Republican Zealots in Congress Paving the Way for Democratic Resurgence in 2016 September 30, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 14 7:13 am GOP-Led Congress: “Corrupt,” “Out of Touch,” “Sellouts” Republican zealots in Washington D.C. are paving the way for Democrats to hold the White House in 2016 and retake the U.S. Senate by making
[More…]
Republican Zealots in Congress Paving the Way for Democratic Resurgence in 2016
September 30, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 14 7:13 am
GOP-Led Congress: “Corrupt,” “Out of Touch,” “Sellouts”
Republican zealots in Washington D.C. are paving the way for Democrats to hold the White House in 2016 and retake the U.S. Senate by making the same mistake the Democratic zealots made after they were given control of the legislative branch in 2009. Namely, insisting that partisan priorities, like abortion, gay rights and immigration, are more important than the priorities of most voters: personal income and a federal government rigged in favor of the wealthy.
Evidence of the declining value of GOP stock at the federal level can be seen in the just-released (September 24, 2015) NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey:
- 29% of Americans have a “Favorable” view of GOP; 45% unfavorable (-16 pts)
- 42% of Americans have a “Favorable” view of the Democratic Party, significantly higher than the 35% “Unfavorable” (+7 pts)
Important note: The NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey was conducted by both Peter Hart, a respected Democratic pollster, and Bill McInturff, a respected Republican pollster.
Gallup’s new annual Governance poll, conducted September 9-13, shows that 8-in-10 Americans believe that the GOP-led Congress is “generally out of touch with average Americans.”
That near-record low finding for the nation’s GOP-led legislative branch is amplified by the 62% of Americans who believe members of Congress “care more about special interests than constituents.” Half (52%) of Americans think “most members of Congress are corrupt.”
Who are these out-of-touch, corrupt members of Congress who have sold out their constituents for campaign contributions from special interests?
- 247 U.S. House members are Republicans; 188 are Democrats
- 54 U.S. Senate members are Republicans; 44 Democrats; 2 Independents
Voters Elected New GOP Majority in 2014 to Fix Government
On November 5, 2014, the day after Republicans took over most state governments and both houses of Congress, Gallup released the results of a national survey asking voters what they wanted the new Congress to do. The number one response was, “fix itself;” “compromise to get things done.”
Second, after dealing with the highest priority of cooperating and getting things done, voters wanted the new Congress to create more jobs, lower the deficit and improve healthcare.
Later that month, on November 23, 2014, a CNN/ORC poll showed that only 16% of Americans said that the Republican victories were a mandate for Republican policies. An overwhelming 74% said the GOP victories were a rejection of Democrats.
How are they doing? Today’s (9/30/2015) Real Clear Politics average job approval rating for the Republican-led Congress is 15.2%, with a whopping 75.6% disapproving.
Why? They put their Republican priorities, like abortion, gay rights and immigration, ahead of the voters’ priorities of fixing how the government operates by cooperating to get things done, like creating jobs and improving healthcare.
Nothing Will Get Done until Government is Fixed
The problems of deficit spending and sovereign debt cannot be fixed until government is fixed. The problem of unsustainable entitlements cannot be fixed until government is fixed. The problem of an unsustainable healthcare system cannot be fixed until government is fixed.
Government is the problem.
The problem of abuse of the welfare system, especially corporate welfare, cannot be fixed until government is fixed. The problem of the permanent underclass resulting from an addiction to government dependency cannot be fixed until government is fixed. The problems associated with assimilating 11 million undocumented immigrants cannot be fixed until government is fixed.
The problem of a globally uncompetitive K-12 education in America’s public school system cannot be fixed until government is fixed.
Government is the problem. Government is the problem because government is rigged. Rigged by those in power to benefit those who help them get reelected.
Democrats have rigged the government to benefit their constituencies so they can stay in power. Republicans have rigged the government so they can stay in power.
The United States needs a president who understands both the creation of private wealth and how the government is rigged. One who is temperamentally suited for principled compromise in the pursuit of solutions to problems of inadequate personal income and a rigged government.
Republican zealots in Washington D.C. are paving the way for Democrats to hold the White House in 2016 and retake the U.S. Senate by making the same mistake the Democratic zealots made after they were given control of the legislative branch in 2009. Namely, insisting that partisan priorities are more important than the priorities of most voters.
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report
John N. Davis
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … John Kasich, Republican of Ohio Since January, this series of reports on the likely next U.S. President has unfolded by process of elimination. It concludes today, Labor Day, September 7, 2015, with my forecast. September 7, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 13 10:13
[More…]
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … John Kasich, Republican of Ohio
Since January, this series of reports on the likely next U.S. President has unfolded by process of elimination. It concludes today, Labor Day, September 7, 2015, with my forecast.
September 7, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 13 10:13 am
The United States needs a President who is experienced in both the creation of private wealth and the distribution of public wealth through government. One who is temperamentally suited for principled compromise as the best hope of solving the two most important problems of the day, according to Gallup, not enough income and too much government.
The nation does not need a belittler-in-chief, nor does it need a soft-spoken neurosurgeon with an inspiring personal story but lacking in experience in important problems of the day.
The nation does not need a leader elected just because of their race, ethnicity or gender. It does not need a leader who thinks that sticking to your beliefs even if it means shutting down the government is more important than principled compromise.
The United States needs a wise government leader. One who knows that private sector prosperity is the financial wherewithal for public sector progress. Nothing grows out of an estrangement and distrust between business and the White House but hundreds of billions of dollars in un-invested surplus private funds, stagnant wages and an $18 trillion sovereign debt.
The nation does not need a leader from a political dynasty. There are simply too many incestuous relationships with family insiders who aided and abetted in the creation of today’s major problems. Income. Government. Insiders with failed ideas and self-serving agendas.
The United States needs a great government leader. One who knows government at all levels well enough to identify the thousands of opportunities to fix the problems with the effective distribution of public wealth without making things worse. One who understands the dynamics of private sector wealth formulation from small retailers to globally competitive manufacturers.
One who has the know-how to stimulate real personal income growth for all Americans.
Finally, the nation needs a leader who inspires the best in each of us. An optimistic sense of unlimited potential. Personal and national. Compassion for the less fortunate.
Republicans begin the 2016 presidential race with a major structural advantage, the fact that American voters do not give the party in the White House a third term. The only exception to that since the post WWII Truman administration was the 1988 election of Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush following the Reagan administration.
Democrats also have structural advantages, including the number of loyal Democratic states and national demographic trends favoring minorities and younger generations of voters. According to an analysis in Politico, Democrats have a lock on 247 of the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win. Republicans can count on 206 Electoral College votes from GOP-friendly states.
After carefully weighing all structural advantages and the nation’s most important problems against the backgrounds, temperaments, political strengths and weaknesses of all current Democrats and Republicans running for president, I have concluded that John Kasich, Republican Governor of Ohio, is most likely to be the next President of the United States.
John Kasich, from McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania
John Kasich was born and raised in McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania.
He is a small-town Republican who won a second term in 2014 as Governor of Ohio, the 7th largest state in the country, with 64% of the vote, including blue-collar Democrats.
