chrisishardcore.com

Gregoire v Rossi

I guess it's not that surprising that the Republican loser of the Washington governor's race wants to throw the election out in favor of the new one. I don't see quite what the point is, though. I'm sure a high percentage of Republican activists in Washington state feel that they were robbed, but I doubt more than 20% of the overall electorate really cares that a Republican lost. (Maybe an additional 20% of the electorate on the Democratic side care, but they'll never vote for a Republican anyway).

It's odd, then, that Rossi has gone public with his request to throw out the result for a new election. Surely if there were a new election it would be easy for Gregoire (the winner) to paint Rossi as a sore loser, ala what Bush did to Gore during the Florida recount that, unlike Rossi, Gore actually had a good chance of winning if all of the votes had been counted.

So why would Rossi do something like this? It makes no sense at all to me. He was set up perfectly to run for the US Senate in 2006 as the "wronged" candidate who did the right thing by conceding to Gregoire so that she could start off governing the state with full legitimacy intact. Now he looks like a sore loserman.

The only thing I can think of is that history teaches us that you don't really get anything from being a noble loser. Al Gore did the "right thing" after the 2000 election and then was right on more than one high profile occasion in opposing Bush's war in Iraq. And he's not exactly our newly elected President now, and in fact, the conservatives who have benefited from the legitimacy he bestowed on Bush now hate him more than ever. I guess Rossi just thinks that you never win by admitting that you've lost. Regardless, Washington state has had an odd couple of months.

TV!

Via Kausfiles, a good WaPo article about the differences between the Kerry campaign and the Bush campaign. Rather than focusing on the $5 million that Bob Shrum made (out of hundreds of millions spent), it would make more sense to focus on the actual differences in how money is spent. As the article notes, advertising (including television advertising) made a big difference in Bush's win. Other things did as well, but lets focus on television advertising, which is currently under attack in favor of more "grassroots" investment.

Here in Georgia, the Supreme Court race from the summer should show to any skeptic the importance and effectiveness of television advertising.

Sears won 146 out of 159 counties. Of the 13 counties that Grant Brantley won, 9 of them are in media markets that are not native to Georgia. In NW Georgia, Brantley won Walker, Whitfield, Murray and Fannin counties. Those counties are part of the Chattanooga market and for budgetary reasons the Sears campaign could not afford to advertise in out of state markets because many of the people that view your ad can't vote in your race. Seminole and Decatur in SW Georgia similarly are in out of state markets, as are Brantley, Pierce and Charlton counties in SE Georgia.

Anyway, on June 19th the AJC wrote a story about Brantley retracting a claim in his bio that he had been nominated for a federal judgeship. This had the potential to be a killer story with one problem -- not many people read the Saturday edition of the AJC and not many voters were paying attention to the judicial races that summer.

The Democratic Party declined comment on the June 19th story in the AJC although we already knew that Brantley had fudged this part of his resume and I actually had already taken footage, at the Lumpkin County GOP barbeque, of Brantley bragging about this untruth.

It was correctly assumed that Brantley's official story to the press would be that this was a small oversight in his bio and not a big deal resume embellishment ala Georgia Tech football coach George O'Leary. The truth was that Brantley's own self-image was that of the "would have been" federal judge if only George HW Bush had been re-elected, when in reality Bush had already decided to pass on Brantley as a nominee before he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.

Shortly after the AJC story ran, and about two weeks before the summer judicial election, the Sears campaign began running a devastating advertisment that compared the two candidates for Supreme Court. It had a short positive bio on Leah Sears and then a brutal negative barrage against Brantley that started with footage of Brantley himself telling voters that he was "nominated by Bush 41 to be on the federal bench" that was quickly contradicted by the AJC story and then followed up by some other negative news stories from years past about unpaid taxes and his tenure as a Cobb County judge.

The point of my discussion is that television advertising can be a very effective method for disseminating a story line if you do it correctly. Certain grassroots activities are also highly effective ways of winning elections, but rarely on their own and in a large race for Congress or statewide office, advertising, including television advertising, has to be utilized to get across why you are a better choice than your opponent.

