The MyDD / Courage Campaign Polling Project has released the results of their analysis of the Francine Busby race in CA-50. There is nothing in it to suggest that the race was affected by vulnerable voting machines. On the other hand, that is not what they set out to discover. They wanted to know why Busby lost. Their conclusions are interesting, and give me further reason to fear third party candidates in the midterm elections.
Chris’s conclusions can be summarized as follows:
The Democratic base is very energized, the Republican base is a little depressed, a little frustrated, but it is holding. Independents are just despondent. And given a choice between the Dems and the GOP they are staying home or voting third party.
Voter registration in the district is 29.7% Democratic, 44.5% Republican, and 25.8% Independent / Other (Source: California Secretary of State). The partisan breakdown of the MyDD / Courage Campaign poll, which has the final vote results within one-tenth of one-percent for all candidates, was 39% registered Democrats, 43% registered Republicans, and 18% Independents / Others (see Q5). In other words, Democrats turned out in force, Republicans were slightly below par, and Independents barely showed up at all…
While Francine Busby won a plurality of the Independent / Other vote (she received 40% to 34% for Bilbray) (Q5), given low Independent turnout and the heavily Republican nature of the district, this margin was insufficient to win the election. One major problem for Busby was that third-party candidates received a surprising 26% of the Independent vote (Q5).
Other polls questions revealed that the Culture of Corruption message did not resonate at all because swing-voters consider both parties corrupt and consider the Dems incapable of fixing the problem. They also are not interested in hearing about legislation that Dems hope to pass, as they don’t believe anything can be enacted with Bush in power.
Ironically, Bowers concludes the Democrats will do best by promising a wholly negative campaign. By that, I mean, swing voters will respond to promises to thwart Bush’s agenda, but they simply don’t believe anything positive can be accomplished. As Chris says, “Put simply, voters see the current majority party as incapable of governing, and Democrats incapable of stopping them from making mistakes.”
This makes it all the more likely that swing-voters will stay home in an already low turnout midterm election, or that they will register a protest vote.
Let me offer some of my own analysis here. First, if there is going to be a low turnout of swing voters then that argues ever more strongly against running a centrist, DLC campaign. The only apparent confluence of interests between the Dem base and the independent voter appears to be extreme distress and discomfort with the Bush agenda. Swing voters are not responding to positive messaging. They are responding to tough talk about standing up to Bush.
In this atmosphere, it appears that people are less interested in hearing about what the Dems can do to provide health care, better education, or control gas prices, than they are in registering their disgust in some way. This bodes very badly for Joe Lieberman in the general election.
For me the best strategy appears to be to attack the Republicans for their lack of oversight (Rubber Stamp Congress), the institution of Congress as corrupt (anti-incumbent), and whip up the base with tough talk about Bush and some populism (class warfare, if we must).
That is my recommendation, but there are also issues specific to each district and issues that will be of special concern to the electorate this fall. Gas prices can be tied into hurricane season and linked to global warming, and peace in the Middle East. This can also be tied into the always popular environmental arguments.
Energy independence is probably the strongest issue for the Democrats this fall, because it ties into so many other things that are disturbing the nation.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but all the summaries I’ve seen say that Busby ran the usual pathetic mealymouth Dem campaign ala Kerry ala Hillary ala Gephardt. I think in all the analysis, we forget the simple and obvious: lousy candidates lose.
Blog-based commentators seem determined to force a false choice between “positive messaging” and a “negative campaign”. There is no reason to choose between them. Of course you attack Bush’s disastrous reign and tar your opposition as his waterboy. But if you leave it at that you just come off as a whiny sniper. So the pattern goes, Bush and the Republicans screwed us with their corrupt and stupid [fill in the blank] and here’s how I’ll work to restore America. We can’t afford any more enablers of evil like the incumbent. We need new ideas and new action, and I’m the one who can give them to you.