He is experienced in both the creation of private wealth (Lehman Brothers) and the distribution of public wealth through government (Member of Congress 18 years; two-term Governor of Ohio).
His many bipartisan legislative successes in Washington and Columbus make him temperamentally suited for principled compromise, the best hope of solving the problems of income and government.
He chaired the U.S. House Budget Committee in 1997 that balanced the federal budget. As Governor of Ohio, he erased the state’s $8 billion shortfall, reformed education and created a $2 billion rainy day fund.
Yes, I am aware of his “prickliness.” But his record of bipartisan support in a swing state that voted for Obama twice speaks well to my point that he is temperamentally suited for principled compromise.
There is no greater personal leadership quality desired by voters today than authenticity. Someone who speaks their mind. Someone who can be trusted, even if they are a bit prickly.
Here are some highlights of his story from Wikipedia:
- John Kasich was born May 13, 1952, and raised in McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania, a working-class suburb of Pittsburgh
- Father delivered mail; Mother worked at the post office
- Both parents were killed in an automobile accident by a drunk driver
- Ohio State University, BA in Political Science, 1974
- Elected to the Ohio Senate in 1978 at the age of 26; youngest ever
- Only Republican in the U.S. in 1982 to defeat an incumbent Democrat for Congress
- Served 18 years in the U.S. House from 1983-2001
- In 1996, he introduced the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which reformed the nation’s welfare system
- As chair of the U.S. House Budget Committee in 1997, Kasich was the architect of the first balanced federal budget since 1969
- Lehman Brothers Investment Banking Division Managing Director 2001-2008
- Hosted Fox News’ Heartland with John Kasich; guest-hosted for Bill O’Reilly
- Elected Governor of Ohio, November 2, 2010
- Reelected in 2014 with a 30-point margin (64% landslide)
- Won 86 of 88 counties in a swing state carried twice by President Obama
- Eliminated Ohio’s $8 billion budget shortfall; increased rainy day fund to $2 billion
- Has big name endorsements like New Hampshire’s John Sununu, Mississippi’s Trent Lott; Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley; NBA great Charles Barkley
Also-Rans include Good People with Inspiring Personal Stories
It is regrettable that someone as good and inspiring as Ben Carson must be included on the list of Republicans likely to be among the “also-rans” in the race for the GOP presidential nomination. However, a neurosurgeon’s skill is not what is needed in the Oval Office at a time when personal income and the federal government are the nation’s biggest problems.
Carson, among the early frontrunners in the polls, has no experience with managing the complexities of large governmental agencies, no experience with building principled compromise among feuding legislative factions, no experience with the creation of private wealth on the national and international levels, no experience in working with foreign governments to manage delicate differences without resorting to war, and no experience with managing a necessary war.
Carson would certainly agree that it took an extraordinary level of competence gained from decades of experience for him to successfully separate conjoined twins without creating a problem greater than the original challenge. Fixing a complex and deeply flawed government successfully also requires a steady hand and surgical precision that can only come from decades of experience in government at all levels.
Carson is a good man, a brilliant neurosurgeon with an inspiring personal story. That’s not enough. The problem with government today was created by good men and women who were very intelligent and gifted orators, most with inspiring personal stories.
Also-Rans likely to include the U.S. Senators, the Perennials, the Scandal-Plagued and the Belittler-in-Chief
With all due respect, any candidate whose legislative and executive governmental experience is as limited as that of President Obama’s will not likely to be president. Fitting that profile are those serving their first term in the U.S. Senate with no other executive or legislative governmental experience like Ted Cruz from Texas and Rand Paul from Kentucky.
Like Obama, both are passionate orators and very smart. Cruz is a Harvard lawyer. Paul is a Duke ophthalmologist. They have great ideas. But American voters have concluded that every politician has great ideas. That great ideas are a dime a dozen.
Cruz and Paul have little to show for their service in the Senate, at a time when America needs an accomplished legislative and executive leader. The reason they have so little to show is because they do not believe in principled compromise.
Anyone who devalues principled compromise will not even make the VP short list.
Also-rans will likely include perennial candidates like former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, along with Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who would have been on the short list of the most promising contenders, will be tripped up politically for years due to the fallout of the Bridgegate scandal. Although he has not been implicated in criminal wrongdoing, the investigations opened up a can of worms of other allegations of misuse of power.
Donald Trump, the current frontrunner for the GOP presidential nod in most polls, will likely make the “also-rans” list. Trump certainly has the experience with the creation of wealth and income growth at the national and international levels. But the biggest problem is government.
Trump is not temperamentally suited to building principled compromise among those charged by the voters to solve the problem of big government responsibly. Our problems are too great to be entrusted to a Belittler-in-Chief.
Carly Fiorina definitely makes the potential VP short list. She is a confident, scrappy combatant, and has thoughtful answers to policy questions. However, her lack of government experience is a major problem. A brilliant government leader with no business management experience could not run a Fortune 500 company. Likewise, a brilliant Fortune 500 executive with no experience in the intricacies of government is incapable of managing Washington DC.
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio is Kasich’s Ideal Vice Presidential Pick
First-term U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, who won in 2010 with a 19-point advantage, does have legislative experience. He served in the Florida House from 2000 – 2008; Speaker 2006-2008.
That legislative experience, in a major swing state, the 3rd largest state in the U.S. with a $77 billion budget, along with his Hispanic heritage, his youthful enthusiasm and intelligent answers to policy questions (J.D. degree cum laude U. of Miami), puts him high on the potential VP list.
A Kasich-Rubio ticket would be very powerful, bringing two large swing states into the GOP Electoral College fold.
In my next report, I will write about how a Kasich-Rubio ticket would solve the biggest problem faced by Republican nominees for president in the past twenty years, namely, the inability to persuade voters who were struggling financially that they cared about them.
I will also write about how a Kasich-Rubio ticket would break through the Democrats blue wall of defense, those predictably friendly states and the nation’s demographic trends.
Meanwhile, I would like to conclude today with this thought: If government is the problem, as Gallup’s research has shown all year, and 535 principled Members of Congress plus one principled president have failed to solve the problem, then just another cohort of principled leaders in Washington will not change anything.
A lack of principle is not the problem with government, a lack of principled compromise is the problem. Who is temperamentally suited to principled compromise? Kasich-Rubio.
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report
John Davis
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination Part 8: Trumped-Up Political Credibility will be Undermined by Sobering State/National Concerns This is a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with
[More…]
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination
Part 8: Trumped-Up Political Credibility will be Undermined by Sobering State/National Concerns
This is a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with my forecast for the next president on Labor Day.
August 19, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 12 6:13 am
“Moron,” “Bimbo,” “Dummy,” “Loser,” “Stupid”
The United States needs a great leader; a transformative consensus-builder. Are these the words of a great consensus builder: “moron,” “bimbo,” “dummy,” “loser,” “stupid?” Foolishness is why Donald Trump has no future in the presidential race.
Trump’s political credibility is fool’s gold. A superficial resemblance to great leadership. In time, trumped-up political credibility will be undermined by sobering state and national concerns.