Here's some more proof of the power of television. It's a map of Georgia election results in 1996. Max Cleland did better than Bill Clinton in the red counties, and Clinton outperformed Cleland in the blue counties. Some of the blue/red split is random. But you will notice a solid block of counties where Clinton did better than Cleland in the Chattanooga media market. Remember that Georgia was uncontested by Clinton but because of Gore, Tennessee was. Voters who saw Clinton's communication and didn't see Cleland's were far more likely to vote for Clinton than Cleland.

Let the Eagle Soar

That is a graph, over the last three months, of the percentage change of the S&P 500 Broad Market Index and the price of the Euro. Basically, the S&P 500 and the overall market has risen about 8 or 9%. And the value of the dollar compared to the Euro has declined a similar amount. If most of your money is in equities, you're breaking even compared to the rest of the world -- no gain. If not, Europe's been getting a lot wealthier and you've been getting a lot poorer.

It's an interesting chart, and conveniently tells a visual story of something I've been thinking about for quite a while now.

Ownership Society

Unfortunately, for a lot of Americans the only thing they own is massive IOU's in the form of credit card debt or over-extended secured loans -- cheap adjustable rate mortgages they can barely afford or overpriced car loans, student loans, whatever. This is one of the reasons Bush's ownership society promises ring so hollow. Everybody should own a house!

Well, maybe, but everyone doesn't pay their credit card bills on time and if you think millions of people getting a $29 late fee is unpleasant imagine millions of people getting kicked out of their homes. It isn't pleasant and if the ownership society had some way of preventing this it would be more like a socialist society or more likely a society where people with good credit are forced to purchase foreclosure insurance to subsidize those with bad credit and also to funnel more money into insurance and bank coffers.

This is just one way the ownership society rings hollow. Another way is social security reform -- covered extensively by other bloggers. Democrats are supposed to be for something, not just against everything that Bush puts out. OK, fine, but there clearly isn't a short or long term problem with social security. The only real "problem" that the system could conceivably by guilty of having according to Bush is that it is not wealth creating. Your heirs can inherit a private pension but not social security. That may be a problem, but a private pension probably won't send you a check every month if you live to 100 years old or if you become disabled tomorrow at the age of 35. So obviously there are some tradeoffs with the current system, it's mostly ok.

Democrats should stand for something though, so how about a responsibility society. This kind of builds on some of the themes of John Edwards winning campaign manifesto (real solutions for America) that unfortunately did not win John Edwards the nomination (he de-emphasized it and elevated his biography after the wonky Iowa and NH primaries concluded). Edwards didn't win and Kerry didn't really adopt his platform, but the ideas and themes in those late December 2003 (ah nostalgia) stump speeches do point to a promising future for Democrats.

I'd propose that as part of a responsibilty society Democrats offer a fair deal to the lower and middle class: You do your part and we'll make sure that corporations and government do their's. A good place to start would be to add a regulation to loan statements that require some sort of amortization schedule that shows how long it will take to pay it off. I'm not sure exactly what the details should be, but here is a proposal. Say that someone has a credit card that is maxed out and their credit limit is $2000, their interest rate is 23% and their minimum payment is the greater of $15 or 3% of the outstanding balance.

Democrats should propose that their statements have an extra disclaimer on it that says:
Balance: $2000. Interest rate: 23%

Start off showing what paying the minimum gets you and what paying double that gets you. I picked a flat $100/month arbitrarily, perhaps this number could be pegged to the balance. A goal of paying 5% of your starting balance on a high interest card is a good one. Remember that people are overwhelmed by math. Make the percentages mean something -- the card issuer could pick 3 things charged that month and show how much you'll actually pay for them under each scenario.

George Bush aims to use government to cynically promote an "ownership society" that will just enrich the corporate allies of the GOP. The Democratic Party doesn't need to be owned by any corporation but by the middle class. Use government to ensure that the private sector, the public sector and individuals are each playing by the rules and engaged in a mutual relationship that is beneficial for each and where no one institution is taking advantage of either of the others. The great thing about federalism is that state Democratic parties could start pursuing this on a state by state level immediately. If a few states are able to adopt reforms like these the industry is likely to implement it nationwide so as not to have to run duplicate systems based on state. Probably needs a better name than responsibility society though.

