you're getting ahead of yourself (0.00 / 0)

if you are already counting OH and NV as "safe" blue states in a presidential election.

But you raise a good point regarding the "betrayed voters." Club for Growth took out a big tv ad buy against Huckabee in Iowa, but they did not knock him out of the running. On the contrary, he ratcheted up his anti-Wall St rhetoric, and did better than expected at the straw poll.

Club for Growth's ad against Huckabee here:

http://www.clubforgr...

Example of Huckabee hitting the business wing here:

http://commoniowan.b...

One nice thing about this development for us is that Huckabee is reinforcing negative stereotypes about Republicans carrying water for big business and not caring about the little man.

Assuming Huckabee gets crushed in the GOP primaries, his betrayed supporters may be even less inclined to vote Republican.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 12:58:06 PM CDT

10-15 point swing (0.00 / 0)

Actually does put those states into safe territory.  I'm not 'counting' on them, but it's worth considering.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 13:02:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It Depends On How You Run (0.00 / 0)

Back in 1988, Dukakis lost Ohio by 11, running on "comptence, not ideology," while Metzenbaum won re-election to the Senate by 14 points as a raving economic populist--despite being at the top of the GOP target list for that year.

Moral: the Dems could still blow it.  But I agree, it's ours to lose.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 13:09:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

sure (0.00 / 0)

My purpose is writing this piece is to expand our thinking about political strategy.  I agree, it's basically useless in terms of predictive value.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 13:22:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Great Risk Shift (4.00 / 4)

I think that one of the most important ways to reach them would be to draw on the insights of Jacob Hacker in The Great Risk Shift: The Assault on American Jobs, Families, Health Care, and Retirement--And How You Can Fight Back.  Without getting deep into details, Hacker argues that even more than a shift in income or wealth, the American people are hit by a shift in risk vs. security.

This is a broad, all-encompassing theme, which has the potential for rearticulating a New Deal vision for the 21st Century.  The key to what's new about it is this: Hacker argues that security is not just about a safety net for those left behind. Rather, it's essential in order to unlock growth, since growth depends on risk-taking--and not just the pablum of billionaires taking rists with hedge funds, but things like ordinary people taking money they might not have and investing it in education, or changing jobs to start a new career when that means risking losing health care.

In short, there's a whole new narrative to be developed here that breaks the old conservative dichotomy of growth vs. security/free market vs. welfare state.  Instead, the new narrative is growth via security.

This is a powerful way of talking to both Western and Southern betrayed voters.

Not only that, but it gets back to the deep roots of liberalism, since John Locke's Social Contract theory is based on the notion that government enhances freedom by making it secure.  This is, in fact, the very essence of "classical liberalism," quite to the contrary of politically illiterate libertarians.

This sort of scholarly argument doesn't normally get any sort of traction in practical politics, but once you've got the rubber meeting the road on Hacker's terms, you can always pick up John Locke as a hitch-hiker.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 13:04:53 PM CDT

a few issues. (0.00 / 0)

One, these "Coming ... Majority" things crop up pretty much on cue every odd year. They have ALL been proven wrong. Every single one of them. The Clinton ubermajority of 1992 (hah!) died 2 years later. The permanent Republican majority of 2004 died two years later. The post-Clinton conservative majority lost in 1996-98. The Reagan majority was gashed, if not destroyed, in 1986. The Carter ubermajority was destroyed in 1978-80. The Nixon juggernaut in 1974 ...

The side that is statistically losing now always closes that significantly by the next election. The losing party always adds new base components by pandering and shores up the old base by shaping up. The "inevitable" party does the opposite: party leadership feels that it has the freedom to line its own pockets in certain ways, ignore issues of great importance to the base, etc. That's how it happens every single time.

The GOP in my opinion has three quiet strengths which stay off the political radar.

1) much more introverted individuals who have very low participation rates in polling and the vast majority of political metrics (it's intuitive, though obviously not documented, that extraverts have higher participation rates than introverts);

2) independents who never say they are Republican, but who in practice come down to the GOP side in 95% of elections; and

3) related to (2)--the GOP *always* closes strong--especially when it is behind.

