« Powell Power! | Main | This Weekend on Nicholas's Obsession With the PMQs »
July 07, 2007
Voting From The Unicycle
At Drinking Liberally (San Francisco) a couple weeks ago, I was talking with some Democratic activists when the subject of John Edwards' voting record came up. It's true that Edwards' Senate voting record doesn't differ substantially from Hillary Clinton's. But comparing the voting records of New York Senators and North Carolina Senators is like comparing the work of ordinary heart surgeons with ones who have been forced to operate while riding a unicycle. Here are presidential election results from 2000 and 2004:
| Bush | Gore | (D) net score | Bush | Kerry | (D) net score | |
| IL | 43 | 55 | 12 | 44 | 55 | 11 |
| NY | 35 | 60 | 25 | 40 | 59 | 19 |
| NC | 56 | 43 | -13 | 56 | 44 | -12 |
For reference, Ben Nelson's Nebraska went Republican by 29% in 2000 and 33% in 2004. North Carolina votes more like Nebraska than like New York or even Illinois. Against that background, Edwards' 100% NARAL rating and his solidly Democratic voting record is a major accomplishment.
People are right to give Ben Nelson a lot of slack for his conservative voting record because he's representing a very conservative state. To control the chamber and make Barbara Boxer the chairwoman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works rather than global warming denier James Inhofe, we need to control a majority of seats, and that requires us to win in conservative territory. You can't advance the progressive agenda if you don't stay in the game. Edwards had positioned himself quite well to win a second term -- according to exit polls, voters would've preferred him over the Republican in the 2004 North Carolina Senate election 53-47. Pre-election phone polls showed him with a 50-44 advantage in the re-election race that he passed up for the VP slot.
What we should want from our Democratic representatives is that they play the hands they're dealt as well as possible. Be as progressive as you can be without getting yourself replaced by a Republican in the next election. Different standards will apply to people representing different places. After seeing John Edwards' performance in North Carolina (not to mention his incredible body of post-Senate progressive proposals on issues ranging from health care to telecom policy) I can't wait to see how he plays when you deal him the good cards.
July 7, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I also think it has to do with not getting the message out there well enough. Haven't polls showed that the progressive agenda is very popular? So why aren't we winning more races? Conservatives dominate talk radio for one. And most newscasts by into conservative frames on a lot of issues. I have always thought that if we had the right message and promoted it a lot that we could relegate the Republicans to permanent minority status. Make them a minor party. Sadly, it will never happen because corporate interests want to defeat us at every turn.
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Jul 7, 2007 11:58:17 AM
Wow. Edwards only improved the Democratic position in North Carolina by a single point?
Posted by: Minipundit | Jul 7, 2007 3:07:07 PM
Wow. Edwards only improved the Democratic position in North Carolina by a single point?
Yep, the only change between the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections was Edwards running in the VP slot. And when in any election post-1960 has a VP pick actually swung a state for his party's ticket?
Posted by: Christmas | Jul 7, 2007 3:11:02 PM
And when in any election post-1960 has a VP pick actually swung a state for his party's ticket?
1988, Dukakis/Bentsen lost Tennessee. 1992, Clinton/Gore won Tennessee. Difference? Gore. That's when, Christmas.
This is more arguable, but Ford/Dole lost Texas in 1976 while Reagan/Bush won it in 1980. Having Bush on board had to have helped.
Posted by: Minipundit | Jul 7, 2007 3:23:28 PM
How long will it take before Hillary Clinton's conservative record will catch-up to her? And, why is she getting a "free pass" from prominent bloggers with regards to her record? For example, Kos constantly puts her, Obama, and Edwards on the the same plain. This is not an anti-Kos comment. However, his analysis come to mind at this particular moment and I wanted to give a concrete example.
Posted by: jncam | Jul 7, 2007 4:21:53 PM
Minipundit, Kerry did 3 points worse nationally (in terms of margin of defeat) than Gore did. So it looks more like a +4 effect than a +1 effect.
