Its The Downer Democratic Message (Long Time Democrat Jill Stewart Explains Party's Slide)

All the caterwauling by talking heads who insist the Democrats can win the presidency in 2008 with a religious Southerner has me laughing. Well, painfully chuckling anyway.

The view from The New York Times and so many others that "moral values" jumped to new prominence, driven by ardent churchgoers worried about gay marriage, sounded right to me at first. But then I peered closely at the vote in California and other spots, and was reminded how absurd conventional media wisdom can be.

Many seized on exit polls showing that 22 percent of voters said "moral values" were paramount. But as national Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin noted, President George W. Bush increased his support among occasional churchgoers more than among regular churchgoers. That speaks to support untethered from intense religiosity. The same exit polls showed the economy and terrorism roughly tied with "moral values" as a voter concern.

I am fascinated by results in places like Sacramento, Ventura and San Diego counties, where the locals split nearly 50-50, a microcosm of the national election.

Their exurbs---booming areas well outside cites---are the new hotspot, jammed with swing voters who are joining the Republicans but are still up for grabs. Kerry won by roughly 10 points in California, but Republican pollster Stephen Kinney sees a continuing struggle even in our "blue" state.

"California is ... one of those states that doesn't like people who show their faith openly, no matter the faith, and that helped Kerry and other Democrats tremendously," says Kinney. Yet "the Democrats' depressing message for the last several presidential election cycles---of a glass half empty, and of more taxes----has let Republicans get a foothold with swing voters here and elsewhere."

In California, he notes, Bush improved with swing voters: white Democratic men, Republican working women, Latinos with children. Nationwide, women split between Bush and Kerry. Just four years ago, Al Gore won an 11 point female advantage, thanks to a 20-year trend in which women went Democrat.

The vanishing gender gap and other major trends cannot be blamed on Kerry’s failure to pray. In truth, over the years the Democrats' outdated worldview has gradually put it on the skids with voters nationwide.

Two Americas? Job hopelessness? Most Americans believe that if you stay in school and work hard, you can become a middle-class homeowner. It happens to be the truth.

Even in California, the Democrats have a problem. In heavily Democratic but overtaxed Los Angeles County, Measure A to hire more cops failed. Voters don't think more taxes are the answer to poor government services. Taxes also lost in the Bay Area. Yet Kerry ran on raising taxes on anyone earning more than $200,000 a year, dismissing this group of often hardworking business owners as "the wealthy." Bad message.

I think the media is having problems coping with the mathematics born of the Democrats’ badly aging message. That's why so many baffled (and mostly Democratic Party) journalists, flailing for an explanation of their party's losses, now claim "abortion" was a driving issue in Kerry‘s loss. This unsupportable opinion was touted as a fact in a news story the other day in California’s largest newspaper.

It's simply untrue. Polls showed less than 2% of Americans cited "abortion" as a major issue (1% in California). It wasn’t on the voters’ radar, in part because fewer Republican candidates ranted about it the way they did in the 1990's. But also, voters have grown more skeptical of Democrats’ hysterical claims of "backroom" abortions around the bend. Voters can’t help but notice that choice is alive and well after four years under a born-again president and conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

Distraught media are also commiserating over "voter polarization." But half-blue and half-red counties in California, like Sacramento and Ventura, are places of lively debate---not icky "polarization." Californians backed stem cell research but not a dramatic rollback of "three strikes, you're out" because despite what the media so desperately need to believe, most voters are not hardcore party ideologues, either in California or nationwide.

Gay marriage was an issue, but not in the way some media breathlessly claim. It didn’t drive an evangelical bump at the polls. As several top data analysts have noted, evangelicals did not make up a greater percentage of voters this year than they did in 2000. That fact may surprise, because the media generally aren't prominently reporting it. That would ruin their absurd and inaccurate twist on the 2004 election.

Instead of creating an evangelical tide, Pat Caddell, former pollster for President Jimmy Carter, issued a very different warning about the ego-on-a-stick move by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Caddell turned out to be right when he warned that the fame-seeking Newsom and the Massachusetts court would hurt gays with almost every voter group.

"I am so damn mad," says Caddell. "Gay leaders' only chance of winning rights for civil unions was by incrementally building a consensus. But Newsom and others decided to jam their urban-left view down voters' throats. The arrogance was mind-boggling."

The real story is Bush’s victory with big voter groups like college graduates. USA Today analyst Paul Overberg notes that 150 million people live in red counties---the exurban, suburban and rural places Bush won. Just 103 million people live in the blue, urban counties Kerry won. Bush even made inroads with union households, compared to 2000.

Despite attacks on Kerry by enraged lefties like Arianna Huffington, he didn’t create these broad trends. Bill Clinton argued during his presidency that the Democrats needed a makeover: Business is not evil; the poor are not saints.

Bush’s inroads with swing voters, even in anti-Bush California, might finally get Clinton’s point across. The Democrats' problem isn't the messenger. It's the message.

Jill Stewart is a long-time old-line Democrat and observer of California politics. She's right up there next to Daniel Weintraub and no one gets its better. The Democrats' problem isn't the man they nominate; its their Leftist out-of-the-mainstream message. The party's slide has continued even with swing voters in Blue State California. Even in the liberal Bay Area, voters oppose higher taxes. Yes, Virginia, the Democrats are a party in search of something to offer voters instead of just hating Bush and that's why they've fallen short.

Despite attacks on Kerry by enraged lefties like Arianna Huffington, he didn’t create these broad trends. "Attacks" -- in Zsa Zsa Huffington's addled case, at least -- is something of a misnomer. Her dissection of the Kerry campaign ( "Anatomy of a Crushing Political Defeat" ) boils down, essentially, to: "... good golly, but we Democrats are just too darned NICE all the time, aren't we?"

I've been in more savage and unrelenting pillow fights, quite frankly. :)

It was a rather ludicrous election. Kerry, a unknown Massachusetts Senator, who is married to the billionairess constantly pickled widow who had to be locked in the attic most of the time.

The part of Michael Moore was protrayed by a grossly fat, ugly, bouncing radical cheerleader.

John Edwards, the millionaire trial-lawyer, who proved that even "My Little Pony" prancing around couldn't carry his own home precinct, let alone the South.

And who can forget Dan Rather's best efforts which totally discredited CBS? No matter how the Dems try to ignore these things, their whole campaigns sucked wind big time.

And I used to think the Clintons were trashy. These Dem candiates made even the Clintons look better by contrast.

Wow. This is a very well-written column by Jill. Nice to see a Democrat who is not afraid to step back and seek truth and then articulate thoughtful conclusions.

After reading this, I'm not really sure what makes her a Democrat still.... I mean, she understands that promising to raise taxes is a loser, and that "business is not evil; the poor are not saints".

I find it quite curious that even FOX has fallen for the line that "moral values" automatically means gay marriage and abortion.

When asked this question I am sure after 2 years of listening to the nattering neighbobs in the liberal News media, self appointed leaders of the left such as Michael Moore and Babs - that the voters polled where tdhinking of a much broader definition of moral values.

The definition of moral values in the red states is not limited to gay marriage or abortion it includes such old fashioned things such truth honor integrity and treating others with respect.

The Democratic party is no longer a diverse party but an umbrella for the most radical one-issue groups in America. The Democratic party cant move to the center witout alienating at least 1/4 of the people in the party.

The Democratic party cant move to the center without alienating at least 1/4 of the people in the party.

And this is why they are doomed and the smarter ones are suicidal.

I hope the Democrats never listen to Pat Cadell ever again because if they do they might start winning elections. This is the most accurate assessment of the impact of the gay marriage issue I've seen.

In no election since WWII has the candidate who suggested the other was a moron won. Dewey...Stevenson twice..Nixon in '60..Carter in '80..Gore and now Kerry all fell.

The Democratic party is no longer a diverse party but an umbrella for the most radical one-issue groups in America. The Democratic party cant move to the center witout alienating at least 1/4 of the people in the party.

Dead on. If anything, your 1/4 is too low. The way I see it, the only groups they MIGHT be able to hold on to in the long run are the unionists and the blacks - the unionists even clash with the environuts. Sooner or later, they are toast.

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.