Dionne’s 2006 realignment, a correction, and thoughts on 2008

September 5, 2006 – 6:18 am

EJ Dionne writes in today’s WaPo about the historical implications of big Democrat wave in 2006:

and Republicans have a few opportunities of their own for Northern pickups. But winning the bulk of these Lincoln-state seats would be the linchpin of any Democratic victory.

Then he talks about the rise of the South,

The changing regional contours of American politics have been visible in the Southernization of the GOP leadership — from President Bush of Texas and Gingrich of Georgia to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and, earlier, Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, both Texans. The rise of the Dixiepublicans and their brand of conservatism has pushed moderates in the North in the Democrats’ direction.

He fails to point out that in the House — the more conservative of the bodies — the leadership is IL (Hastert), OH (Boehner), MO (Blunt), Pryce (OH),  and NY (Reynolds). Amusingly, those are the 4 states that seriously contested for the Presidential nomination in 1860, the year that Lincoln won the nomination.

Furthermore, Consider the 3 leading candidates for GOP nomination in 2008:

  • John McCain (AZ). He is currently beating Hillary Clinton in polls all over the country, including the North.
  • Mitt Romney (MA). He’s a Michigan transplant from Massachusetts.
  • Rudy Giuliani (NY). He’s an ethnic from NYC.

And, if you consider that 2 of the 3 leading Dem candidates for President, John Edwards and Mark Warner (recall that I believe that Hillary won’t run), are southerners, it seems that, perhaps, you are dealing with a short-term blip.

This will be an important election. Just not in these ways.

Tag:

By eye | Comments (0)

For the GOP, the War is The Only Issue

September 2, 2006 – 7:53 am

Stephen Bainbridge has written a piece in TCS Daily advising the GOP to not talk about the war in the 2006 election. He has further argued that a recent WSJ piece supports this position.

His argument, at its simplest can be summarized with this:

Democrats need to talk about the war, while Republicans need to talk about something else.

I suspect a substantial number of Americans might agree with the following sentiment: The Republicans deserve to lose at the ballot box, but the Democrats don’t deserve to win.

He continues:

Under George Bush, the GOP has largely stopped even pretending to talk the talk. Instead, Bush’s two terms have brought us: a massive increase in government entitlements; renewed fiscal deficits; a worsening trade deficit; huge spending increases; bigger government; more intrusive government.

The GOP therefore needs to talk about these issues. They have to persuade the American people either that the war is so important that nothing else matters or that the GOP can both win the war on terror and get back to its sound fiscal roots.

He then sights the results in MI-7 and CO-5 that the GOP base will turn out for something else.

I like the idea of the GOP getting back to its sound fiscal roots, but will it work to talk about it during an election after having failed totally during the Bush administration on these issues? That is, does the current GOP — defined by President Bush — have the credibility to speak on these issues? Furthermore, the GOP base is not motivated by these issues, as indicated by the RNC’s base mobilization memo. From this we know that the base gets mobilized by:

  • The Global War on Terror (high 80s%)
  • Moral issues (high 80s%)
  • The War in Iraq (mid 80s%)
  • Wiretapping or Patriot Act (about 80%)
  • Extending tax cuts (high 60s%)

Etc. The only economic issue that gets any traction is tax cuts. The war is simply the most important issue to GOP voters right now. (for a quick take to my main topic, that is why Giuliani has a viable candidacy at all. He can sell because is the most salient issue to GOP voters)
Note that there are also good issues about scaring the base about Democrats:

This all depends on the theory that this election will be about turning out the base. If this election is about convincing swing voters, we are screwed. The President’s poll numbers are a clear indication that he has no credibility on any issues any more other than terrorism. The problem for the GOP is that in many moderate districts there isn’t enough base and they have to localize the election. Thus Chris Shays wiggles on the war, Rob Simmons talks about the submarine base (his best issue anyways), Mike Fitzpatrick gets the unions and LCV on side (and their GOTV operation), and Weldon struggles…

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Frist using 2008 volunteers in 2006

August 31, 2006 – 10:07 am

Bill Frist tried to take a little credit for tracking down the missing holding Senator. Note how he praises his volunteers:

