Burnt Orange Report

November 04, 2004

Lessons From Election 2004

By Andrew Dobbs

Okay, here's my 2 cents on the events of Tuesday night in the extended entry...

(Update): I forgot one, read the new Lesson 7 if you haven't already

1. People Don't Vote Out the President During a War
Most Americans think we are on the wrong track, think that Bush is not doing so hot and think that the economy is in the shitter. Turnout was the highest it has been in 36 years, usually a good sign for Democrats. Yet Bush was reelected relatively easily, the Senate gained 4 Republicans and the House got more Republican as well. Some of this can be attributed to continuing regional trends, but more than anything it is a sign that people will stick with a guy they disagree with when the bullets are flying. Only when the war is an undeniable quagmire (and most of the country as well as this observer would say it is quite the opposite) will they kick them out (see 1968). Bush had this going for him and it helped trump almost everything else.

2. Liberalism is On the Outs
In 9 presidential elections we have elected Democrats in only 3 of them (four if you count Gore, but that was a tossup really). Each time (including Gore), it was a moderate, southern religious type. Liberalism might benefit from the ground game we built for this election, much like conservativism was ultimately helped by Goldwater, despite his defeat. But except for the coasts and a small part of the Upper Midwest, the vast majority of America is fundamentally conservative. They are religious, anti-tax, pro-gun, pro-war. We can try to change their minds, but this trend goes back much further than Bush. The good news is these people split their tickets for moderate Democrats who support the general party line but still don't take their marching orders from the liberal wing. Montana elected a Democratic governor, Indiana reelected a Democratic senator, Colorado elected a Democrat to the Senate and the race was surprisingly close elsewhere. But if we want to win we need to return to a party of the middle class- a Clinton New Democrat kind of place.

3. Vote for the Guy Who Inspires You... Within Reason
Before Tuesday I thought that simply running a campaign of how much you hate the other guy would suffice. I thought that despite the lack of any real enthusiasm for Kerry, the hatred of Bush would put us over the top. I was wrong wrong wrong. Campaigns have to have a positive vision and an articulate, inspiring spokesperson. Bush inspires and excites his base- Kerry was just a stand-in for the more amorphous hatred of Bush. A candidate who could excite people on his own- Dean, Clark, Edwards- probably would have done better. In the end, don't try and pick someone because they are "electable," pick them because you think they are the most exciting. Obviously if Kucinich or Sharpton rocked your socks, you should consider voting for someone who doesn't look like a troll or have a history of hating white people.

4. Districts Drawn to Elect Republicans/Democrats Usually Do Just That
We had 5 candidates redrawn into shit congressional districts this year. Despite the great campaigns ran by all of them and the weak candidates at least 4 of them drew, 4 of the 5 lost. This isn't because the Republicans are better, and though we could have done better it isn't because the Democrats ran bad campaigns. It is because people a lot smarter than us drew maps to elect only a Republican, and it worked. We need to stop partisan redistricting if we want a truly representative and effective congress and Texas 2004 proved that.

5. Raising Money Is Priority Number One
The DCCC and other organizations designed to elect people to office pick candidates primarly on how much time they spend raising money. A good candidate spends about 6-8 hours a day or so doing that. A bad one doesn't. Jim Dougherty in Houston was a good candidate on the outside, but lost because he didn't raise the money. Without putting the time and effort into raising enough money, he got 44% in a Republican district. A better candidate could have won. If we want to win we need to recruit candidates who will do the work necessary to pick up the phone and ask for cash. It is a sad reality, but it is true.

6. All Other Things Being Equal (or Even Kinda Unequal), the Candidate That Works Hardest Wins
Hubert Vo appears to have beaten the 20 year incumbent chair of the House Appropriations Committee, Talmadge Heflin. Vo knocked on several thousand doors, wore out several pairs of shoes and busted his balls to win that race. Of course, working the night shift and going to college all day only months after traveling to the United States with nothing but the clothes on his back prepared him well. Heflin, on the other hand, sat up on his coondog and expected incumbency to carry him to victory. On the flip side, John Otto busted tail in East Texas while 3 term incumben Dan Ellis decided to take it easy. Otto won and Ellis lost. If you want to win, you have to work and if you work harder than the other guy as long as the district is somewhat competitive and you have enough money to keep your name on people's lips (see Lesson 5), you will win. Hard work does pay off, and Talmadge Heflin and Dan Ellis learned that one the hard way.

