RAGGED THOTS

Democratic operatives do not publicly say that they went out of their way this year to recruit candidates with a high hotness quotient. Privately, however, they acknowledge that, as they focused on finding the most dynamic politicians to challenge vulnerable Republicans, it did not escape their notice that some of the most attractive prospects were indeed often quite attractive.

There is a certain logic to the trend. Back in 1994, when Republicans seized power in Congress from Democrats, the GOP had a number of fresh-faced challengers who knocked off incumbents who had grown worse for wear after years of committee hearings and fundraising receptions.

This year, it is the Democrats who have several ripe opportunities to unseat Republicans, some of whom have grown gray and portly during their years in power.

To gain the 15 seats needed to recapture House control, the party is targeting about 40 GOP-leaning districts, including New York's 24th, where veteran Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R) is retiring and where Arcuri is campaigning.

In most of the races, the Democratic challengers look a lot like standard-issue politicians -- not likely to impress the judges at Atlantic City. But there are others who, while they might not have movie-star looks, are certainly well above the C-SPAN median.

The list is decidedly unscientific, but it includes several whose names come up often on Capitol Hill for reasons other than their policy platforms. Among those on it, in addition to Arcuri, are Brad Ellsworth, a swaggering Indiana sheriff; businesswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who has chiseled features and rides a motorcycle; and Heath Shuler of North Carolina, a strapping former quarterback for the Washington Redskins. In Tennessee, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., a lean and stylish 36-year-old, has drawn admiring looks.

Republican Bob Corker, who is running against Ford, has acknowledged the disparity. "I know I'm not as good-looking," Corker said. He hopes his business experience will compensate.

Some of the academic research on beauty and voting goes back decades, to the early 1970s. In 1990, political scientist Lee Sigelman, then at the University of Arizona, posited that Democrats were losing ground nationally, despite an advantage in voter registration, because their looks were a turnoff. He rated all governors and members of Congress on an ugliness scale and found that of the 26 least attractive, 25 were Democrats.

The playing field these days is more level. Research has shown that if candidates invest a little effort in their looks, the payoff can be huge. Campaign consultants hover around candidates, ordering them to change their hairstyles, get in shape and update their wardrobes. "The bar has been raised, without question," said Sigelman, now a George Washington University political science professor.

He singled out three Maryland statewide candidates, Republican Senate nominee Michael S. Steele and gubernatorial rivals Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) and Martin O'Malley (D), "as playing the image game really well." Politicians today, said Sigelman, strive for "the personality and looks of talk show hosts." The goal is to be "well turned out."

One candidate who made a high-impact adjustment is Diane Farrell. The Connecticut Democrat used to wear her blond hair pulled back tight, but after a gentle nudge from a campaign aide, she allowed it to hang loose for a more natural, relaxed look.

The looks factor can be maddening for the opposition. One writer on an anti-Shuler blog expressed annoyance at the candidate's wife, "with all her quips about how cute Shuler is. What a way to decide how to vote!!"

Perhaps not surprisingly, research has shown that voters who are easily swayed by social trends tend to favor more attractive candidates. Conversely, people who resist social trends prefer unattractive candidates.

The latest wave of research examines a possible root of political attraction: how closely candidates and voters resemble each other. A Stanford University study this year suggested that little-known candidates can increase their electoral support by as much as 20 percentage points by tweaking visual features on their campaign materials so they look slightly more like a targeted group of voters, for instance Asians or Hispanics.

The less voters know about the candidates, as in races such as the Arcuri-Meier contest with no incumbent, the more looks seem to matter. An examination of a 2001 British local election by a team of Texas Tech University and University of Plymouth researchers found that, in the absence of facts, people who are considered attractive by survey respondents are more likely to win.

The findings were presented to the American Political Science Association's 2003 annual meeting, with the caveat that they "may offend notions of democracy that candidates should compete fairly and on the basis of issues not appearance."

