In his statement yesterday, Simon noted that the appointment of Florida Senator Mel Martinez as RNC Chair shines light on just how much Republicans are worried about their standing with Latino voters. The press chimed in, hitting the ground running early on. The Washington Times gave us two great quotes with this piece:
Some RNC members greeted the news as another example of White House cronyism, reminiscent of President Bush's attempt to name his personal friend and general counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, a nomination withdrawn in response to outrage from the party's conservative supporters.
Some RNC members yesterday saw the naming of Mr. Martinez as a continuing tendency of the Bush administration to manipulate the national party.
NDN's own Joe Garcia added the following in the Miami Herald:
''This is not only [about the] Hispanic vote short-term, this is about the Hispanic vote and how to be a viable party in the future. This is way beyond 2008. Hispanics are the fastest growing electorate and [Republicans] have been failing it.''
And Simon was quoted in Reuters and the New York Times, pointing out that the appointment brings to light the concern Republicans have that their gains within the Latino community are diminishing. Referring to Karl Rove, he notes:
“One of the greatest success stories of the early Rove era was their success with Latino voters, the president’s chief political strategist. “And that has unraveled for them this year.”
It's not looking too great for the GOP; and it gets worse, as their reactionshows...
Be sure to read the statement below from Simon about Florida Senator Mel Martinez being tapped to Chair the RNC.
"The appointment of Mel Martinez as the new head of the Republican Party is an indication of how worried the Republicans are about their standing with Latino voters across the country.
After years of gains with Latinos, the fastest growing part of the American electorate, the Republicans saw a significant drop in their standing in 2006. In 2004 President Bush received at least 40 percent of the Latino vote. In this midterm it fell to 30 percent, a significant and dangerous drop.
While Latinos had the same reasons to vote against Republicans in 2006 as the rest of America, there is no question that many Latinos have grown disenchanted with the Republican Party because of what they felt was the Republican-led anti-Latino tone of the immigration debate.
If they were truly serious about rehabilitating their standing with Latinos, one area they should think about is working with Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid to take quick action on passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform next year.
Appointing Mel Martinez may help Republicans communicate their message to the Spanish-speaking electorate. But it will take a change in policy not a change in personnel to win back a community that has grown terribly disenchanted with the President and his party."
I’ve been reading all of the “Good News” about the Democrats since the election. Okay. So the Democrats have won. We are now in power. This is history in the making. Speaking of “History”, let me give you a little history about me. When Martin Luther King gave his famous “I have a Dream” speech, I was only 18 years old. Today I witnessed another historic event at the ground breaking for the Martin Luther King Monument - the first for a person of color and the first for a non-President. There were a vast variety of speakers: politicians (including our President and our former President, Bill Clinton), celebrities, news casters, and businessman.
Needless to say, I know every one on that stage today did NOT share “LOVE” for each other; but I saw people of all races and ethnicities in the audience. Everyone was talking and smiling, sharing towels to wipe off the wet seats for each other, sharing umbrellas, cameras, and binoculars. I say all of this to make a point: everyone was showing a positive attitude. If we (Democrats and Republicans) would all put forth a positive attitude, put aside our personal differences and do what is BEST for this country, what a GREAT people we would be! Think about it!!!!
Given the significance of last week's change in the hispanic vote, NDN is hosting a snap event tomorrow morning. Its a fascinating, and electorally vital, topic. Do forward to people you think might be interested. Our invitation is below.
------------------------------------------- Immigration was one of the most hotly contested issues in the 2006 election. It is now clear that the Republican strategy to hurt Democrats with the issue failed to work in major races across the country; that it has caused a major backlash with Latino voters; and that those who are supporting Comprehensive Immigration Reform come out of the election with legislative and political momentum and a very good chance to make great progress on the issue next year.
To talk more about all this, NDN has pulled together a strong panel of experts to look at what happened with the immigration issue and Latino vote in 2006, and what we might expect in 2007.
I hope you will join us next Tuesday, November 14th for an important forum on the battle over immigration and the Latino vote. The forum will be held from 8:30-10:00am at the Phoenix Park Hotel, 520 North Capitol Street, NW.