7. (Added After Initial Post) Wedge Issues Work
The most surprising thing is that the number one issue on people's minds wasn't the War or the economy, but rather "moral issues." This doesn't mean voting out a leader who lies, exposes CIA agents and uses racism to keep himself in office, but rather keepin' queers from marryin' and keepin' ladies from abortin'. Karl Rove knew that he needed more evangelicals to vote if he wanted his boy to win, and he knew that guns, gays, God and abortion would turn them out. As a result, he played these issues up, got anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives on 11 ballots and got the church goers to the polls. Tada- Bush is elected.

There are two options here. The first is unacceptable in many ways- give up our positions on these issues. I think on guns this is preferable. Gun control doesn't really work, it pisses off a lot of people and it is lazy. We always argue that the solution to crime is in fighting the causes of crime- poverty, lack of education, etc. Banning guns is reacting to the sympton, not fighting the cause and we ought to jettison this issue. But abortion and the rights of all people- including gays- are non-negotiable for most of us. The second is to (as 'stina put it) reframe these issues and draw attention away from them. Gay rights is a civil rights issue and when Republicans bash them for political gain it is no better than when Southern Democrats used to use racism for gain. We ought to say so. Banning abortion is pushing one particular religious view onto other people, much like the enemies we are fighting do. We ought to say something similar. And then we ought to point out that the real problem is the crisis in marriage in general created in large part by financial insecurity and the high number of children born out of wedlock because of bad faith federal education funding. If we turn the gay/abortion debate into a debate about education and the economy, we can win. We ought to do this all over and it will succeed.

On a Texas specific side note, this has good implications for 2006. Essentially, the heart and soul of the Republican Party now belongs to the theocrats. In the South, the idea of a pro-choice woman winning a contested Republican primary with a viable pro-life candidate in the running is pretty far-fetched. Kay Bailey Hutchison may be popular, but 3-6 months of Rick Perry calling her a baby killer in her first contested GOP primary ought to put a stake in the heart of her campaign. And then, at the end of a brutal and nasty primary campaign, the unpopular Rick Perry has to fight off a Democrat. Texas could have a Democratic governor because of this issue if we simply reframe the issue as I have suggested above.

8. Things Are Looking Good for Texas Democrats
In 2002 only the very inner cities and the very Hispanic parts of South Texas went for the Democrats and only about 1/3 of the state could be considered "base Democrats." Now Democrats are starting to take over the biggest urban counties as Harris County saw an uptick in Dem voters, Dallas elected a Lesbian Latina Democrat as Sheriff and Democrats easily swept Travis County. Also, the inner suburbs- not the exurbs like Frisco, Georgetown or Katy- places like Grand Prairie, Pflugerville and Alief are starting to consider voting for the Democrats. In Grand Prairie, Ray Allen narrowly escaped defeat at the hands of an environmental activist Democrat. In Alief, Vo beat Heflin. In Pflugerville Mark Strama beat Jack Stick. If we can take the big 4 counties- Dallas, Harris, Bexar and Travis- with big numbers and add in their inner suburban counterparts, we can start winning statewide races.

But we also have to improve turnout in South Texas. Hidalgo County in 2002 had less than 72,000 votes for the biggest race on the ballot. In 2004, they had 115,000. In 2000, it was 101,000. In 2000, Webb had fewer than 32,000 votes for President. In 2002 it was just over 39,000. In 2004, it was 41,500. The turnout trend in South Texas is in our favor- if we can continue stoking these flames, we win races.

