He's a speech writer and a political consultant. In fact, his greatest claim to fame may well be the memorable speech the late Ted Kennedy delivered at the 1980 Democratic National Convention.
Throughout his career, Shrum has worked for mostly Democrats — I suppose an argument could be made over his first speechwriting job, which was for New York Mayor John Lindsay, who famously switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party in the early 1970s.
In his career, he has worked for practically a who's who in Democratic politics — Kennedy, Ed Muskie, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter (briefly), Dick Gephardt, Bob Kerrey, Al Gore, John Kerry.
So I guess it goes without saying that he leans toward Democrats, even in times such as these — and even though he has compiled a dismal track record in presidential campaigns.
All things considered, you might want to take his assessment with a grain of salt.
Anyway, Shrum says, "I now think the Democrats will hold the Congress —yes, the House as well as the Senate — and turn back high–profile Republican challengers in California and elsewhere."
As Arte Johnson used to say on Rowan and Martin's Laugh–In, "Very interesting ..."
Shrum contends that the seemingly dormant Democratic base is "stirring" and that, in true Karl Rovian fashion (circa 2004), it will rise from its slumber and save the Democrats in next month's midterms.
On what does he base this reasoning? Well, a few things, actually.
For one, he asserts that recent polls, like Gallup's generic congressional ballot, have been tightening because "African–Americans and Hispanics are re–entering the likely electorate."
Now, let's be clear about a few things. Black voters have long supported Democrats, by wide margins, in good times and bad. So the real question is not whether black voters will support Democrats — they will. The real question is how many will show up to vote without Barack Obama at the top of the ballot — and the best guess that I hear from most observers is "not that many." At least, not enough to make the kind of difference Shrum thinks it can.
It reminds me of something my Democratic friends repeatedly told me in the weeks before the 2008 presidential election. Barack Obama's presence on the ballot, they told me, would motivate so many black voters that they would put Southern states that hadn't voted for a Democrat since Carter or Lyndon Johnson solidly into the Democratic column.
And, to be fair, states like Virginia, North Carolina and Florida did vote Democratic — but none of the other Southern states, even the ones with extraordinarily large black populations, voted Democratic. Black voters were clearly enthused in 2008 — but they were outnumbered at the polls.
As Gallup's poll observes, the current enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats is still in the 20–point range. Democrats would need a virtually unanimous turnout from all blacks who are old enough to vote — and many of them aren't even registered.
And, while Hispanics are the fastest–growing demographic group in America today, their participation in elections has been sparse in the past. Perhaps, in House districts that lie along or near the U.S.–Mexican border — where immigration debates have been the most intense and Hispanic populations tend to be larger than they are in many places — Hispanic turnout may be higher than it has been in the past.
But, nationally, even fewer Hispanics (proportionately) are registered to vote than blacks. And, considering the meager Hispanic populations in many states that are north of the border, it's hard to see how they can have that much influence.
To capitalize on those two groups, as Shrum apparently thinks Democrats will, would require a massive national registration drive (and I have neither heard nor seen anything that suggests something like that is in the works) followed by a massive get–out–the–vote effort on Election Day.
Both require more motivation than I have seen from most Democrats this year.
Anyway, this inexplicable surge in black and Hispanic voters in which Shrum places so much faith apparently will be responsible for saving Sen. Barbara Boxer and former Gov. Jerry Brown in California.
But how much of an accomplishment would that be? California voted Republican in presidential politics when Californians like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were running, but it's been in the Democratic column for the last 20 years.
And Californians haven't sent a Republican to the Senate since 1988. So the fact that Boxer is leading in recent polls shouldn't be a surprise. What has been a surprise is the fact that her race against former Hewlett–Packard CEO Carly Fiorina was ever close enough to be considered a tossup.If Boxer wins another term, it will not be remarkable that she was triumphant. That was expected all along.
Likewise, Brown — whose eight–year tenure as governor predated the passage of the state's term limits law — had to be the favorite in the governor's race. At least, I always thought he would be the favorite over former eBay CEO Meg Whitman.
True, the incumbent governor is a Republican. And, since World War II, Republicans have been more successful in California's gubernatorial races than its Senate campaigns. But Brown is the only Democrat to be elected governor of California twice in the last 40 years.
