Politics
Entries related to things political.
Sen. Edwards and Ned Lamont
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Thu, 08/17/2006 - 23:08
Sen. Edwards and Ned Lamont address a bunch of bloggers in New Haven, CT
Connecticut is 2006’s Iowa
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Wed, 08/16/2006 - 13:19(Cross posted to Greater Democracy)
Over the past week, all the pundits have been explaining the meaning of Ned Lamont’s victory over Joe Lieberman. It is a victory of the liberals over the moderates some tell us. Others say that it is a victory of the anti-war crowd. Still others suggest it is a victory of the outsiders over the insiders. As a staffer on the Lamont campaign and a frequent contributor to Greater Democracy, I want to add my thoughts on this. It is a victory of good old-fashioned American Democracy.
Polls have shown that the war was a very important issue for voters in Connecticut. They have shown that many people voted for Ned Lamont because they no longer approve of Sen. Lieberman. Yet to me, the line that sums it up most succinctly was at the nominating convention when the Southbury delegation cast its vote saying, “Madam Secretary, Southbury, the town that invited Joe Lieberman to speak in February, and is still waiting for a return call, proudly casts five votes for Ned Lamont!”
To put it into the language of this blog, Lamont’s victory was a victory of post-broadcast politics. The disengaged beltway sound-byte isn’t good enough anymore. People want a representative democracy where candidates go out and engage in an honest and vigorous discussion about the issues. These discussions are not simply a candidate talking at potential voters, but a multi-way discussion.
Changing the political process
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Sat, 07/22/2006 - 22:23(Cross-posted at Greater Democracy.)
Today, rumors of new polls spread claiming that Ned Lamont is pulling ahead in the Democratic Primary in Connecticut. Nancy Skinner blogged about how Dick Cheney has come in to raise money for her opponent at a $1,000 a plate fundraiser and she has lost her voice dialing for dollars.
Last week, I was at DemocracyFest in San Diego, and had some great discussions with Christine Cegelis about the lessons learned from her campaigns. The key message is that we will not bring about change by doing the same thing that the incumbents have been doing for the past couple decades.
We must stop focusing on raising lots of money to do big media buys. Yes, it is important to be on the air, but that isn’t what makes democracy strong, or will help bring about a change in the balance of power. We must use emerging technologies to help bring us back to the retail politics that made democracy strong in our country.
First, let’s think about the importance of volunteers. I don’t know how many hours a typical volunteer puts in on a campaign, but Christine spoke of volunteers that would put in twenty hours a week for a couple months leading up to the election. Let’s say that you needed to pay these people to do the work they are doing, and you paid $10/hour. A thousand volunteers, doing a hundred hours of work at ten dollars an hour is the equivalent of a million dollars. We should be focusing more on this sort of ‘fundraising’. It helps rebuild democracy.
At the Lamont campaign, their advertisements have been viewed on YouTube alone more than 150,000 times and volunteers are out making their own advertisements. We’re not talking about an advertisement that is shown on broadcast television that people with Tivo’s skip over. We’re talking about advertisements that people go out of their way to watch. Meanwhile, Nielsen is reporting new record lows for the least-watched week in the history of their ratings of broadcast networks.
Back to Nancy Skinner’s campaign, I hope she gets her voice back soon. I hope she raises the money she needs. But, even more so, I hope that she raises an army of volunteers that will spread her message effectively around her district and online.
Columbine, Connecticut
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Tue, 06/20/2006 - 06:26On April 20th, 1999, two teenage boys, ages 18 and 17, shot at a group of people. In the end, they killed 13 people, injured another 24, and then committed suicide. It took place at a high school in Colorado and made national headlines.
On Junes 16th, 2006, two teenage boys, ages 17 and 16, shot at a group of people. In the end, they killed a thirteen-year-old girl, and injured two other girls. It took place in New Haven, Connecticut and hasn’t made national headlines.
What is different about these two incidents? The second shooting took place at night and wasn’t at a school. Only one person was killed, instead of 13, and the assailants did not commit suicide. Yet local papers report that this is part of the senseless violence that has resulted in twenty people being shot, three fatally in Connecticut.
I have a daughter who will turn 13 next month. I cannot imagine the horror and outrage I would have if she were shot down the way Ms. Cole was shot down. I would expect the outrage to be widespread.
I would expect people to talk on TV about the causes of the shooting and how future shootings could be prevented. Some might blame the violence on TV, or in video games, or in various forms of music. They would lead efforts to address these causes by calling for a chip to be put in TVs to prevent youngsters from watching inappropriate shows, they would try to ban or at least limit the sale of violent video games and they would rail against musicians with lyrics they didn’t approve of.
So, what is different here? Well, Jujuana Cole was black. She lived in an area where there are not enough jobs and where people are poor.
We need people that will fight against the conditions of poverty with at least the same vigor and vehemence as others have fought to ban violent video games and lyrics they don’t approve of.
Political Narratives, Dead Cats, Lame Ducks and the Expectation Game
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Fri, 06/16/2006 - 11:23(Cross Posted at Greater Democracy.)
Columbia Journalism Review Daily Traces the Birth of a Narrative. They talk about how cable news reporters and pundits are questioning whether the tide is turning for Bush. They comment, “How are they answering themselves? It's a mixed bag. But if a question gets asked often enough in the media, the answer begins to (almost) not matter. And before long the question mark is dropped entirely and a narrative is born.”
They sum up the discussion with “And there it is, in the blink of an eye, so fast that you might have missed it: A narrative is born.”
I lived on a sailboat for several years and one thing you learn on a boat is that the tide changes four times a day.
Another phrase that people use is if Bush is experiencing a “bounce”. Here, I go back to my experiences on Wall Street. When a market has experienced a sharp decline, similar to how Bush’s approval has declined, everyone looks for any positive uptick. The question that always gets asked is if we are experiencing a market reversal, or if the uptick is merely a “dead cat bounce”.
This goes back to the old saying in investing that even a dead cat will bounce if dropped from high enough. When a market experiences a dead cat bounce, there is a brief respite from the downward trend, but the downward trend resumes before you know it.
Is Bush a dead cat? A lame duck? Perhaps the emergence of another narrative gives us a little insight into this. Staying with the Wall Street focus, today’s Wall Street Journal asks, Will 2006 Reprise 1994? This question keeps getting asked and as with the other narrative, ”the answer begins to (almost) not matter”
The narratives feed into another part of the political process, the expectations game. If Bush can claw his way back to only 40% perhaps, Republicans think, maybe they can change the other polls about a plurality of voters thinking we would be better off if Democrats controlled Congress. Of course this 40% is a low expectation compared to Clinton’s 48% approval rating in 1994.
Yet all of this still stays with the horse race narratives. We really need to be talking about narratives around how we will get back to having a government of, by, and for the people.