# posted by Robert A. George @ 2:27 PM

The Foley scandal did two things, both harmful to Republicans. It stopped Republican momentum in its tracks. (Also contributing to this were the negative spin on Iraq from Bob Woodward's book State of Denial and the faulty reporting on the National Intelligence Estimate.) And it changed the narrative of the campaign from one emphasizing national security, a Republican strength, to one emphasizing Republican malfeasance in Washington and dysfunction in Iraq.

Democrats were lucky, as they have been all year. They had fallen into a trap set by Republicans on the interrogation of high-level terrorist detainees. They voted against the compromise reached by the White House and Senator John McCain, choosing to protect civil liberties for terrorists over national security. That issue, a powerful one for Republicans, was pushed aside in the Foley frenzy.

Earlier in 2006, events had intervened to snuff out a recovery by Bush and Republicans in its embryonic stage. After a bumpy 2005 (Katrina, rising Iraq violence, failure of Social Security reform, Harriet Miers), Bush's approval was inching upward, pointing to an end to his second-term slump. Instead, Vice President Cheney's accidental shooting of a hunting pal, the Dubai ports fiasco, and the bombing of the Golden Dome mosque in Iraq combined to prolong the slump--until the short-lived September surge.

If politics were fair, Democrats would be in as much trouble as Republicans. And they'd be just as vulnerable. They've been obstructionist, anti-tax-cut, soft on terrorism, and generally obnoxious. On top of that, Pelosi is the most unpopular national politician in America. But in the sixth year of the Bush presidency, with a GOP-run Congress, Democrats aren't the issue. Republicans are.

On another point that has come up in commentary threads here at RT, Barnes also notes that big problem facing Republicans is that the "base" is no longer listening to that old-time religion:

The most overlooked election indicator is the level of voter enthusiasm. In every election from 1994 through 2004, Republicans were more enthusiastic than Democrats. That was a decade of Republican growth. This year Democrats are more excited. And it's measurable. In 2002, 42 percent of Republicans said they were more enthusiastic than usual about the election. Thirty-eight percent of Democrats said the same. In 2006, the numbers have flipped. Republican enthusiasm has dipped to 39 percent and Democratic enthusiasm has jumped to 48 percent. Enthusiasm affects turnout. Gloomy voters are less inclined to vote.

The only quibble I have is the "every election from 1994 through 2004, Republicans were more enthusiastic..." line. If that were true, why did Republicans lose five seats in 1998? The drive to impeach Bill Clinton ironically aroused the Democrats base -- and helped cost Newt Gingrich the speakership.

Technorati Tags: Mark_Foley, Republicans, election

# posted by Robert A. George @ 1:35 PM

"San Diego at San Francisco. Ed, how can YOU ask that? SF is much improved while the Chargers (or Philip Rivers) have forgotten that they have a Pro-Bowl tight end. Marty Schottenheimer is bringing his bad mojo to yet another team. And LT ain't LT no more."

# posted by EdMcGon @ 12:16 PM

UPDATE: Sorry, Ed, but I'm using my host privileges to put my picks in the body of your post! So, herewith are RAG's picks:

This may be Detroit's only chance of winning all year, so I'm going with the Lion's at home (Question: Why does Matt Millen still have a job?).

Baltimore over Carolina.

Tampa Bay in the upset over Cincinnati.

Dallas over Hapless Houston (How's that Reggie Bush non-pick working out?)

Last year, the G-men used their win over the Redskins to launch them on their run to the NFC East championship. That will happen again this year. Giants over Atlanta in a tough, rough, squeaker.

Heart says New Orleans; head says Philadelphia. As much as I hate the the team, I have to go with the E-A-G-L-E-S.

St. Louis over a Shaun-less Seattle.

Tennessee at Washington. What Ed said.

Pittsburgh finally comes out of its rut against Kansas City. Expect Herman Edwards to come up short in a big game.

Miami at Da Jets. What Ed said. Also, Joey Harrington. Also, Nick Saban may already be losing the team.

San Diego at San Francisco. Ed, how can YOU ask that? SF is much improved while the Chargers (or Philip Rivers) have forgotten that they have a Pro-Bowl tight end. Marty Schottenheimer is bringing his bad mojo to yet another team. And LT ain't LT no more.

