archived: 23 - 29 Oct, 2005         Back                 Next

UPDATED:  October 27, 2005 

                        DEMS WIN ONE 

Rather than face legislative defeat, the Bush administration reversed itself on suspending competitive wages in federal contracts for rebuilding Hurricane Katrina damage. 

Bowing to pressure from a united Democratic front, a small group of members of his own party, the religious community, and the labor movement, President Bush announced today he would reverse the decision he made in September to remove wage protections for construction workers in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.

After Katrina, the President suspended the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act, which requires federal contractors to pay at least the prevailing wage to construction workers in a local area. The president's action, which was widely denounced, followed requests from right-wing activists and Republican members of Congress who exploited Katrina to achieve a long-sought ideological agenda item. – American Chronicle  

How did Democrats win?  Note that EVERY Democrat was prepared to vote against the President.  Next: 

Grassroots activists sent more than 350,000 e-mails and letters to their representatives demanding fair wages be reinstated for the Gulf Coast, where skilled, full-time workers average less than $20,000 a year in pay. . . .  Thirty-seven House Republicans urged the White House to reverse the suspension, and Rep. George Miller led unanimous opposition by Democrats to the president’s suspension.   – Working Families  

Democratic Party leadership, grassroots organizing and a divided Republican Party – all keys to success.  This victory should present a very simple but important lesson for Democrats everywhere. 

Dr. Steven Jonas notes in his continuing series on the Democratic Party today that it is a lesson Democrats far too often fail to understand.  Read “The Future of the Democratic Party, IV: 

Bush, Bennett, Miers, and the DLC” in Dr. Jonas’s section of TPJ.                       

                        NOT ALL POLLS HAVE NUMBERS 

True Junkies love polling numbers.  But, not every poll has numbers.  Some come with feet, in this case Republican feet.  

In the past two weeks, two key Republicans have declined to appear with Bush.   

Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry W. Kilgore has decided not to attend President Bush's appearance in Norfolk on Friday, saying it is not a campaign-related event and that he has other plans 11 days before the election.

Bush has scheduled a speech on terrorism in the Hampton Roads region, home to one of the largest concentrations of military personnel on the East Coast. But Kilgore, who is in a dead-heat battle with Democratic Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, said that Bush's address is a "policy" speech and that he has an important appearance at a luncheon for the state NAACP at the same time. – Washington Post 

A Republican candidate in a close election does not want to be seen with the President of his Party because of an important meeting with the NAACP?  What would Kilgore’s decision have been if Bush’s approval ratings were in the 60’s? The answer is obvious. 

Gov. Schwarzenegger, in a rather public tiff with Bush, refused to appear with the President: 

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, concerned that the decline in President Bush's popularity will pull down his special election measures, is not expected to appear with the president when he visits California next week.

Bush is scheduled to attend a fundraiser in Los Angeles for the Republican National Committee on Thursday and help cut the ribbon Friday at the opening of the new Air Force One exhibit at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley.

Although the governor's staff will not confirm his schedule this far in advance, sources said Schwarzenegger is not planning to attend either event. He is tentatively scheduled to campaign next week, possibly in the Central Valley, on the days of the visit.

Neither the governor nor the president is popular with a majority of voters in California. But with the Nov. 8 special election barely three weeks away, the Republican governor needs the support of Democrats and independents -- as well as his party's voters -- to pass his self-styled reform agenda.

Some Republicans said that from a practical viewpoint, it makes sense for the Republican governor of a Democratic-leaning state to keep some miles between himself and the president.

"The reality is that the knee-jerk reaction by the governor's opponents to take him down is to call (Schwarzenegger) a Bush Republican," said Bill Whalen, a research fellow with the Hoover Institution. "So if he hangs out with the president, it's probably a photo op he doesn't need.''  -- SF Gate 

Rats leaving a sinking ship comes to mind.

_____________________________________________

                        WHERE ARE THE DEMS? 

Sometimes the clearest perspectives in politics come from your opponent.  Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster, recently provided this analysis of recent polling trends: 

The fact that Bush is maintaining 80-84 percent approval of Republicans even in these very difficult times, I think is a terrific story.  . . .

Katrina had consequences, and it reshuffled the deck and it has reshuffled the deck where Bush has dropped a little bit. I think that arguably he should be able to stay in that 40-45 range. However, external events, whether they be positive, something happens positive around the world or positive here for him, or if they are like home heating [fuel prices], they could push those numbers down. He has such strong approval among Republicans that the kind of free fall that his dad went through, it is very hard for me to imagine that is ever going to happen." . . .

"In my party, [immigration] is becoming a really central issue to what people are saying they care about... The point I would make about the immigration data is that it splits both parties... You look at the immigration data and it divides both parties' caucuses, because it is an issue that divides less on partisanship and more on socioeconomic status where affluent, higher-income people have very different attitudes than people with lower levels of formal education and lower and middle income." . . .

"We do not have a candidate who is the obvious next person in line. So the Republican nomination battle in 2008 is going to be very different and massively more interesting, because we are not going to start this race with the next person in line with 40 percent of the primary vote. It is going to be unstable. And as a consequence of that, what I am suggesting is that these divisions in the party are going to be much more slugged out in public. And we are going to have a much more contentious public-issue debate than we have had because we are going to have candidates who run across the range of the party that start with relatively equal standing." . . .

"[McCain] has gone up substantially among core Republicans. They were very pleased with his work for President Bush in 2004 and his outspoken support for the Iraq war and some of the stuff he is doing on spending.... He is in a much stronger position with Republicans today than he was when he left the race in 2000.... If there is a multiple-candidate field and you are dividing these different chunks of our party, you easily can win multicandidate primaries with the vote McCain can hold." . . .

We have higher numbers now than ever before in terms of interest in elections, even exceeding the '94 election two days before the election. So the level of intensity of the American political debate is a terrific story. – Christian Science Monitor  

McInturff’s analysis tracks TPJ’s current observations; Bush has lost a great deal of ground, but he is holding the Republican base.    

McInturff’s most important revelation may be the level of interest Americans are showing in the mid-term elections.  With interest running significantly higher, more Americans are paying attention to not only the issues, but the messages that both Parties are sending – and that is the grist of the matter for Democrats.  Congressional Democrats still have not orchestrated a national message.  

Democracy Corps has just issued an extensive analysis of current polling reaching similar conclusions as McInturff:

The latest NBC News/Wall Sreet Journal survey shows Democrats with a 9-point advantage as the party Americans would like to see in control of Congress, but they still fail to garner the support of even 50 percent of voters.

In order to once again claim a majority, Democrats must recapture some of the independent voters – particularly white, non-college-educated voters in rural areas and red states – who have defected to the Republicans in recent elections. Focus groups conducted by Democracy Corps among these voters highlighted the challenge facing Democrats – these voters see little or no differences between the parties on critical ‘kitchen table’ issues such as jobs, health care, and gas prices. As a result, no matter how disenchanted these voters become with Republicans, many of them will still vote Republican because of their views on cultural issues and defense – unless and until Democrats are seen as agents of change, offering a real alternative on the ‘kitchen table’ issues they care about most. The most recent polls highlight the growing concerns Americans harbor on many of these issues – notably economic growth and job creation, gas prices, spending for the war in Iraq and the lack of a clear plan, health care, record deficits, long-term energy policy, homeland security, and cleaning up the rampant corruption and cronyism in Washington. 

Both McInturff and Democracy Corps’ analysis leaders to TPJ’s mantra: 

WHERE ARE THE DEMS?                       

                        BUSH’S SLIDE 

Survey USA has regularly released state by state polls of Bush’s approval/disapproval ratings.  The most recent poll from October demonstrates again that Bush’s slide in the polls.  See the current chart here: Bush’s 10 05 Approval Ascending. 

Bush has an approval rating of 50%+ in only six states:                                   

Conversely, Bush has an approval rating of less than 40% in 25 states: 

 Most importantly for Democrats, 6 of those 25 states represent states where Democrats tried to compete in 2004, including the critical swing states of Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico. The latest USA survey results reaffirm that “blue” states continue to trend harder “blue,” while “red” states have trended less so.   