Meanwhile, political foolishness is Trump’s modus operandi. Insults are a campaign tactic.
“Sometimes, part of making a deal is denigrating your competition,” writes Trump in The Art of the Deal, his 1987 bestseller. Here are several recent examples of Trump on the attack taken from an August 14, 2015 story in Politico magazine by Michael Kruse titled, The 199 Most Donald Trump Things Donald Trump Has Ever Said:
- George Will is a “moron.” (Twitter, April 17, 2015)
- Chuck Todd is a “moron.” (Twitter, Aug. 9, 2013)
- Former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel: “Obvious moron.” (Twitter, Aug. 23, 2014)
- Megyn Kelly is a “bimbo.” (Twitter, Aug. 7, 2015)
- Michelle Malkin is a “dummy.” (Twitter, Oct. 25, 2012)
- Brian Williams is a “dummy.” (Twitter, March 6, 2013)
- “Karl Rove is a total loser.” (Twitter, Feb. 7, 2013)
- Republican pollster Frank Luntz is a “total loser!” (Twitter, Aug. 3, 2014)
- John McCain is “not a war hero. … He is a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured, OK?” (Ames, Iowa, July 18, 2015)
- “Truly weird Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky reminds me of a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain.” (Twitter, Aug. 10, 2015)
- “I just realized that if you listen to Carly Fiorina for more than ten minutes straight, you develop a massive headache. She has zero chance!” (Twitter, Aug. 9, 2015)
- Rick Perry “put on glasses so people think he’s smart. … People can see through the glasses.” (Bluffton, S.C., July 21, 2015)
- Rick Santorum? “I have a big plane. He doesn’t.” (Des Moines Register, April 8, 2015)
- “Jeb Bush has to like the Mexican Illegals because of his wife.” (Retweeted and then deleted on Twitter, July 4, 2015)
Polarization is America’s Greatest Impediment to Progress
Donald Trump says he wants to make America great again. How can he make America great again unless he inspires greatness? Personal insults only inspire polarization. Isn’t polarization the greatest impediment to solving the problems faced by our state and nation?
- $18.4 trillion national debt and unsustainable entitlement programs
- Shockingly inept means of funding healthcare
- Underemployed forced to feed their families with federal food stamps
- Neglected investments by the states in infrastructure, an economic development imperative
- Globally uncompetitive K12 educational system
Sobering state and national problems like those listed will, in time, undermine polarizing candidates with trumped-up political credibility. Likewise, sobering state and national problems will undermine the candidacies of polarizing partisan and ideological purists.
Ironically, today’s political leaders have not made sufficient progress towards solving state and federal problems because they are polarized by partisan and ideological purists who value principle over compromise solutions to problems. The hard-right/hard-left Donald Trump/Bernie Sanders ideologues are outraged over the results of the very problem they created: polarization.
Is Donald Trump’s priority to make America great, or is it to make Donald Trump great? Is Trump in the race to promote Trump Entertainment? Consider Trumps own words, again from the August 14, 2015 story in Politico magazine by Michael Kruse:
- “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.” (Fortune, April 3, 2000)
- “One thing I’ve learned about the press is that they’re always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better. … The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.” (The Art of the Deal, 1987)
- “Sometimes it pays to be a little wild.” (The Art of the Deal, 1987)
- “Controversy, in short, sells.” (The Art of the Deal, 1987)
In time, sobering state and national concerns will lead American voters to choose a consensus builder for President of the United States. Someone who can end the polarization of ideological factions, not someone who thrives on “denigrating your competition” with words like “morons,” “bimbos,” “dummies,” “losers,” “stupid people.”
Meanwhile, look for Trump to hire every available political operative in the country to swarm the early caucus and primary states to keep the perception going that he is a serious presidential contender. It’s worth hundreds of millions of dollars in free advertising world-wide benefiting his casinos and resorts.
As Trump told Fortune, “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report
John Davis
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination Part 7: Trump the Naked Streaker. Bush vs Cruz in Cleveland (like Ford/Reagan 1976); then Bush/Clinton/3rd Party (1992 Rematch). This is a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked
[More…]
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination
Part 7: Trump the Naked Streaker. Bush vs Cruz in Cleveland (like Ford/Reagan 1976); then Bush/Clinton/3rd Party (1992 Rematch).
This is a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with my forecast for the next president on Labor Day.
August 11, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 11 2:13 pm
On Saturday, August 1, 2015, I had the pleasure of moderating a conversation with James Carville and Mary Matalin at the Carolinas Associated General Contractors event in Greenville, South Carolina. Married for 21 years, they live in New Orleans with their two daughters.
Carville and Matalin met during the 1992 presidential campaign, a race won by his Democratic candidate, former Arkansas governor Bill Clinton, with only 43% of the vote. Her Republican candidate, incumbent President George H. W. Bush, lost with 38%. A 3rd party spoiler named Ross Perot garnered 19% of the vote, most of which would have gone to Bush.
A Bush/Clinton/3rd Party rematch could happen in 2016: maybe Bush/Clinton/Cruz.
Bush has a lock on mainstream, establishment Republicans. Cruz has the superior political intellect, communication skills and an anti-establishment record as a conservative hard-liner to be one of the last two standing in Cleveland at the GOP National Convention July 18-21, 2016. If so, he will inherit all of the religious right and Tea Party Republicans from early contenders.
If Bush beats Cruz in Cleveland (Ford/Reagan 1976), Cruz will be forced by his formidable and outraged supporters, fueled by billionaire-backed super PACS, to run as an independent.
Pummeling by White, Male Republicans is Key to Clinton’s Hopes
There is no doubt in my mind that Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee. She will survive all scandalous allegations for the same reason her husband survived impeachment relating to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal: Republican overreach.
On December 19, 1998, after a year of Republican congressional investigations and testimony riddled with salacious details of White House extramarital encounters, the U.S. House voted along partisan lines to impeach President Clinton. The next day, December 20, 1998, Clinton’s approval rating jumped 10 points to 73%, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll.
Restated for emphasis: The day after the Articles of Impeachment were passed, Clinton’s approval rating soared to an all-time high, higher than President Ronald Reagan’s highest approval rating. At the same time, the favorable view of the Republican Party fell ten points.
That’s what is about to happen in 2016.
Fifteen Republican candidates for president piling on Hillary Clinton. Fifteen Republican candidates throwing red meat to the Hillary haters. Fifteen Republican candidates, 14 of whom are men, pummeling Hillary Clinton with vindictive hyperbole.
Then, add all of those white male-led Republican committees in Congress piling on with their investigative hearings on Benghazi and State Department emails.
Hillary Clinton will invite any and all opportunities to be pummeled by white male Republicans because she knows it’s her key to the Oval Office.
Trump’s Real Reason for Running
The pieces of the 2016 presidential puzzle are beginning to fit. The most important piece is dissatisfaction with government, for too long an outrage shared by most Americans, liberals, moderates and conservatives.
Political outrage with government will drive the politics of 2016 at all levels.
Outraged voters do outrageous things. Ergo, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have zero chance of becoming President of the United States. Everyone knows that. They are merely the pre-game entertainment.
