When D.C. 'Wisdom' Is Wrong

[babylonsister]

When D.C. 'Wisdom' Is Wrong
Be advised not to buy into Washington myths either before or after Election Day.

by Matthew Dowd

Saturday, Sept. 11, 2010

snip//

First, there's the belief that national elections are about issues or the candidates' personalities. In fact, they are about neither. Stands on issues and personal qualities are important insofar as they align with the core values that Americans use in making important decisions in their lives, including how they vote. These core values include compassion, strength, empathy, and authenticity.

In every campaign, voters look for many different values in their leaders, but there is usually a hierarchy to these values come Election Day. The leaders or party that best represent the dominant value hold a tremendous advantage. For example, the 1992 election wasn't about the economy -- it was about who "cares about me." The economic issue was the most pointed way for Bill Clinton to "feel people's pain." In 2004, voters valued strength and determination above everything else. National security was the issue that allowed President Bush to highlight those values.

A second myth is that money is the dominant determinant of success in politics and that television advertising buys are key. The media covers ad nauseam what candidates have raised and spent as if nothing else matters, even though there is example after example of wealthy candidates losing badly to lesser-financed opponents.

In the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008, Barack Obama outspent Hillary Rodham Clinton more than 2-to-1 in the key states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas, and he lost all three. In the general election, Obama's expenditures far exceeded John McCain's in market after market. But when you factor in predicted behavior in the election, Obama's media-buy advantage had no significant effect. In the 10 target states where Obama outspent McCain by 2-to-1, he received no bigger bump on Election Day than in the 41 other jurisdictions where he did not have a spending advantage.

Take the Washington media market, where the Obama campaign outspent the McCain campaign by a 10-1 ratio. County returns in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs showed no significant return on that investment over what a Democrat would have been predicted to get in 2008.

Make no mistake: Money does matter in politics. But the amount of money that flows to candidates and parties is based primarily on their probability of success. It is not a cause of their success. If you had to pick one thing that is most significant in a campaign, it would be message, not money.

Myth No. 3 took root in 2004, when the accepted wisdom was that anti-gay-marriage amendments placed on state ballots significantly increased turnout of conservative or Religious Right voters and thus affected the presidential election results. This is bunk. Look at precinct returns in target states where anti-gay-marriage amendments were on the ballot versus target states where there were no such amendments. There was no difference in turnout among conservative or Religious Right voters. (Working for Bush, I was involved in extensive research in advance of the 2004 election. No social issues or themes were in the top five messages that motivated voters.)

more...

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/oo_20100911_3691.php

[bluestateguy]

1. Whatever the Georgetown Cocktail Party consensus is, do the opposite

And even a reformed Bush man like Dowd can see that.

[elocs]

2. Except for 2 exceptions the party in power has lost seats in off year elections.

I think that is indicative of a trend. Not a lock, but a trend. The way this year is I would not be surprised if the trend holds and the best Democrats can look for is not to lose either house of Congress. That would be a victory.

[babylonsister]

3. Yes, I agree, if they hold on to both, they will be lucky. nt

[JNelson6563]

4. I agree with this assessment.

Thanks for posting.