Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination Part 5: Independent, Socially-Left-of-Center, Economically-Right-of-Center Millennials Likely Most Valuable Voters in 2016 This is the fifth in a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and
[More…]
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination
Part 5: Independent, Socially-Left-of-Center, Economically-Right-of-Center Millennials Likely Most Valuable Voters in 2016
This is the fifth in a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with my forecast for the next president.
June 4, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 9 7:13 am
Which Generation of NC Voters will Dominate 2016 Politics?
One of two politically valuable studies of the generational makeup of the 2016 electorate in North Carolina was published Wednesday, June 3, 2015, by Dr. Rebecca Tippett, Director of Carolina Demography at UNC Chapel Hill’s Carolina Population Center. Tippett’s report shows that although the population of the Millennial Generation (born 1982-2004) is approaching parity with the Baby Boomers (1946-1964), the political advantage shifts decidedly to Baby Boomers when adjusted for actual registered voters and their active/inactive status on voter rolls.
- 92% of Baby Boomers are registered to vote; 13% are labeled “inactive”
- Only 74% of Millennials are registered to vote; 29% are labeled “inactive”
With these adjustments, North Carolina’s 2016 electorate by generation will likely be:
- Greatest Generation ( – 1927) 1%
- Silent Generation (1928-1945) 13%
- Baby Boomers (1946-1964) 35%
- Generation X (1965-1981) 27%
- Millennials (1982-2004) 24%
Dr. Tippett concludes by noting that the potential political market share of Millennials in 2016 could be further diminished if well-documented, higher turnout trends of older voters hold true.
Baby Boomers Outmuscled Millennials in 2008 and 2012
The second of the two politically valuable studies published this year profiling the likely 2016 electorate was published in January by Dr. Michael Bitzer, Associate Professor of Politics and History at Catawba College. Dr. Bitzer notes that since the beginning of the 21st century, “North Carolina voters in the Millennial generation have gone from 2% of the registered voter pool to 26% in 2014, while Baby Boomers have seen their proportion of the pool shrink from 45% down to 32% over the same time.”
While acknowledging the near parity of the voting age population of Baby Boomers and Millennials, Dr. Bitzer notes that during the last two presidential elections in North Carolina Baby Boomers turned out in significantly higher numbers than Millennials.
- In 2008, 68% of registered Millennials voted; 84% of Baby Boomers voted
- In 2008, Millennials were 13% of all ballots cast; Baby Boomers were 39%
- In 2012, 55% of registered Millennials voted; 78% of Baby Boomers voted
- In 2012, Millennials were 19% of all ballots cast; Baby Boomers 37%
Dr. Bitzer concludes that the political influence of the Millennial generation has only begun to take shape, and that we have yet to see which party will reach out to them most effectively.
Millennials are Half as Conservative as Over-65 Voters
So, are Millennials more likely to vote Democratic or Republican in 2016?
Wednesday, June 3, 2015, Gallup released the aggregate results of surveys conducted in 2013-2015 concluding that “the percentage of all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who described themselves as both social and economic conservatives has dropped to 42%, the lowest level Gallup has measured since 2005.”
- 42% of GOP/Lean GOP are conservative on both social and economic policies
- 24% of GOP/Lean GOP are moderate or liberal on social and economic policies
- 20% of GOP/Lean GOP are moderate or liberal on social policies but identify themselves as conservative on economic policy
As to Millennials, the study shows that “the size of the social and economic conservative group is twice as large among Republicans aged 65 and older as it is among those aged 18 to 29.”
For emphasis: Over-65 Republicans are twice as conservative as 18-to-29-year-olds.
Last September, the Pew Research Center published the results of an ideological survey of over 10,000 Americans. Key ideological findings include:
- Millennials are much less conservative (15%) than their grandparents and parents, the “Silent” Generation (38%) and the “Baby Boomers” (34%) respectively
- Even likely GOP Millennials are not as conservative (53%) as their elders (67%)
The Pew study also showed that Millennials are more likely to affiliate with Democrats (50%) than Republicans (34%) nationally.
The statewide North Carolina survey conducted by Public Policy Polling in early April, 2015, shows just how wide the political chasm is between Millennials and older generations.
- Obama has a 58% approval among 18-to-29-year-olds; only 35% for over-65 voters
- In a hypothetical matchup between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, 18-to-29-year-olds give Clinton a 22-point advantage (Clinton 50%; Bush 28%)
- Over-65 voters give Bush a 19-point advantage over Clinton (Clinton 37%; Bush 56%)
As Dr. Rebecca Tippett and Dr. Michael Bitzer noted in their reports on Millennials, the big unknown is which generation of voters will be most engaged politically in 2016.
Millennials May be the Most Valuable Voters in 2016
My sense is that Millennials just may be the deciding factor in the race for the White House as well as statewide races here and around the country. My reasoning is based on the likelihood that Millennials will be the largest group of undecided voters in 2016.
Their value as the largest group of persuadable voters is enriched by the fact that most voters in the older generations are predictably clustered in ideologically recalcitrant and partisan camps; neither of which is large enough to dominate North Carolina or national elections.
Democrats, in order to secure the lion’s share of younger voters in races against Republicans, must move their identity closer to the center on economic policy. Millennials are more cost-conscious because they came of age politically during a time of less discretionary income due to the recession and employment challenges.
Republicans, in order to secure the lion share of younger voters in races against Democrats, must move their identity closer to the center on social policy. As noted earlier, Millennials are twice as liberal and half as conservative as their parents and grandparents on social issues. Older generations tolerate social differences. Millennials celebrate social differences.
The bottom line: Independent, socially-left-of-center, economically-right-of-center Millennials will be the largest group of undecided voters and therefore the most valuable voters in 2016. How large? Large enough to have a decisive impact on the outcome of statewide races here in North Carolina; large enough to determine who wins the presidency.
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report
John Davis
Baltimore’s Unintended Paradox: Black Voters are in Play for Conservative Alternatives in 2016; Democratic and Republican This is the fourth in a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with my forecast for the next president. May 12, 2015
[More…]
Baltimore’s Unintended Paradox: Black Voters are in Play for Conservative Alternatives in 2016; Democratic and Republican
This is the fourth in a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with my forecast for the next president.
