Posted by I know I’m behind and the topics to address keep growing. Let’s start with where I left off.
STATUS: BHAM MAYOR
I mentioned the Mayoral contest in Birmingham. At least one of you noted that I had omitted Scott Douglas, Executive Director of Greater Birmingham Ministries, from the list. I have since talked with Scott, and he tells me that he picked up his papers and he is running. In fact, he was to announce this morning in Kelly Ingram Park. Last week, he met with a political consultant and got a reality check on budget. The budget started at $200,000. While all beginning budget figures are always inflated, still, to raise even $80-$125k with less than 30 days to go is more than daunting. For Scott to do well, he will have to run an insurgent campaign. As a grassroots organizer, he has to activate his network, which is largely poor—an online moveon.org-type campaign won’t happen. He’ll needs lots of volunteers and shoe leather.
William Bell was also to announce today in Linn Park. Other candidates are on the move. Patrick Cooper is running TV ads, Carole Smitherman and Emory Anthony have announced. [There are other candidates in the hunt, including Edith Mayomi, Stephanie Sigler Huey, Jimmy, Snow, Harry “Traveling Shoes” Turner, Ernie Dunn, and T.C. Cannon.] As of this blogging, Steven Hoyt has not made his intentions public.
SOME NATIONAL STUFF
On the national front, two items: Nancy Pelosi and the DEMS plus Republican Congressman Joseph Cao of LA won the day in passing the House health care bill–220 to 215. We’ll see what happens in the Senate. Will the abortion language from the Stupak amendment migrate to the Senate? That’s very likely. How will the bill be financed? House and Senate versions do it differently. And what will Joe Lieberman do? He is getting tiresome.
The results from last week’s elections in VA, NJ, and NY should cause both DEMS and REPUBS to worry. Pollster.com has some interesting charts on President Obama’s performance ratings: 56% on favorability; 50% on job approval; 45% on health care reform; 44% on the economy. Americans love the President; they just aren’t overly impressed with his work. This inability to transfer popularity either to performance ratings or other candidates must be worrisome to the White House. Is this becoming a kind of cult of personality?
So, were the results in VA and NJ a referendum on the President? DEMS say, “of course not.” REPUBS, not surprisingly, opine “he’s cooked.” Both are probably a little bit correct. We really won’t know until we get through the health care debate and final passage (if that happens). But results in New Jersey should be seen as a “red” flag (you should excuse the expression) to Democrats. The President visited the state four different times, and still, GOTV did not work. In both VA and NJ, only half as many young voters turned out as turned out in 2008. Black turnout was down as well. The Independent vote went overwhelmingly to the Republicans. According to the exit polls, white independents voted Republican by about a 70 to 30 (Sounds like Alabama).
Now, I expected a Republican victory in VA, but with a President stumping for you in a blue state like NJ, you ought to win. The alternative view, and one which clearly has merit, is that Corzine was a disaster as a Governor. Maybe he could move to NYC and challenge Bloomberg next time around. Can you imagine the budgets for that campaign! If the President cannot help Democrats in a BLUE state, where can he help? The White House has to be concerned about this. Until the jobless rate comes down, the President may not be asset.
Republicans have troubles of their own. In NY-23, you know what happened. The 3rd candidate in the race, supported by Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty, caused Republican Dede Scozzafava to withdraw (though she got 5 percent of the vote); this resulted in a win for the Democrat Bill Owens. No Democrat had been elected from that district since the 19th century. (I actually think I know the year—1852ish—but if I get it wrong—someone will surely point it out.) The extreme right is now after Charlie Crist of Florida. It is lining up with Mr. Rubio in the 2010 race for U.S. Senate. Will Olympia Snowe be a target in 2012? A poll released yesterday found Maine Republicans ready to dump their senior senator; they say they would vote for a generic conservative over Snowe 59 to 31.
Polls differ on party identification, but most put Republican Party id between 17 and 28 percent nationally. Is the Republican Party a national party, or is it fast becoming a regional party? It’s not that Democrats are doing so well—it’s that Republicans are marginalizing themselves, leaving them in the posture of “being the party of no.”
Ironically, that’s actually working for REPUBS. I saw results from a “generic” poll on preference for a “D” or an “R” for Congress. Democrats were preferred over Republicans—48 to 44—pretty close; a few months ago, the gap was considerable. However, on the re-elect #, 52 percent said they would vote to re-elect their Congressman. Only Independents said they would not—about 42 percent would vote to re-elect.
NOTE: Gwen Ifill, host of PBS’s “Washington Week” will speak at Birmingham-Southern College next week. Her topic is “American Politics in the Age of Obama” Y’all Come! Here are the details:
DATE : NOVEMBER 19
WHERE: Birmingham-Southern College
Bruno Great Hall
Norton Student Center (3rd Floor)
TIME : 4PM
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
Actually Rasmussen has the generic congressional at GOP +6. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/scoreboards/by_the_numbers2/by_the_numbers
I’m pretty sure the author of this blog lives in the City of Birmingham. Would she have any interest in running for Mayor?