It really seems pretty simple, but it won’t work as long as the Dem “strategist”-losers keep forcing their mediocrities on the voters.
BTW, Boo, it’s disappointing to read “class warfare, if we must”, as if this is almost too dirty for our fastidious selves to touch. We’ve been in class warfare for decades, courtesy of the GOP. It’s long past time for Dems to get over their phony elitist scruples and engage in opposition.
I meant “if I must use a republican term”.
If the dems keep ignoring serious issues that effect their consituents, handing out the more of the “Wait-till-2008” crap, and running lousy candidates, they are directly responsible for people who are sick of all their bullshit and show that by voting for third party candidates instead.
They don’t like it, tough! News flash: people who don’t have insurance, or do and are getting screwed over by their insurance, denied treatment, or have lost their jobs don’t like their concerns being ignored.
It’s easy to say “Wait!”, cry about the big, bad repubs, follow like sheep, hold hands, accept massive campaign contributions that aren’t even needed, as they are not completely spent and talk out of both sides of their mouths to keep their seat!
How about exposing some of the crap that really goes on? Come on, does anyone believe they don’t know more than has been printed? They’ve never even talked to their own secretary? Secretaries know everything!
Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
the polling is showing that policy arguments are not resonating with swing voters. The reason appears to be that no one believes that even a Democratic Congress will be able to accomplish what they promise as long as Bush is President. People are not responding to arguments about the cost of drugs, for example, even though it is a concern and a problem for many, many people.
It’s a very strange political environment. People seem to be utterly disgusted with the Bush administration. If they could vote for anything it would be to just get rid of them. I’d almost argue that impeachment would a good platform.
In any case, if the Dems want to win the independent vote and drive up their turnout, arguing about health care doesn’t appear to be a good way of doing it. Of course they should talk about it, but not as a central theme. But it isn’t just health care, its corruption, its education…etc.
Those issues are not really motivating the Dem Base either. The war has consumed everything.
Interesting about impeachment as a campaign issue, Boo. To me it would be worth the risk because it could usher in real change instead of HillaryBushLite.
As to the polls, they are sheer garbage for anything but a horserace. Everything depends on how the question is asked, and, more importantly, how the issue has been presented by the political “leaders”.
If Dem pols were as good at their jobs as most people are at theirs, there should be no problem presenting the war as the central evil that illuminates a broader compulsion to do the wrong thing by Bush and his party. If by “talking about it” you mean the droning wonking that Dems are so addicted to, I agree. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Dems can passionately argue for a society that is based on reason, justice, and compassion, as represented by health care, education, integrity in government, individual rights and all the rest. As opposed to venality, corruption, incompetence, and dishonesty as represented by the Iraq mess, Katrina, health care, the rich/rest-of-us gap, education, science, and all the rest. Again, not really that hard for folks who are competent at their chosen jobs.
I was interested to see that corruption didn’t resonate more in this race. Your thoughts?
Busby was well qualified, but not a scintillating personality.
Another thing that i don’t recall being in the poll analysis is a discussion of the military. Military and civilian military employees make up a huge part of this congressional district.
Saw some info re: health care concerns and other info that conflicts w/that (both from different reliable independent sources) so that tells me something is up. Don’t know wtf it is yet….
I would love to see one of these opinion survey outfits go to voters and ask them what they think of when they hear the term “class warfare.”
Do they automatically think that it is their class that war has been declared on?
Or is the term now so arcane–referring to Marxism I presume–that nobody gets it, and its water off a duck’s back, and so Democrats who are so afraid of it are blowing it?
In any case, Democrats are better off talking in specifics, like the superrich and the rest of us, the fact that a single paycheck won’t buy you a house and medical insurance, and minimum wage won’t even get you a room. If you’re worried about taxes, where are your taxes going? Iraq. Is this Republican government spending your tax money wisely? Corruption, vast amounts of waste in Iraq, homeland security and Katrina relief. By the way, how are things going in New Orleans? Do you trust the Republicans to be there if disaster hits your town? If you’re supperrich, maybe you don’t need the help. But everybody else does, and that’s what we’re paying these people in government to do. Are they doing it?
