I, like the 100 other people actually paying attention at this stage in the race, turned in to the CNN/YouTube Democratic presidential debate not entirely sure what to expect. I was fearful that it would be a complete train wreck with poorly filtered questions, canned responses to candid questions and a mass media still unsure how to harness the Internet. After watching the debate I was surprised. It did not suck.
The Questions
The questions used egalitarian terminology and asked questions on America's mind not on the media's mind. The questions directed at Hillary highlighted this best: how can you, as a woman, negotiate with Middle Eastern countries that don't afford women basic rights? and is America really ready to see the history books read Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton (Clinton fatigue)? Anderson Cooper would have never asked those questions because they're too direct. YouTube, in its typical see-for-yourself fashion, opened up a window to the presidential race that was at once candid and informative. Only a small portion of us will actually get to meet any of the presidential candidates (a large portion if you live in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina). The YouTube debate allowed us to see questions that we've been wondering and responses spoken to the average YouTube user instead of the quintessential debate watching politico (myself included in the former and later).
The Responses
As already stated the responses seemed more relaxed and less canned. It, in my opinion, had more entertainment value than most debates. Granted there was not much contention in the evening (except for the brief moment of disagreement between Obama and Clinton over negotiation policy). However, Joe Biden took the reigns on entertainment value with his typical blunt answers. In response to a question where a questioner referred to his gun as "his baby", Biden came back by saying "If that's his baby, then he needs help." The candid atmosphere of the night allowed Biden to flourish. Not surprisingly, post-debate polls showed that Biden's favorability increased the most out of all the presidential candidates.
My One Regret
My only regret was that there was only one question about education and it was only allowed to be answered by two candidates. The question asked if you, as president, would overhaul No Child Left Behind or repeal it. Cooper turned 90 degrees and asked Bill Richardson his opinions. Richardson, to much applause (mine included), said that he would repeal NCLB. He argued that "the one-size-fits all doesn't work, it doesn't emphasize teacher training, it doesn't emphasize disabled kids. . ." He also added that we should have a $40,000/year minimum wage for teachers, and we should have a federally funded program that focuses on the arts (music, theater, painting, etc). I was eating it up, and then Joe Biden tried to answer but was over ambiguous with his response that boiled down to "I'll have to look into it more." However, no other candidate was given the opportunity to discuss education. I regret that. It's more important than having two candidates "discuss."
In conclusion, I really enjoyed the debate because it was entertaining (in a good way) and it was informative. The debate structure still leaves something to desire when respondents cannot reply to each other's comments unless called on. This prohibits actual debate, but to allow all eight candidates to speak there mind would only allow for one question to be answered. So, for what we have been seeing, it was a quality debate and I am glad that the DNC sanctioned it. Good one, Dean.
Republican Response
The Republicans are scheduled to have a like debate in September; however, it now seems likely that both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney will withdrawal from the debate. This is not official, but it will be likely be so soon. This could prove disastrous for the Republicans if they do not bridge the technology gap now in the primary. YouTube is a force to be reckoned with, but only the Democrats (and Ron Paul) are harvesting its outreach power.
Ever since Ray C. Bliss became Chairman of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s, the Republicans have been two steps ahead of the Democrats in every campaign tactic known to man. Direct mail, candidate-training, low-dollar fundraising and image creation. Which is why Jimmy Carter needed Dick Nixon's legacy to win and Bill Clinton had to win by annexing conservative issues. However, the internet has leveled the playing field because the Republicans are not using it as extensively as the Democrats are.
Case in point: Go to Rudy Giuliani's website (www.joinrudy2008.com) and then Mitt Romney's (www.mittromney.com). They are standard websites. Have nice interfaces and are easily navigable. Then go to Hillary Clinton's website (www.hillaryclinton.com). It stands up to Mitt's and Rudy's pretty well, but has an added feature missed on Republican website. You can join or create your own group to help organize events or fundraise for Hillary. A neat feature, but Hillary has not mastered it comparable to her opponents John Edwards and Barack Obama. On Edwards website you can join "One Corps" that features 77 chapters in NC, 79 in Wisconsin and 137 in California. At Barack Obama's website which, in my opinion, is the best of all the candidates because of its social-networking ability. Obama's campaign team is made up of most of the techies that created Howard Dean's 2004 online success (minus Joe Trippi). Obama's website features "My Barack Obama.com" which allows viewers to create their own profile to find other like-minded Obama supports in the hopes of organizing.
When all is said and done it is clear that the Democrats are seeing the power of the internet are seeking to understand it. Obama raised one million dollars off the internet in the last quarter alone. The Republicans are stupid to not try to cultivate this organizing device and the best way to start would be to embrace YouTube and its debate. YouTube is owned by Google now, so its not as free-wielding as it once was, so it can be trusted to some extent. The Republicans must get on board now or they will miss the train completely.
