From the Karl Rove “I wish I’d never told Fred Barnes to make a big deal out of this” department:
BLITZER: Terry McAuliffe, when Wesley Clark was on that stage with Michael Moore, one of his campaign supporters, and Moore called President Bush a deserter and General Clark refused to distance himself from that comment right away, was that a huge blunder? You don’t believe that President Bush was a deserter, do you?
MCAULIFFE: Well, Wolf, in order to to be a deserter, you have to actually show up.
Let’s just deal with the facts. As you know, when President Bush got out of college in 1968, it was at the height of the draft. It’s well known that the president, former president, used some of his influence to get George Bush into the Texas National Guard.
He then wanted to go to Alabama and work on a Senate campaign. So he went to Alabama for a year while he was in the National Guard, and he never showed up.
I mean, I would call it AWOL. You call it whatever you want. But the issue is the president did not show up for the year he was in Alabama, when he was supposed to show up for the National Guard.
BLITZER: All right.
MCAULIFFE: And I think that’s what Mr. Moore was trying to say.
GILLESPIE: Wolf…
BLITZER: Hold on one second. I’m going to let you respond.
But I want to make sure I heard you right. Are you saying you don’t dispute what Michael Moore was saying, branding the president of the United States as having been a deserter?
MCAULIFFE: He never should have called him a deserter. There are other issues that you can say — AWOL, just didn’t show up for duty. But he shouldn’t have called him a deserter. Let’s get out of this discourse in American politics. Let’s just deal with the facts.
BLITZER: All right.
MCAULIFFE: The facts are that George Bush didn’t show up when he was supposed to in the National Guard, and that’s just the fact.
But I wouldn’t call him a deserter, nor should anybody call the president a deserter.
GILLESPIE: Well, Wolf, I’m glad to hear Terry acknowledge that what Michael Moore said was reprehensible. But Terry’s wrong that the president was AWOL in the National Guard. That is not accurate. The president served honorably in the National Guard.
This is one of the — the Democrats throw these charges out there. They’re just completely inaccurate, and it’s unfortunate that they stoop to this kind of politics.
But we’re going to hear more of these kind of attacks against the president, personal attacks, because they don’t want to talk about their policies because their policies are wrong for America. Raising taxes, reducing our national security expenditures and making us weaker when it comes to winning the war against terror are the wrong policies for America. That’s the bottom line, and that’s why President Bush is going to be successful in November.
BLITZER: Ted Gillespie and Terry McAuliffe, we’ll leave it right there. But we’ll have both of you back. I understand both of you will be here in New Hampshire on Tuesday. You’ll probably be on one of our shows here on CNN. Thanks very much for joining us.
Quick … the smelling salts!
Now, there was a time when it was considered a-ok to call the president a rapist, a murderer and pervert and a traitor all within the space of one segment of Hardball, and there was nary a complaint. They drew pictures of his penis, psychoanalysed both him and his wife, accused them of sexual deviancy, assault and corruption on an epic scale.
But, that was a different time. Let the word go forth that we must all line up behind our Dear Leader and NEVER, EVER even hint that he is anything less than perfect. It’s treasonous, actually. Terry McAuliffe is obviously an enemy combatant who belongs in a 3×5 cell in Gitmo.
Peter Jennings, Tim Russert, Wolf Blitzer and others have been relentless in their pursuit of a proper repudiation of Michael Moore and his deserter comment from Wesley Clark.
As many of you know, I am a big believer in the newdisavowel movement in this country. Guilt by association is an excellent political shortcut and I’m all for it. As Peter Jennings said at the debate the other night, “You can tell a lot about a man by his friends.” Politicians, bloggers, supporters and others must realize that they are not only responsible for their own words, but they are responsible for their friends’ words as well. And, if anyone takes issue with your friends you must be prepared to defend or reject them on that basis alone. It’s the American way.
