Skip to main content

View Diary: Special Elections foreshadow change in Democratic fortunes (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Enjoy that Kool-Aide, David (0+ / 0-)

    I know that's the storyline the DCCC is pushing (mostly as a warning shot to Republicans who might still support the Ryan plan), but your assertionis demonstrably untrue.

    If you polled it in this district, you would see it.

    Again, look at the Siena poll.  In a poll with a MOE of 3.9%, there was NO discernible difference between people concerned with Medicare and those concerned with jobs--none. After all those WEEKS of hard-core advertising, mailings, and robo-calls ALL OF WHICH plaid up the Medicare message, Medicare was important only to one in five voters. The same nubmer were concerned, roughly,  with jobs, taxes, and the national debt (or, said another way, more were concerned with the economy generally than with Medicare.)  Moreover,  Medicare played far more importantly with Democrats than with "swing" Independent voters or Republicans in this heavily Republican district.

    If the shift in voters from Davis to Hochul was NOT about trade, what would you pretend was the cause?  There was no other shift in positions.

    •  I'm not going to respond further (7+ / 0-)

      If you're going to yell at me in bold and all caps. Sorry.

      Political Director, Daily Kos

      by David Nir on Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:22:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow! Sensitive. (1+ / 2-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
        drobertson, ArkDem14

        The BOLD and CAPS are meant for emphasis, not for "yelling".  I rarely read entire blog reply texts; the bold is intended to make important points stand out, nothing else.

        When I speak, I use intonation and emphasis; same here.

        Respond if you like, but I suggest you never enlist in armed forces if you're that sensitive to tone.  

        •  They're not showing emphasis (0+ / 0-)

          They're just making you look rude.  It's the internet equivalent of shouting and screaming.  Sometimes it's best to listen.

        •  We are not children here (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DCal, Bharat

          Act like an adult. Read what other people write thoroughly if you intend to respond to them, and respond with some semblance of coherence and respect. There are limits even on Dkos to decorum, (nowhere near where I think they should be, but there nonetheless).

          Furthermore, this isn't the place to discuss free trade policy, particularly not in a loud and obnoxious manner. This particular Dkos group is concerned with following the political races, not the the policies.

          Truth becomes fiction when the fiction's true; Reality becomes illusion where the unreal's real. -Cao Xueqin

          by ArkDem14 on Mon May 23, 2011 at 07:12:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't get why this is HRd. (0+ / 0-)

          I get it, we're on DKE, but still, HR's aren't just a "dislike" rating but can actually get someone banned from the whole site. This comment was inappropriate in tone, but not HR-worthy.

          •  Me Thinks.... (0+ / 0-)

            ....peoplle may be upset that my analysis differs from the party line put out by the DCCC.  And since the DCCC cannot really address trade policy any differently than Republicans, and can't really refute the assertions, they are are attacking the message and the messenger.

            Again, my bold and CAPS were meant for emphasis, not shouting.  But as someone raised among Blue Collar middle Americans my emphasis may have been misinterpreted by someone who hasn't spent much time West of the Hudson. Someone reared in an environment of calm, sedating, monotones might not understand that.

            •  It doesn't help your case (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              drobertson, Bharat, MichaelNY

              To insult people's backgrounds and environments in quasi-David-Brooks language.  DKE has its own atmosphere and personality, and part of David's responsibility as an editor is to maintain that--and, frankly, part of our responsibility is to respect that.  

              25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

              by Xenocrypt on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:37:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  BTW, what is "HRd"? (0+ / 0-)

            I've been here for a while but I'm not a "regular".  Please advise/explain. Thanks.

          •  As Said Above, "Data Inconsistent With the Story.. (0+ / 0-)

            "Data not consistent with the story trying to be manufactured is not welcome."

            DCCC wants very much for any Hochul win to be portrayed as a "defeat of the Ryan Medicare Plan".

            The fact that the race is actually being decided on Trade Policy is terribly inconsistent with that; therefore, attack the message and the messenger, particular his ignorant "misuse" of the caps lock key which some people view as rude.  (Is that some kind of Kos protocol?  Because I see highlights in comments all over the place elsewhere on the internet.  I use them (and I appreciate their use) in lengthy comments or in original posts.   Reading every word is a waste of time.)

        •  "I rarely read entire blog reply texts." (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          That mght explain your problem here at making your case. It helps to read entire replies when coming up with a coherent response to an argument.

