“Office Park Dads” always seemed to be one of the sillier entries in the swing voter sweepstakes, so obviously manufactured to make a pollster’s (in this case, Mark Penn’s) political point, that one could reasonably hope it would just fade away once its initial purpose had been served. And it more or less has, but OPDs make a (hopefully brief) return appearance in an otherwise fairly interesting research report from the New Democrat Network and Penn.
DR’s advice: just ignore the OPD stuff, as well as most of the tedious “message-testing” findings, and check out the more straightforward parts of the report where, for example, they urge Democrats to “take the initiative on issues with unrealized potential” like protecting civil liberties and the environment; homeland security and closing corporate loopholes. Much of the demographic and targeting analysis is also useful.
At times, NDN seems on the verge of breaking out of its orthodox New Democrat straightjacket and this research report suggests continued cautious movement in this direction. DR welcomes this and hopes to see more of the same.
Two contributions to the Dean debate caught DR’s eye this week. Kos had a well-argued post on Monday on “the secret of Dean’s success” making the case that Dean is clearly the best candidate when you take a strictly pragmatic, who-can-best-beat-Bush viewpoint. Of course, Kos is a Dean partisan, but, intriguingly, we are now seeing some of the same arguments from influential national political reporters. John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal, wrote in his “Capital Journal” column that “In a Polarized U.S., Dean May Be Electable After All“. Harwood’s main point is that Dean may have an electability problem against Bush, so do all the other major candidates (as Dean-supporting DR readers have reminded DR many times). They will all have vulnerabilities that Bush will attack mercilessly. But only Dean, Harwood argues, may be to fully mobilize the Democratic base and tap new sources of funding, which makes him the strongest Democratic candidate in the currently polarized political environment.
Edwards never seems to go anywhere in the polls, but, darn it, that fella is coming up with some really good ideas. Check out Ryan Lizza’s recent piece in The New Republic for details on Edwards’ transformation into policy wonk. So he’s not just a pretty face with a folksy manner any more. And The New Republic’s blog, &c. had a good post arguing that Edwards has the best shot at appealing to both kinds of swing voters Democrats need: upper-income social moderates and culturally conservative blue collar voters. Could be, but unless he can get Democratic primary voters to notice him, he’s toast.
He’s good enough, he’s smart enough, and, doggone it, people like him! Beyond that, why is it that DR can’t find a good “case for Gephardt” article to recommend these days? It seems like he’s the kind of candidate who could both bring the party together and appeal to some of the moderate swing voters Democrats need to reach, especially the culturally conservative blue collar voters. Could it be he’s too far out there–calling both for repealing all of Bush’s tax cuts (as Dean does) and for a hugely expensive expansion of health care coverage. Or that he’s too charisma-challenged and too much like a Washington hack? Or that his support for the war seemed not only too vigorous but also too politically motivated? Who knows? But there’s a case there to be made should anyone care to make it. And he is from Missouri.
He’s potentially the best candidate. Note the word “potentially”. Indeed, DR is constantly struck by how many people he runs into who grudgingly admit to supporting Kerry on the grounds he could make the best candidate. But, every last one of them doesn’t seem terribly enthusiastic about supporting him and wishes Kerry could generate some excitement about his campaign. Beyond his resume, no one seems sure what his campaign is really about. And that’s not good.
Read any Al From-Bruce Reed memo. Or go directly to Joe himself and read Lieberman’s speech to the National Press Club on “Fighting for the Future of the Democratic Party“. As he’s kind enough to tell us, only he can save the Democratic party from itself unlike all those other bad Democrats. Well, maybe, but DR remains skeptical that mainlining Al From is truly the way to the hearts of Democratic primary voters, or, for that matter, general election voters. Clinton was smart enough to know that the thoughts of Chairman Al have to be judiciously mixed with populist and other Democratic political approaches to be truly effective. Lieberman isn’t and it will kill his candidacy in the end. For more on Lieberman’s cluelessness, see these excellent posts by TAPPED.
That’s kind of the impression DR gets from reading today’s writeup in The New York Times of the latest CBS/New York Times poll, conducted in mid-to-late July. This is a pretty interesting poll, not least because they took a large Hispanic oversample that allowed them to compare Hispanics with the overall population and various subgroups.
What does the poll show? First, it shows the same decline in strength for Bush and the Republicans that other public polls have been showing lately. Bush’s overall approval rating is down to 54 percent, 13 points lower than the last time this poll was taken in mid-May. That’s a decline of about 5 points a month and gives back all of Bush’s approval gains from the Iraq war and then some.
His approval rating on foreign policy is down to 52 percent–essentially the same as before the Iraq war–and his approval rating on the economy is now only 40 percent, with 52 percent disapproval.
Democrats are now preferred over Republicans by 8 points on ensuring a strong economy (in May, the Republicans were preferred by a point), by 20 points on creating new jobs, by 13 points on education and by 3 points on “sharing your moral values” (!). And Bush’s re-elect number is an anemic 32 percent.
Second, it shows that, on each and every one of the indicators just cited, and a number of others besides, Hispanics are more, and frequently much more, anti-Republican and pro-Democratic than the overall population. And they are especially pro-Democratic when compared to whites.
But here’s the weird part: the headline for the front-page New York Times story is: “Hispanics Back Big Government and Bush, Too”. Huh? Where the heck did that come from? If Hispanics’ views can be characterized as “backing Bush”, he is in more trouble than DR had dared hope.
Check out these figures from the poll. Bush’s approval rating among Hispanics is 52 percent. That compares to 54 percent among the overall population and about 59-60 percent among non-Hispanic whites (DR’s estimate on whites; bizarrely, The Times supplies data for Hispanics, non-Hispanic blacks and all non-Hispanics, but not non-Hispanic whites, so data from this group must be inferred from the other data given). Moreover, Bush’s favorability rating among Hispanics is only 37 percent, compared to 46 percent for all adults and 52-53 percent among whites and just 21 percent of Hispanics are willing to say, at this point, that they would probably vote to re-elect Bush.
And what is the Democratic party’s favorability rating among Hispanics? A rather healthy 60 percent, with just 22 percent unfavorable; the Republican party gets an anemic 40 percent favorability rating, with 39 percent unfavorable. In addition, Hispanics’ partisanship is 2:1 Democratic and, by 49 percent to 21 percent, Hispanics think Democrats are more likely to care about the needs of Hispanics. Hispanics also favor Democrats by 30 points on creating new jobs, by 24 points on education, by 23 points on ensuring a strong economy and by 22 points on sharing their moral values.
Underscoring their proclivity for Democrats, Hispanics also say, by an incredible 75 percent to 16 percent margin–by almost 60 points!–that they would rather have a bigger government providing more services than a smaller government providing fewer services. The public as a whole favor smaller government by 48 percent to 40 percent.
Finally, Hispanics aren’t even that supportive of the war with Iraq, contrary to various anecdotal reports in the press. By 49 percent to 40 percent, Hispanics do not think removing Saddam from power was worth the loss of American life and other costs; that compares to 54 percent to 39 percent among the general public who do think that removing Saddam was worth the costs.
So how on earth can this profoundly pro-Democratic group of voters be described as “backing Bush”? Apparently, what The Times means is that Hispanics are fairly conservative on abortion and gay rights (though they believe Democrats are more likely to share their moral values), are supportive of vouchers (though not if it means less money for public schools) and are more interested in tax cuts than deficit reduction (though not more interested in tax cuts than, say, spending on public schools). But none of this is news; all are long-standing tendencies of Hispanic public opinion and should never be interpreted as meaning that Hispanics “back Bush”, unless there’s actual evidence that they do so. And, in fact, all the other data from the poll suggests that they don’t.
Well, DR supposes that pro-Democratic, pro-big government Hispanics who show few signs of defecting to the Republicans wouldn’t have made such a good story. But it would have had the great virtue of being more accurate and more clearly reflecting The Times’ actual data.
DR has heard from several of his DLC readers (and God bless them, each and every one) excoriating him for his July 29 post criticizing the DLC’s factional attacks on other Democrats at their National Conversation in Philadelphia. Doesn’t DR realize that the DLC is going after Bush in a big way? And why did DR quote Adam Nagourney’s New York Times article, which was so one-sided, etc., etc.?
Well, here’s the deal. DR would be more inclined to hang his muzzle in shame, if he didn’t believe the DLC leadership is very smart indeed, and well aware that their attacks would wind up on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers. They know how the press works and they know what’s likely to be picked up as a story. So, if they didn’t want the factional attacks to be picked up by the press, here’s what they would’ve had to do: not make ‘em. And, better yet, follow DR’s advice, and make a big deal out of calling for Democratic unity. Now, DR realizes this is a bit difficult for them; if you’ve been merrily factionalizing for 18 years and pretty much got on the political map that way, it’s hard to stop.
But now could be the time. The DLC has a lot of energy and good ideas and they’re right about political strategy way more often than most liberals are willing to admit. So nothing would make DR happier than to see them turn away from their standard fight-to-the-death stance over party ideology and devote their considerable talents to bringing all Democrats together to beat Bush and his gang of country-wreckers.
DR wants to urge readers once again to check out the Jonathan Cohn-Jonathan Chait debate on Dean’s electability in The New Republic online. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll shake your head in frustration at how Cohn (or Chait) just doesn’t get it. But you will be challenged intellectually by the arguments that are made. And, really, it all comes down to this big question: can Dean move to the center far enough in the general election to get the swing voters he’ll need to beat Bush? Cohn and Chait generally agree that today’s Dean is not electable and that he’d have to reinvent himself in some important ways if he did, in fact, get the nomination. They rightfully disregard the silly notion that he can run just as he is now and enough nonvoters will come out of woodwork (‘cause they dig his straight talk and fiery manner) to make up big deficits among existing swing voters.
So that’s the question. Can Dean reinvent himself? (Extra credit if yes answer to previous question: what would be the most effective way for him to do so?) This exam is open book and feel free to talk to your neighbors.