Oakland at Denver. Now, here's where the "Do you have to ask?" is appropriate. I thought the worst thing that was ever done to Art Shell was the NFL ignoring him after his pretty good run coaching the raiders in the '90s. Now, I can confidently say that the worst thing was the Raiders hiring him back this year. Art, the fact that all those folks turned the job down before you took it should have been a major warning sign!

Chicago at Arizona. I shouldn't do this, but something tells me that this is Chicago's "trap" game. Consider this Matt Leinart's coming out party.

Technorati Tags: NFL

# posted by EdMcGon @ 1:10 PM

One thing few people ever both to point out about the 1994 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives is that "the South" never lost control. Democrats still have a majority of non-southern seats in the House of Representatives, just as we had before the 1994 election. Although it happened to little fanfare, Democrats re-took their non-southern majority in the elections of 1998, and have never lost it since (although it was tied from January of 2003 until February of 2004). However, when the south switched to majority Republican control in 1994, Republicans took over Congress. Whatever transfer of power took place between the two parties in 1994, the majority of the south has remained in unbroken control of the House of Representatives since 1955, the year after the Brown vs. Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court.

If Democrats win control of the House of Representatives in this election, there is basically no way that they will control a majority of southern seats. While Democrats need fifteen seats to win a majority in the house, they actually need seventeen seats to win a majority of congressional districts in the south. The Cook Political Report only lists 11 southern seats among the top 59 Democratic targets, meaning that in order to win back majority of the south this year, Democrats will need to pick up something like 75 or 100 seats. That just isn't going to happen. Thus, if Democrats win control of the house, it would mark the first time in the post-civil rights era that a party has built a majority coalition in the House without a majority of the south.

# posted by Robert A. George @ 8:10 PM

I recognize that Maher and Carlin are funny men, and enjoy it when they talk about some things (just as I enjoy John Stewart and Colbert); but when they talk about religion and the religious I tune them out because I know they are going to be disrespectful and arrogant.

Contrast this with the humor you will see from Americas funniest comedians, who are almost always African-American, such as Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock, Mike Epps, Cedric the Entertainer, Steve Harvey and the like and you will see that even when they joke about religion they show respect and draw a line. You will also see that comedians that cater to the white working-class, such as Jeff Foxworthy, draw the same line.

The reason for these different stances on the issue of comedy and religion is the fact that African-American comedians, Latino comedians, and white comedians of “blue collar comedy”, are speaking to audiences of people who believe in God and respect the scripture even if they do not follow it. Comedians such as Maher and Carlin speak to audiences largely made up of atheists, agnostics, “progressive” believers, and cultural and moral relativists. For them, there is nothing they are hostile to more than religion, and no group of people that angers them more than people of faith.

In one commercial, Ford walks down the aisle of his Memphis church, sun shining through the stained glass windows, and says: "I started church the old-fashioned way - I was forced to. And I'm better for it.
"Here, I learned the difference between right and wrong," he says before accusing Republican opponents of "doing wrong," distorting his record on homeland security and military spending.
He settles into a pew and adds: "I won't let them make me someone I'm not, and I'll always fight for you. Give me that chance."

Yes, the cynics among us can wonder about the blatant use of a church for a political ad, but the presentation makes a strong impact. Furthermore, whether the sincerity is "fake" or not, the fact is that Ford doesn't appear like he's walking around a building that he's never been in before:



The appeal he is making in the context of faith is personalm, not academic and so it resonates. Of course, this is something that Sen. Barack Obama recognizes as well -- and why he mesmerized the nation at his DNC speech in 2004. And, while one can question how "moderate" or "conservative" Ford and Obama are politically, no one can really dispute that they are true "believers."

In short, whether the topic is comic or serious, the best way to connect with the broadest audience is to recognize that faith and values do inform large swaths of an "audience." Dismissing it contemptuously may only cause one to be "booed" on-stage -- but it can be suicide in the political world.

Technorati Tags: politics, comedy, faith, conservatives

# posted by Robert A. George @ 10:15 AM

One of the stories going around Democrat Party circles is that party operatives like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and American Family Voices weren't quite ready for primetime with the opposition research materials they had gathered for the 2006 election cycle.

