On Saturday, my weekend took a turn for the worse when my Georgia Bulldogs managed to lose, at homecoming no less, to the Vanderbilt Commodores (it was their first loss to the ‘Dores since 1994, which also occurred on Homecoming Day). A missed FG, a TD pass dropped in the end zone, and a questionable decision to settle for a FG near the end of the first half, all contributed to the upset, along with an impressive final drive by Vandy. The brightest spot for Georgia was an interception returned for a touchdown by linebacker Tony Taylor, who is busily building All-America credentials. (A loss by the hated Florida Gators at Auburn Saturday night was small consolation).As has often been the case this fall, the political news this weekend was better than the Sports Report. Today a new Washington Post poll showed Jim Webb in a statistical dead heat with George Allen in a VA Senate race that could pave the way to a Democratic Senate. Oddly enough, the Post’s analysis seemed to spin this as relatively good news for Allen, on the basis of a finding that his supporters like him more than Webb’s supporters like his challenger. Well, so what? People vote for a variety of positive and negative reasons, and the national revulsion towards the GOP, which appears to be shared by many Virginians, is a good a motivator on Webb’s behalf as the (to me, at least) inscrutable affection of nearly half of them for George Allen. The CW had it that Allen had finally turned the corner on a campaign previously dominated by coverage of his mean-spirited ethnocentrism or worse. Doesn’t look that way right now.Moreover, DKos reported new media polls in four gubernatorial races showing a significant Democratic trend. Two races polled as ties in September now appear to be breaking towards the Dem: IA, where Chet Culver leads Jim Nussle 46-39, and MN, where Mike Hatch leads incumbent Tim Pawlenty 46-37. In MI, two new polls have Jennifer Granholm, often considered the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent governor, up 8 over Dick DeVos. And another vulnerable Dem, Rod Blagojevich, now seems to be expanding his lead (to 14, in the latest poll) over Judy Baar Topinka.The evidence continues to mount that this could be a historic year for Dems, but there’s too much time left in the electoral season–or even the football season–to make any firm predictions. Go Dems. Go Dogs.
Month: October 2006
Thomas Friedman’s column in today’s New York Times addresses the centrality of energy independence as a priority for both national security and winning elections. Friedman interviewed Democracy Corps’ James Carville on the topic, and got this savory spoonful of political wisdom:
It should “not be part of an expanding litany, but rather a contracting narrative,” explained Mr. Carville. “It can’t just be that we are for a woman’s right to choose, and education and energy independence. This is the thing we need to get done above and beyond everything else.” People should associate “energy security” with Democrats the way they associate “tax cuts” with Republicans, he argued. “This is not something to add to the stew — this is the stock.”
Carville and DCorps’ Stanley Greenberg have more to say in the column about energy independence as critical for our national security and a leading priority with voters. All of which adds up to a huge advantage for Dems, especially given the GOP’s shameful track record on auto mileage standards, alternative energy and energy conservation.
From the Managing Editor:
The following essay by Scott Harris marks the first in what we hope will be a regular feature on the Daily Strategist blog and the TDS website: Strategy from Young Democrats. The editors and I are interested in well-written, empirically based pieces from college students and other young Democrats. Please send submissions — with some information about yourself — to editors@thedemocraticstrategist.org. -sw
Institutional Corruption and the Midterm Elections
by Scott Harris
Political handicappers all over the country were scrambling in the early days of October to be the first to predict how the new rush of scandals, from a pedophilic Congressman to a book by Bob Woodward depicting a systematic deception of the American people and deliberate manipulation of Iraq facts by their president, will impact the 2006 midterm elections. Of course, our gut feeling tells us that scandal is bad and the public will react negatively against the people in power when things in government go poorly. While there has been no dearth of polling to back up a lot of the analysis that is about to be made here, with common political reasoning alone, some strong inferences can be made.
Since the beginning of instant politics, there have always been a few golden tools that candidates stick to in the art of campaigning. The first and foremost is television advertisements. Positive ads are known to increase turnout and harden support from the candidates’ base and leaners. Negative ads are known to depress turnout and soften an opposing candidate’s support among unaffiliated and undecided voters. You can bet that the GOP is worried about these effects of Foley and Woodward’s Iraq book.
