washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

Month: August 2010

Inequality and Government

It’s one of the great ironies of this political era of discontent that some of the most exceptional indicia of economic inequality in recent American history are being accompanied by a populist backlash against income redistribution, even in its most time-honored forms.
Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, who wrote an important analysis of latter-day conservatism and it impact on political discourse in Off Center, have returned with a book on the politics of inequality: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer–And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class.
I’ve done a full review of this book for the Washington Monthly, and you can check that out at your leisure. But the book is useful in two major respects: (1) It focuses not just on the ever-growing divide in wealth and income between the top and everyone else, but between the top-of-the-top and everyone else, a process that has been largely immune to the economic vicissitudes of the last decade. (2) It makes a very strong case against the assumption that this sort of inequality is the “natural” product of market forces, rather than the artificial results of government policies deliberately promoted for that purpose.
I tend to think that Hacker and Pierson undestimate the deep-seated, non-contrived extent of anti-government sentiments among Americans, and the contributions of poor public-sector performance in abetting them, but all in all, their book is a very valuable contribution to our understanding of the politics of the economy today and yesterday. It’s a book that will probably make you mad–but in a constructive way. It’s certainly an appropriate read for the upcoming Labor Day weekend.


In Weighing Obama’s Strategic Performance, Context Is Everything

There’s quite a boom market right now for theories about what Barack Obama’s done wrong, and/or what he could or should have done right but didn’t. The most impressive of those, as noted here the other day, was by John Judis, who makes the case that a “populist” approach could have positioned Obama and the Democratic Party much better for the midterms and for 2012.
Matt Bai of The New York Times also penned an influential piece arguing that Obama’s focus on legislative accomplishments has fatally interfered with his ability to project big national political messages.
Now comes Ezra Klein with a succinct rejoinder to anyone trying to essay some single-bullet theory explanation of Obama’s political standing, or where it might be if he had adopted a different strategy.
Ezra begins by tartly noting that we’ll never know what might have happened in some parallel universe where Obama did what Judis or Bai think he should have done. But using objective measurements against the only recent presidents who took office in similar circumstances–Carter, Reagan and Clinton–Obama’s approval ratings look reasonably good:

Obama’s current approval rating of 44 percent beats Clinton, Carter and Reagan. All of them were between 39 percent and 41 percent at this point in their presidencies. And all of them were former governors who accomplished less legislatively than Obama has at this point in his presidency. That seems like a problem for Bai’s thesis. At least two of them are remembered as great communicators with a deft populist touch. That seems like a problem for Judis’s thesis.

Indeed. But Ezra goes on to make a point about the midterm results we are anticipating that’s become something of an obsession for me: the Democratic “losses” in the House everyone’s talking about are from the base of a strong Democratic majority. With the sole exception of 1934, the first midterm after the beginning of the Great Depression, and 2002, the first election after 9/11, every new president since Theodore Roosevelt has seen his party lose House seats in the first ensuing midterm.
But “gains” and “losses” are always relative. All 435 Members of the House are up for re-election. If Democrats lose 37 seats, they will have won the midterms, albeit by a reduced margin from 2006 and 2008.
All in all, while theories of what Obama woulda shoulda coulda done are interesting and sometimes informative, context is still essential in understanding the extent to which his actual conduct in office has or hasn’t damaged his political status. As Ezra concludes:

There’s plenty to criticize in Obama’s policies and plenty to lament in his politics. But when it comes to grand theories explaining how his strategic decisions led him to this horrible — but historically, slightly-better-than-average — political position, I’m skeptical. There are enormously powerful structural forces in American politics that seem to drag down first-term presidents. There is the simple mathematical reality that large majorities are always likely to lose a lot of seats. There is a terrible and ongoing economic slump — weekly jobless claims hit 500,000 today — that is causing Americans immense pain and suffering. Any explanations for the current political mood that don’t put those front and center is, at the least, not doing enough to challenge the counterfactual.

Selah.