Led by sites like PorkBusters, TPM Muckraker, and GOP Progress, online activists across the political spectrum have worked to clear away the obstruction against this bill through hard work and the process of elimination. While the count is still climbing, they have publicly received a response from 89 Senators regarding the secret hold - and I’m proud to say that members of my online grassroots organization, the iFrist Volunteers, have made a major contribution to this effort in calling Senators and securing their promise they have not held up the bill, nor will they hold up the bill. The growing success of this effort perfectly demonstrates the value of the database that S. 2590 would create … because it proves that Americans with a passion for citizen journalism and empowered by technology can cooperate across party lines to make a real difference.

This is a big deal. He is trying to use his volunteer organization now to help his future candidacy. (Does anyone take that candidacy seriously??) Now why is this useful?

Hotlineblog said that it is a way to “train” volunteers for 2008. I think that it is as much about using the tool to identify and reward volunteers (and maybe turn them into campaign staff). They address this more directly in their comparison of MyGOP to the DNC’s PartyBuilder:

Most important is to check out how each party gathers information about the user. The RNC has different logins for different features, such as the blog, personal homepage and volunteer recruitment center. It’s a model for different levels of engagement and getting lots of names without shoving committment into a user’s face — and typically getting a larger drop-off rate in return. The DNC takes a different approach. By singing up with Party Builder, the DNC gets basic information in the login and then collects information through the user’s profile, signed petitions, signed letters to the editor and their network/group memberships. So why do we care? These users are the party’s next loyal supporter and volunteer. And how much information the parties have on these folk will determine the strength of their online activism in ‘06 and ‘08, which is conveniently transferable to field staffs across the country.

(just to make it clear, the RNC gets this information, just differently) And that is why iFrist is so interesting. He is both getting mileage out of his volunteer base now, keeping them engaged (got a volunteer, give them something to do!), and figuring out which ones deliver and need to be promoted within the campaign. That’s very smart.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Motivating Conservatives, Security, and the 2008 Presidential Race

August 29, 2006 – 9:56 am

RightwingNews has (yet) another summary of the case againset Giuliani for the conservative GOP primary electorate.

While we agree that there are many things that are damning in the eyes of the electorate, we think that, to some extent, people are asking the wrong questions. I think that Chuck Larson gets it right in his discussion of McCain on Fox yesterday:

But from my perspective, the most important issue, whether it’s 2006 or 2008, is going to be national security and the global War on Terror. And Sen. McCain recognizes that we must win this war for our own nation’s security.

Now Larson is one of the leaders of moral conservatives in Iowa, but in the 3 reasons he gives for supporting McCain, his first is fiscal, his second in moral issues, but he thinks that McCain’s primary advantage is the war and security. This jives with what the RNC is telling people about motivating the base in 2006:

Ranking at the top of what will motivate Republicans in 2006 is dealing with the foreign threats to our national security and supporting the President’s leadership in the War on Terror. … A huge 87% of the Base expresses extremely strong feelings about one or more of these issues. …

For these three global War on Terror message areas, 93% of the Republican Base holds
extremely strong feelings about one or more of them.

Cultural Values. … An impressive 86% of the Base has extremely strong feelings about issues dealing with cultural issues – second in coverage to only the global War on Terror.

In other words, the big issues are security and moral issues. Fiscal issues, immigration, taxes, etc. all come far lower in the priorities. (interestingly, the RNC memo does not mention immigration at all. There could be a number of explanations for that. One of the simplest is that it is an issue that the leadership is divided on or might make voters angry. Another is that people probably won’t vote on it)
What we really think that means is that candidates have to pass a litmus test for conservatives (is he with us on abortion and other issues?) and then security and other issues will differentiate the candidates. Moral issues get people into consideration, not pick the candidate. We think that the recent Hotline/Diego poll makes this clear. GOPers #1 issues are terrorism and Iraq. Dems are Iraq (against) and jobs.

Therefore, we think that GOP primary voters are going to be asking “Which acceptable conservative do we want to lead the war on terror?” What does this mean for 08?

  1. If caucusgoers and primary voters are informed about Giuliani, he is going to struggle a lot. Giuliani has been doing great in the polls recently. However, the recent Iowa poll noted that 2/3rds of Iowa caucus voters will not support someone who doesn’t share their position on abortion. Will that hold? And who will tell the story on Giuliani? Clearly that is what RightWingNews is trying to do. And why don’t people ask if they are familar with Giuliani’s position on abortion, gay marriage, etc.? That would really tell us about his level of support.
  2. Romney’s greatest problem is that he has no record on the War on Terror or foreign policy. None. Even if people like him on gay marriage or healthcare or management, I predict that they will have a lot of trouble seeing him as Commander in Chief. Sure he can run the country, but can he lead it? Northeast liberals elect Republicans because they can manage and their legislatures can slap them down if they try to do something too far off the reservation.
  3. Newt Gingrich passes both tests. But will GOP voters think he is electable?
  4. McCain is the winner in this framing. He is probably acceptable to most conservatives (and he is finding people who will say “trust us, he’s fine”) on moral issues and he is a clear leader on the War (and I don’t mean Iraq).
  5. Everyone else is an also ran. Although people who vote for the most morally conservative candidate will have a choice between Huckabee or Brownback. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

Therefore, until Romney gets a national security reputation of some sort or polls indicate that Giuliani can overcome his issues with social conservatives, McCain really is the front runner… And Newt Gingrich is the powerful challenger.

Tags: , , , , , ,

By eye | Comments (5)

2006: The first 2008 pre-primary

August 28, 2006 – 7:09 pm

(Sorry for the break in posting. I had a great time with my girlfriend on the James River and in a nice little B+B in Luray)

While I was enjoying coffee at the Mayneview, I read the cover story of the Washington Post Magazine on John McCain. The article wasted more ink on the question of whether McCain is cozying up to Bush, whether it is genuine, whether McCain really is conservative (really? amazing what you see when you check out a lifetime voting record), blah, blah, blah …
The article points out that campaigning is starting early:

DON’T LOOK NOW, but 26 months before November 2008 the race for president has already started. McCain and his potential rivals are out on the campaign trail virtually every week. They are raising money and support for federal and state candidates in the 2006 election. But they are also collecting chits, building name recognition and garnering backers for the presidential campaign to come.

“Teddy White must be turning over in his grave,” says John Weaver, McCain’s chief campaign strategist, referring to the late author of The Making of the President books. “I can’t believe we’re doing this so early.”

I agree about Teddy White’s great books, btw. What I find interesting is that people aren’t talking so much about the scope of the work that McCain (and Rudy) is doing for the party in this pre-primary in 2006. Later on the article points out:

McCain has already raised $6 million and donated $1.2 million to Republican candidates, says Davis, twice as much as any other Republican. Staff members know they won’t be working on a shoestring in 2008.

Indeed, an article in an Ohio paper last week during McCain’s trip there to help Senator DeWine keep his seat (and the Senate in GOP hands) pointed out just how important his work is for the party:

Sen. John McCain is a rare breed in the 2006 political season: a Republican officeholder with whom other Republicans want to be seen. Though he’s a conservative who staunchly supports the war in Iraq, McCain is best known across the country as the guy who’s been a thorn in the side of George W. Bush since the 2000 presidential primaries.

Again, Rudy has a similar quality. The upshot is that this step of the presidential race is really a tryout for being the leader of the party. This is what a president, a governor, legislative leader, etc. does. McCain is acting as a de facto party leader. (in more than one way. When did he last lose a fight in the Senate?) This is an important difference from the Bush strategy. And this difference doesn’t just result in a McCain organization but a stronger GOP. This is something that some people on the right just don’t get. Take, for example, statements about McCain going 3rd party.
A campaign, especially a presidential campaign, is about building supporters and a structure. That is what McCain is up to. That is a new thing. And he is not just “fighting the last campaign.”

