In all the euphoria of our excellent results, perhaps it is worth noting that the actual difference between the votes cast for Republicans and Democrats, at around 4%, showed nowhere near the disparity that some of the polls had been predicting. So what happened in the last few days of the campaign, when the Republicans did indeed claw their way back from what could have been 8 Senate losses and 50 or 60 House losses?
It seems like the optimum time for the Democrats to hold the poll would have been 23rd October. Their lead slipped from 13 to 7 points from then to the 5th November, according to USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/...
The Washington Post has a similar change - on 22 October the difference in the generic vote was 14 in favour of the Democrats; by the 4 November it was down to just 6:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Pew Research was probably nearest to the result when it showed a drop from 11 points to just 4 points in the same period:
http://pewresearch.org/...
The inescapable conculsion is that we blew the last two weeks of the campaign. Somehow, Republicans punched holes in our message. We need to study this to examine why we failed to achieve a stake-through-the-heart victory instead of just crushing them.
So what were their techniques? Given the timeframe, you have to say it was probably massive and relentless negative ads. The fall-off was already there to see in the polls, so (with a few noteable exceptions) it probably wasn't election fraud on the 7th. It was a pre-planned blitz that very nearly worked - yet again. If we want to avoid the same in 2008, we should spend the next two years seriously looking at how to bring some restrictions on either the content of advertising or - and it may well prove the only answer - restrict expenditure. Not just by the candidates and their parties, but especially by so-called "independent interests" over whom the Republicans claimed not to have any control (yeah, right...).
[I actually think that the extended postal voting over a three week period as favored by Kos could have a massive impact on the effectiveness of advertising - it would have much-reduced returns later in the campaign, especially if linked to the ability for any voter to indicate that he has voted and wishes to have no direct calls after that point. I bet most people would vote early just to be on the list of those not to be called! Which would probably help boost turn-out too. But perhaps that topic is for another diary...]
Linked to the above is the Republicans' determination to restrict access to the vote. As an outsider looking in, I find it extraordinary the lengths to which the Republican Party has set about trying to clear voters off lists. Sorry, but I can see no case for anybody to be excluded from the lists except the clinically INSANE and those IN JAIL ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION. End of story.
The other trick (which probably came as near a November surprise as any) was robo-calling. It is as cynical a move as it is possible to engineer, aimed solely at preventing targeted waverers or the newly converted Democrats from voting, and it should be banned. End of story. It is an affront to the very notion of democracy. It's either that - or we have to do it too.
The Republicans used the news cycle to maximum effect, as you would expect, including the show trial of Saddam concluding in the last few days the campaign, which I actually think did enthuse quite a few of their base to believe that Iraq had been worthwhile. Much as Tony Snow might suggest "The idea is preposterous," the idea "that somehow we've been scheming and plotting with the Iraqis." that isn't actually a straight-out denial!
http://www.examiner.com/...
Certainly a former British Defence Minister, Malcolm Rifkind, believes the timing was "suspect":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/...
Rifkind is interesting because as well as being a former Conservative minister in the 1980's and 1990's, he is currently also "non-executive chairman" of ArmorGroup, a private military contractor that "makes 60 per cent of its revenues in Iraq," the Financial Times reported on November 5, 2005. So he probably has his ear to the ground in Iraq more than most. Plus, OF COURSE it was fixed!
We have to acknowledge that some of our candidates were better prepared than others, especially when it came to televised debates. In future, the Party should ensure that all candidates have had the opportunity (if not the requirement) to have attend extensive mock televised debates, to get them blooded in that type of arena. It only needs one off-the-cuff remark (or one poorly executed joke) to be blown up into a national distraction. Whether for or against you, the media are always looking to make a story out of nothing.
Thankfully most of the indisciplined comments this time was from "macaca" Republicans, but we are going to have a whole raft of new Senators and Congressmen and women who you can be sure, just out of inexperience, are going to say a few things they regret in the next couple of years. The Republicans will be listening to every word.
And now one final and no doubt highly controversial observation. The netroots community had a massively positive impact on this election. I don't think it is an exaggeration - given the closeness of Montana and Virginia - to say that netroots delivered the Senate. The money raised and spent - and the co-ordination of activist effort - swung those two seats. Fantastic achievement and it holds out the promise of so much more to come.
BUT there is one issue I have. I think the campain in Connecticut was an ill-advised adventure. Yes, Lieberman was a Bush apologist with an unforgiveable record on the war in Iraq. Yes, his presence was a huge irritation. However, he is a wily street-fighting politician with skills learnt over many campaigns - and friends in all the right places. HE WAS ALWAYS GOING TO WIN. You picked the wrong fight this time. I hope that lesson has been learnt, because the obscene spectacle of two Democrats knocking the crap out of each other, all the while spending monstrous millions in the process, was a huge distraction to no net effect.
There were heart-breaking losses on Tuesday night as well as the wins; how many of those losers might be in Washington in January if the Connecticut sideshow hadn't siphoned off all those millions? How much more did Trauner really need to defeat The Slapper? How much more did Scott Kleeb need to build his profile? And so on and so on. Yes, we hated to see them go down on Tuesday. But they were arguably collateral damage from the wasted millions spent in Connecticut. It rather undercuts the message of the monstrous waste of the war in Iraq to be involved in a wasteful war of our own. Just bear that in mind the next time you decide to take down a Democrat, however unworthy you might think them to be of that label.
Finally, as a student of US politics for thirty years - I have to say this was the best. Even if I did have to stay up until six a.m.!