MyDD :: It's rural America stupid

It's rural America stupid

by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:31:09 AM EST

I hate to have to fact check Rahm Emanual's memo to his Democratic colleagues but... Sirota has a roundup of how most Democrats in DC couldn't read the outcome correctly from Oh 2nd. In particular, I noticed the pdf memo sent to all Democratic House Members about what Democrats should learn from the Hackett race from the DCCC. Whomever wrote the memo needs a better demographic map. It's a pdf (page one, and page two), so I'll have to type out the wrong-headed reading:

There is much chatter about Democrats losing races because of exurbs and fast growing areas. OH 2nd includes all of Clermont and most of Warren, two of the fastest exurbs in Ohio. If Democrats can gain, even minimally in the exurbs, they will be able to score major gains in 2006. Below is how Hackett outperformed Sen. John Kerry in these suburban and and exurban counties.

That Clermont and Warren are exurb counties is true, but then the DCCC writer then goes on to layout the totals for the rural counties of Adams, Brown, and Pike counties, with the Hackett gains over Kerry's totals being highlighted as suburban and and exurban counties.

Adams, Brown, and Pike are rural counties, not suburban or exurban. They are no where close to urban areas. Adams is 90% rural, Brown and Pike are 80% rural. Gains were made in Clermont and Warren, but no where near the level that was made in the rural areas of the CD. It's in rural America, not the suburbs or exurbs, where the opening is there for Democrats to make gains, as Hackett proved. That we should battle them everywhere is a given, but to overlook the gains in the rural counties as a lesson going forward is inexcusable, much less to not even recognize it.

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 44 Comments :: Post a Comment

Rural vote (none / 0)

Seemed like you were already focusing on the rural vote when we spoke on election night. Your point is a good one and might presage some erosion in the rural vote nationwide, depending on the candidate as always.

by Demo Dan in Dayton on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 03:53:11 PM EST

So,,, (none / 0)

Are you or Sirota using your connections to run a counter memo or some other informational startegy???????

by rich on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:02:11 PM EST

Re: So,,, (none / 0)

Here is one clue.

by blogswarm on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:20:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did Hackett outperform Kerry? (none / 0)

Or was it just all about getting out the vote? If you look at the ratios of Schmidt/Portman in each of the counties and Hackett/Sanders in all of the counties, Schmidt consistently got about 25% of the Portman voters and Hackett consistently got about 60% of the Sanders voters. Outliers for Hackett in Brown with 74% of Sanders voters and Hackett in Pike with only 47% of Sanders voters. Both are within 2 standard deviations of the average, however.

by ICantBelieve on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:02:19 PM EST

Re: Did Hackett outperform Kerry? (none / 0)

Good points. I explained in the lead up about the benchmark of which to work with country wide, here, but didn't break it down county by county. The Sanders to Kerry vote total basically represents the low hanging fruit. So yea, contesting in all areas of the CD for GOTV would bring in a equal rise of the vote total in the Warren/Clermont exurb as the Brown/Adams/Pike rural counties. But when you work from the benchmark, which Kerry and those state leg races represent, is where the gains in the rural areas standout. Back of the napkin, here's the gains I came up with:

Brown-56
Adams-32
Scioto-34
Pike-28
Warren-27
Clermont-25

I would highlight the top 4 counties (which are rural) and less so the bottom 2 counties (which are exurbs).

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:41:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did Hackett outperform Kerry? (none / 0)

Well, I'm confused. What are these numbers? I don't understand the Sanders to Kerry number either. Can you tell me how you've calculated your numbers? I'm just confused. I've explained my thinking in more detail at the bottom of this thread: http://www.mydd.com/poll/1123039195_JVFhHnsU I'm really interested in this. I agree that we SHOULD have more room to grow in rural areas, but I'm not seeing how the Hackett race results show that.

by ICantBelieve on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 05:10:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did Hackett outperform Kerry? (none / 0)

I calculated the numerical difference from Kerry-Bush to Hackett-Schmidt for the counties in OH 2nd. Kerry went from losing Brown by 28% to Hackett winning Brown by 28%... The Sanders numbers are lower than the Kerry numbers, sure. The Kerry numbers match up with the high-water mark of Democrats running throughout the counties in the 2nd CD in 2004 state leg races, so that's what I take as the benchmark for success (I have not posted the numbers, but did post the House districts, if you want to check this, in that post linked).

