Prognostication

by: Mike Lux

Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 18:00


It's after Labor Day in an even-numbered year, and that means two industries related to politics are running at full steam ahead: the campaign business and the prognostication industry.

Prognostication, though is a pretty dangerous business (assuming you actually care about being accurate, which is not true of many Beltway pundits). Because fundraising, polling, media, online strategies, and everything else on politics now happens full-time every season of every year, those of us in the political business sometimes forget the overwhelmingly obvious point that for most voters, the last two months before an election is the main time they actually focus in a serious way on politics. Polling, being an inexact science, bounces all over the place, as demonstrated by Gallup showing a 10-point edge for Republicans on the generic ballot test last week and a tied race this week. Most of the advertising and mail and field efforts have yet to be seen in the competitive districts and states.

There are also a ton of things we don't know. As Bob Creamer points out in his optimistic post today, John McCain was ahead of Barack Obama at this same moment in the 2008 race. No one can ever know how things will break the last few days of a campaign, and there have been plenty of surprises in modern American political history. The vast majority of predictions about an election 55 days away are destined to be wrong, so take every single one of the self-assured prognosticators with a large tablet of salt.

Here's the other thing to throw into the mix about the upcoming elections: as challenging as those elections are for Democrats, and they are, there is still a pretty clear strategy for giving ourselves a strong chance to do better than expected. There are two blocs of voters that are absolutely key to Democrats being able to avoid the worst scenarios for them in this election: the demographic groups that Obama not only carried by wide margins in 208 but that also turned out in record numbers (blacks, Hispanics, unmarried women, young people), and the white working-class swing voters who have been trending against Obama because they are in a foul mood about the economy. These two broad demographic groups have a lot of differences in terms of their life experience and views on the issues, but they have one thing in common: they understand that broad powerful corporations have helped wreck our economy, and that they have too much power over our government.

Bob Creamer's piece highlights the fact that voters are incredibly angry with Wall Street (10% positive, 53% negative), corporate America (12% positive, 42% negative), and the health insurance industry (12% positive, 56% negative. And MoveOn.org's polling shows that 56% of voters rate it very important (with another 23% saying somewhat important) that a candidate commits to reducing the influence of corporations on elections, while 62% say it is more likely they will vote for a candidate that commits to limiting the influence of large corporations over how government runs, and 83% say corporate lobbyists have too much influence over Congress.

It's not just raw numbers either. Focus groups of both swing voters and base voters show the extraordinary emotional punch of these issues. I have seen focus groups this cycle where the anger was palpable, with participants pounding their fists on tables and almost getting off their seats. Focus group leaders have described sessions to me where they could not come up with a word or phrase too tough on Wall Street.: they would suggest government oversight, and participants would say "no, they need to be regulated", and then others would say "no, broken up" and others would say "fired" and others would say "no, thrown in jail." Literally every time someone ratcheted up the rhetoric, the participants in these groups went along enthusiastically.

I have been watching polls and focus groups for almost 30 years now, and I have tended toward populism as a political strategy but have never seen the level of anger at Wall Street and big corporations and elitists and the establishment as I have in the last two years. Democrats are running into that buzzsaw because they are in charge of the government right now, but they can get on the right side of that by showing voters whose side they are on.

My advice to all my Democratic friends is to not get panicked by the headwinds or the bouncing poll numbers. There's a lot of time left. What Democratic candidates need to do is focus on turning out base voters, and showing both base and swing voters that they will fight their hearts out against the corporate special interests and for more jobs and a healthy economy. It's tough out there, but there is a path forward that works.

Mike Lux :: Prognostication

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Prognostication | 15 comments
Thrown In Jail (4.00 / 4)
Focus group leaders have described sessions to me where they could not come up with a word or phrase too tough on Wall Street.: they would suggest government oversight, and participants would say "no, they need to be regulated", and then others would say "no, broken up" and others would say "fired" and others would say "no, thrown in jail." Literally every time someone ratcheted up the rhetoric, the participants in these groups went along enthusiastically.

William Black had it right from the get-go.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Heh... (4.00 / 3)
Remember our favorite Wall Street "Dem" Mad Money Mr. Cramer.  They guy was wrong about most things, but he was right about one thing.  He said that the people don't want to see regulation of Wall Street... they don't care about that so much.  They want those people to go to jail!!

Now that Obama has thoroughly alienated wall street (and lost their campaign funds to go with it), but has been unable to capitalize on it... He might as well go for the full monty and start investigating and prosecuting...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Re: "Thrown in Jail" (0.00 / 0)
How about "lined up and shot?"  Okay, maybe a little bit excessive, but getting rid of all the banksters (if not by shooting them or throwing them in jail, then by stripping them all of licenses, certifications, etc. and banning them for life from working in the financial sector) and starting over with new ones seems like it might be the only way to turn our finance industry from the monstrous parasite it's become over the last three or four decades to a useful part of the economy again.

"A fantasy is not even a wish, much less an act.  There is no such thing as a culpable or shameful fantasy."  -----Lady Sally McGee

[ Parent ]
Voters may be stupid (4.00 / 4)
But they're not so stupid that they fail to notice that the Democratic Party (and certainly the Obama Administration) is almost as much a captive of Wall Street as the Republicans.

And you can't piss on your base for almost 2 years and then turn on a dime and cultivate them two months before Election Day.

The Democrats are likely to get a well-deserved drubbing. From which they of course will draw all the wrong conclusions, as usual. Since they're too inept to perform even their supposed last remaining function- protecting us from the Republicans- the Democrats are a party that just needs to die. Good riddance to them when they finally do, if we're that lucky.


