DEAN, DEMOCRATS and POLLS

The following articles were posted to DailyKos recently.

BUSH POPS, DEMOCRATS UNRUFFLED

Tue Dec 16th, 2003 at 16:31:39 UTC
 

WSJ/NBC POLL

In the latest Hart-Teeter poll, reported in the Dec 15 Wall St Journal,  George Bush gets lots of points for capturing Saddam Hussein.

Fully 15% of those sampled (MOE 4.3%) changed their view to "things are going in the right direction" in just one day.  The overall positives jumped from 41% on 12/13/03 to 56% on 12/14/03.  However, George Bush earned less of the credit,  as his approval rating jumped only 6 points,  from 52% to 58% during the 24 hours.

The poll asked about the Democratic candidates,  and shows that Dr Dean dropped 4 points (from 29 to 25%) after Saddam's capture.  Dr Dean continues to lead the other candidates,  whose ratings were largely unchanged.  Gen Clark and Rep Gephardt each had support of 11% of those polled.  Sen Lieberman's support among those polled increased just 2%,  from 7 to 9%.

The poll asked several questions about the war in Iraq.  Generally,  71% believe the war is not over. 62% believe America is more secure as a result of US activities in Iraq.  55% support keeping US troops in Iraq for as long as necessary,  even as long as 5 years.

While Saddam's capture seems to make people feel more secure (up 10 points since 9/03),  other beliefs about the Iraq war have not changed much since last September.

The poll was conducted during the period in which Saddam Hussein's capture was announced.

Analysis

Saddam's capture was big news for the weekend, and seems to have incited a rush of patriotism and support for the President.  On the other hand, this story lost its buoying effects on the stock market by Monday noon.  Larry King went back to Michael Jackson.  Generally,  the story is fading fast.

Aside from the patriotic rush,  nothing else changed in Iraq:  the guerilla war goes on. Nothing else changed in Washington,  as the Haliburton overcharges are still being investigated and Bush's contract bidding guidelines are still controversial.

So, I think things will go back to "normal" in a few days.  The war may fade out fast,  because Christmas is next week.

The President's approval ratings have been steadily declining since the invasion reached Baghdad last May.  There have been lots of reasons to lose confidence in the Bush Administration. Saddam's capture gave a quick boost to Bush,  but that may or may not last, depending on the news flow in the next month or so.  If the Administration's mismanagement continues,  Bush's public support is likely to droop.

On the other hand, we don't know whether the Administration can set off more sparklers to divert public attention and improve its ratings.

The two things I noted were:

    (1) While 15% changed their opinion to things are going in the right direction,  only 6% improved their view of Bush,

    (2) 15% of those polled could shift their outlook in a single day.

This seems to show the electorate is volatile.  People would like to believe George Bush, and set aside the critics.  They prefer hearing good news;  it may be hard for Americans to sustain a "down" mood, especially during the Holiday season.

As I see it,  we won't know what recent events mean until after the New Year.  Early January polling will be especially important,  as the political season will be open.

Dr Dean Leads

Among Democrats,  Dr Dean still leads the pack.  The main effect of Saddam's capture seems to be shifting some votes from Dr Dean to undecided.  The other candidates didn't gain much from the event.  Dr Dean leads the others by more than 2:1.  It appears it would take several Saddam-capture sized stories to change that.

These events have definitely brought out who was for, and who against, the war in Iraq.  Dr Dean remained steadfast in his position,  while Sen Lieberman, Rep Gephardt and Sen Kerry flip-flopped around their recent positions.

I think Dr Dean will come out advantaged, at least among Democrats,  by recent events. However, we won't see this for a while. Again, the early January polling will be important.

The Apolitical Middle

This poll also shows there is a large group of Americans - 15% in this case - who can change their outlook on all sorts of things 'at the drop of a hat.'  This group will probably decide the election,  since Democrats and Republicans each "own" about 1/3 of the electorate.

This volatility should be worrisome to the politically inclined on all sides,  since a last minute bombshell can destroy months of work and change an election at the last minute.  The only way to overcome last minute switching is building commitments to a political ideology or party.

What needs to be done is find ways to talk to, and convince, the uncommitted - the independents - and those who just don't care.  That is a very difficult task,  but New Hampshire (not Iowa) provides a test site for those willing to work on the problem.
 

Political Taxonomy: Characters or Lineage?

Sat Dec 13th, 2003 at 23-20-34 UTC

Common Wealth?

