MyDD/BOPNews DNC Chair Vote Preference

Following up on being the blog to first release the Nov 2nd exit polling, here are the results from informal exit polling Matt Stoller and I did after the event with the DNC Chair candidates this morning. We spoke with DNC voting members as they exited the event. Each person had 3 votes for their top choices. Here are the numbers as distributed among the candidates:
Howard Dean      26
Wellington Webb  26
Ron Kirk         24
Donnie Fowler    14
Martin Frost      9
James Blanchard   7
Simon Rosenberg   4
Harold Ickes      3
We'll post the raw data we collected later. The results are from speaking with 58 DNC members, 37 of whom participated in the survey, with our asking their top three choices at this moment. There were a few that would only choose 1 or 2 candidates, and one person insisted on choosing 4 candidates. All included, and rounded off, that's the interpreted results. What's it say?

That DC-based candidates got killed (Hindery saw the writing on the wall). The four candidates outside the beltway got votes, the four candidates inside the beltway didn't get votes. Now, these votes shouldn't be taken as scientific. 21 refused to respond, and one accurately stated (as refusing) that this sort of thing could have influence; it shouldn't, and it's certainly not sanctioned by the DNC meeting. It's rouughly the top ~3 choices of 37 DNC voting members, about 1/3rd of those attending this DNC meeting, about 9% of all the DNC members that will vote on the Chair. Informative, yes; scientific poll, not; accurate sentiment, maybe.

Matt's got more to say over on BOPNews. So does Jenny Greenleaf at the American Street, though she's an actual DNC member. Bob Brigham has a description of how the vote actually works.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)



Definitely not scientific.  I'd rather have a chairman that knows how to run an organization and has plenty of experience in the party.

I'd rather not have a Chairman who already has a made a bad reputation with media perception.

We are looked at badly in the south.

by kydem 2004-12-11 11:13AM | 0 recs
Oh dear
"Americans for Bayh"?  

As an Indiana resident, I have to ask you....are you sure you know what you're supporting?  

I refer you to the Rockridge's George Lakoff, who addresses the politics of Bayh:

"Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are. It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right."

I eagerly await your reply.

by IrishAlum 2004-12-11 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh dear
I'm in the DLC and I know we cannot win a presidential election without a moderate.  I've looked at our bench.  He is the only man that can win!  He'll need to work on name recognition and charisma but we will need a red state Democrat on the top of the ticket in 2008.

The far right is taking over the GOP and starting to shun the moderate base...some are already defecting to the Democrats--the party of the big tent.

Sorry about the Hoosier's today...GO CATS!

by kydem 2004-12-11 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh dear
man, i keep telling you your lack of understanding of historical or strategic analysis hurts you. DLC'ers count on folks like you not to see this in the long view. Forget policy, focus on  a) demonstrated leadership that will not back down b) the reality that the moderates will cave to the extremist as have Specter of PA (a solid blue state) c) the continuing failure of triangulation which said in a separate post you would answer, but have not yet done so d) the american people don't elect policies they elect people- they will elect a bad leader over a set of policies that they agree with if the person expousing them isn't a leader
by bruh21 2004-12-11 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh dear
i remembered a few others

e) blogswarm mentioned the need for the dems to stop being pussies- who among others do you think will project this to the american public- not just who do you agree with- but who will project this image of being tough? f) what will revive the base- in each state peopl eneed to be rebuilding the machine within their state. g) are there even a enough votes to cull from the group you are talking about- the answer by the way is no- we scored really well among these groups and got everyone we were going to get in this election- we lost that last 2 or 3 percent not on issues- but because they felt our guy was a wimp (how does saying we will give into the republicans and move to compromise work to change perceptions that we are weak?)

by bruh21 2004-12-11 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh dear
This kid talks as if we already don't have the moderates in our camp.

Until KyDem refutes all of Chris' analysis that shows how we have to expand the base, then I would ignore his well meaning but misguided blog lobbying.

by Pachacutec 2004-12-11 11:58AM | 0 recs
You don't know your candidate well enough.
As an Indiana resident (and a Notre Dame guy, the Hoosiers are tied for a distant second with Purdue in my book) who is VERY active in Democratic Party politics, I would like to bring to light a comment made by leading Democratic Party figures here in the Hoosier State:

"Evan Bayh, given a reasonable challenger, would lose his Democratic Primary."  Not could, WOULD.