[...] miss Natalie Davis considering the lay of the land after the recent national elections, and she looks ahead to the Birmingham mayor’s [...]
Consider dropping the “purple” facade. It’s insincere.
For example, referring to Independent Senator Lieberman as “tiresome”, even though he is more representative of ‘purple’ than you, is kind of tiresome.
Reactionary, just because someone is to the left of you, that doesn’t make them blue. It just makes them not…reactionary. It’s Joe Lieberman’s antics, not his political beliefs, that make him tiresome.
It is kind of tiresome having to keep a fact check on this column though. As in comment # 1, as well as prior articles where the wrong candidates were/were not helped by obama bounce, etc…whew. tiresome.
“My effort, (and we’ll see how long it lasts) is to try to steer to the middle. I’ll lay my cards on the table. I am a little left of center. If I get too far out there, I know you will reign me back in.”
Kathy, my point is that Davis promoted this diary as “the middle”, and delivers blue dot Democrat talking points (maybe she meant “the middle” of the Democratic Party). “Americans love the President”? Is that really a neutral analysis of a 56% (and sinking) favorability rating?
I’ve made a couple of specific comments in the spirit of ‘reigning her back in’, but IMO she has not delivered commentary from the perspective of “the middle”.
Dr. Davis – calling this purple just grates on me. Otherwise, I appreciate your analysis and enjoy reading your posts.
Reactionary, it’s not up to you to “rein her in”. It’s her post, and Danny asked her to write here. You’re certainly free to express your objections; she’s free to ignore them. She’s not your horse.
“I know you will reign me back in”
So this means everyone BUT me. I see.
Well, okay. If she wants to be reined in (it’s REINED in, not reigned in — nothing to do with ruling, everything to do with directing a horse), then you’re welcome to try. I realize we are in Alabama, where the definition of “purple” is well to the right of the country as a whole, but I do think she, as the writer of the post, gets leeway to define it for herself.
Kathy – I’m sure Dr. Davis appreciates your correction of her grammar.
Lieberman becomes tiresome, when one forgets the the wisdom of Will Rogers.
A blogger who sits around in his pj’s trying to “reign” in a well-respected political scientist who’s been in the game longer than he’s been alive. That’s funny.
Dr. Davis – I apologize for using the word “insincere” to describe your post. It was too harsh – your efforts are sincere, I just take issue with the language and tone – which IMO comes from a ‘blue’ perspective. Let’s just keep at it…
Reactionary is probably as old as Dr. Davis, Lucy. And Dr. Davis has shown a propensity to skew certain facts, unintentionally I’m sure. Hey, who cares if Davis says she’s a straight up liberal, that’s fine, but his point is that “purple” isn’t exactly accurate, but who cares, only a color.
Hey anonymous, she didn’t say she saw a Rasmussen poll, she said she saw a poll that showed a generic Dem over a generic GOPer 48-44. Why single out one contradictory poll, declare her wrong, and call that “fact-checking”? If you are going to single out one poll, why not pick the CNN/Opinion Research poll from this month that shows a 6 point lead for a generic D over R (49-43)? Or the Pew Research poll that shows a 5 point lead for a generic Dem this month? Or Ipsos/McClatchy that has a generic Dem up by 7.
RealClearPolitics tracks some polls this month (including Rasmussen) and shows the average to be a generic D over a generic R by 1.6 – which suggests to me that whatever she was referring to was generally more on the mark than the Rasmussen poll you want to single out as evidence that she’s wrong.
And it’s all pretty odd because the poll #’s she cited were going to her point that the Republicans were doing better now than they were a few months ago. If you want to take the Rasmussen poll at face value, it doesn’t contradict her point; it makes her point.
Reactionary, I appreciate you saying that you appreciate Dr. Davis’s analysis and enjoy reading her posts. I am hearing the same from many other readers, and I enjoy them myself.
You say she delivers “delivers blue dot Democrat talking points.” FWIW, I’m not sure that Obama’s “inability to transfer popularity either to performance ratings or other candidates” is a blue dot talking point. Or that the White House is trumpeting her observation that the Dems’ “GOTV did not work.” Or “if the President cannot help Democrats in a BLUE state, where can he help? The White House has to be concerned about this.” Is that a blue dot Democrat talking point?
I do think there has been some misunderstanding about “purple” in the title “Purple Dot Connection” and that folks could put a little more emphasis on “Connection.” I encourage readers to remember (or reread) her first post here where she writes, “‘The Purple Dot Connection’ is my effort to have a conversation about politics which relies on civil discourse” and “I hope to raise some issues and talk about politics in a way that suggests we can all be part of one conversation.”
We’re red, we’re blue, together we’re purple, and we can be a part of a conversation, a connection. Civilly. I like it.
And I appreciate readers who care enough about these things to weigh in. Or as Reactionary says, “Let’s just keep at it…”