Finally, in 2002 Tom Ramsey ran for Agriculture Commissioner against incumbent Susan Combs. Neither really ran a campaign for the down ballot office and Combs was an incumbent. Ramsay got 37.8% of the vote. This year, neither campaign for Texas Supreme Court- David Van Os for the Democrats or Scott Brister for the GOP- did anything beyond some signs, bumper stickers and campaign speeches. David Van Os got 40.75% of the vote. That means that Democrats increased their base by roughly 3 points in 2 years. If we do that again before 2004, we start out with a base of 44% and need only increase turnout in South Texas, keep swinging the votes in the inner suburbs and big 4 counties and we have a race on our hands. This is good news for Texas.

So the summary is this: we need candidates with a positive, creative, inspiring message that doesn't fall back on old liberal cliches. We have to raise money and work hard and try and get districts that are fair for the people of Texas. And we have to either win this war or lose it bad if we want to start winning again. I would never cheer against our troops and I think we are doing a helluva job over there right now, so I suspect the former will happen before 2008. But in the end things are looking up for Texas right now and if we work hard and play our cards right, things will be even better in 2006.

Posted by Andrew Dobbs at November 4, 2004 07:58 PM | TrackBack

Comments

I think we also need to stop letting them frame the debate. I'm sort of surprised how gay marriage wasn't couched as a civil rights issue all over the country. With every Ted Poe "doesn't share our values" ad, there could have been a "fights for civil rights" Nick Lampson response. With every suggestion of family in jeopardy, we should have countered with stories of children being taken from their mommys.

With a growing non-white population in Texas, we need to find common ground, and civil rights are probably the best way to go on that front.

And we're going to need to figure out how to counter the religous right. This isn't anything new. The religous right has had control over the Republican party since about 1992 in Texas. I know a lot of people in other states that are sort of stunned at how Karl Rove managed to mobilize that particular base. It should have been no big surprise to us, but we still don't know how to counter it. I do know that the old Summit/Compaq Center in Houston will soon be Lakewood Church. It's not something that will ever go away, and if we're ever going to have a chance in the state or nationally, we need to figure out how to expand our base to include people of faith.

I continue to believe that we are the moral party, and we need to figure out how to communicate that to the rest of Texas.

Posted by: 'stina at November 4, 2004 08:50 PM

Before you look at how moral values is some kind of leading issue, check the numbers CNN is using. CNN separates Iraq and terrorism into two brackets. Many Americans (at least 51% of the country) see the two as one issue. You do that and the lead moral values has as a dominate issue disappears.

Look here for an analysis: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/001708.html

I wager that at security (Iraq and terrorism) was at least as important as "moral values." For me, it was security. "Moral values" didn't factor at all in my vote.

Posted by: elgato at November 4, 2004 09:31 PM

You're quite right about improved Democratic performance in the suburbs. In addition to Strama's performance, don't forget Kelly White, who got at least 49.88% of the vote in a district that is supposed to be 57% Republican.

For that matter, Kelly may yet win the race, as she has filed for a recount.

Posted by: Monk of Miletus at November 4, 2004 10:21 PM

Andrew D wrote

If we turn the gay/abortion debate into a debate about education and the economy, we can win. We ought to do this all over and it will succeed.

No - you would fail, because you fundamentally misunderstand these issues. You can't recast issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion as civil-rights issues, because fundamentally they aren't - they're moral issues.

I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the taking of an innocent life, and I believe anyone who examines the issue from an honest perspective and reasons from first principles will come to the same conclusion. The Democratic Party, as part of its platform, approves of the current state of affairs regarding this issue, which is to allow unrestricted abortion. That's why I'll never vote for a Democrat (there are other reasons as well, but this one rules out the Democratic Party immediately). I will not vote for a party that condones the death of over a million innocent lives per year. Abortion isn't merely an civil-rights issue; it's deeper than that. It's one of those issues that defines us as a society, and presently, I'm sorry to say, its current status is one that diminishes us as a people.

In her comment, 'tina wrote

I do know that the old Summit/Compaq Center in Houston will soon be Lakewood Church. It's not something that will ever go away, and if we're ever going to have a chance in the state or nationally, we need to figure out how to expand our base to include people of faith.