Frank Sharry - Executive Director, National Immigration Forum
Sergio Bendixen - President, Bendixen and Associates
Celinda Lake (Invited) - President, Lake Research Partners
Cecilia Munoz (Invited) - Vice President Office of Research, Advocacy, and Legislation, National Council of La Raza
Joe Garcia, Director of NDN's Hispanic Strategy Center
Since Reagan's election in 1980, there has been perhaps only a single year or so where Democrats were in as good a position as they are today - perhaps from the summer of 1992 to the fall of 1993. Lets look at some numbers:
- The 2006 election were a highwater mark for Democrats. The national vote was 53% Democrat, 45% Republican. In other words, it was a blowout. Given that Democrats have only broken 50.1 % in one Presidential election since 1948, and havent broken 50% since 1976 these national results are the among the best Democrats have achieved in the last two generations and has to be seen as a significant if not historic accomplishment.
- While not in control of Congress in recent years, Democrats have been performing very well at the Presidential level. Democrats have gotten 250 electoral college voters or more in the last four consecutive Presidential elections. The last that happened was in the 1930s and 1940s. They have also gotten 48% of the national vote or more in the last three Presidentials, gotten more votes than the GOP in three of the last four, and lost the last two elections by only a single state. Not all that much has to change for the Democrats to wrest control of the electoral college.
- A 21st century sustainable, electoral majority strategy has emerged for the Democrats. Democrats won their new Congressional Majorities in the Northeast, Midwest, Plains and West, and now have first non-Southern based Congressional majority in 50 years. To win the electoral college in 2008, all Democrats will need to do is to hold on to the Gore/Kerry states in the North, a region where Democrats dramatically deepened their hold in 2006; and attempt to flip Ohio (where the GOP suffered an extraordinary meltdown) and some western states, particularly AZ, CO, NM and NV (all of which are trending Democratic, and where the GOP meltdown with Hispanics could dramatically change the game). Given what happened in 2006, one would have to say that the electoral college is "Leaning Dem" in 2008.
This new Northeast/Midwest/Plains/West/Southwest-first strategy could be the basis of a sustainable, 21st century national governing majority coalition for Democrats similar to what FDR built in the 20th century.
- The Republican brand has been deeply degraded. Even polls in late 2004 before and after the election showed the Democrats with a significant generic party label advantage, meaning that the floor Democrats were starting from heading into 2006 was much higher than many believed. In a new Newsweek poll, the GOP is at historically low numbers in almost every measure. When asked about the 2008 Presidential, Democrats were favored by 20 points, 48% to 28%. Exits and private polling also show a significant erosion of support for Republicans with the fastest and most volatile part of the American electorate, Latinos, and severe degradation with under 30s, the future American voter.
- In a new poll by Stan Greenberg, the word "conservative" has become almost as unpopular as the word "liberal."
- The Republican Presidential field has been weakened. Frist and Allen now seem mortally wounded, and McCain I believe is the biggest loser of 2006. His steadfast support of the Iraq war makes his path more difficult with many independent voters, and his right's reaction to his stance on immigration reform has made his task of winning his primary much harder. Beyond these three the GOP field become much weaker, with a bunch of possible candidates with significant flaws or who are relatively unknown.
Going into 2008 Democrats are starting from a remarkably strong position, perhaps their strongest position going into an election since 1975. They start coming off a significant and deep national win in all regions of the country, and then a great deal of momentum, a strong Presidential field, a great chance to expand the Senate majority in particular, an electoral college trending their way, a new national electoral majority strategy, a Republican brand and conservative movement severely degraded, and a Republican Presidential field weakened.
While of course a lot can happen between now and 2008, there should be no question that Democrats are leaving 2006 with a strong wind at their back.
For the past several years, our members and friends have been helping lead a critical strategic conversation in the progressive movement on how to best respond to the remarkable success of the 20th century conservative movement. We all know the story - the conservatives invested billions of dollars over more than a generation to build a very powerful and modern political movement, one which they used to seize more ideological and political control over Washington than in any time since the 1920s.
In the fall of last year it was clear that the conservatives were writing a new and terrible chapter of their movement. Through our analysis grouped in the "meeting the conservative challenge" portion of our site, NDN began laying out an argument that the extraordinary governing failures of the Bush era was calling into question the very nature of the conservative movement itself. As we wrote in January of this year, in a memo called the "State of Conservative Governance, 2006,"
"Tonight the President reports to the nation on the State of the Union. We will hear soaring rhetoric, powerful words, a President resolute and determined. We will hear of victories, progress, and pride. He will tell a compelling story – and very little of it will be true.
The truly compelling story of this decade is one that Bush doesn’t want told – the rapid and dramatic failure of conservative government. Finally in a position of virtually unchecked power after decades in the political wilderness, modern conservatives have failed quickly and utterly at the most basic responsibilities of governing, leaving our nation weaker and our people less prosperous, less safe and less free.