But, I do wonder if the media’s new insistence on taking responsibility for your supporters words is in danger of not being seen as fair and balanced and I think that would be such a shame. For instance, while I’m sure it’s nothing to worry about, I was struck that nobody seems to have asked the president about this:
Miller Emerges as New Voice for Bush Re-Election
Sat June 28, 2003 03:10 PM ET
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) – A new voice has emerged in the re-election campaign of President Bush, that of Dennis Miller, who is gaining a reputation as a conservative comic by attacking Democrats with biting humor.
Miller flew on Air Force One from San Francisco to Los Angeles with the president on Friday, and later gave a stand-up routine at a Bush fund-raiser in Los Angeles.
“I spent an amazing couple of hours with Dennis Miller,” Bush said during his Los Angeles speech after Miller’s routine. “He keeps you on your toes.”
He added: “I was also honored to meet his wife, Carolyn. Like me, he married above himself. It may not be all that hard, in his case. But I’m proud to have his help.”
Miller, who was an analyst on ABC’s “Monday Night Football, had an HBO comedy show and does commentary for Fox News, adds a celebrity touch to Bush’s re-election campaign, much like actor Bruce Willis did in 1992 when Bush’s father ran for re-election.
Bush remained offstage until after Miller’s often caustic comic performance during the fund-raiser that drew in $3.5 million, most of it in $2,000 checks from 1,600 people.
For instance, he took aim at West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, a Democratic elder statesmen who has questioned the Iraq war and its chaotic aftermath.
Even some in the crowd of Republican loyalists booed when Miller said of Byrd: “I think he must be burning the cross at both ends.”
Responding to the boos, Miller said: “Well, he was in the (Ku Klux) Klan. Boo me, but he was in the Klan.”
He likened the nine Democratic presidential candidates running to unseat Bush in 2004 to the 1962 New York Mets, perennial losers, and called them an “empty-headed scrum.”
He had a special barb for one candidate, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who has questioned the Iraq war, comparing him to Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who followed a policy of appeasement of Nazi Germany in the years before World War II.
“He can roll up his sleeves all he wants at public events, but as long as we see that heart tattoo with Neville Chamberlain’s name on his right forearms, he’s never going anywhere,” Miller said.
I would be hesitant to call this political hate speech and gawd knows, that Hitler ad that was on the Move-On web-site for 3 and a half minutes was shocking in its allusion to Bush and incipient naziism. But, it seems to me that the whole forearm tattoo reference to Chamberlain might also be seen as a bit tasteless as was the crossburning thing. I could be wrong. (Calling the Democratic candidates “empty headed scrum” is just fine, of course. Who doesn’t believe that?)
I realize that nothing could be worse than implying that our Codpiece in Chief is anything but brave and true and heroic, but I still think it could be said that the media aren’t holding him to the same standards if they don’t at least ask him if he thinks he might want to disavow Miller. He did spend time with him on Air Force One and he did say he was “proud to have his help….” after he made those comments.
I’m sure Bush will clear this right up in a hurry and everyone can get back to harrassing Democrats as it should be. It’s just a little housekeeping, that’s all.
WASHINGTON – Wesley Clark (news – web sites) left a few things out Thursday when he defended his Democratic credentials; namely, the Republicans he’s supported for president.
“I voted for Bill Clinton (news – web sites) and Al Gore (news – web sites),” the retired general said in a Democratic presidential debate Thursday, then stopped there. He also has said previously that he voted for Republicans including Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan (news – web sites) and the first George Bush.
Stories not fully told were part of the story of the night.
John Kerry (news – web sites), a Vietnam veteran who addressed his days as a protest leader against that war, talked about how “we camped on the Mall underneath the Congress,” although accounts of that April 1971 demonstration had him staying in a friend’s Georgetown town house while the masses stayed in tents.
Kerry spokesman David DiMartino said Kerry did sleep on the Mall and used the Georgetown house for protest organizing during the day.
Do read the rest. It’s fascinating. It would appear that the Nit Pickler has become a legitimate new form of journalism at the AP.
All the candidates are weasels who are trying to hide their nefarious and embarrassing pasts. When they speak of their lives they should always present a full unbiased account including any detail that might be construed by others as relevent. If they don’t they are lying sacks of garbage.
Bush said spending on homeland security-related activities will rise from about $28 billion to more than $30 billion in his next proposed budget. The White House said counterterrorism efforts at the Department of Justice would receive about a fifth more money than they currently get, rising to $2.6 billion.
It wasn’t clear where else the new money would go, or whether other government programs would have to be cut to make way for this spending at a time when Bush has promised to cut the record $500 billion budget deficit in half.
The streets along Bush’s motorcade route were lined with hundreds of supporters, and the convention hall was packed on his sixth visit to the state as president. The White House lined up cadets from the New Mexico Military Institute behind him for his speech.
Afterward, Bush made a rare motorcade-route stop to linger with locals on the way out of town. Bounding into the Nuthin’ Fancy Cafe, the president hugged a few delighted restaurant patrons, saying he wanted to help “this lady put some money in her pockets.”
“I need some ribs,” Bush said from behind the counter, his arm around a diner employee. “I’m hungry.”
He made passing reference to the years of talk about a 1947 UFO crash in Roswell, a small city surrounded by rugged land.
“I understand you had reports this morning of an unfamiliar aircraft,” Bush said. “Don’t worry, it was just me.”
The story not told was that the president of the United States was acting like a 15 year old trash talking punk in the above mentioned restaurant and refused repeatedly to answer any of the questions posed by reporters by throwing his weight around and making stupid, juvenile jokes for about 15 minutes.
At least he should have been acountable for not explaining that when he’s hungry he doesn’t always “need some ribs.” In fact, he’s reportedly eaten many different kinds of foods over the years besides ribs when he’s hungry.
Oh yes. And “it wasn’t clear where else the new money would go, or whether other government programs would have to be cut to make way for this spending…”
It’s a wide open race and I think it’s a good thing because it’s turning into a helluva show. And, a helluva show keeps the media talking to Democrats, showing footage of Democrats, analyzing Democrats and basically giving us lots of free air time and exposure. Our guys are entertaining, unpredictable and they are giving some very good television. Every minute that we are being discussed and examined is a minute they aren’t showing another tedious, mind-numbing Dubya fund raising speech in front of “subliminable” backdrops and handpicked cheering crowds. The longer we keep Bush from getting that free and easy oxygen and the longer our story remains suspenseful and exciting, the less he gets to dominate the narrative.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s not a big deal even if we take it all the way to a brokered convention. We’d keep Rove on his toes and it would be an exciting show to watch. As we’ve (re) discovered, many people make up their minds late in the game. If we spend the next 6 months with 4 guys slamming the hell out of Bush day in and day out, it may take its toll.
Regardless of how it all turns out, I hope that we can all agree that ever believing media hype is a fools game. They are very rarely right with their crystal ball gazing and they have absolutely no shame about being wrong. Indeed, as you look around the TV dial today it’s hard to find any talking head who is the least bit chagrined at having called the election over about 6 weeks ago. (By the way, has anyone heard from Ted Rall lately?)
I wrote below in my rambling posts about “the base vs swing voters” that I was skeptical about Dean’s movement. (Actually, I’m skeptical of all movements that are tied too closely to one person or event, but that’s another post.) The results in Iowa did not ease my mind. The argument has been that Dean’s organization and ability to attract new voters, particularly young voters, mitigated his perceived weaknesses as a Northeastern “liberal,” his association with the controversy of civil unions and his lack of foreign policy experience. Iowa is only one state and it has an arcane caucus system, but the results mirrored the polls which do tell a story.
According to the entrance polls, 40% of voters get some news from the internet. Of those, Dean got 24%, Edwards got 22% and Kerry got 33%. The “internet vote,” such as it is, is not solely a Dean phenomenon. The first time voters made up an astonishing 45% of the caucus goers. But again, of that 45%, Dean got only 19%, Edwards got 28% and Kerry got 35%. It appears that the turn out was high and many were first time voters, but the benefit did not go to Dean. In the 17 to 29 year old age group, which made up only 17% of the electorate, Dean received 25%, Edwards 20% and Kerry 35%. So, young voters did not turn out in force and of those that did, only a quarter supported Dean.