More subtly, the deterioration in Bush’s polling numbers from September through October suggests that Bush is starting to lose support at a more profound rate in “red” states.  Calculating the spread between approval and disapproval and ranking the states by increases or decreases in the spread demonstrates the point.  From September to October, Bush’s spread between approval and disapproval dropped by 10%+, a dramatic shift by any standard, in these seven states, five of which are traditional Republican states Bush carried in 2004.   

 A complete analysis of all states by change in spread from September to October can be found here: -- Bush 9 to 10 05 Approval.  For the real number junkies, you may find a complete listing of Survey USA poll results from May, September and October, with spreads calculated, and ranked by change in approval ratings here – Bush 5 to 10 05 Approval Change.  All of TPJ’s charts are in excel format and may be downloaded for those who want to work with the spreadsheets.  

The Survey USA polls largely confirm the analysis by Republican pollster Bill McInturff that appears in the first article in this section.  Yet, signs are appearing that Bush’s Republican base is showing slippage, perhaps not nationally yet, but in selected states as highlighted in this article.   

For either Democrats or Republicans, holding one’s base is no path to electoral victory.  With Bush’s election in January, Republicans were openly discussing the fact that the Republican Party would dominate elections for at least the next decade.  The Republican hubris is now meeting the judgment of American citizens of radical Republican policies.  That judgment puts Democrats back into a position to win.

                         STILL WAITING                         

Mary Lynn F. Jones, a writer based in Washington, authored an article appearing in Alternet describing how Republicans led by a weakened President and awash with scandals, can continue to win policy confrontations with Democrats.  Her conclusions should be read by every Democrat: 

Republicans looked like they suffered a political blow, but in the end, their position prevailed.

How, and why, does this keep happening? First, Republicans realize that it's the outcome, not the process, that matters. In other words, they're willing to rough up their team and take a loss in the first or second quarter if they know they'll probably still win the game.

Second, Democrats are spooked by the idea of being called obstructionists -- after all, that's how former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., lost his seat last fall. So in trying not to be against what Republicans are for, Democrats end up doing some of the GOP's work for it. Who has been defending Miers as conservative Republicans rip into her? Well, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., echoed First Lady Laura Bush's point that criticism of Miers smacks of sexism. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who recommended Miers for the court, issued a complimentary statement about her that quickly became part of a Republican National Committee release.

Third, Democrats are too anxious to claim any kind of victory, even if it's the Pyrrhic kind. This is somewhat understandable, given Democrats' inability, as the minority party, to prevail on many issues. But when they claimed a win on the filibuster issue by saying they saved a 200-year-old Senate tradition, they also boxed themselves into a corner. Pledging not to filibuster a judicial nominee unless that person trips the "extraordinary circumstances" clause of the agreement means judges who Democrats would normally oppose will likely slip through the confirmation process.

The problem for Democrats is that they haven't learned two lessons that put Newt Gingrich and Republicans into power in 1995. First, don't help the folks in charge. Second, offer a distinct alternative, and positive, vision for where to take the country. Without that, there's no reason for voters to end the majority's reign. The party has had almost five years since Al Gore's loss in 2000 to develop a coherent message, and voters are still waiting.

Reading through TPJ today, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that rank and file Democrats, and Americans generally, are angered that the Democratic Party is not offering alternative leadership to the Republicans.  Larry Wilkerson is openly criticizing Republican foreign policy and Democracy Corps polling reflects that Democratic leadership in Congress is held in equal contempt with Republicans by the American public.  As Jones writes, it has been five years and Democrats, as well as the nation, are still waiting.  

George Packer authored a wonderful Comment in The New Yorker offering Democrats a game plan to victory: 

Instead of trying to cobble together a hypothetical majority with a hodgepodge of small-bore policy proposals, the Democrats need to nationalize the elections of 2006 the way the Republicans did in 1994. A Democratic manifesto that unites the Party’s own diverse factions would begin as a referendum on the ruling party: the White House and Congress have handed government over to corrupt interests, and, in so doing, the Republicans have betrayed basic American principles of honesty, competence, and fairness. There is no reason for Democrats to be on the defensive about moral values. On issue after issue, government by cronyism and corruption has sacrificed the interests of the middle class to those of the Administration’s wealthy friends. The deepening inequality in American life threatens families and democracy, and it is neither natural nor inevitable.

As a new book, “Off Center,” by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, points out, Republicans never won the war of ideas—America