Recall in 2006, when the congressional generic gap narrowed from 20 points to 6 in the space of 5 days. And yes, the Kerry comment. But it only took one piece of marginal information for 70% of the gap to vanish.

---

by: jforshaw @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 13:29:54 PM CDT

Generic polls (0.00 / 0)

However, despite all of the good news on these polls, Our front runner's are not pulling away from the GOP front runners. At best Hillary only leads Guliani BY 1% in the RCP aVERAGE.

If the voter's see that we will leave a significant residual force in Iraq, it will hurt us in 2008.

---

by: BDM @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 13:40:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You've Got To Get The Timing & Perspective Right (0.00 / 0)

Political journalists have to fill pages, so they write a lot of things that are not necessarily high-calibre analysis.  Things look different when you look at them from a long-term perspective, which gets into realignment analysis.  This is the real question--are we going to have a typical 2- or 3- House wave election pattern leading to a 65-70% majority and map-changing presidential victory.  Right now, this is a distinct possibility, which it really hasn't been any of the other times that you refer to.

The Dems wave election victory last year was visible as potential more than a year out.  The establishment folks didn't believe in it for the longest time, but the Dems ended up getting both the Huse and the Senate.

What we're looking at now is a pretty much a rerun, meaning that, more likely than not, Dems will look to win even more between now and election day, will fall short of their highest projections, but will win another wave election, with only the size of the wave in doubt.  (Although, it should be remembered, the Dems exceeded all predictions on the Senate side last time.)

As for your 3 points:

The GOP in my opinion has three quiet strengths which stay off the political radar.

1) much more introverted individuals who have very low participation rates in polling and the vast majority of political metrics (it's intuitive, though obviously not documented, that extraverts have higher participation rates than introverts);....

Read what Matt wrote:

In 2004 42% of voters thought of themselves as Democrats, and 42% as voters.  Today, 50% of voters self-identify as Democrats, and only 35% as Republicans.  That is, well, stunning.

So, what?  Back in 2004, those GOP introverts were all on Prozac?

2) independents who never say they are Republican, but who in practice come down to the GOP side in 95% of elections; and

Independents come in three flavors: true indepdents who swing, and those who are close to each of the two parties, who vote just as solidly for the parties as party-identifiers.  There are Dem-leaning indepedents just as there are Rep-leaning ones.

3) related to (2)--the GOP *always* closes strong--especially when it is behind.

Which is why they held the Virginia, Missouri and Montana Senate seats last year.

Oh, wait...

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 14:27:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

way to *not* answer my points. (0.00 / 0)

It may fit the textbook definition of insanity, but I'll repeat them in the hopes that you address them this time.

1) On the basis of one piece of marginal information (Kerry's blooper), the 2006 congressional generic gap closed from ~18 to 6. In five days.

2) Of course there are Dem-leaning independents as well as Republican-leaning independents. But Republican-leaning independents are more numerous and more likely to turn out than their Dem-leaning counterparts.

3) The introvert observation was anecdotal. It can't be recorded because they don't do things like go through long telephone polls.

---

by: jforshaw @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 15:03:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Evidence? (0.00 / 0)

Of course there are Dem-leaning independents as well as Republican-leaning independents. But Republican-leaning independents are more numerous and more likely to turn out than their Dem-leaning counterparts.

  Do you have a source for this?

  And the Kerry "blooper" (which I'd completely forgotten about) didn't move the polls 12 points in five days. Give the voters some credit -- most of them aren't anywhere near that shallow. Any "tightening" of the polls was more due to a natural realignment as the novelty of the Mark Foley scandal wore off and Republicans temporarily upset with their party came back home.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 15:25:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Foley (0.00 / 0)

occurred in the first week of September, I believe. There's no reason to think that Foley would have lasted 7 weeks and then suddenly faded out. It had legs for 4 weeks maybe, but the topic then moved on to the GOP's general hypocrisy in the 2004-06 Congress (which Foley did embody very starkly)

I do think a lot of voters are that "shallow," because the GOP had accomplished absolutely nothing that year, had pretty clearly lined its pocket on the public's dime, was screwing its own staffers, and generally had given R-leaning independents and not-so-strong Republicans absolutely no reason whatsoever to vote for them.

