Showing posts with label aarp. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aarp. Show all posts

Friday, November 10, 2006

Pollsters Weigh in on Election: Part 2

Continuing the synopsis of the AARP panel on 2006 midterm election results analyzing the 2006 elections, Celinda Lake weighs in for the Democrats:
  • This election was a vote for change. Iraq was certainly an issue, but so was the way Washington works.
  • Concern about the economy was an issue, with many Americans concerned that the American dream is at risk.
  • The Republicans push on security late in the election was stalled by the Foley scandal.
  • The winning slogan was, "Had enough?"
  • A second big theme in this election was that message beat mechanics. In 2004 both parties succeeded in voter turnout, but Republicans beat the Democrats on message. This year, again both parties succeeded in mobilization, but the Democrats won on message.
  • Who delivers the message matters. Those who won came across as authentic outsiders. This gave Democrats an edge, since it's hard for incumbents to run as outsiders.
  • This was also the "year of the woman leader." In addition to Nancy Pelosi, this election cycle will see the first woman head of the National Governor's Association, and the First Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
  • The last point is that the battlefield expanded. Demographically, Democrats made gains with rural voters, won Catholics, and tied married women. Seniors, once considered reliably Democratic, are now in play.
  • Long term trends favor Democrats. Single voters, both men and women, have voted Democratic for the last two elections.
  • 69% of Latino voters voted Democratic.
  • Young voters, who were the most Democratic group in 2004, were again in 2006, voting Democratic by margins from 15-22%.
  • Governors will make a big difference in the presidential elections, since governors control the state parties and define policy within a state.
  • This was not a conservative wave, as some have stated. It was a pragmatic wave. Many of the incoming candidates are "quite progressive, but they are pragmatists." Tester's slogan when he ran the Montana State Senate was "we'll get 'er done."
  • Voters voted on referenda in progressive ways, too, increasing the minimum wage, and passing stem cell research.
  • Some Democrats coming in are pro-life, but more Republicans leaving were pro-life. Some of the seats gaining pro-choice Democrats haven't supported that position for 10-15 years.

There is a great deal of nervousness among pundits and party loyalists on both sides that the Democrats not be perceived to swing too far to the left. By emphasizing that the voters "fired the Republicans, they didn't hire the Democrats," they hope to dampen the expectations of the left wing that this election represents a mandate for a more liberal platform.

It's easy to understand why party operators who watched Newt Gingrich self-destruct over the Clinton impeachment would want to avoid making the same error. But make no mistake, voters supporting Democrats this fall were also expressing outrage over the corruption of the entire Washington political machine. Here's the difference. All the polls prior to the 1998 election suggested that the majority of Americans wanted to put Monica and the little blue dress behind them, and get on to matters of more vital concern to the affairs of a nation. Polls prior to this year's election suggest that corruption was a motivating factor for those voting Democratic. Republicans made a great effort to inform voters that Pelosi's leadership would result in endless investigations and subpoenas, and voters still gave Democrats the House by a wide margin. It's hard not to read that as a mandate for oversight and accountability.

Does that mean impeachment? No, that means the public expects Congress to convene hearings and conduct due diligence to determine where the train went off the track, and take corrective action. The public's outrage over President Bush's executive overreach has muted to a slow burn. It will take some fairly damning new revelations to push that sentiment far enough to call for the ouster of a sitting president. But given the excesses to which this administration has gone to thwart any accountability, and surely there is a reason for the extraordinary amount of secrecy with which they have conducted their affairs, you can guarantee we haven't seen the last indictment. How well the President and Vice President have protected themselves from any fallout remains to be seen.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Pollsters Weigh in on Election: Part 1

C-SPAN has a fascinating video up. The AARP assembled a panel of pollsters to discuss the results of the midterm election. The following is a summary of some of the comments. It's a long clip, and I'm going to break it down into two posts.

Charlie Cook, the Cook Political Report:

  • Cook thinks the "wave" for Democrats was as strong as the Republican wave in 1994, but that the Republican losses were protected somewhat by "structures" put in place since that time (presumably a reference to redistricting.)
  • The midterm elections were about anger; nobody voted for the Democrats, they voted against Republicans. (This is a sentiment echoed throughout the panel.)
  • The Foley scandal put all the other scandals in a "big box and tied a bow on it."
  • This kind of election happens only once every 30 years, so enjoy it.

Chuck Todd, Editor of Hotline:

  • Voter turn-out wasn't bad for Republicans, Republicans got killed among independents. Todd termed it the "revenge of the independents."
  • Rather than think in red/blue, he broke it down by geographic region.
  • South is still strongly Republican.
  • Northeast is strongly Democratic.
  • Midwest saw a resurgence of populism, including significant pro-labor sentiment.
  • West was molded by reaction among the secular conservative libertarian, those who want small, competent government. Republicans lost many of these voters in this election.

Ed Goeas, Republican Pollster:

  • Eight districts were lost directly due to scandal.
  • Republicans voters were motivated by 1) terrorism; 2) taxes; and 3) Nancy Pelosi.
  • The week following the Foley scandal saw a shift in sentiment, but it was not due to Republican support falling off. The movement actually preceded the scandal, and was due to the Clinton/Fox news interview. The interview was a "rallying cry to Democrats." The interview "popped intensity of the Democratic base by 9 points in the five days following...."

That last comment was probably the most interesting of the entire clip. Goeas has much more to say, including some interesting comments on the roll of the Blue Dog Democrats, and is worth a listen. Tomorrow I'll summarize comments by the Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and add a few thoughts on the conventional wisdom.