First, examine with specificity how a depressed turnout is likely to affect swing districts in November. The GOP was already nervous about how two years’ worth of bad news was going to affect their GOTV operations so the Democrats started with an advantage. Based on my analysis, depressed Election Day turnout of Republican voters puts at least a dozen seats in play that ordinarily wouldn’t be.
In order for the Republicans to pull off a victory in contests like the one in Nebraska – where populist Democrat Scott Kleeb is facing off against Adrian Smith for an open seat – the Party has to turn out the group that has been its most valuable asset in the past three elections: evangelical voters. Kleeb to some extent has reinvigorated the Nebraska Democratic Party and, with some help from the DNC, the campaign is swinging into a high-gear voter-targeting outfit. Baron Hill (IN-09), Brad Ellsworth (IN-08), and Joe Donnelly (IN-02) are part of a revival that has the state party poised to do the impossible in Indiana – give Democrats control of the Congressional delegation and the state House. The Partisan Voter Index (PVI) of those districts is R+7, R+9 and R+4, respectively. Simply put, Democrats ordinarily should not be favored to win those three seats. Shuler in NC-11, Space in OH-18, Kilroy in OH-15, Burner in WA-08 and Weaver in KY-02 are a few more examples. And, by the way, the same is true for Democrats currently holding onto red seats. In most other elections, John Barrow (GA-12), Jim Marshall (GA-8) and Chet Edwards (TX-18) would be campaigning in hyper mode to ensure they weren’t bounced by an upstart conservative Republican.
Democrats are competitive because GOP turnout is predicted to be dampened in deep red country, and the scandals of Foley and the handling of the Iraq war will only serve to make the situation worse. Christian conservatives were already flirting with the suggestion that evangelicals stay home to punish the Republicans for failing to pursue their agenda fiercely enough and have written a string of editorials, including several from prominent and influential members of the Republican cause. In the latest Hotline poll, the approval rating of Congress was 28%. In another recent L.A. Times poll, Democrats bested Republicans as the party that would be more equipped to govern, 44% to 38%. Does anyone think those numbers are going to get better for the Republicans?
Second, examine more generally how a negative political environment will impact the likelihood that already competitive seats become Dem-favored and how October uncertainty would force the GOP into bad or just plain stupid decisions. The Foley scandal and other recent revelations, even in this early media stage, have put a few GOP leaders on alert for re-election and, thus, have disrupted the Republican media machine.
Going into the last month before the elections, Bush was providing the Republican Party something of a redemption. His approval ratings ticked back up into the 40s, after a summer of mid-30s and the Party’s marks on terrorism and the War in Iraq also enjoyed modest bumps. Then Bill Clinton faced off with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, and Woodward’s book came out. And in the next media cycle, attention was turned to Bush’s efforts to combat terrorism (or lack thereof) before 9/11. The Foley sex scandal broke loose on Washington a few days later and no one wanted to talk about Iraq, terrorism or pre-9/11 efforts to kill bin Laden. They wanted to talk about how the GOP leadership mishandled having a child predator in their midst.
A strong, united campaign message has been the centerpiece of the Republican strategy since the Contract with America. What about the scandal has knocked Republicans out of their usually disciplined message operation?
First, the Foley scandal has put two seats of GOP leaders in jeopardy. Tom Reynolds (NY-26), the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, or the man responsible for electing Republicans to Congress, is trailing his challenger (Jack Davis). Many people in Washington and in his district see the writing on the wall and understand this is a seat they just lost. Very unexpectedly, the seat of House Speaker Dennis Hastert is suddenly a prize to be won. No polling has been released on this race as of this writing, but you can bet that both the NRCC and the DCCC have one in the field right now and depending on the results, we should see whether or not the Speaker has just made himself a prime target for the midterm elections. There is little doubt that last week was the worst press week for Hastert in his political career.