Your Dukakis example fails for the same reason as your argument against Edwards does -- the fact that the top-ticket candidate in these cases was from Massachusetts does a lot to hurt his chances in the South. And if you count in the regionalist prejudices against Kerry, Edwards' NC performance looks even more impressive.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 7, 2007 5:25:52 PM
jncam,
Kos is only ranking them by tier. It doesn't have anything to do with whether he likes her over Obama or Edwards, or not. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that Clinton would be Kos' third choice. If you read enough of his writing you can figure out why that would be my guess. Besides, I don't think he's done any major critique on the "big three" yet. The only candidates the Great Orange Satan has discounted are Biden are Kucinich(sp?). One last point. If you read DKos or any of the other bigger blogs, you should know that Clinton and DLC Democrats in general are held in pretty low esteem. In his monthly polls he posts on the front page, I don't think Clinton has ever gotten above 8%.
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Jul 7, 2007 5:43:23 PM
JKC, you state, "In his monthly polls he posts on the front page, I don't think Clinton has ever gotten above 8%." Exactly my point. While, the Kossaks prefer Edwards by a large margin that is not reflected in the writings of Kos. Does his ignore his own polls? If so, that is his prerogative. Again, there has been little criticism of Hillary Clinton. With the exception of the The Nation, Tapped and Ezra Klein weblogs there is a paucity of critical analysis of Hillary Clinton's anti-progressive record.
Posted by: jncam | Jul 7, 2007 6:55:26 PM
What we should want from our Democratic representatives is that they play the hands they're dealt as well as possible. Be as progressive as you can be without getting yourself replaced by a Republican in the next election.
Then in the apparently increasingly unlikely event that Edwards becomes president you should want his actions in office to be cautious and centrist. Clinton handed the Republicans a huge victory in the 1994 midterms because he pursued a number of high profile policies during his first two years in office that enraged conservatives and moderates even though those policies weren't particularly "progressive."
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 7, 2007 7:08:13 PM
I'm sorry, JasonR, but that doesn't compute. Think about what you're saying: if Clinton's policies were not particularly progressive, as you say, yet enraged conservatives and moderates all the same, why should the lesson be to avoid progressive policies? Wouldn't the lesson be that conservatives and moderates can be enraged regardless of how progressive one's policies are or aren't?
I'd look elsewhere for lessons from the Clinton years.
Posted by: Antid Oto | Jul 7, 2007 7:47:54 PM
I'd expect any Democrat elected to be fairly cautious and centrist - that's what Democrats do, these days. It's why I think that all three are pretty much fine, though in some way none of them excite me - I really think anyone expecting big and bold from those three (Obama included) is kidding themselves. As for electoral math and Edwards bravery, I'd say both - like so much Neil uses to bolster Edwards (another Saturday, another reason Edwards is wonderful, eh, Neil?) - are debatable. Edwards has good looks and personal charisma that can help him in the South; I suspect, without the personal connections in NC, he comes off as more pretty face, less substance (which is why that lefty record may seem more calculcated than sincere). And the fact that Dukakis and Kerry were lousy does not, necessarily rule out anyone ever again from Mass (though the entrenched, tired Democratic Party in Mass may be its own worst enemy). In short, Neil, keep trying... I'm not convinced, yet. :)
Posted by: weboy | Jul 7, 2007 7:55:15 PM
Another result of Edwards representing North Carolina was his need to cultivate a centrist image that didn't always mesh with his progressive record or his populist leanings. Here's the Nation's John Nichols after Edwards was selected by Kerry to be his running mate:
"In the Senate, Edwards was willing to stand up on a number of anti-corporate issues more so than most Democrats. It's the reason that not just Ralph Nader has kind words for him but also people like Ted Kennedy and remember, internally within the Kerry campaign, Ted Kennedy was advocating for Edwards. Because he saw Edwards as a gutsy guy who is willing to take on some bigger issues and to do some rough stuff with it."
You don't run for reelection in North Carolina by boasting that Ted Kennedy and Ralph Nader like you. But it's something Dems should know, especially those Dems who claim against the evidence that Edwards has re-invented himself.
