From Boston to Chicago – Battles Waged in Otherwise Democrat Strongholds Point To Overall Voter Disillusionment. The Rise of The Phone Book Candidate.

The Boston Globe’s morning article ”Up and Down the Ballot, GOP is Dreaming Big” talks about political parties possible gains and/or losses in what was once known as one of the “bluest” states. The Globe references the election of Republican Scott Brown in January and queries if that election were an anomaly or a change in the attitude of voters towards the State GOP. What the Globe, as well as conventional U.S. media are either not understanding, or ignoring, is that this election is not about one political party, rather it is about the rejection of ideology.

As President Obama made a swing through Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois, in an attempt to rally the Democrat base, he warned supporters that Republicans would undo the “progress that we’ve made over the past couple of years”(Reuters).

The President appears to have hit the nail on the head. It is specifically the type of “progress” that the American people are rejecting in 2010 as it was the lack of progress that was rejected in 2008. President Obama was elected on the promise of hope and change; increased protection for the middle class specifically from tax burden, an end to war, and most importantly a new era of transparency and a return to bi-partisanship. What the electorate received was exactly the opposite.

In a nation where two parties dominate the political arena, the ups and downs of both parties have, to date, been fairly predictable, however, this election and most probably going forward, the trend has shifted to one of individuals investing more time in educating themselves about the candidates, to the point where no amount of robo-calls, negative advertising, and or please from party influential’s, will make a whit of difference.

The election of Scott Brown was not about the Republican party (although he ran as a Republican), it was the rejection of the ideology of one-party rule, either in a state or a nation, as well as the “progress” made by a Congress and President in concert, which was soundly rejected by a majority.

With a constant bad news on every front – from potential terrorists attacks, to the rise in utility bills, rise in insurance premiums, the prospect of those on Social Security not receiving an increase in benefits for the second year in a row, the fear of not having a job, finding a job, losing a job, being unable to move across state lines to find a new job (either by not having the financial ability to do so, or the lack of jobs everywhere in the states) – people are not merely angry, they are depressed. Some of those who are angry with the current situation are heading to the polls on November 2nd, and those who are depressed over the decisions they made in 2008 are planning to sit it out. Those who have never voted, for a variety of reason, are now registering, for the most part, as “independents”.

The reality is, that although no one has a crystal ball, and polls, even those scientific polls, show a margin of error that allows for a “toss-up”- there will be significant change on the 3rd of November, (given some of the Congressional districts might be decided by a handful of votes), and that change is a rejection of the status quo.

When pollsters include the question of choosing an unknown out of a phone book over an incumbent – a growing majority believe the man on the street is more capable than the current office holder. Therefore, it is a question of those desiring to effect change in the direction of politics and the two-party process in Washington that will rule out. The incumbents, one must remember, were, when they first took office, merely people out of a “phone book” as well, having the same beginning qualifications as those now running for the first time. It is what the incumbents have done with their time, and how well that resonates with the voters that will rule out (not including gerrymandering, voter fraud and the like). Many of those who will be elected on the 2nd, will not have had huge war chests, will not have reached every household in a State or Congressional district, or state district, they will merely be: that person out of a phone book, given the same opportunity to either represent the people of a State or District in a manner that is both transparent as well as bi-partisan, and perhaps most importantly to take that progress made back to the drawing board.

Incidentally, endorsements from the Press, touted by both sides, Republican and Democrat, are suggestions by editorial boards, and have, since 2008, held little influence over the electorate. It is the endorsement not of other politicians (representing Washington), that will make or break a candidate; it will be the endorsement of the people that rules the day. It is also a numbers game, as to the ideology of the individual voter and whether they hold conservative, moderate or progressive views. Those moderates and conservatives are the majority, and the probability of the phone book candidate winning in the end is likely. Experience, in this election, will not garner much sympathy from those types of voters and that is regardless of party affiliation.

Predicting the Election Outcome - Consider Massachusetts, Methods of Polling and Other Factors

Massachusetts, long touted as the “Bluest State”, should accurately be described as the “Independent State”. The fact that there is a Democrat governor and legislature is misleading – for the most part, Massachusetts elects Republican candidates when they either appeal to the “middle ground” or if the incumbent Democrat has done such a poor job that it is inconceivable that they be re-elected. Consider this interview with Dukakis, former Governor of Massachusetts and presidential candidate done in 2006. In the interview Dukakis explains that the Bay state had Republican governors for 16 years, and notes: “So, don’t make the mistake of assuming that Massachusetts is totally in the Democratic column. Massachusets is a very independent state. The Bay State voted for Ronald Reagan not once, but twice, in the 80s. On the other hand, I wouldn’t spend two seconds looking at these polls and these poll numbers. I mean, at this stage of the game, this is nothing but recognition — these are nothing but recognition numbers “

I’m not certain what Dukakis means by recognition numbers, as I am no mathematician, however, that said, anyone with an ounce of sense understands that if one samples one thousand individuals, 60% democrats, 20% republicans and 20% independents, they cannot accurately reflect the entire electorate – in other words, it is pretty much misleading – why – Dukakis understands from a personal perspective as he led George H. Bush in the polls weeks before the election. (The NY Times even noted that many “Regan Backers Shift Sides” – Sound familiar?)
Let’s talk about “the October Surprise” and “Swift boating”. How much does a negative change anyone’s minds? John Kerry famously blames, of all people, Osama Bin Laden, for his loss in 2004. What was in that tape that pushed American’s to vote for Bush and not Kerry? Nothing: the tape from Bin Laden, and all the political commercials in the world, including Swift Boat ads and the infamous “Willie Horton ads against Dukakis are nothing more than political name calling – and I would hazard to bet that most individuals watch these commercials with a pre-conceived partisanship, which can be applied to the Independent voter. Independent voters lean either Republican or Democrat, occasionally changing positions, but for the most part, staying with one particular party - sometimes exclusively.
Election losses have been credited to the weather and the turn-out – what one does not consider is that the basic conservative v s. liberal mindset has not changed in this nation in the past 12 plus years. More about polling: Terrance Battleground Research this year: 62% of those surveyed consider themselves conservative or leaning conservative - this particular article describes how there are conflicts within the polls itself, as it predicts either a Democrat or Republican win. Go figure. The fact of the matter is there has not been a landslide since Ronald Regan hit the political scene. He followed a dismal Jimmy Carter, and George Bush, although “approval ratings” are low, could not possibly be compared to Jimmy Carter under any circumstance – Carter is extreme left, and, as any conservative knows, Bush will certainly side with the Democrats on a variety of issues, ranging from the Border to the Bailout.

Other factors to consider: What about baggage? That’s the key, the amount of baggage that a candidate drags with them into an election will tell the tale, regardless of the amount of cash on hand. How well is the candidate “known”, regardless of personality? The middle ground: is that candidate a moderate? Bill Clinton was a moderate, who appealed to the essential middle, to the common ground, yet both races were close, not landslides. Additionally, there are those who are still looking for someone with the ability to lead the nation in a time of terror/war. When one looks at all the variables, unless a poll accurately reflects the electorate (without leading questions), they are pointedly useless.
Recall the 2004 exit polls that had the nation convinced John Kerry would be the next president? Therefore, anyone who wants to know who the next president will be has to wait until November 5th, (or perhaps a month or two hence) – there is simply no way to predict - should one be inclined; there is a 50/50 chance they will be correct. However, if one uses the Battlegrounds conservative vs. liberal statistics, considers the historical inaccuracy of the polls, debate winners and newspaper endorsements, adds baggage, and includes those who are looking for a commander in chief that has some military background, then one can confidently choose the McCain/Palin ticket.