Trump is like the streaker during pre-game warmups at the Super Bowl, egged on by his buddies to do what they would not dare do. Run naked out onto the field on national TV. Outraged conservatives have egged Trump on to say what they would not dare say.
Trump is only in the race to promote Trump Entertainment. He has received hundreds of millions of dollars in free advertising world-wide benefiting his casinos and resorts. Trump boasted at the Fox GOP Debate last week about exploiting bankruptcy laws for business gain. In time, he will brag about using presidential politics for business gain.
As a promoter, like P.T. Barnum, Donald Trump is brilliant. However, he has 0% chance of being president, and he knows it. Which is fine by him. That’s not why he is running.
Bush vs. Clinton and 3rd Party Conservative in 2016
I am well aware of ballot access issues at the state level for independent candidacies, as well as issues relating to the election of electors who elect the President, not the voters. But what is different about 2016 is that billionaires can spend an unlimited amount of money to hire the best election law attorneys to set up a “Plan B” to keep their candidates for president in the running.
Religious and Tea Party economic conservatives were pushed aside in 2014. Mainstream Republicans ran over them; disrespected them. The establishment defeated the hard-liner conservatives in every significant primary battle. They were humiliated. Not again.
In 2016, hard-liner conservatives are going to push back with a vengeance. The Republican National Convention must elect a conservative who can appeal to moderates, not another moderate who can appeal to conservatives, or the hard-liners will bolt and back an independent candidate.
If hard-liners bolt, it will be 1992 all over again: A Bush, a Clinton and a well-funded independent candidate. A match made in heaven for Democrat James Carville; Perot’s votes would have gone to Bush. A nightmare for his future wife, conservative Republican Mary Matalin.
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report John Davis
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination Part 6: The Five Safest Incumbents in 2016 American Politics are the Female Members of the North Carolina Council of State This is the sixth in a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will
[More…]
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination
Part 6: The Five Safest Incumbents in 2016 American Politics are the Female Members of the North Carolina Council of State
This is the sixth in a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with my forecast for the next president.
July 14, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 10 2:13 pm
18 Wins; 0 Losses Vanquished Males: 16
What was former five-term (2001-2011) Democratic Mayor of Raleigh Charles Meeker thinking when he announced last week that he was going to challenge four-term Republican Commissioner of Labor Cherie Berry in her race for a fifth term in 2016?
Doesn’t Meeker know that the five women on the North Carolina Council of State have a win/loss record of 18 and 0? Doesn’t he know that all 16 men who dared to challenge them since 1996 have been defeated?
Sixteen men. Vanquished, one and all. A NASCAR legend, a state senator, the incumbent State Auditor, prominent attorneys, wealthy businessmen, school board chairs, and a former speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives.
Not only have the five women on North Carolina’s Council of State never lost a Council of State race, they are all historic state leaders as significant as any founding father.
- Elaine Marshall, D-Harnett, Secretary of State, the first woman elected to a statewide executive office (1996) in North Carolina history
- Cherie Berry, R-Catawba, first woman elected Commissioner of Labor (2000), and the first female Republican to serve on the North Carolina Council of State
- June Atkinson, D-Wake, first woman elected Supt. of Public Instruction (2004)
- Beth Wood, D-Craven, first woman elected State Auditor (2008)
- Janet Cowell, D-Wake, first woman elected State Treasurer (2008)
Combine the likely female voter registration and turnout advantages for the female members of the North Carolina Council of State with their legendary political battlefield successes, and you can see why they are arguably the five safest incumbents in 2016 American politics.
Legendary Political Battlefield Successes
The women on the North Carolina Council of State share a win/loss record of 18 and 0.
Secretary of State Elaine Marshall has 5 wins 0 losses for her seat on the Council of State, defeating 6 men along the way, three in 1996. Those men include NASCAR legend Richard Petty, a Republican, along with Libertarian Lewis Guignard and Natural Law Party candidate Stephen Richter. She defeated Petty by a comfortable margin of 53.5% to 45.2%.
Marshall has defeated all Republican challengers handily, including state Sen. Harris Blake (2000) and Jack Sawyer (2008). In 2012, Marshall defeated her Republican challenger Ed Goodwin by 54% to 46%, spending $692,000 to his $104,000.
Marshall heads the National Association of Secretaries of State.
As the first woman elected to a statewide executive office, Marshall’s service to the state of North Carolina is historic. Her political battlefield successes are legendary.
Labor Commissioner Cherie Berry has 4 wins and 0 losses for her seat on the Council of State, defeating 3 men along the way. She defeated Democrats Doug Berger and Wayne Goodwin in 2000 and 2004, and won a fourth term in 2012 by defeating her Democrat challenger John Brooks by 53% to 47%, spending $176,000 to Brooks’ $18,000.
Berry honed her leadership skills in the world of business serving as president of a manufacturing company, LGM, in Maiden. Berry began honing her political skills in 1992 when she won the first of four terms in the North Carolina House.
In 1996, under her leadership as Co-Chair of the House Welfare Reform Committee, Berry, along with fellow committee Co-Chair Rep. Julia Howard, a Rowan County Republican, were arguably the first women in the North Carolina legislature to wield enough raw political power to successfully pass a major piece of controversial legislation despite strong opposition from the male leaders of the state Senate and House, and over the protestations of Democratic Governor Hunt.
“We were the Thelma and Louise of the North Carolina General Assembly,” Berry said of her relationship with Howard during the 1996 Welfare Reform debate.
As the first female Labor Commissioner, Berry’s service to the state is historic. Her political career is legendary. Having her picture in every elevator in the state for 15 years has even inspired young people to write songs about her. Check out Cherie Berry Wow.
Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson, has 3 wins 0 losses for her seat on the Council of State, defeating 3 men along the way. Those men include Bill Fletcher in 2004, a former Chairman of the Wake County School Board, and Richard Morgan in 2008, a former Republican Speaker of the North Carolina House.
Atkinson won a third term in 2012, defeating Republican John Tedesco, also a former Wake County School Board Chairman, by 54% to 46%, spending $320,000 to Tedesco’s $85,000.
Atkinson demonstrated her political prowess during her first campaign when she won the last undecided 2004 race in the United States. Atkinson finally prevailed on August 23, 2005, when a historic joint session of the North Carolina General Assembly elected her Superintendent of Public Instruction along partisan lines over Wake County Republican Bill Fletcher.
The last time the North Carolina legislature decided the outcome of a statewide race was in 1835. The law establishing the procedure for the state legislature to decide the outcome of the race also prohibits an appeal of the decision to any state court.
As the first female Superintendent of Public Instruction, Atkinson’s service to the state is historic. Her political battlefield acumen is seasoned by three successful campaigns.
State Auditor Beth Wood has 2 wins 0 losses for her seat on the Council of State, beginning in 2008, when she defeated Republican incumbent State Auditor Les Merritt. In 2012, Democrat Beth Wood defeated her Republican challenger Debra Goldman, a member of the Wake County School Board, by 54% to 46%, spending $461,000 to Goldman’s $26,000.
Beth Wood is tough. She grew up on her family’s tobacco farm in Craven County. She put herself through East Carolina and became a CPA.
