The good news from the 50 State USA Survey polls have been
diaried but I haven't seen the bits more of detail this article provides regarding the South and the efficacy of Gov. Deans' 50 State Strategy in the upcoming midterm elections.
http://www.americanprogress.org/...
In the linked article author Ruy Teixeira asks us to:
Consider these data from a poll of 4,000 voters in AL, FL, LA, GA, MS, NC, SC, TN and VA conducted by Insider Advantage for Hasting Wyman's Southern Political Report. In this poll, Bush has a net negative approval rating in these states (45 percent approval/50 percent disapproval), and Democrats are preferred over the GOP to control Congress by 44-43.
More...
Further:
According to Insider Advantage CEO Matt Towery:
"This is disastrous for the Republican Party. Even with legislative and congressional districts in most Southern states being drawn favorably for the GOP, there is a potential for a Republican meltdown at the polls in the mid-term elections this November. When we broke the numbers down, we found the general trend that the larger of the state we surveyed, the more support for a Democratic Congress there was."
Most remarkably, FL's preference for a Dem-controlled Congress was almost 10 points. Wow.
The author notes that the historic trend against Bush and the GOP has macro and micro components that both favor Democrats but to differing extents.
In part because of Iraq and the voters' identification of Bush and the GOP, Texeria argues that the gerry-mandered barricades may be breached in the forecasted political hurricane this fall.
A hurricane does seem likely to hit the GOP this November. But the micro analysis shows that structural barriers in the House and Senate are protecting the Republican majorities like seawalls and would likely withstand the surge from a Category 1, 2, or 3 storm. They probably couldn't withstand a Category 4 or 5, though.
In 1994, the last wave election, Democrats were protected by many of the same barriers, particularly in the House. The tsunami that slammed into their party had looked perhaps 10 stories tall, not enough for the GOP to shift the necessary 40 seats. But the wave ended up being 15 stories high, and Republicans picked up 52 seats (plus two party switchers).
In four out of five elections, the micro analysis proves accurate. But in about one out of five, it doesn't. Will this year be one of those exceptions?"
To make this year one of those exceptions, clearly the macro situation has to become very closely connected to the micro.
There is evidence that the voters are already nationalizing their local races.
For example, the latest NBC/WSJ poll shows that, by 37-20, voters are seeing their vote as a signal of opposition to, not support for, Bush. That compares to 31-19 the other way in October of 2002. That suggests that views about Bush are nationalizing the election in the Democrats' favor. Moreover, by 44-40, voters now say that their representative's position on national issues will be more important than their representative's performance in taking care of district problems. That compares to 35 percent national/51 percent district in October of 1994, a "wave" election that was significantly nationalized by the GOP.
Citting political scientists, Donald Green and Jonathan Krasno, the author urges that the party avoid candidate targeting as it does not provide the highest investment return (election victories) on campaign dollars.
Instead supporting a wider strategy that financially supports lesser knowns, even long shot candidates, Green and Krasno are quoted:
Targeting overlooks many potential winners....
The bottom line is that targeting does not help parties win elections. Instead, it impels them into high-spending races where the value of their contributions is minimal. The narrow group of targeted contests excludes many other elections where they have a distinct, albeit distant, chance of winning. By focusing so sharply on top-tier races, the parties effectively narrow the playing field in congressional elections, limiting their potential gains...."
Maybe these historic trends and hurricane forecasts are why most of our Senators are playing it so safe these days. If they believe that the South (and the rest of the country too) is trending towards Democrats already, why would they impede or alter that flow? It's a timid but understandable position - if the political storm doesn't stall.
I think our party and most of its elected representatives should be working 24/7 to accelerate the anti-Bush, anti-GOP trends. What about you?