Swing State Project

Thursday, January 29, 2004

Once Again, Turnout is the Story

Posted by DavidNYC

The DNC's blog, Kicking Ass, highlights the good news for all Democrats coming out of New Hampshire: As in Iowa, turnout was way, way up. Two-hundred twenty-thousand people turned out to vote in the Democratic primary - but NH has only 180,000 registered Democrats. Since NH allows independents to vote in party primaries, this can mean but one thing: A very large number of independents in the Granite State want to see Bush gone. Hell, even a few thousand Republicans wrote in the names of Democratic candidates in their party's primary rather than pull the lever for Bush.

So far, the first two primary/caucus states also happened to be swing states. So are many of the early February states: New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri on Feb. 3rd and then Michigan, Washington, Nevada & Wisconsin shortly thereafter. A sample size of two is rather small, but we'll soon have a bunch more data to test this thesis. Let's hope the trend keeps up.

Posted at 09:49 PM in New Hampshire | Comments (2) | Technorati

Saturday, January 24, 2004

Up Next: Minnesota

Posted by DavidNYC

Next stop on the SSP tour is Minnesota. If you have any thoughts on the Democrats' chances there, please share `em.

Posted at 04:23 PM in Minnesota | Comments (3) | Technorati

Thursday, January 22, 2004

Conditions in SW Pennsylvania

Posted by Fester

This is my first post here on the Swing State Project. I have been asked to write about the southwestern corner of Pennsylvania and how the economy and general sentiment will shape the roll of Pennsylvania as a swing state in November. Culturally this area can be divided into two sections. Urban Pittsburgh and the inner communities of Allegheny County and the rest of the region. The rest of the region is fairly dispersed, still crumbling after the steel industry pulled out, socially conservative and reluctant to embrace tax plans. They are Reagan Democrats and Dean's "guys with Confederate Flag stickers on their trucks." The urban areas of this state are predominately older style ethnic machine Democrats. The city itself is overwhelmingly Democratic and the county has a strong Democratic trend as witnessed by the 60-40 election of Dan Onorato (D) to the position of County Executive.

However the local Democratic Party is not that particulary strong. For instance, the Democrats have been losing seats on the county council for the past two elections, now it is down to an 8-7 margin as the Republicans have been reasonably successful in picking up seats in the northern suburbs. Dan Onorato is working to make the institutional machinery of the county more Democratic but the party is engaged in a minor war with itself between the old school and the new school that wants to change the party on social issues. Mayor Murphy lost two important council elections against members of the new wave of Democrats in the county. Finally the Allegheny County Democrats are slightly suspicious of any of the new activism/ party building activity that has been undertaken by either the Dean or Clark local volunteer supporters.

With this said, Southwestern PA should definatively be in play for the Democrats this year with a slight tilt towards a strong defense of the region. President Bush has successfully managed to piss off the Steelworkers over both the tariffs and legacy cost issues. The senior Steelworker leaderrship is extremely worried about the solvency of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. Any Bush policy proposal towards retirement security, has, from the point of view of the union, been insufficient. The unions and small manufacturers should also be incensed about the dramatic downscaling of the Manufacturing Extension Plan. Bush has not done a good job of selling himself as a good economic policy president, or even as a good disperser of goodies to Southwestern Pennsylvania.

If the Democrats nominate a candidate who has reservations about free trade and relative indifference about gun control, then the Democrats should be able to hold onto Southwestern Pennsylvania and make signifcant gains in Southeastern Ohio and all of West Virginia. The party needs to get its act together and take advantage of the new blood that wants to be used, but the conditions favor the Democrats in this region at this time.

Crossposted at Fester's Place.

Posted at 04:34 PM in Pennsylvania | Technorati

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

Bush Not Talking About Manufacturing Jobs

Posted by Seamus

As my first guest post for the Swing State Project, it seems fairly appropriate that it be a followup to the State of the Union given last night. Probably everybody reading this knows about the miserable job situation in America. Since Bush took office, we have lost nearly 3 million jobs. Combine this with the fact that nearly 4 million Americans have lost their health insurance, and you can see that millions of potential swing voters have ample reason to be upset with the Bush administration's job policies.

