GOP Midterm Mandate? Not so much...

We know that the voters who turned out tended to be older, richer, and whiter than the U.S. population as a whole, but a new McClatchy-Marist poll suggests the majority of Americans didn't give the GOP any mandate - in fact, they tend to lean toward taxing the rich, and tweaking the health care reform, not extending the Bush Tax cuts and repealing what opponents insist on calling Obamacare.

For instance, while the survey did find that mandates for buying health care don't sit well with voters, some of the other changes, such as the end to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, enjoy the support of 2/3 of those surveyed. From the article:

Another 35 percent want to change it to do more. Among groups with pluralities who want to expand it: women, minorities, people younger than 45, Democrats, liberals, Northeasterners and those making less than $50,000 a year.

Not surprisingly there's broad support for asking the wealthy to pay a fair share on tax day, too. But the mainstream media seems intent to echo the Republican's claim that they've got an overwhelming mandate, and ignoring both the folks who point out that the pundits are glossing over the actual data and the reality that the current President actually lowered taxes for most Americans - just not ratings friendly stories, you see?

What the Republicans have got is success turning out voters in a mid-term election, and despite their protests that "the media" has "liberal bias" they've got control of the reports that get air-time. I'll give them credit for that.

Read more about the results at McClatchy. 

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

One week later - NOT a post-mortem for Democrats

Democrats took a shellacking, and it's partly my fault -- not because I took time away from journalism to help manage a Congressional Campaign against an incumbent Republican in Minnesota's Second Congressional District, rather because I failed to engage more people in the process.

Look, both major parties have a collection of loyal supporters who consistently identify as a Democrat or a Republican, and many of them turn out reliably to vote even in non-Presidential elections. Polls prior to November revealed Democrats were dis-spirited, Republicans were angry, and those coveted swing-voters (and the capital "I" Independents) had largely lost their enthusiasm.

It wasn't about facts, of course, it was about spin. Logic would suggest (if not mandate) more voters would align with Democrats - Obama had wrenched the economy out of a death-spiral, lowered taxes for most people, lowered the deficit, lowered the troop presence in Iraq, started the process of restoring the cost-benefit ratio of our health care system, and jobs were finally being created faster than they were getting lost.

Meanwhile, the media gave play to every story blaming the state of the economy on Democrats or the White House (hey, they didn't say they believed the story-teller, they just reported that's what was being said, right?) and let the Republican talking points about lower taxes creating jobs echo over and over even though that correlation has been dis-proven repeatedly: it certainly hadn't done so while Bush was in office for 8 years (but hey, the media never said they believed that, or talked about the wealth-gap, and they even let a few people point out that demand is the more logical driver of job-creation, but lots of photogenic people with convincing smiles and voices were talking about how taxes and uncertainty kept rich guys from wanting to hire people. They "covered" what was being "said" right?)

Bush oversaw record growth in government? Well, obviously that's the Democrats fault for caving in, don't they know how to run a filibuster? I mean, big government is bad, right? Unless it provides for our military defense, or social security, or Federal disaster recovery funds, or interstate highways, or border patrols and immigration enforcement, or keeping our toys from being painted with lead, or.... oh never mind.

Earmarks, we all know earmarks are bad, right? They account for nearly 1% of the Federal budget, and if there's one thing we know it's that if we all had 1% more of our money that goes to taxes we'd be just fine now, right? Not so much?

The point is: voting is not about logic. Advertisers have known that logic lets us rationalize our choices for centuries, and modern politicians have long understood there are two fundamentally different parts of holding elected office: there's the campaign - which doesn't remotely test the skills necessary to govern, that's the GETTING into the office part though - and then there's the rest of it, the actual wielding of power while in office.  Successful politicians master both, although there's no one "right" way to do either.

I failed to engage or electrify enough voters in my area; so the cable-TV watching middle class, convinced to vote by a carefully-crafted message laden with buzzwords focus-tested by so-called Conservative strategists that Obama and his "agenda" were leading the country to ruin, elected Republicans in droves in Minnesota.

