Please, please, please stop referring to Casey Cagle as a moderate. Just because Ralph Reed was a sociopathic pseudo-religious type who adopted the word “conservative” doesn’t mean that anyone other than him involved in the same race must be a moderate or liberal. Cagle’s record is conservative to the point of being anti-consumer which makes libertarians cheer, liberals bristle, and people like me a little wary of him but relieved he’s not Ralph Reed just the same.
And I have yet to see analysis of the election results that I thought hit the mark. These results are too strange to be explained by any single factor, as most people (including me) have tried to do. Here are just a few dynamics in play:
- Crossover votes in the 4th against Cynthia McKinney
- Crossover votes statewide against Ralph Reed
- Extraordinarily low turnout, in part because of:
- Disaffected Democrats because of the brutality in the governor’s (and later) the lt. governor’s race
- Disaffected Republicans because of the brutality of the lt. governor’s race
- Disaffected gays because of Cathy Cox’s flip-flopping
- Disaffected evangelicals because of the scumbaggery of Reed
- Cynicism about the electoral process in general: Exasperation with Republicans for running nearly everything into the ground and with Democrats for not offering any real alternative
Until I see something really convincing, my thought is that anyone who claims to have a full explanation for the results is full of shit. It’s nearly impossible to quantify crossover votes in any substantive way, and even more difficult to prove a negative (i.e. - who stayed home, and of those who didn’t, who crossed over).
Some people have claimed this is the beginning of a categorical rejection evangelical Christians’ electoral clout. Others still have claimed this only reflects evangelicals’ resolved willingness to reject their own when they feel betrayed. Either is possible, as are other scenarios, like Democratic turnout being higher simply because national Republicans are screwing the pooch that badly. But it’s all conjecture, so don’t take it too seriously. There are a lot of people who are filling a logic vacuum with wishful thinking.
Agreed on Cagle.
But I do think there are small signs of disaffectation with the religious right. See Mark Williams beating Kay Godwin in House 178.
I think that the battle now moves south. The Republican primary for Governor in Florida once again pits a strident religious right candidate against a “moderate”.
We’ll see.
The low turnout numbers, weird Dem. Sec. of State race, the 12-point clip for McBerry, and Cagle’s margin all make me think making heads or tails of these results will be difficult or impossible for a long time. Godwin had some ethical baggage of her own, as I understand it, though I didn’t follow that race closely.
Rusty, I think one thing more than anything else that explains Godwin’s loss is the brutal negative campaign the party ran against her on behalf of Hinson Mosley (when he was a Democrat in 2004). Kerry only got about 29% in that district but Mosley was able to disqualify his opponent and still won.
A brutal campaign like that can have an effect long after the initial election. Think to ‘94, Zell’s campaign did such a good job beating Millner (in a year when most other Dems lost) that Millner lost in ‘96 and ‘98 as well. Though he had a chance both of those years, all his opponents had to do was remind voters of what had already been established against him previously.
So I think that may explain Godwin’s lack of good fortune. She was a known quantity — and already rejected in a massively Republican election (the general election) once before.
Could the 12% McBerry vote not be crossovers (which would fit roughly with why the Cagle-Reed polling turned out to be so wrong)?
If that is the case there could be a hell of a shock for the GOP, because DEM turnout was already higher than GOP turnout. So you would have to add another 8-10 points to DEM turnout- factoring in McBerry’s votes.
Also, do you not think that the media’s impression of Cagle as a moderate is at least in part due to the hysterical over-reaction to Reed that Republican primary voters like yourself displayed in voting in the primary?
You (and other Democrats who voted against Reed) don’t exist in a vacuum.
Chris,
A) That’s a loaded question. I didn’t overreact to Reed. What he actually did when he got into office would be nearly irrelevant. He’s a symbol of every worst case scenario of electoral politics, and his election would have validated that style and brought a thousand imitators out of the woodwork.
You would probably say, “Great! That means more Democrats would be elected!” But I’m not convinced that’s the case.
B) No, I think it’s because the media needs a dichotomy to tell their stories, whether it’s a real one or not.
Just sayin…just about anyone would seem moderate and acceptable next to someone you describe as such.