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

RNC attack on Kos: Another version of an attack on liberal media

August 23, 2006 – 3:22 pm

So today, the RNC sent out a memo about what a freak Kos is. Needless to say, he is a freak. Recall some parts of the RNC’s memo about activating the base:

Almost 60% of the Base expresses extremely high dissatisfaction with the media coverage of the situation in Iraq.

…

A majority of the base — 56 percent — reported “extremely strong feelings” about the Democrats’ position on the war on terror and many did so independently of their support for President Bush. That suggests that Republicans could write a two-part message to their base, one that kicks the Democrats and the other that affirms the Republican dominance on the issue.

…

Sixty percent (60%) of the Base has extremely negative feelings about the Democrat’s impeachment threats – placing it among the strongest in the survey.

That’s why associating Kos (and the left blogs) with the Democrat leadership is so important. Thus the RNC memo has two sections:

MOULITSAS’ NEW JOB: CO-CHAIR OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

…

MOULITSAS’ MISSION: TAKING OVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

The media and bloggers are the Democrat party.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)

DSCC Shoots first, asks questions … never

August 15, 2006 – 10:14 pm

The DSCC blasted McCain for his appearance with the GOP SC Adjutant General candidate…

But the DSCC got their facts wrong (”Shoot first, ask questions never”). You see they say:

The law that McCain wrote specifically prohibits Senators from raising more than $2100 for a state candidate. [my emphasis] However, the Spears invitation encourages donors to give amounts up to and beyond that limit. This means that John McCain is raising soft money. [their emphasis]

So I asked about the invitation, and I got the invitation and the RSVP card. From the RSVP card:

Contributions to Spears for Adjutant General are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes. The solicitation of funds is being made only by Spears for Adjutant General. We are honored to have Senator McCain as our Special Guest for this event. In accordance with federal law, Senator McCain is not soliciting individual contributions in excess of $2,100 per person, nor is he soliciting corporate, labor union, or foreign national contributions. South Carolina state law allows campaign contributions of up to $3,500 per election cycle. Registered lobbyists please disregard.

In other words, Dems got it wrong. McCain got it right. Now the DSCC probably just read the press release and didn’t do any research.

But if this is how a Democratic Senate Majority would act — shoot first, not bother with questions, and get it wrong — I think I’ll pass.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

What really happened in CT Senate and MI-7?

August 10, 2006 – 8:18 pm

The “insurgents” ran very good campaigns. But we learn very different things from them. First, CT Senate.

Ned Lamont, the darling of the lefty blogosphere, had a lot of good campaign ideas. People have talked about all the blog stuff and YouTube stuff (NPR/Slate on this). But, perhaps more to the point, he ran a great ground game. WaPo has the full story (H/T: Matt Lewis). Some tasty bits:

One early move was to launch a primitive Web page seeking 1,000 volunteers in all 169 of the state’s municipalities, building on the strength of local Democratic organizations. They began a voter-history project to track down people who voted in every obscure local primary and referendum — information that was not available in statewide rolls.

And they borrowed Dean/MoveOn strategies:

“Their voting techniques are on the cutting edge of politics,” said Matzzie, whose organization, MoveOn.org, is a pioneer of the house-party model.

In other words, the insurgent ran an incredible grassroots campaign utilizing all the tools of modern campaigning. At the same time Lieberman tried to sleep walk to reelection. Lieberman even sat on $2m. That money might have been able to produce another 10,000 votes.

As for MI-7, Walberg also ran a great campaign. We know less about his campaign, but Hotlineblog gives us a morsel. They used careful (modern) targeting software to identify precincts and voters. And then Walberg, the former minister, got the RTLers, homeschoolers, etc. out to actually ID the voters. At the same time, Schwarz, by all appearances, ran a lousy campaign. He had virtually no ground game. There are news reports that he spent a lot of money upfront on mailers that were not that effective.

At the same time, everyone has to ask a question about Schwarz. Could he have found another 4,000 votes in this district if he had the organization to do it? I cannot imagine that the answer is “no”. But he didn’t.

What is the lesson in this? In CT, a well-armed insurgent was able to defeat a complacent incumbent. In MI, a complacent incumbent never got his campaign off the ground.

Tags: , , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)