Second, out of fear that they could be next on the chopping block, Republicans are turning on Republicans. Kirk Fordham, a now former aide to both ex-Rep. Foley and Rep. Reynolds, told the AP that he warned Hastert’s office three years ago about Foley’s inappropriate contact with pages. That seems to back up the account of Majority Leader Boehner. The denials coming from the Speaker’s office aren’t really denials, which leaves it to speculation that someone is going to find out that these meetings did take place, the Republican leadership did discuss Foley, and chose to do nothing. No one wants to have their career in Washington end because they couldn’t place the blame on someone else.
Scott Harris is a freshman at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and is studying political science. He can be reached at harris.scott.jr@gmail.com.
By Anne-Marie Slaughter
The Truman Project is a shot in the arm for the Democratic Party: a group of super-smart, ambitious, and savvy young people challenging all of us to articulate why it is that we are Democrats, what we stand for, and how we would actually govern. Let me begin by agreeing with the basic distinction that Grinberg, Kleinfeld, and Spence make between foreign policy and national security and with the point that Americans care far more about national security — what keeps themselves and their families safe — than foreign policy more generally. This is the same message that Kurt Campbell and Michael O’Hanlon are sending in their new book HARD POWER. That said, it is equally important that we define national security broadly enough to address all the major threats we face as a nation, as opposed to seeing all national security issues through the lens of terrorism, even nuclear terrorism.
On 9/11 many in the Administration were focused on China as the next enemy; al Qaeda came out of a clear blue sky. While we have been focusing on Iraq, we neglected the threats brewing in both North Korea and Iran. Last winter avian flu suddenly hit the headlines, a threat that could kill many more millions of Americans than even the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a major city. And responding to the challenges to the international system created by the rise of China and India as major powers on the one hand, and the widening inequality between haves and have-nots fueled by globalization on the other, are both major issues for any national security strategist monitoring global trends.
In the Princeton Project on National Security final report, written by John Ikenberry and me and released on September 27th, we defined national security in George Kennan’s terms, as “the continued ability of the country to pursue the development of its internal life without serious interference, or threat of interference, from foreign powers.” We argued that presenting Islamo-Fascism as the heir to Naziism and Communism is addressing a 21st century world with a 20th century mindset — trying to return to a simpler age with one big enemy and one big response. Keeping America safe in the 21st century absolutely requires countering the threat posed by global terrorist networks — a global insurgency with a criminal core that must be countered not by a “war on terror” that dignifies terrorists as holy warriors, but rather by a sophisticated counter-insurgency strategy combining intelligence, law enforcement and special operations. But it also requires having an affirmative, proactive strategy to counter nuclear proliferation, to bring peace between Israel and Palestine and stabilize the entire Middle East, to prevent and protect against a global pandemic, and to safeguard America’s energy supplies. These are not issues of foreign policy, but of national security — of our day-to-day ability to live our lives.
The challenge of selling this vision is the challenge of countering one big idea — the war on terror — with what might first appear to be a number of smaller ideas. That is where Grinberg, Kleinfeld, and Spence’s recommendation about “Standing Principled” comes in. Americans must be reminded that focusing our national security strategy on one issue is simply not going to make us safe, but that neither can we run in every direction at once. We instead need a positive agenda, a plan for how to build an infrastructure of capacity and cooperation that will give us the ability and the partners to turn on a dime and address whatever threat is most menacing at any given point while at the same time working on long-term effective strategies to resolve outstanding conflicts, lock down nuclear weapons and provide states with incentives not to pursue nuclear capacity, offer a comprehensive peace plan for the Middle East, etc.
That agenda couples long-standing American principles with partners who share them and are willing to work with us to advance them. The Princeton Project report advocates a vision of a world of liberty under law — a world in which we would promote democracy effectively over the long term not simply as a answer to terrorism but as the realization of the universal values this country was founded on; in which we would reform old institutions and create new ones to ensure that we have rules, procedures, and capacity to address crises regionally and globally, not alone as a global policeman; and in which we would build our security together with like-minded countries who are willing to integrate their militaries with ours and rethink the international rules governing the use of force together with other nations.