It’s that toughness of personal character that has allowed Wood to stand strong behind controversial audits of state agencies. Most recently, Wood discovered abuses in the Office of Medicaid Management Information Systems Services (OMMISS) within the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. Her audit disclosed $1.6 million wasted through excessive wages and commissions, unjustified overtime, and holiday pay to ineligible employees.
As the first female State Auditor, Beth Wood’s service to the state is historic. She has been recognized nationally as one of the Top 25 most powerful women in accounting. She has saved the state tens of millions of dollars. Her political battlefield successes are likely to grow in 2016.
State Treasurer Janet Cowell has 2 wins 0 losses for her seat on the Council of State, defeating 5 men along the way. Those men include Democrats Michael Weisel and David Young in the 2008 Democratic Primary, and Republican Bill Daughtridge in the 2008 General Election.
In 2012, Democrat Janet Cowell defeated primary opponent Ron Elmer. She went on to defeat her Republican General Election challenger Steve Royal by 54% to 46%, spending $1.2 million to Royal’s $13,736.
Cowell, who manages $90 billion in pension investments, is a graduate of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Under her leadership, North Carolina is one of only nine states to earn a AAA bond rating by all three rating agencies.
As the first female State Treasurer, Janet Cowell’s service to the state is historic. She has earned the state tens of millions of dollars with smart investment decisions, and is recognized internationally as one of the Top 25 public fund investors in the world.
Her political battlefield successes are likely to grow in 2016.
Hillary Clinton for President Factor
The women on the North Carolina Council of State share a win/loss record of 18 and 0.
In North Carolina, there are 3,396,342 female voters (54.4%) to 2,852,510 male voters (45.6%). In 2012, the gap between the number of female and male voters in North Carolina’s presidential race was over 490,000 out of 4.5 million votes cast.
If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States in 2016, gender pride will ensure that the gap between the number of female and male voters will be even greater than it was in 2012.
The female voter registration and turnout advantage, coupled with the power of gender solidarity in 2016, bodes well for the five women on North Carolina’s Council of State; arguably the five safest incumbents in 2016 American politics.
Male challengers beware.
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report
John Davis
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination Part 5: Independent, Socially-Left-of-Center, Economically-Right-of-Center Millennials Likely Most Valuable Voters in 2016 This is the fifth in a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and
[More…]
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination
Part 5: Independent, Socially-Left-of-Center, Economically-Right-of-Center Millennials Likely Most Valuable Voters in 2016
This is the fifth in a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with my forecast for the next president.
June 4, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 9 7:13 am
Which Generation of NC Voters will Dominate 2016 Politics?
One of two politically valuable studies of the generational makeup of the 2016 electorate in North Carolina was published Wednesday, June 3, 2015, by Dr. Rebecca Tippett, Director of Carolina Demography at UNC Chapel Hill’s Carolina Population Center. Tippett’s report shows that although the population of the Millennial Generation (born 1982-2004) is approaching parity with the Baby Boomers (1946-1964), the political advantage shifts decidedly to Baby Boomers when adjusted for actual registered voters and their active/inactive status on voter rolls.
- 92% of Baby Boomers are registered to vote; 13% are labeled “inactive”
- Only 74% of Millennials are registered to vote; 29% are labeled “inactive”
With these adjustments, North Carolina’s 2016 electorate by generation will likely be:
- Greatest Generation ( – 1927) 1%
- Silent Generation (1928-1945) 13%
- Baby Boomers (1946-1964) 35%
- Generation X (1965-1981) 27%
- Millennials (1982-2004) 24%
Dr. Tippett concludes by noting that the potential political market share of Millennials in 2016 could be further diminished if well-documented, higher turnout trends of older voters hold true.
Baby Boomers Outmuscled Millennials in 2008 and 2012
The second of the two politically valuable studies published this year profiling the likely 2016 electorate was published in January by Dr. Michael Bitzer, Associate Professor of Politics and History at Catawba College. Dr. Bitzer notes that since the beginning of the 21st century, “North Carolina voters in the Millennial generation have gone from 2% of the registered voter pool to 26% in 2014, while Baby Boomers have seen their proportion of the pool shrink from 45% down to 32% over the same time.”
While acknowledging the near parity of the voting age population of Baby Boomers and Millennials, Dr. Bitzer notes that during the last two presidential elections in North Carolina Baby Boomers turned out in significantly higher numbers than Millennials.
- In 2008, 68% of registered Millennials voted; 84% of Baby Boomers voted
- In 2008, Millennials were 13% of all ballots cast; Baby Boomers were 39%
- In 2012, 55% of registered Millennials voted; 78% of Baby Boomers voted
- In 2012, Millennials were 19% of all ballots cast; Baby Boomers 37%
Dr. Bitzer concludes that the political influence of the Millennial generation has only begun to take shape, and that we have yet to see which party will reach out to them most effectively.
Millennials are Half as Conservative as Over-65 Voters
So, are Millennials more likely to vote Democratic or Republican in 2016?
Wednesday, June 3, 2015, Gallup released the aggregate results of surveys conducted in 2013-2015 concluding that “the percentage of all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who described themselves as both social and economic conservatives has dropped to 42%, the lowest level Gallup has measured since 2005.”
- 42% of GOP/Lean GOP are conservative on both social and economic policies
- 24% of GOP/Lean GOP are moderate or liberal on social and economic policies
- 20% of GOP/Lean GOP are moderate or liberal on social policies but identify themselves as conservative on economic policy
As to Millennials, the study shows that “the size of the social and economic conservative group is twice as large among Republicans aged 65 and older as it is among those aged 18 to 29.”
For emphasis: Over-65 Republicans are twice as conservative as 18-to-29-year-olds.
Last September, the Pew Research Center published the results of an ideological survey of over 10,000 Americans. Key ideological findings include:
- Millennials are much less conservative (15%) than their grandparents and parents, the “Silent” Generation (38%) and the “Baby Boomers” (34%) respectively
- Even likely GOP Millennials are not as conservative (53%) as their elders (67%)
The Pew study also showed that Millennials are more likely to affiliate with Democrats (50%) than Republicans (34%) nationally.
The statewide North Carolina survey conducted by Public Policy Polling in early April, 2015, shows just how wide the political chasm is between Millennials and older generations.
- Obama has a 58% approval among 18-to-29-year-olds; only 35% for over-65 voters
- In a hypothetical matchup between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, 18-to-29-year-olds give Clinton a 22-point advantage (Clinton 50%; Bush 28%)
- Over-65 voters give Bush a 19-point advantage over Clinton (Clinton 37%; Bush 56%)
As Dr. Rebecca Tippett and Dr. Michael Bitzer noted in their reports on Millennials, the big unknown is which generation of voters will be most engaged politically in 2016.
Millennials May be the Most Valuable Voters in 2016
My sense is that Millennials just may be the deciding factor in the race for the White House as well as statewide races here and around the country. My reasoning is based on the likelihood that Millennials will be the largest group of undecided voters in 2016.
