Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
share
email
font size
options
 
Tuesday, May 13, 2008

 

The hottest election tonight is not taking place in West Virginia (a state that hasn't staged a truly consequential presidential primary since 1960, when Jack Kennedy knocked out Hubert Humphrey, reputedly with some help from mob money). Rather, you'd be better advised tonight to keep an eye on the northernmost congressional district in the state of Mississippi.

That's where you can best gauge the woeful status of the Republican party in the dying days of the Bush era.

Consider what's going on tonight in Mississippi's First Congressional District. A special election is in the works, a competition between Republican Greg Davis (a local mayor) and Democrat Travis Childers (a chancery clerk and businessman) to replace Roger Wicker, who was recently elevated to the U.S. Senate, replacing the retired Trent Lott.

Big deal, right? In normal times, this kind of musical chairs would be a slam dunk for the GOP; in normal times, Republican candidate Greg Davis would win this special election in a yawn. After all, Wicker won his seat seven straight times, with never less than 63 percent of the vote. President Bush carried this Mississippi district four years ago with 62 percent of the vote. The district has been a safe Republican seat ever since the heady days of the Newt Gingrich conservative revolution.

And yet, the GOP has felt compelled to treat even this race as if it was a four-alarm fire. Lott and Wicker and Mike Huckabee have all been flooding the zone. So has Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Barbour's lieutenant governor, senior Mississippi senator Thad Cochran, and even Dick Cheney (this is presumably one of the few congressional districts in America where Cheney actually might be an asset). Meanwhile, back in Washington, the GOP's cash-strapped House campaign committee has felt compelled to spend in excess of $1.3 million on direct mail and TV ads, just to prop up Davis.

If the Republicans need to scramble this way, to save an ostensibly safe congressional seat in a deeply-red southern district, consider what this says about the prevailing national mood - and about the GOP's dim November prospects for trimming their current House minority status (199 Rs, 235 Ds).

They have reason to feel a tad panicky. Childers, a Democrat with conservative values, has been showing a lot of strength. Under Mississippi rules, there was already a first-round special election last month; Childers finished on top, beating Davis and some minor candidates - a stunning result in itself - and nearly attracted 50 percent of the total vote. If the Democrat had hit 50 percent (he came within 400 votes), he would have won the seat outright, with no need for tonight's runoff with the number-two finisher.

What worries Republicans is that the Mississippi situation so closely mirrors recent special congressional elections in Louisiana and Illinois - both of which were embarrassments to the GOP. Ten days ago, Democrat Don Cazayoux won a Louisiana congressional seat that had been held by the Republicans for 20 years, in a district that had supported Bush with 59 percent of the vote in 2004 and 55 percent of the vote in 2000. And back on March 8, as I have previously noted, Democrat Bill Foster won the Illinois congressional seat formerly held for two decades by departed GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and by two Republicans prior to him.

Some Republican spinners have come up with excuses for the losses in Louisiana and Illinois - the GOP candidates in those races were flawed, it's all their fault, and thus the defeats are no barometer of the national party's fortunes - but the fact is, those two seats are normally so safe that any Republican with functioning brain cells should be able to win them.

Yet the task proved difficult, because of the political landscape. Bush is an albatross, the war is a drag, the economy is a burden, and Republicans are still viewed as somewhat lacking on the ethics front (latest example: "family values" conservative congressman Vito Fossella of Staten Island has been outed for having two families). It's instructive right now that, in the congressional matchups for November as measured in the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, a generic Democratic candidate beats a generic Republican candidate by roughly 15 percentage points - roughly the same spread that pollsters recorded on the eve of the November '06 elections, when the GOP wound up losing both chambers.

And special congressional elections typically foreshadow the main event in November; this happened in 1974, when some early Republican losses turned out to be a portent of massive party losses in the immediate aftermath of the Watergate scandal. And it happened early in 1994, this time to the other party, when Bill Clinton's Democrats coughed up a few safe seats in special elections that foreshadowed the Gingrich revolution in November.

What also bears watching tonight is whether the GOP's tactic for retaining the Mississippi seat turns out to be effective. Lacking much of anything good to say, the Republicans are falling back on their old reliable: painting Democrat Childers as a stooge of the liberals...and, in this case, casting Barack Obama in the role of bogeyman. Childers has actually never met Obama, or sought his help, but linking the pair might be the GOP's best option in this conservative district - unless the tactic winds up energizing African-Americans, who reportedly comprise 26 percent of the district's population. It should be noted that, two weeks ago in Louisiana, the GOP tried to tie Cazayoux to Obama - and Cazayoux won anyway.

