More musings on Nov. 5

Charlie Cook of the National Journal is still shaking his head at all the hand-wringing by Democrats, noting (again) that the election could've easily swung the other way.

One of the inevitable results of any election is the losing party's tradition of engaging in either "where did we go wrong" hand-wringing or a circular firing squad that continues for weeks or months thereafter. A swing of 94,000 votes out of 75,723,756 cast nationally would have resulted in the Democrats capturing control of the House and retaining a majority in the Senate on Nov. 5. If that had occurred, obituaries would have been written -- inevitably and prematurely -- about the presidency of George W. Bush. Instead, we are entertained by predictions that the Democratic Party, as we know it, may cease to exist. Some of the most experienced and partisan Republicans I know even chortle over the turn of events -- recognizing how easily this type of exaggeration, combined with acts of self-immolation, could instead have been taking place on the GOP side of the aisle.

Yes, Republicans won the election. They won it on tactics, strategy and mechanics -- and the fact that they effectively neutralized potentially powerful Democratic issues such as prescription drug benefits was important. But to say this was some kind of seismic event that indicates a move to the right -- with the possible exception of Georgia -- well, oh please.

Of course, I wish it was the Republicans doing the soul-searching, but fact of the matter remains that with a shitty message, relatively weak candidates, a supremely popular wartime president, and a massive dollar disadvantage, Democrats still came pretty close to keeping the Senate and recapturing the House.

So what does this mean? Cook argues that McAuliffe is getting a bum rap. And while he doesn't say so explicitly, he does make noise about the Dems severe financial disadvantage in the post McCain/Feingold era. McAuliffe is a prolific fundraiser and has been able to keep Democrats somewhat competitive in the money race. Given the race could've so easily swung in the Dems favor, Cook feels getting rid of McAuliffe is misguided. (Is there a way to replace him as DNC chair, but keep him around in the background to raise money?)

Given that this column is not available online, I have taken the liberty to reproduce it in its entirety. But lest the National Journal sic its lawers on me, this will be the last time I do so. If you are a political junkie, you really should be subscribed to the column. It's one of my weekly must-reads and it's delivered conveniently into my in-box.

---------------------------------

OFF TO THE RACES
The 'Where Did We Go Wrong?' Debate

By Charlie Cook
Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2002

One of the inevitable results of any election is the losing party's tradition of engaging in either "where did we go wrong" hand-wringing or a circular firing squad that continues for weeks or months thereafter. A swing of 94,000 votes out of 75,723,756 cast nationally would have resulted in the Democrats capturing control of the House and retaining a majority in the Senate on Nov. 5. If that had occurred, obituaries would have been written -- inevitably and prematurely -- about the presidency of George W. Bush. Instead, we are entertained by predictions that the Democratic Party, as we know it, may cease to exist. Some of the most experienced and partisan Republicans I know even chortle over the turn of events -- recognizing how easily this type of exaggeration, combined with acts of self-immolation, could instead have been taking place on the GOP side of the aisle.

Yes, Republicans won the election. They won it on tactics, strategy and mechanics -- and the fact that they effectively neutralized potentially powerful Democratic issues such as prescription drug benefits was important. But to say this was some kind of seismic event that indicates a move to the right -- with the possible exception of Georgia -- well, oh please.

In many of the key races around the country, Democrats garnered as many votes as they thought they needed to win, based on past voting patterns. But the Republican vote was simply higher.

In the end, the Republican/business/right-of-center coalition got its vote out in a way that has not been seen in at least eight years. That is important and consequential. It is significant that, in a post-McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan world, the Republican hard-dollar advantage made a difference in House contests: It kept Democrats from playing in some very expensive, but competitive, districts. But was it a wave? No.

Accompanying the writing of the obituaries for the Democratic Party has been a call by some for the head of Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe. The most bizarre criticism of McAuliffe was contained in a national newspaper article -- in which a Democratic fundraiser in New York complained that McAuliffe did not do enough for state Comptroller Carl McCall's ill-fated gubernatorial bid. The fact is that, had McAuliffe disbanded the Democratic National Committee and sent all the money to McCall, Republican Gov. George Pataki still would have won. McAuliffe simply decided not to throw good money after bad. For fewer than 100,000 votes' difference, Republican National Chairman Marc Racicot might have been the bum -- and McAuliffe the hero.

==========================
Don't keep Charlie's insight all to yourself! Please forward the
following link to friends and colleagues.
Sign up: http://nationaljournal.com/about/cookcolumn.htm
==========================

For good or ill, one impact of the Democrats' loss is that it will accelerate the party's thirst for fresh faces -- something evident in a post-election Los Angeles Times survey of 312 members of the Democratic National Committee. On an open-ended question asking their preference for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, former Vice President Al Gore predictably came in first, but with only 13 percent. This is an amazingly low figure, given that just two years ago he not only won the popular vote -- but was the second largest popular-vote getter in the history of presidential elections, coming in behind only Ronald Reagan in 1984. In the Times survey, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry came in a close second to Gore with 10 percent, while North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was in third place with 8 percent.

In another surprise, Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., who was in the process of stepping down from his position as the House minority leader, received only 6 percent. Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was next with 4 percent. Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle had 2 percent, as did Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, with California Gov. Gray Davis rounding out the list with 1 percent. Eight percent said they preferred someone else, 22 percent said no one in particular, and 24 percent said they did not know.

When forced to answer which of the candidates would be their first choice for president, they put Gore at the top of the list -- but by just 1 point over Kerry, 19 percent to 18 percent. Edwards came in at 13 percent and Gephardt took 10 percent, with Dean at 6 percent and Daschle at 4 percent. In looking at the preference of the DNC members, this rift between new and old faces once again emerges. A combined 34 percent of the respondents chose Gore, Gephardt or Daschle as their first choice -- while 37 percent chose Kerry, Edwards or Dean.

Despite the political obituaries by some -- including many Democrats -- of the Democratic Party, once Democrats do finally emerge from their post-election funk, the new Times poll suggests the party's strongest activists are interested in seeing Democrats turn to newer, fresher faces for 2004.


*******************************
Charlie Cook's "Off To The Races" is published each Tuesday by National Journal Group Inc. For more information about National Journal Group's publications, go to http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/

*******************************

Posted November 20, 2002 08:36 AM | Comments (99)