Perhaps it is that reputation that prompted Shrum to speculate that Brown " has pulled ahead" of Whitman. Or maybe he's seen a poll that I haven't. The results I have seen indicate a still–volatile race. In recent days, a survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California shows a deadlocked race — which is, essentially, what Rasmussen Reports and the most recent Field Poll were saying.
Maybe Shrum is writing about the CNN/Time poll that was released around the same time. It shows both Boxer and Brown leading their Republican opponents by nine percentage points among likely voters.
But that seems like an awfully wide margin in a race that most other polls have found to be much closer. And, whether fairly or not, CNN's poll has been accused in the past of a Democratic bias. So there is reason to be suspicious of its results.
Shrum also is encouraged by his belief that Washington Sen. Patty Murray "strengthened her position" against her Republican challenger, businessman Dino Rossi.But this is truly a baffling conclusion. I mean, Murray led by nine points in an Elway Poll in early September and a CNN/Time poll in mid–September, but since that time, a SurveyUSA poll shows her lead at two points — and Rasmussen Reports actually shows Rossi in front.
Then Shrum asserts that the Tea Party is "the gift that keeps on giving" — and it may turn out to be precisely that, but Shrum's arguments sound screwy when compared to poll findings.
"The tea–imbibing Republicans are a twofer for Democrats," Shrum writes. "They scare mainstream voters and motivate the Democratic base, too."
While Christine O’Donnell may be "unelectable" in Delaware, as Shrum suggests, his faith in the Tea Partiers to unite Democrats and mainstream voters seems a bit misplaced.
After all,- he writes that "the ultra–conservative Pat Toomey ... has suddenly hit troubled waters" in Pennsylvania. Really? He's been consistently leading by 5–7 percentage points in recent polls.
But Shrum points to a single exception — the Susquehanna Polling & Research survey from Sept. 23–26 showing Toomey's lead down to three points
"A race that was written off is winnable," he claims — yet he ignores a Rasmussen Reports poll in which Toomey's lead is nearly double digits.
And a Franklin & Marshall College poll showed the same margin in favor of Toomey — albeit with nearly one–third of respondents undecided. - and Shrum writes that, in Kentucky, "Jack Conway's making his case for [Democrats] to come home. Or perhaps [Tea Partier] Rand Paul is making it for him."
Paul's lead is within the margin of error, he asserts, but the left–leaning Daily Kos/Public Policy Polling survey in mid–September showed Paul leading by seven points and a recent Rasmussen Reports poll found Paul was leading by 11 points.
Problem is, it isn't just Rasmussen that is reporting findings that contradict his conclusion.
Nevertheless, he says, "So I believe the Senate's safe. But what about the House?"
He asserts his unfounded confidence that "[t]he change in the makeup of the electorate can close the gap in the generic vote and let the Democrats inch ahead — but the base has to continue tuning in and then it has to turn out. That depends on President Obama — and on progressive Democrats deciding that right now the stakes in this campaign are more important than the reflex instinct to complain."
Happily — for Shrum — "[t]he Obama of 2008 has returned with a message and a mission," which is tax cuts for the rapidly vanishing middle class as opposed to retaining the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy."
Admit it. You knew that, somehow, he'd find a way to work in Dubya. Yep, he doesn't like it when voters "complain" about Democrats who are in office right now and must defend their turf in a hostile environment — but it's OK to keep flogging a former president who has been away from Washington for nearly two years.
On top of that, though, I am skeptical of the coalition that Shrum is relying upon — minorities, liberals ... and the young, who Obama has been courting lately but who remain unpersuaded of the need to return to the polls to help people they just elected two years ago. Shrum concedes that they "haven't yet followed Hispanics and African–Americans into the likely voter column."
Shrum's problem is that Hispanics and African–Americans haven't arrived in that column yet, either.
"Obama can change the political weather by a few degrees," he writes, "and that might be just enough. In the process, he has to inspire and not just scold disappointed progressives."
That's another substantial "if." Scolding has become SOP for the parental/professor president.
Frankly, there are too many "ifs" and not nearly enough time — particularly when the overall objective can be summed up this way: Victory is possible "assuming Democrats, especially the young, are sensible enough to understand that we are past the excitement of 2008. There is more to achieving change than standing, cheering, and voting for it once, and then standing aside."
Pollyanna, please call your office.
0 comments:
Post a Comment