This job collapse has been felt worse in many of the swing states, particularly in the Midwest, due to losses in the manufacturing industry. And economists will tell you that Americans need to adapt to shifts in our economy that are producing more jobs in service industries. The steel tariffs were meant to protect one troubled American industry in the Midwest, but Bush had to withdraw those tariffs because of international pressure.

Here is what George Bush had to say about this in his State of the Union speech:

America's growing economy is also a changing economy. As technology transforms the way almost every job is done, America becomes more productive and workers need new skills. Much of our job growth will be found in high-skilled fields like health care and biotechnology. So we must respond by helping more Americans gain the skills to find good jobs in our new economy.

Bush's solution to the collapse in manufacturing industry jobs? Apparently it is to dismiss them all together. There is no proposal for protecting American manufacturing. No clear proposal to actually create new jobs in manufacturing - or even in the service industry for that matter. Just a blanket statement elsewhere in the State of the Union implying that his infamous tax breaks for the wealthy will create jobs.

The Washington Post takes a look at the jobs issue:

A fact sheet on the new program, called "Jobs for the 21st Century," said it was aimed at strengthening high school and higher education, as well as job training, so that workers in the United States can "compete in a changing and dynamic economy and fill jobs in emerging industries."

The White House said President Bush would seek $250 million to fund partnerships between community colleges and employers in high-demand job sectors, $33 million for expanded Pell Grants for low-income students, $100 million to help middle or high school students who have trouble reading and $120 million to improve high school math education.

Bush touted the program today during a visit to Ohio, a key state in this year's presidential election campaign but one that has lost more than 250,000 jobs since he took office three years ago. In remarks at Owens Community College in Toledo, he insisted that the U.S. economy is "strong" nationwide, but he acknowledged that "these are still troubled times" in Ohio, with many people out of work.

Well, some things jump out at me from the start here. Aren't the Democrats already jumping all over Bush because he hasn't adequately funded the Child Left Behind Law? And didn't Bush promise to cap spending in the State of the Union? Didn't Bush just cut job training programs? And, if Bush is putting all of his job-related efforts into job training, what is he doing about job creation? I mean, where are people going to work after they are trained for these alleged new jobs?

I don't think my reaction here is an anomaly. The job issue is potentially the one problem that Bush knows he can't fix. This may be why he didn't directly acknowledge job losses in manufacturing in his speech, but instead relied on generalized statements. One last bit from his speech in Ohio today (following a "blame terrorists and Clinton for the lousy economy" rant):

We overcame it, in my judgment, because we properly stimulated the economy by letting people keep their money. And now we're growing. Nationwide, this economy is strong -- housing up, inflation's low, interest rates are low. We had good exports the last quarter, new jobs are being created -- I mean, last month on the exports. Things are happening.

I fully recognize, in Ohio there are still troubled times. The manufacturing here is sluggish at best, and, therefore, people are looking for work. People who could rely upon a steady job in the manufacturing sector are hoping to be able to realize their hopes by finding work elsewhere.

There are some things we can do to make sure the Ohio manufacturing sector is strong. One is to make sure our trading partners understand we expect there to be free, but level -- the playing field needs to be level; that we expect countries like China to understand that trade imbalances doesn't mean -- that says that the trade is not balanced and fair, that they've got to deal with their currency.

We also need an energy policy, by the way. If you rely upon manufacturing to have a vibrant job base, you've got to have an energy policy. Manufacturers need to have a reliable source of energy. We're too dependent on foreign sources of energy. We got public policy that is -- that makes it difficult for Ohio's manufacturers to say, we got a reliable source of energy. We've run up the demand for natural gas, we haven't had a corresponding increase in natural gas. It's hard to keep people working when your energy bills are going out of sight. We need an energy policy. I called on Congress to pass one, and they need to get one to my desk.