Thank you DavidNYC for bringing to my attention this wonderful analysis:

Beyond the Red and Blue

Sullivan's map and analysis caused me to rethink the 2004 electoral map.  I found some of my suspicions confirmed (e.g., the Oregon split),  and some of my puzzles (e.g. Pennsylvania) clarified.  On the whole, I think the analysis make a Democratic victory more likely, if the campaign is financed and managed properly.

On the other hand,  10 or 100 voting regions, it all comes down to the ELECTORAL COLLEGE.  The States get 3 votes each no matter what,  guaranteeing the rights of the minority.  That's what the Founder Fathers settled in a compromise, and now we get rule by the minority.

So, Bush starts off with the SOUTH and SAGEBRUSH territory.  Democrats start off with the Coasts.  We all knew that,  but now we know a little more about the struggle to come thanks to Sullivan.

An Old Issue

DHinMI has transposed an old issue in biology to the 2004 election.

Should species be designated based on characters or lineage?  Nowadays, (almost) everyone agrees that a species comprises those critters that can interbreed,  and that every living thing is the offspring of another living thing.  Lineage defines descent. Thus, we have the trees, branches and leaves of the biological chart.  

Before the discovery that DNA is the genetic material,  it wasn't possible to determine the actual descent of most organisms.  For example, how would one inter-relate dinosaurs?  This is still a problem,  because we don't have any DNA from those ancient fossils.  Thus, we are stuck with using some other clue to guess lineage.

So, the question is,  what characters are a reliable guide to lineage? Translated, what evidence shows political affinity?

Sullivan's approach is simply to throw together all those who vote alike in Presidential elections.  He ignores the old quadrupole split between Presidential and Congressional liberals and conservatives.  That old 4 way idea is derived from the notion that regions do logrolling and horse trading in Congress,  while the President reflects some generality about the country (beyond regions and States).  It is also an idea founded in the aftermath of the Civil War.  Have we so transformed ourselves that North and South are no longer relevant?  Or have the old, regional disputes been forgotten or submerged in our latter day concerns?

Founder Effect

In classifying political America, DHinMI wants to rely on ethnic lineage,  as historically observed.  My experience is there is something to that:  most children learn the culture of their parents and do not depart from it.  All of my siblings, for example, still live very near my parents.  Only black sheep WB permanently settled 3,500 miles away,  where I became a San Franciscan.  But, I settled in northern California because the culture suited me.

So, did those who settled in Oregon and Washington adopt the pre-existing (British) culture?  Or, were they predisposed to the culture they found, so stayed there (instead of moving on)?

We don't know which is the case from DHinMI's prologue.  The only thing I see in his discussion is the Founder Effect.  The first successful settlers generate a pyramid of descendants.  Since most progeny stay put and adopt the ways of their parents, or the culture their parents affected,  this creates a regional bias (ethnic grouping).  If we can trace the descent of present populations from first settlers,  then this might help us understand how regions vote.  The trick is 'if we can.'

In the meantime,  I have to count DHinMI interesting comments as apocryphal stories. One should keep them in mind,  but a more solid analysis is required.

Computing the Election

However unromantic, modern demographic techniques work.  We must give Sullvan's map a lot of credibility as it bears on the 2004 election,  provided it suggests other, fruitful hypotheses.

Clearly,  the analysis is not perfect.  There are fringe areas,  such as Hawaii,  which don't seem to fit where Sullivan places them.  Maybe Hawaii belongs with Upper Coast (my belief),  or maybe it is Region 11.  After all, what's the magic about 10 Regions?  [But, we don't want too many regions, because that just confuses.]

On the other hand,  my memory of Minnesota and New Hampshire fits Sullivan's map.

What I would like to see is Sullivan (or someone) turning that map into electoral votes. That is what counts for our purposes.

Redividing the Country

Net Net:  Maybe AZ and NV are more winnable than I thought.  It depends on how well Democrats do with Hispanics.  What's happening here in California could affect those States.

Maybe "Big River" is more important than I thought,  even if still difficult to put in the Democratic column.

The main thing that comes out of these analyses is not just electoral votes, but this question:

How should we frame our issues to win the contested States?

your turn ...

DEMOCRATIC VEGETATIVE STATE

Fri Dec 12th, 2003 at 03-59-24 UTC

Let's go back to the discussion, introduced by Meteor Blades, of MEYERSON's OP-ED in WaPo 12/10/03.

I am no longer surprised and shocked that only now are Washington journalists and, maybe, politicians waking up to the true status of the Democratic party.  I am a Californian who has known this for more than a decade.