Your numbers look fine to me (that higher turnout corresponds with the rural counties) if I'm reading the table correctly:
Brown- 74
Adams- 66
Scioto-61
Hamilton-61
Clermont-61
Warren-59
Pike-47

The rural county of Pike starts at a much higher Democratic-voting level than any other rural county in the CD (Kerry and Portman just losing by 4% in 2004, though the overall percentage of Hackett's win over Schmidt is second highest to Brown). So, if anything, this would point toward the Hackett field operation of Pike doing a damn good job of targeting their voters, and not overall GOTV, to the polls.

Did Hackett outperform Kerry?

Yea, especially in terms of motivating the voters, and did Schmidt underperform from Bush? Yep. So you're right, we can't draw too reaching of conclusions without this bearing out in further cycles. All I'm saying is that it bears fruit to look at what Hackett did, and that the best crop was in the rural areas of the CD.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 05:42:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did Hackett outperform Kerry? (none / 0)

And if we put down the tea leaves for a second or two, we can remind ourselved that rural and ex-urban appeal had nothing to do with either Hackett or Kerry, but everything to do with their military credentials.

Kerry was a vet of a war of ill memory, came back to protest it (not exactly smiled on in our jingoistic chickenhawk atmosphere today), not only opposed the Gulf War which is still popular, but had a convoluted for-it-against-it message/record on Iraq while that war is ongoing.

Compare to Hackett who is pioneering his status as the first Iraq war vet in an atmosphere of jingoistic chickenhawkery, while the Iraq war is ongoing, and during a time that support for the war has fallen to a new low while casualties near 2,000. To republicans, it's damn near unpatriotic not to support him, or at least give him a hell of a lot of slack and credibility for his message.

And please don't compare opposing candidates. My god, Jean Schmidt has to be one of the worst candidates next to Katherine Harris ever. While Bush is a formiddable opponent who has never lost. Kerry was also opposing the commander in chief in time of war, compared to Hackett opposing a wannabe representative in Ohio.

Yes Hackett outperformed Kerry, but that really doesn't mean a damn thing when there's completely different circumstances. Hackett's Iraq war credentials is the #1 reason why he is such a great candidate with crossover appeal. He looks like a JFK democrat (and I don't mean Kerry).

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did Hackett outperform Kerry? (none / 0)

This is all the numbers I have. sorry the formatting isn't better. Can you do HTML tables here?

2004 C 2005 C 2004 P 05/04 C 05/04 P %P 04 %C 04 %C 05

Adams -R 8310 1911 7563 23.0 25.3 63.9 72.4 47.6
Adams -D 3169 2101 4281 66.3 49.1 36.1 27.6 52.4

Brown -R 13796 3100 12647 22.5 24.5 63.9 72.3 44.0
Brown -D 5293 3950 7140 74.6 55.3 36.1 27.7 56.0

Pike -R 6047 1559 6520 25.8 23.9 52.1 52.0 37.0
Pike -D 5578 2659 5989 47.7 44.4 47.9 48.0 63.0

Scioto -R 10099 2638 18259 26.1 52.0 55.8 34.9
Scioto -D 8004 4925 16827 61.5 48.0 44.2 65.1

Clermont-R 66158 17320 62949 26.2 27.5 70.9 76.6 58.2
Clermont -D 20210 12439 25887 61.5 48.1 29.1 23.4 41.8

Hamilton -R 89743 25011 222616 27.9 52.7 70.1 51.5
Hamilton -D 38237 23597 199679 61.7 47.3 29.9 48.5

Warren -R 32949 7556 68037 22.9 72.3 78.3 58.2
Warren -D 9107 5420 26044 59.5 27.7 21.7 41.8

by ICantBelieve on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:16:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did Hackett outperform Kerry? (none / 0)

Same stat but based on Kerry rather than Sanders numbers:

Adams 49%
Brown 55%
Pike 44%
Clermont 48%

What is the difference between Brown and Pike?

by ICantBelieve on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:26:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did Hackett outperform Kerry? (none / 0)

I'm not sure what you are pointing out to me? Maybe you can do a diary entry on it? You can do tables with the pre tags.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 03:16:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did Hackett outperform Kerry? (none / 0)

I'm just asking why Pike and Brown had such different turnouts for Hackett relative to Sanders. In Pike, only 47% of Sanders voters turned out for Hackett. In Brown, 74% did. I would have thought they were pretty similar. (Although Pike seems to be much more Democratic than Brown.)

by ICantBelieve on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 01:19:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Institutional Incompetence (none / 0)

God, it never amazes me how off base these people in Washington are. They really don't know how to read the electorate do they? How do we get rid of them?

by exLogCabin on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:22:39 PM EST

Exurb / Rural (3.00 / 0)

I have no clue if this hypothesis is correct, but it works for me in several different places. If we accept that we do better in some suburbs, especially inner suburbs, and do worse in these growing exurbs, we can't assume that Republicans just dissapeared from the suburbs, or that we won them over and suddenly a whole new breed of Republicans shows up in the exurbs. What seems to have happened is that Republicans left the suburbs, and moved into the exurbs. Some may have come in from rural america, for for the most part that explains part of the shift. We should fight for a larger share of the exurban votes, but we can't expect to win everyone over exurban voter. They are, or have been Republican. The more pliable vote is the rural vote, which has been punished by Republican economic policies, the defunding of rural health care, lack of upkeep for their infrastructure, and a set of policies that have made flight to suburbs a regular feature for the young. The parts of the OH-02 that Hackett overperformed the margin he needed to win was in the rural counties. I'm not advocating that voters should be ignored, but there should be some realization that a Republican is a Republican and some votes are more pliable than others. It's harder work to go into Rural areas and talk to the citizens, and walk the streets because people are spread out, and unlike cities, or suburbs they don't come to you in one place. But I agree that our future lies with cities, suburbs and the ignored rural counties.

by Kombiz Lavasany on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:24:03 PM EST

Re: Exurb / Rural (none / 0)

I would agree with that reading. I don't have the totals in the CD offhand for how Kerry matched up against Bush in the suburb part of Hamilton that's in the CD. Besides, I'm pretty sure that ACT would have been there-- making it a tough reading to verify anyway.

The whole reason why I think this is relevant, is because groups like ACT ignored the rual areas of Ohio. iirc, something like 35 of the Ohio counties did not even have ACT representation, and if that's the case, my bet would be that those were rural counties left on the table.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:45:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exurb / Rural (none / 0)

Something I had suspected but never heard about ACT skipping the rural counties (or 35 counties). The post can be the basis of a nice critique of two parts of the party. The part that says just get out your base and everything will fall in line, and the part that says act GOP lite on these issues and you'll be fine. Why be GOP lite which does not help with the needs of rural parts of the country. Why pander so much to the base when you can pick up rural voters by going in and trying to persuade. If only one had some data, one could make the case that an 8 point jump in the votes from rural counties means this to Democrats....

by Kombiz Lavasany on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exurbanites (none / 0)

"What seems to have happened
is that some Republicans left the
suburbs. and moved to the exurbs."

That used to be called "white flight."

Figures now show a growing number
of blacks, Hispanics and immigrants
moving into older, close-in suburbs.

It's not surprising that some whites
who don't want their children going to
school with "them" will move from
the established suburbs, to bigger
houses on larger lots farther and
farther away from the teeming poor.

And I'm sure the whites moving to
the exurbs vote Republican.

That result follows from the high
income of these upwardly and
outwardly mobile voters, and
from what used to be called
"the Southern Strategy" -- until
Republicans saw how well the
strategy worked all across the U.S.

by Woody on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 07:13:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the reminder (none / 0)

I had forgotten one of the most surprising aspects of this election was the HUGE margins of victory Hackett pulled in the rural counties. I was really astounded by that since it seemed completely contrary to the conventional wisdom that Democrats don't play well in the countryside.

If nothing else, Hacket has demonstrated that unapologetic Democrats can do well in farm country.

It is in the suburbs that the real battle is going to take place. If we can crack the code on that area then we can win in a rout.

by Chris Andersen on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:47:58 PM EST

Re: Thanks for the reminder (none / 0)

Or was it due to Schmidt's stupidity in openly favoring factory farms? That was like going to an AFL-CIO meeting and announcing that you favor offshoring.

by antiHyde on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:07:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks for the reminder (none / 0)

No not really.

These counties are just historically more Democratic. Its the extreme southwestern edge of Ohio's Appalachia. So it has more in common with eastern Kentucky and western West Virginia than it does with Indian Hills.

by adamterando on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 01:59:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How do rural voters feel about the war? (none / 0)

Has anyone done any polling on either current attitudes or how persuadable people in the hinterlands are -- i.e., if you give them the facts, will they listen and process them? Hackett's success in those areas suggests that these people arlready know Iraq is a huge blunder or are at least receptive to the message....

While the Democrats as a whole have up to now not been a model of courage and consistency on Iraq, the Republicans have been in complete lockstep with Bush, so there is room for the Democrats to define a clear difference on this issue as the casualty totals sadly continue to mount -- and will continue until someone forces Bush to change his blithe "freedom is on the march" attitude.

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:58:17 PM EST

Re: How do rural voters feel about the war? (none / 0)

Hackett is credible to even the staunchest republican because he's given the blood, sweat, and tears in Iraq that earns him a right to an opinion about the war above 99% of the rest of us.

If the democrats could banish this image problem of national security weakness that the GOP has so effectively pinned on them, they would sweep 2006 and 2008. Because if the GOP does not have national security, they have nothing. The dems outpoll the republicans on nearly every ther issue of importance to Americans.

Hackett is a dream of a candidate because his military credentials are relevent and unquestionable. You cannot disparage his patriotism no matter what he says. And the guy has brilliant political savvy -- calling the president a son of a bitch yet he would die for him -- talk about knowing what to say and how to get away with it!

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:21:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Was this election stolen? (none / 0)

Here we go again, the political pros debating the semantics and strategery of how to win in 2006. They continue to talk as if this is your father's Oldsmobile, that this is the 1950's, when Republicans were nice conservative people like Eisenhower who built the interstate highway system.

You people continue to ignore one simple fact-Democrats are not going to "win" in these blatantly rigged elections. If anyone was listening to the Randi Rhodes show the other night, she brought up the fact that Hackett and Schmidt were roughly 50-50 up until around 11pm election night.

Then Clermont County, whose optical scan voting machines had gone down earlier, due to problems with "high humidity", came back on line. Schmidt suddenly had a bonanza of 4,000 extra votes, enough to put her over the victory line. Her lead margin increased dramatically.

I know people are adverse to believing that all their hard work, all their dedication, all their petty vanities as political professionals, all is to no avail.

We are dealing with an entrenched and enduring fraudulaent election system in which private companies with deep ties to the Republican party are in charge of the entire apparatus of elections in this country. Computerized voting systems, like computers everywhere, are vulnerable to hacking, and its funny since the convergence came about after 2000, when Republicans controlled the entire federal government and major electoral swing states such as Florida and Ohio in all branches, along with computerized voting technology, Democrats have no won any major contested electoral contests.

There were major signs of electoral fraud in the 2002 midterm elecions, as well as the 2004 presidential election, where the exit polls were showing a Kerry victory both in the nationwide popular vote and in Ohio and several other swing states such as New Mexico and Iowa.

I am so tired of all this, wasting all this effort on strategy when you ignore the simple fact that, until we fix the rotten and fraudulent election system in this country, all of the strategy means a rat's ass.

by MichiganDemocrat on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 05:38:38 PM EST

Re: Was this election stolen? (none / 0)

The Clermont county results are right in line with the votes from all the other counties. There doesn't seem to be anything odd there.

by ICantBelieve on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was this election stolen? (none / 0)

"The Clermont county results are right in line with the votes from all the other counties. There doesn't seem to be anything odd there."

What does that mean? It means nothing. It explains nothing. Right in line with the votes from all the other counties? What is that?

Its not "right in line" with Brown County, which went to Bush in 2004 and to Hackett last week.

Why would only Clermont county's machines go down due to "high humidity." You ignore that completely.

I sick of you "stick your head in the sand" gutless wonders out there. I'm not saying I know for sure there was fraud in Clermont County, I'm just saying we need to investigate and find out. To dismiss is out of hand, after we all know what was going on in Ohio last year, is simplistic and wishful thinking.

by MichiganDemocrat on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:33:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was this election stolen? (none / 0)

I think irregularities should be investigated as a regular process of auditing the election process to ensure the integrity of poll. In fact, just like companies and agencies have to have annual audits by independent public accountants, I think elections should be independently audited as standard operating procedure. Having stated that, I am not surprised that Jean Schidmt would be able to beat back some of Hackett's charge in Clermont County by getting it with 58%. Clermont County is not just a stronghold of the Republican Party, it was also where Jean Schmidt served in the Ohio House of Representatives from and many voters there were familiar with her already. I talked with one lady at work who votes in that district and she said she didn't even know of Hackett until a few days before the election when she started getting calls. Still, despite the obstacles, Hackett was able to make gains even in Clermont County.

by robstephens on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:09:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was this election stolen? (none / 0)

If you read the stats I've posted, you'll see that all the counties had virtually exactly the same ratios of votes from 2004 vs. 2005. Hackett got out about 60% of the Dem vote and Schmidt got out about 25% of the Repub vote. Take a look up thread. It's all there. And it's all quite consistent. Perhaps that's why Paul Hackett isn't raising the issue.

by ICantBelieve on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 01:32:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What Me Worry? (none / 0)

All this talk about stolen elections, oh, all of that is just consiracy thinking!! This is the mindset of so many people, people who have not done any heavy reading or investigating on the subject. I wish I could be so innocent again, believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, and that Republicans are the nice loyal opposition who would not dream of stealing votes.

Hell, if they can lie their asses off about getting the US into a war which has now cost 1800 American lives, why can't they try to rig a national or state election?

Here is a good link to a site which examines the possibility of fraud in 2004:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm

by MichiganDemocrat on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 06:46:55 PM EST

Re: What Me Worry? (none / 0)

Is this anything like your theory that Bush and Blair were behind the London bombings?

by Chris Bowers on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:36:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Me Worry? (none / 0)

I may not agree with Markos very often, particularly regarding his increasingly draconian take on toeing the party line, but I think he's spot on when it comes to conspiracy theorists getting out of hand on his site.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 09:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Something Else to Chew On (none / 0)

"there doesn't seem to be anything odd there"

Hell, there does too!!

http://www.nypress.com/18/30/news&columns/taibbi.cfm

by MichiganDemocrat on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 07:06:43 PM EST

Re: Something Else to Chew On (none / 0)

Did you link me to the right place? There's not a single mention of Paul Hackett in this article, is there?

You do your cause a disservice when you scream "irregularities" before you look at the data. Take another look at the Hackett race. If there's anything odd there, it's the difference in Hackett turnout between Pike and Brown counties; I haven't been able to explain that. But, I was only active in Clermont county, so I don't know the overall picture. Perhaps the GOTV effort was more concentrated in Brown and less concentrated in Pike.

I don't think it's a good idea for Markos and Armando to be stifling discussion of election fraud on this site. But I also don't think it's a good idea for people to knee-jerk scream "fraud" as soon as we lose an election.

Look at the data. It does not look odd for Clermont county. If you've got some other insight into it, by all means present it here. But it was hotter than hell in Cincinnati that day and most of the buildings I was in in Clermont county did not have air conditioning. I don't find it out of the question that they'd have problems with humidity. And their 61.5% turnout (Hackett 2005 / Sanders 2004) is right on track with all the other counties.

by ICantBelieve on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 01:39:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Rest of the story (none / 0)

Part 2:
http://www.nypress.com/18/31/news&columns/taibbi.cfm

by MichiganDemocrat on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 07:13:57 PM EST

Hell, here's another link: (none / 0)

I promise not to tie up this thread anymore, but here is another good article about Ohio:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

by MichiganDemocrat on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 07:17:59 PM EST

I disagree (none / 0)

There is no GOP growth in the suburbs and rural areas. Bush didn't gain anything in the rural areas in 2004 over 2000, and actually did 9% worse in exurbs in 2004. But these areas are so small. The exurbs and rural areas only make up 25% of the country. Urban areas make up 30% and suburbs 45%. Kerry didn't lose because of the rural areas or exurbs. Sure he would have won if he had won them, but bush would have had a landslide if he had won 100% of the black vote and 90% of MA, NY and CA. In all of these cases, the statement might be true, but the senerio never would have actually happened. What cost Kerry was the fact that he lost white married men and women (espcially women) with kids in the suburban/urban areas. Unlike the rural/exurban vote this bloc actually can be won (Clinton did it twice) and this is a far larger segment. Appealing to rural/exurban voters make a lot of sense, in a highly rural congressional district (like Hackett's) or state (like SD). But appealing to the rural/exurban voters in a national campaign is a very stupid move. You are appealing to a very narrow bloc, which wont vote for you anyway, and risk ignoring the far larger, far more receptive white married men/women with kids in suburbs and urban areas.

by liberaldemocrat08 on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:01:53 PM EST

This is why (none / 0)

I don't give money to the DCCC.

by beerwulf on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:03:26 PM EST

Navel-Gazing (none / 0)

Hopefully Rahm Emmanuel was doing this as a favor to someone, given that if he has Senatorial ambitions, Durbin and Obama might be there a while...

This memorandum probably adopts the view that "exurb" really does not mean anything. And it's true...if an "exurb" means anything...it's the most distant ring of suburban growth in a metropolitan area. However, as sprawl increases, there is the chance that this distant ring begins to procreate with smaller town and cities that are much older in vintage than the suburban tract. Therefore, the important detail is that exurbs are constantly dynamic. Places that were exurbs five years ago are not now, either because they are now within the surburban pale completely, or development collapsed.

Now, in regards to Hackett...he narrowly lost because he painted an incomplete picture of himself. He was easy on guns, light on things like gay marriage...but a tamed dove on the war. Hackett could have easily won if he took Bush to the shed on Congressional issues...like Social Security and for that matter CAFTA. But he was stuck on the "jarhead" motif too much. That got him almost enough to win...but seriously...do you want to win by 1% or 20%?

If the DCCC needs to learn anything from this race it's that making a caricature of yourself won't win the race in and of itself. You still have to know the issues, take the fight to the incumbent party, and make 'em pay. If Hackett adjusts, he could knock off Schmidt in '06. Other seats are ripe for turnover too...if we can just find strong candidates to run on the issues and hit the Republicans head on.

by risenmessiah on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:03:29 PM EST

Democratic Strengths and Weaknesses (none / 0)

Looking at a county break down of the 2004 results, one sees that there is not a red-blue state divide but an urban-rural divide (I use a rural-urban dichotomy and count all the burbs as rural) . Democrats win in urban areas. That is why Hackett's appeal to rural voters is important. I think Democrats need to solidify their hold on every city over 100,000 while at the same time appealing to rural voters. There shouldn't be a city in America with over 100,000 people that doesn't vote democratic.

Tennesseans for Russ Feingold

by schwompa on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 08:16:37 PM EST

Define "city" (none / 0)

There are plenty of incorporated suburbs and exurban areas with populations above 100,000. Democrats usually can't win many of those areas.

by Geotpf on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 03:36:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you (none / 0)

For posting about this. I noticed that too and it really pissed me off.

How fucking dense! Seriously I think every single person that is in anyway connected to politics should be required to minor in History and Geography before they are allowed to do anything.

by adamterando on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 02:01:24 AM EST

Pike vs. Brown Counties (none / 0)

Does anyone have an explanation for the apparent difference in turnout between Pike and Brown counties? Hacket got about 75% turnout of the Sanders voters in Brown while he only got about 47% turnout of the Sanders voters in Pike. The rest of the counties were all in the low 60% range. What's up with Pike and Brown? I thought they were pretty similar... although, Sanders did much better in Pike than in Brown. Does anyone have any local insight into this?

by ICantBelieve on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 02:20:15 AM EST

Re: Pike vs. Brown Counties (none / 0)

Dear Sir:

Charles Sanders received 54% to Portman's 46% in 2002 in 2002. Yes, Sanders defeated Portman in Pike County in 2002 despite Al Gore Losing Pike County. My name is Sanjay Mahajan and am a friend of Charles W. Sanders. Charles Sanders has baled hay before and has rural roots. Charles is a Vietnam War Veteran and also is a current member of NRA. Charles is also a member of AFL-CIO. Mr. Sanders always believed the 2nd district was a winnable district and Hackett's strong showing proves the 2nd district is in play. It is my belief that Charles has logged more vehicle miles than Mr. Portman, Mr. Hackett, and Ms. Schmidt in Pike County and therefore it is not surprising to me that Charles performed well there. Charles is the hardest working congressional candidate in my opinion in the entire country.

We do give much credit to Hackett's success in raising campaign funds online.

Charles has walked in the shoes of the folks in Pike County given his rural upbringing. Charles also relates to folks well there. I hope I answered some of your questions. Mr. Sanders can be reached via email at candidate@charleswsanders.org for a more detailed reply to this fair question.

Sanjay

by Sanjay Mahajan on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 12:42:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rural America = (2.00 / 0)

Rural america = hillbillies and retards

Urban America = People who at least made it through high school.

Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.

by Liberal on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 03:24:14 AM EST

Canidates who are pro-gun (like Hackett) can... (none / 0)

...win in rural America. But they have to go all the way. This will annoy a lot of gun control advocates, but it is that position, and that position alone, which is why we lose rural America. This election proved it-Hackett won the rural counties and lost the suburban and exurban counties.

by Geotpf on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 03:35:13 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.