First Church of Burning Tree

It was pretty alarming when Pew released a poll earlier this week showing that the percentage of Americans who believe the president is a Muslim has actually increased in recent months from 11% to 18%. But then came a Time Magazine poll actually conducted this week in the midst of the Muslim-bashing frenzy involving the “Ground Zero Mosque,” showing 24% of Americans–and 46% of Republicans–beleving the president is a Muslim. It’s about time to conclude this phenomenon has transcended the Americans-believe-funny-things meme that dismisses findings of this nature as simply a reflection of the gullibility or suggestibility of low-information voters.
But the really maddening thing is that Obama–who in my own opinion is one of the most profoundly Christian politicians in memory–is getting blamed for this belief on grounds that he hasn’t made a sufficient display of his faith. Here’s Josh Gerstein at Politico:

When he came to Washington as president, many expected Obama would select a new church or sample many different ones. But in more than 19 months he’s been in office, he has been seen heading to the golf course more than to church.

No one, of course, doubted Ronald Reagan’s religiosity even though he never affiliated with a church in Washington. And the famously pious George W. Bush wasn’t much seen in churches as president, either.
As for playing golf on the Sabbath, I’m reminded again of the time when the wife of “Mr. Republican,” Sen. Robert Taft, was asked where her husband worshipped on Sunday mornings. “Burning Tree,” she blurted out, referring to the congressional golf course.
In this as in many other respects, Barack Obama is being held to a different standard than most politicians, but I guess that’s just his cross to bear.


Obama Should Use PSA’s, Govt Media to Educate Public About HCR

CNN Senior Political Editor Mark Preston has a post up at CNN.com’s ‘Political Ticker,’ reporting on the Republicans’ campaign to sink Democratic midterm candidates by linking them to ‘Obamacare.” Preston notes that Democratic candidates are treating the GOP effort as a distraction, trying to refocus voters on economic issues, which the Republicans generally ignore, lacking any alternatives, other than offering tax and spending cuts as a panacea. Preston highlights the spending behind the GOP propaganda campaign:

A new analysis by Campaign Media Analysis Group for CNN shows that federal and state political candidates have spent $24 million on anti-health care reform television commercials since Congress passed the bill in late March. Over the past 30 days alone, more than $6 million has been spent on TV ads attacking the law, and there is no sign these commercials are going away…Of the $24 million spent so far criticizing the health care law, Republicans have run $11.3 million worth of commercials where the term “Obamacare” is used – a not so subtle attempt to link Democratic candidates to a president who suffers from a disapproval rating of 51 percent.
“Based on the advertising and messaging, this is clearly being used by Republicans as a wedge issue,” said Evan Tracey, president of CMAG and CNN’s consultant on political TV ad spending. “The GOP is using the passage of the bill against Democrats in a growing proportion at both the state and federal level.”
In contrast, the CMAG analysis shows that $6.3 million has been spent on pro-health care reform TV ads since Congress approved the legislation.

The Republicans may be wasting their money. Recent Polls indicate that the health care issue now ranks well behind the economy among voters priorities. And, as TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira recently noted in his ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ post,

On the health care reform law, the most recent Kaiser Health tracking poll now has 50 percent voicing a favorable reaction to the new law, versus just 35 percent unfavorable. This reverses a 44-41 unfavorable verdict from two months ago.

In addition, other polls indicate that many who disapprove of the Affordable Health Care Act wanted the coverage to be broader, with a greater investment and role for the federal government, and they are not likely to be receptive to the Republicans effort to gut the legislation entirely.
Sure, it’s possible that the GOP could do some damage with their ads. But it may not be a cost-effective investment, or to use an Econ 101 analysis, the opportunity cost of not investing the dough in promoting their competitive candidates could be substantial.
Democrats ought not invest too much of their midterm financial resources, nor media face time, in defending the health care Act. But it would be a perfectly legitimate investment for the federal government, particularly HHS, to produce and distribute public service ads and interviews with experts on the legislation for television, radio, print media and the internet debunking the distortions being promulgated about the Act and explaining why is a good law. This is not pending legislation; it’s the law of the land, and the federal government not only has the right to explain the Health Care Reform Act to the public; it has a duty to do so. This law can save countless lives and help millions of people with their health care struggles, and the government has an obligation to help citizens understand it better. And, as Teixeira explains, concerning the findings of another Kaiser Health tracking poll back in the Spring,

…As the poll shows, the public does not currently believe they have enough information about the new law to clearly understand how it will affect them personally. Just 43 percent say they now have enough information to make this judgment, compared to 56 percent who say they don’t. Thus, more information could presumably make a difference to current feelings about the Affordable Health Care Act.