"but they can get on the right side of that by showing voters whose side they are on." (0.00 / 0)
I doubt that anybody reading this phrase will consider it more than a bad case of wishful thinking.

It's also true that you can get more than a dead cat bounce when you drop your recently deceased feline friend, if only it will both come back to life, and regain it's strength, in the brief 2 or 3 seconds it takes to hit the ground.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Well, indeed, you can't make two years of atrocities undone... (4.00 / 1)
...by simply delivering some lip services at the very last minute! Maybe voters (in general) aren't terribly smart, but they're not that stupid, either. It will take more than nice speeches to turn the tide!

[ Parent ]
Basically agree (0.00 / 0)
I think Mike had something more substantial, in mind. However, even 1 or 2 relatively dramatic deeds are likely to be met with a great deal of skepticism.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Well, maybe they can turn on a dime, but it will take a real effort! (4.00 / 1)
"Slog away, don't fiddle about" as famous German Panzer general Heinz Guderian said. Or as Krugman stated it recently, "when you're well down in the polls, minimal steps that won't move the economy and won't grab voters' imagination are just a way of guaranteeing a devastating defeat."

[ Parent ]
Mike, what of Shrum and Social Security (4.00 / 4)
Mike what's your reaction to Shrum's piece, which Jane Hamsher is pointing to, that the catfood commission threatens to cripple Democrats' effort to do what you're implying.  I'd hope you're advising your friends in high places that Alan Simpson and the commission are an albatross around the Party's neck.

implying he doesn't support them (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Not if you understand what the word (0.00 / 0)
implying means.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
vaguely beside the point (0.00 / 0)
I've seen all of the other front pagers who are left take a pretty firm stand regarding the Catfood Comission.  Where's Luxy?

[ Parent ]
"they can get on the right side"? Right side, not right wing! (0.00 / 0)
So far, many Dems have got that totally wrong. And it's not as if they simply can jump on the left wing train that late in the campaign, this won't make people forget all the atrocities of the last two years. It will take an extraordinary effort to convince voters that the Dems are really on their side! And that effort certainly can't include cuts at social security and more years of Bush tax cuts for the rich. Really, maybe those effing fools can still turn the ship, but they have to throw the rudder around now in a determined way!

Bob Creamer is right, but totally misses the point. (4.00 / 1)
Like that ole effing fools deeds, he simply argues that the rethugs are even worse. But we already know this campaign strategy doesn't work! If nothing changes, and soon, the election will be deicided by right wing nutcases running to the polls and Dems and left leaning independents staying at home. And nothing that Creamer writes gives any hope that this won't happen.

Just look at his lame point: 1) and 2) suffer from still making sense if you exchange "Republican" for "Democrat" in them. Neither party can score in this regard! The problem with b3) is that the Dem party simply doesn't stand for "progressive-Democratic values" nowadays. So, by their own fault, this won't help conservative and centrist Dems in any way, and polls show they are most vulnerable.

The issue with 4) is that voters don't see that much difference between GOP and Dem candidates in many races. The new obudsman of the Times, who voted for both Obama and Scott Brown is a good example of that mindset. Also, there is a strong anti-incumbent mood right now, and since the Dems have more incumbents, that works against them.

We can totally foreget about 5), there are NO facts supporting this prophecy. This simply is wishful thinking. And the same goes for 6), there's NO evidence that "Democratic Campaigns will be better organized and in many cases have more resources". No, Dem campaigns suffer from a serious depressions among the activists who do most of the laborious footwork, while on the right side, the supporters feel the trend is working for them. Just remember the huge participation at the Beck rally! And don't forget that the rules of the game have changed, the Supremes allowed big money to weigh in on the elections, and they will exploit that opportunity big time! This will make it hard for Dems to compegte financially.

No, sry, but imho Bob Creamer is delusional. This kind of stomping for the party by downlaing clear and present danger won't work. Actually, it only makes matters worse when Dem Congressmen believe they can still get away from destruction WITHOUT decisive actions of their own! But the reality is, without a determined effort at passing hugely popular programs at the very last minute, many Dems will be toast in November. And deservedly so.


Mike, better read this old story at HuffPo! Lessons to be learned. (4.00 / 1)
It's ny Ben Tribbet, writing about how Creigh Deeds lost the elction, and the similarities should be obvious:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

"In the 1992 election, senior citizens were one of the best voting blocks for Bill Clinton- and of course seniors have excellent voting patterns and represent a larger share of the electorate in low turnout mid term elections."
All the talk from Obama's catfood commission about cuts to social security and medicare won't make it likely that this group comes to the Dems rescue this time!

"Unfortunately for us, the Deeds campaign freaked out and read these polls wrong over the summer. Instead of attempting to energize more young and minority voters to the polls to make the electorate more representative of Virginia- they began running a campaign targeted to the people already planning to vote. Creigh began bashing federal Democratic priorities like Cap and Trade and Health Care Reform to appeal to the conservatives that were headed to the polls.

And every time he did it -- polls indicated turnout shriveled even further among Democrats and progressive voters -- and made the electorate even more older, whiter and more conservative. To which Creigh responded to by bashing federal Democrats more- which resulted in even more progressives becoming disengaged. Over and over the cycle continued."

"The lesson for candidates in 2010 is clear: do not depress your base when our electorate is already far less likely to vote than Republicans to begin with. Successful candidates in 2010 will find a way to engage young voters and minority voters so they come back to the polls- and AFTER they do that, work on winning over enough Independents to win.

If this election serves as a reminder that pandering to right wingers is not a successful electoral strategy -- then Creigh Deeds will have done even more good for Democrats than if he had won the Governorship today."

Looks like the Deeds' example didn't have that strong impact. Still the same old crap today!


Prognostication | 15 comments




USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search