Kerry's comment was like a sudden, perfectly timed reminder to a lot of wavering Republicans why the Democratic Party still sucked more than the GOP did. I remember watching the polls extremely closely at the time (I had bet $3500 on that election) and there was simply a seismic shift after Kerry's comment.

My point isn't that Kerry blew it. If he hadn't done that, the GOP would have probably cooked something similar up on its own. What is certain, however, is that that was the *only* piece of marginal information favoring the GOP in the week leading up to the election, in which the Democratic generic shrank from 19 points to 6. I certainly don't attribute 13 points to Kerry's comment, but that's part of the point--some of the tightening simply happens organically. Some of the rest will hinge on a piece of marginal information like a Kerry comment. That's just how it happens, and why there was only one true "realignment" in the past century (1936). The South did realign from Democrat to GOP over a 20-year period, from 1964 to 1984. But 99% of this realignment talk simply never pans out.

---

by: jforshaw @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 15:35:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, A Gambler! That Explains Everything! (0.00 / 0)

I remember watching the polls extremely closely at the time (I had bet $3500 on that election) and there was simply a seismic shift after Kerry's comment.

You shouldn't have changed your socks.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 17:52:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Kerry's Blooper" Is An Urban Legend (0.00 / 0)

This sort of Versailles gossip is just soooo lame.

Cherry pick your noisy polls, and without any evidence attribute the difference to whatever fits the rightwing narrative du jure.

You can see the summary tables of all polls here and you'll see that three of seven likely voter polls in the last week of the election wre in single digits, while four were in double digits.  One poll--CNN, actually went up a whopping 9 points (+11 to +20) from 10/27-29/06 to 11/3-5/06, and that was after dropping 6 points from 10/20-22/06 (+17).  Like I said, noisy polls.

Realistically, the only realistic way to meaningfully track such polls is by aggregating them, preferrable with a model like Charles Franklin uses to track presidential approval, but a rough rolling average or even a weekly average toward the end of a campaign will do well enough to dampen the misleading noise.

Republican-leaning independents are more numerous

NES (2004) says, not so much:

Strong Democrat	16.9
Weak Democrat	14.9
Independent-Democrat	17.5
Independent-Independent	9.8
Independent-Republican	11.5
Weak Republican	12.8
Strong Republican	16.1
Other;minor party;refuses to say	0.4

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 17:42:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

touche ... except ... (0.00 / 0)

Strong, weak and independent Dems add up to 49.3%.

strong, weak and independent R's adds up to 40.4%.

Bush did not win 100% of independents in 2004.

Either a disproportionate amount of southern Democrats effectively voted GOP, or a disproportionate number of independent Democrats voted Republican, or both. But your figures don't add up to 2004's statistics.

---

by: jforshaw @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 17:52:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You WERE Born Yesterday, After All (0.00 / 0)

Republicans have had superior turnout and party discipline as far back as anyone can remember.  The fact that you don't know this, well, it tells us all we need to know about your knowledge of the electorate.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 17:56:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

.... (0.00 / 0)

... No. Kidding. (that the GOP has a better turnout machine.)

A seismic advantage in organization can yield a 2-3 point difference in a national election.

Not 10 points.

Two to three.

---

by: jforshaw @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 18:14:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

God, You're An Idiot! (0.00 / 0)

Your level of pseudo-certainty is so high, you've almost got to be a Republican.

That 2-3 point difference is measured against a baseline that already takes into account most of the differences I was talking about.  The differences I was talking about are the kind that show up largely in the differences between all adults and likely voter models.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 22:10:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

did you mean 2006, not 2004? n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: jforshaw @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 17:53:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you for your concern trolling (4.00 / 1)

You're correct, we should be ignoring the evidence of a trend and throwing up our hands in dismay over the unbeatable GOP and its hidden strengths that kicked so much ass last year.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 16:09:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

concern trolling? (0.00 / 0)

I guess anyone who told Fred Barnes he was full of shit when he was crowing about a "permanent Republican majority" in January 2005 was a "concern troll," too. The GOP still fucked itself w/ its own hubris.