Finally, standing on America’s principles, and promoting them not as our values, but as universal values, is the best long-term answer to the terrorists’ message. We will not accept a world divided along religious, geographic, or civilizational lines. We should stand tall for our principles and ensure that we live up to them at home as well as abroad. If we do that, we will find friends again to help us counter our enemies; we will be able to draw on the full spectrum of American power — hard and soft, public and private; and we will have both might and right on our side.
Anne-Marie Slaughter is the Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and co-convener, with John Ikenberry, of the Princeton Project on National Security
The big political news in Washington today was Mark Warner’s surprise announcement that he was not running for president in 2008, citing concerns about the impact of a campaign on his family. Naturally, hundreds of political operatives and would-be pundits got on the phone with each other to see if anyone knew the “real reason” for Warner’s decision. But best I can tell at this point, we should all take Warner’s word for it that he and his wife had agreed on this fall as a failsafe point, and after taking a long look at what a presidential run–or for that matter, a victory–would do to their lives, took a pass. This happens pretty often, actually. Sure, there are always some Big Dogs in Washington (e.g., Wilbur Mills, John Connally, Phil Gramm, Orrin Hatch) who delude themselves into thinking they are presidential timber, until they crash and burn on the campaign trail. But almost every cycle, there are potentially strong candidates who just don’t run. Until (and for that matter, after) he finally ran in 1980, Ted Kennedy was perenially regarded as a proto-candidate. Mario Cuomo and Sam Nunn famously didn’t run in 1988 and 1992. Bob Kerrey surprised a lot of people when he announced he wouldn’t run in 2000. And sometimes candidates go back and forth. Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald Reagan both foreswore a run in 1968, before jumping in late. And in 1992, Ross Perot set a new standard for irresolution by running full-tilt for president, withdrawing, and then re-entering the race. The most renowned statement of non-candidacy was, of course, William Tecumsah Sherman’s terse announcement prior to the 1884 presidential election that “if drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve.” Indeed, my former boss Sam Nunn often avoided a definitive statement of non-candidacy by remarking: “As a Georgian, I would never make a Sherman Statement.”But my personal favorite in this genre was Fritz Mondale’s comment, after abandoning a 1972 run, that he “didn’t want to spend the next year living in Holiday Inns” (this was back in the day, before the willingness to become a quasi-resident of Iowa, and consume vast quantities of that state’s fine pork products, became the threshold issue for potential candidates). Reminded of this disclaimer when he accepted the vice-presidential nomination in1976, Mondale allowed as how the Holiday Inn chain had made a lot of improvements in the intervening four years. Warner’s announcement of non-candidacy will not be the last of this cycle, but no one really knows who may drop out or drop in exactly when. I know very smart people who are convinced Hillary Clinton won’t run, and/or that Al Gore will, against all the current evidence. Among Republicans, you hear that Rudy Guiliani is definitely in, or definitely out. The only sure drop-out among the frequently named is George Allen, whether or not he survives his rolling disaster of a Senate re-election campaign. But I think it’s both wise and decent when a potential candidate drops out to give him or her the benefit of the doubt and accept that mere personal reasons are always sufficient to justify a statement of non-candidacy. For all the allure of the power and influence associated with becoming the Leader of the Free World, getting there is a brutal business indeed, and as President Al Gore and President John Kerry can tell you, in our system there ain’t no consolation prizes for valiant near-misses.
Facing South‘s Chris Kromm blogs on an article in Hastings Wyman’s ‘s Southern Political Report predicting a net pick-up of seven southern House seats for Dems. Wyman, identified by Kromm as a “former Republican operative,” says Dems will pick up FL 13, 16 and 22; Ky 4; NC 11; TX 22; and Va 2. He rates FL 8 and NC 8 as toss-ups.
If Wyman is right, the south may contribute a healthy portion of the Democrats’ expected margin of victory. And with Harold Ford and James Webb running highly competitive campaigns in TN and VA respectively, it’s possible the South could also make a significant contribution to winning back the Senate.