Seduced by the temptations of power, these movement ideologues also quickly came to believe that the rules of our democracy did not apply to them. The result is one of the farthest-reaching episodes of corruption and criminal investigations into a governing party in our history.
To fully appreciate the State of the Union, we need a deep understanding of the conservative movement and its rise to power. Jumpstarted a little more than fifty years ago by William F. Buckley’s National Review, the conservatives began their long march to power by investing billions of dollars in a modern infrastructure to combat the entrenched position of progressives in government. They used this infrastructure – think tanks, for-profit media, superior and innovative forms of electioneering – to defeat an aging progressive movement, and now have more power than at any time since the 1920s.
In recent years America has learned what life is like under a true conservative government. With near absolute power, conservatives have pursued their agenda with little compromise or input from progressives. The latest chapter of the great conservative story – the Bush years – may have been one of political victories, but it has also been one of disastrous governance. The broad and deep failures of the Bush government should cause all Americans to reappraise the virtue of this grand conservative experiment, recognizing that even after 50 years and untold billions of dollars, they have yet to come up with a true alternative to 20th century progressive government -- which did so much good, for so long. "
Promoting this historical narrative about a needed reappraisal of "the grand conservative experiment" became one of NDN's top message priorities this year. It is woven through my foreword to the critically acclaimed book, Crashing the Gate, it was at the very center of my June Annual Meeting speech, and is at the core of the narrative behind the work of our affiliate, the New Politics Institute. We revsited the story in our quick post-election analysis, and in a memo released on the morning of Tuesday's election called "A Day of Reckoning for the Conservative Movement." In this new memo we wrote:
..."The question about conservatism has always been could it mature enough as a governing philosophy to replace 20th century progressivism, and provide America with a true alternative governing approach? I believe the Bush era has answered that question, and the answer is no. Given the extraordinary failure of conservative government to do the very basics – keeping us safe, fostering broad-based prosperity, protecting our liberties, balancing the books and not breaking the law – I think history will label this 20th century conservatism a success as a critique of 20th century progressivism, but a failure as a governing philosophy. It never matured into something more than an ivory-tower led and Limbaugh-fed correction to a progressivism that had lost its way.
Despite the many billions spent in building this modern conservative movement, history will label it a grand and remarkable failure. And I think we will look back at 2006 as the year this most recent period of American history – the conservative ascendancy – ended..."
Reviewing the media from the past few days, it is clear this important narrative has woven itself into the emerging set of major narratives about 2006. Matt Bai visits it in his new essay in the New York Times magazine; it was front-paged Wednesday on DailyKos; on Thursday a Wall Street Journal blog attacked it; it is at the core of the lead story in the New York Times Week in Review today; Jon Podesta offers his take on the narrative in his must read post-election memo; Jonathan Alter tackles it in his usually elegant fashion in Newsweek; and NPI fellow Joe Trippi, a major architect of this entire argument, makes the case in his very thoughtful essay in the Washington Post today.
A lot changed this week in America. One of the most important things that is in the process of changing is the understanding of the moment we are in in American history; and this new understanding, advanced to a great degree by NDN and our allies, should give all progressives optimism that this emerging new era in American history means better days are coming for our movement and the great nation we love.
An upbeat piece from Reuters about Dems having momentum going into 2008:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The 2008 White House race opens in a political landscape transformed by Tuesday's election, with resurgent Democrats seeing new opportunities and wounded Republicans pointing fingers and counting casualties.
Some potential White House contenders, including Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Republican Sens. George Allen of Virginia and Bill Frist of Tennessee, suffered setbacks that likely took them out of contention.
Democrats solidified support in the Northeast and Midwest, continued their growth in the West and picked up governors' offices in battleground states like Ohio and Colorado that could give them an advantage in 2008.
"Rather than being beleaguered and lost, we have a national victory in all parts of the country and go into this two-year cycle with more momentum than we've had in 14 years," said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a centrist Democratic group.
Republicans bickered over what caused the voter anger at President George W. Bush and Republican leadership that cost them control of Congress. Some questioned whether the party could be successful with a message crafted primarily for core conservative supporters.
"The Republican Party will have to decide whether they want to win in 2008 or whether they are willing to impale themselves on the point of doctrinaire conservatism," Republican consultant Rich Galen said.
But conservative leaders said Republican leaders in Congress needed to return to the ideas that first helped them win government control.
"If they hope to return to power in 2008, they must rediscover the conservative principles that resonated with the majority of Americans in the 1980s," said the Rev. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family.....""