Greetings from the Pacific Northwest again. Below are few preliminary not-so-random thoughts on the US midterm elections, which I hope will make it through whatever technical hurdles, but just in case, I've copied directly to those I guessed who would follow this thread.
As usual in all elections, but especially midterm elections, voter turnout makes the difference. For those who didn't think their vote mattered, they are about to get a big lesson in the importance of voting. The preliminary numbers indicate 39.3% voted this week. Turnout does not a mandate make, but it does give the turnout minority the advantage. However, I don't think this distinction is being made. The party that was more successful in getting their voters out on Tuesday, in this case the RNC with old-fashioned campaigning aided by technology and human anxiety, is moving to build the public consensus of a mandate and/or referendum on their policies. If Bush Inc acts as if they have a consensus mandate, rather than the hopes and fears of an electorate afraid to rock even this leaky economic boat, then seismic battles will begin quickly, followed by eruptions of lame duck gridlock and tenured roadblocks called "on second thought." So much hype, so little truth in advertising. When all the dust is settled, and it will take some time to get definitive numbers on where and what voters were saying, it looks like most incumbents kept their advantage and voters rewarded those who took moderate positions, except for a few notable exceptions. Speaking as a moderate, there are some good candidates in both parties who made it through Dante's Inferno of election campaigning, and I don't think that the DEMs lost as much electoral ground as they did political ground, except for the House, where by redistricting they now have a huge advantage for some time. Last weekend's polls indicated that nationwide, 64% of GOP voters were enthusiastic about going to vote, while DEM voters were not that excited. Much has already been said about the lack of a clear opposition from the Democrats but I think we have to be honest and say that "tradition" didn't count for much this time, when under 'normal circumstances' tradition says the sitting President takes losses in the Congress at midterms. Well, tradition says a lot of things that don't always hold up under scrutiny. Beware of those who crow too loudly: they are not thinking yet, just celebrating a premature rapture. As someone said earlier this year, I believe it was the US rep to NATO addressing the EU audience, people should understand that as of late in the afternoon of 9/11/01, when the President finally spoke to the nation from a hidden location, most Americans believed we were at war. My historian's sense is this election was about that unfamiliar fear that we as a nation are still learning to deal with, especially so for those under 65: fear of terrorism abroad but mostly at home, fear of economic uncertainty in both the corporate world and the investing world, which of course, follows the old phrase that all politics is local, so if jobs are not safe all over, neither is yours, mine and ours. But whatever can be legitimately said about the lack of opposition from the Democrats, and I will add my voice to that, it must be said that many Americans followed the dictum "don't change horses in midstream" and in my opinion, that applies here regarding the economy as well as foreign policy. So, every time you hear something about Bush turning tradition on its head, making history, having a mandate for economics and war, do me a favor and hear in your head "traditionally, but not in wartime". I'm playing "cheap shrink" here but I really think many people want reassurance now more than they wanted change, and the Prez and his team made a very good case appealing to the wartime mentality. Of course, by Monday, most people will superficially believe that it is 'Morning in America' again and Pres. Bush is Top Gun. Karl Rove is ready to publish The Book of Chairman Bush, proceeds to go the RNC, of course. So I guess I'm writing this as a reminder from history class: Americans - and others - tend to rally around their leaders during war. Think about FDR, another son of privilege who thought his presidency was going to be about something else. It worked for LBJ, who literally begged voters not to "change horses in midstream". Pres. Bush has managed to "stitch coattails" that he did not have in 2000, largely because of huge amounts of money, but also because he is popular as a war president. I repeat: without 9/11, this presidency would be on life support. After all the talk in the next few months about who lost what, defining mandates and speculation about 2004, there is still a lot of heavy lifting to do and the responsibility and consequences for it. At the very least, there will be a lot of cheery talk designed to affect Xmas shopping and fourth quarter reports. Now that the redemption of this election is behind him, let's hope the President turns to real governing, not just fundraising and foreign policy by electoral numbers, because there is important work to be done by real, not faint-hearted, public servants. I'll be listening for what the historians say, not just the paid professional pundits. I will also look at the AZ, ME and VT results because of the different campaign funding they used this time that the rest of us will be using next time with to-be-determined changes. I agree with Arthur's colleague who mentioned that the internet is used very cheaply and successfully, at work and at home. Today I received a post from a 30-year old friend, a political novice just moving past her twentysomething ideas about politics as something she noticed only April 15th and when adding up what came out of her paycheck. She is now working hard to rebuild her own business as an engineering designer/drafter, a recent escapee from an abusive marriage, barely surviving bankruptcy with two small children in tow. Her interests are more grownup now and she is beginning to "connect the dots", as they say, about politics and real life. She forwarded me this complaint about politicians receiving social security benefits. It was one of those all too familiar mass mailings where you insert the name of the local opponent and send it out under cover of religious websites and the greeting card type daily dose of cute sites. My