Kromm quotes the subtitle of Thomas Schaller’s forthcoming In These Times article “Where the Seats Are,” making a very different prediction: “The Democrats are going to gain seats in the 2006 midterms, and those gains will come from outside the South.” Schaller’s view gets a little boost from an article in yesterday’s New York Times “Georgia Home to Two of a Rare Breed — the At-risk Democrat” about the possibility of Dems losing two House seats, GA 8 and 12.
June Kronholz article “Uphill Climb: Registering Hispanics to Vote” in today’s Wall St. Journal provides a discouraging update on efforts to register Latino voters. If Kronholz is right, and we need to hear from other sources on this, Hispanic registration and turnout will fall well short of optimistic goals bandied about in the wake of this year’s massive demonstrations in support of immigrant rights. The stakes are high, and the immigration issue could be pivotal in specific races, as Kronholz notes:
Hispanics are the largest minority group in the U.S. and account for more than half of all foreign-born immigrants. But historically, most of them can’t or don’t file for citizenship, and most of those who do file don’t vote. For example, during a recent week, 28,000 immigrants became citizens. If past patterns hold, 6,160 are Hispanic, and just 3,572 of them will register to vote.
The untapped potential means both political parties have much at stake in the immigration debate. The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, an advocacy group, estimates there are 9.4 million immigrants — both Hispanic and non-Hispanic — who are eligible to become citizens and vote. That is almost three times the popular-vote margin for President Bush in the 2004 election.
In a half-dozen swing states, the immigrant vote this year could be decisive for the party that can harness it. The Illinois Coalition says that in Florida, there are 870,000 potential votes among immigrants eligible to naturalize and their voting-age U.S.-born children. An additional 77,000 U.S.-born children of immigrants will be old enough to cast ballots in Florida in the 2008 election, it adds.
The WSJ article has an interesting chart noting that, while Hispanics are the largest demographic minority, they remain a distant third in eligible voters and voter turnout. There are 148.2 million white citizens over the age of 18, compared to 23.3 million African Americans, 16.1 million Latinos and 3.3 million Asians nationwide. But the 2004 voter turnout percentages show an even greater gap that cries out for a more aggressive voter registration program by Democrats: white 67; Black 60; Hispanic 47 and Asian 44.
Voter registration deadlines for ’06 have passed in most states, but it’s not too late to put more resources into increasing turnout. And on the morning after the election, Dems should begin planning for a stronger registration program for ’08.
by Ruy Teixeira
cross-posted at the Washington Monthly’s Showdown ’06 blog
Over the weekend, I put up a lengthy post on “State of the Race: The Macro and the Micro“, which provided my basic take on how the campaign currently looks, based both on macro (national) and micro (race-specific) indicators. There isn’t much new micro data, but the release of four new national polls (CNN, USA Today/Gallup, CBS/New York Times and ABC/Washington Post) yesterday allows for some updating of the macro indictors–updating that is all bad, bad, bad for the GOP.
Generic Congressional Vote. In these four polls, Democrats averaged a 17 point lead over the Republicans. That pulls Charles Franklin’s trend-based estimate of the Democratic advantage up to 13 points.
Bush Approval. These four polls averaged 37 percent approval for president Bush. Charles Franklin’s trend estimate has consequentially been pulled down to 38 percent.
Congressional approval. These four polls averaged 28 percent Congressional approval.
Party Favorability and Preferences. In the Gallup poll, Democrats in Congress are favored over Repubicans in Congress on health care (+37), gas prices (+26), corruption in government (+21), the economy (+21), the situation in Iraq (+17), immigration (+13) and even moral standards in the country (+7) and terrorism (+5). In the ABC/Washington Post poll, the Democratic party is favored over the Republican party on health care (+33), ethics in government (+19), the economy (+17), immigration (+13), the situation in Iraq (+13) and even the US campaign against terrorism (+6).
Believe me, this just scratches the surface of all the bad news in these polls for the GOP. If these macro sentiments are driving the micro situation farther toward the Democrats–which they likely are–the GOP is indeed in very big trouble. No wonder Charlie Cook observed in his latest column: “Four weeks is a lifetime in politics and the tide still could shift. But for Republicans to salvage their majorities in the House and Senate, quite a bit would have to change.”