I could go on and on.  But I'll leave it at this: Please look further into Bayh, as well as other candidates.  The search will be fruitful.

by IrishAlum 2004-12-11 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't know your candidate well enough.
who would you suggest otherwise that can appeal across party lines?
by kydem 2004-12-11 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't know your candidate well enough.
no one because that wont work- but i see you believe that it will- again man there is a reason why even pollsters will put into their polls where people are leaning- dem or republican- you seem to think its merely a matter of the moment. its also long term disposition- who we can realistically convince of our positions.

in terms of your issue, as i mentioned above- what will appeal to them more is a shift in our we do things- from trying to convince them we are something that we aren't into finding something that is authentic leadership

by bruh21 2004-12-11 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't know your candidate well enough.
i must note that most of our Southern Democrats are voting republican in presidential elections after 2000 because they percieve our nominee to be too liberal.  Clinton and Carter won and they were moderates
by kydem 2004-12-11 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't know your candidate well enough.
Jimmy Carter may look like a moderate now, but he did not run as one back in 1976.  He was the Howard Dean insurgent.  He ran against Washington, and against the cronyism, corruption and dishonesty that characterized the Johnson/Nixon years.
by James Earl 2004-12-11 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't know your candidate well enough.
Carter just BARELY beat Gerald Ford. Nuff said. Along came a VERY conservative candidate four years later to face Carter.....
by zt155 2004-12-11 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't know your candidate well enough.
Ford lost because Americans were tired of Watergate
by kydem 2004-12-11 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't know your candidate well enough.
I'm going by what is said on about Carter.  anyway, Liberals do have a tough time in the south and some of the midwest.
by kydem 2004-12-11 02:01PM | 0 recs
Way too early to commit
I'm a Dean supporter in general, but I didn't know who he was 4 years ago.

At this point, the important work is to learn about potential candidates and build your local grassroots base.  9 times out of 10, elections are lost because of poor political organizations.  If you lost an election - and you still have Sen. Bunning - I would suggest that your time would be better spent at this time.

But there always are early adopters of candidates.  Enjoy life with Sen. Bayh.  He's all yours.

by IrishAlum 2004-12-11 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't know your candidate well enough.
by the way implicit in all of this is a shame in what you think the dems stand for. why do you think anyone willw ant to support someone who is ashamd of their own position so much that they are continually trying to tell folks- yeah i am like him. think about it personally- have you ever had friends like this- who do you like- the guy who takes charge and lead 0r the guy who says me too? i have asked you a few times now to reply but no response- oh well.
by bruh21 2004-12-11 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't know your candidate well enough.
I am looking at the big picture here.  I have studied enough elections and political science to know that no liberal can win the presidential election.
by kydem 2004-12-11 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't know your candidate well enough.
You really think the south turned republican becuase we re too liberal. Is that why Alabama voted to keep Jim Crow laws on the books. Trust me when I say I know A LOT about these things both with education (I have both a degree in Government and Foreign Affairs and a law degree), working on homeless issues in the 1990s, etc and in terms of following politics since about 1980. Saying all this- the liberal rap is b/s. The things we would have to do to convince the South to go Democratic would include accepting racist policies (again, I refer you to Alabama or the recent incident in NC with the slavery as "biblical" which by the way is nothing new if you are familar with Southern Apologists or the story of Hamm from the Bible (which was used as a justification for slavery)). The class structure down there has always been white wealthy, poor white, black wealthy, poor blacks- that's the old structure. The reason why it will change on demographic- the new SOuth- not anything the Dems will do. Johnson (or someone like him- I'm blanking) said we will lose the south for a reason. There is a reason that Nixon used the SOuthern strategy down south. There is a reason that clinton in 1992 used sister soulja as a tool to say to southern whites- I am not completely with the blacks. there is a reason that welfare queen worked down there although most folks down there on welfare are white. it's because they associated it with black people.