Consistency, anyone?

Via Matthew Yglesias, the National Review publishes a sensible column pointing out that interim Iraqi PM Alawi is more or less a puppet of Washington and enjoys limited support outside of the beltway.

It's a well written article and I don't see anyone in the Corner crying about how outrageous it is. When John Kerry said more or less the same thing, scorn was heaped on him from every angle. Hmmm, as recently as one month ago, after the election, David Frum referenced Kerry's loss as one that made him proud the American people would reject a candidate who called someone like Alawi a puppet.

I understand that people like Andrew Sullivan think the Democrats need to get serious on national security and international affairs. The thing I don't understand is that Andrew Sullivan would say that David Frum "gets it" when Frum's views and understandings of these issues is clearly through a partisan lense. After all, if Michael Rubin calls Alawi a failure as PM, it's ok because well he's a conservative. If John Kerry does he must be wrong as he is a Democrat. Welcome to the new definition of "serious".

Enough is Enough

Claudine Cheatham, who moved to Atlanta two months ago said she joined the march because she wants to promote a world where African-Americans take responsibility for their actions and stop the violence and poverty that entraps them. (Source)

The march was against gay marriage, that non-existant scourge that has visited so much violence and poverty on the black community. The King Center, to its credit issued a statement saying that it did not endorse the march. Good for them. The remnants of the civil rights movement is at a cross-roads -- what it set out to achieve 60 years ago has been done for the most part.

Now it should decide if it wants to embrace the struggles of friends of the movement. If not -- and that would be a valid decision to make -- it shouldn't convert itself into a force of oppression. A movement that marched for rights can't change into one that tramples freedom.

Runoff Politics

A very interesting article in the AJC today that has a twist. Remember that Cherokee county runoff that was redone due to gun violence? Find out the back story.

Out with the old?

This weekend the remnants of the Dean organization in Georgia added large numbers of themselves to the state committee of the Democratic Party of Georgia. According to their blog they are "committed, energetic, resourceful, grassroots progressive activists with a clue."

Their passion is appreciated, but what exactly does that last sentence mean beyond a slogan? For some full disclosure I was a former "Deaniac" that kind of crept away horrified at what it was all becoming around September of 2003. I would like someone to explain without resorting to sloganeering what it means to be a grassroots activist with a clue.

Does it mean that you think the old ways of running campaigns are obsolete? What are your suggestions for a different type of message or way of communicating that message? Do you want more Democratic candidates and campaigns that are 100% compatible with you or do you want more winning candidates and campaigns even if they aren't?

And finally, if you describe yourself that way and you can articulate a clear agenda and program, has it worked anywhere yet? Clearly the way campaigns are run in Georgia need to be augmented with additional support and some new ideas. But does that mean throwing the baby out with the bath water?

I take full accountability for being part of a team along with the rest of the Democratic Party of Georgia that lost a number of house and senate seats. With many activists, however, there is no such accountability. I was told by a number of people that would describe themselves as "having a clue" that they were going to win or outperform in the races that they were involved in. In many cases the campaigns didn't even perform as well as the Kerry campaign in those same districts. In districts that overlapped with other campaigns that were being run more "traditionally", the other campaigns almost always did better.

Certainly some of that can be attributed to resource allocation. But unless you're willing to admit that there is a fundamental problem with our message that can't be overcome by registering more like minded voters then I'm not sure you should imply that you have a clue while others don't.

A lot of new ideas emerge from the activist level and that is certainly a good thing. However, a review process has yet to emerge that takes these ideas, sorts the good from the bad, builds on the good...in other words accountability. A small group of people are finding success where it only takes a small group of people to win election -- at the activist level. This same small group of people has yet to score a significant victory at any other level.