It really seems pretty simple, but it won’t work as long as the Dem “strategist”-losers keep forcing their mediocrities on the voters.
There is more to consider than just Bush’s inept actions and unethical behaviors. Part of the reason why we have Mr. Bush is the 9/11 security chasm shown to the American electorate. Post 9/11, America does not want weakness toward its national defense to be part of the political equation. This seems very clear. Now being against the Iraq war is not being weak on security because Iraq has not been really implicated in terrorism or 9/11! However, all this talk about how Israel should just accept terrorist bombs and not retaliate makes many here and in the potential opposition party look weak. You can count on the Repubs exploiting that if it becomes a widespread dem reaction to Israel. If that happens, many Americans, including myself, will be hesitant to vote for progressive candidate even if other parts of their platform are excellent!
Is anyone listening out there?
The party needs someone who can talk sense about security without pandering to irrational fears. About what really makes us secure. And not all of that is bombs and guns, and threatening other nations or even some nebulous undefined “terrorists” when to most of the world, we are the terrorists. Threatening everyone who won’t get wth the program is especially pathetic and dangerous when those threats are increasingly empty.
If we keep going down this road we are going to wind up with just one choice: nuking everybody else. It’s going to be the only power, the only edge we have. Think about it.
As for Israel, if the Republicans try to use this in the upcoming election I predict it won’t work, for both good and bad reasons. The good reasons have to do with extending the violence of Iraq to the Middle East in general. That may well be how many if not most people see this, and their reigning emotion is alarm. At a certain point, brutality becomes more threatening than nebulous fears of being attacked by terrorists, the chances of which for any particular person is infinitessimal. Eventually that’s going to sink in.
I consider myself mostly a social liberal, but I live in a very conservative area and talk with mostly conservatives in my day life. BY FAR, most folks I talk to would never vote for someone advocating that a country accept terrorist attacks without powerful retaliation if possible.
I am telling you this because I see a lot of potential progressive gains put in real danger come election time if this turn the other cheek mentality that I hear here day after day becomes the progressive platform. You will not, cannot win with that idea post 9-11 in America.
Hello, again, you will not, cannot win with that idea post 9-11 in America.
Turn the other cheek? There are those who respond to the idea of terrorist attacks in such a way that they can’t hear the words spoken to them, unless they trigger a trained response. So if they hear of alternative ways of dealing with terrorism that have absolutely nothing to do wth turning the other cheek, they’ll still hear that.
If you’re talking about Israel, I don’t think it plays the same way. And if all people want to hear is massive retaliation against people they define as enemies ipso facto, i.e. Arabs and Muslims, then nuclear war is the inevitable result of trying to please them. Both sides have grievances, and that has to be recognized if the civilized world isn’t going to destroy itself.
The task is to break through that with straight talk and direct appeal. The Republican way is not working. 60% of the country knows this. They are no longer trusted on Iraq or on terrorism. And there are ways to talk about security that go to peoples concerns without appealing to their cowardice by saying we have to bomb everybody in sight or we won’t be safe. That’s idiocy or demagogery or both. (Great spell check here–tells me I’ve misspelled it but not how to spell it right.)
Interesting result, and ties in with recent revelations that the Green Party senate candidate vs. Santorum is getting virtually all his funding from Republicans.
See TPM http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001256.php
In the case of the Busby/Bilbray race, wasn’t the Libertarian a strong pull?
If the Dems want to run a “status quo” campaign which does not emphasize change to any of the key things voters worry about then why would an indie vote Dem? One wants to see some movement away from not just corruption but the system that created corruption. I haven’t heard too many dems address reforms, truthfully.
of changes he was looking for in the 94 elections that moved so many repubs into power. How can the Dems hope to equal that without some kind of list of reforms?