It strikes me that instead of identifying policy that will create manufacturing jobs, Bush is trying to use the loss of manufacturing jobs to push through some of his own more controversial policies on energy. Notice his co-opted use of the phrase "fair trade". Although I've read that statement on trade three times and I still don't think it is a real sentence. I think there can be no question that Bush recognizes that his policies will not save the manufacturing industry which is why he is shifting the subject to job training in new industries and attempting to justify new energy and trade policies.

Posted at 03:17 PM in Economy | Technorati

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

The Swing State Project is Growing!

Posted by DavidNYC

I'm very pleased to announce that three new guest-posters have joined the SSP: Seamus (of the Seamus Press) and Fester (of Fester's Place) will be reporting on the Presidential race from Pennsylvania, while Ricky (of Timshel) will be doing the same from Louisiana. I'll continue to do the in-depth analyses, while the new posters (all of whom have excellent blogs that you should also check out) will typically do more quick-hit commentary on news stories.

Also, I'm on the lookout for more guest-posters. Ultimately, I'd like to have people from all 21 swing states. Ideal candidates either are established bloggers or are regular diarists at DailyKos. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. And please give a warm welcome to Seamus, Fester and Ricky.

Posted at 06:13 PM in Site News | Comments (2) | Technorati

High Iowa Turnout a Good Sign

Posted by DavidNYC

While all eyes are on the surprising results out of Iowa, there's one important detail we shouldn't miss: Turnout was very high. The total number of participants appears to be about 122,000. This is a record-breaking amount. (As Tom Schaller at DKos noted the other day, the oft-repeated figure of 125,000 participants in 1988 is in all likelihood quite off the mark - it was probably closer to 95,000.) And reports from individual caucus-goers, which helpfully fill in the inevitable gaps in mainstream media coverage, provide some colorful details.

Furthermore, an entrance poll says that 55% of attendees were first-timers, a very heartening statistic. Some recent posts around the blogosphere have been critical of the idea that Democrats can win by bringing in new voters. I agree that one should view such claims skeptically - but at least, in the case of Iowa, we have some actual empirical evidence that this is taking place.

We won Iowa by just a handful of votes in 2000, and it is likely to be very close once again this time around. So I take the fact that so many Democrats felt motivated to make their voices heard and participate in the (often grueling) caucus experience as a very good sign. With the right message and encouragement, these folks will be ready to come back out in force for our guy in November, regardless of whom they supported last night. We are definitely going to go toe-to-toe with the Bush/Rove machine in the Hawkeye State - and then some.

Posted at 01:33 AM in Iowa | Comments (1) | Technorati

Sunday, January 18, 2004

New Additions to the Blog Roll

Posted by DavidNYC

Added a few new sites. The first is Blog Free or Die, a promising new Democratic blog from New Hampshire. The other two can be found under the Swing State Activism section. Swing State Spring Break, according to its website, is a "100% volunteer-operated program for progressive students and their allies, who volunteer to do grassroots, electoral work in swing states during their spring or summer vacations." Good thing Florida is a swing state.

The last addition is a new mini-project of mine (actually a sub-blog of the SSP), titled simply "Competitive House Races." People often ask me how they can get involved this campaign season. If you live in a swing state, you should help get our nominee elected. But if you don't live in a swing state, the most important thing you can do is work on a Congressional campaign. Most House races, though, are foregone conclusions - there's no reason to work for you local Congressman if he regularly wins with 80% of the vote. So CHR is devoted to providing information about the few races which will actually matter: Democrats we need to defend and Republicans we need to unseat.

Right now, it's a work in progress, and I've only listed a few races so far. My main source for finding out which elections will be competitive is Brian's Utah Weblog, but if you have any suggestions for races CHR should include, please let me know. (Just be aware that Brian hasn't finished covering the entire country yet.) And general feedback is always welcome.

Posted at 10:39 PM in Site News | Technorati

Friday, January 16, 2004

Wisconsin

Posted by DavidNYC

At long last, I'm back. Exams were hell, but winter break was relaxing... though it was far too short. In any event, I promised a state run-down, so here's the Badger State:

Electoral Votes: 10 (11 in 2000)

2000 Results:

Gore: 47.83%
Bush: 47.61%
Nader: 3.62%
Buchanan: 0.44%

Like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania - and a bunch of other eastern states - Wisconsin has also shed an electoral vote. (In fact, the only Gore state that's gained an EV is California.) Nonetheless, Wisconsin is still very important to us. And as you can see, the margin in 2000 was razor-thin: The spread was a mere 5,708 votes. There were so many ultra-close states last time that the narrowness of our victory in Wisconsin has been, in my opinion, a bit ignored. But people are beginning to focus on it now - or at least, so Bob Novak claims. (Via Kos.)

Despite the fact that Bush has made numerous visits to Michigan and Pennsylvania, Novak says the GOP is targeting Wisconsin and Minnesota as their best bets to switch to red this year. He doesn't give any particular reasons why, though I presumably the tightness of the 2000 race there is a big factor. (In that case, why not target Iowa as well, which went blue by a similarly narrow margin? I'm going to assume Rove is doing just that.) Obviously, a lot depends here on the Nader voters who could easily tip this race back to the Dems, albeit far from decisively. As I've said in an earlier post, I won't presume to know what these folks will do. But it goes without saying that I hope they come to our side.

Wisconsin's unemployment rate has eased a bit in recent months, down to 5.0% in November from a recent high of 5.9% in July (all figures seasonally adjusted). But, as Billmon and Krugman (among others) have observed, the lumber mill may not have re-hired Yon Yonson. Rather, he may have just quit looking for work. That is to say, the official unemployment rate only counts people who are actively searching for a new job. If you give up looking, ta-da, you are magically no longer counted among the ranks of the unemployed. (Krugman also thinks that a lot of people are who say they have jobs are only "marginally" employed.)

And the 3-year picture tells a familiar story: Unemployment when Bush took office was just 3.9%. In a very evenly divided state like Wisconsin, anti-incumbent resentment brought about by joblessness could well make a difference, especially if it brings otherwise apathetic voters to the polls, or better yet, convinces Republican voters to switch sides. Folkbum, a DKos regular and long-time Wisconsin resident, believes that the proverbial guys in pickup trucks might indeed be persuaded to vote Democrat. And if the rural areas of Wisconsin have been devastated in recent years the same way, say, they have been in Pennsylvania, this may be a bad omen for Bush.

A good sign for us is that Wisconsin just elected a new Democratic governor in 2002. The bad news is that Jim Doyle won with just 45% of the vote (former Gov. Tommy Thompson's brother split the vote by running on a third-party line), so I'm not sure how much of a trend, if anything, this represents. Doyle's approval rating is also in the doldrums - a December poll put it at just 42%. Wisconsin's legislature is Republican, but all of its statewide elected officials are Democrats. Speaking of which, Russell Feingold - a hero to many on the left for his strong stance on campaign finance reform - is up for re-election. While he may not be Paul Wellstone, I think his campaign could fire up the base a bit. And right now, apparently, his re-election prospects look pretty good: The University of Wisconsin's Badger Poll (PDF) gives Feingold a 50-30 re-elect.

Meanwhile, Bush's approval rating in Wisconsin ain't that hot. It doesn't stink as bad as the horsehead Paul O'Neill found in his bed the other morning, but it's not too pretty. The December Badger Poll (PDF) gives Bush a 52% approval rating (17% "excellent", 35% "good"), which is down considerably from his April high of 69%. The same poll says 46% want to see Bush re-elected vs. 47% who want someone else. I don't think you want to be under this particular Mendoza line, not in a state this evenly divided.

And with the electoral college overall so closely split, every state feels like its crucial. No, Wisconsin is not California. But those are 10 EVs we would have a tough time making up elsewhere. We're going to have to mobilize heavily in Wisconsin - manpower and money - in order to keep it.

Posted at 04:21 AM in Wisconsin | Comments (10) | Technorati