The wake up call for me came during fmr Rep Vic Fazio's penultimate run, when he got $125,000 from the Calif Medical Assoc (CMA) the Friday before the election and thereafter changed his tune about health care.  At least that's the way I understand the chronology.  Then,  there were those Clinton trips and promises:  bases would be closed,  but workers re-trained. The great spotted owl - oldgrowth tree deal in Oregon promised help for displaced loggers which never came.  The California depression of 1991-1996 which seemed it would never end,  and which the Democrats could not fix.  And, on and on.

Maybe all that didn't happen; it's just my delusion.  In my sickness,  I saw the Democratic party become the vehicle of careerists who could sell themselves to the people, somehow or other.  Listening to the people,  and representing them, became a thing of the past.

Our County and City is dominated by Democrats,  but many of them are careerists.  I don't bother to vote for most of them (or anyone else) anymore.  They do whatever they are going to do.

So,  I voted for Nader in 1996.  After correctly predicting a Bush win in June, 1999, I supported Bradley in 1999-2000, and then Nader.  I used to be a strong Feinstein supporter,  but now I am indifferent, and thinking about someone to challenge her in the primary.  I have become a stronger supporter of Barbara Boxer,  although her manner grates on me.

What's wrong with careerists?  NO FIRE IN THE BELLY,  that's what. They've forgotten what it was all about.  This sort of person runs on whatever party ticket is available.  If you have to be a Republican to win here or there, then become one.  Or, if it is Green, Democrat, Reform or whatever,  just register in that party.  Then, sell the voters on yourself however you can. YOU are the product.  A COMFY JOB is the goal.

Most of our elected officials are careerists.

So,  my first prescription for the Democrat party is this:  Elected Democrats need to know its time to shape up or ship out.  Yes, we the rank and file can FIRE our elected.  It is we who tell them, not the other way around. And, guess what?  There's lots of folks available and fully qualified to do the job,  in case we need a replacement.

My second prescription is restructure the party accordingly:  No more superdelegates, no more cozy County meetings,  no more inside baseball. Democrats have to restructure local organizations into open meetings.  The rank and file needs to have more direct control over the party.  Decision making needs to be orderly,  but from the bottom up.  In short,  we need participation and democracy in the Democratic party.

Curiously,  the Democratic party has fallen victim to the same ills it had in the 1960s.  The 1972 McGovern defeat was a terrible blow,  but we learned the wrong lesson.  After 1972, the Establishment got rid of the rebels (like me) and kept an increasingly strong grip on the organization.  Jimmy Carter's election almost, but not quite, stopped the reversion to machine and careerist politics.  Since 1980,  it has been nothing but DOWNHILL for the Democratic party.

It looks like Dean will be the nominee, but, whoever it is,  one of our most urgent tasks in the next year is rebuilding the Democratic party.  This needs to be done,  win or lose.  If we don't renew the party, winning some offices just won't matter.

JFK accomplished very little in his time,  but he energized people.  Those people went out and created a civil rights revolution,  the anti-war movement,  the women's liberation movement and a lot of other popular actions,  The result was the civil rights laws,  the eventual end of the Vietnam war,  and women's rights.  Along the way,  we got MEDICARE and a bunch of other great Society programs.  (Those programs actually worked until 1980,  after which the Reaganites dismantled them.)

FDR's New Deal had the same effect on people,  which is why many remarkable works of the WPA can still be seen, and we still have Social Security.

So, my third prescription is enthusiasm.  We need to be less rigid, more experimental and more accepting of risk.  Not everything will work,  but a lot will.

Part of my advice involves just say NO. We don't have to win an election. We don't have to vote for an incumbent who is a Killer Bee Democrat.   We don't have to do anything.  It is very important to rid oneself of feelings of compulsion;  that ominous sense that we have to do it. If you get past that sort of emotion,  it becomes much clearer what can be done.

Learning to say 'no', not being compelled, opens the way to free choice;  to being able to say 'yes' or 'no'.  It is to refuse slavery.

Being free to make choices is the reason I oppose the "Anybody But Bush" slogan.  We need to choose our nominee carefully,  and then enforce our programs on the candidate.  We cannot choose just anyone;  short of choosing a Jesus or Mohammed, we must audit what our representatives do.

If we choose a candidate and then blindly follow the leader,  we are just Bonapartistes.

We can succeed in what we really want,  if only we are willing to try and don't take any shortcuts.

[PS - For the foregoing reasons,  Kucinich supporters in particular are already starting to defect to the Greens. wlb 12/17/03]

December 17, 2003

Last update: 11/02/2007

© Copyright California Expert Software 2007

All rights reserved.