friend does not have the eyes or experience to distinguish between propaganda and informed opinion, she wasn't taught English forensics and takes too much at face value. In school she paid attention only to that which would bring her income in the future, and not much else, so she is at the mercy of those who can manipulate language and exploit human emotions, having little independent judgment in those areas. But she is learning, trying to make her own way. Likewise this week I received an urgent request from a cousins' wife begging me to vote for their friend's son who had survived the first round on the NBC Today show's musical star competition, telling me that even though the rules keep you from voting only once from a single computer, there was nothing to stop me from voting from all the computers that may be in the house or from work, too. This from a staunch Christian professing disdain for cheating, especially Bill Clinton's kind. It recalls the efforts and methods of the Christian Coalitions' political pro Ralph Reed in Georgia, which may shortly be named the State of Saint Reed. Mass mailings and TV appearances can be greatly undermined by cheap unsubstantiated and poorly framed political gossip. The gullible are encouraged to put their name of a prewritten complaint or support correspondence to spam the recipient. Or, as another FWer cleverly put it this week, "the sheeple have spoken". There will be a lot of shouting and crowing in the weeks ahead. If you are discouraged by the midterm results, take heart. If you are overjoyed, don't over reach. The turnout can always be different next time. I'm waiting for the dust to settle, but meantime, buckle up. We're in for a bumpy ride. Karen Watters Cole East of Portland, West of Mt Hood Outgoing Mail Scanned by NAV 2002 Arthur offers, You might be interested in an exchange I had with a colleague on some early impressions of the election, ( my colleague) A few things that are coming out indicate quite clearly that the Republicans, and the Bush Administration in particular, were very professional in their handling of the mechanics of the election, while the Democrats acted like amateurs. For example, it now turns out that the White House had a good idea, through its special polls and other analytical techniques, as long before the election as a few weeks ago that the election would not be as close as the public polls and the pundits were suggesting. When it began to leak out that they were more optimistic about Republican success, key West Wing staffers worked to establish a negative spin that convinced Washington insiders that this was an unfounded rumor - and they succeeded. Apparently the Democrats (with the exception of a few old hands who were not involved in the election, like Cargil, believed in the public polls. One of the reasons for the failure of the public polls was that their methods had lagged behind the technological and social change (similar to earlier polling failures in 1936 and in 1948, when survey methods were first being developed). This time, the public polls failed to reflect two things: the spread of the internet culture as a way of rapidly forming opinion and, secondly, failure in the polls which were based on random samples of telephone numbers adequately to reflect the spread of cell phones and other wireless devices. I don't know whether the Republican's internal polls were finding some way to do that, but, at least since the emergence of Reagan, the Republicans have tended to be more advanced in polling techniques and have used their generally superior financial resources to use polls and techniques such as focus groups more intensively. The Democrats did not have any central figure in their election campaign (one of the advantages that a Presidential incumbency naturally has) and the appearance of Clinton and Gore in some well-publicized races gave the Republicans some advantage (how significant one can't tell) by reminding people of the issues and irritations that emerged (rightly or wrongly) during the second Clinton administration. Secondly, the economic issues that should have been Democratic trump cards were played too late and too weakly. Finally, it seems to me that there was too much concern about who was likely to emerge as a Democratic contender for the Presidency, in 2004 - various individuals and factions were, in a barely masked fashion, pulling against each other rather than developing a concerted position against Bush and the Republicans. Altogether, it was a fiasco - the election should have been closer, at least, but it was bungled. One example is that the Welstone memorial got out of hand; one of the organizers admitted that it was his decision to turn it into a political rally. Anybody with a grain of sense as a political strategist would have ended the situation with Welstone's burial a day earlier, let Mondale start his campaign after the funeral (thus giving him another day to campaign), and had a memorial announced for a month following the election, thus avoiding the danger of something blowing up in the Minnesota Democratic Farm Labor Party's face. (arthur) Agree with everything said. I would only add that the Republican wins put to rest the talk of the last Pres. election being stolen by the Bush brothers. It was a chance to repudiate both brothers and the Republicans as a whole and the people have spoken (as has a pile of money, but there was money on both sides) Also agree that seeing Clinton and Gore on TV during some of the election rallies was like seeing the monsters returning and only served to remind people of the undisciplined and strange antics of some Democrats. The Welstone affair should have been handled as you suggest, and the rampaging nature of the rally seemed like a left wing counterpart to a right wing barely disguised KKK rally of good ole boys in the south. Jesse Ventura's disgust was echoed in the ballots. Another factor which I haven't seen discussed is the paradoxical one of so many people in the stock market. With pensions and lifetime earning tied up in stocks (and with the market decline and slow climb back) many middle class people might have voted for the Republicans, the party of corporate interests just so they could "be sure" that their savings were in good hands. A strange alliance that might have led to a stronger showing than would have otherwise been the case.