May 12, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 8 9:13 am
Baltimore Exposed the Uncomfortable Truth about Liberal Programs
I have struggled with Baltimore. Not with the rioting. I get the anger. If you don’t care about me, why should I care about you? My struggle is with how leaders take advantage of the new opportunity Baltimore gives to pitch conservative solutions to inner-city problems.
What makes Baltimore unique is that for the first time in the history of racially charged rioting in America, most local authorities are African-American Democrats. And, three of the six cops facing charges in the death of Freddie Gray, the incident that sparked the riots, are black.
The unintended paradox laid bare by the Baltimore riots in April is that African-American liberal Democrats find themselves in the unavoidable position of having to share responsibility for the circumstances and actions of inner-city black kids.
Baltimore has exposed the uncomfortable truth that liberal programs run by African-American Democrats have left too many inner-city kids behind, unheard, drowning in a sea of desperation.
I get the anger. If you don’t care about me, why should I care about you?
Would African-American Democrats Embrace Conservative Ideals?
Baltimore has had a Democratic mayor for 48 years. Current Baltimore Democratic leaders include an African-American Mayor, an African-American Police Commissioner, an African-American majority on the City Council, African-American representatives in the state legislature and U.S. Congress. African-Americans manage the federal, state and local government programs. African-Americans run the school system with a majority cohort of African-American teachers.
So, are all those black Democratic leaders responsible for the riots? No. They genuinely wanted those liberal programs to work, and believed they would work. And many did work, as evidenced by tens of thousands of African Americans in leadership roles throughout society, including U.S. President. Baltimore is about programs that didn’t work.
Thanks to Baltimore, Black voters all over America have come to realize that liberal programs alone, including those run by African-American Democrats, are not enough. That alternative solutions, including conservative ideals and programs, must be evaluated in the 2016 elections.
That’s right. Conservative ideals and programs. Black voters all over America are now in play for conservative policy and program alternatives in 2016, both Democratic and Republican.
Here are several of my conservative ideals that I believe black voters would consider:
I believe in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised.
I believe that much of what ails the inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP.
I believe that we can shape our individual and collective destinies, so long as we rediscover the traditional virtues of hard work, patriotism, personal responsibility, optimism, and faith.
But, those ideals sound way too Republican for African-American Democrats. Right?
Right? Well, all three of those “I believe” statements above were written by Barack Obama in the Prologue to his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope.
Preacher/Teacher Values of Greensboro’s Loretta Lynch, U.S. Atty. General
I would bet that Greensboro’s own Loretta Lynch, recently sworn in as the first African-American female U.S. Attorney General, respects conservative ideals. Her father, Lorenzo Lynch, is a Baptist preacher. Her mother, Lorine Lynch, a school librarian. She comes from a long line of preachers and educators; no-nonsense disciplinarians who demanded academic rigor.
Lorenzo Lynch, in Washington D.C. on April 21, 2015, for the U.S. Senate confirmation vote on his daughter’s nomination, told a Politico reporter about how tough his mother was on him and his siblings when they were school children. “She would line us up every night and make us recite the lessons of the day,” said Lynch, “and if we didn’t know them, we got a whipping….”
Loretta Lynch, a Harvard Law graduate, has a storied career as a federal prosecutor in New York. She is a former member of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY. Does she have conservative thoughts when she sees the devastation left behind by well-meaning liberal Democrats?
Lynch knows that despite generations of countless well-intentioned government programs in places like Freddie Gray’s neighborhood, unemployment is still 24.2%, a staggering 61% of the population over 25 do not have a high school degree, 35.4% of the households live in poverty, most led by single parent mothers with no male role models in the home.
Scott Brandon, an African-American Democratic Baltimore City Councilman, has long argued that the absence of family structure is why so many kids get in trouble. Here is what Brandon had to say to a CNN reporter the day after the riots. “If we spend $8 million on a new school for Jonathan,” Brandon told CNN, “but he goes home to a broken family, it’s worth $0.”
Sounds pretty conservative to me. Brandon is considering a run for Mayor of Baltimore.
Do You Know Who Thomas Stith, III Is?
What about black Republicans? Is there any chance that a black Republican would be trusted with a pitch for conservative solutions to problems that plague inner city blacks?
Could someone like Durham’s own Thomas Stith, III be trusted?
Thomas Stith, III is a life-long African-American Republican. He was the Minority Outreach Coordinator for Republican Governor Jim Martin’s campaign in 1984. He served on the Durham City Council, elected at-large three times, 1999-2007.
So, what is he up to these days? Thomas Stith, III is Chief of Staff to North Carolina GOP Governor Pat McCrory. The first African-American Chief of Staff to a governor in state history.
I am convinced that Baltimore offers conservative Republicans like Thomas Stith, III a real opportunity to be heard; a fair chance to pitch conservative solutions to problems that plague poor and inner city blacks. But what is the compelling Republican message?
What alternative programs do Republicans have for minorities struggling to find jobs? For those who have jobs that pay so little that they have to use food stamps to feed their family?
What is the positive, visionary Republican policy alternative to the liberal social safety net?
Republicans must answer those questions. Why? Because Americans will not elect anyone to the White House who does not have a visionary plan for those in dire need. Unchecked, the GOP’s brand of callous indifference to the plight of the poor will be their undoing in 2016.
However, because Baltimore exposed the uncomfortable truth that liberal programs run by African-American Democrats have left millions of inner-city kids behind, the Democratic brand is tarnished too. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., speaking at Grosse Pointe HS in Detroit on March 14, 1968, said, “A riot is the language of the unheard.” Now we know that liberal black Democrats have not been listening to inner-city kids either.
What is the positive, visionary Democratic policy alternative to the liberal social safety net?
After Baltimore, black voters are in play for center-right alternatives. That means Baltimore offers Democrats an opportunity for the party to broaden its base and regain much-needed ideological balance by identifying marketable center-right alternatives to intractable inner-city problems of the unheard poor.
What makes Baltimore unique is that for the first time in the history of racially charged rioting, black kids are saying to black Democratic liberal leaders, along with black cops and black law enforcement officials, If you don’t care about me, why should I care about you?
Inner-city black kids are saying to black Democratic liberal leaders, Black lives matter.
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report
John Davis
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination Part 3: Why Would Black Voters Turn Out for Hillary Clinton? This is the third a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with
[More…]
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination
Part 3: Why Would Black Voters Turn Out for Hillary Clinton?
