Mississippi burning, and the bald guy singing
Just the other day, a Republican House leadership aide reportedly offered a prediction about the congressional election being staged this week in northeastern Mississippi, in a conservative district that routinely delivers landsl
Mississippi burning, and the bald guy singing
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Just the other day, a Republican House leadership aide reportedly offered a prediction about the congressional election being staged this week in northeastern Mississippi, in a conservative district that routinely delivers landslide victories to the GOP. The aide told the Politico website that "if we don't win in Mississippi, I think you are going to see a lot of people running around here looking for windows to jump out of."
Memo this morning to all Capitol Hill pedestrians: Proceed with caution.
Last night, in the most blood-red Republican state in the nation, in a district that previously had elected a Republican congressman seven straight times by at least 63 percent of the vote, a Democrat named Travis Childers won the seat...and it wasn't even close.
Childers won it by eight percentage points (54-46), districtwide. He won his home county with 85 percent of the vote, a rural county that four years ago gave President Bush 65 percent of the vote. He won this election despite the pricey efforts of the GOP to "nationalize" the race, which is my polite way of saying that they repeatedly tried in TV ads to hang Barack Obama around his neck and suggest that Childers marched in lockstep with The Other.
As I suggested when I previewed this race yesterday: If the Republicans can't even successfully defend their home turf in friendly Mississippi, what does that say about the national mood in the dying days of the Bush era, and about the party's November prospects for erasing or even narrowing its 36-seat deficit in the House of Representatives?
What's particularly significant is the impolitic statement released late last night by Tom Cole, who runs the House Republican campaign operation. The usual deal in spinland is that, when a party loses a race, it comes up with all kinds of specious reasons to explain what happened. That was the case back in March, when the GOP lost a congressional election in the strongly-Republican Illinois district that had long been represented by House Speaker Dennis Hastert; that was the case 11 days ago, when the GOP lost a congressional election in a strongly-Republican Louisiana district. The excuse, in both embarrassing aftermaths, was that the Republicans had fielded lousy candidates.
This third straight GOP defeat is a milestone of sorts; it's the first time in three decades that a party has coughed up three House seats in special elections during the same calendar year. Cole last night didn't even bother to offer an excuse in the wake of the Mississippi washout (a decision which probably won't sit well with some of the House Republican cheerleaders). He spoke instead of the "significant challenges" that "should be a concern to all Republicans." And then he went into full candor mode:
"(T)he political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican party in general. Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward-looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our presidential nominee, but time is short. I encourage all candidates, whether incumbents or challenges, to take stock...and position themselves for challenging campaigns this fall."
Or, as Bette Davis might have put it (paraphrasing her most famous movie line), "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy year."
But perhaps the candor award should go to Virginia Republican congressman Tom Davis, who today identified the party's chief albatross in 2008. Davis is retiring this year, so perhaps that explains his willingness to utter what constitutes a no-brainer for 70 percent of the American people:
"The president swallows the microphone every time he opens his mouth."
-------
With respect to Hillary Clinton's landslide victory in West Virginia last night, here's the bottom line: She came away with a net gain of roughly 12 pledged delegates. The problem is, her net gain has already been trumped over the past week by her net loss of newly-pledged superdelegates. In that time, Barack Obama has picked up 27, while Clinton has picked up two. There is nothing she can do to reverse the fundamental math at this late stage, aside from arguing, yet again, that the national party rules barring Florida and Michigan should somehow not be applied to her.
Regarding West Virginia, it's barely newsworthy that she scored well among the blue-collar voters, the ill-educated voters (70 percent of the participating West Virginians didn't graduate college), and the white racists (20 percent of all whites said that race was important in their choice; those voters broke for Clinton over Obama by 84 to 10 percent). Newswise, what Clinton needs is a true game-changer - namely, winning a primary on Obama's turf. That would be Oregon, next Tuesday. Don't hold your breath.