Yes the GOP would whine and howl about using government resources for what they believe to be a partisan cause. Tough. And yes, Republican-friendly media probably wouldn’t take the Affordable Health Care Act PSA’s or interviews, but many stations would, as might PBS and NPR. It would be a shame, bordering on political negligence, if the Administration failed to seize this opportunity. This is one of those times when it might be useful to ask WWFDRD — “What would FDR do?”


POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH – AUGUST 2010

From Perspectives on Politics

How ACORN Was Framed: Political Controversy and Media Agenda Setting

Peter Dreir and Christopher R. Martin

August 2010

ABSTRACT

Using the news controversy over the community group ACORN, we illustrate the way that the media help set the agenda for public debate and frame the way that debate is shaped. Opinion entrepreneurs (primarily business and conservative groups and individuals, often working through web sites) set the story in motion as early as 2006, the conservative echo chamber orchestrated an anti-ACORN campaign in 2008, the Republican presidential campaign repeated the allegations with a more prominent platform, and the mainstream media reported the allegations without investigating their veracity. As a result, the little-known community organization became the subject of great controversy in the 2008 US presidential campaign, and was recognizable by 82 percent of respondents in a national survey. We analyze 2007-2008 coverage of ACORN by 15 major news media organizations and the narrative frames of their 647 stories during that period. Voter fraud was the dominant story frame, with 55 percent of the stories analyzed using it. We demonstrate that the national news media agenda is easily permeated by a persistent media campaign by opinion entrepreneurs alleging controversy, even when there is little or no truth to the story. Conversely, local news media, working outside of elite national news media sources to verify the most essential facts of the story, were the least likely to latch onto the “voter fraud” bandwagon.


From Political Psychology

Ethnic Minority-Majority Asymmetry in National Attitudes around the World: A Multilevel Analysis

Christian Staerkle, Jim Sidanius, Eva G. T. Green and Ludwig E. Molina

August 2010

ABSTRACT

Using data from the International Social Survey Programme, this research investigated asymmetric attitudes of ethnic minorities and majorities towards their country and explored the impact of human development, ethnic diversity, and social inequality as country-level moderators of national attitudes. In line with the general hypothesis of ethnic asymmetry, we found that ethnic, linguistic, and religious majorities were more identified with the nation and more strongly endorsed nationalist ideology than minorities (H1, 33 countries). Multilevel analyses revealed that this pattern of asymmetry was moderated by country-level characteristics: the difference between minorities and majorities was greatest in ethnically diverse countries and in egalitarian, low inequality contexts. We also observed a larger positive correlation between ethnic subgroup identification and both national identification and nationalism for majorities than for minorities (H2, 20 countries). A stronger overall relationship between ethnic and national identification was observed in countries with a low level of human development. The greatest minority-majority differences in the relationship between ethnic identification and national attitudes were found in egalitarian countries with a strong welfare state tradition.

 

“I’m Not Prejudiced, but . . .”: Compensatory Egalitarianism in the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary

Corinne Moss-Racusin, Julie Phelan and Laurie Rudman

August 2010

ABSTRACT

The historic 2008 Democratic presidential primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton posed a difficult choice for egalitarian White voters, and many commentators speculated that the election outcome would reflect pitting the effects of racism against sexism (Steinem, 2008). Because self-reported prejudices may be untrustworthy, we used the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to assess White adults’ (1) condemnation of prejudices, and (2) attitudes toward the candidates in relation to voting decisions, as part of an online survey. Results supported the proposed compensatory egalitarianism process, such that Whites’ voting choice was consistent with their implicit candidate preference, but in an effort to remain egalitarian, participants compensated for this preference by automatically condemning prejudice toward the other candidate’s group. Additional findings showed that this process was moderated by participants’ ethnicity and level of prejudice, as expected. Specifically, compensatory egalitarianism occurred primarily among Whites and individuals low in explicit prejudice. Implications for candidate support, aversive racism theory, and implicit compensation processes are discussed.

 

The Affective Tipping Point: Do Motivated Reasoners Ever “Get It”?

David P. Redlawsk, Andrew J. W. Civettini and Karen M. Emmerson

August 2010

ABSTRACT

In order to update candidate evaluations voters must acquire information and determine whether that new information supports or opposes their candidate expectations. Normatively, new negative information about a preferred candidate should result in a downward adjustment of an existing evaluation. However, recent studies show exactly the opposite; voters become more supportive of a preferred candidate in the face of negatively valenced information. Motivated reasoning is advanced as the explanation, arguing that people are psychologically motivated to maintain and support existing evaluations. Yet it seems unlikely that voters do this ad infinitum. To do so would suggest continued motivated reasoning even in the face of extensive disconfirming information. In this study we consider whether motivated reasoning processes can be overcome simply by continuing to encounter information incongruent with expectations. If so, voters must reach a tipping point after which they begin more accurately updating their evaluations. We show experimental evidence that such an affective tipping point does in fact exist. We also show that as this tipping point is reached, anxiety increases, suggesting that the mechanism that generates the tipping point and leads to more accurate updating may be related to the theory of affective intelligence. The existence of a tipping point suggests that voters are not immune to disconfirming information after all, even when initially acting as motivated reasoners.

 

The Implicit and Explicit Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: Is the Source Really Blamed?

Luciana Carraro and Luigi Castelli

August 2010

ABSTRACT

Despite the widespread use of negative campaigns, research has not yet provided unambiguous conclusions about their effects. So far studies, however, have mainly focused on very explicit measures. The main goal of the present work was to explore the effects of different types of negative campaigns on both implicit and explicit attitudes, as well as in relation to two basic dimensions of social perception, namely competence and warmth. Across a series of three studies, we basically showed that not all negative campaigns lead to the same consequences. Specifically, especially personal attacks toward the opposing candidate may backfire at the explicit level. More interestingly, at an implicit level, the reliance on negative messages was associated with more negative spontaneous affective responses toward the source, but also with a spontaneous conformity to such a source. Overall, it appeared that negative messages decreased the perceived warmth of the source while simultaneously increasing the perceived competence. Results are discussed by focusing on the importance of implicit measures in political psychology and on the crucial role of perceived competence.

 

From Political Behavior

Sex and Race: Are Black Candidates More Likely to be Disadvantaged by Sex Scandals?

Adam J. Berinsky, Vincent L. Hutchings, Tali Mendelberg, Lee Shaker and Nicholas A. Valentino

August 2010

ABSTRACT

A growing body of work suggests that exposure to subtle racial cues prompts white voters to penalize black candidates, and that the effects of these cues may influence outcomes indirectly via perceptions of candidate ideology. We test hypotheses related to these ideas using two experiments based on national samples. In one experiment, we manipulated the race of a candidate (Barack Obama vs. John Edwards) accused of sexual impropriety. We found that while both candidates suffered from the accusation, the scandal led respondents to view Obama as more liberal than Edwards, especially among resentful and engaged whites. Second, overall evaluations of Obama declined more sharply than for Edwards. In the other experiment, we manipulated the explicitness of the scandal, and found that implicit cues were more damaging for Obama than explicit ones.

In the Eye of the Beholder? Motivated Reasoning in Disputed Elections Kyle C. Kopko,

Sarah McKinnon Bryner, Jeffrey Budziak, Christopher J. Devine and Steven P. Nawara

August 2010

ABSTRACT

This study uses an experimental design to simulate the ballot counting process during a hand-recount after a disputed election. Applying psychological theories of motivated reasoning to the political process, we find that ballot counters’ party identification conditionally influences their ballot counting decisions. Party identification’s effect on motivated reasoning is greater when ballot counters are given ambiguous, versus specific, instructions for determining voter intent. This study’s findings have major implications for ballot counting procedures throughout the United States and for the use of motivated reasoning in the political science literature.

Masculine Republicans and Feminine Democrats: Gender and Americans’ Explicit and Implicit Images of the Political Parties

Nicholas J. G. Winter

August 2010

ABSTRACT

During the past three decades Americans have come to view the parties increasingly in gendered terms of masculinity and femininity. Utilizing three decades of American National Election Studies data and the results of a cognitive reaction-time experiment, this paper demonstrates empirically that these connections between party images and gender stereotypes have been forged at the explicit level of the traits that Americans associate with each party, and also at the implicit level of unconscious cognitive connections between gender and party stereotypes. These connections between the parties and masculinity and femininity have important implications for citizens’ political cognition and for the study of American political behavior.


Money Talks: Politico Makes the Case For Barbour ’12

I don’t know what Jonathan Chait (who has undertaken what he calls the Boss Hogg Oppo Research Project) will do with today’s big sloppy wet kiss of an article about Haley Barbour in today’s Politico, penned by Jim VandeHei, Andy Barr and Kenneth Vogel. Personally, the adoring prose about Barbour’s ability to shake down corporations for campaign dollars made me alternatively chuckle and shudder. Check out this passage:

Barbour, who runs the Republican Governors Association, has more money to spend on the 2010 elections — $40 million — than any other GOP leader around. And in private, numerous Republicans describe Barbour as the de facto chairman of the party.
It’s not just because he controls the RGA kitty but, rather, because he has close relationships with everyone who matters in national GOP politics — operatives like Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie and other top Republicans running or raising cash for a network of outside political groups. Together, these groups are essential to Republican hopes of regaining power because Democrats are cleaning their clocks through more traditional fundraising efforts.
The political class, in particular, is consumed with Barbour’s behind-the-scenes endeavors — this week, with the $1 million he got from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.
Yet the reality is that Barbour has been uniquely adept at leveraging concerns about President Barack Obama into huge contributions from many others. Bob Perry, the Texas businessman who funded the Swift boat attacks in the 2004 campaigns, has given more than twice as much as News Corp…..
“He’s clearly the top political strategist and political operative of his generation,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a former RNC chief of staff. “He is without peer when he is raising money.”

Barbour’s Mammon-power is so awesome, in this account, that it’s almost inevitable he will run for president in 2012, his fame spread across the land by the likely harvest of GOP gubernatorial wins in November, fueled by the RGA. On that note, I was particularly amused by the testimony to Barbour’s greatness offered by hapless Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams, saddled with a disaster of a gubernatorial nominee and a right-wing third party revolt. He sure does need a heapin’ helping of Haley’s money.
The article does include what’s known in the trade as a “to be sure” graph, briefly acknowledging the counter-argument to the writers’ hypothesis before going on to brush it aside:

[T]he obstacles to a Barbour candidacy are substantial. A portly Southern conservative who represented tobacco firms and made millions building a lobbying firm isn’t the ideal profile for a Republican nominee in this or any political environment. In recent polls, Barbour is stuck in low single digits, way behind Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin.

Instead of meditating on those rather formidable problems, the Politicos return to still more admiring details about Barbour’s rules-bending fundraising techniques.
Now I used to look at the prospect of a politician like Haley Barbour gaining real political power as follows: “Well, could be worse. Yes, he’s venal and mean-spirited, but at least he’s smart. How bad could it be?”
Then Dick Cheney became vice president, and the limits of brainpower became rather obvious.
If, as appears likely, Barbour does move towards a serious presidential run, his background will offer an extraordinary opportunity for dumpster-diving. It’s not just the ethics stuff, either, or Barbour’s devotion to the interests of the very rich. Long before he moved to Washington and became a mover-and-shaker, Barbour was the leader of the right wing of the Mississippi Republican Party. That requires some serious wingnuttery, and as Chait observes, a long paper-trail of associations that will not look good in the twenty-first century.
I realize that the Republican field for 2012 is not terribly impressive, and that many GOPers long for a candidate who is both a hard-core conservative and a demonstrated party loyalist. But it may take even more money than Haley Barbour can raise to make Americans want this man to become president.


Gingrich Too Extreme for Buchanan, Scarborough

It appears that a circular firing squad composed of his fellow Republicans is forming around Newt Gingrich. The GOP’s 2012 front-runner (in some polls) for President is getting slammed right and left by fellow Republicans, including Pat Buchanan. Here’s the video clip J.P. Green flagged in his post below, which is also worth watching for the insightful comments on the controversy by several of the participants.


Could Mosque Issue Hurt GOP?

Dems who are nervous about President Obama’s comments regarding the placement of the Islamic Center near ground zero should read Michael Scherer’s ‘Swampland post’ at Time, “Grover Norquist Says Mosque Controversy Is Bad For Republicans.” Here’s Norquist, quoted by Sherer:

It’s the Monica Lewinsky ploy…The Republican Party is on track to win a major victory in November based on the issue that Democrats are spending the country blind…There isn’t a single voter in the country that was planning on voting for the Ds, who says, ‘Oh, mosque issue, now I will vote for the Rs.’

Norquist cites the Lewinsky affair as an example of being “distracted by shiny things,” one which lead the GOP in the wrong direction: “They nationalized the election around an irrelevancy” and lost 5 House seats.” Norquist also feels the Mosque issue gave Harry Reid a hook to separate himself from President Obama: “Harry Reid says, ‘Oh, is this a get out of jail free card?'”
In addition to the distraction effect, Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a former operative for Newt Gingrich, worries about the damage targeting any minority does to GOP hopes for votes from other minorities, as Scherer explains:

Over the long term, Norquist also sees danger for Republicans not just among Muslim voters, but among other religious groups as well. “Religious minorities all go, ‘I get it. This means me too,'” he said. He pointed to a recent story in the Jewish newspaper The Forward, called “When Shuls Were Banned in America,” which draws connections between the current mosque controversy and New York’s history of antisemitism.
“Long term, you could do to the Muslim vote and every other religious minority what Republicans did to the Catholic vote in ‘Rum Romanism and Rebellion,'” Norquist added, using a phrase uttered at a speech attended by Republican presidential candidate James Blaine in 1884, which arguably cost him victory in that election, by alienating Catholic voters.
Such stands are not out of character for Norquist, who has long waged a battle to make the Republican Party more inclusive of racial and religious minorities. 
During the Bush Administration, Norquist served as an informal envoy to the American Muslim community. He has also been an outspoken supporter of immigration reform, arguing that it was important that Republicans not alienate Hispanic voters. “Tom Tancredo has done damage to the Republican Party in states he has never visited,” Norquist says, referring to the former Colorado congressman best known for his frequent denunciation of illegal immigration on cable television.

Former Republican congressman from Florida and now CNN anchor “Morning Joe” Scarborough agrees with part of Norquists’ argument. In blasting Newt Gingrich for saying the Mosque at ground zero would be “a symbol of Muslim triumphalism,” Scarborough protested, “This is madness…There are elements of our party that are marching through the fevered swamps of ideology.” (Do watch the ‘Morning Joe’ video clip at the link for an interesting take on the controversy).
That’s a discovery which won’t come as much of a shocker to alert followers of American politics. I would add, however, that such ‘shiny things’ won’t help Dems much, if we get distracted by them. Let the Republicans and tea party folks ride that turkey to political oblivion if they like — while Democratic candidates focus instead on establishing their cred as strong advocates of Social Security, Medicare and jobs.


Softening Up Candidates For General Elections

One of those political topics that definitely need more careful analysis is the idea that tough primaries full of negative attacks can “soften up” winners for the general election. There’s actually a counter-notion that primary competition “tempers” campaigns for November, and it’s obvious that primaries can boost name ID. But by and large, surviving a good, vicious primary battle is not considered the best prescription for success in highly competitive general elections. Time spent “healing” one’s own party is time that’s not available for reaching out to swing voters, and sometimes wounds just won’t heal at all.
This subject is relevant today because of the unusually large number of competitive Republican primaries this year, a number of which have gotten pretty nasty, and/or branded winners either as right-wing kooks or as unreliable RINOs little better than Democrats. As we get closer to November, polls will give some evidence of the net impact of primary divisions. But for now, the one thing that can be said with some certainty is that primary lines of attack on candidates can carry over into general elections and help opponents reinforce negative perceptions, even if the party holding the nasty primary “reunites.”
Let’s say Rick Scott wins the Florida GOP gubernatorial primary next week (not a great bet at the moment, but you never know). In his desperate effort to overcome Scott’s vast personal resources, primary opponent Bill McCollum has gone to great lengths to publicize the Medicare fraud scandal that afflicted the Columbia-HCA hospital chain under Scott’s direction. Should Scott win, Democrat Alex Sink will have to spend a lot less time and money raising this issue than would have been the case had McCollum left it alone. This will help Sink with independents and “soft-partisan” Democratic and Republican voters even if Republican politicians close ranks after the primary and McCollum starts praising Scott as a combinaton of Solomon, Ronald Reagan, and St. Francis of Assisi.
For a less hypothetical scenario, consider the situation in Georgia immediately after Nathan Deal’s extremely narrow gubernatorial runoff win over Karen Handel. At Southern Political Report this week, the distinguished University of Georgia political scientist (and runoff expert nonpareil) Charles Bullock suggests that Handel went overboard in tarring not only Deal but all her GOP enemies, including much of the Republican membership of the state legislature, as corrupt yahoos. This creates an immediate “unity” problem for Georgia Republicans, one that Handel herself tried to address by quickly conceding defeat in the runoff and endorsing Deal. But she can’t take back the many months she spent pounding away at the “corrupt yahoo” message, and there is no question Democrat Roy Barnes will pick up exactly where she left off, since nothing is more valuable to him than the idea that Georgia’s unaffiliated voters should be angry at Republicans in Atlanta as much as Democrats in Washington.
You can’t always count on primary candidates in the other party to do you these kinds of favors. In the California Republican gubernatorial primary campaign that concluded in June, Steve Poizner appeared to have gotten considerable traction with attacks on Meg Whitman’s questionable ties to the Goldman Sachs investment firm. But Poizner soon switched to a focus on immigration policy, and got crushed. I am sure that Jerry Brown and his allies were deeply disappointed by Poizner’s strategic decision, which meant they’d have to spend that much more time and money raising the Goldman Sachs issue all over again.
So it’s worth examining contests with difficult primaries from the limited point of view of discerning whether general election opponents quickly pick up on weaknesses exposed in the primaries. To deliberately mix metaphors here, there’s much to be said for striking while the underbelly is soft.


“I Never Did Drugs On the Boat”

If you are a billionaire candidate for office running in a primary that’s going to be held in six days, you might well have mixed feelings about looking at Politico today and seeing an image of your BFF Mike Tyson above the headline: “I Never Did Drugs on the Boat.”
Yes, it’s probably helpful to Jeff Greene that Tyson is backing up his claim that he had a “zero tolerance for drugs” policy on the yacht that the ex-champ lived on during an extended tour of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. But beyond that, reminders of Greene’s rather sketchy background as a rich playboy are not exactly what the political doctor ordered right now. The voluble Tyson didn’t help much when he went beyond his immediate talking points and offered some details from his cruise itinerary:

Tyson also voluntarily described an incident in Sardinia, where the yacht docked at what point that August, in which he was charged – and later cleared – of a sex assault in which the woman making the accusation claimed he’d wanted her to do drugs.
“I got into a problem with a young lady that came on the boat,” he said. “Jeff and everyone was sleeping…She said I had beat her or something. The cops came over she said we had drugs on the boat, we had guns on the boat.”
He said, “Cops came and searched the boat and they found nothing.”

Nothing to see here, folks.
On another front, Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com has published a column addressing the contradiction between several polls showing Kendrick Meek moving ahead of Greene in the Florida Democratic Senate primary, and an Ipsos survey showing Greene still ahead despite his recent troubles. Ipsos, says Blumenthal, is testing the opinions of a lot of Democrats who probably aren’t going to turn out for an August primary:

Their survey was focused mostly on the general election and they appear to have included the primary voter question almost as an afterthought. Nevertheless, the looser likely voter screen they used helps explain why their Democratic primary subgroup is so much friendlier to Greene than the samples drawn by the other pollsters. It probably includes many voters who rarely vote in Democratic primaries and have less knowledge of or affinity for Meek, whose campaign has been touting endorsements from mainline Democrats like Bill Clinton.

It’s looking more and more like Jeff Greene will be able to return to luxurious obscurity after next Tuesday, and stop worrying about what anyone other than law enforcement personnel think about acceptable leisure-time activities on his yacht.