---

by: jforshaw @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 16:49:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You sound like Harold Ford this morning (4.00 / 1)

given this extraordinary opportunity, we need to be even more timid. blah blah blah.

Obviously this is nothing but identifying a possibility...an opening to achieve something tremendous.  It gives people a glimpse of what the promised land could look like after they break their backs and their banks to make it happen.  The whole inevitability of the GOP machine line is really tired, and your natural leap from what's possible to what's already decided says more about you than this post or anybody else.  If your boss tells you that there's a possibility for a promotion next year, are you going to decide that since you didn't get promoted last year, you can't possibly get the one next year?  Or even better, are you going to decide that, since the last guy you knew who was up for a promotion didn't get it, it's impossible?

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 20:03:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

not sure how you got from (0.00 / 0)

"hubris is bad" to "Harold Ford this morning."

I think 2008 is a golden opportunity for the Democrats right now.

I also think that in the past, whenever a partisan base decided 1 1/2 years out that the next cycle would be a golden opportunity for them, their leadership immediately began lining its own pockets because it thought it had the freedom of action to do so. Then a few bad things happened and before the base knew it, its own complacency and its leaders' treachery had thrown away what should have been a great opportunity.

Just sayin'

---

by: jforshaw @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 20:32:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clinton (4.00 / 1)

Given this environment, what do people think about a Hillary Clinton nomination from a purely political (not policy, but "vote-counting") standpoint? Will she represent a step backward on the road to a sustainable Democratic majority by being the only figure that can reunite the GOP/Gingrich/Reagan/Bush base, or will she hearken back memories of better times during her husband's administration, playing well into an emerging liberal consensus?

My personal feeling is that she will win the election, because I honestly think it would be hard for a Democrat to blow it at this point, but that by nominating her we are passing up on a chance to forge a new era of progressive dominance because she is too married to the past, both in the way she styles herself as a politician, the political and policy decisions she is likely to make, and the way the public has already largely formed their opinion of her as a person and a candidate.

---

by: Max Fletcher @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 13:59:57 PM CDT

From a political standpoint... (4.00 / 1)

I think that Clinton can win the general election. The problem is, just like the past 2 elections, it's going to be something like a 51% nailbiter. In addition, I have no doubt that she will kill us downticket and possibly stunt any pickups we may have, particularly in the House. No one outside of the Northeast will want to be seen campaigning with her, and we've already taken a hell of a lot of seats in the Northeast.

Anyone else at the top of the ticket - Obama, Edwards, or even a Richardson - and I think that we'll be piling on the electoral vote wipeout while still doing well at the state and local levels.

---

by: PsiFighter37 @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 14:09:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I pretty much agree (0.00 / 0)

  Hillary Clinton can win, only because the current climate is so favorable for Democrats (or, more accurately, unfavorable for Republicans) that just the fact that she lacks an "R" by her name gives her a few points right there.

  But I agree that a Hillary nomination would not MAXIMIZE Democratic gains, in the least. She's just too polarizing. I'm NOT looking forward to a general-election campaign in which half of our local candidates are busily insisting that they really aren't "Hillary-type Democrats". I'm astonished that the Democratic establishment which has rushed to support her seems to be willfully oblivious to this.

  And it's especially curious to see the same people who whined day and night about Howard Dean being "unelectable" in 2004 now sweep that issue under the rug regarding Hillary, who, whether you like her or not, does come loaded with significant negatives...

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 15:39:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clinton could quite possibly win (0.00 / 0)

in the political environment-equivalent of a Democratic utopia which we are seeing right now.

The difference is that any other Democrat could do it with at least two more popular vote points, and sweep in hundreds more state legislators, than Clinton ever could.

Another key difference is that, in all likelihood, the current favorable winds will not persist. If GOP base voters get more pissed about the war, the GOP will distance itself from Bush that much more, no matter what it takes. Just as Republicans were crowing about a permanent Republican majority c. March 2005, so Texeira and Judis came out of the woodwork a few months ago to resuscitate their six-years-disproven hypothesis and say they were right all along.

I also think that Clinton, upon winning a much weaker election, would then go on to sell out a lot more than an Obama or an Edwards would. She is a much higher risk/much lower return proposition almost no matter how you look at it.

Of course, for Democratic institutionalists (who look forward to jobs in a future administration) the calculus is different. For one, many Democratic institutions are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Clintons, regardless of how it might affect the party. Also, the Clintons have a much more vindictive reputation than the other candidates, so even though a lot of Democrats can see that Hillary would be toxic for Democrats outside of the traditional (insufficient) Democratic strongholds, any officeholder, bureaucrat or consultant who sides against the Clintons risks years of crumbs, in professional terms.

It's unfortunate that the Clintons see the Democratic Party as a vehicle for them, not the other way around. It's a sign of how cowed the Democratic Party is of the Clintons that the raw facts of Hillary's unelectability -- a -2 net unfavorable rating, in the most favorable climate for Democrats since 1992, even _with_ Murdoch's quiet assistance -- have been so little discussed.

---

by: jforshaw @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 14:58:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If Only It Were True Matt... (0.00 / 0)

I know you've done some academic study of voting patterns, but there's a key point (and some related points) that's missing from your analysis:

1.  Very few people change the way they vote (especially at the Presidential level), except when they're in High School / College, and when they get married. 

2.  People often, and easily, change the way they self-identify to pollsters, especially based on how ashamed they feel to identify in an unpopular way. 

3.  The most reliably partisan voters are actually independent leaners.  That is to say, people who identify as independents but consistently vote for 1 party or the other, are actually less likely to split there ticket, and more likely to turn out to vote for their party, than people who identify as "loyal Democrats" or "Loyal Republicans"

I think what the polling is showing us, is that more and more GOP Independents (including some crazy right wing anti-immigrant fanatics) are ashamed to identify with the party they vote for.  That does not mean they're going to vote for Hillary, Edwards, or Obama. 

On the other hand, more and more Independent Liberals (especially young ones) are self-identifying as Dems. 

Now, there are great positive repercussions to both of these statistics, but neither of them actually points towards the type of rose-colored (or violet colored in our case) electoral map you're looking for. 

But I wish they did! 

-political science academic in Omaha. 

---

by: nebraskajohn @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 14:04:45 PM CDT

This Does Not Compute! (4.00 / 1)

1.  Very few people change the way they vote (especially at the Presidential level), except when they're in High School / College, and when they get married.

And yet, massive vote swings between consecutive presidential elections happen with disturbing frequency.

Why?  In addition to new voters, there are substantial shifts in sub-population participation rates, as well as shifts in partisan allegience. And, of course, periodic upwellings of third party candidacies that add to the overall turbulence.

But the real point here, as far as I'm concerned, is that this is just one more indication of the possibility of a very rare event--a realignment between party systems.  The last unambiguous example of this happened in 1930/1932, with 1968 as a dealigning election.  Such rare events are quite naturally under-predicted by "normal" behavior, defined in terms of what happens in between them.

In short, you're right to warn Matt against placing too much weight on these indicators... unless, of course, we are not living in normal times.

And Matt's argument was, at bottom, precisely that: we are not living in normal times.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 15:01:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Landslide time (0.00 / 0)

If anything, the patterns of the 2006 election will continue with an incremental change based on higher turnout,and another two years worth of young voters being added to the equation. The youngest voters bring heavy support for democratic values, economic populism, strong environmental concerns and a deep distrust of corporations and the media.

I continue to see Obama as the candidate who will do the most to bring new voters to the polls, and to pick off traditional Republican voters, both social conservatives and fiscal conservatives.

The Republicans' "closing" has been based on superior organizational and turnout models that are easily understood and have been painstakingly replicated. Talking to Tester volunteers, it is obvious that a good part of his success had to do with the quality of the GOTV and person-to-person efforts.

---

by: Aeolus @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 15:14:06 PM CDT

'Betrayed Voters' (0.00 / 0)

"67 in '08" or "6708" (hopefully they're the right kind of dems!)

---

by: Andre @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 19:41:34 PM CDT