|
archived:
14 - 21 Jan, 2007
Back
Next UPDATED: JANUARY 17, 2007 VOTER REGISTRATION ANYONE? TPJ returns to one of its core issues today – voter registration. Rasmussen tracks public shifts in the public’s self identification of Party affiliation as a part of its methodology in weighting their polls. Rasmussen tracks 15,000 adults nationwide on a monthly basis to determine how those adults identify themselves; Democrat, Republican and Other. They explain: These results are based upon tracking surveys of 15,000 adults per month. The margin of sampling error is less than one percentage point, with a 95% level of confidence. Please keep in mind that figures reported in this article are for all adults, not Likely Voters. Republicans typically do a bit better among Likely Voters (in fact, the two parties ended up even among those who showed up to vote in 2004). Two critical points must be noted. First, the adults surveyed are identifying their Party affiliation, which could, depending on the mood of the adult surveyed, not actually match their actual voter registration. Second, Rasmussen notes that “adults” are not “likely voters.” With those caveats, we have taken Rasmussen’s data from January 2004 through 2006, which is charted by year and month immediately below. The fortunes of the Democratic Party have drastically changed during this period as a cursory examination reveals.
TPJ’s analysis starts with the “big picture.” Comparing January 2004 with December 2006, Democrats have performed marginally better; +.50% and Other sustained the largest increase 2.30%. Republicans have dropped by a corresponding -2.80%. Viewed on an annual basis, Democrats lost to Republicans from 2004 to 2005, -.48%. Democrats dramatically reversed course in 2006, picking up 2.13% within from 2005 to the close of 2006. Impressive. Even more impressive is an analysis looking at the quarterly trends since 2004. For most of 2004 and through September of 2005, Republicans had rather steadily diminished the gap between Democratic and Republican voter identification; from 3.40% at the end of the first quarter of 2004 to a mere 1.30% at third quarter of 2005. Since the third quarter of 2005, Democrats reversed the trend surpassing the first 2004 first quarter lead of 3.40% and closing the fourth quarter of 2006 at 5.73%, and increase of 2.33% from 2004. Again, an impressive reversal of fortunes. For North Carolina Democrats, the question is why the national trends are not being repeated in this State. As TPJ has noted in previous reports, Democrats continue to lose percentage share. In North Carolina, as nationally, Independent (Other) registrations are gaining and Republican increases in percentage of vote registration have stalled. For our latest report, click on the hyperlink immediately below: Stated more plainly, if Democrats are ever to reverse the negative voter registration trends in this State; if not now, when? Bush’s approval ratings are very low by any measure; the escalation of the civil war in Iraq is opposed strongly by the vast majority of citizens; public opinion polls indicate the opening days of the Democratic controlled Congress have been well received; and Democrats expanded their majorities in the NC House and Senate. The chart below demonstrates the gradual decline of the Democrats.
In TPJ’s estimation, NC Democrats have the best opportunity to reverse the trend with hard work during 2007 and 2008 to register voters. NC Democrats lack a strategic statewide plan; a plan to lay the necessary infrastructure and training at the local levels of the Party. Political fortunes ebb and flow. NC Democrats are enjoying success now even as voter registration as a percentage declines. When the national and State fortunes of the Party run into more troubled waters; as they eventually will, what happens then? The answer to that question is how responsibly the Party acts now. The State Executive Committee will meet this coming Saturday at Elon College. At the last meeting of the SEC, two resolutions to start a statewide voter registration effort were inexplicably defeated on floor votes. Will Democrats act so precipitously again – will Democrats act at all? DOLE Stuart Rotenberg of the Rotenberg Report, a TPJ favorite, has just published his US Senate outlook for 2008. He ranks Sen. Dole as currently “safe.” NC Democrats will have to work hard to change that outlook. MCHENRY Congressional Republicans have anointed Rep. Patrick McHenry as their US House “attack dog” on Democrats. But, McHenry is under attack within his own Party. Dennis A Benfield of Hudson, North Carolina recently published this blistering article on the North Carolina Conservative:
Over the
past two years, I have followed closely the actions of our young
congressman, Patrick McHenry—with cautious optimism—to see how he
would handle the strong start in
Washington the voters gave him. The
10th District really gave him a great opportunity to establish
himself in the Capital as a statesman and a leader.
Democrats should be about recruiting a first tier candidate in the 10th. _____________________________________________ LOYALTY COUNTS Rep. Joe Hackney of Orange County will be the next Speaker of the NC House of Representatives. He is progressive, experienced, talented and effective. Democrats can expect to see a positive session of the General Assembly starting later this month. It took four votes for Rep. Hackney’s selection. NC Spin provides the ballot counts based upon their inside sources: 1st Ballot
Michaux was low man and eliminated 2nd Ballot
Saunders was low man and eliminated 3rd Ballot
Blue was low man and eliminated 4th Ballot
Observers have framed several “takes” on Rep. Hackney’s victory. They are each provide valuable information. NC Spin Analysis Members of the Black caucus talked with Michaux right up to the time for nominations, urging him to drop out and improve the chances for an African American to win. As often happens, two African American candidates split the vote and prevented either from winning. Former House Speaker Dan Blue told this reporter that the minute Michaux allowed his name to be nominated, he (Blue) knew he wasn’t going to win. Another source said it was clear from watching the vote counts that the candidates could not hold their votes and deliver them to another candidate once they were defeated. Once their candidate was eliminated, the members felt free to vote for whom they wanted. When Blue was eliminated, the more liberal element of the caucus switched to Hackney, the moderate and conservative element went to Crawford.