Stay tuned. We shall see if the GOP gets those changes…or whether these polls foreshadow a disastrous election day for the Republicans.
by Ruy Teixeira
cross-posted at the Washington Monthly’s Showdown ’06 blog
Over the weekend, I put up a lengthy post on “State of the Race: The Macro and the Micro“, which provided my basic take on how the campaign currently looks, based both on macro (national) and micro (race-specific) indicators. There isn’t much new micro data, but the release of four new national polls (CNN, USA Today/Gallup, CBS/New York Times and ABC/Washington Post) yesterday allows for some updating of the macro indictors–updating that is all bad, bad, bad for the GOP.
Generic Congressional Vote. In these four polls, Democrats averaged a 17 point lead over the Republicans. That pulls Charles Franklin’s trend-based estimate of the Democratic advantage up to 13 points.
Bush Approval. These four polls averaged 37 percent approval for president Bush. Charles Franklin’s trend estimate has consequentially been pulled down to 38 percent.
Congressional approval. These four polls averaged 28 percent Congressional approval.
Party Favorability and Preferences. In the Gallup poll, Democrats in Congress are favored over Repubicans in Congress on health care (+37), gas prices (+26), corruption in government (+21), the economy (+21), the situation in Iraq (+17), immigration (+13) and even moral standards in the country (+7) and terrorism (+5). In the ABC/Washington Post poll, the Democratic party is favored over the Republican party on health care (+33), ethics in government (+19), the economy (+17), immigration (+13), the situation in Iraq (+13) and even the US campaign against terrorism (+6).
Believe me, this just scratches the surface of all the bad news in these polls for the GOP. If these macro sentiments are driving the micro situation farther toward the Democrats–which they likely are–the GOP is indeed in very big trouble. No wonder Charlie Cook observed in his latest column: “Four weeks is a lifetime in politics and the tide still could shift. But for Republicans to salvage their majorities in the House and Senate, quite a bit would have to change.”
Stay tuned. We shall see if the GOP gets those changes…or whether these polls foreshadow a disastrous election day for the Republicans.
June Kronholz article “Uphill Climb: Registering Hispanics to Vote” in today’s Wall St. Journal provides a discouraging update on efforts to register Latino voters. If Kronholz is right, and we need to hear from other sources on this, Hispanic registration and turnout will fall well short of optimistic goals bandied about in the wake of this year’s massive demonstrations in support of immigrant rights. The stakes are high, and the immigration issue could be pivotal in specific races, as Kronholz notes:
Hispanics are the largest minority group in the U.S. and account for more than half of all foreign-born immigrants. But historically, most of them can’t or don’t file for citizenship, and most of those who do file don’t vote. For example, during a recent week, 28,000 immigrants became citizens. If past patterns hold, 6,160 are Hispanic, and just 3,572 of them will register to vote.
The untapped potential means both political parties have much at stake in the immigration debate. The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, an advocacy group, estimates there are 9.4 million immigrants — both Hispanic and non-Hispanic — who are eligible to become citizens and vote. That is almost three times the popular-vote margin for President Bush in the 2004 election.
In a half-dozen swing states, the immigrant vote this year could be decisive for the party that can harness it. The Illinois Coalition says that in Florida, there are 870,000 potential votes among immigrants eligible to naturalize and their voting-age U.S.-born children. An additional 77,000 U.S.-born children of immigrants will be old enough to cast ballots in Florida in the 2008 election, it adds.
The WSJ article has an interesting chart noting that, while Hispanics are the largest demographic minority, they remain a distant third in eligible voters and voter turnout. There are 148.2 million white citizens over the age of 18, compared to 23.3 million African Americans, 16.1 million Latinos and 3.3 million Asians nationwide. But the 2004 voter turnout percentages show an even greater gap that cries out for a more aggressive voter registration program by Democrats: white 67; Black 60; Hispanic 47 and Asian 44.
Voter registration deadlines for ’06 have passed in most states, but it’s not too late to put more resources into increasing turnout. And on the morning after the election, Dems should begin planning for a stronger registration program for ’08.