He was the most progressive senator elected in the a southern red state in the last 30 years.
Posted by: david mizner | Jul 7, 2007 8:13:21 PM
I'm sorry, JasonR, but that doesn't compute. Think about what you're saying: if Clinton's policies were not particularly progressive, as you say, yet enraged conservatives and moderates all the same, why should the lesson be to avoid progressive policies?
I don't know why you don't understand the argument. If even modestly left-wing policies produce such a serious political backlash, then truly progressive ones will be even more damaging to a Democratic president. Clinton saved his presidency by moving back to the center (center-right, even) following the stunning Republican victory in 1994.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 7, 2007 8:19:42 PM
I don't know why you don't understand the argument. If even modestly left-wing policies produce such a serious political backlash, then truly progressive ones will be even more damaging to a Democratic president.
Or, alternatively, the backlash against Clinton was precisely because his policies were so lukewarm and centrist. With NAFTA and the failure of health care reform, he pissed off his own base (who stayed home) while the people who already hated him smelled blood in the water and showed up to the polls in record numbers.
Americans like real progressive policies when they get the opportunity to see them in action. FDR was probably the most popular President of the 20th century, and also one of the most progressive. LBJ's progressive domestic policy initiatives were broadly popular, though his handling of Vietnam was not.
Americans wanted health care reform in 1992. The President, instead of taking charge himself and making it work, delegated it to his wife, who fucked it up. This in turn made him look weak, even unmanly. The American people don't like a president who looks weak and unmanly. (And this is why Hillary Clinton is probably our worst possible candidate for 2008, among other reasons.)
You're also downplaying the role of the assault rifle ban in the 1994 Republican upset. It was a stupid, symbolic law, but it made a big difference. The lesson is that Democrats should focus on stuff that actually matters, not stupid crap that pisses off a lot of blue-collar voters for no good reason.
Posted by: Josh G. | Jul 7, 2007 9:44:31 PM
1988, Dukakis/Bentsen lost Tennessee. 1992, Clinton/Gore won Tennessee. Difference? Gore.
Um, no. Among the many, many other differences between '88 and '92 were (1) the presence of a charismatic southerner at the top of the ticket instead of a dull and technocratic northeasterner, (2) a massive economic recession, (3) the end of the Cold War and (4) the third-party spoiler candidacy of Ross Perot. To simplify this as "Gore swung Tennessee" is absurd.
Posted by: Christmas | Jul 8, 2007 1:21:25 AM
I think this post reflects some selective memory about Edwards. Edwards was a very moderate politician when he ran in North Carolina. He was part of the "centrist coalition" in Congress, and put himself out as a moderate in the 2004 primary. Don't forget that he co-sponsored the Iraq War Resolution. He was no crusading liberal. To compare his Senate career to Hillary Clinton, another politician who has gone out of her way to make herself a centrist only serves to underline who John Edwards is- a centrist when he is running in North Carolina and a liberal when he is running for the Democratic nomination. He is no different than Mitt Romney, except that he plays for the team you root for.
Posted by: Mike | Jul 8, 2007 9:32:58 AM
Or, alternatively, the backlash against Clinton was precisely because his policies were so lukewarm and centrist. With NAFTA and the failure of health care reform, he pissed off his own base (who stayed home)
You have got to be kidding. By that hypothesis, the Dems should have lost by an even bigger margin in the 1996 elections, after Clinton spent the previous two years moving back to the center after the Dems' massive defeat in 1994.
If Clinton had governed from the center in the first place, instead of spending his first two years pursuing tax hikes, gun control, gays in the military, radical health care reform and other left-wing policies the Dems would probably have retained control of congress.
If a president Edwards wanted to commit political suicide for himself and the Democrats, governing even further to the left than Clinton did between 1992 and 1994 would be an excellent way of going about it.
Posted by: JasonR | Jul 8, 2007 2:57:15 PM
So when you were six, you overheard your dad spouting off that Clinton was a radical.
Posted by: Sam | Jul 8, 2007 3:56:27 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