His nomination is really not a surprise, as he was the frontrunner for the job from the beginning. As House Majority Leader, it was his job to keep the Democrats united and last session was a trying time for togetherness. But the position gave him plenty of opportunities to interact with individual Democrats and earn their trust. Hackney stepped into a more prominent leadership role in the campaign after Black could no longer credibly raise money for House Democrats, at least partially proving himself capable on the campaign and fundraising trial, also seen as another important job of the Speaker. Hackney was also elected because he has paid his dues, first elected to the House in 1980 and part of the Democratic leadership teams since 1991, when he was Co-Chair of the powerful House Finance Committee. He was almost always loyal to the House leadership on key issues, even when it meant ignoring his own views, his unfortunate vote for the lottery being the most obvious example. He was also loyal to Jim Black publicly, possibly to a fault, but that too gained him some support for his bid for Speaker. An additional factor may also help to explain Rep. Hackney’s selection – Party loyalty; not Rep. Hackney’s loyalty, but that of Rep. Crawford. Rep. Crawford, a conservative, was certainly qualified to be Speaker. He has largely shaped the House budgets on behalf of Democrats. It is a powerful position, which Rep. Crawford has handled responsibly. Carefully note that when Dan Blue was eliminated from the contest, Hackney and Crawford were within five votes with Blue’s considerable 19 votes in play. Ultimately, Rep. Crawford only got three of those votes. According to NC Spin, it was simply a matter of “liberal” Blue votes going to the more liberal of the two candidates remaining. Fitzsimon views it from the perspective of Hackney’s loyalty to the House Democratic leadership over the years and his hard, professional work. Rep. Crawford became embroiled in a controversial Sheriff’s race in Vance County during the mid-term elections; an involvement that may have been a factor in the vast majority of Rep. Blue’s votes going to Hackney. Democrat Peter White was elected as the new Sheriff in Vance County in November. A veteran of the North Carolina Highway Patrol, Peter White is the first Black Sheriff of Vance County. White won a contested Democratic Party primary, including a runoff, defeating incumbent Sheriff Thomas Breedlove. With no Republican opponent, White was assured election. George Hoyle, a White, independent candidate, who claimed to be a Democrat, emerged and gained enough signatures to be placed on the ballot. Hoyle is Rep. Crawford’s son-in-law and Rep. Crawford assisted his campaign Hoyle’s emergence threatened to divide the Democratic Party down largely racial lines. The local Democratic Party rallied around their candidate. However, Vance County Democrats called on a number of regional and statewide Democratic stalwarts who either are currently holding elected office or who had held elective office to endorse White. None did. Presumably, these Democrats did not step forward, in part, not to as potentially offend Rep. Crawford. State Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek stepped into the race. In October, Meek issued a statement clearly identifying White as the Democratic Party choice for Sheriff. In the closing weeks of the campaign, Democrats, still failing to attract a “name” regional or statewide Democrat to help, summoned Chairman Meek to Vance County to campaign for White: NC Democratic Party Chair Jerry Meek said, “I’m here to say, as clearly and plainly as possible, that the North Carolina Democratic Party fully and completely supports Peter White for Sheriff of Vance County. With 30 years experience on the State Highway Patrol, Peter White is the most experienced candidate for this job. I encourage all Democrats in Vance County to support him. In the closing days of the campaign, Meek provided a personal message that was used as a robo call into every Democratic household in the County. The election was close, but White won with 6,264 votes, 52 percent and the challenger received 5,696, 48 percent. In TPJ’s estimation, when Rep. Blue was eliminated from the Speakers race Rep. Crawford’s failure to support Peter White became a liability. It would appear that the progressive members of the House who supported Rep. Blue then cast their ballots for Rep. Hackney, not only a progressive, but a Representative who had been loyal to the Democratic Party. SHULER & FLAKE Newly elected Congressman Heath Shuler broke ranks with the House Democratic leadership and voted against federal funding of stem cell research. Rep. Shuler’s reason for breaking ranks: It was the third major vote for Rep. Heath Shuler, a pro-gun and anti-abortion Democrat who was expected to break party lines on some issues. Shuler said his vote was a matter of both conscience and his constituents' beliefs that harming embryos is wrong. "If those stem cell lines can be created without destruction of the embryo, it's so important that we do it," Shuler said in a telephone interview. "I feel like life begins at conception." Shuler said he voted with his party on the first two major votes this session: to implement some unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 commission, and to increase the minimum wage. "I have to vote with the people of my district," Shuler said. "A lot of times, it's going to be with the leadership." But on other issues, Shuler said he would vote against Democratic leaders, as he did Thursday. Shuler said he believes the scientific advances from stem cell research can be accomplished without harming human embryos. He is co-sponsoring a resolution that would encourage federal funding for alternative methods of collecting stem cells, such as through amniotic fluid and umbilical cord blood. Rep. Shuler was one of two NC Democrats who voted against stem cell research; Rep. McIntrye also voting against. One Republican, Howard Coble, voted for the bill. A roll call of North Carolina Congressmen:
District 01 Butterfield, G K (D) - Yea
District 06 Coble, Howard (R) -
Yea
|
