The Decision-Maker

Washington
July 2006

  by Ken Feltman

This election year, there's a lot to be said for knowing America's rivers. In old Chicago, when the political machine needed a few extra votes, minions were dispatched to the 'river wards' west of the downtown Loop to buy a few votes here and steal a few there.

Stretched along the Chicago River, the river wards were home to down-and-outers, payroll workers, criminals and creative electoral practices. The chain ballot was the usual way of voting for many in these blighted environs. A chain ballot works this way: The precinct (usually pronounced PREE-sint in Chicago political circles) boss would give the first derelict a piece of paper about the size of a real paper ballot. The derelict would go in and get a real ballot, put the fake paper in the ballot box and return with the real ballot in his pocket. Then he would exchange the real - and unmarked - ballot for a bottle of rot-gut. The boss would mark the ballot, give it to the next bum and so on till either the booze or the bums ran out.

Enterprising bums would change clothes, pull their caps down to hide their faces and get in line again - and maybe again. Lists of the 'recent dead' assisted the repeat voters so they could select a name, preferably one they could pronounce. Once, a bum cried when he couldn't pronounce any of the remaining names. The story goes that everyone felt so sorry for him that they let him vote even when he botched a long, consonant-filled name.

Interviewed on television as he stood in line, another boozy bum told the interviewer that 'All this voting is hard work. That's why I can't do it every day. I gotta rest up till the next election.'

Chicago may be where the expression 'Vote early, vote often' originated.

Ken Feltman is Chairman of Radnor Inc., a political consulting and legislative relations firm. He is past-president of the International Association of Political Consultants and the American League of Lobbyists. He got his start in Cook County (Chicago) politics and has worked in numerous House and Senate political campaigns as well as every presidential campaign from 1976 through 2004 (where he worked in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and New Jersey for independent political organizations supporting the reelection of President Bush).

When voting machines replaced paper ballots, one derelict filed for unemployment benefits. 'That machine took my job away,' he complained. He and his brethren of the bottle suffered but the precinct boss merely bribed the fellow who opened the machines and wrote down the totals. One boss told a newspaper that 'I'm all for automation. I don't need to stand outside all day marking them [sic] paper ballots. I just show up when they close the polls and talk with one guy. I like talkin' with that guy. He's a real author, you know? He's a creative writer.'

Cliffhanger in 2006? McCain or Giuliani in '08?

A few other American rivers may help me answer two questions that people both inside and outside the United States keep asking about U.S. politics:

• Will the Democrats take over one or both houses of Congress in November?
   
• Who is likely to be elected president in 2008?

Let's take these in chronological order. First, earlier in the year, with President Bush's ratings falling, with bad news almost daily from Iraq, and with lobbying scandals in the news, the Democrats became increasingly optimistic about taking control of at least the House of Representatives. Several veteran Republicans announced their retirements. The departing Republicans, mostly moderates, were increasingly marginalized by the dominate conservative wing of the Congressional GOP. Supportive of President Bush and his policies in Iraq, the moderates were targeted by Democrats and anti-war groups. They were tired and unwilling to battle through another campaign, although they were favored to win reelection, especially when victory would bring little satisfaction and continued friction with the GOP right wing.

The retirements caused the 'conventional wisdom' among Washington political writers to conclude that the Democrats would gain one or both houses of Congress. But in the countryside, in the neighborhoods, among the voters, the outlook did not change all that often or all that much: Republicans were in trouble but the local Republican congressman was an exception. Voters were mad at Republicans in general but supported their particular congressman, whether Republican or Democrat.

A lot of the damage Republicans suffered was self-inflicted. The Republican leadership fumbled. In the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) continued to prove that he may be a brilliant heart-lung transplant surgeon, but he is a not-yet-ready-for-prime-time leader. He has still not recovered from his diagnosis-by-TV-picture of Terri Schiavo's condition.

One Californian summed it up: 'He's not just a quack senator, it turns out that he's a quack doctor, too.' Ouch! That must have hurt Frist, who cannot seem to enter a room without telling everyone about his latest miracle operation, usually in a far-off place like Africa. Clearly, his first love is surgery. Being Senate leader is a demanding job. Running for president is more demanding. Add to those two jobs the burden of transplant surgery and you probably have an impossible work load. No wonder Frist is failing.

All Senate Republicans have suffered as Frist has pandered to the right wing on flag burning, immigration, same-sex marriage and other issues of intense interest to the fringe but of less interest to the rest of the electorate. This may be good strategy for a Republican presidential candidate but it is problematic for a Senate leader when the world seems to be falling apart all around. Sorry, we can't discuss North Korea or Lebanon. We have flag-burning on the agenda.

House Republicans competed to outdo Frist for ineptness. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham (Ca.) departed for a jail term, Tom DeLay (Tex.) departed in a messy scandal, Bob Ney (Ohio) may soon depart in a messier one, but Jack Abramoff continued to hang around. The House looked ripe for Democratic picking.