So watch this race. A Republican loss in Mississippi would be devastating; a win would be a massive relief, although the party should never have to expend so much money and manpower to salvage a seat on its home turf. To paraphrase Frank Sinatra: If they can't make it there, can they make it anywhere?

Posted by Dick Polman @ 10:09 AM  Permalink | 29 comments
Comments   
Posted 01:15 PM, 05/13/2008
JeffA
Great post. If only because it's not about Hillary and Barack. Though I'm heartened to see the electorate finally paying attention and giving the Republicans their just rewards for their loyalty to a failed Bush administration, I'm disheartened anytime one Party is clearly weaker than the other. We end up with officials who are less responsive to national priorities when they feel there is less at stake. For now though, pushing the Republicans aside and gaining a strong majority to get things done is the best medicine. Perhaps the Neo-Cons will be kicked to the curb and true conservatives and moderates can come to the fore.
Posted 01:24 PM, 05/13/2008
JeffA
On the subject of "I can't believe he has the gall to say this." President Bush said that the slow flow of aid suggested that the generals in charge were either “isolated or callous.” “It’s been days, and no telling how many people have lost their lives as a result of the slow response,” he told CBS News in a radio interview. “An American plane finally went in, but the response isn’t good enough.” This from the President who presided over the Katrina fiasco?!? Granted, much blame belongs with the Governor and Mayor, but the President seems more concerned and is using stronger language with the tragedy in Myanmar than he did when Katrina rocked New Orleans.
Posted 01:39 PM, 05/13/2008
tom - wilmington, de
I do not believe anyone in their right minds expects the Republicans to do well in the Congressional elections this November. This despite the fact that when the Dems took over Congress oil sold for $46.53 a barrel and now is over $120 a barrel. It is always "blame Bush". Too much negatives out there, like the recession that isn't. Unless we have a drastic turnaround in several areas, it is a bad year to be a Republican. As for Jeffa, love the line "Granted, much blame belongs with the Governor and Mayor...". How about them being warned days before Katrina hit to evacuate the city. How about all those school buses not being utilized to get the people out. The federal response was slower than needed, but much more blame goes to local officials. Why has so much been accomplished in Mississippi and Alabama while New Orleans still suffers?
Posted 02:26 PM, 05/13/2008
Rich LeBlanc
Probably because those states are run by Republicans, while Louisiana is run by Democrats...every public policy decision this administration has ever made has been based on partisan politics, and they would much rather rebuild casinos for rich white Republican guys than rebuild houses for poor black Democratic voters.
Comment removed.
Posted 03:52 PM, 05/13/2008
JeffA
Tom - I agree wholeheartedly with everything you just posted. But the fact remains, our President's comment on New Orleans at the time was "Great job, Brownie!" NOLA is well-known for its corruption, and the leadership at the city and state levels was Democrat. But the Democrats certainly don't have the market cornered on corruption in this country. Rise above people.
Posted 04:01 PM, 05/13/2008
JeffA
Anyone who blames Bush for high oil doesn't get it, just as blaming the Congress for high oil doesn't get it either. High oil prices are the result of no solid energy policy since the 1970's oil shocks. And a whole lot of speculation in the commodities markets. As for all you ANWR supporters who want to throw liberals under the bus for all our energy ills, let's look at the numbers. Even after opening ANWR and drilling like mad, we're looking at enough oil to lower our foreign oil dependence by less than 4%. Are we really going to start trashing our last remaining open spaces for a what will amount to drops in the ocean? Perhaps we'd better find another way to heat our homes, power our cars, etc.
Posted 04:19 PM, 05/13/2008
tom - wilmington, de
Jeffa, Then I suppose the plan to stop shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (which amounts to 70,000 barrels per day) which just passed the Senate by a 97-1 vote means nothing to you, right? ANWR represented 1 million barrels per day, enough to stop importing from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or any number of other countries. Since 1985, domestic oil production has dropped by roughly 30% while our consumption has increased 40%. Why not produce our own oil?
Posted 04:56 PM, 05/13/2008
p-diddy
Where do you get your figure about the amount of oil ANWR might hold? There is no clear solution to our oil crisis. The best way forwad is to concentrate on developing engines that have vastly improved gas mileage. Actually, the technology is already here. Ethanol would makes things worse, driving up food prices and depleting the soil. As far as nuclear energy, would you mind if they built the a nuclear reactor in your hometown? But none of this absolves citizens from a responsibility to control their consumption. If you drive an Escalade to and from work everyday, you're part of the problem. We're not asserting our greatness as a nation, we're wallowing in it like stuffed pigs.
Posted 06:31 PM, 05/13/2008
mike l
As I understand it, ANWR would produce only about six-months worth of oil. It is certainly no Kuwait and the time, effort, and $$ used to open it would not be matched by the amount of oil it would produce.
Posted 07:25 PM, 05/13/2008
Kirt
If you want to see real panic, Dick, wait until November when the dimocrats watch Obama lose to McCain by double digits! LOL
Posted 08:27 PM, 05/13/2008
JimR
Anything we do would help regarding oil. The need is for a REAL energy policy and the citizenry coming to grips with basic economics. The idea that we are entitled to cheap oil has to go. One of the things that is out of kilter though is the lowering of demand for gasoline and the increase of the stockpile. The demand for petroleum has risen steadily for a number of years but there has not been a spike that corresponds with the price run up in the last six months. JeffA hits it with the speculation in the commodities market. Somewhere this is going to fall. The feeling seems to be that oil prices like housing prices will never go down. When will we learn?
Posted 08:39 PM, 05/13/2008
JimR
regarding the West Virginia race is that Hillary is expected to be a landslide winner because she appeals to the "average" voter as she campaigned for and won in major states. WVA has one of the ( maybe the) lowest level of college grads in the US. It says something wrong when you campaign to the least educated and everyone seems OK with the status quo. I'm not an Obama supporter but one of the drags against him is the elitist label born. The whole country ought to be screaming about this. You get to be in the elite by being educated. That's why those folks waiting for the mills to re-open will be waiting a long time.
Posted 08:48 PM, 05/13/2008
SteveMG
I happen to think that ANWR is worth more to our descendants than it will be to us. We should have the decency to leave them some kind of asset after all the debt we're dumping on them.
Posted 08:51 PM, 05/13/2008
SteveMG
If the price of oil is $120/bbl and the entire world is falling all over themselves to pay it, it's not the work of speculators.
Posted 09:42 PM, 05/13/2008
Tiger01
But isn't it odd that the Democrats have to become conservatives to win in these districts? The same thing happened in Lousiana last week when a pro-gun, pro-life Dem won there. I don't think it matters to people what the party label is as long as the candidate can demonstrate that he shares their values. An ultra-far left candidate like Obama would have been toast in this election. The Democrats are finally learning something that successful Republican candidates in the northeast and west (Left) coast have known for decades: it's ideology that matters, not party.
Posted 10:36 PM, 05/13/2008
RU4REAL
What a wonderful commentary from your loyal lefty Polman. He has been on the left side of every issue since Jesus Christ. His analysis is fitting for his resume and position among his journalistic cohorts. Philadelphia is a Democratic city and always has been. Thats why it will always be a second class city. The unions have a strangle hold on every thing from the port to the airportand everything in between. It is definitly a city in decline and I'm so happy I saw the light so many years ago and " Got The Hell out of Dodge."
Posted 11:05 PM, 05/13/2008
p-diddy
How is Obama "ultra-far left"? I don't think universal healthcare is a radical idea at this point. Most people want universal healthcare.
Posted 11:12 PM, 05/13/2008
Rich LeBlanc
Well, back on topic here, according to the NY Times, which has not yet been replaced as the news organization of record by Faux News. the Democrat has indeed won the special election in Mississippi...looks like the sky is falling, Chicken Little!
Posted 12:21 AM, 05/14/2008
yobill626
Its all about the swinging pendulum, not about being Conservative. We have been hijacked by Neo-Con & Religious Extremists for the last several years, & folks are not happy with the results. Dems reacted by moving to the Right & putting up more moderate & conservative candidates. Seeing a Democrat win in a district in Mississippi that Bush won overwhelmingly in '04 better scare the heck out of McCain & the GOP. Once the GOP gets their clock cleaned in '08, you will see them moving to the Left for more moderates & liberals to run as candidates in '10 & '12.
Posted 01:57 AM, 05/14/2008
yobill626
Tiger01 --- Mr. Davis, the Conservative Republican candidate in Mississppi might disagree with you this morning.
Posted 07:13 AM, 05/14/2008
tom - wilmington, de
to p-diddy and mike 1: According to the USGS assessment done in 1998, there is between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR, with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels. So, at 1 million barrels of oil per day, there is at least (lower end of estimate) 15 years worth of oil sitting there just waiting to be used. Of course, I understand the importance of not developing such a desolate wasteland, but I am sure if 70,000 barrels per day is expected to shave 5 cents per gallon of the price of gasoline (from the Senate vote yesterday to stop shipments to the SPR), then what impact would 1 million barrels of oil per day have on the price.
Posted 07:22 AM, 05/14/2008
tom - wilmington, de
Funny. Last year when the Republicans won a couple of special elections in normally Democrat districts, it was no big deal. Recall that in 2006, many of the Democrats who won were more conservative than usual, i.e. Jim Webb, Bob Casey Jr (pro-life), Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Patrick Murphy, etc. And would Webb have won if not for macacca? Probably not. It is expected to be a bad year for Republicans, but note that the Democrats are also running a lot of conservative candidates, not exactly the MoveOn.org and Daily Kos sort of candidates. Obama is far left, and anyone who believes otherwise on living on another planet. He was named the most liberal member of Congress. Just look at his record and his policies and you can come to no other conclusion. He is winning with only two core groups, just look at his PRIMARY record in states with small African American populations. Sure, it might be a clean sweep for the Dems in Congress this year as things now stand, but for the White House their candidate is out of the mainstream.
Posted 11:10 AM, 05/14/2008
Grill
What Dick conviently leaves out in this article where he is practically choking on his own glee is that this congressional district is now 27% African-American and has been represented by a Democrat from 1873-1995. Are there any other congressional districts that are nearly 30% African-American that are represented by Republicans given that blacks tend to vote 85-90% of the time for Democrat candidates regardless of who the candidates are (even against Black Republicans)?
Posted 11:29 AM, 05/14/2008
JeffA
Tom, US consumption approx. 20 million bbl/day Peak ANWR production estimate 800,000 bbl/day (95% probability case) ANWR impact is 4% of US consumption. Source: Energy Information Administration, Reserves and Production Division. Therefore, I do not believe it would substantially impact world oil prices. The resolution yesterday is more political pandering, like the summer moratorium on the Federal gas tax. It does not substantially impact US dependence on foreign oil. At best, it eliminates importing from a single producer as you said, perhaps a Venezuela. Or Russia (Lukoil). And lest we forget, it takes ten years to reach peak oil production from the moment legislation is passed. And peak production might last 20 years. What do we do then? We need to develop a comprehensive energy policy that caps US oil consumption and moves our nation toward other manners of energy production. Finally, ANWR is a National Park. It also has native villagers living within it that fear production will contaminate the area and drive off the wildlife they subsist on. With a little bit of foresight, we might foresee that this may be one of the only open spaces in the world in 100 - 200 years. What a national treasure that would be.
Posted 11:30 AM, 05/14/2008
yobill626
I don't think we are arguing different points. Obama's only had a chance because the party labeled as Conservative is viewed at having done so poorly & causing the country to now move to the Left. Even though I personally believe it is not the Conservative idealogy that has failed, but the GOP & Bush's implementation of it. You also can't deny that too many of them acted like pigs at the trough during feeding time because there weren't enough checks & balances. Actually, I fear that if the Dems get too big of a majority in Congress, they will do the same. In any case, Bush & the Conservative philosophy have been tagged by the public as failures, causing the country to move to the Left to see how they do. I truly is a Change election.
Posted 12:30 PM, 05/14/2008
p-diddy
Tom - Gee, aren't you the oil expert. More like battle of the dueling Google searchers. Here's my Google, citing a WSJ article from 3/24/05 entitled "Both Sides Massage the Data Over ANWR". The reporter tried to give as accurate a portrayal of the data as possible. 15 years of oil from ANWR you say? This country consumes far more than 1 million barrels of oil per day (your figure). The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels of petroleum a day, or 7.32 billion barrels per year, according to 2003 figures from the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, or EIA. The U.S. produces 5.7 million barrels of crude oil a day, and imports a net of 11.2 million barrels a day (the rest of the petroleum comes from natural gas liquids, refinery gains, and other factors). The oil there would be a supplement to imported oil, not a replacement. James Kendall, a Dept. of Energy official, says, "People tend to key in on the 10.4-billion barrel number. But we have so little information about the structures there. That does bother me."
Posted 12:38 PM, 05/14/2008
p-diddy
Tom - I don't think Obama is particularly liberal, as compared with most Senate Democrats. Yeah, he's pro-choice, for universal healthcare, he wants to end the Iraq occupation in around 16 months and so on, but I don't think he'll be taking on corporate welfare. In my mind, that is what separates a typical corporate Democrat (Hillary, Biden, etc.) from a real progressive. But Republicans were going to label the Democratic nominee the a commie no matter who it was.
Posted 03:40 PM, 05/14/2008
amg
The funny thing about ANWR is nobody knows anything for sure. It's all speculation. Some reports have very little oil while others say the motherlode exists. If you split the difference the cost to develop that oil versus that actual negligible oil savings makes the entire thing a moot point. Tom, as an accountant you should be most acutely aware of the cost/loss differential and should be opposed to drilling there based on the cost basis involved.
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.