Their value as the largest group of persuadable voters is enriched by the fact that most voters in the older generations are predictably clustered in ideologically recalcitrant and partisan camps; neither of which is large enough to dominate North Carolina or national elections.
Democrats, in order to secure the lion’s share of younger voters in races against Republicans, must move their identity closer to the center on economic policy. Millennials are more cost-conscious because they came of age politically during a time of less discretionary income due to the recession and employment challenges.
Republicans, in order to secure the lion share of younger voters in races against Democrats, must move their identity closer to the center on social policy. As noted earlier, Millennials are twice as liberal and half as conservative as their parents and grandparents on social issues. Older generations tolerate social differences. Millennials celebrate social differences.
The bottom line: Independent, socially-left-of-center, economically-right-of-center Millennials will be the largest group of undecided voters and therefore the most valuable voters in 2016. How large? Large enough to have a decisive impact on the outcome of statewide races here in North Carolina; large enough to determine who wins the presidency.
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report
John Davis
Baltimore’s Unintended Paradox: Black Voters are in Play for Conservative Alternatives in 2016; Democratic and Republican This is the fourth in a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with my forecast for the next president. May 12, 2015
[More…]
Baltimore’s Unintended Paradox: Black Voters are in Play for Conservative Alternatives in 2016; Democratic and Republican
This is the fourth in a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with my forecast for the next president.
May 12, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 8 9:13 am
Baltimore Exposed the Uncomfortable Truth about Liberal Programs
I have struggled with Baltimore. Not with the rioting. I get the anger. If you don’t care about me, why should I care about you? My struggle is with how leaders take advantage of the new opportunity Baltimore gives to pitch conservative solutions to inner-city problems.
What makes Baltimore unique is that for the first time in the history of racially charged rioting in America, most local authorities are African-American Democrats. And, three of the six cops facing charges in the death of Freddie Gray, the incident that sparked the riots, are black.
The unintended paradox laid bare by the Baltimore riots in April is that African-American liberal Democrats find themselves in the unavoidable position of having to share responsibility for the circumstances and actions of inner-city black kids.
Baltimore has exposed the uncomfortable truth that liberal programs run by African-American Democrats have left too many inner-city kids behind, unheard, drowning in a sea of desperation.
I get the anger. If you don’t care about me, why should I care about you?
Would African-American Democrats Embrace Conservative Ideals?
Baltimore has had a Democratic mayor for 48 years. Current Baltimore Democratic leaders include an African-American Mayor, an African-American Police Commissioner, an African-American majority on the City Council, African-American representatives in the state legislature and U.S. Congress. African-Americans manage the federal, state and local government programs. African-Americans run the school system with a majority cohort of African-American teachers.
So, are all those black Democratic leaders responsible for the riots? No. They genuinely wanted those liberal programs to work, and believed they would work. And many did work, as evidenced by tens of thousands of African Americans in leadership roles throughout society, including U.S. President. Baltimore is about programs that didn’t work.
Thanks to Baltimore, Black voters all over America have come to realize that liberal programs alone, including those run by African-American Democrats, are not enough. That alternative solutions, including conservative ideals and programs, must be evaluated in the 2016 elections.
That’s right. Conservative ideals and programs. Black voters all over America are now in play for conservative policy and program alternatives in 2016, both Democratic and Republican.
Here are several of my conservative ideals that I believe black voters would consider:
I believe in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised.
I believe that much of what ails the inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP.
I believe that we can shape our individual and collective destinies, so long as we rediscover the traditional virtues of hard work, patriotism, personal responsibility, optimism, and faith.
But, those ideals sound way too Republican for African-American Democrats. Right?
Right? Well, all three of those “I believe” statements above were written by Barack Obama in the Prologue to his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope.
Preacher/Teacher Values of Greensboro’s Loretta Lynch, U.S. Atty. General
I would bet that Greensboro’s own Loretta Lynch, recently sworn in as the first African-American female U.S. Attorney General, respects conservative ideals. Her father, Lorenzo Lynch, is a Baptist preacher. Her mother, Lorine Lynch, a school librarian. She comes from a long line of preachers and educators; no-nonsense disciplinarians who demanded academic rigor.
Lorenzo Lynch, in Washington D.C. on April 21, 2015, for the U.S. Senate confirmation vote on his daughter’s nomination, told a Politico reporter about how tough his mother was on him and his siblings when they were school children. “She would line us up every night and make us recite the lessons of the day,” said Lynch, “and if we didn’t know them, we got a whipping….”
Loretta Lynch, a Harvard Law graduate, has a storied career as a federal prosecutor in New York. She is a former member of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY. Does she have conservative thoughts when she sees the devastation left behind by well-meaning liberal Democrats?
Lynch knows that despite generations of countless well-intentioned government programs in places like Freddie Gray’s neighborhood, unemployment is still 24.2%, a staggering 61% of the population over 25 do not have a high school degree, 35.4% of the households live in poverty, most led by single parent mothers with no male role models in the home.
Scott Brandon, an African-American Democratic Baltimore City Councilman, has long argued that the absence of family structure is why so many kids get in trouble. Here is what Brandon had to say to a CNN reporter the day after the riots. “If we spend $8 million on a new school for Jonathan,” Brandon told CNN, “but he goes home to a broken family, it’s worth $0.”
Sounds pretty conservative to me. Brandon is considering a run for Mayor of Baltimore.
Do You Know Who Thomas Stith, III Is?
What about black Republicans? Is there any chance that a black Republican would be trusted with a pitch for conservative solutions to problems that plague inner city blacks?
Could someone like Durham’s own Thomas Stith, III be trusted?
Thomas Stith, III is a life-long African-American Republican. He was the Minority Outreach Coordinator for Republican Governor Jim Martin’s campaign in 1984. He served on the Durham City Council, elected at-large three times, 1999-2007.
So, what is he up to these days? Thomas Stith, III is Chief of Staff to North Carolina GOP Governor Pat McCrory. The first African-American Chief of Staff to a governor in state history.
I am convinced that Baltimore offers conservative Republicans like Thomas Stith, III a real opportunity to be heard; a fair chance to pitch conservative solutions to problems that plague poor and inner city blacks. But what is the compelling Republican message?
What alternative programs do Republicans have for minorities struggling to find jobs? For those who have jobs that pay so little that they have to use food stamps to feed their family?
What is the positive, visionary Republican policy alternative to the liberal social safety net?
Republicans must answer those questions. Why? Because Americans will not elect anyone to the White House who does not have a visionary plan for those in dire need. Unchecked, the GOP’s brand of callous indifference to the plight of the poor will be their undoing in 2016.
However, because Baltimore exposed the uncomfortable truth that liberal programs run by African-American Democrats have left millions of inner-city kids behind, the Democratic brand is tarnished too. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., speaking at Grosse Pointe HS in Detroit on March 14, 1968, said, “A riot is the language of the unheard.” Now we know that liberal black Democrats have not been listening to inner-city kids either.
What is the positive, visionary Democratic policy alternative to the liberal social safety net?
After Baltimore, black voters are in play for center-right alternatives. That means Baltimore offers Democrats an opportunity for the party to broaden its base and regain much-needed ideological balance by identifying marketable center-right alternatives to intractable inner-city problems of the unheard poor.
What makes Baltimore unique is that for the first time in the history of racially charged rioting, black kids are saying to black Democratic liberal leaders, along with black cops and black law enforcement officials, If you don’t care about me, why should I care about you?
Inner-city black kids are saying to black Democratic liberal leaders, Black lives matter.
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report
John Davis
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination Part 3: Why Would Black Voters Turn Out for Hillary Clinton? This is the third a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with
[More…]
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination
Part 3: Why Would Black Voters Turn Out for Hillary Clinton?
This is the third a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with my forecast for the next president.
April 22, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 7 3:13 pm
Racial and Ethnic Solidarity is Only One-Third of the Minority Turnout Story
Why would black voters turn out for Hillary Clinton in 2016?
In 2008, Barack Obama registered and turned out a record number of African-American voters. Throughout his first term, African-Americans remained loyal to President Obama despite unemployment numbers twice as high as those of white unemployed Americans. No surprises there. He was the first black President of the United States of America. Racial solidarity.
One year before President Obama’s campaign for a second term, half of all black teenagers were unemployed. Black home ownership plummeted to levels, relative to whites, not seen since 1960. Many questioned how long African-American loyalty to Obama would last in the face of declining economic security. So much more was expected.
Most blacks were worse off financially at the end of Obama’s first term than at the beginning. Yet in 2012, despite the loss of decades of economic gains by African-Americans, black turnout increased over that of 2008; 93% voted for President Obama. Racial solidarity.
Racial solidarity behind the first African-American president was unshakable. Black voter turnout in the 2012 presidential election was higher than that of non-Hispanic whites for the first time in U.S. history. Here in North Carolina, despite Republican election reforms, black voter turnout was higher than white voter turnout for the second time in state history; the first being 2008, the first time Obama ran.
Racial Solidarity Even More Important than Christian Values
Racial solidarity was even more important in 2012 than issues relating to Christian values.
Earlier that year, on Primary Election Day, May 8, 2012, African-American ministers throughout the state joined conservative white Republicans to pass Amendment One, banning same-sex marriages in the state. The next day, the top-of-the-fold picture on the front page of The News and Observer was of African-American Pastor Dr. Patrick Woodson Sr., Upper Room Church of God in Christ in Raleigh, and his wife, Pamela, celebrating Amendment One with joyful cheers and a raised fist of victory.
That afternoon, President Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage.
My political reflex was that it would have a negative impact on African-American turnout for President Obama in the 2012 General Election, here and around the country. I thought that snubbing the African American faith community just may cost him a second term.
Sure enough, that fall Dr. Patrick Woodson, Sr. cut a radio ad urging black voters to not vote for Obama because of the President’s support for same sex marriage. “Join me in saying ‘no more’ to President Obama,” implored Dr. Woodson. It backfired. Black voters stood with Obama.
Racial solidarity behind the first black president of the United States was far more important to African-American Christians who supported Amendment One than the single issue of same sex marriage. Why? Because the most important concerns to African Americans in the fall of 2012 were jobs, the economy, home ownership, education and healthcare. Concerns that they felt President Obama was more likely to do something about than Republican Mitt Romney.
What Was the Minority-Targeted Conservative Alternative?
But racial solidarity is only one-third of the minority voter turnout story.
Another third is the fact that Republicans did not offer a conservative alternative in an effective, minority-targeted way. What was the compelling argument made by Republicans in the General Election of 2012 as to why African-Americans and other minorities should entrust GOP leaders with their concerns?
How much robust effort did Republicans make in the fall of 2012 to persuade minority voters that the conservative political agenda was in their best interest? Did they invest adequately in a well-researched and target-tested ad campaign with maximum saturation in minority markets throughout the country?
How much money did Republicans spend in the 2012 General Election on any minority market group? The Obama campaign spent $100 million on data analytics to improve their ability to communicate compelling messages to targeted potential voters like African-Americans. That’s why African-American turnout was higher in 2012 than in 2008.
That’s the third part of the minority turnout story. President Obama did not rely on racial solidarity to attain historic turnout among African-Americans in Ohio in the fall of 2012. Racial solidarity is not why African American turnout went from 11% in 2008 to 15% in Ohio in 2012.
A $100 Million Investment in Turnout was the Winning Difference
Racial solidarity is not why the President’s historic minority turnout in Ohio in 2012 put that state in his “wins” column and gave him a second term in the oval office. He won because he invested $100 million in research and targeted get-out-the-vote communications in order to drive up minority turnout. It was called Operation Narwhal. It began 18 months before Election Day.
Did the pro-Romney conservative camps simply not have the resources to compete with Obama nationally for minority voters? According to OpenSecrets.org, the Romney team spent $1.2 billion in 2012. Outside conservative organizations spent hundreds of millions on TV ads.
How much money did Republicans spend communicating compelling messages to African-Americans? Hispanics? Any minority? Well researched and target-tested messages? Maximum ad buys in minority markets? How early did they start their get-out-the-vote effort?
Here is an illustration that will give you a good sense of what the Republican National Committee thinks is an adequate investment in minority outreach:
After losing to Obama in 2012, Republicans did a self-assessment that led to a 100-page scathing critique of their political brand and campaign operations called the Growth and Opportunity Project. I read it. It was excellent. (It’s what North Carolina Democrats need today.)
However, as well-intentioned as that project was, it resulted in the typical Republican solution to minority outreach. Here is how Reince Priebus described the RNC’s efforts to reach minority voters on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” March 17, 2013. “We’re going to be announcing a $10 million initiative just this year and it will include hundreds of people, paid across the country, from coast-to-coast, in Hispanic and African-American, Asian communities, talking about our party, talking about our brand, talking about what we believe in,” said Priebus.
Do you think $10 million is adequate for a successful, national minority outreach initiative?
RNC’s $10 Million Drop in the Bucket
Impressed with the RNC’s $10 million national minority outreach initiative? Well, about how many votes do you think $10 million will influence in a nation where all major political players spend over $1 billion each? Both the Obama and Romney presidential teams spent over $1 billion in 2012. Hillary Clinton plans to spend upwards to $2.5 billion in her bid for the White House. Just the conservative Koch brothers plan to spend $900 million in 2016.
The 100 leading advertisers in American commerce spend $104.5 billion in 2012. That’s an average of over $1 billion each annually. And you want to be successful with a national minority outreach program with $10 million? In a nation of 340 million people, with one-in-three being members of racial or ethnic minorities? It’s no wonder Republicans never get to first base with minority voters. In today’s national politics, $10 million is a drop in the bucket.
The bottom line is that Obama and other Democrats do not get the lion’s share of minority voters because of racial solidarity or minority-sensitive issues alone. They get the lion’s share of minority voters because of two other reasons: they invest adequately and Republicans don’t.
Why would black voters turn out for Hillary Clinton in 2016? It can’t be because of racial or ethnic solidarity. It’s because she knows you must invest early and adequately in minority outreach, even if you are a more likely allied Democrat.
The only Republican who can defeat Hillary Clinton in the race for the U.S. Presidency is the one who is willing to invest early and adequately in minority outreach.
Tomorrow, I will suggest a test.
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report John Davis
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination Part 2: Minority Voters Key to Winning in 2016 This is the second a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with my forecast
[More…]
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination
Part 2: Minority Voters Key to Winning in 2016
This is the second a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with my forecast for the next president.
April 21, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 6 3:13 pm
Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, faces the challenge of turning out African American voters in numbers equal to the historic turnout in 2008 that led to Barack Obama carrying North Carolina by a mere 14,171 votes out of 4.3 million cast. The only time that African-American voters turned out in higher percentages than non-Hispanic white American voters was when Barack Obama was on the ballot.
The Republican nominee for president, as well as those for statewide offices in swing states like North Carolina, face the challenge of persuading minority voters to embrace conservative alternatives to liberal public policy, and the challenge of persuading minority voters to trust them at a time in American history when minorities have every reason not to trust Republicans.
Minority voters are key to winning the White House and statewide offices in swing states like North Carolina in 2016. The biggest difference I see with regards to minority voters in 2016 is that both Democrats and Republicans face an equally difficult challenge.
During the next couple of days, I will be writing a series of reports about minority voters and the challenges faced by both parties to rebrand themselves for a 21st century American electorate.
The Millennials, those born 1980-2000, already outnumber the Baby Boomers. Minorities now number one in three of all Americans. Are you ready Democrats? Republicans?
Why Would Black Voters Vote GOP?
Does the Republican strategy even include the black vote?
On April 2, 2015, Karl Rove, the architect of George W. Bush’s successful campaigns for Governor of Texas and U.S. President and dean of Republican political strategists, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “To win [the White House in 2016], the GOP must do a good deal better among Hispanic, Asian American and African American voters than they have since 2004.”
“Doing better,” writes Rove, “does not require a Republican presidential candidate to forsake a conservative message. It does require finding the right message and presenting it in a compelling way to people not usually drawn to the GOP.”
So, how does the GOP find the right conservative message for people not instinctively drawn to the GOP? How do they figure out how to present a conservative message in a compelling way?
For starters, the GOP’s investment would have to be commensurate with that of any successful national rebranding campaign. Except considerably greater. They first have to overcome the distrust most minorities have for Republicans.
Decades of feeling unwelcome in the GOP’s big tent. Feeling indifference to their plight. Overcoming distrust will require Republicans to start earlier than ever before.
They also need to carefully test their messaging. A very public test. No secrets. All dirty laundry aired. You can’t change a public perception problem until you identify the problem publicly. Everybody knows anyway.
What is the compelling message from Republicans to minorities struggling to find jobs, or to those who have jobs that pay so little that they have to use food stamps to feed their family? What is the positive Republican policy alternative to the liberal social safety net?
Republicans have to figure out how to answer the question: Why would black voters vote GOP? If they figure that out, they will win the White House and most of the statewide offices in swing states like North Carolina.
Tomorrow, I will publish a report that deals with the question: Why would black voters turn out for Hillary Clinton?
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report
John Davis
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination Part 1: Handicapping Republican Ted Cruz This is the first in a series of reports on the candidates for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination of candidates, concluding with my forecast for the next president.
[More…]
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination
Part 1: Handicapping Republican Ted Cruz
This is the first in a series of reports on the candidates for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination of candidates, concluding with my forecast for the next president.
April 8, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 5 3:13 pm
Cruz is Obama-Right; Wrong for 2016
Okay, so who among Washington political elites comes to mind when thinking about the following descriptive facts: 1. His father was born in a foreign country; 2. He is a Harvard Law School graduate; 3. He was the first-of-a-kind head of Harvard Law Review; 4. His wife is a Harvard graduate; 5. He has two daughters; 6. He is an ideological extremist. Who?
The correct answer: Barack Obama and Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz has a Harvard Law degree just like Obama. Cruz was the first Hispanic head of Harvard Law Review; Obama, the first African-American head of Harvard Law Review. Cruz’s father was born in Cuba; Obama’s father in Kenya. Cruz’s wife is a Harvard graduate (MBA); Obama’s wife is a Harvard graduate (Law). Coincidentally, both couples have two daughters.
Then, add the facts that Obama announced his campaign for president in his mid-40s (he was 45; Cruz is 44), that he, like Cruz, was a first-term U.S. Senator when he announced, and that both are inspirational speakers who espouse anti-establishment solutions to problems.
Obama is a recalcitrant, liberal extremist who prefers to be a lone wolf. Cruz is a recalcitrant, conservative extremist who prefers to be a lone wolf. But, that is where the road forks.
One is a recalcitrant, liberal extremist loner. One a recalcitrant, conservative extremist loner.
In other words, Cruz is Obama-Right. Which is why he is not likely to be president.
American voters are tired of extremism and partisan recalcitrance. Tired of loner politicians with a gift for oratory that fades into uselessness because their words are not accompanied by a gift for collaborative leadership.
Uncompromising, my-way-or-the-highway leaders like Barack Obama and Ted Cruz are likely to be out of vogue during an era when Americans are demanding those who are compelled to get things done, even if it means compromising with the other party, rather than those who are compelled to stick to their beliefs even if nothing gets done.
Ted Cruz’s biggest stumbling block in his campaign for president of the United States is that he actually believes that sticking to your beliefs even if nothing gets done is leadership. That shutting down the federal government rather than hammering out a compromise is defensible.
Are Obama and Cruz Ideological Extremists?
In an era of advocacy journalism (Fox News; New York Times), it is refreshing to have the National Journal. The National Journal is one of only a handful of reliable sources for absolute objective analysis of American politics and politicians.
For over four decades, the National Journal has ranked members of the U.S. Senate from most liberal to most conservative.
In 2007, U.S. Senator Barack Obama from Illinois was ranked #1 “Most Liberal” senator. In the most recent ranking, Ted Cruz is ranked #4 “Most Conservative” senator.
According to the Journal, Cruz is more conservative than 95% of his fellow Senators. Here are a few interesting comparisons:
- Senator Ted Cruz: 4th “Most Conservative”
- Senator Marco Rubio: 17th “Most Conservative”
- Senator Rand Paul: 19th “Most Conservative”
- North Carolina Senator Richard Burr: 27th “Most Conservative”
- Former North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan: 49th “Most Conservative”
Former U.S. Senator Barack Obama from Illinois was ranked #1 “Most Liberal” senator. He is a certifiable ideological extremist. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz from Texas was ranked #4 “Most Conservative” senator. That certifies him as an ideological extremist.
Peggy Noonan, President Reagan’s speech writer, wrote something profoundly sensible in her opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal on February 28, 2015. “What the Republican Party needs in a presidential candidate is not a centrist who can make the sale to conservatives in the primaries; it is a conservative who can win over centrists in the general election.”
Noonan continued, “That means the Republican nominee should be a man or woman who can redefine conservative thinking for current circumstances and produce policies that centrists and independents will find worthy of consideration.”
Ted Cruz, a recalcitrant, conservative extremist loner, is not likely to ever “produce policies that centrists and independents will find worthy of consideration.”
Cruz is Obama-Right. Wrong for 2016.
– End –