    •  Three-way races very typically contract (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Into two-way races, afaik, because of strategic voting--no one wants to waste their vote, so everyone's wary of a candidate starting to collapse, and then there's a cascade effect. Sometimes that means you end up with, basically, Indie vs. Major Party (like in the Maine and Rhode Island governor's elections last year) and sometimes that means there's a third party candidate who polls decently or attracts some attention but ends up getting rather fewer votes than the polls and press might predict (like the New Jersey gubernatorial election in 2009, or the last British general election.)  And, of course, third party candidates are those who are mostly likely to be thought of as a "wasted" vote, and they have less of a solid base to work with in general, so they are particularly vulnerable to collapsing in this self-fulfilling-prophecy way.

      So, while the proximate cause might have been trade policy or pretty much anything, Davis' collapse was structurally a very likely outcome, and most of the writing about the race from the start, at least around here, has reflected that, again afaik.

      However, correlation does not imply causation, and to demonstrate that Hochul's purported shift on trade policy caused the change in poll numbers, you need more than to show that they were chronologically close--you would need evidence that people in the district who are being polled a) heard about her purported shift and b) cared and then c) changed their votes.  Otherwise, it could be nearly anything--positions taken in debates aren't the only source of polling changes, and I'm not sure they've historically ever been much of a source of significant and lasting polling changes.

      25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

      by Xenocrypt on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:03:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Polling Should Have Been Done (0+ / 0-)

        But was not; trade policy is very rarely ever polled because the two major parties are in lockstep on it.  There is no difference in the two parties positions; therefore, there is no need to poll it.  (The 26th is, in fact, one of the rare instances where trade policy has ever been debated in the political realm.)

        Kathy Hochul made her "born again" opposition to American trade policy well-known immediately after she saw Davis' poll numbers.  It was her second talking point in her post-debate spin press release.  It was an issue with the both The Batavian and was the principal issue upon which  Davis was enorsed by the Niagara Gazetteand the Lockport Union Sun and Journal.

        In their words:

        "It’s hard not to identify with Davis’ goals of wanting to create jobs in the United States through the abolition of free trade agreements like NAFTA, which he says is the primary reason jobs are leaving and factories are closing.

         True, [Trade] is Davis’ sole issue. But the issue itself is intrinsic in fixing so many of the other things that haunt us these days, including health care, Social Security and national security.

         If people have jobs, they’re more like to be able to afford health care. If people have jobs, they’re paying into Social Security.

        Remember, too, that these are Republicans going over to a Democrat (and a liberal Democrat to boot!) and that Hochul had been pounding the "Medicare" drum before the race shifted.

        Perhaps someday some pollster (or exit pollster?) will measure the effects of the Trade issue on this race.  For now, though, there is simply too close a correlation between her newfound opposition to NAFTA, CAFTA and KOFTA and her dramatic gain in the polls, a gain that can be directly traced to a candidate whose sole issue was trade policy and at whose expense she is winning her majority.

        •  It's possible (0+ / 0-)

          But another possibility is simpler (and I tend to lean towards simple explanations, since I don't really assume voters know details about candidates' positions and when they change): Davis had run several times for this seat as a Democrat, so low-information partisans might have just assumed that he was the Democratic candidate (or a Democratic candidate) once again, and as the race progressed, and more learned he was running as a Republican, and they switched from him to Hochul.  Davis still retains some of his right-wing support, so he splits the right wing vote.   Several people on this site have speculated that Davis had an amount of "soft" conservative Democratic support on pure name recognition.

          The Democrats+Working Families got 45% in 2008.  Jack Davis got 44% in 2004 and 45% in 2006 as a Democrat/Working Families Party.  Hochul's lead is 42%, according to PPP.  You don't need anything unusual to get a Democrat to the mid-40s in this district.  (Granted the Democratic candidate got crushed by 3-1 in 2010, but, well, 2010 was unusual--presidentially, the district has an R+6 PVI, so the expected result in an even year is 53 R, 47 D.)

          But, really, I'm not going to affirmatively believe it's anything like you describe without a poll that both shows a large chunk of Davis voters know Hochul changed her position and say they changed their votes accordingly.

          25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

          by Xenocrypt on Mon May 23, 2011 at 07:59:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Polling Says Otherwise (0+ / 0-)

            Most of the support Davis was drawing was from Republicans.  (He is a registered Republican and was a GOP through 2004, I believe.  His diversion to the Democrats was just something he did to challenge the Republican incumbent whose trade policy Davis says he desprises.)

            So, upon learning Davis was not a major party nominee, those Republican voters would have moved to the Republican, Corwin, whose trade policy is mainstream Republican. But they didn't; they went to "born again" protectionist Hochul.  QED.

            You  should give more respect to the voters. I'm not familiar with what you call "Low information partisans."   In my experience, most partisans are exceptionally well informed.