Remember 2000, when we elected Bush? He was the sort of guy people thought they'd like to have a beer with. Now Minnesota voters face a recount for the Governor because they were reassured by a guy who tried to lower drunk-driving penalties after he got cited for that very offence, because he's told them the $6 BILLION deficit our current (Republican) governor proclaimed as a crisis is mostly just an accounting and spending problem... although he can't explain just how that's going to work, but it's very, very reassuring that somebody knows it can be fixed if voters just trust Republicans.

Post-mortem? No, if there was logic in the outcome of the November 2nd elections it might rise to that level; from here on the ground in Minnesota, looking at the numbers, and the facts, it's a wake-up call for Democrats: they were out-strategized. (Yes, I know, I made that word up. You're one of those logical people, aren't you?) Worse yet, there were voices they could have heeded.

Voters were, in a word, hoodwinked. Democratic politicians lost ground by losing lots of elections to a bunch of slick, experienced, successful Used Country Salesmen. And right here in Minnesota, it's partly my fault.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community. He'll be more active again here at Zennie's now, unless maybe there's a vote recount in an important election in Minnesota.  Oh, wait...

Does the FEC have any teeth?

Attorney Burton Odelson, a veteran at helping political candidates get their paperwork in order, said it's significant that Republican Joe Walsh failed to file the required personal financial disclosure report with the FEC before the Illinois primary.  Traditionally it's filed almost immediately, but candidates can file up to 30 days after the first quarter in which they have $5,000 of fund-raising activity, or at least 30 days before an election (including primaries.)

Now others within the Republican party are calling for him to get out because he's broken election law, because in a district that's in play (the Illinois 8th) they've got a guy running who even staunch Republicans don't want to vote for.

You'd expect Democrats to be using this, to draw attention to disorganization at a minimum, and call into question where the money came from in cases such as this one where a candidate loans substantial amounts to the campaign despite having outstanding financial judgments going unmet.

Check this out:

"It's the document that creates a transparency as to the Congressman or the nominee's holdings to let the public know who he is, what he has, and do you want to vote for him. If he's voting on things in Congress that he has a conflict with.”

~Burton S. Odleson

Despite Walsh’s apology, Fox was reporting that calls for his resignation were growing more intense in some corners even before more staffers quit. Let's face it, staff quits in almost every election, it's a stressful job, but these latest two sound like pretty solid GOP supporters engaged in more than ordinary angst.

According to Jeff Goldblatt of Fox Chicago, Mark Cramer, a Precinct Captain with Schaumburg Township Republicans, repeated his call for Walsh to get out of the race.

“The law is there for a purpose. This is the second time he’s run for Congress, and to not know it, it’s unconscionable"

“Do we want somebody in Congress who is going to forget to file official paperwork? He broke the law. He can make any excuse in the world, but fact of matter is, he knew he should do it, but he didn’t do it.”

~Mark Cramer

Can you imagine if Obama had failed to file this fundamental a piece of documentation? Never mind the whole birth certificate uproar, this is the chance for voters and the media to examine the finances and look for conflicts of interest before casting their ballots. It's our chance to see the assets, debt, and recent income of people we send off to vote on how to manage and spend vast sums of tax-payer money, but Walsh wants to quietly pay the late fee, plus whatever civil fine (a maximum of $50,000) the Attorney General's pursues in a civil case - and tell voters it's all OK, no big deal?

Was Walsh even eligible to run and/or hold the office having failed to comply FEC regulations? If this had emerged after the election itself would it result in just a slap on the wrist, or would his eligibility to serve in the U.S. Congress be nullified?

Only in Illinois

What is the point of FEC regulations if they don't apply to every candidate? I realize this is Illinois, and that means the focus is on Rod Blagojevich, and people just accept a certain amount in politics, but -- who enforces this stuff?

Voters have a right to expect our elections are conducted fairly. How does a guy who hadn't met the FEC filing deadline even make it on the ballot?

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, Democratic political staffer, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Brent Turner Talks About Open Source Voting

My friend Brent Turner is on a focused mission at the California State Democratic Convention to make sure our voting process is safe and free from the chance of fraud using "open source voting" where you can see the software code of the electronic voting systems. You can go to openvoting.org for more information.