[Speed Gibson,
Sunday March 16, 2008 at 10:20am]
Voter Turnout this fall
My understanding of national politics is no better than most of the "drive by" media, but I think the Democratic Party is headed for the rocks, or would be if the Republicans didn't have its own problem. There are three Senators left running for President, each with significant problems.
Clinton has huge well-deserved negatives approaching 50 percent. Given her own limitations, her debate stumbles, her poor choice of campaign staff, and the help she doesn't need from her husband, it's possible those negatives are increasing. And wait until the GOP reminds us about Billy Dale, Cattle Futures, the looting of Vince Foster's office, the FBI files, flying ashtrays, Craig Livingstone, and of course, Hillary Care 1993. But while she's behind in the delegate race, it is still a close race and she is after all, a Clinton.
Obama has suddenly fallen from grace, his carefully worded explanation(s) for his 20 year association with a undeniably racist, America hating pastor wholly unsatisfactory to date. The super delegate quandary, Michigan, and Florida have party leaders wringing their hands and some donors sitting on their checkbooks. How do they avoid this going the distance to the Convention, one sure to end in some degree of acrimony for the losing side? Or will, say a Bill Richardson, return to save the day? (John Kerry, call your office and report for duty!) Me, I'm stocking up on popcorn.
It's comparatively quiet on the Republican front for now. The (true) Conservatives at least have the good sense not to push the Democratic in-fighting off the front pages, at least for now. But McCain still has much explaining to do of his own. I would think turnout would be his first concern, and his choice of running mate could be especially significant here. If he can't excite the base, he's in big trouble, too, no matter who runs against him. There just aren't enough undemanding supporters like our own Prime Minister Pawlenty to win out, even with some revenge votes from the disgruntled Democratic loser's faction.
I'm therefore speculating that this historically rare, incumbent-free Presidential election could have surprisingly low turnout. There are reasons for everyone to stay home if they want to, or vote third party, e.g. Ralph Nader. Clinton and McCain have trouble raising crowds as it is. Obama has his following, but it's the classic mile-wide, inch-deep variety that often doesn't deliver either.
What effect will this have on state races, especially in Minnesota, whose GOP caucuses went big for Mitt Romney, largely as an anyone but McCain candidate? I fear that DFL has more voters who will turn out no matter what than does the GOP, making the House elections as challenging as in 2006. It seems to me that the GOP will have to sell a package deal, us vs. the "big spending, tax raising, abortion-promoting, gay marriage-embracing, more-welfare-without-accountability-loving, school-reform-resisting, illegal-immigration-supporting Democrats" as the Governor once put it.
On the local front, the politics probably are local. I have heard that Presidential election years are tougher for getting public school referendums passed. We all know how these often pass when the voters aren't looking. They may not be in 2008 either if turnout is indeed uncharacteristically low, especially if their natural opposition is again unenthusiastic
The race that may ultimately affect Minnesota voter turnout is the U. S. Senate race now set between incumbent Norm Coleman and challenger Al Franken. I can think of no better reason to urge GOP voters not to stay home this time.
Clinton has huge well-deserved negatives approaching 50 percent. Given her own limitations, her debate stumbles, her poor choice of campaign staff, and the help she doesn't need from her husband, it's possible those negatives are increasing. And wait until the GOP reminds us about Billy Dale, Cattle Futures, the looting of Vince Foster's office, the FBI files, flying ashtrays, Craig Livingstone, and of course, Hillary Care 1993. But while she's behind in the delegate race, it is still a close race and she is after all, a Clinton.
Obama has suddenly fallen from grace, his carefully worded explanation(s) for his 20 year association with a undeniably racist, America hating pastor wholly unsatisfactory to date. The super delegate quandary, Michigan, and Florida have party leaders wringing their hands and some donors sitting on their checkbooks. How do they avoid this going the distance to the Convention, one sure to end in some degree of acrimony for the losing side? Or will, say a Bill Richardson, return to save the day? (John Kerry, call your office and report for duty!) Me, I'm stocking up on popcorn.
It's comparatively quiet on the Republican front for now. The (true) Conservatives at least have the good sense not to push the Democratic in-fighting off the front pages, at least for now. But McCain still has much explaining to do of his own. I would think turnout would be his first concern, and his choice of running mate could be especially significant here. If he can't excite the base, he's in big trouble, too, no matter who runs against him. There just aren't enough undemanding supporters like our own Prime Minister Pawlenty to win out, even with some revenge votes from the disgruntled Democratic loser's faction.
I'm therefore speculating that this historically rare, incumbent-free Presidential election could have surprisingly low turnout. There are reasons for everyone to stay home if they want to, or vote third party, e.g. Ralph Nader. Clinton and McCain have trouble raising crowds as it is. Obama has his following, but it's the classic mile-wide, inch-deep variety that often doesn't deliver either.
What effect will this have on state races, especially in Minnesota, whose GOP caucuses went big for Mitt Romney, largely as an anyone but McCain candidate? I fear that DFL has more voters who will turn out no matter what than does the GOP, making the House elections as challenging as in 2006. It seems to me that the GOP will have to sell a package deal, us vs. the "big spending, tax raising, abortion-promoting, gay marriage-embracing, more-welfare-without-accountability-loving, school-reform-resisting, illegal-immigration-supporting Democrats" as the Governor once put it.
On the local front, the politics probably are local. I have heard that Presidential election years are tougher for getting public school referendums passed. We all know how these often pass when the voters aren't looking. They may not be in 2008 either if turnout is indeed uncharacteristically low, especially if their natural opposition is again unenthusiastic
The race that may ultimately affect Minnesota voter turnout is the U. S. Senate race now set between incumbent Norm Coleman and challenger Al Franken. I can think of no better reason to urge GOP voters not to stay home this time.
From what I"ve seen so far, though, the grass roots is fired up about something else. They are determined to get those @$%^ DFLers out of the Minnesota House, and they're going to work hard to make it happen. They've made it fairly easy. The hope is that, while they're in the voting booth anyway, they'll pull the lever for Coleman and McCain. Yes, McCain could make it easier, but he's a "maverick," remember?
State races, yes, I demand a bit more purity and consistency, more than Pawlenty, anyway, like a Sen. Dick Day. A good statewide message will be especially helpful to those grass roots working the individual House races. There were no DFL votes against the Transit Tax override, and none of them campaigned on raising taxes. The broad brush is therefore an appropriate tool.
The trouble with Coleman is that he's too "principled" to vote the conservative "line." I can't get excited about him, because the "return on investment" is too low. Would you want to put in 40 hours work for 25 hours pay, or pay $10 for a $6.00 steak? "Better than the alternative" isn't a thrilling campaign slogan, is it?