            •  Perhaps I should give more respect to the voters (0+ / 0-)

              Perhaps not, but either way, you're probably not going to convince me that voters picked up on this until there's direct evidence of that.  I don't think that we're going to get anywhere discussing that much.

              Anyway, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Jack Davis as a Democrat, Alice Kryzan and Jon Powers on a Dem/Working Families anti-fusion anti-ticket, and Al Gore all won a mid-40s percent of the vote in this district--the same vote that Hochul is polling now.  That says "baseline partisan scenario" to me, not "Republicans switching to the Democrats in unusual numbers because of unusual ideological positioning."  We'll really have to wait and see--if Hochul wins with a significantly higher percentage than that, that'll suggest something else.
              (Pres. numbers by CD:

              Back when Corwin was trailing:

              "At the same time, [Davis]'s also hurting Hochul. Looking at the cross-tabs (PDF), Davis gets 24% of the Republican vote, 20% of the Democratic vote, and 27% of the independent vote. Rare to see a candidate with such cross-spectrum appeal!"

              So it's not true that "most" of the support Davis was drawing was from Republicans--maybe a plurality was, but a pretty narrow one.

              Now, Davis is getting 8% of Democrats, 16% of Republicans, 17% of independents:

              He lost 12% of Democrats, 8% of Republicans, and 10% of independents.  (This is assuming you can compare crosstabs at all).  So a significant part of his drop is among Democrats.  Hochul had 62% of Ds in Sienna, 10% of Rs, and 26% of indies--now, in PPP, she has 74% of Ds, 16% of Rs, and 36% of indies.  I'm not sure what that all adds up to, given all the margins of error, but it is def. the case that part of what's going on is Davis losing a significant chunk of Democrats (even if people of all parties may have switched over to Hochul proportionately.)  

              Corwin did, however, gain 5% of Republicans in between the two surveys (again, assuming you can compare them) so many of the Republicans who abandoned Davis might well have gone to Corwin.  Or maybe they went straight from Davis to Hochul and Corwin picked up 5% of the undecided Republicans.  Or maybe this is all statistical float with small sample sizes!  Point is, I at least am not comfortable deciding on any analysis of this based on this information.  You are comfortable with that, which is fine, but I doubt we'll convince each other (and this never really was the thread for it anyway.)

              25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

              by Xenocrypt on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:21:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, I should have (0+ / 0-)

                Added the PPP poll in the middle, the first with Hochiul leading:

                Main changes there vs. the Sienna poll are in the independent vote--which actually, I should have added, is kind of a misnomer, since there are R-partisan indies, D-partisan indies, and a very few actually independent indies.  So again--I'm not really sure what's going on.

                25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

                by Xenocrypt on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:30:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And also (0+ / 0-)

                  Sienna's more-recent poll:

                  Hochul: 76% of Ds, 12% of Rs, 44% of indies.
                  Davis: 10% of Ds, 13% of Rs, 16% of indies.
                  Corwin: 8/66/36

                  So Hochul gained 14% of Ds, and Davis lost 10% of Ds.  Hochul gained 2% of Rs, Corwin gained 10% of Rs, and Davis lost 11% of Rs.  Also, Hochul gained 18% of indies, and Davis lost 11% of them.  Still, assuming the first two sentences are true, that much is consistent with a "partisan information/third party collapse" scenario--where Davis loses 10% of Ds and 11% of Rs, and they mostly go to the main-party candidates.  I could also read some of this to support a more ideological case, but again, my point is that I don't think we have enough information to decide.

                  25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

                  by Xenocrypt on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:43:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  No, Jack Davis as a Democrat (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Xenocrypt, Bharat

                in 2006 significantly overperformed the others. He got, if I'm correct, 48% against an incumbent Republican who was scandal-free, while Obama got 46% in an open-seat race in a better environment. Kryzan got something in the lower 40s, as did Kerry and Gore, Gore not running against an incumbent either.

                And let's not forget that the Democrat running before Davis in 2002 got stuck in the lower 20s-- and 2002 was not such a bad climate relative to 2004.

                I do buy that Davis has special appeal in this district, and I do think it's related to free trade and his consistent jobs, jobs, jobs message.

                •  In 2008 (0+ / 0-)

                  Kryzan got 40 or something but Jon Powers got 5 on the Working Families line.  However, it was an open seat then.  But in 2006, the seat was held by Tom Reynolds who was in fact somewhat caught up in the Foley scandal.  I don't doubt your last sentence though, I just don't think it's as cut -and-dried.

                  25, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-12(now)

                  by Xenocrypt on Tue May 24, 2011 at 04:07:16 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site