My guess is that most of the people going to Lakewood Church feel the same way as I do, and most of them pulled the lever for George W. Bush on November 2. If you want our vote, you must engage us in an intellectually honest fashion rather than resort to rhetorical tricks like reframing the issue. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The reason we're not buying what the Democrats are selling isn't because the packaging isn't pretty enough; it's because what's inside the package is abhorrent.

Posted by: Jonathan Sadow at November 5, 2004 12:41 AM

I enjoyed your comment about the remap, but I will note (again) that the old map took about 43% Democratic votes and made 55% Democratic districts, while the new map takes about 58% Republican votes and makes about 62% Republican districts.

I know it sucks to lose a residual gerrymander, especially to an active one for the other party, but the new map created a responsiveness to the majority will.

Posted by: Keith at November 5, 2004 12:45 AM

funny how the pro-life/anti-abortion folks are against giving women the option. every accidental pregnancy story has a personal twist, yet the GOP wants to put these mothers in jail at every opportunity.

Adoptions among Republicans is only 4.2% of that of Democrats. Assuming Bush succeeds in overturning Roe v Wade, those 1,000,000 extra births/year will end up homeless or worse (abusive parents). Republicans won't adopt the infants because they are presumed to be born Democratic!

that's why i could never vote for these [neo-con(servative)] Republicans: they are simplistic, and simply devoid of logical/rational thought (i.e. that there may be 2 sides to a story). this is mostly Ronald Reagan's fault; he taught the country that everything can be solved by a 10-second quip (aka "sound bite"). in their minds, criticizing Reagan is akin to criticizing The Almighty!

btw, why doesn't Rush Limbaugh have to declare (on every show) that he is among the richest 1% and thus biased for Bush's tax cut for the wealthy? oh, i'm sure he took all that extra spending money and invested heavily in "coat hanger futures" when abortion becomes illegal again.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 5, 2004 05:04 AM

No - you would fail, because you fundamentally misunderstand these issues. You can't recast issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion as civil-rights issues, because fundamentally they aren't - they're moral issues.

How can same-sex marriage be anything but a civil rights issue, when the measures were drawn to discriminate against a group of people? Help me understand this. Do you flat out reject the holding in Lawrence v. Texas that gay people have rights? Do you reject the Supreme Court of the United States of America?

As for abortion, Roe v. Wade does not hold for "unrestricted" abortion. It holds for a balancing of the mother's interest against the fetus's interests, based on the viability of the fetus outside of the womb.

Posted by: 'stina at November 5, 2004 07:37 AM

Sadow is saying liberals are hypocrites. While I don't agree with his position, his argument is that liberals blithely ignore the deaths of "millions" of "babies," but complain about laws against behavior which he thinks God legislated against in the Bible. It doesn't matter, in that view, what the Supreme Court said in Lawrence any more than Roe, because God's is the higher law. If I'm misinterpreting I'm sure Mr. Sadow will correct me.

In a less secular forum, Sadow might have quoted scripture at you -- before taking the mote out of your brother's eye, take the beam out of your own.

By the same token, if you're pro-life and pro-death penalty, you're also a hypocrite. Pro-life and pro-war, same thing. Pro-life and anti-welfare, again, a hypocrite, since you care nothing about children.

I get that conservatives think liberals are two-faced. I understand why, and my particularly gloomy days I even agree. But whenever I hear it, I can't help but think, brother, take the beam out of your own eye.

Posted by: Scott at November 5, 2004 10:40 AM

Speaking of satellite and suburb votes--don't forget Hays County. Patrick Rose, everyone's shining-Dem-bipartisian-star hope for the future, easily kept his seat against Alan "family values" Askew. And Hays overwhelmingly voted for US Rep Henry Cuellar, and Sheriff Don Montague, both Dems. The Commissioners Court Pct. 3 seat stayed GOP, but that's based in Wimberley, 'nuff said.
Just remember, once-rural areas aren't rural anymore. Every county around Travis is full of urban commuters.

Posted by: jen b at November 5, 2004 12:25 PM

"Liberalism is on the outs."
This has been true politically for some time. However, this does not mean that liberalism is wrong, only that it has become unpopular. The solution is not to become more conservative, although certainly there needs to be compromise. The solution is to frame "liberalism" in a way that people see it's in their best interests to be liberal.
I highly recommend, in this regard, George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant.
Steve

Posted by: Steve at November 5, 2004 02:30 PM

One thing that the Democrats can do is try
to reach out more to religious minorities
(Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, et al)--not
only as voters, but also as candidates.
It's important to show the Religious Right
--as well as the many voters unaware of
their true agenda--that there are millions
of Americans who are good, moral people
of faith--but who are at odds with the
"Christian Nation" elitism of the GOP.

It would also be good to recruit more
Christian and Jewish spokespeople--both
clergy and laypeople--who are articulate
speakers, capable of communicating to the
electorate that religious values aren't
limited to the issues of abortion, school
prayer, homosexuality, and monuments in
courthouses. We need Democrats and
Independents of all religions who can
speak truth to the conscience of America.

Posted by: Metta Jon at November 5, 2004 08:41 PM

Metta-

I agree with you in the abstract, but if you ain't white and with Christ, you better cleave to the right to get their attention. Otherwise, you're just another special interest.

Posted by: Keith at November 6, 2004 07:09 AM

Scott wrote

Sadow is saying liberals are hypocrites. While I don't agree with his position, his argument is that liberals blithely ignore the deaths of "millions" of "babies," but complain about laws against behavior which he thinks God legislated against in the Bible. It doesn't matter, in that view, what the Supreme Court said in Lawrence any more than Roe, because God's is the higher law. If I'm misinterpreting I'm sure Mr. Sadow will correct me.

You're mostly correct, although I'll state things with more precision: The laws established by a society are simply its moral beliefs codified and given the police power of the state. Those beliefs don't necessarily have to come from "God", although that's a perfectly legitimate source for them, but they do have to come from somewhere, because there exists no a priori means to determine what is "good".

By the same token, if you're pro-life and pro-death penalty, you're also a hypocrite. Pro-life and pro-war, same thing. Pro-life and anti-welfare, again, a hypocrite, since you care nothing about children.

No, this isn't the same token. Without going into a long theological discussion, I'll just say that being pro-life and pro-death penalty are by no means morally incompatible. You also make a common mistake by thinking pro-life and anti-welfare views are contradictory, whereas in fact the welfare state is only one policy by which society can address the ills of its poorer members; one can be pro-life and believe that there are better ways to handle poverty than welfare.

'tina wrote

How can same-sex marriage be anything but a civil rights issue, when the measures were drawn to discriminate against a group of people? Help me understand this. Do you flat out reject the holding in Lawrence v. Texas that gay people have rights? Do you reject the Supreme Court of the United States of America?

Laws against same-sex marriage are "discriminatory" in the same sense that laws against polygamy or incest are. Society finds that there are compelling reasons to prohibit these activities. You may disagree with those reasons, but the fact remains that it's legitimate for societies to make these decisions.

As for abortion, Roe v. Wade does not hold for "unrestricted" abortion. It holds for a balancing of the mother's interest against the fetus's interests, based on the viability of the fetus outside of the womb.

Mother's interest in terminating preganancy: time and expense needed to raise a child over many years.

Fetus's interest in not terminating pregnancy: death.

One of these interests clearly outweighs the other....

Again, without going into a long philosophical discussion, the standard of viability for determining when legal rights accrue to a person is simply a nightmare which leads to all sorts of inconsistencies (all-too-brief answer: it removes morality from the calculus entirely, which thus unmoors the law from its moral underpinnings, without which it's nonsensical).

Posted by: Jonathan Sadow at November 9, 2004 01:12 PM

News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas

November 04, 2004

Lessons From Election 2004

By Andrew Dobbs