Ford was helped by a huge increase in the AA vote. In 2004, AA were 16% of the electorate, but in 2006 that jumped to 21%. So as much as one can claim that he was hurt by his race, he was also very much helped by it.
Harold's "problem" was two-fold. First of all, because of the Ford name and the Tennessee Waltz scandal, he was unable to associate Corker with Republican corruption. But the second part of the problem was the lack of a real primary here. The DLC crowned Ford as the Democratic candidate without ever giving anyone a chance to discuss non-conservative issues. So the only issues that existed were entirely on GOP turf, and it's no wonder he lost.
I don't know so much that all this is Harold Ford's personal fault, but it's indicative of the mess that is the Tennessee Democratic Party. Individual candidates are strong--like Bredesen, Davis, Cooper, and Ford--but there's no state organization that connects East, Middle, and West. And the same lack of discipline that allows Jake Ford to run as an independent in Memphis also allows the DLC to choose our Senate nominee on our own behalf.
At some point, Corker will pull out the "Ford is the next Al Gore" card. If you remember, TN voters lost faith in Gore because (or so the story goes) they thought he was more DC than Tennessee. Ford has much the same background, so we can expect some regression once Corker goes on the offensive.
But Corker still has a lot of negatives, and he still has to convince the conservatives that he's the real deal. But yeah, we in TN never expected this either. If TN elects a black man senator, that will really be something.
Thanks! So the question is not really measuring a direct comparison of feelings of safety, but rather measuring our impression of the direction our security is generally heading? I.e. pessimism vs. optimism? I apologize for being dense on this but I am very literal on these things!
I'm still trying to parse the question "do you feel safer since 9/11." When I first read the question, I interpreted it to mean "safer than I felt before 9/11" and then I realized that it probably means "safer than I felt on the day of 9/11." So with the latter reading in mind, I'm trying to imagine the circumstances where anyone regardless of party would actually feel less safe now than on that day, when we were all imagining bombs blowing up in shopping malls and subways and sports arenas. Yet 34% of Democrats apparently do feel less safe and secure now, even though a larger percentage of them are city-dwellers.
Am I the only person who is having trouble with this question? Is it because of my narrow interpretation of "safe and secure" as having to do with terror attacks? Or is it because I live in a mid-sized southern city and not in a giant coastal one? Someone help me out please!
And by the way, on 9/11 I was living about 30 miles outside a giant east-coast city and wasn't particularly afraid for my own immediate safety...
Kerry sounds like a hypocrite because there's no slogan for people who think Roe v Wade is a good decision. As long as the argument remains stuck in "all abortions" versus "no abortions," the "no abortions" argument will gain ground.
Democrats seriously need to decide whether they believe in "all abortions" and whether that's the message they want to send to the voters.