And her last-ditch arguments about electability continue to be undercut by the national polls. The latest Quinnipiac survey, released today, shows Obama beating John McCain by seven points and Clinton beating McCain by five - mostly because Obama plays better than she does among independent voters. And the latest ABC News-Washington Post survey, released on Monday, shows Obama beating McCain by seven, and Clinton beating McCain by three. (I would argue that the aforementioned Mississippi congressional results are potentially a better measure of the prevailing national mood than the exit polls in a Democratic primary in West Virginia.)
The Quinnipiac and ABC/Post survey numbers will further hasten the steady trickle of superdelegates to Obama; it was noteworthy yesterday that a former national Democratic chairman, superdelegate Roy Romer, who was originally tapped for his party job by Bill Clinton, declared that the race was effectively over and joined the trickle for Obama.
Superdelegates are typically shrewd political animals; they see where this race is going and they want to tilt for Obama now, so that they can claim some of the credit (and later collect some IOUs) for helping to carry him past the finish line. Indeed, if some of the fence-sitters remain uncertain about the outcome, they need only consult Hillary loyalist James Carville, who, on the eve of the West Virginia voting, told a South Carolina college audience: "The great likelihood is that Obama will be the nominee. As soon as I determine when that is, I'll send him a check."
Forget the cliche about the fat lady. This race is over because the bald guy is singing.
My prediction is that this huge victory will propel the storyline about Obama having problems with blue collar "hardworking" white voters instead of how this victory means nothing in the long run. When Obama won smaller states than this HRC's people dismissed those wins since she won the larger population states. Now in this final hour they are trumpeting a victory in a very small state. In a state where 20% of the voters say race is the most important factor in whom they vote for Obama never stood a chance.— syj- The big question is does the party want to pander to racist voters by supporting the white candidate. Hillary seems to think so. That is really her biggest problem. If at any point during this marathon race she had declared that she did not want the vote of racists and that she'd rather that racist voters stay home then she would be getting more sympathy from the superdelegates as well as from Afro-Americans. She's trumpeting this victory to the hilltops, but not a word of regret that 20% of voters say race was the most important factor for them.— anonymous
- HRC is whomever you want her to be. When she's in a black church she is a big supporter of civil rights and diversity. when she is in PA or WV she is the champion of hardworking white people who dont want to vote for a black elitist candidate who is so rich that he just paid off his student loans a few years back. HRC was just interviewed on Steve Harvey's morning show the other day and I assure you she wasnt talking about white hardworking voters. Naturally she knows her fans in small towns everywhere dont listen to "urban" radio and have no idea that she sings a different tune when talking to black listeners. IN fact, every time I have heard HRC on a black radio show she has played up her commitment to civil rights and all that her husband supposedly did for blacks while in office. Much different from her image as the champion of small town whites across the USA.— syj
- Yet one more indicator that the GOP will get its clocked cleaned in the coming election. Lets just hope that Obama is truly inclusive & that the Dem majority isn't so large that they will act like the pigs at the trough that many in the GOP showed themselves to be...yeah, yeah, Conservatives, then I woke up...but your guys blew their chance.— yobill626
- I heard the DNC is paying GWB to campaign for the Republicans this fall.— p-diddy
- In the last several primaries, or possibly back to the Texas contest according to some analysts, it's been hard to separate what were true Democrat votes for Hillary and what were Republic Party Chaos votes. The exit poll in Indiana was the most telling where 6% who voted for her said they would not vote for her in November, so she won by getting the votes of non-supporters. Very strange. Clearly she is attracting a very racially and politically biased vote and many of us Democrats feel it especially galling that she lets them do this to embarass the Democrat Party just to assuage her ego. Wait until the national Republic Party loyalists get to see McSame as a campaigner. I watched a number of his get togethers on C-Span before the Iowa Caucuses and NH Primary when nobody was paying him any attention. They were ungodly boring, McSame make numerous mistakes, embarassing jokes, rambled and bored the audience, often ending with little applause from Republic Party voters. He campaigned this badly thru the first half of the season while the other piss-poor candidates self destructed and he was the only one left because he was unseen but had his phoney reputation spread by the media who loved him because he sat and drank with them in the plane (maybe because there was nobody else for him to hang with). It didn't take much for W to destroy McSame's campaign back when he actually had some credibility and skill. Wait until more attention is shown to the number of times he says things just to get the approval of the audience in front of him at the moment. By October they may be wishing for Dole to return or maybe even Mitt.— atp2007
- p-diddy --- We can only hope that Cheney's assist to Davis in Mississppi was the thing that helped put Childers over the top. You have to love Davis' comment about Bush, though...— yobill626
Comment removed.- I love the new polls on the national election. A few months ago they all leaned toward the Dems, either candidate. Then once the Repub side basically picked McCain the polls tilted. Of course the initial comment was that polls are useless then it became the polls clearly show the empty rhetoric has worn out. I've argued with friends repeatedly that the McCain lead now is meaningless. I've also argued that the Dem race hurts McCain not helps him. What it's done is keep him out of the media which amounts to an "out of sight out of mind" effect. Now that Obama is clearly the nominee he has been doing the right thing and focusing on McCain. He's pointing out that McCain is clueless when it comes to the economy, that he's so pro-war that he scares ever Republican that is even somewhat moderate and that his foreign policy would be an extension of what we have now which, clearly, has not worked. The next few months should be fun.— amg
- The problem is that the Democrats had people running in those districts who were more conservative than the Republican. For all the bluster about "neocons" etc, Bush is not a true conservative, and neither is McCain. However, that is the problem the Dems have in the general election as well, since Obama is far from being conservative. McCain and Obama are going after the same group, since one is banking on conservatives, and the other is banking on African-Americans and liberals. That leaves blue collar whites and women as the only groups without a standard bearer. And please stop with the racist b.s. Is it racist that Obama gets 90% of the black vote? No. So why is it racist that HRC gets so much of the white vote? It isn't.— tom - wilmington, de
- To Tom's points - agreed. Bush is not a true conservative. It isn't racist unless someone says they vote for HRC because she's not black. Then it's open to further scrutiny. To your point however, let's break it down further. How many women are voting for HRC because she's a woman? Quite a nice number. So let's bring gender into the segmentation as well. However, though we'd like to believe the playing field is color-blind and level, putting blacks supporting blacks or women supporting women in an apples to apples comparison to whites supporting whites is nonsense. Whites have enjoyed all the advantages from being the majority race for most of American history and represent most of our D.C. leadership and most of our major corporate leadership. In that world, its not a leap of faith to figure that non-whites would support a candidate who at least appears more like them because they blame the ones who have been in power for their lot in life. And it's not a leap of faith to believe non-college educated whites would tend to vote more for a white candidate because sometimes they blame the non-whites for their lot in life. This entire discussion on race can turn ugly fast. It's one we should have dialogue on because often we turn a blind eye to something so difficult to manage. At the same time, we should focus on what brings us together, not on what divides us. And what about the Hispanics and the Asians? Where are their standard-bearers?— JeffA
- I would like someone explain how Barack is going to carry all these blue swing states without the help of Hillary. If you listen to Barack supporters you would think that he doesn't need them.— mcnuckel
- Tom --- I agree with your points about Bush not being a true Conservative. He's not. However, most Americans VIEW him as a Conservative. Since they see his Administration as a failure, it has caused many to move to the Left to put us on the right track. Heck, if McCain weren't so hawkish on the war, he'd be the pick that would give the GOP the best chance to keep the White House. The GOP as a party has lost its way as well, which I think is one of Dick's points today.— yobill626
- It will be interesting to see how many Democrat candidates in November run away from being associated with Obama (as Childers did in Mississippi). It is easy to "run away" from your party's presidential candidate before he is officially chosen, it will be more difficult when he is the face of your party in November. It will be interesting to see how all these conservative Democrats react to having Obama on the podium with them. Just as Republicans runa way from Bush, so are Democrats running away from Obama.— tom - wilmington, de
- mcnuckel, the point you miss is not that he doesn't need them, it's that he doesn't need her. What she can bring to the ticket is more than offset by what she will drive away from the ticket. And tom, judging by the way the policies and politicians you supported have worked out over the last eight years, I don't think anybody's going to worry to much about your predictions.— SteveMG
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.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