Iowa is not dispositive. However, it is the first time we’ve had any way of measuring the claims that seemed to have been taken as gospel by the media. I’ve no doubt that Deans supporters are very sincere and passionate. But, until now we literally had no way of measuring whether that passion was widespread and well-organized or whether it was campaign hype and wishful thinking. I think we will have to wait and see the results of a couple more of the races, but we now have some data upon which to begin making decisions about whether Dean’s unorthodox electoral strategy for the general election has a chance of working.
I’ve argued that in this election we don’t have to reinvent the wheel — that conditions remain pretty much frozen where they were in 2000. 9/11 brought foreign policy to the fore as an issue, but it didn’t change the electoral map, it merely reinforced existing conditions. Indeed, in a strange way, 9/11 may have given us an opening by allowing Democratic candidates with military experience (whom you may have noticed far outnumber leading Republicans with military experience) to use that experience as one of the cultural signifiers that can challenge Junior in swing states and force him to work a bit to hold the south.
By doing this, we might be able to challenge the absurd “he kept our babies safe” narrative enough to make him defend his ridiculous foreign and economic policies alike. There is no guarantee, of course, but there is ample evidence that you can get swing voters in those desperately needed swing states with the right blend of cultural comfort and economic populism. Foreign policy credentials, particularly combat and military leadership, are part of that cultural comfort.
I don’t have anything against the concept of forgetting that strategy and instead concentrating on bringing in disaffected voters, appealing to young voters and trying to get swing voters based on the theory that because they embody the duality of Lakoff’s “strict father/nurturant mother” definition of the two parties, they will vote for whichever party’s candidate excites them the most. Any or all of these things could mean that our presidential candidate would not have to have the cultural signifiers that appeal to swing voters. But, for at least two of those suppositions, there is evidence from the past that it will not work. The young voter/disaffected voter paradigm was touted as the way out again and again during our years in the wilderness and it always failed. We have never tried the Lakoff approach so I can’t say that it doesn’t work, but we do know that swing voters in the past have leaned toward whoever seemed to be more moderate, not more exciting. It might work the other way, but it has never been tested.
I remain unconvinced that the internet has become the defining organizational tool of the modern campaign. It has shown itself to be useful in fundraising, but the rest remains an amorphous potential as yet undemonstrated. It is too new and too insular just yet to be touted as having surpassed the personal skill of the candidate, the mainstream media and advertising as the most effective way to reach voters, as some have argued. It’s definitely in the mix and it’s likely to become much more important over time, but I don’t see that it has yet changed the process fundamentally. (I say this as an inveterate political internet junkie who is so hooked that life is unthinkable without it now.)
John Emerson has made some very valuable points in his posts over on Seeing the Forest about long term strategy, along with his tag team blogger Dave Johnson who has long touted the need for the Democrats to create an info-structure to battle the Republicans on explicitly political grounds (as he does here on American Street.) They are both absolutely correct that we have to think long term and build the institutions and create the rhetoric that can break the deadlock we find ourselves in. They are not winning on policy, they are winning on politics and we’ve got to counter them more effectively overall.
However, I continue to believe that this presidential election is the most important in my lifetime and we will only win it by running the smartest campaign we possibly can. It’s imperative that we break the GOP lock on institutional power ASAP. Therefore, I don’t think we can afford to experiment. As I said, I’ll wait to see what develops in the next couple of primaries. But, if these numbers out of Iowa are indicative of other states then I do not think we can afford to nominate Howard Dean. Unlike the other leading candidates, I can’t see a scenario in which he can win if he isn’t able to draw great numbers of young and disaffected voters in swing states that haven’t been friendly to a Northeastern Democrat since JFK — who won, by the way, only by the slimmest and most dubious of margins.
Nowadays, Democrats don’t take the office when that happens.
