100% Positive

Comparative (some call it “negative”) campaigning has been with us since the early days of our Republic, even some of our Founders and their associates practiced it.  The first truly contested presidential elections under our Constitution – in 1796 and 1800 – were rife with vitriolic accusations and counter-accusations.  Rough and tumble politicking of the highest order. The Willie Horton ad, relatively speaking, was subtle and nuanced compared to some of the allegations that were printed in the newspapers of that era.   

So if you are opposed to comparative campaign tactics, you must be against the Founders and therefore, hate America. Commie swine!

Do I even need to write, “See what I did there?”

My point with this inelegant example is to recognize that pointing out the shortcomings of one’s political opponent(s) is generally well within the bounds of fair play in our democracy and that witless hand-wringing while bemoaning the so-called coarseness of modern elections is to miss the mark completely.

Don’t get it twisted, there were folks on both sides of the aisle, in Maryland, that engaged in comparative campaigning in 2014.  Sometimes it took the form of paid media, in other cases, attacks generated earned media.  In some communities, whisper campaigns via word-of-mouth or social media conveyed messages…information that wasn’t always grounded in that which the boffins call “facts.”  Sometimes attacks were cloaked as defensive statements.

So before one starts saying, “Golly gee, I reckon ‘negative’ campaigning doesn’t work.” Think again. You might not like it, and it might not appeal to “our better angels” but it serves a purpose…and it is often effective.  A back-and-forth on voting records and statements helps facilitate a free exchange of ideas and allows for the painting of more detailed portraits of those seeking public office.  Those on the receiving end may not appreciate the “warts and all” image of themselves, but it offers an electorate another way of thinking about someone who may represent them. 

Of course serious money is spent by campaigns in an effort to showcase/position their candidate in the most favorable light possible, and they will get miffed because comparative communications efforts require the expenditure of additional time and resources, both of which are precious, to ensure that the voters are hearing “our” story about our candidate as opposed to “their” narrative about our candidate.

Academic arguments can discuss the impact of such campaigns on political efficacy and voter turnout.  That subject will not be addressed here today. 

My point is that those on high horses tend to dismount quickly when it becomes advantageous for them/their political party to engage in such practices. So the “holier-than-thou” attitude gets very tiring, very fast…and often precedes behavior that could best be described as hypocritical. 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Vote Democratic

Entrenched, conservative interests in America have often condemned, or at least looked warily upon, citizen activism.  In the early days of our Republic, they castigated those who participated in “self-created societies.”  They believed that the people’s voice on affairs of state should be expressed primarily when casting ballots for public office, and infrequently (and quietly) otherwise.

These societies facilitated the ability of citizens to discuss public policy matters; and to organize.  Our first party system evolved out of these debates.

Our Republic, our Democracy, has changed a great deal since the Washington Administration.  Parties have appeared and vanished, issues have risen, been resolved, or transformed, rights have been recognized, extended and curtailed.

With that said, I would maintain that one animating principle remains constant…the interests of a conservative elite who wish to preserve their socioeconomic clout.  Not every conservative is so motivated; nor is every member of the elite conservative.  The point is that there are many who belong to a class that could best be described using Teddy Roosevelt’s classic phrase, “malefactors of great wealth.”  And, many elements of this particular grouping seem to have found a home in today’s Republican Party.

If voter turnout was 100% in Maryland, the forces allied with these reactionary interests would be in full retreat.  They rely upon a combination of citizen disinterest, and generous financial contributions to like-minded candidates and organizations, to advance their agenda.  Sometimes they can cloak their plans under the guise of fair-sounding populist verbiage.  When they have a losing hand, they go on the offensive in the hope of sowing fear and confusion.

That is why it is so important for the average citizen to participate in the electoral process.  It offers an opportunity to rebuke the narrow interests of this conservative elite while ensuring that the voice of the people will be heard, and not just during election season.