According to one political consultant with ties to the DNC and other party organizations, "I'm hearing the Foley story wasn't supposed to drop until about ten days out of the election. It was supposed the coup de grace, not the first shot."

So why the rush? According to another DNC operative: bad polling numbers across the country. "Bush's national security speeches were getting traction beyond the base, gas prices were dropping, economic outlook surveys were positive. We were seeing bad Democratic numbers in Missouri, Michigan, Washington, Arizona, Florida Pennsylvania, even parts of New York," says the operative. "A month before, we were looking at launching an offensive against Republicans who according to polling barely held a five-seat majority if the election were to be held at the end of August. That was doable for Democrats from September 1 to November 7. But by mid-September, Republicans were back to having held seats for a 15-seat majority. In the Senate, it looked like a wash. We held seats in Florida, Nebraska, picked up seats in Pennsylvania, but that that was about it. They were holding in Missouri and possibly within reach of Maryland and Washington. We were looking at a disaster in the making."

So how to remedy? "You pull out the bright shiny things that distract the average American voter away from the issues we all know they care about -- national security, anti-terrorism -- and focus on the ugly: Foley and Iraq."

Sorry, call me cynical when I say that I just can't buy this story (aside from the fact that it begins with the annoying conceit of some conservatives to call the opposition the "Democrat Party")

For one thing, it doesn't "sound" right, i.e., the "voice" of the alleged Democrat activists "quoted" off the record doesn't sound like any Democrat that I've ever met (and you meet quite a few in New York). I can't imagine any "DNC operative" who would feel so relaxed to say that the entire Democratic campaign strategy was falling apart in mid-September and the Democrats had to "go nuclear" with the Foley stuff prematurely. If anything, that sounds like a Republican spinning the way the GOP strategy was supposedly going before the Foley mess stopped any "momentum."

Secondly, this phrase -- "You pull out the bright shiny things that distract the average American voter away from the issues we all know they care about -- national security, anti-terrorism -- and focus on the ugly: Foley and Iraq" -- also sounds completely phony. Seriously, can anyone imagine a partisan Democrat "consultant" saying about the "average American voter" that the issues that "we all know they care about" are "national security, "anti-terrorism"? Again, we're talking about a Democrat analyzing the electorate from his perspective.

The Foley matter? Yeah, they might call it "ugly." But Iraq? That's only been the major talking point for Democrats all year long; a Democrat isn't going to say bringing that up is "ugly."

Besides, dumping this on the CREW people seems odd, given that a The Hill newspaper last week reported that a Republican was the source of the e-mails back in July.

The Spectator's piece reads exactly like the strategy Republicans want to use to fight back on Foley, turn it away from the facts of the case and into a convoluted Democratic dirty trick. As today's Washington Post said: "GOP officials are urging lawmakers to focus exclusively on local issues and leave it to party leaders to mitigate the Foley controversy by accusing Democrats of trying to politicize it." (Emphasis added).

We are in the final four weeks of a major off-year election. One should take just about every political story coming out with at least a pound of salt. And Allah Pundit agrees with me -- and reminds folks of an earlier Prowler "exclusive."

Technorati Tags: Mark_Foley, Republicans, scandal, Democrats

# posted by Robert A. George @ 5:00 PM

House Speaker Dennis Hastert and another Republican leader criticized for his role in the congressional page scandal will not be appearing at fundraisers on behalf of a Pennsylvania congressman who has admitted to an extramarital affair.

# posted by Robert A. George @ 3:47 PM

Fully 53 percent of Americans want the Democrats to win control of Congress next month, including 10 percent of Republicans, compared to just 35 percent who want the GOP to retain power. If the election were held today, 51 percent of likely voters would vote for the Democrat in their district versus 39 percent who would vote for the Republican. And while the race is closer among male voters (46 percent for the Democrats vs. 42 percent for the Republicans), the Democrats lead among women voters 56 to 34 percent.

# posted by Robert A. George @ 10:19 AM