Kevin Hayden has written an awesome analysis of Iowa and the possible ramifications of what is looking like a possible serious upset, over at The American Street. If what he thinks is true, this race is going to be very, very exciting.
Maybe this has been covered before and I missed it, but the following comment about the space initiative from Scarborough Country just blew me away:
REP. TOM FEENEY ®, FLORIDA: Well, in the first place, Joe, I actually am very excited about the president‘s proposal, even though I‘m one of the leading fiscal conservatives, voted against the recent Medicare proposal, partly because it does bust our budget, in my view.
But let me say this. Bottom line, Joe, exploration is important. Research is important. But somebody on the face of the Earth is going to control and dominate space in the next several decades and centuries. If it‘s not the United States, it may be a hostile nation, a hostile set of nations, or even a hostile or rogue terrorist group.
This is a matter in part of national security and homeland defense. If we lose our dominance of low Earth and high Earth orbit, bottom line is, we‘re going to risk our very security in the United States of America.
[…]
Ultimately, somebody will dominate space. If it is not the United States, it‘s going to be somebody very hostile to our interests. We can‘t permit that to happen. And NASA, while it needs to work closer with the Defense Department, NASA is part of America‘s leadership and dominance in the future of space exploration and in protecting our security and homeland.
The PNAC paranoids have long believed that we should weaponize space. This reasoning isn’t really that far out for that crowd.
John “uncool when uncoolness is necessary” Emerson wrote me and others an e-mail in which he argues that we can’t keep running to the center because it takes us ever rightward.
I agree that any more policy shifts to the right are a mistake, but “running” to the center is a different thing altogether. The party moved to the center for two reasons during the late 80’s and early 90’s. The first and most important reason was purely because we were losing ground across the board and the future looked grim. We were about to lose our congressional majority as soon as the remaining southern Democrats retired; they had only stayed with the party because they would have lost their powerful committee positions if they had jumped. (That process was finished in 1994.) And, presidential politics had been a disaster since LBJ. The Democrats decided they needed a different, more pragmatic approach in order to win.
But, there was another reason they moved to the center. People like Mickey Kaus and others advocated it as a way to force the Republicans to tack leftward or be left looking like extremists. This was a serious miscalculation as we now know because the old bipartisan consensus was disappearing with the emergence of the new breed of GOP gangster like DeLay and Gingrich. The more we shifted to the right on policy, the more rightward they went in response.
So, to the extent that John is talking about the latter, I am in complete agreement. We simply cannot compromise on policy anymore. No more “pilot programs” on privatization, no quarter on “faith based” initiatives, no bipartisan cover on anything. It only hurts us. Any experimental ideas can be tested in the states. As a national party, and particularly as congressional delegation, we have moved as far to the right as we can go and it is time to hold the line.
Just as important, we must counter their obfuscatory rhetoric and never, ever adopt it as our own. Any Democrat who uses terms such as “tax relief,” “tort reform” or “partial birth” abortion should be fined 1000 dollars per instance. (And, might I add that constantly calling the leadership of the Democratic Party “cowards” only reinforces Rush Limbaugh’s daily rants, as well.) Changing the language, re-framing the terms of the debate and developing an idea/media infrastructure has been the most brilliant Republican achievement of all and we have to stop enabling it. It is, in my view, the primary reason why they are in power today.
But, I don’t think any of those things have much to do with winning presidential elections and winning this next one is mandatory. This GOP lock on institutional power is so dangerous and has such huge long term ramifications that we must be ruthlessly pragmatic and intensely focused. We must take control of one branch of government and the executive branch is the only option in 2004. We have to assume responsibility for foreign policy because if Bush gets elected legitimately they will take it as a further mandate to expand the Bush Doctrine of unilateralism and military confrontation. This is too dangerous to allow.
Likewise, while I know that we are all tired of damage control and we want desperately to enact a progressive agenda, the fact is as long as the GOP has control of the congress, damage control is our singular duty. The checks and balances aren’t working. The modern GOP is a rogue Party that has proven it cannot be entrusted with the reins of power. Taking back the executive branch is job one. It’s more immediately important than “taking our party back” or building for the future or purging the Clintons or “letting it rip.”