Chances are, if you are reading these words, you have already cast your ballot or you plan to do so via absentee or at the polls on Election Day.  This post serves as a reminder then, for you to talk with your friends and family members who may be occasional voters.  Ask them: who do you think wants you to vote and who do you think wants you to “forget” to vote…and why?   Which party and candidates best represent your values, and which are more inclined to work against them?

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Cabal of the Simple-Minded

So I split for Hispaniola for half of a fortnight and I return to find Brown/Ulman up by only six over Hogan/Rutherford.  

I can only assume some as of yet unnamed madness enveloped the Free State while I was roaming the streets of Santo Domingo, searching for an establishment that served high caliber mofongo.  My old friend and current expat, Slats, recommended a spot 18 miles away in Boca Chica – but the roads were far too treacherous and the moon too high in the sky to hazard such a journey. 

But I digress.  The purveyors of Conventional Wisdom, referenced in the title, would have you believe that the Maryland gubernatorial election should be a cakewalk for the Democratic ticket.  “Safe D” they say. 

I still believe that LG Brown will be our next Governor. That said, at this stage of the game, our Dream Team is coming across a bit more Gamble and Hoitz.  For those who recall that film, it worked out in the end but it damn sure wasn’t pretty.

Caveat: I don’t know the particular methodology of the latest aforementioned survey nor have I explored the internals.   This poll could very well be an outlier.  Other, earlier opinion research from June and July shows a Brown lead in the 15% range.  Personally, as of this writing, I feel the lead is in the 10% ballpark.

My larger point is that Republican candidates for Governor can, and have, won in deep-blue states.   Let’s look at some (fairly) recent examples:

In Vermont in 2000, Gore captured 50.6% of the vote, with Nader pulling in another seven percent; then-Governor Bush finished with 40.7%.  Four years later, Kerry secured 58.9% compared to 38.8% for President Bush.  In 2002, Jim Douglas (a Republican) eked out a 45% plurality and won against a Democratic Lieutenant Governor.

Want a better case study?  Sure, how about Massachusetts.  In 2000, Gore carried the state with 59.8% of the vote with Nader obtaining another 6.4%.  Bush? A mere 32.5%.  In 2004, Kerry crushed Bush 61.9% - 36.8%.  In 2002, some Michigan transplant called Mitt defeated the Democratic gubernatorial nominee (the State Treasurer) by a 49.8% - 44.9% margin.  

How about closer to home?  In 2000, Gore won Maryland with 56.5% while Bush managed only 40.3%.  In 2004, the margin tightened a bit – with Kerry only able to win by 13% (55.9% - 42.9%).  Meanwhile, in 2002, GOPer Bobby Haircut beat a Kennedy, also the state LG, with 51.55% of the vote.

Now, 2002 was an odd election cycle – being the first following 9/11.  That said, non-presidential general elections, with lower turnout, can be grim for Democratic office-seekers.

Here is my take on the political realities:

First, many Democrats who did not participate in the primary will vote for the ticket in November.  They just aren’t focused on the race yet.  The challenge is that they need a reason to pay attention and I don’t believe that the Brown/Ulman team is providing a compelling rationale for activation….at least not yet. 

Beyond that, and this applies to a relatively tiny but important slice of the Democratic electorate, there are still some hurt feelings from a bruising primary.  I believe the vast majority of Mizeur and Gansler voters will come home, but some won’t.  I can see a handful from both camps sitting this one out, with perhaps a small percentage of Mizeur voters voting Libertarian while a few Gansler people cross over to vote for Hogan.  Not hordes of voters mind you, but such races can be decided at the margins, by thousands of votes scattered across the state. 

Perhaps Labor Day will witness a spectacular re-unveiling of Brown/Ulman.  That said, it is a little too quiet, even by August standards.  And those who believe that a built-in D advantage ensures their victory would do well to ponder the political fates of Doug Racine, Shannon O’Brien and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.  Brown/Ulman need to consolidate the Democratic base, appeal to Independents and reachable Rs - starting now - otherwise they might be spending more time in La Romana than Annapolis come January.  Slats can hook them up. 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.