This is the third a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with my forecast for the next president.
April 22, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 7 3:13 pm
Racial and Ethnic Solidarity is Only One-Third of the Minority Turnout Story
Why would black voters turn out for Hillary Clinton in 2016?
In 2008, Barack Obama registered and turned out a record number of African-American voters. Throughout his first term, African-Americans remained loyal to President Obama despite unemployment numbers twice as high as those of white unemployed Americans. No surprises there. He was the first black President of the United States of America. Racial solidarity.
One year before President Obama’s campaign for a second term, half of all black teenagers were unemployed. Black home ownership plummeted to levels, relative to whites, not seen since 1960. Many questioned how long African-American loyalty to Obama would last in the face of declining economic security. So much more was expected.
Most blacks were worse off financially at the end of Obama’s first term than at the beginning. Yet in 2012, despite the loss of decades of economic gains by African-Americans, black turnout increased over that of 2008; 93% voted for President Obama. Racial solidarity.
Racial solidarity behind the first African-American president was unshakable. Black voter turnout in the 2012 presidential election was higher than that of non-Hispanic whites for the first time in U.S. history. Here in North Carolina, despite Republican election reforms, black voter turnout was higher than white voter turnout for the second time in state history; the first being 2008, the first time Obama ran.
Racial Solidarity Even More Important than Christian Values
Racial solidarity was even more important in 2012 than issues relating to Christian values.
Earlier that year, on Primary Election Day, May 8, 2012, African-American ministers throughout the state joined conservative white Republicans to pass Amendment One, banning same-sex marriages in the state. The next day, the top-of-the-fold picture on the front page of The News and Observer was of African-American Pastor Dr. Patrick Woodson Sr., Upper Room Church of God in Christ in Raleigh, and his wife, Pamela, celebrating Amendment One with joyful cheers and a raised fist of victory.
That afternoon, President Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage.
My political reflex was that it would have a negative impact on African-American turnout for President Obama in the 2012 General Election, here and around the country. I thought that snubbing the African American faith community just may cost him a second term.
Sure enough, that fall Dr. Patrick Woodson, Sr. cut a radio ad urging black voters to not vote for Obama because of the President’s support for same sex marriage. “Join me in saying ‘no more’ to President Obama,” implored Dr. Woodson. It backfired. Black voters stood with Obama.
Racial solidarity behind the first black president of the United States was far more important to African-American Christians who supported Amendment One than the single issue of same sex marriage. Why? Because the most important concerns to African Americans in the fall of 2012 were jobs, the economy, home ownership, education and healthcare. Concerns that they felt President Obama was more likely to do something about than Republican Mitt Romney.
What Was the Minority-Targeted Conservative Alternative?
But racial solidarity is only one-third of the minority voter turnout story.
Another third is the fact that Republicans did not offer a conservative alternative in an effective, minority-targeted way. What was the compelling argument made by Republicans in the General Election of 2012 as to why African-Americans and other minorities should entrust GOP leaders with their concerns?
How much robust effort did Republicans make in the fall of 2012 to persuade minority voters that the conservative political agenda was in their best interest? Did they invest adequately in a well-researched and target-tested ad campaign with maximum saturation in minority markets throughout the country?
How much money did Republicans spend in the 2012 General Election on any minority market group? The Obama campaign spent $100 million on data analytics to improve their ability to communicate compelling messages to targeted potential voters like African-Americans. That’s why African-American turnout was higher in 2012 than in 2008.
That’s the third part of the minority turnout story. President Obama did not rely on racial solidarity to attain historic turnout among African-Americans in Ohio in the fall of 2012. Racial solidarity is not why African American turnout went from 11% in 2008 to 15% in Ohio in 2012.
A $100 Million Investment in Turnout was the Winning Difference
Racial solidarity is not why the President’s historic minority turnout in Ohio in 2012 put that state in his “wins” column and gave him a second term in the oval office. He won because he invested $100 million in research and targeted get-out-the-vote communications in order to drive up minority turnout. It was called Operation Narwhal. It began 18 months before Election Day.
Did the pro-Romney conservative camps simply not have the resources to compete with Obama nationally for minority voters? According to OpenSecrets.org, the Romney team spent $1.2 billion in 2012. Outside conservative organizations spent hundreds of millions on TV ads.
How much money did Republicans spend communicating compelling messages to African-Americans? Hispanics? Any minority? Well researched and target-tested messages? Maximum ad buys in minority markets? How early did they start their get-out-the-vote effort?
Here is an illustration that will give you a good sense of what the Republican National Committee thinks is an adequate investment in minority outreach:
After losing to Obama in 2012, Republicans did a self-assessment that led to a 100-page scathing critique of their political brand and campaign operations called the Growth and Opportunity Project. I read it. It was excellent. (It’s what North Carolina Democrats need today.)
However, as well-intentioned as that project was, it resulted in the typical Republican solution to minority outreach. Here is how Reince Priebus described the RNC’s efforts to reach minority voters on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” March 17, 2013. “We’re going to be announcing a $10 million initiative just this year and it will include hundreds of people, paid across the country, from coast-to-coast, in Hispanic and African-American, Asian communities, talking about our party, talking about our brand, talking about what we believe in,” said Priebus.
Do you think $10 million is adequate for a successful, national minority outreach initiative?
RNC’s $10 Million Drop in the Bucket
Impressed with the RNC’s $10 million national minority outreach initiative? Well, about how many votes do you think $10 million will influence in a nation where all major political players spend over $1 billion each? Both the Obama and Romney presidential teams spent over $1 billion in 2012. Hillary Clinton plans to spend upwards to $2.5 billion in her bid for the White House. Just the conservative Koch brothers plan to spend $900 million in 2016.
The 100 leading advertisers in American commerce spend $104.5 billion in 2012. That’s an average of over $1 billion each annually. And you want to be successful with a national minority outreach program with $10 million? In a nation of 340 million people, with one-in-three being members of racial or ethnic minorities? It’s no wonder Republicans never get to first base with minority voters. In today’s national politics, $10 million is a drop in the bucket.
The bottom line is that Obama and other Democrats do not get the lion’s share of minority voters because of racial solidarity or minority-sensitive issues alone. They get the lion’s share of minority voters because of two other reasons: they invest adequately and Republicans don’t.
Why would black voters turn out for Hillary Clinton in 2016? It can’t be because of racial or ethnic solidarity. It’s because she knows you must invest early and adequately in minority outreach, even if you are a more likely allied Democrat.
The only Republican who can defeat Hillary Clinton in the race for the U.S. Presidency is the one who is willing to invest early and adequately in minority outreach.
Tomorrow, I will suggest a test.
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report 
John Davis
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination Part 2: Minority Voters Key to Winning in 2016 This is the second a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with my forecast
[More…]
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination
Part 2: Minority Voters Key to Winning in 2016
This is the second a series of reports on the race for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination, interlocked with trends analyses, and conclude with my forecast for the next president.
April 21, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 6 3:13 pm
Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, faces the challenge of turning out African American voters in numbers equal to the historic turnout in 2008 that led to Barack Obama carrying North Carolina by a mere 14,171 votes out of 4.3 million cast. The only time that African-American voters turned out in higher percentages than non-Hispanic white American voters was when Barack Obama was on the ballot.
The Republican nominee for president, as well as those for statewide offices in swing states like North Carolina, face the challenge of persuading minority voters to embrace conservative alternatives to liberal public policy, and the challenge of persuading minority voters to trust them at a time in American history when minorities have every reason not to trust Republicans.
Minority voters are key to winning the White House and statewide offices in swing states like North Carolina in 2016. The biggest difference I see with regards to minority voters in 2016 is that both Democrats and Republicans face an equally difficult challenge.
During the next couple of days, I will be writing a series of reports about minority voters and the challenges faced by both parties to rebrand themselves for a 21st century American electorate.
The Millennials, those born 1980-2000, already outnumber the Baby Boomers. Minorities now number one in three of all Americans. Are you ready Democrats? Republicans?
Why Would Black Voters Vote GOP?
Does the Republican strategy even include the black vote?
On April 2, 2015, Karl Rove, the architect of George W. Bush’s successful campaigns for Governor of Texas and U.S. President and dean of Republican political strategists, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “To win [the White House in 2016], the GOP must do a good deal better among Hispanic, Asian American and African American voters than they have since 2004.”
“Doing better,” writes Rove, “does not require a Republican presidential candidate to forsake a conservative message. It does require finding the right message and presenting it in a compelling way to people not usually drawn to the GOP.”
So, how does the GOP find the right conservative message for people not instinctively drawn to the GOP? How do they figure out how to present a conservative message in a compelling way?
For starters, the GOP’s investment would have to be commensurate with that of any successful national rebranding campaign. Except considerably greater. They first have to overcome the distrust most minorities have for Republicans.
Decades of feeling unwelcome in the GOP’s big tent. Feeling indifference to their plight. Overcoming distrust will require Republicans to start earlier than ever before.
They also need to carefully test their messaging. A very public test. No secrets. All dirty laundry aired. You can’t change a public perception problem until you identify the problem publicly. Everybody knows anyway.
What is the compelling message from Republicans to minorities struggling to find jobs, or to those who have jobs that pay so little that they have to use food stamps to feed their family? What is the positive Republican policy alternative to the liberal social safety net?
Republicans have to figure out how to answer the question: Why would black voters vote GOP? If they figure that out, they will win the White House and most of the statewide offices in swing states like North Carolina.
Tomorrow, I will publish a report that deals with the question: Why would black voters turn out for Hillary Clinton?
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report
John Davis
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination Part 1: Handicapping Republican Ted Cruz This is the first in a series of reports on the candidates for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination of candidates, concluding with my forecast for the next president.
[More…]
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States … by Process of Elimination
Part 1: Handicapping Republican Ted Cruz
This is the first in a series of reports on the candidates for U.S. President. The series will unfold by process of elimination of candidates, concluding with my forecast for the next president.
April 8, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 5 3:13 pm
Cruz is Obama-Right; Wrong for 2016
Okay, so who among Washington political elites comes to mind when thinking about the following descriptive facts: 1. His father was born in a foreign country; 2. He is a Harvard Law School graduate; 3. He was the first-of-a-kind head of Harvard Law Review; 4. His wife is a Harvard graduate; 5. He has two daughters; 6. He is an ideological extremist. Who?
The correct answer: Barack Obama and Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz has a Harvard Law degree just like Obama. Cruz was the first Hispanic head of Harvard Law Review; Obama, the first African-American head of Harvard Law Review. Cruz’s father was born in Cuba; Obama’s father in Kenya. Cruz’s wife is a Harvard graduate (MBA); Obama’s wife is a Harvard graduate (Law). Coincidentally, both couples have two daughters.
Then, add the facts that Obama announced his campaign for president in his mid-40s (he was 45; Cruz is 44), that he, like Cruz, was a first-term U.S. Senator when he announced, and that both are inspirational speakers who espouse anti-establishment solutions to problems.
Obama is a recalcitrant, liberal extremist who prefers to be a lone wolf. Cruz is a recalcitrant, conservative extremist who prefers to be a lone wolf. But, that is where the road forks.
One is a recalcitrant, liberal extremist loner. One a recalcitrant, conservative extremist loner.
In other words, Cruz is Obama-Right. Which is why he is not likely to be president.
American voters are tired of extremism and partisan recalcitrance. Tired of loner politicians with a gift for oratory that fades into uselessness because their words are not accompanied by a gift for collaborative leadership.
Uncompromising, my-way-or-the-highway leaders like Barack Obama and Ted Cruz are likely to be out of vogue during an era when Americans are demanding those who are compelled to get things done, even if it means compromising with the other party, rather than those who are compelled to stick to their beliefs even if nothing gets done.
Ted Cruz’s biggest stumbling block in his campaign for president of the United States is that he actually believes that sticking to your beliefs even if nothing gets done is leadership. That shutting down the federal government rather than hammering out a compromise is defensible.
Are Obama and Cruz Ideological Extremists?
In an era of advocacy journalism (Fox News; New York Times), it is refreshing to have the National Journal. The National Journal is one of only a handful of reliable sources for absolute objective analysis of American politics and politicians.
For over four decades, the National Journal has ranked members of the U.S. Senate from most liberal to most conservative.
In 2007, U.S. Senator Barack Obama from Illinois was ranked #1 “Most Liberal” senator. In the most recent ranking, Ted Cruz is ranked #4 “Most Conservative” senator.
According to the Journal, Cruz is more conservative than 95% of his fellow Senators. Here are a few interesting comparisons:
- Senator Ted Cruz: 4th “Most Conservative”
- Senator Marco Rubio: 17th “Most Conservative”
- Senator Rand Paul: 19th “Most Conservative”
- North Carolina Senator Richard Burr: 27th “Most Conservative”
- Former North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan: 49th “Most Conservative”
Former U.S. Senator Barack Obama from Illinois was ranked #1 “Most Liberal” senator. He is a certifiable ideological extremist. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz from Texas was ranked #4 “Most Conservative” senator. That certifies him as an ideological extremist.
Peggy Noonan, President Reagan’s speech writer, wrote something profoundly sensible in her opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal on February 28, 2015. “What the Republican Party needs in a presidential candidate is not a centrist who can make the sale to conservatives in the primaries; it is a conservative who can win over centrists in the general election.”
Noonan continued, “That means the Republican nominee should be a man or woman who can redefine conservative thinking for current circumstances and produce policies that centrists and independents will find worthy of consideration.”
Ted Cruz, a recalcitrant, conservative extremist loner, is not likely to ever “produce policies that centrists and independents will find worthy of consideration.”
Cruz is Obama-Right. Wrong for 2016.
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political ReportJohn N. Davis
The worst thing that could happen to North Carolina’s right-wing economic hardliners on the eve of a presidential election year is for the Republican Party to be brimming with accomplishment at a time when the economy is expanding at a record pace. You can’t start a revolution when the news is good.
NC Tea Party and Democrats Stymied by Republican Successes and Signs of Sustained Economic Recovery
March 17, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 4 3:13 pm
Good News is Bad News for Revolutionaries
The worst thing that could happen to North Carolina’s right-wing economic hardliners on the eve of a presidential election year is for the Republican Party to be brimming with accomplishment at a time when the economy is expanding at a record pace. You can’t start a revolution when the news is good.
On March 11, 2015, John Connaughton, UNC Charlotte economist, told Charlotte business leaders that the U.S. economy has expanded for 68 consecutive months, and that by this summer we will be enjoying the fifth longest period of economic expansion since 1854. Here in North Carolina:
- 2015 will be the first year since 2006 that the state’s economy will grow by at least 3%
- North Carolina payrolls increased by 2.8% in 2014, the best year since the 1990s
- Unemployment in North Carolina is down to 5.5%, fully half of the 11% + rates seen five years ago at the height of the Great Recession
Too much good news. The Dow is setting record highs, passing the 18,000 mark this year for the first time ever. The share price of Domino’s Pizza has soared from $13 in 2010 to over $100 today! And, as if a growing economy is not bad enough news for Tea Party revolutionaries, now comes reports in USA Today, foretelling gas prices “below $2 somewhere between May and October.”
How can you start a revolution with all this good economic news!
Monopolistic Republicans Bloating Bureaucracies
Revolutions start when monopolistic government elites bankrupt the country with wars and bloated bureaucracies and then demand higher taxes from powerless citizens struggling to make ends meet.
In 2008, the monopolistic government elites who were bankrupting the country by fighting wars and bloating bureaucracies were Republicans. Two unpopular wars. Record earmarks. A $700 billion bank bailout. Wall Street meltdown. Housing value down $6 trillion. Jobs lost totaled 4.4 million.
That year, 2008, a revolutionary leader named Barack Obama led the overthrow of those monopolistic, bureaucracy-bloating Republicans. The GOP lost the White House and the Congress. They lost the Governor’s mansion and the General Assembly in North Carolina.
A bad economy in the hands of Republicans was a perfect scenario for a Democratic revolution.
Monopolistic Democrats Bloating Bureaucracies
In 2010, Americans were still facing the worst recession since the Great Depression. Joblessness was at levels not seen since the 1930s. We were still paying for two unpopular wars with $1 trillion annual budget deficits while facing ongoing crises in major economic sectors like banking, housing and real estate, along with automobile manufacturing. We were $13 trillion in debt.
That year, 2010, a revolutionary group named the Tea Party led the overthrow of those monopolistic and bureaucracy-bloating Democrats; those who had made healthcare reform their priority despite the greater concerns among the citizenry about jobs and the economy.
Republicans exploited the ideal environment for a revolt of the masses: a bad economy in the hands of a Democratic president and a Democratic congress. They won the majority in the U.S. House. They won super majorities in the North Carolina Senate and House of Representatives.
Signs of Economic Recovery and Republican Successes
In 2012, the economy began to show signs of sustained recovery. Slowly but surely the banks had regained strength, as did the automobile industry. Slowly but surely the percentage of unemployed started to go down. The value of housing and real estate rose. The value of stocks rose dramatically.
In North Carolina, a study by the Charlotte Observer revealed that 43 of the 50 top publicly traded companies by revenue finished the year 2012 with higher stock values. It happened again in 2013; higher year-end stock values for North Carolina’s top publicly traded companies. It happened again in 2014.
As the economy improved, Tea Party leaders looked behind them and saw fewer angry followers. The nation was tired of partisan discord and uncompromising economic hardliners. In late 2013, ideas like shutting down the federal government met with universal disfavor, even among most Republicans.
What Republicans wanted most was successes; legislative successes. Here in North Carolina, conservative legislative successes began to pile up. Legislative and congressional districts were remapped to the GOP’s advantage while election laws were changed to the Democrats’ disadvantage. No more straight ticket voting. No more public financing. Fewer days for early voting. Voter IDs.
Now, in 2015, Republicans in the General Assembly are adding to their list of election law reforms at the expense of Democrats with legislation that will change the way cities like Greensboro and counties like Wake elect their city council members and county commissioners.
Conservatives have seen legislative accomplishments in the last four years that they could only but dream of before the Tea Party revolution of 2010. Fracking. Firearms. Medicaid. Charter schools. Regulations. Taxes. Abortion. Teachers union. Consolidation. Reorganization. Environmental laws.
But too much good news is bad news for revolutionaries. Good economic news and a growing list of Republican legislative successes means a greater likelihood that the GOP will be united in 2016.
A united GOP is even worse news for North Carolina Democrats.
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report
John N. Davis
February 6, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 2 9:13 am CORRECTION – NC Sheriffs: I stated incorrectly in the last report that Republicans had a majority of the Sheriffs in North Carolina. In fact, 52 of our Sheriffs are Democrats; 48 are Republicans. In 2014, the party affiliation of newly elected Sheriffs switched in 10
[More…]
February 6, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 2 9:13 am
CORRECTION – NC Sheriffs: I stated incorrectly in the last report that Republicans had a majority of the Sheriffs in North Carolina. In fact, 52 of our Sheriffs are Democrats; 48 are Republicans. In 2014, the party affiliation of newly elected Sheriffs switched in 10 counties. Democrats picked up two offices held by Republicans; Republicans picked up eight held by Democrats.
COMING NEXT WEEK: Wednesday’s report will handicap the 2016 race between Republican Governor Pat McCrory and presumptive Democratic nominee Attorney General Roy Cooper. That report will be followed by an assessment of U.S. Senator Richard Burr’s likelihood of winning in 2016.
What’s most important to political recovery?
On Saturday, February 7, 2015, the State Executive Committee of the North Carolina Democratic Party will meet in Pittsboro. Their challenge is to decide how to restructure, reorganize and create a new vision needed to recover their political standing in North Carolina. There is no decision more critical to that end than the selection of a State Party Chair who can raise money.
A political party without money is one that cannot get its message out; cannot mobilize its base voters. More importantly, a political party without money is one that lacks the resources to restructure, reorganize and create a new vision for the political challenges of the 21st Century.
The challenges facing North Carolina Democrats are too great for ideological bickering. Just since 2010, Democrats have lost majorities in both chambers of the legislature, lost the Governor’s office, lost both U.S. Senate seats, and failed to carry the state for Obama in 2012.
They are not alone. Throughout the South, Democrats are facing the same long and arduous trek back to the state halls of political power.
- 11 of the 13 Southern states have Republican governors (Democrats in KY and VA)
- Republican majorities in 25 of 26 Southern legislative chambers (KY House is Dem)
- Both U.S. Senators are Republican in all Southern states except FL and VA
- There are 111 Republican U.S. House members from the South; 38 Democrats
Because the challenges facing North Carolina Democrats are of epic proportions, the choice of State Party Chair is critical. And 21st Century politics requires a chair who can raise money.
$899 million reasons why Democrats need a fundraiser
If you doubt the importance of money in politics, consider the fact that the Koch brothers plan to invest $889 million through independent organizations focused on the campaigns of 2016. The Koch brothers do not trust political parties to adequately invest in technology, so they invest in technology themselves. They do not trust political parties to mount an effective ground game, so they organize their own ground game.
The Koch brothers hire their own consultants; the best in the business. They conduct their own opposition research and produce their own ads.
So how much is $889 million in the scheme of things? It’s about $250 million more than the combined total spent in 2012 by the Republican National Committee, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee and the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee … combined.
Like it or not, we live in the Citizens United Supreme Court era in which money is indisputably the most important political commodity.
Who will major Democratic donors give the big checks to?
Assuming that there are a number of wealthy Democrats around the state who are ready and willing to write the big checks to help the state party get the party back on its feet, who do they give the big checks to? That’s the critical problem that must be solved on Saturday in Pittsboro.
They did not trust David Parker, NCDP Chair from January 2011 to February 2013. They did not trust Randy Voller, the current State Party Chair who struggled to keep the lights on. They certainly will not trust a 600+ member State Executive Committee spitting at each other over whether the ideological goals of the party are more important than winning campaigns.
The North Carolina Democratic Party needs a State Executive Committee of 60, not 600. The first vote of that 60-member State Executive Committee should be the selection of a 6-member management team tasked with authority to raise seed money and oversee the development of a long-range plan for restructuring and reorganizing the North Carolina Democratic Party into a political fighting force.
On Saturday, February 7, 2015, the State Executive Committee of the North Carolina Democratic Party will meet in Pittsboro. There is no decision more critical to their political recovery than the selection of a State Party Chair who can raise money.
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report
John N. Davis
January 13, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 1 12:13 pm “Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them.” U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat-NY, National Press Club, 11, 25, 2014 Fix Yourself When the second highest ranking Democrat in the U.S. Senate says, “We blew it,” I sit up and take notice. Such was the
[More…]
January 13, 2015 Vol. VIII, No. 1 12:13 pm
“Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them.” U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat-NY, National Press Club, 11, 25, 2014
Fix Yourself
When the second highest ranking Democrat in the U.S. Senate says, “We blew it,” I sit up and take notice. Such was the case on November 25, 2014, when U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, said, “Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them in electing Obama and the Democratic Congress in 2008 amid a recession. We took their mandate and put all our focus on the wrong problem — healthcare reform.”
For emphasis: “We took their mandate and put all our focus on the wrong problem.”
The greatest threat to Republican political potential in 2016, both in Raleigh and Washington DC, is a misinterpretation by congressional and legislative majorities of the 2014 voter mandate.
So, what was the voter mandate of 2014?
According to a January 2, 2015 Gallup survey, based on a 12,000-sample average from last year’s polls, the most important problem on the minds of 2014 voters was “government leadership — including Pres. Obama, the Republicans in Congress and general political conflict.” But what about the Economy, Unemployment/Jobs and Healthcare? They came in second, third and fourth respectively to Government/Congress/Politicians on the most important problems list for 2014.
That finding is consistent with a September 2014 Gallup poll in which voters were asked what they wanted their representative in Congress to do when the Congress begins the new session in January. Answer: fix yourself.
Consequences of Misinterpreting the Mandate
So, what are the consequences of Sen. Schumer’s conclusion: “We took their mandate and put all our focus on the wrong problem.” Two politically devastating mid-term election cycles.
- Largest GOP majority in the U.S. House since 1928 (247 Republican; 188 Democrats)
- GOP regaining the majority in the U.S. Senate after losing it to Democrats in 2006
- Republican governors: 31; Democratic governors: 18; (1 Independent)
- Highest number of legislative seats in the 50 states since 1920
- Republican legislative-majority chambers in the 13 southern states: 25 of 26
- Republican majorities in North Carolina House and Senate
Sen. Chuck Schumer was right. Pres. Obama and Democratic majorities in the U.S. Senate and House put their priorities ahead of the public’s priorities during the worst recession since the Great Depression. On March 21, 2010, Pres. Obama told an Indonesian TV interviewer, “The most important domestic priority [Obamacare] is going to be voted on this week.”
Obama actually believed that Obamacare was a more important domestic priority than the housing and real estate crises, foreclosures in the loss of housing value; more important than the banking crisis and a nearly bankrupt automobile industry; more important than 1930s unemployment numbers; more important than $1 trillion budget deficit in the $13 trillion per sovereign debt.
Democrats had all of the power in Washington DC and Raleigh, North Carolina leading up to the first midterm elections of the Obama administration in 2010. There was a Democrat in the White House and the Governor’s mansion. There were Democratic majorities in the Congress in the state legislature. Now, after the second midterm elections of the Obama administration, Democrats are powerless in Washington, DC and Raleigh, North Carolina.
That’s the consequences of misinterpreting the voter’s mandate.
Will Republicans Misinterpret the Mandate of 2014?
Tomorrow, January 14, 2015, the North Carolina General Assembly will begin its work under the guidance of Republican super majorities in the North Carolina Senate and House of Representatives. Will they take the mandate of 2014 and put their focus on the wrong problem?
What is the mandate of 2014? Certainly it is a Republican friendly mandate in light of the GOP rout at all levels of political leadership in the state and nation. Wrong.
Last fall, CNN conducted a national survey to find out what voters were thinking when they chose to give Republicans most of the political power in the country. The survey, conducted from November 21-23, 2014, asked the following question, Were Republican victories in the U.S. Senate and House races in 2014 a mandate for Republican policies or a rejection of Democratic policies. Answers: Rejection of Democrats 74%; Mandate for Republicans 16%.
The greatest threat to Republican political potential in 2016, both in Raleigh and Washington DC, is a misinterpretation of the 2014 voter mandate. The mandate was to put the priorities of the people ahead of the priorities of political parties.
Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. That’s why they have no power today. What will Republicans do with the opportunity the people have given them?
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report
John N. Davis
Thank You and Happy New Year! December 30, 2014 Vol. VII, No. 30 12:13 pm Thank you so much for reading my report this year! There is no greater reward for a political writer than to be read by a balance of influential readers from all persuasions. My goal has always been to
[More…]
Thank You and Happy New Year!
December 30, 2014 Vol. VII, No. 30 12:13 pm
Thank you so much for reading my report this year! There is no greater reward for a political writer than to be read by a balance of influential readers from all persuasions.
My goal has always been to provide a reliable analysis of political trends along with accurate forecasts of likely winners. In order to achieve that goal, I cannot be an advocate. If I were an advocate, my forecasts would be wrong half the time.
There are many sources of politically biased reporting, especially among advocacy news organizations. I urge you to read or listen to all of them. Biased perspectives on the status of campaigns are very helpful in sizing up competing arguments on who is likely to prevail in a race.
But if you do not have time to read or listen to all competing sources of political insight, please know that that is what I do every day throughout the year.
As you know from following my reports in 2014, since January I have argued that mid-term election year dynamics (referendum on the White House; Democratic turnout down), coupled with structural advantages for Republicans (like the fact that Democrats were defending more U.S. Senate seats, 6 in states that Romney carried by 14 points!) pointed to a likely upset win by North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis over North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan.
There are three other reasons I saw the upset coming:
- Republicans knew that they were their own worst enemy in 2012 and were determined from early 2013 on to correct those mistakes;
- US. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 eliminated the fundraising advantage incumbent Kay Hagan should have had by allowing pro-Tillis outside groups to come into North Carolina with unlimited funding;
- Hagan and her camp of advisors underestimated Tillis and his camp of advisors.
Who Will Lead North Carolina Democrats to Political Recovery?
I suspect that after major losses by North Carolina Democrats in 2010 (state Senate and House), 2012 (Governor) and 2014 (everything else), they will not be making the same mistakes again. Certainly after three devastating elections in a row they see the value of a self-assessment similar to what the GOP did to correct their weaknesses after squandering political opportunities.
In 2016, many important structural advantages will shift to the Democrats. They will have half as many U.S. Senate seats to defend as Republicans; no seats in states carried by Romney. Plus, the Democratic constituencies who were slack in 2014 will likely be going back to the polls in much higher numbers during the presidential election year.
Of course, taking advantage of opportunities comes down to leadership and execution. There is a leadership vacuum in the North Carolina Democratic Party. That vacuum must be filled by someone who can raise a substantial amount of money, lead a self-assessment, and rally the faithful behind a well-crafted plan with the singular goal of political recovery.
Who will lead North Carolina Democrats to political recovery?
Throughout 2015 and 2016, I will be reporting to you what I see as the major influences on our state’s politics. We will be a battleground state in both the presidential and the U.S. Senate race, which means we will attract the kind of attention and money we saw in 2014.
In addition to President in 2016, we will have elections for Governor, Council of State, Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, all members of the U.S. House, and all members of the General Assembly.
As always, I will be in the thick of it; reporting to you what I see.
My goal, as always, will be to provide you with a reliable analysis of political trends along with accurate forecasts of likely winners.
Thanks again for reading my report.
May you have the happiest and most prosperous year ever!
– End –
Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report John N. Davis
November 24, 2014 Vol. VII, No. 29 2:13 pm I had a secret forecasting advantage on January 10, 2014, when I titled the John Davis Political Report, Vol. VII, No. 2, North Carolina’s U.S. Senate Race: Numbers Say Republican Thom Tillis is Likely to Upset Kay Hagan. A secret advantage a year in the making.
[More…]
November 24, 2014 Vol. VII, No. 29 2:13 pm
I had a secret forecasting advantage on January 10, 2014, when I titled the John Davis Political Report, Vol. VII, No. 2, North Carolina’s U.S. Senate Race: Numbers Say Republican Thom Tillis is Likely to Upset Kay Hagan. A secret advantage a year in the making.
A forecasting advantage so significant that during the ten months of writing dozens of political reports during 2014 about what became the most expensive U.S. Senate race in American history, I never wavered in my prediction that Thom Tillis, Republican Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, would win an upset victory over U.S. Senator Kay Hagan, a Democrat.
The secret to my forecasting advantage began on January 5, 2013, the day Republican Pat McCrory was sworn in as the 74th Governor of North Carolina.
I was sitting in my den by the fire watching live television coverage of the historic swearing-in ceremony taking place in the Senate Chamber of the Old State Capitol in Raleigh. Historic because not since the post-Civil War era had North Carolina state government been led by a Republican Governor, a Republican President Pro Tempore of the Senate presiding over a Republican majority, and a Republican Speaker of the House presiding over a Republican majority … all at the same time.
Although this was a first-in-a-lifetime event worthy of my undivided attention, I was distracted by concerns over what I would write about in 2013. After all, I had regular readers of my political report who were counting on something of value about North Carolina politics every two weeks.
Then, from out of the pomp and circumstance of the swearing-in, I had an epiphany. It was the question, I wonder how long Republicans will be the dominant political party in North Carolina? What would it take for them to hold sway over state government like the Democrats before them?
No sooner had the question of Republican political longevity entered my mind, than the obvious counter question emerged. What would it take for Democrats to recover politically and regain their standing as the dominant political party in North Carolina?
Now I knew what I would write about in 2013.
Little did I know in January 2013, that a year-long quest for answers to those two questions would give me a secret advantage in forecasting North Carolina’s 2014 race for U.S. Senate.
Keys to Political Longevity for North Carolina Republicans
On Friday, January 11, 2013, I began a 10-part series titled Keys to Political Longevity for North Carolina Republicans, a series that ended on May 8, 2013.
For four months, I interviewed dozens of the most influential political minds in the state on the topic of what it would take for Republicans to keep their power over state government.
My interviews included former Republican elected officials and consultants, political reporters and university professors of political science. I talked to Republican financial backers, former Republican administration heads, Republican pollsters and North Carolina Republican Party leaders.
I began the series with a caution: Always remember that you are vulnerable.
A caution about the danger of the seduction of exceptionalism.
After the series on the Keys to Republican Political Longevity, I began a 10-part series titled, Keys to Political Recovery for North Carolina Democrats.
For four months, from June 6, 2013 to October 7, 2013, I interviewed dozens of influential Democrats on the topic of what it would take for North Carolina Democrats to reestablish their standing as a powerhouse in North Carolina politics.
My interviews included a former Democratic governor, leading Democratic consultants and former elected officials, political reporters and university professors of political science. I talked to Democratic financial backers, Democratic pollsters and leaders of the state Democratic Party.
I began the 10-part series with a report on the importance of reestablishing ideological balance in the Democratic legislative caucuses in order to restore the party’s mutually beneficial and long-standing relationship with the state’s business community.
I ended the series with a caution: Always remember that you are vulnerable.
A caution about the danger of the seduction of exceptionalism.
Secret Measurements: Ten for Hagan; Ten for Tillis
I had a secret forecasting advantage on January 10, 2014, when I titled the second John Davis Political Report of the year, Vol. VII, No. 2, North Carolina’s U.S. Senate Race: Numbers Say Republican Thom Tillis is Likely to Upset Kay Hagan.
I also used that secret advantage on January 3, 2014, when I wrote the following in the first John Davis Political Report of the year, Vol. VII, No. 1, North Carolina’s 2014 Political Preview:
Imagine waking up the morning after General Election Day 2014 with a Republican Governor, a Republican majority state Senate and House, a Republican majority state Supreme Court, a Republican majority Court of Appeals, a 10-3 Republican U.S. House delegation and two Republican U.S. Senators joining Republican majorities in both the U.S. Senate and House in Washington, DC. If you are a member of the GOP, or if you prefer conservative solutions to problems, nothing could be finer. If you are a Democrat … ummmm, need I say more?
It happened.
A year of interviewing the most influential members of the Republican and Democratic parties in North Carolina during 2013 had given me a unique advantage in forecasting the likely winner in the Hagan-Tillis race in 2014.
I had secret measurements. Ten for Hagan. Ten for Tillis.
My secret measurements for the state Democratic Party told me that they were structurally incapable of helping Kay Hagan win her campaign for U.S. Senate. That they were so divided and disorganized that they would ultimately be her undoing.
I had a secret measurement that led me to the conclusion that Democrats were being led into 21st Century political combat by old generals fighting the last war. A secret measurement that helped me see that Hagan was relying on backward-looking stale, 20th century issues rather than forward-looking dynamic issues that would inspire voters with great possibilities.
I also had a secret measurement to determine if Republicans were showing signs of self-destruction. Danger signals of a sense of invulnerability. I found a well-organized, well-led army taking nothing for granted.
The eight months of interviewing Republican and Democrat leaders in North Carolina in 2013 gave me the confidence to call the race for a Tillis upset on January 10, 2014.
Who Wins the Most Expensive U.S. Senate Race on a Level Battlefield?
North Carolina’s 2014 U.S. Senate race between Democrat Sen. Kay Hagan and Republican Tom Tillis, Speaker of the North Carolina House, was the most expensive in history. Over $130 million was spent by the candidates and their allies, with $100 million spent independently by national groups totally out of reach of the candidates and their campaign professionals.
Yet the campaign began and ended in a virtual tie. The brightest of political operatives could not seize a sure lead. The smartest pundits doubted their own judgment as to the likely outcome.
Thom Tillis was number one on the list of the “Most Attacked” U.S. Senate candidates by outside groups, with $35,569,285 spent on negative TV ads. Ads that said he was too conservative; that as leader of the North Carolina House he was responsible for cutting $500 million out of the state’s education budget. Ads that said he cut Planned Parenthood; that he was no friend of women.
Kay Hagan was also on the list of the “Most Attacked” candidates by outside groups in 2014, with $20,916,901 spent on negative TV ads. Ads that said she was too liberal; that she voted with President Obama 95% of the time. The deciding vote on Obamacare. That she skipped out on an Armed Services Committee meeting and went to a fundraiser in New York in the middle of national concern about ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism becoming a threat here at home.
Despite it all, after $130 million was spent, the race was tied on the eve of Election Day. Tied because in North Carolina, the number of voters likely to vote Republican or Democratic is tied.
Tied because the number of white urban moderates, African-Americans, single women, independents, young people and emerging minorities inclined to vote Democratic is equal to the number of white suburban and rural conservatives, married women, independents, older people and emerging minorities inclined to vote Republican.
North Carolina is tied just like the nation is tied. That’s why the lessons learned from the Hagan-Tillis U.S. Senate race inform both state and national Democrats and Republicans about the importance of new partisan branding for 21st Century American politics. About the importance of 21st Century battles being led by forward-thinking 21st Century generals.
About the danger of the seduction of exceptionalism.
– End –