Helpful Democrats come to the GOP's rescue

Then, the Democrats, in a series of acts of kindness toward the GOP, said the wrong things, took the wrong positions and did goofy things. Backroom discussions about removing sound-bite-challenged House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Cal.) became a subject of persistent Georgetown gossip. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) seemed to become whinier and whinier each time he spoke. Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean, always quick with a heavy-handed, over-the-top, anti-Bush zinger, turned off the very Democrats he wanted to inspire to action. Rep. John Murtha (Pa.) went one, then two steps too far. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (Ga.) had one too many chips on her shoulder. Rep. William Jefferson (La.) gave new meaning to cold cash.

Seventeen-year locusts rarely emerge in the 15th or 16th year. They know their chances in life are best when they all come out together. Democrats are not locusts. Potential Democratic presidential candidates have emerged or reemerged at exactly the wrong time: when the issues in the news underscore their policy weaknesses. Former V.P. Al Gore reemerged, ponderously, just as the public was thinking more about gasoline prices than global warming. Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) came along, pompously, just as the public showed signs of swinging back toward President Bush on terrorism. Former Sen. John Edwards is having a hard time reemerging, but he's trying. Finally, Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) got blasted from the left time and again in a preview of the Democrats' imitation of right-wing Republican suicidal tendencies. Oops!

These were the saviors? These were the conquerors? These guys are less helpful to the Democratic Party than those vacant-faced men standing in line in a Chicago river ward. At least the bums voted right!

What happened in Southeastern Ohio in 2004 may be happening now throughout the riversides. The areas further inland do not seem to be affected. The large cities are not changing that much. In fact, it is mostly in the districts on and near the rivers' edges throughout the Midwest that the restlessness seems to be upon the land. We can't be sure. Analysis requires new assumptions, new breakdowns. But something seems to be happening. As is often the case with political trends, the evidence is hidden in the current figures. The figures just need to be compiled in a different way.

What does this mean? Right now, it means that the infrequent voters who came out in 2004 to give Bush a narrow victory are not motivated to vote this time. Instead, people who did not vote last time are stirring and going through the sorts of things that individual voters do that ultimately make them become part of a potent bloc on election day. These stirring voters are inclined to vote for Democratic candidates.

Republicans elected to Congress from the riverside districts have always been more moderate than their counterparts from the rural or suburban areas. A moderate Republican candidate in a riverside district this year might keep the seat in GOP hands while a conservative Republican might not. So those moderate Republicans who decided to retire may turn out to be the difference - depending on the nature of the Republican nominated to try to hold the seat. A conservative Republican may well lose to a more moderate or even a liberal Democrat.

Washed away?

Maybe those areas that are most likely to go from red to blue are Midwestern riverside districts. Look at a map of vulnerable Republican incumbents. Are they riverside districts? Should we expect the rivers to wash away enough Republicans to change control of the House?

The Republicans have a cash advantage. They have seasoned professionals to assist in all phases of campaign management. They have numbers on their side. They have many issues on their side. But they should cancel the August vacations. This one could be very close.

The 2008 presidential election is a bit too far away to sort out yet but it seems clear that Sen. Clinton is having trouble collecting the last few delegates she will need to get the nomination. This opens the door for a retread such as Gore, Kerry or Edwards. Newcomers tend to wither, sometimes quickly, as Dean did first and Kerry did later in 2004. Do the Democrats want to put winning above philosophy? That could mean that new faces and left-leaning candidates are bypassed. The evidence does not suggest, however, that the key leaders of the Democratic Party will put winning above ideology.

This puts the Republicans in a better position to win the White House again, unless they brutalize each other in the nomination process. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) is experienced and has been doing quietly in his party what Sen. Clinton has been doing noisily in hers. The other potential GOP candidates may find that the nomination is sewn up before they really get started. That will not dissuade former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), Sen. George Allen (Va.), Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) and others from getting into the fight.

Increasingly among the people who seem to see through the fog of current events to an election many headlines in the future, a McCain-Condoleezza Rice ticket is talked about. That in itself means that many have concluded that McCain cannot be stopped and that Secretary of State Rice will not run. That's usually about the time that the sky falls.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the wild card. He leads many polls now, based on his national security credentials. He should have the money and organization it takes to win the Republican nomination. Interestingly, the popularity of the moderate-to-liberal Giuliani among Republicans can be contrasted with the attacks from the left on Sen. Clinton and, in Connecticut, on Sen. Joe Lieberman, who faces a difficult Democratic primary challenge. These two different reactions may show that Democrats are more concerned over party orthodoxy while Republicans just want to win again.

Remember three things: Clinton has a big lead and the best staff; (2) Other candidates will surface and events may make a major difference; and (3) McCain and Giuliani are the kinds of candidates who do well in the riverside areas.

Please click here to review previous issues.

copyright © 2006 Radnor Inc.