This year Democrats had lots to be upset about and also many important gains. In states like Montana, North Carolina, Iowa and Minnesota "grassroots activism" had very little to do with victories while message discipline, development and old fashion strategizing did. In Georgia Jim Marshall had little to no field operation and won by an incredible margin, outpolling Kerry by at least 20%. Rick Crawford had a great field organization and lost. Crawford has a better district than Marshall.

I'm committed to having a dialogue about the future, but to be part of a legitimate dialogue both sides have to offer proposed plans and solutions. Right now the promises of "committed, energetic, resourceful, grassroots progressive activists with a clue" sound wonderful in part because they aren't really offering solutions and it's hard to have a downside when you don't have a plan. A good place to start would be the past -- what have you done that made a difference? Can you highlight were doing something your way would have made a significant difference?

I'm open to suggestions because I want the people and ideologies I support to be in governing roles where I think they can achieve good things. But I don't want to reinvent the wheel again and look back on 2006 like Kos looked back on '04 and realize that every single one of my candidates and causes lost.

UPDATE: There is a lot in the comments, including why I don't think a Goldwater type analogy is applicable to the current situation that Democrats are in.

30% Black

Been meaning to discuss some of that blood libel that Jim Wooten wrote about the other day, namely that Democrats aren't able to compete in districts that aren't 30% black. He cherry picked state Senate districts because they happened to paint a convenient picture for him. However, it is misleading.

He states that Democrats don't hold any district that is 30% black or less by voter registration. This is technically true, but David Adelman, the state Senator from the 42nd district is in a district that is only 31.0% black by active voter registration. On election day it is a different story though -- in 2002 only 24.9% of the electorate was black and in 2000 it edged up only to 27.3% black. Most likely it was just below 29% this year. Did Adelman win in a squeaker, as Wooten's column would imply? Only if getting 78% of the vote qualifies as a squeaker. Adelman received a higher share of the vote than in any other contested state senate district. Even if he received 100% of the black vote AND it was 30% of the electorate, he would have still received nearly 69% of the non-black (mostly white) vote. He even recieved a higher percentage of the vote than many black Democrats running in majority black districts.

House District 80 is 13.6% black by active voter registration. In 2002 the electorate was 8.7% black. In 2000, 9.9%. Mike Jacobs won this year with 51% of the vote. If black voters made up 10% of the electorate this year and gave every one of their votes to Jacobs, he still would have received 45.6% of the white vote. Ten years ago, many of these same white voters were voting 70% Republican or higher.

In 2000, Senate District 40 was 6.7% black. There are more similarities to the voters in this district and Senate District 42 and House District 80 than there are differences. A majority of white voters in the DeKalb county portion of this district voted against the gay marriage ban. Wooten, who sees things in black and white, probably doesn't even have a district like this on his radar screen, and was likely surprised when his own paper endorsed the Democrat (who lost) this past year. This suburban district elected a Republican this year, but a majority of voters are probably put off by Glenn Richardson's promise to only pass bills that "strengthen the family."

The Republicans start this year with a governing majority that consists of rural whites and suburban whites. If they cater to the rural whites, we can probably kiss goodbye a lot of those 30% black rural districts. But we'll have openings in places like Senate District 40. Not all white voters (and not all black voters) are all alike, afterall. Ironically, the gay marriage amendment has exposed some potential cracks in the Republican suburban armor. In Forsyth county, only 16% of the population voted for Kerry but more than 22% voted against the amendment. My guess is that those 6% are open to a Democratic message, if only we start communicating with them. 6% doesn't sound like a lot, and it's certainly not enough to flip Forsyth county. But in Senate district 40, House District 82 and other places on the edge of the Democratic/Republican perimeter, 6% can go a long way.

Long Time...

Sorry I haven't posted anything in a while. More to come soon. Been spending a lot of time working on upgrades to my district sidebar. Specifically been working on making better maps for the districts. Here is an (unfinished) preview:

Also will be adding roads, cities and towns. Maybe precinct boundaries as well. (This is Senate District 50, by the way)

This is the extent of detail you current get: