Mt. Blogmore, the Rapid City Journal blog, was gracious enough to respond to my request and started a thread on why the Senate race came out the way it did. Here are some of the thoughts I posted. Please enter into the discussion:
This is a great discussion. Even though the "what is a negative ad?" discussion can get tedious, it's really quite central to understanding this race. Daschle's strategy was to label everything the opposition did as a "negative attack," but the opposition was smart to be VERY specific in their criticism. The facts, issues, and votes were not on Daschle's side, so by sticking to the facts, the criticism was effective. When the facts came rolling out of Daschle's own mouth in the "In His Own Words" ad, it couldn't be dismissed as a "negative attack." That's when, I'm told, Daschle's campaign went into emergency mode. As to a "negative attack," remember the ad from the governor's primary in 2002 when someone ran an ad saying a candidate profited from skin harvesting or some wretched practice like that. Now that's a "negative attack." Saying Senator Daschle voted 8 times to block tort reform and his biggest donor base was trial lawyers is simply reality.
But let's consider some other factors:
(1) POPULISM: We're still a populist state in many respects, i.e. we question cultural and economic elites and their lifestyles. Daschle's mansion and Jaguar hurt him in this respect, as did the fact that he was the biggest recipient of Hollywood money this cycle. Also, to the extent you subscribe to the "too big for his britches" theory, that is essentially a populist throw-the-bums-out sentiment.
(2) DASCHLE's ADS: Forget about the misleading nature of some (think of Daschle's COOL ad here, which was completely untrue) for a moment and just think about their quality. They weren't great. And that hunting ad was simply terrible. Hunters, the target audience, thought Daschle looked ridiculous. And it's amazing how LONG the Daschle campaign ran the ad. The ad seemed to reinforce the "phony" charge (as the comments to the Argus/KELO Mason-Dixon poll indicated).
(3) THE POLITICS OF AVOIDANCE: In any battle, it's nice to have allies. And Thune could rely on Bush, talk radio, the internet, Guliani, Mrs. Dole, and others, or at least not have to avoid them. But Daschle was basically alone. He wasn't playing up his connections to Kerry, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and Daily Kos, four defining figures in the Democratic establishment this year. He had to avoid them, which is hard to do as the titular head of the party.
(4) CLOUT: This was Daschle's only argument. And it wasn't that compelling, especially when he's in the minority in a Republican town. But let's just say Daschle was no Karl Mundt or Francis Case, who could point to two interstate highways, a massive dam system, and other big projects. When Daschle ran an ad saying he got some money for the Brandon library, it almost made him seem smaller or less consequential. And if Daschle was so powerful, where's the ethanol bill, the neutrino lab, etc...
(5) DEBATES: Thune did extremely well, it seemed to me. And Daschle had to play defense. And he looked weak always trying to find a reason why he couldn't debate. But more than anything, it confirmed that Thune was a very strong candidate.
(6) ABORTION: Despite what Denise might say about the Daschle campaign's failure to "manage" this issue better for the candidate, there's simply no avoiding the NARAL and Emily's List work that Daschle did, especially when the "In His OWn Words" ad featured Daschle going on about choice being "sacred ground." Remember that last winter the legislature voted to ban abortion in the state.
(7) DASCHLE'S BASE: Some of those independent polls showed Thune winning as much as 18% of the Democratic vote. Some of this probably has to do with cultural issues, one imagines. But one also wonders if some of Daschle's traditional voters stayed home because of his hugging-Bush ads. Let's face it, one thing many base Democrats don't like is President Bush.
(8) DASCHLE REPUBLICANS: Johnson won 20% of Republicans in 2002, but Daschle only won 18% (according to the only exit poll that I've seen on the race). If you do the math, that means the Republicans voting for the Democrat declined from 40,000 down to 36,000. Also, after the accident Daschle either wouldn't or couldn't rely much on his relationship with Governor Janklow.
(9) HISTORY: More generally, one could say that history caught up with Daschle. The abortion issue is the perfect example here--he told ministers in 1986 it was "murder" but now he's on the NARAL team. If one looks back at 1986, Daschle was pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-income tax increase, and pro-balanced budget amendment. He changed on all these issues in 18 years. His old history came back to haunt him. The chickens came home.
(10) EAST RIVER RURAL COUNTIES: If you look at the numbers East River, Thune won some counties he didn't in 2002 and cut his losses in a large number of small rural counties. In my home county of Lake, Thune's vote went up from 41% to 44%. In neighboring Moody, his vote went from 38% to 41%. And on down the line. He also lost Minnehaha County by 1,000 votes less than he did in 2002. He actually won Codington and McCook, which he lost in 2002. All the reasons listed above could account for the better showing in these counties. I visited with an editor in McCook yesterday who he thought the "It's time," "Daschle is out of touch," and moral issues helped Thune in that County.
(11) THE CORN CROP: My relatives and friends who farm in Lake and McCook counties say they will probably have their best corn crop ever this year. My research into McGovern's first win in 1956 and Daschle's first Senate run in 1986 indicate that Corn Matters, i.e. when the farm economy is shaky it helps Democrats.
(12) FUNDAMENTALS: Daschle said on NPR a couple of years ago that he was a "dedicated liberal" or something like that (something he never said when he first ran for Congress) but he said in his book that most South Dakotans are conservative. Well, I think he was right on both counts. Those two warring facts hurt him.
(13) LAWSUIT: The filing of Daschle v. Thune on the eve of the election based on the testimony of one Deaniac about aggressive "eye-rolling" did not impress many South Dakotans. Could it have been decisive to 500 or 1,000 fence-sitters? Perhaps. It was all over talk radio the next day.
But let's be clear. It's a game of inches. So lots of little factors certainly could have had a cumulative impact. These are just some of my thoughts. I'm curious to hear what others think the little factors were.
Comments