Let me comment on the remarks of Denise Ross at Mt. Blogmore. Evidently Tom Daschle suggested the other day in Vermillion that it's John Kerry's fault he lost the election. Denise writes:
Daschle’s stated logic goes like this: Because Kerry conceded the Rushmore state, that left Bush with a 20-plus point top-of-the-ticket advantage. It is an awfully tall order for a down-ticket candidate to bridge that big of a gap with crossover voters.
This is, of course, absurd. If Daschle wanted a boost from Kerry, he wouldn’t have run TV ads showing himself hugging George W.
I do think there is something to this notion, although Tom Daschle didn't always think so. During the Meet the Press debate on Sept 19, 2004, Tim Russert quoted something this intrepid political scientist had said to the Argus. Here is the transcript from MTP (and yes, they spelled my first name wrong):
MR. RUSSERT: The day before the president went to war, Mr. Daschle, you said the president had failed miserably at diplomacy, and now we're now forced to war. Professor John Schaff of the Northern State University, according to the Argus Leader, said this is your difficulty. "So Daschle will have to explain why South Dakota should vote for President Bush and also vote for the person who has done the most to try to oppose President Bush in Washington. Those votes don't seem to go together."
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think it's just the opposite. I disagree with him, because, clearly, if we're going to do what we have to do to represent the people of our state, we just can't follow this president or any president. I will support him when he's right. I will oppose him when he's wrong. That I think is what the people of South Dakota expect.
My point was precisely that Daschle would have a tougher re-election bid than he was used to because a) it was a presidential year, b) President Bush was obviously going to win this state by a large margin (21 points, as it turned out), and c) Daschle had been identified nationally as the main opponent to Bush in Washington. Thus Daschle would have a harder time than usual getting the Republican split-ticket voters that he had relied on over the years to win. Yet in the MTP debate Daschle dismissed this notion, and indeed dismissed the whole presidential race, including Mr. Kerry, essentially saying he'd put South Dakota first over either a President Bush or a President Kerry. If anyone has a complaint it is John Kerry for being dismissed on national television by the #1 Democrat in Washington. Now Daschle is singing quite a different tune. While on MTP Daschle down played the presidential race, now he is saying it was crucial to his loss. Given the close presidential race, did Daschle really expect Kerry to spend time in a state he had no hope of winning? I have long argued that Daschle's position as Democratic leader in the Senate was both a blessing and a curse, and it wound up being more of a curse. Daschle was forced to carry so much water for a liberal national Democratic Party in opposition to a popular (in the state) Republican president that Daschle simply alienated too many of his Republican supporters. Given the presidential election, those folks would be more focused on national issues that normal and more motivated to vote. In a 4,500 vote race there are lots of reasons to explain the outcome. I think Daschle is right (now) about the presidential race factoring large in this race. But what was really going on here was this: Given the presidential dynamic, it made it hard for a liberal Democrat to fool his conservative Republican state that he was best to represent them in Washington. In other words, the presidential race was one faction among many that exposed Tom Daschle as being out of touch with the average Bush supporting South Dakotan.
Recent Comments