Another case in point: If you type in "Rudy Giuliani" into YouTube the first video to come up is titled "Rudy Giuliani in drag smooching Donald Trump." You never get a second chance to make a first impression, as they say.
-Wyatt Earp
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Colorado Senate 2008: Mark Udall v. Bob Schaffer
I went dark for about two weeks because I was completing a mock campaign for George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management summer program. We were running the 2008 open-seat Senate race in Colorado. It will be the most competitive Senate race in 2008 and should be looked upon with great interest. Two-term Senator Wayne Allard (Republican) is stepping down from his Colorado seat, giving the Democrats their best opportunity to widened their majority in the Senate. Two people have already declared: Republican Bob Schaffer and Democrat Mark Udall. Quick history:
Bob Schaffer - Schaffer served for nine years in the State Senator before being elected to the U.S. Congress from Colorado's Fourth District in 1996. He served in Congress till Jan, 2003 when he began his failed primary campaign for the U.S. Senate - he lost in the primary to Pete Coors who ended up losing the general election to Ken Salazar in 2004. He was appointed, in 2005, to fulfill a vacancy in the Colorado Board of Education and then ran successfully in 2006 for that seat.
Mark Udall- Udall was the director of Colorado's Outward Bound School for a decade. After serving one term in the Colorado House of Representatives, Udall successfully ran for Congress in Colorado's Second District. He is currently serving his fifth term in Congress. Mark comes from the political Udall family. His father Mo was a Congressman from Colorado for 30 years and his uncle Stewart was the Secretary of the Interior under John F. Kennedy.
The state of Colorado: Colorado is trending blue in a big way. Before 2004, a Democrat had not won a Colorado Senate seat since 1986. But, Ken Salazar defeated Pete Coors with a margin of 5% of the vote. In 2006, Democrat Bill Ritter Jr. won the governorship in a cake-walk, defeating Republican Bob Beauprez by a margin of 17% of the vote. Democrats now hold a majority of U.S. Congress seats (4 to 3) and recently won the majority in the State House and Senate. 2006 became the first time in 50 years that a Democratic governor had a Democratic House of Representatives to work with. However, this can not mean that the Democrats will win without a fight. The majority of registered voters (around 42%) are unaffiliated, and the number of registered Republicans outnumbered the number of registered Democrats. So, the independents or unaffiliated voters decide the election at every turn. Colorado will elect a moderate in 2008, but will it be a moderate Democrat or a moderate Republican?
What issues should each campaign lead with?
Schaffer's Message Box
Strengths - Shaffer has a tremendous record on education and he should run with it. He is considered a national leader on education, favoring local, not federal, control of schools. He is a strong proponent of charter schools (which do not take funding from public schools) and voted against No Child Left Behind. Education is not currently a top line issue, but will become so once NCLB comes up for re-authorization and every school will start asking itself: am I better off now than I was in 2002? This could play to Schaffer's favor as he will argue that local communities should fight against the federal bureaucracy that took away your funding when you needed it the most. And his two years on the Colorado Board of Education will only strengthen this issue.
Education can be used as a "bridge issue" where voters will listen to Schaffer enumerate other issues because they agree with him on education. Schaffer has a strong record of boarder security and will likely use this issue to his favor in a state that has a large immigrant population. This would energize the base, but could backfire in a 20% Hispanic/Latino state.
Weaknesses- Schaffer's Achilles heel to his education policy could be his adamant support of vouchers. He is the President of Parental Alliance for Choice in Education, a non-profit that advocates for more vouchers in Colorado. Udall has a strong anti-vouchers record and has argued to oppose anything that "breaks apart one of the last institutions that hold us together as a society, and that's our public schools." Schaffer should worry about getting branded "anti-public schools and pro-vouchers." Two simplistic arguments that likely could stick.
Schaffer is vice-president of Aspect Energy, LLC, which focuses on energy, mining and other projects. This could prove to be a liability to Schaffer. The environment is a cause championed by many in Colorado and is not a partisan issue there as seen elsewhere. Udall, if deft, will try to brand Schaffer as a pawn of Big Interests, as shown by his seat on the board of a Big Energy firm. The term "Colorado is not for sale" will likely come up at least once. As global warming becomes a larger issue, firms like Schaffer's are being to be seen as the opposition.
Lastly, Schaffer voted for the authorization of the War in Iraq and has not differed greatly from that opinion since.
Possible Messages/Themes: "Returning power to Colorado." "Bob Schaffer, because Colorado deserves the choice." "Bob Schaffer: national leader, local focus." "Putting Colorado first." If challenged in the primary: "The True Conservative choice."
These are possible message or themes that the Schaffer camp could employ. All of them speak to returning the locus of power to Colorado and away from the federal government, which is the value that binds all of Schaffer's positions together. Also, it is a truly conservative value and differs from the Bush brand of conservativism, so Schaffer should stay away, politically and financially, from the lightning rod that is Bush. Schaffer is a true conservative and he should not be afraid to say so.
Mark Udall - Message Box
Strengths- Udall's first strength is his name. Udall is a trusted name out west, and in uncertain times, going to the name you trust is always prevalent. While Schaffer has the edge in education experience the wind is still at Udall's back. Education is a net-plus issue for Democrats (Democrats are seen as the best arbiters of education policy) and Udall has some credentials on the issue. Udall served twenty years on the faculty of the Outward Bound School, the last ten as the executive director of Colorado's Outward Bound system. (Outward Bound teaches environmental education by taking disadvantaged children and giving them an education by combining classroom with the outdoors.) This helps Udall because it bridges perfectly to his strong environmental position.
Udall has served the past ten years as the congressman from Colorado's second district, which includes Broomfield, Boulder, Eagle, Jefferson and Adams counties - all of which are important swing counties, and represent nearly 35% of the entire CO electorate.
Lastly, Udall voted against authorization of the war in Iraq in 2002, but has not voted for a withdrawal. He has developed a position that is moderate and appealing to the independent Colorado voters.
Weaknesses- Udall's greatest weakness is the constituency that he represents. The Udall camp's greatest fear should be being labeled a "Boulder liberal" and not being able to shake the image. Because in the end, campaign are about competing images (one developed by yourself and one developed by your opponent), which one will prevail? Issues support that image. Udall must use every opportunity from here on out to be seen as a moderate with consistent Western values. Udall has been seen recently hanging around Representative Marilyn Musgrave, an ultra-conservative. While being bi-partisan is the image Udall wants to create, hanging around Musgrave will likely alienate his liberal base. Udall has a line to straddle and must never be caught riding side-saddle.
Possible Messages/Themes: "Trust Udall to secure our future." "Leading Colorado forward." "
The image that I think Udall should pursue is one of motion. This is for two reasons: 1) Using words like "future" or "leading" or "forward" allow the listener to picture a world moving away from Bush's legacy and toward a brighter tomorrow. 2) Colorado is trending blue and moving forward should also mean "continuing to move Democrat."
This will be the most hotly contested campaign outside of the presidential race. You know this because the west will be the focus of the Democrat's presidential campaign. The Dems are looking to "whistle past Dixie" and paint the west blue. That is why the Democratic National Convention will be held in Denver, Colorado (prime real-estate for a west campaign and for the Udall campaign). But, these are merely my impressions after studying the two candidates and the actual campaign will likely look nothing like the snap-shot presented above. I'll keep an ear to the ground and let you know as this develops.
-Wyatt Earp
Bob Schaffer - Schaffer served for nine years in the State Senator before being elected to the U.S. Congress from Colorado's Fourth District in 1996. He served in Congress till Jan, 2003 when he began his failed primary campaign for the U.S. Senate - he lost in the primary to Pete Coors who ended up losing the general election to Ken Salazar in 2004. He was appointed, in 2005, to fulfill a vacancy in the Colorado Board of Education and then ran successfully in 2006 for that seat.
Mark Udall- Udall was the director of Colorado's Outward Bound School for a decade. After serving one term in the Colorado House of Representatives, Udall successfully ran for Congress in Colorado's Second District. He is currently serving his fifth term in Congress. Mark comes from the political Udall family. His father Mo was a Congressman from Colorado for 30 years and his uncle Stewart was the Secretary of the Interior under John F. Kennedy.
The state of Colorado: Colorado is trending blue in a big way. Before 2004, a Democrat had not won a Colorado Senate seat since 1986. But, Ken Salazar defeated Pete Coors with a margin of 5% of the vote. In 2006, Democrat Bill Ritter Jr. won the governorship in a cake-walk, defeating Republican Bob Beauprez by a margin of 17% of the vote. Democrats now hold a majority of U.S. Congress seats (4 to 3) and recently won the majority in the State House and Senate. 2006 became the first time in 50 years that a Democratic governor had a Democratic House of Representatives to work with. However, this can not mean that the Democrats will win without a fight. The majority of registered voters (around 42%) are unaffiliated, and the number of registered Republicans outnumbered the number of registered Democrats. So, the independents or unaffiliated voters decide the election at every turn. Colorado will elect a moderate in 2008, but will it be a moderate Democrat or a moderate Republican?
What issues should each campaign lead with?
Schaffer's Message Box
Strengths - Shaffer has a tremendous record on education and he should run with it. He is considered a national leader on education, favoring local, not federal, control of schools. He is a strong proponent of charter schools (which do not take funding from public schools) and voted against No Child Left Behind. Education is not currently a top line issue, but will become so once NCLB comes up for re-authorization and every school will start asking itself: am I better off now than I was in 2002? This could play to Schaffer's favor as he will argue that local communities should fight against the federal bureaucracy that took away your funding when you needed it the most. And his two years on the Colorado Board of Education will only strengthen this issue.
Education can be used as a "bridge issue" where voters will listen to Schaffer enumerate other issues because they agree with him on education. Schaffer has a strong record of boarder security and will likely use this issue to his favor in a state that has a large immigrant population. This would energize the base, but could backfire in a 20% Hispanic/Latino state.
Weaknesses- Schaffer's Achilles heel to his education policy could be his adamant support of vouchers. He is the President of Parental Alliance for Choice in Education, a non-profit that advocates for more vouchers in Colorado. Udall has a strong anti-vouchers record and has argued to oppose anything that "breaks apart one of the last institutions that hold us together as a society, and that's our public schools." Schaffer should worry about getting branded "anti-public schools and pro-vouchers." Two simplistic arguments that likely could stick.
Schaffer is vice-president of Aspect Energy, LLC, which focuses on energy, mining and other projects. This could prove to be a liability to Schaffer. The environment is a cause championed by many in Colorado and is not a partisan issue there as seen elsewhere. Udall, if deft, will try to brand Schaffer as a pawn of Big Interests, as shown by his seat on the board of a Big Energy firm. The term "Colorado is not for sale" will likely come up at least once. As global warming becomes a larger issue, firms like Schaffer's are being to be seen as the opposition.
Lastly, Schaffer voted for the authorization of the War in Iraq and has not differed greatly from that opinion since.
Possible Messages/Themes: "Returning power to Colorado." "Bob Schaffer, because Colorado deserves the choice." "Bob Schaffer: national leader, local focus." "Putting Colorado first." If challenged in the primary: "The True Conservative choice."
These are possible message or themes that the Schaffer camp could employ. All of them speak to returning the locus of power to Colorado and away from the federal government, which is the value that binds all of Schaffer's positions together. Also, it is a truly conservative value and differs from the Bush brand of conservativism, so Schaffer should stay away, politically and financially, from the lightning rod that is Bush. Schaffer is a true conservative and he should not be afraid to say so.
Mark Udall - Message Box
Strengths- Udall's first strength is his name. Udall is a trusted name out west, and in uncertain times, going to the name you trust is always prevalent. While Schaffer has the edge in education experience the wind is still at Udall's back. Education is a net-plus issue for Democrats (Democrats are seen as the best arbiters of education policy) and Udall has some credentials on the issue. Udall served twenty years on the faculty of the Outward Bound School, the last ten as the executive director of Colorado's Outward Bound system. (Outward Bound teaches environmental education by taking disadvantaged children and giving them an education by combining classroom with the outdoors.) This helps Udall because it bridges perfectly to his strong environmental position.
Udall has served the past ten years as the congressman from Colorado's second district, which includes Broomfield, Boulder, Eagle, Jefferson and Adams counties - all of which are important swing counties, and represent nearly 35% of the entire CO electorate.
Lastly, Udall voted against authorization of the war in Iraq in 2002, but has not voted for a withdrawal. He has developed a position that is moderate and appealing to the independent Colorado voters.
Weaknesses- Udall's greatest weakness is the constituency that he represents. The Udall camp's greatest fear should be being labeled a "Boulder liberal" and not being able to shake the image. Because in the end, campaign are about competing images (one developed by yourself and one developed by your opponent), which one will prevail? Issues support that image. Udall must use every opportunity from here on out to be seen as a moderate with consistent Western values. Udall has been seen recently hanging around Representative Marilyn Musgrave, an ultra-conservative. While being bi-partisan is the image Udall wants to create, hanging around Musgrave will likely alienate his liberal base. Udall has a line to straddle and must never be caught riding side-saddle.
Possible Messages/Themes: "Trust Udall to secure our future." "Leading Colorado forward." "
The image that I think Udall should pursue is one of motion. This is for two reasons: 1) Using words like "future" or "leading" or "forward" allow the listener to picture a world moving away from Bush's legacy and toward a brighter tomorrow. 2) Colorado is trending blue and moving forward should also mean "continuing to move Democrat."
This will be the most hotly contested campaign outside of the presidential race. You know this because the west will be the focus of the Democrat's presidential campaign. The Dems are looking to "whistle past Dixie" and paint the west blue. That is why the Democratic National Convention will be held in Denver, Colorado (prime real-estate for a west campaign and for the Udall campaign). But, these are merely my impressions after studying the two candidates and the actual campaign will likely look nothing like the snap-shot presented above. I'll keep an ear to the ground and let you know as this develops.
-Wyatt Earp
Monday, July 16, 2007
"Why Bush Will Be a Winner?" Wait, what!?
President Bush is convinced that history will vindicate him akin to what happened to Harry Truman. Bush has been linked to neo-conservative thought ever since he was first elected in 2000 and one of the neo-con pole-bearers is none other than William Kristol. In the Washington Post today, Kristol wrote an opinion piece titled "Why Bush Will Be a Winner." It is interesting to read . . . and by interesting I mean that more like "I don't like your new hair, but I'm too nice to say so" instead of "You should really check this out." But, seriously, Kristol offers a perspective on Bush's legacy that must be confronted.
Please read it and let me know what you think.
-Wyatt Earp
Please read it and let me know what you think.
-Wyatt Earp
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Values, Values, Values
If I have one beef with the Democratic Party (and trust me, I have more like a herd of cows) it is their apparent lack of values. Liberals have the tendency to confuse values with policy positions. Is it a value to believe in public access to Social Security? No, the value is that liberals believe that government should act as a social safety net, providing such programs as Social Security and Medicare to the elderly. Is it a value to be pro-choice? No, the value is individual liberties (typically a conservative value). Democrats have done a poor job framing their policy positions in the context of over-arching values. And what is the result of this?
1) Democrats are afraid to talk about "values." Republicans are seen as the party of values. How is that possible? How is anyone in American against "family values"? No one is, yet the Republicans have used the Democrats lack of articulate values to frame them as "anti-family values." The Democrats don't fight the issue but instead try to see themselves as pro-choice and pro-gay marriage instead of looking at it as a fight over "individual liberty" and "equality of law."
2) The Democrat Party is internally less cohesive because shared values don't align with shared policy prescriptions. The Democratic Party, under FDR, was a "blanket party" that combined fiscal conservatives, social liberals, southerners and northerners. Now, the activist Democrat (the one most likely to vote in the primary and volunteer on a campaign) looks down upon those in their party that are pro-life, fiscally conservative, don't vote for an immediate withdrawal and why? Because the entry fee to the Democratic Party is not shared values but shared policy positions. A Democrat running for office must fill out a questionnaire that details their positions on certain issues, but there is not litmus test to judge their values set. The process is backwards. The precursor to running for office must be shared values that translate into policy proposals instead of policy positions that inform ones values.
3) Policy debates are less democratic. If the litmus test for being a Democratic office-holder is a set of policy positions then where is the debate? The debate is black and white. Either you support position A or you're not a qualified Democrat. However, if the Democrat office-holders all agree that "every child should have a quality education," then debate can exist on how to achieve this end.
Ends were made to right this wrong in 2006. Rahm Emanuel and Charles Schumer, chairs of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, respectively, made an effort to recruit conservative candidates (like Bob Casey and Jon Tester). The result was that the Democratic Party is not longer as single-minded. The process must continue and intensify. The Democrats have a great chance to make some headway in the mountain West in the coming election, but they must be willing to accept candidates that disagree with their litmus test issues. Instead, the questions must revolve around: what are the values that make you a Democrat?
It must be remembered that until 1948, the Democratic Party was compromised of Northeastern liberals, southern conservatives, the unionist Midwesterners, plain state farmers, minorities and intellectuals. They all could exist under the blanket of the Democratic Party because they all believed that government was a force for good. And because of that shared value we were brought out of the Great Depression and successfully fought World War II.
We can achieve this again.
-Wyatt Earp
1) Democrats are afraid to talk about "values." Republicans are seen as the party of values. How is that possible? How is anyone in American against "family values"? No one is, yet the Republicans have used the Democrats lack of articulate values to frame them as "anti-family values." The Democrats don't fight the issue but instead try to see themselves as pro-choice and pro-gay marriage instead of looking at it as a fight over "individual liberty" and "equality of law."
2) The Democrat Party is internally less cohesive because shared values don't align with shared policy prescriptions. The Democratic Party, under FDR, was a "blanket party" that combined fiscal conservatives, social liberals, southerners and northerners. Now, the activist Democrat (the one most likely to vote in the primary and volunteer on a campaign) looks down upon those in their party that are pro-life, fiscally conservative, don't vote for an immediate withdrawal and why? Because the entry fee to the Democratic Party is not shared values but shared policy positions. A Democrat running for office must fill out a questionnaire that details their positions on certain issues, but there is not litmus test to judge their values set. The process is backwards. The precursor to running for office must be shared values that translate into policy proposals instead of policy positions that inform ones values.
3) Policy debates are less democratic. If the litmus test for being a Democratic office-holder is a set of policy positions then where is the debate? The debate is black and white. Either you support position A or you're not a qualified Democrat. However, if the Democrat office-holders all agree that "every child should have a quality education," then debate can exist on how to achieve this end.
Ends were made to right this wrong in 2006. Rahm Emanuel and Charles Schumer, chairs of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, respectively, made an effort to recruit conservative candidates (like Bob Casey and Jon Tester). The result was that the Democratic Party is not longer as single-minded. The process must continue and intensify. The Democrats have a great chance to make some headway in the mountain West in the coming election, but they must be willing to accept candidates that disagree with their litmus test issues. Instead, the questions must revolve around: what are the values that make you a Democrat?
It must be remembered that until 1948, the Democratic Party was compromised of Northeastern liberals, southern conservatives, the unionist Midwesterners, plain state farmers, minorities and intellectuals. They all could exist under the blanket of the Democratic Party because they all believed that government was a force for good. And because of that shared value we were brought out of the Great Depression and successfully fought World War II.
We can achieve this again.
-Wyatt Earp
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Bob Casey is still Alive . . . details pending
I just read a funny article from the Evening Sun, news from the Gettysburg area, and it made me laugh. Image that: funny things making me laugh. It does not take an electoral strategist to realize that Bob Casey was elected to the U.S. Senate because Pennsylvania had had enough of Rick Santorum. We Keystoners don't expect Bob Casey to do tremendous things, I'm not sure he has the capacity to, but we do expect him to do measurable things, tempered things, dare I say, mediocre things. At this point, mediocre is must preferred to six more years of Santorum. But, the question remains: what has Bob Casey done for us so far? Read the article below and you'll find the answer to the question: Is Bob Casey still alive?
FYI: I saw Bob Casey presiding over the Senate last week, so, I can attest to his being alive.
FYI: I saw Bob Casey presiding over the Senate last week, so, I can attest to his being alive.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
The Speech I wish I would hear
Theodore Sorenson was the voice of John F. Kennedy. JFK called him "my intellectual blood bank." All of JFK's great speeches from the one before the Massachusetts legislature to his inaugural address, Sorenson always wrote the first draft and the two colloborated to reach the finished product. Washington Monthly asked Sorenson to write his ideal speech for the Democratic nominee to give as his/her acceptance speech (regardless of who the nominee is). It is the speech that I wish that I would hear a few months from now in Denver. If only. If you ask me, which no one did, it is hard to imagine anyone other than Obama or Edwards delivering this speech.
The New Vision - By Theodore Sorenson
The New Vision - By Theodore Sorenson
Thursday, July 5, 2007
The Hispanic Gap
The lack of immigration reform has spurred the question: Are the Hispanics going to vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats now? My initial instinct is 'yes', but there plenty of time until the 2008 elections. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has already developed a TV spot that labels the Republicans as "Obstructionists" for their part in derailing immigration reform, stem cell research, the Iraq War legislation and other great hits. I, personally, believe that the ad is effective because they display countless Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sens. Sessions, Demint, Vitter, and others, all singing the chorus of "I object." It leaves the viewing thinking "do the Republicans agree with anything or just object to everything?", which is exactly the question that Democrats want voters asking. The New Know Nothing Party believes in nothing but objects to everything.
Back to immigration reform: Now that the bill is dead it is no longer time to debate the specifics but time to play politics with the outcome. The Democrats have a Phoenix moment before them: out of the ashes of the immigration bill can come great opportunity for electoral success. How will this happen? Hispanics, the Democrats hope, are so frustrated with the Republicans not supporting any immigration reform that they will elect any generic Democrat. In doing so, the Democrats will have a larger majority to operate with and can enact more wide-sweeping, permanent immigration reform. What is the likelihood of this?
A recent USA Today poll said that only 11% of Hispanics identify themselves as Republicans, as opposed to 19% in 2004. Also, an Wall Street Journal Poll reports that, among Hispanic voters, 61% would vote for a generic Democratic candidate in 2008 while only 22% would vote for a generic Republican candidate. President Bush received 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, and that key voting bloc was the reason he won re-election. With the Republican slowly being defined as the anti-immigration (read: anti-Hispanic) party, the prospects are looking dim for 2008.
However, Democrats should not take this voting trend for granted. Hispanics may constitute a key voting bloc, they still do not turn out to vote regularly. For instance, in California in 2002, according to Field Institute, Latinos made up 28% of the adult population but only 16% of the likely voters. There may be many Republican sleepers out there if brought out to vote. Democrats must do a better job of getting out the Hispanic vote. Step one for any candidate: learn Spanish.
Democrats are already making strides to garner the Hispanic vote (Hispanics are 14.5% of the U.S. population). The Democratic National Convention is being held in Denver, Colorado. Hispanics represent the largest minority in Colorado, constituting 20% of the total population (2000 Census, number has likely risen). Denver is a great stepping stone to other Hispanic states that have been put in play due to the Republicans Know-Nothing taint. The states where Hispanics are the key swing vote are: Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Arizona and Nevada.
Here is a little break down:
Arizona (10 electoral votes) 28.6% Hispanic or Latino
Nevada (5 electoral votes) 23.7% Hispanic or Latino
New Mexico (5 electoral votes) 43.6% Hispanic or Latino
Florida (27 electoral votes) 19.6% Hispanic or Latino
Colorado (9 electoral votes) 20% Hispanic or Latino
Holding equal the 2004 results: if the Democrat nominee picks up each of these states he/she wins the Electoral College 308-230, a handy victory. The Democrat nominee need only pick up Florida or win any three of the four western states to ensure victory.
The numbers look good for the Democrats, but they are their states to lose, at the moment. It is still a long time until November 4, 2008 for any voter. It should also be reminded that Hispanics and Latinos, like any voting bloc, are not monolithic and make their own decisions, but the trends still exist.
Also, while looking at the Electoral math: the Democrat nominee may forgo the Hispanic question and focus solely on Ohio (20 electoral votes) to win the general election. Ohio has been trending blue in the past few years. In 2006, Democrat Ted Strickland won the governorship, and Sherrod Brown defeated the incumbent Senator, the moderate Republican, Mike DeWine. It seems to be trending blue and the pundits are predicting that the Democrats will pick it up in 2008. If they do, then the game might already be over and we saved America the trouble of voting.
-Wyatt Earp
Back to immigration reform: Now that the bill is dead it is no longer time to debate the specifics but time to play politics with the outcome. The Democrats have a Phoenix moment before them: out of the ashes of the immigration bill can come great opportunity for electoral success. How will this happen? Hispanics, the Democrats hope, are so frustrated with the Republicans not supporting any immigration reform that they will elect any generic Democrat. In doing so, the Democrats will have a larger majority to operate with and can enact more wide-sweeping, permanent immigration reform. What is the likelihood of this?
A recent USA Today poll said that only 11% of Hispanics identify themselves as Republicans, as opposed to 19% in 2004. Also, an Wall Street Journal Poll reports that, among Hispanic voters, 61% would vote for a generic Democratic candidate in 2008 while only 22% would vote for a generic Republican candidate. President Bush received 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, and that key voting bloc was the reason he won re-election. With the Republican slowly being defined as the anti-immigration (read: anti-Hispanic) party, the prospects are looking dim for 2008.
However, Democrats should not take this voting trend for granted. Hispanics may constitute a key voting bloc, they still do not turn out to vote regularly. For instance, in California in 2002, according to Field Institute, Latinos made up 28% of the adult population but only 16% of the likely voters. There may be many Republican sleepers out there if brought out to vote. Democrats must do a better job of getting out the Hispanic vote. Step one for any candidate: learn Spanish.
Democrats are already making strides to garner the Hispanic vote (Hispanics are 14.5% of the U.S. population). The Democratic National Convention is being held in Denver, Colorado. Hispanics represent the largest minority in Colorado, constituting 20% of the total population (2000 Census, number has likely risen). Denver is a great stepping stone to other Hispanic states that have been put in play due to the Republicans Know-Nothing taint. The states where Hispanics are the key swing vote are: Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Arizona and Nevada.
Here is a little break down:
Arizona (10 electoral votes) 28.6% Hispanic or Latino
Nevada (5 electoral votes) 23.7% Hispanic or Latino
New Mexico (5 electoral votes) 43.6% Hispanic or Latino
Florida (27 electoral votes) 19.6% Hispanic or Latino
Colorado (9 electoral votes) 20% Hispanic or Latino
Holding equal the 2004 results: if the Democrat nominee picks up each of these states he/she wins the Electoral College 308-230, a handy victory. The Democrat nominee need only pick up Florida or win any three of the four western states to ensure victory.
The numbers look good for the Democrats, but they are their states to lose, at the moment. It is still a long time until November 4, 2008 for any voter. It should also be reminded that Hispanics and Latinos, like any voting bloc, are not monolithic and make their own decisions, but the trends still exist.
Also, while looking at the Electoral math: the Democrat nominee may forgo the Hispanic question and focus solely on Ohio (20 electoral votes) to win the general election. Ohio has been trending blue in the past few years. In 2006, Democrat Ted Strickland won the governorship, and Sherrod Brown defeated the incumbent Senator, the moderate Republican, Mike DeWine. It seems to be trending blue and the pundits are predicting that the Democrats will pick it up in 2008. If they do, then the game might already be over and we saved America the trouble of voting.
-Wyatt Earp
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Obama Tops the Charts (Second Quarter Fundraising)
Early money is like yeast, it helps raise the dough. So says EMILY's List. If this is true, then Barack Obama will be able to make a lot of political bread. The second quarter of fundraising ended June 30th and while the official numbers are not out here are the estimated Democratic findings:
(Second Quarter)Barack Obama: $32.5 million; Hillary Clinton: $27 million; John Edwards: $9 million; Bill Richardson: $7 million
(Total Fundraising) Hillary Clinton: $62 million; Barack Obama 58.2 million; John Edwards: $23 million; Bill Richardson: $14 million
At this stage in the game there are only two meters to judge a candidates strength on: 1) Polls (state by state, not national) and 2) Fundraising.
The polling is still up in the air with Edwards leading in Iowa, Clinton in New Hampshire and Clinton/Obama going back and forth in South Carolina. However, the fundraising is becoming more and more Obama's point of strength. But, wait Wyatt, why is Obama losing to Clinton in total fundraising if it is his "point of strength", you must be dumb. While it is true that I am dumb, the total numbers are deceiving.
Hillary Clinton raised $35 million in the first quarter. However, she transferred $10 million from her Senate campaign, which means she only raised $25 million. Also, Clinton is tapping people for the full $4,600 at a time (legally, each voter is only allowed to donate $2,300 for each primary, and $2,300 for each general election, a total of $4,600). Not all of the money that Clinton raised in the first quarter can be used in the primary election. And if she does not garner the nomination then those general election dollars become worthless. It is said that Clinton raised $19 million for the primary in the first quarter. Out of Obama's 25 million raised in the first quarter, 23 million of it was for the primaries.
In the second quarter, Clinton is expected to raise $27 million with $21 million of it to be used for the primary. Out of Obama's $32.5 million, a remarkable $31 million is primary money. So, just counting primary money raised here are the results as of the second quarter:
Primary Money Raised: Obama: $54 million; Clinton: $40 million
If you ask me, which no one did, I believe that Clinton should have reason to worry. The Clinton Machine is widely known as the greatest fundraising mechanism in the Democratic Party, but it slowly being shown up by the rookie of the year Barack Obama. While Clinton appears to still have the edge on the perpetual power brokers of the Democratic Party, Obama now owns the ground. The most remarkable number to me is the number of donors to each of their campaigns. Clinton has raised $62 million from less then 100,000 different contributors (she hasn't released the exact number) while Obama has raised $58.2 million from over 258,000 contributors. In short, Obama has more widespread support in terms of active participation in the campaign. The Clinton campaign has tried to combat this by saying that money does not really matter, but this is still a blow to the Clinton Machine.
The struggle for Obama is translating these enormous amount of contributors into votes. The person who had the most money and largest number of contributors in 2004 was Howard Dean, while John Kerry had the establishment in his backpocket. The Obama campaign must focus on GOTV (get-out-the vote) and then Clinton's money will diminish in significance very quickly. The millionaire and the beggar each only get one vote.
(these numbers were added up by me, so they are guaranteed to be off once the official numbers come out. The numbers at this point were meant to give quantity the commentary. Do not yell at me, please).
-Wyatt Earp
(Second Quarter)Barack Obama: $32.5 million; Hillary Clinton: $27 million; John Edwards: $9 million; Bill Richardson: $7 million
(Total Fundraising) Hillary Clinton: $62 million; Barack Obama 58.2 million; John Edwards: $23 million; Bill Richardson: $14 million
At this stage in the game there are only two meters to judge a candidates strength on: 1) Polls (state by state, not national) and 2) Fundraising.
The polling is still up in the air with Edwards leading in Iowa, Clinton in New Hampshire and Clinton/Obama going back and forth in South Carolina. However, the fundraising is becoming more and more Obama's point of strength. But, wait Wyatt, why is Obama losing to Clinton in total fundraising if it is his "point of strength", you must be dumb. While it is true that I am dumb, the total numbers are deceiving.
Hillary Clinton raised $35 million in the first quarter. However, she transferred $10 million from her Senate campaign, which means she only raised $25 million. Also, Clinton is tapping people for the full $4,600 at a time (legally, each voter is only allowed to donate $2,300 for each primary, and $2,300 for each general election, a total of $4,600). Not all of the money that Clinton raised in the first quarter can be used in the primary election. And if she does not garner the nomination then those general election dollars become worthless. It is said that Clinton raised $19 million for the primary in the first quarter. Out of Obama's 25 million raised in the first quarter, 23 million of it was for the primaries.
In the second quarter, Clinton is expected to raise $27 million with $21 million of it to be used for the primary. Out of Obama's $32.5 million, a remarkable $31 million is primary money. So, just counting primary money raised here are the results as of the second quarter:
Primary Money Raised: Obama: $54 million; Clinton: $40 million
If you ask me, which no one did, I believe that Clinton should have reason to worry. The Clinton Machine is widely known as the greatest fundraising mechanism in the Democratic Party, but it slowly being shown up by the rookie of the year Barack Obama. While Clinton appears to still have the edge on the perpetual power brokers of the Democratic Party, Obama now owns the ground. The most remarkable number to me is the number of donors to each of their campaigns. Clinton has raised $62 million from less then 100,000 different contributors (she hasn't released the exact number) while Obama has raised $58.2 million from over 258,000 contributors. In short, Obama has more widespread support in terms of active participation in the campaign. The Clinton campaign has tried to combat this by saying that money does not really matter, but this is still a blow to the Clinton Machine.
The struggle for Obama is translating these enormous amount of contributors into votes. The person who had the most money and largest number of contributors in 2004 was Howard Dean, while John Kerry had the establishment in his backpocket. The Obama campaign must focus on GOTV (get-out-the vote) and then Clinton's money will diminish in significance very quickly. The millionaire and the beggar each only get one vote.
(these numbers were added up by me, so they are guaranteed to be off once the official numbers come out. The numbers at this point were meant to give quantity the commentary. Do not yell at me, please).
-Wyatt Earp
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)