Posted on 09/06/2002 7:25:44 PM PDT by Torie
The Democratic turn out in 2000 was up a lot from 88,92, and 96. Gore got more votes than any Democrat in history. He got more than any candidate Repubican or Democrat except for Ronald Reagan in 1984. The total turn out was way up from previous years. Both parties did a good job of getting out the vote.
Those turn out numbers had only a slight effect on house races. But if the turnout is a lot lower for Democrats in 2002, then the polls could be wrong again. It is likley that most pollsters will use the 2000 turnout figures modified by an off year factor. Likely they are using the 2000 turn out modified by an average off year factor.
I think it could be that polls may be as wrong in 2002 as they were in 2000 but in the other direction. I have nothing but gut feelings to back that up.
I have been looking at Columubus Ohio. In 2000 Gore carried Columbus by a small margin. It is the first time a Democrat Presidential candidate has carried Columbus, OH in ages. There was a massive union and black get out the vote effort in Ohio in 2000. The polls said 7 point Bush in Ohio. It turned out 3 points for Bush. It will be very interesting to see if that huge Democratic effort is made in 2002. I really don't think it will be quite that intense.
I do know that lower level blue color workers are scared to death about the economy. My cousin, a very active Democratic Party and Union executive, did a study of building permits in Southern Ohio. The number of permits is good but the numbers are way down in blue color neighborhoods. Make that Democratic precincts.
The bulk of the Democrats (they are lower demographic people) are not spending. His analysis is that the core Democratic voter is scared to death about the economy. He thinks Democrats should use the economy to get out the Democratic base. I think he is right. They may not need much urging.
Look at Walmart they are moving a bit upscale with fashions. They are taking a bite out of the limited, to cover the loss of the "po folks". If cousin is right, then "po Folk"s spending is down. "Po Folks" voting may be up.
More important in the long term is what will happen to high tech by 2004. No one has noticed that computers have matured. I think they have. There is a chain of computer super stores called "MicroCenter". They have a number of super stores in major markets. They are selling USED computers. Say What??? A 1998 windows 98 machine will do Office and surf the web very nearly as well as the newest stuff. Computers are like cars. When they ran 3 miles an hour those that could, upgraded to the 6 mile an hour model. That continued until they would all run 90. Then the makers went to the 3 years and rust out principle. But when the Japs made a car that did not rust, the car market matured. The same thing happened with TV. From 10 inch sets to 24 inch and from B&W to color was the progression. But once we had solid state Color chasis, and long life picture tubes, a new set purchase every 2 or 3 years stopped. RCA, Zenith, Sylvania, and Motorola all went by the TV way side. TV's became a commodity.
The same thing is happening to computers. Marturity shows first in product advertising. When the selling pitch is on style, (Our new TV's are fine furmiture and we have beatiful models for any decor) rather than function ( See our giant 21" screen in brilliant color) it tells the observer that maturity has arrived. Look at what Apple and Gateway are doing. Look at Windows XP features (now with beautiful rounded Blue Bordered Windows ) and you will see the maturity setting in in both software and hardware. Boom areas tend to have trouble with the transition to a mature playing field... they tend to die or change fields.
If I am right, the west coast and lots of other areas may be in for some tough times. That means Republicans have to learn how to attract voters in less than greate times. Here is my suggestion about how to go after the Democratic blue color base.
The theme is aimed at the core low demographic Democrat voters. It goes something like this. I would use country, rock and rap radio for the campaign. Democrats don't read.
The Democrats in congress are very conerned about
your job. They think you may lose it. So do
Republicans. To keep that from happening the Democrats
want to increase taxes on the corporations and the
people that own them.
In case you haven't noticed those people are called
"THE RICH". The Democrats think that raising taxes on
your company and the people that own it will keep them
from laying you off or eliminating your job. If you
think that increasing the taxes on the people that
write your pay check will increase your job security,
you need to vote for the Democrat. If you think that is
a bad idea, you might think about voting for a
Republican. Republicans don't tax the rich all that
much. Democrats say that is real bad for elected
officials pet programs. Republicans think the rich
will likely pay the new taxes out of what used to be
your paycheck.
Today's Democrats think that when the Rich have a
choice of cutting your life style or theirs, the rich
will cut theirs. Is that what you think? Democratic
politicans are always telling you what they will do for
you. They rarely mention what their plans will do TO
you. Repubicans think you should at least consider it.
Think about it when you go to the polls. You might want
to do what you think will protect your job.
In his latest Political Report, Charlie Cook, tightened this race from Likely Republican, to Lean Republican. Internal polling for Chapman showed a 6-point deficit in early July. Cook calls this the only competitive race in Texas.
Bush ran behind inherent GOP strength in the NYC metro area by about 15%, and about 10% upstate, so when I look at Congressional Districts partisan balance, I make that adjustment. Bush also ran horribly in the Philadelphia suburbs and Chicago suburbs. In some rural areas, Bush ran way ahead, particularly in the South and some more remote areas in the North, particularly Western Pennsylvania, WV, the Butternut areas of Southern Ohio and Indiana, Northern Minnesota, and the UP in Michigan.
I haven't heard much about any of the Michigan races lately. Marlinga has been making some noise, but I doubt he has a chance. He's EXTREMELY overrated, and he is running against the highest statewide votegetter in GOP history - Candice Miller. Lots of yapping about the dems going to take this one, but they are wasting money here.
As for the 11th, I haven't heard much, but I still think Kelley will give McCotter a run. That's going to be a real interesting district. I hope McCotter doesn't sit on his hands. I doubt he will from the impression I had when I met him. He's taking this race seriously.
In the 9th, David Fink has been running some commercials. If nothing else, he's spending the money. I don't think he'll do it, but the dems are going to try and take out Knollenberg.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.