Georgian Ed Kilgore of New Donkey follows up on DR’s recent posts (see Feb. 20 and 23 below) on Democratic prospects among white moderates in the south. Kilgore offers some clarifying insights about the weakness of Kerry’s and Gore’s messages for southern voters in 2000 and 2004:

Personalities aside, the biggest difference between Clinton ’96 and Gore ’00 had to do with how each candidate dealt with two sets of issues: culture, and role-of-government–both big “trust” issues in the South. Clinton was thoroughly progressive, but went well out of his way to make it clear that he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal and rare,” that he supported a modest gay rights agenda because everyone who “worked hard and played by the rules” should be treated the same; and that he fought to maintain and even expand the social safety net on condition that it truly represented a “hand up, not a handout.”…in general, Clinton’s whole ’96 message was that he was willing to reign in government’s excesses, while fighting to defend its essentials–the famous M2E2 (Medicare, Medicaid, Education and the Environment).
Compare that message to Gore’s, and you go a long way towards understanding why the guy lost nearly half of Clinton’s southern white support. Gore was forever bellowing about partial-birth abortion legislation (supported by about three-fourths of southerners) representing a dire threat to the basic right to choose. While Clinton called for “mending, not ending” affirmative action, Gore pledged to defend every aspect of affirmative action with his life. Clinton talked about balancing gun ownership rights with responsibilities. Gore talked about national licensing of gun owners. Clinton talked about making government “smarter, not bigger.” Gore never mentioned his own role in the “reinventing government” initiative, and boasted an enormous policy agenda that added up to a message that he wanted to expand government as an end in itself.
…Kerry tried to avoid Gore’s mistakes on specific cultural and role-of-government issues, but never talked about these themes more than occasionally, and never came across with any kind of authenticity in his efforts to project himself as a man of faith, a hunter, a government-reformer, or a family guy. While Gore got killed by his positioning and the lack of a compelling message, Kerry got killed by the lack of a compelling message and by those personal characteristics–distorted and exaggerated by GOP propaganda–that made him seem alien to southern voters.

Rightly or wrongly, both Kerry and Gore wrote off the south in their campaign strategies. But demographic trends, such as the rapid increase of African American and Hispanic voters and continuing reverse migration may well put some southern states back in play by 2008 — especially with a more thoughtful strategy targeting southern moderates.

A newly-released poll for National Public Radio gives Democratic congressional candidates an early lead in the 2006 congressional campaign. The poll, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research 2/15-17 indicated that 42 percent of repondents would vote for the Democratic candidate and 36 percent would vote for the Republican candidate in their district, “if the election for Congress were held today.”
The 6 point Democratic advantage was in line with a GQRR poll conducted in January that gave the Dems a 5 point advantage in ’06. A December Ipsos-Public Affairs poll gave the Dems a 7 point advantage in response to the question “And if the election for congress were held today, would you want to see the Republicans or Democrats win control of Congress?”

A new Siena College Research Institute Poll for Hearst Newspapers provides strong encouragement for women Presidential candidates. The Poll, conducted 2/10-17, found that 81 percent of the respondents would vote for a woman for President. A surprising 60 percent expect a woman to head the Democrats’ 2008 ticket and 42 percent expect a woman to be the Democrats Vice Presidential candidate. Only 18 percent of the respondents expect a woman to head the GOP ticket, while 28 percent expect a woman to be the Republicans’ Vice Presidential candidate.
Interestingly, the poll found very little difference between men and women on expectations of and support for a woman Presidential candidate. Two-thirds of the respondents said that a woman would be “better than a man president” on domestic issues and 52 percent said that there would be no difference on foreign policy, 24 percent said a woman would be better and 11 percent said a woman would be worse on foreign policy. Asked which gender would make a better “Commander-in-Chief,” 45 percent said there would be no difference, 18 percent said a woman would be better and 23 percent said a woman would be worse.
Asked their preferences of which of four women political figures should run, 53 percent said Hillary Clinton should run, followed by 42 percent for Condoleezza Rice, 33 percent for Elizabeth Dole and 13 percent for Barbara Boxer.

Democratic candidates are on solid political ground in opposing criminal penalties for women who have abortions and supporting safe and legal abortion as a general principle, according to numerous opinion polls. But the common ground turns into a minefield for Democrats addressing a range of related issues, such as parental consent, partial birth abortions and the “morning-after pill,” according to other recent polls.
Two recent articles help clarify the issues and political ramifications. David D. Kirkpatrick’s article in the New York Times, “For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Runs Risks” provides an overview of the political challenge:

In their search for middle ground on the subject of abortion, Democrats are encountering a mixture of resistance and retreat from abortion rights advocates in their own party.
Since its defeats in the November elections, nothing has put the fractured soul of the Democratic Party on display more vividly than abortion. Party leaders, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and the new chairman, Howard Dean, have repeatedly signaled an effort to recalibrate the party’s thinking about new restrictions on abortion….But abortion rights advocates warn of a bigger revolt within the party if its members start compromising on new abortion restrictions like parental notification laws or the fetal-pain bill.

“Better Choices,” a Boston Globe Editorial, provides a thoughtful exploration of alternative policies that can help find common ground:

Access to reliable birth control is an obvious way to reduce the need for abortion. Birth control has been legal since the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision by the Supreme Court, but religious conservatives have blocked making even condoms available in high schools.
…women who are driven to have abortions — the majority of whom are young and poor — would have better options if society provided them with support in raising their children. Instead, states are passing ever more stringent welfare laws that eliminate benefits for pregnant women and for those with ever younger children. Some centers for unwed mothers provided by opponents of abortion do provide prenatal care and parenting classes, but most simply aim to steer women away from abortions. After that, they’re on their own. Women who are desperate should not be forced into motherhood, but financial and social support would help make their decisions more of a true choice.
…Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, who opposes abortion, has filed the ”Prevention First Act,” which would require insurance plans to cover prescription contraceptives, give emergency contraception to rape victims, and fund comprehensive sex education, including discussion of birth control, in public schools.
Majorities of Americans still support keeping abortion legal in at least some circumstances. But everyone should be able to agree on ways to make abortions less frequent or necessary. Reid’s legislation would be a good test of the sincerity of all those calling for common ground.

The stakes are high for Democrats, including future support of Catholics and feminists, and balancing the concerns of all Democratic constituencies will not be easy. But an earnest search for common ground can help create a stronger Democratic consensus

The February reading list for Democrats provides a host of interesting articles on the party’s future prospects and strategy as Howard Dean takes charge of the DNC. It is usually a good idea to begin with the newspaper articles, because of their short shelf-life as freebies. So start with E. J. Dionne’s thoughtful piece in the Washington Post Sunday Outlook “Can Dean Give ‘Em A Winner?” enumerating and analyzing the choices and challenges facing Howard Dean as he assumes command. Then peddle on over to the Los Angeles Times, and take a peek at Ronald Brownstein’s “Democrats Aren’t Giving Bush A Break This Term,” predicting a much more contentious tone, not only from Dean, but across the Democratic spectrum. Chuck Todd’s “Clintonism R.I.P.: How Triangulation Became Strangulation” in the Atlantic has reinvigorated the debate about Bill Clinton’s strategy as a template for the Dems’ future, but you’ll have to subscribe to read it and an accompanying interview, as well as Al From’s critique. For an optimistic take, The American Prospect offers Robert Kuttner’s “Being Howard Dean: Give the Chair a Chance. You Just Might Like What You See.” If you’re up for some heavy lifting, check out Peter Dreier’s “Why Bush Won: What To Do Next” in the current issue of Dissent. Also reccomended is John Nichols’ recent Nation profile “Dick Durbin: Bush Fighter,” about Illinois’ soft-spoken tough guy and possible prototype for Democratic leaders of the future.

Not to pile on concerns about the credibility of Gallup’s sampling choices, but a new AP/Ipsos Poll indicates 54 percent of adults now disapprove of President Bush’s job performance, while 45 percent approve. Seniors over age 65 registered the highest disapproval ratings, a very bad sign for Social Security privatization prospects. The poll, conducted 2/7-9 also showed 57 percent disapproving of Bush’s Iraq policy and 56 percent disapprove of his handling of the economy. In addition, 58 percent of the respondents now believe the country is headed down the “wrong track”, a hefty increase from 51 percent in January.

It appears that the Gallup Shop is at it again, oversampling Republicans like pod people, this time to jack up President Bush’s post-SOTU approval ratings, reports Steve Soto in the Left Coaster. Soto notes that Bush’s most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup approval rating of 57 percent — up from 52 percent in early January — generated considerable buzz among the political pundocracy. But the sample was based on 37 percent Republicans, 35 percent Independents and just 28 percent Democrats–this depite other recent polls showing the Democrats taking a lead over the GOP.
As Soto points out:

Gallup feels that Democrats have fallen through the floor amongst the electorate as a whole, even though other polls since the election show the Democrats retaking a lead over the GOP.
The mid-January NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll was based on a sample that contained 39% Republicans and 39% Democrats; poll respondents said that Bush did not have a mandate.
The mid-January CBS News/New York Times poll was based on a sample that contained 34% Democrats and 31% Republicans.
The Pew Center poll and analysis released January 24, 2005 reflected a split of 33% Democrat, 30% Republican.
And it should be noted than an ABC News/Washington Post poll done in mid-December showed that Americans self-identified 11% more as being Democrats (38%) than those who identified as being Republican (27%).
Yet Gallup looks at the electorate over the weekend and somehow feels that Democrats have fallen to only 28% of the electorate, a figure never seen for the party in decades if ever. At what point in our history over the last several decades has the GOP ever had a 9% edge over the Democrats? And knowing that, why would they put out a poll showing a 57% approval rating when they must know that it is based on a bogus sample?

A fair question that merits a straight answer.

A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted 2/4-6 indicates that the Administration’s panic-mongering on social Security isn’t finding many believers in red or blue state America. Only 17 percent of the respondents agreed that Social Security was in a “state of crisis” and 50 percent disapprove of the President’s “approach to addressing the Social Security system,” while 44 percent expressed their approval.

If they gave an award for least comforting argument for Social Security privatization, the slam-dunk winner would be President Bush, for his comment that the lowered life expectancy rate of African Americans in comparison to whites makes privatization an especially good deal for the Black community. The President’s pitch, delivered at a meeting with hand picked African American conservatives in late January, was part of a broader GOP effort to win greater support for his agenda.
Despite media reports to the contrary, the GOP’s inroads into the black vote have been limited at best, as Chris Bowers explains in an interesting wrap-up over at MyDD. Although Bush did increase his percentage of the black vote from 9 percent in 2000 to 11 percent in 2004, Bowers points out that John Kerry received 10 million African American votes more than did George Bush. This was a 25 percent increase over Gore’s margin, significant because overall voter turnout increased by only 16 percent in 2004. This was the largest margin of African American votes for a presidential candidate in history. In a two-party, head-to-head comparison, Kerry’s portion of the Black vote was even higher than Clinton’s in ’92 and ’96. Lastly, and perhaps most encouraging for the 2006 congressional elections, African Americans, along with union members and voters under 30 are the three groups whose partisan self-identification shifted more strongly toward the Democratic Party in the ’04 election, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey.
The mainstream media has made much of the opposition of some African American religious leaders to same-sex marriage as a harbinger of increased future support for the Republican agenda among Black voters who hold strong religious convictions. But Bowers also notes that a late January meeting of leaders of 15 million African American Baptists joined together in declaring their opposition to such GOP causes as increased funding for the war in Iraq, the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General and the continuation of recent tax cuts. They also expressed strong support for leading Democratic Party priorities like a higher minimum wage, greater investment in public education and reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. It appears that African American voters will continue to support candidates and policies that respect their interests — and that’s good news for Democrats.

An AARP opinion poll released on 1/24 indicates that a strong majority of Americans are opposed to President Bush’s proposal to privatize Social Security. The poll, conducted 12/6-23 by Roper Public Affairs for the AARP, revealed that 83 percent favored strengthening Social Security, rather than replacing it, and 60 percent believed that private accounts would hurt Social Security. Three out of five respondents would “strengthen social security with as few changes as possible.”
When informed that the white house proposal would not guarantee against reduced benefits and could pass on an additional $1 trillion in debt to the next generation to pay current obligations, an anemic 17 percent of respondents supported privatization. When informed about “all of the consequences to diverting payroll taxes to fund private accounts,” including an end to pre-retirement withdrawalls, support tumbled to 5 percent.
The poll found that 66 percent of respondents over the age of 30 favored keeping Social Security “as is.” Despite concerns about the viability of Social Security, 62 percent of the so-called “Gen X-ers” (ages 30-39), frequently identified as a key constituency for President Bush’s privatization scheme, agreed.