The diligent folks at the American Prospect's TAPPED blog are starting to sort through the exit polls and keeping an eye on the early post-mortems. Nick Confessore, who I find myself often reading and having "oh yeah he's right" moments, had this to say about the Dems and economic issues:
I think this [exit poll information] militates against the views of folks like Robert Reich, Tom Frank, and others, who believe, broadly speaking, that the Democrats are losing because they have lost touch with working people and are unable or unwilling to be the party of economic populism. Kerry won handily among voters worried about the economy. In Ohio, those who put jobs at the top of their worries went for Kerry 85 percent to 15 percent. But too many voters were more worried about values and terrorism -- and future Democratic candidates aren't going to be able to convince those people that they should care more about their jobs than their churches and the safety of their children. Alas, thinking straight about national security, and communicating moral values, are two things Democrats in general and liberals in particular aren't very good at. That will need to change.
He notes that the gay marriage issue helped Dear Leader Bush, and that - amazing but true! - he came out better on fighting terrorism. Confessore also asks pragmatically, "Where were the Democratic wedge issues? Where were the ballot initiatives in Nevada, Oregon, Ohio, and Florida -- home to millions of senior citizens looking down the barrel of the Alzheimer's gun -- legalizing stem-cell research?" That's a memorable phrase in itself, "looking do the barrel of the Alzheimer's gun."
He also thinks the Dems have to boost their strength in the South as a priority for the national party:
Finally, you can forget about the "we don't need the South" strategy. Writing off the South means writing off emerging swing states such as North Carolina and Virginia. It also more or less means writing off a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, through which any progressive legislation of moment sooner or later must pass. Want universal health insurance? Figure out how to win Senate seats in the South, and keep them in the Plains states.
Matt Yglesias, who for some reason I've never known, is also called"Big Media Matt," is looking at the nuances of the Reps' strong issues in the exit polls. For instance, he notes:
Here's an interesting tidbit from the adjusted exit polls: Among the 19 percent of the electorate that cited terrorism as the most important issue in the campaign, fully 86 percent supported Bush. But among the 21 percent of the electorate that described itself as "very worried" about terrorism, Bush got just 44 percent.
I'm afraid my interpretation of this would sound a little grumpier than his. I would say this indicates that the people who are actually paying attention to Bush's antiterrorism policies are finding more to be concerned about.
But I can go with his take on this one:
Let me say that I'm a bit skeptical of the emerging CW [conventional wisdom] that the Democratic loss was all about values. The main basis of that analysis seems to be the rather striking fact that "moral values" were the number one issue of the largest bloc of the electorate. That, however, strikes me as a statistical artifact caused by the exit pollsters' decision to list "Iraq" and "terrorism" as two separate issues rather than, as they did in 2000, as a unified national-security or foreign-policy issue. Put the two together and you get a 34 percent bloc -- larger than the 22 percent for moral values, and larger than the combined 32 percent for the Democratic strong points on jobs, health care, and the economy.
I suspect that misperceptions about Bush's military and foreign policies, misperceptions both emotional and factual, were more decisive to the Democratic defeat. People who vote to let themselves or their children be drafted to go fight in the hell-hole that Iraq has become for Americans because their more afraid of gays marrying are just not going to vote for the Democrats, as a rule.
2 comments:
I think values proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back in Ohio, Bruce. Had they not had an anti-gay marriage proposal on the ballet, Kerry might have won the state.
I think the Dems should have stood up and said, "Enough bull shit about this. We've fought many wars since WWII to keep Americans free. We've given women the right to vote and the right to make choices concerning their bodies. We've fought against segragation in our workplaces, in our schools and in our neighborhoods. Now we must fight to give all Americans the right to marry. It's the MORAL thing to do. This is AMERICA, not Russia. When we say all people are equal, we mean ALL. Women deserve the right to equal pay for equal work. Poor children form ethnic backgrounds deserve the right to as equal an education as their white counterparts. And all people in this great country deserve to marry the person they love, and receive all the benefits of being married.
Had they done that, put some real starch into this instead of hiding these issues as if the Repubos were right, we might have countered enough of the conservative groundswell to win a few more states. Especially Ohio.
That Sad Chica,
Marcia Ellen
Marcia Ellen, what you're saying goes against the conventional wisdom. And I'm sure we'll hear a lot of chatter from the Big Pundits about how the Democrats have to softpedal any kind of support for gay marriage.
But I think you're right. The theocratic voters for whom this is a decisive issue are not going to vote for Democrats, because they also are with the Republicans on too many other issues. Hitting the issue head-on and forcing swing voters to confront the fact that the Republicans are not a "tolerant" party is about the only realistic way to deal with it. - Bruce
Post a Comment