the other big turner- again not something that the dems should embrace- is there brand of evangelical christianity- again- i say their brand- i know norheast evangelicals who are democrats. and except for blacks, who are often evangelicals (though you analysis doesnt include them) there are few white southern evangelicals who will vote democratic- why dou think this is the case? why would black evangelicals who are not liberal vote for kerry this time?

see these arguments work as long as people don't think too much on what the code words mean.

why are we making head ways in states like NC and VA- one quick answer- they are becoming less and less - old south- and that's got nothing to do with kerry or the left or the republicans for that matter. its demongraphic shifts. more latinos, more northerners moving south, the rise of the big corp interests that want higher educated work forces such as in charlotte nc or the tech corridors. and multiple other factors. these changes want happen in the short run- but  by 2012 va will be ours as will several other states. whats not going to work is the short term strategy of "appealing" to the south- because who are we talking about appealing to?

by bruh21 2004-12-11 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't know your candidate well enough.
time to get back to studying for finals...see ya in January when i will be on the internet for a longer period of time!
by kydem 2004-12-11 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't know your candidate well enough.
American elctoral politics moves in broad cycles.  Broaden your historical view, and you'll see that liberals and liberal dems can win.

The Republican Party has the earmarks of a market bubble these days, if the dems will fight and confront them on their emerging majority corruption and shafting of working families.  The dems had a majority bubble that ended in 1994, and now the other side is getting visibly fat, corrupt and incoherent.

It will take time to rebuild the democratic coalition, now that it's clear that the New Deal momentum was completely over in 1994, we can get on with rebuilding liberalism and knocking out the cobwebs, making it relevant to the 21st century.

Look at the movement the right wing built starting with Goldwater:  they took a deep look at their failings and built a long term movement that overtook our majority, not by imitating us, but my rebuking us sharply, and by building their movement on all fronts:  thank tanks, grass roots, ideological moorings, etc.

Now, they made so many compromises with their ideological principles on the way to acsendancy that conservatism now stands for big government and fundamentalist moral elitism.  That's not a movement Goldwater would recognize.

They'r ripe for a good, hard push back.  And that's what we're talking about.

The polling outfit that had the best record in the last election was Pew Research.  They've debunked the notion that "moral values" voters were proportionally any higher this time out than in 2000.  But Kerry got creamed on "leadership" issues:  "knowing that he stands for," "sticking to it" and "being honest about his convictions."

That's what people around here are talking about.  Moderating on issues has not been a majority coalitionbuilder, not even with Clinton.  He won pluralities when there was a strong 3rd party candidate.  Polls already show people favor dems on the issues.  But the don't trust that liberals have balls, and that's why we have not won national elections.

But that's about to change.  That's what we're advocating around here.  If you mean that liberals can't win because people equate "liberal" with "wuss," then fine.  But what if a liberal is not a "wuss?"

And while Kerry was no "wuss" in fact, he did run a cautious campaign, and he was never abvle to overcome his Senate-speak, which made him look to convoluted and weak.

We have work to do:  building a grass roots revival, the think tanks, the ideological articulation of liberal principles in the modern world, etc.  But Evan Bayh?  He's not the guy to do it.  Sorry.

by Pachacutec 2004-12-11 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't know your candidate well enough.
I have to agree with KY dem on this one. We need a southern or midwestern democrat to win the white house. Here is a great ticket: Bredsen- Bayh 08
by mypresident 2004-12-11 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't know your candidate well enough.
Thanks.  Phil's name is always butchered, isn't it?  I thought it was Bredesen.
by kydem 2004-12-11 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't know your candidate well enough.
When the party loses on this strategy in 2006- and if they follow your opinion they will - will you then come to your senses to finally see that this is about leadership and not some magic formula or savior?

As I told the other dude, I am actually left of center- the old left of center back when that included ideals like the Powell Doctrine before the center once again shifted further right so that now the powell doctrine is liberal. The center doesn't mean shit if we aren't going to lead or for that matter do three other things (rebuild state party apparatus which requires folks at the local level (which I told your buddy to do and he seemed uninterested), develop a focused message (as a corrolary this means controling the media- as I said who among you is trying to create local media as a counter point?) and learn to play the game dirty and with strategy).

Let me make myself clear- I don't think Dean or Rosenberg or anyone else will "save" the party. There is no  magic formula to cure what ails us. I want them because they are open to change. Which of the guys that you mention wants this? I don't mean lip service to change. I mean fire in the belly, going to fight for it change. Who can look the American people in the eye and say it like it is to the same effect as Clinton, Bush or Reagan?  Who is going to have the cahoones? Who is not going to need a third party candidate like Perot to win? Kerry lost, and its been repeated a million times by now- polling has shown because he was too cautious not because he was liberal.  

I dont mind dissenting opinion but you actually in my world have to base that opinion on something besides what you think. Every time I challenge your buddy- he conveniently has home work but answers other peoples questions on these points I am making. What is your purpose here? To help with strategies that are going to work- or to advance just your own opinion? I can back up why your views are wrong, and why mines are right. I am asking you to do the same with yours beyond catchphrases and wishful thinking.

Which of the men you mention fits this bill? If you can't tell me concretely that they are going to stand up for the idea of leadership- which I have realized is most Dems' problem, including some of the Dems on this site and Kos's blog, then consider whether their name should be mentioned.

by bruh21 2004-12-11 06:01PM | 0 recs
GOP will trash any nominee
Your conception of "moderation" isn't exactly a winning formula either.

Look the GOP is gonna trash any Dem nominee as being some Left Wing loon.

Dukakis didn't lose because he was a Lefty, he lost for not being a fighter. This paved the way for Clinton's candidacy. Clinton was a fighter.

by Carl Nyberg 2004-12-11 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: GOP will trash any nominee
when looking at the south and midwest, moderate Democrats tend to be the only ones that can win.
by kydem 2004-12-11 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: GOP will trash any nominee
Kerry was supposed to be electable.

Numerous Gore supporters told me I shouldn't back Bradley cause Dems needed a Southerner.

Seeking inoffensive candidates is an admission the party has no message. If the party has no message it's not going to win.

by Carl Nyberg 2004-12-13 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: outsiders
"knows how to run an organization and has plenty of experience in the party"

sorry -- you just described Howard Dean.  There is plenty you could find wrong with him (and the media battle is part of it) -- but organizational skills and party experience are not his short comings.  

Have you thought about Landrieu in 2008?  I personally think she would make a killer VP.  

by Lystrosaurus 2004-12-11 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: outsiders
I have given thought to her as VP but she would need to do what Joe did and run simultaneously for Senate.
by kydem 2004-12-11 12:41PM | 0 recs
interesting dynamics
Thanks for doing this, you two have provided some great coverage. FYI: Jenny Greenleaf is also blogging the coverage over at American Street.
by Bob Brigham 2004-12-11 11:14AM | 0 recs
Some Disappointment
The numbers for Wellington Webb and Simon Rosenberg are a bit disappointing. But glad to see Howard Dean doing well.
by Herb La Tortue 2004-12-11 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Some Disappointment
I'm surprised.  I was at least expecting Simon to beat FROST, for chrissakes.

So much for our hopeful compromise candidate (albeit this is an unscientific poll).

Glad to see Dean already has high support.

by Skaje 2004-12-11 12:20PM | 0 recs
The anti-DC sentiment is definately good news. We have to move from the inside to the outside.
by Chris Bowers 2004-12-11 12:00PM | 0 recs
my Dilemma with Dean
I know he is the best candidate to save DEMs.
But I want him to start new party, because DEMs
are not fixable and have no identity: many of them
trying to go to the center and be friends with
corporations instead of poor and working people.

So I do want Dean to win, but I afraid he will
win the DNC chairmanship and he will waste his
talents for a wrong party and wrong reasons

by WeNeed3rdParty 2004-12-11 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: my Dilemma with Dean
Now there's something I agree with unreservedly!  Replacement party is definitely needed.

Apparently Dean is not committed to the DNC, worried that it might kill his political prospects (NPR this pm).  

Also, I heard someone asking why Dave Bonior isn't on the list?  

by Bean 2004-12-11 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: my Dilemma with Dean
Apparently Dean is not committed to the DNC, worried that it might kill his political prospects (NPR this pm).

Remember that just because some NPR reporter said it, doesn't mean it's true. (As time goes on, in fact, I trust the political judgement of NPR reporters less and less)

by cerebrocrat 2004-12-11 01:29PM | 0 recs
Dean movement becoming 3rd party movement
If Dean doesn't get the nod will a renegade group of Deaniacs strike out and try to take over and reshape the Reform Party?
by Carl Nyberg 2004-12-11 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Dean movement becoming 3rd party movement
I don't think anyone would do that.  The RP nominated Pat Buchanan in 2000, a member of the right wing.  I still have no idea how Nader got through those wings.

I will say this as a person skeptical of the IMAGE Dean would bring as Chair.

Loyal Democrats will stay regardless of the Chairman.  We have a lot of rebuilding, reorganizing, and re-strategizing to do.

A friend once told me:

We have to build with true Democrats, not Dean only Democrats. Personality Politics is not the way to build this Party.
I think he says it quite well.
by kydem 2004-12-11 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Dean movement becoming 3rd party movement
What makes you think people gravitated to Dean because of his personality?

I was aligned with Dean's politics before I knew about Dean. I've been a fiscal discipline, anti-war, pro-IRV, independent leaning Dem for ages.

I think you "centrists" Democrats get pretty fucking useless when you carp about Dean and his movement without offering a viable alternative.

by Carl Nyberg 2004-12-13 11:15AM | 0 recs
Dean & Israel
You don't like Dean cause he's got the cajones and the chutzpah to stand up to Israel.

If Dean where a status quo Dem and supported subjugating Arabs as agressively as the mainstream Dem Party you'd have no beef with his image.

by Carl Nyberg 2004-12-14 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: my Dilemma with Dean
NO! No third party! If the Democratic Party does not stick together, if the big tent does not get bigger, we will have Republican presidents for the next 50 years.

I love my country too much to let it crumble under its own debt. So no third party. One party, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And together, we'll Stick It To The Elephant.

We need to win first and ask questions later, which is what the other side is doing (and very well, I might add). Dean is far too divisive for this job; it's not the right time or place for Generation Dean to flex its muscles. Democrats need someone new to the American people, someone who doesn't carry baggage from the past, someone who knows what they're doing.

I'm all about Rosenberg at this point, because he's new to the people, baggage-free, and knows what he's doing. This shouldn't be a popularity contest. Save the popularity contest for '08.

by Joe Jones 2004-12-11 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: my Dilemma with Dean
If the party is gonna stick together you need to call out those assholes at the DLC lobbing bombs at the rest of the party.

And those of us that kick in small contributions and knock on doors better get some fuckin respect.

by Carl Nyberg 2004-12-13 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: my Dilemma with Dean
Will you people get over the blind-faith belief that Howard Dean is a real liberal? He ain't.
Substitute his name for any DLCer candidate and change DLC to NDN and you have Howard Dean.

He was a centrist governor and an opportunist on Iraq and an antiwar position that wasn't really what he or you cracked it up to be.

Besides, there's no need to start a new party, one's already in existence. If you're serious about what you say, start voting Green.

by steverino 2004-12-12 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: my Dilemma with Dean
Why was Dean's position on Iraq opportunist? The war was a stupid idea and everybody who knew much of anything about foreign policy knew it was a politically motivated bad idea. The difference between Dean and (Kerry and the DLCers) is that Dean had the courage to say it was a bad idea at the time.
by Carl Nyberg 2004-12-13 11:20AM | 0 recs
more on the rules for DNC election
From Swing State Project:

There are a number of important rules governing this election that should be known to understand the dynamics:

  • The election will be open to the public and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot Charter, Article 9, Sect.12
  • Roberts Rules of Order is used Charter, Article 9, Sect. 14
  • Terry McAliffe will preside over the election Charter, Article 5, Sect. 3
  • Of the five Vice-Chairs, three shall be of the opposite sex of the Chair Charter, Article 3, Sect 1(e)
  • A roll call may be requested by 25% of the voting members present Bylaws, Article II, Sect B, (d)(ii)
by Bob Brigham 2004-12-11 01:07PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads