practices of the Republican Party.  They conclude by recommending Democrats advance these specific reforms: 

Block any pay raises in a year the government runs a deficit.

Ban members of Congress and their staff from taking any privately funded trips.

Limit how much money candidates can spend in their own campaigns, to limit special interest influence.

Create an independent, bi-partisan ethics committee to enforce rules on abuse by members.

Ban members and their staff from receiving any gifts, including free meals, from lobbyists.

Make it illegal for former members of Congress or staff to join a lobbying firm until they have been out of Congress for 10 years (or 2 years7). 

Democracy Corps makes a number of other very valid points.  In particular, this point is well taken (emphasis added): 

Whether the Democrats realize these big gains will depend in part on whether Democrats lead the change – become the voice of the public’s frustration; emerge as champions of the ordinary voters, outsiders and reformers prepared to change a corrupt Washington that works for the corporate special interests, not the people.

Despite recent important Democratic moves on reform, there is no evidence that the Democrats are seen to have taken up this battle position. The public has gotten there ahead of their leaders. The overall image of the Democrats has not improved, mostly split between positive and negative assessments. They are not seen more favorably than the Republicans. On key attributes, the voters prefer the Democrats, particularly on “reform and change” and on “putting the public interest first.” The Democrats have no advantage on “shares your values” and only a modest one on being “on your side.” Despite the six-month period of deepening problems for the Republicans, the Democrats have not improved on these attribute comparisons. 

While all of this is true, does it not miss a more fundamental point that is the donkey sitting in the road?  

Democracy Corps own poll, January 22-25, found that Republicans have a +21% advantage over Democrats on “knowing that they stand for.”   The same poll also found on the issue of "security and keeping people safe" Democrats underperform Republicans by -17 points.  The issue of national security is the very issue that Republicans ran on in 2004, successfully devastating (“swift boating”) Sen. Kerry on the issue.    

The conclusion is that Americans are obviously and rightfully concerned about national security. It is one of the enumerated duties of the federal government as spelled out in our Constitution. A NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). on Jan. 26-29, 2006 (MoE ± 3.1) demonstrates the level of that concern (emphasis added): 

The “war in Iraq” and “terrorism” combine for 35% of the respondents and “health care” and “job creation” total 36%.  Assuming that “national security” issues favor the Republicans and “the economy” favors Democrats, it is readily apparent that losing the issue of “national security” by -21% is a significant hindrance for Democrats achieving electoral success. 

In order for citizens to believe that the Democratic Party "will make their lives better," "puts the public first," and meets the other traits that you note above, citizens have to clearly understand WHAT the Democratic Party stands for.  WHAT is the Democratic Party position on “national security?”  

Rove gets the point and is already demonstrating it.  During the run up to Justice Alito’s confirmation, Rove ran ads attacking Sen. Minority Leader Reid, not on the issue of Justice Alito’s confirmation, but on “terrorism.”  It is consistent with Rove’s “national security” theme for the 2006 election: 

"The United States faces a ruthless enemy," Rove said in the campaign's opening salvo, "and we need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in. President Bush and the Republican Party do. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for many Democrats."  

To the credit of the DNC, Democrats countered the Republican attack with an ad of their own.  However, the DNC countered with an attack “discrediting President Bush's oft-repeated mantra: "We make a pledge. We keep our word." The ad points out America has lost jobs, the federal deficit is $337 billion and the "No Child Left Behind" Act remains under funded.  Karen Finney, a DNC spokeswoman, claimed that the DNC ad demonstrated Democrats will answer Republican attacks.  

Perhaps Finney is correct, but the DNC ad also demonstrates that the counter attack was not on “terrorism,” it was on the economy and education.  The potential problem with the DNC counter attack is that it did nothing to alter the perception that Sen. Reid specifically and all Democrats by association are not protecting America.  That is roughly saying that Democrats do not stand for anything on “national security.”  Are the citizens of Nevada not left saying Bush may be bad, but at least he is keeping America safe?   

It is ironic that while Bush is making the world an ever more dangerous place in which to live, the Republicans are pinning their electoral success in the mid-term election on keeping Americans safe from the very insecurity they are creating. Yet, it explains why Bush and the radical Republicans continue to defend warrantless spying on Americans.  The not too subtle message is that their Party, not the Democrats, will go to any lengths to keep Americans safe.     

If the Democratic Party builds a national campaign around "the culture of corruption," we might be missing the mark.  As most public polling suggests, many Americans see "all politicians" as corrupt.  And while the Republicans may be seen as corrupt, the public may accept that at least they are keeping us safe.  This is a point that many Republicans are making.  James J. Na, a Republican strategist, wrote after the Democrat response to Bush’s State of the Union address (emphasis added): 

Democrats will, no doubt, make much political hay out of the corruption scandals, the continuing struggle in Iraq and other politically messy events. But the forces that brought the fundamental conservative realignment have not changed. Red states and counties are still growing in people and clout while blue states and counties are generally losing them.

Furthermore, neither Locke nor Kaine's purported "centrism" really presents a workable Democratic vision that can sustain electorally victories in the long run. While they may have the edge in "mommy" issues like education and healthcare, they still do not have a convincing, coherent vision of national security in the Age of Global War on Terror.

Kaine and the national Democrats can repeat "There is a better way" endlessly. The voters are not going to trust them unless they can present a unified, realistic, tough and, indeed, better plan to protect America. So long as the Democrats are beholden to the Michael Moores, the Deaniacs and the Kossacks, whatever political advantage they derive from a temporary Republican weakness is not going to amount to much in the long-term. 

“National security” is the donkey sitting in the middle of the road.  While it is usually safe to walk on the right hand side of the road, or the left hand side of the road, those sitting in the middle of the road ultimately become road kill.           

                        SIGNS OF LIFE 

Democrats are showing some signs of life.  Several special elections have been held since November throughout the United States in which Democrats are winning in some unlikely places.  Most recently, Democrats in Virginia have picked up another State Senate Seat in Virginia from Republicans. 

Democrat Mark R. Herring, a lawyer and former Loudoun County supervisor, was elected to the state Senate yesterday after a campaign that spoke to the frustration of many residents over unchecked growth and traffic.

Herring, 44, defeated Supervisor Mick Staton Jr. (R-Sugarland Run) with 62 percent of the vote to his opponent's 38 percent, according to unofficial results from the 33rd Senate District, which encompasses most Loudoun precincts and a sliver of western Fairfax. 

Loudoun County is a quintessentially Republican exurb.  Yet, Democrats won by making local growth issues the center of the campaign.   

Democrats have now won three State legislative seats in Virginia special elections since the November election in which Democrat Gov. Kaine succeeded Gov. Warner.  Democrats do not control either legislative chamber in Virginia, but Democrats are on their way back. 

In Texas, Democrat Donna Howard shocked political pundits and led the first primary in House District 48 (Austin)(emphasis added).   

In an astonishing finish that sent ripples of shock and joy across the Democratic wing of Travis County, Donna Howard came within a whisker of pulling an upset Tuesday, in what was supposed to have been Republican Ben Bentzin's race to lose.

The two House District 48 candidates now move to a run-off, probably next month, with the winner replacing former Rep. Todd Baxter, R-Austin, and representing the district in a special legislative session on school finance this spring.

Almost certainly, the run-off will take on a strongly negative hue – this time with underdog Bentzin expected to go on the offensive. Perhaps no one was more surprised by Howard's near-victory experience than Howard herself, who had only hoped publicly to hold frontrunner Bentzin below 50% and force him into a run-off. But Howard seized 49.5% of the vote in the four-way race, leaving Bentzin with just 37.8% of the take, followed by Democrat Kathy Rider with just 10.4%, and Libertarian Ben Easton with 2.3%.

Howard attributed her high numbers to a cross-section of voters in her district, which covers West Austin and west/northwest Travis County, who are turned off by the current House leadership's [Republicans’] failure to deliver on education and health care, among other things. "I think that people really want a change," she said between congratulatory hugs from well-wishers gathered at Waterloo Ice House in Northwest Hills. "They're tired of gridlock at the Capitol. They're tired of the same-old, same-old."

Democratic strategist Kelly Fero, a consultant for Howard, took the message a step further, citing Gov. Rick Perry's ringing endorsement of Bentzin – while blasting Democrats – as a likely factor in his lackluster showing. "Voters are in a foul mood and highly frustrated with the inability or unwillingness of this crowd to get the job done," he said. "Rick Perry came in the day before the election to endorse Bentzin … and clearly cost him votes, since he won the early vote, but lost big on election day." Indeed, not even the endorsements of Republican leaders in Congress could bump Bentzin's numbers to a more respectable level. U.S. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, along with U.S. Rep. Mike McCaul, had all backed Bentzin in the race. . . .

Bentzin was not helped by recent news reports that he had hired political consultant John Colyandro in his unsuccessful bid for state Senate in 2002. Colyandro and U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay face money-laundering charges in their efforts to secure a Republican sweep in the 2002 races. 

TPJ will follow the runoff in Texas that is scheduled for this month.  

In a January 10, 2006 special election in the Wisconsin State Assembly District 33 race, Democrat Patrick Byrne was badly defeated; 63% to 37%.  But, was it a “loss?”   

Byrne, 56, of the Town of Delafield, a teacher in Hartland-Lakeside schools, made a good showing in the district, which many consider to be a Republican stronghold.

Vrakas first won the seat in 1990 and held it until his resignation. Byrne challenged Vrakas in November 2004 and lost. In that election, Byrne captured about 28% of the vote.

"I got into this race because I was opposed to a one-party system. I think that's bad for democracy," Byrne said from the Water Street Brewery in Delafield, where he gathered with volunteers. He said he considered his showing Tuesday a "moral victory" for the Democratic Party.

In his campaign, Byrne said it was "time for a new beginning" in the district and was critical of the amount of money Newcomer was spending on the campaign for a job that pays $45,569 a year. 

Byrne of Wisconsin deserves to share Democrats’ praise along with Herring of Virginia and Howard of Texas.  Byrne obviously knew that he was running in a district that is heavily Republican today and would probably lose in a “blowout.”  There is no glory in running such races.  But Byrne has started the Democrats road back in Wisconsin 33.  For that, he merits TPJ’s salute.  

NEXT- MICHAEL CARMICHAEL

Last Update: 03/23/2006