I hate to be too dramatic here, but it is our responsibility to save the country and the world from another four years of a power mad, reckless group of ideologues who are acting more and more crazy with each passing day. (Can we talk about Mars?)
This is not the time to reinvent the wheel or ignore the things that we know. We won the last 3 presidential elections. Until 2 years ago the Republicans had been losing seats in every election subsequent to 1994. There is data and experience to be culled from that. We just had a census, information from which when combined with sophisticated new marketing tools and detailed demographics can help us figure out how to target voters and formulate a winning message. Dean and Clark and all the others to a certain extent have opened up a new way of communicating and fundraising (and potentially organizing) via the internet. The base is unified on policy.
We don’t have to blow this thing but from what I see, there is an increasingly good chance that we are going to if we decide that this election, of all elections, is the one where we must simultaneously attract 8 to 10 million disaffected voters, try out a untried theoretical idea for winning swing voters, experiment with an electoral strategy that openly writes off the south, and ignore all of the empirical data we have about how people vote in this country. (I’m not, by the way, accusing Emerson of advocating these things.)
I don’t mean that we can’t be innovative or that this election doesn’t present unique opportunities, but we don’t have to behave as if we’ve been in the wilderness forever. We know that the economic message alone does not work with people who are culturally conservative. We know that we are weak with white males and stronger with white females. We know that Bush’s highest ratings are on leadership and national security. We know that polls consistently show that 40 percent of voters consider themselves conservative, 40 percent moderate, and just 20 percent liberal. We know that incumbent presidents have a built in advantage. We know that Bush is going to run as The Bold Man Of Vision Who Saved The World and anybody who disagrees with that is going to be labeled an unpatriotic, irreligious, cowardly, decadent, unhinged traitor. We know many things.
I realize it has become fashionable to say that we needn’t worry about our candidates’ perceived weaknesses because the Republicans just make stuff up anyway but that’s like saying that you might as well send a fighter with a glass jaw into the ring because the other guy has a reputation for hitting below the belt. (I am guilty of saying that same thing some months ago, right on this blog, but I am here to say that I was completely full of shit.) The Republicans aren’t omnipotent, but they are good at what they do and they have years of practice tearing down Democrats for being godless, elitist, sissified libertines. Of course they’ll make stuff up but that doesn’t mean that we should play into their hands by making ourselves even more vulnerable in areas that play into people’s by now hard wired negative perceptions about Democrats. It’s insane to think we can win this election without taking into account what the opposition is planning to do and trying to counter it. We know how to do that, too.
If we don’t use our heads and focus intently on the goal of beating George W. Bush, I fear that the worst result will be a Bush landslide and at best, this, most depressing scenario:
David Berthiaume a Manchester taxi driver, has not been to any candidate’s events. He hasn’t paid much attention to the race — he said he turns off the television when political ads come on — and he says that most of his friends aren’t particularly focused on the race either.
On the afternoon of Nov. 21, on a ride to Manchester Airport, here’s what he told a nosy reporter in the back seat: “I’ll tell you where my vote’s going: to our president. I’m not a Republican, I’m an Independent. And I’m pro-choice. But I think he’s done a good job, and so does at least 51 percent of the country. Fine, he might have been misled about Iraq, but it needed to happen anyway. We kicked Saddam in the teeth, and now he’s gone. We should all be happy about that.”
In the end it doesn’t matter if it’s a landslide or a squeaker. The kind of destruction that the Republicans are going to wreak if they get four more years of unfettered power is truly frightening. It simply cannot happen.
The weekend after September 11, George Bush’s former Treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, sat in a leather armchair at Camp David, the presidential retreat, devouring a pile of intelligence documents on al-Qaeda handed out by the CIA boss, George Tenet.
A two-day crisis meeting of Mr Bush’s senior advisers had finally wound up. The President had gone to bed.
Across the room, the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was singing hymns, accompanied on the piano by the Christian fundamentalist Attorney-General, John Ashcroft.
Leafing through the CIA documents, Mr O’Neill was astonished to read plans for covert assassinations around the globe designed to remove opponents of the US Government. The plans had virtually no civilian checks and balances.
“What I was thinking is, ‘I hope the President really reads this carefully’, Mr O’Neill said. “It’s kind of his job. You can’t forfeit this much responsibility to unelected individuals. But I knew he wouldn’t.”
It makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck, doesn’t it?
I’ve been greatly concerned these last couple of days about the reports of Wes Clark’s hawkish triumphalism as expressed in that London Times article from last April as Baghdad fell. Even though he had spent 34 years in the Army and was predictably proud of the military victory, there was really no reason for him to be so effusive in his congratulations. It is unseemly, particularly if one wasn’t a strong supporter of the war, to say things like this:
The first order of business is to congratulate the United States military, to congratulate the Iraqi people and to say that this is a great day, both for (the) American military and American people and for the Iraqi people. I think President Bush deserves a day of celebration. Everybody in America is elated. We congratulate the troops. They’ve done an extraordinary job. We’re blessed to have the best military we’ve ever had. We are all so proud of their efforts not just today, but every day as they work tirelessly to bring democracy to Iraq.
Oops. I made a mistake. The above comments were made by Howard Dean, John Kerry, and John Edwards after the capture of Saddam just last month. It’s so hard to keep straight when you are allowed to effusively congratulate the troops and President Bush for successful military operations and when you’re not. My bad. Never mind.
While I’m on the subject, SKBubba turned me on to this article in the Atlantic about the sophisticated new methods being used to find and understand these wacky swing voters. There is much of interest in the article, but I was particularly struck by this:
The New Democrat Network, a centrist political organization, was among the first in this election cycle to use polling to sketch out a profile of the latest generation of swing voters. Data shared with each of the Democratic candidates (and provided to The Atlantic) describes them as mainly white and also younger, less likely to vote, and more likely than self-identified Democrats or Republicans to characterize themselves as “workaholics.” They are most heavily concentrated in suburbs and small cities, and though they disapprove of many Bush Administration policies, they tend to be more religious and to admire military service more than most Democrats do. “On many issues their attitudes correspond strongly with the Democratic Party even though demographically they are closer to Republican voters,” says Peter Brodnitz, of the firm Penn, Schoen and Berland, which conducted the poll.
The New Democrat Network identified civil liberties and the environment as the two issues on which independents and Republicans most strongly disagree—and, indeed, many of the Democratic candidates have sounded precisely these themes. (Buried in the report’s “tactical recommendations” is information that both sides in the next campaign may find useful: independents listen to a disproportionate amount of country radio, and they watch SportsCenter more often than other Americans—a taste, the poll reveals, that corresponds more closely with Democrats’ than Republicans’.)
Other organizations, including Emily’s List, have conducted broader studies to sort independents into smaller “lifestyle clusters,” the better to target them in the fall. Emily’s List has identified four basic groups: disengaged “Bystanders,” who when motivated to vote lean Democratic; “Senior Health Care” voters, whose gender (predominantly female) suggests an inclination to support Democrats; “Education First” voters, 64 percent female and 66 percent pro-choice but currently more supportive of Bush and the Iraq War than the typical Democrat; and the “Young Economically Pressured,” many of whom work more than forty hours a week and may care for an elderly parent. Though this last group tends to support the Democratic position on funding public schools and other issues, its members live predominantly in small towns or rural areas and are culturally conservative.
The challenge for the next Democratic candidate will be reaching all these independents, many of whom live in small cities and suburbs that are gradually abandoning the Democratic Party. The suburban vote, which Bush won narrowly in 2000, continues to grow. Suburban women already tend to vote Democratic, so the nominee must make a special effort to appeal to men, whose vote fluctuates more than women’s in presidential elections and who have lately deserted the party in large numbers: men now prefer Republicans over Democrats by 19 percentage points.
Read the whole article. It’s got a lot of food for thought.