Five Reasons Not to Get Cocky

Around the dexterosphere, the question about the coming election seems to be whether it will be more like 1994 or 1894. Amidst the confident babble, Instapundit has made a trademark out of the whisper, “Don’t get cocky, kid.” It’s not just that cockiness enrages the gods and lacks social grace. This year, in particular, there are solid reasons to doubt that November 2nd will be nearly as happy a day as we hope:

1. It’s not enough to win; you have to win by more than the margin of fraud. That concern ought to be obvious in states like Illinois and Nevada, where a Republican has to run about five percentage points ahead to be sure that he’ll be declared the winner, but it also exists in places like Washington State. There almost all voting is by mail, which means that ballot secrecy is optional and verification of voters’ identity hit-and-miss.

As John Fund has documented in Stealing Elections, electoral crime has never been easier. Which party benefits? Look at which one denies that there’s a problem and relentlessly opposes even such minimal security measures as the presentation of identification at the polls.

2. An unenthusiastic vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic one. The “enthusiasm gap” matters only if the unenthusiastic Democrats don’t cast ballots. They may not, but shepherding them to the polls (or fraudulently subbing for them) is going to be a high and well-financed Democratic priority. It’s true that the “GOTV machine” didn’t work for Republicans in 2006 or 2008, but that’s because a high Republican voter turnout depends crucially on informal networks. When a large proportion of GOP activists stopped urging their friends and neighbors to vote, the “machine” faltered. The Democratic Party relies far more on paid efforts, which can go forward even if morale is low.

3. Money still talks, and Dem money talks louder and smarter. “Democratic Funding Fades” was an encouraging Wall Street Journal headline – and, alas, a misleading one. In the last paragraph, we learn, “The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics said the Democratic Party and candidates had raised a total of $1.25 billion so far for the election. The comparable GOP figure is $1.1 billion.” The Democrats are moaning that their funding margin isn’t as vast as in the last two elections, but a $150 million advantage ain’t peanuts.

What’s more, the Democrats’ money is likely to be more astutely deployed. Most of it comes from labor unions or rich socialists, or is funneled through umbrella organizations. It can be easily directed to the races where it is most needed. The more chaotic, small-donor-based Republican fund raising is inherently inefficient. Money tends to flow to candidates who catch the rank-and-file’s fancy. To take a couple of examples, Christine O’Donnell, whose chances of winning are near to nil, and Michele Bachman, a Minnesota congressman whose chances of losing aren’t much greater, have raised vast sums that could have been better used to, say, bolster Dino Rossi’s close race in Washington State or turn the Oregon Senate race into a contest. So far as I can tell, there are many underfunded Republican candidates in winnable districts this year, while no Democrat who has a chance is going to lose because of lack of cash.

4. If lying didn’t work, nobody would do it. Dishonest Democratic ads have proliferated as the election draws near. The claim that Republican campaigns are being financed from abroad is only the most prominent. On the Right, we tend to see this trend as a sign of desperation, and our hopes rise correspondingly. Bear in mind, though, that most citizens have better things to do than follow politics closely and that ignorance makes them risk-averse. One reason why incumbents usually win is that the fact of incumbency lends them a patina of safety. At least, nothing disastrous has happened on their watch. If there is even a small chance that a challenger will be dramatically worse, e. g., is financially beholden to shadowy foreign benefactors, caution dictates voting against him.

5. The pollsters are skating on stilts. The key to accurate polling is gauging who will and won’t vote. Mid-term elections are notoriously harder to poll than Presidential years, and mistakes in turnout models are more likely this year than in most, because the electorate in 2008 was so atypical. Poll takers seem to be assuming that turnout among the last election’s first-time Obama voters will fall off sharply. That sounds plausible, but it may be that the decline will be almost entirely among those who are now disillusioned and might be inclined to vote Republican in remorse. Those who approve of the One’s performance, for whatever irrational reasons, could be more strongly motivated than the typical voter, old or new. In any event, if the polls are going to be badly wrong, this is the year for them to fail.

Finally, we must keep in mind that even a tremendous victory on November 2nd will not necessarily translate into better government over the next two years. The President has declared that he is looking ahead to “hand-to-hand combat”, the Vice President to “playing hell” (by which I presume he doesn’t mean the card game).

Barack Obama has said that he would not mind being a one-term President. If he is sincere (and no President with a dram of political sense would make such a statement, with its potential of turning him into a self-crippled lame duck, unless he meant it), that was an unmistakable signal that he won’t compromise or triangulate, that he is in fact willing to paralyze the government rather than surrender progressive principles. The President, so long as he doesn’t care about his political standing and retains the backing of one-third plus one of either House of Congress, holds a nuclear weapon: He can threaten to put the United States out of business. No President has ever yet escalated toward Defcon One, but perhaps the inevitable hour has found its man. I have my doubts about whether the rather unimaginative and timid Republican Congressional leadership can devise a deterrent.

Comments

[Paul]

If anyone has seen a study of the current state election officials in each state, with their party affiliation, I'd like to see it. The power of these individuals to steal elections should not be underestimated, as I think Norm Coleman did in Minnesota. The first point in the blog above about winning by more than the margin of fraud is extremely well stated. In any close election with an unscrupulous election officer, the graves/felons/illegal immigrants/unverified ballots will win the day....

[HC]

The GOP has another potentially big political problem that may yet mess us up on E-day, though I'm reluctant to pointt this out because it's so painful from a conservative POV. Still, it's a fact that we have to deal with, that that is that the Tea Party are themselves conflicted about their own goals.

The Tea Party makes a good case for the necessary reductions in spending to balancce the budget and avoid impoverishing our grandchildren. They recognize the need to avoid crushing the private economy under too heavy a load of taxes and regulations and they understand that raising taxes past a certain point reduces tax revenue by reducing activity and driving business overseas.

And yet, when asked specifically about cutting the big-ticket government expenditures, the Tea Partiers tend to echo the same old refrain. Cut Social Security? No. Cut Medicare? No. Cut defense? No. And that's the Tea Partiers! The general public is less eager.

Some Republican candidates feel confident enough right now to talk about eliminating the minimum wage, which is a terrible political error, whatever its economic pros and cons. The general public still likes and approves of FDR's programs, folks. Like it or not, that's the truth.

A big chunk of Obama's disapproval numbers is based on social issues, national
security issues, and a generalized opposition to deficits and intrusive government that doesn't translate into opposition to specifics. A lot of it just Obama's 'attitude', a revulsion from 'man caused disasters', 'bitter clingers', and a brace of radicals in high places, etc.

The general public is still deeply attached to Social Security, Medicare, etc, and Republicas forget that at our peril.

[warlord]

This election cycle,whether national or local, people
are voting the straight Republican ticket in order to
throw the Socialists out. This is as close as the average Joe can come to having a non- violent revolution. Should the Socialists engage in voter fraud that is obvious, and win seats they shouldn't have,
you may see a for real revolution. Vote,and stay active,
2012 is just around the corner.

[TomT]

Are Republicans stupid? I would rather see the Dems remain in control for the next 2 years. Elect some strong conservatives now and then elect a strong conservative president along with the house and senate in 2012. This will give us a better chance of actually changing something. If the Republicans win now, the electorate will blame the Republicans in 2012.

[TTT]

Republicans are socialists too. They just don't realize it.

So which party would you prefer?
a) The party that is openly socialist, or
b) The party that gets duped into going along with socialism all the time?

Republicans, at best, only postpone socialism. They never reverse socialism.

I can't get very excited about this election.

Countries come and go..... no need to weep about it.

[American Elephant]

More reasons to not get cocky:

6. Democrats have what will be a huge rally with very popular stars just before the election. The media will use this to whip up enthusiasm for the left and demotivate the right. It will work to some degree. How much is the question.

7. Democrats are ALREADY cheating like never before. They have already "accidentally" forgotten to send out military ballots in a number of important areas. They have already refused to purge voter rolls -- making ballot box stuffing that much easier. They have already been caught trading votes for food in South Dakota, running spoiler candidates, and you can bet this is just scratching the surface.

8. October surprises wont come until late next week and right up until a few days before the election. There will be many. Some true, some complete lies. It wont matter, they will all be reported as truth.

9. Democrats undermined our nation's own war efforts to get back in power, and blocked reform that experts warned would cause a financial crisis if it was not passed to get back in power after being out of power for 12 years. There is NOTHING they wont do to retain power now that they have it.

I fully expect fraud on a scale our country has never seen before.

[peter jackson]

Reason #6: historically, the most accurate predictor of election outcomes is incumbency. In most modern-era elections incumbents win 96-98% of the time. The powers of incumbancy are immense, and will not be easily cast away, even for one election.

[Mike S]

I do not deny Democratic fraud, whether in WA, MN, Philadelphia, wherever. I only question its impact on anything other than a very close race. 5% is way off. That can mean tens of thousands of votes - even ACORN ain't that good! If the post had emphasized that I would have agreed.
As for Defcon One, i admit to being somewhat perplexed by the meaning of that in the original post. OK - Obama can use the veto, but how damaging can this be over two years? Put the US out of business? What does that mean?
I despise Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Democrats as much as anyone, but exaggerating their threat isn't helpful. And, contrary to Walt, I would argue that ballyhooing the GOP lead helps excite people - especially people (like me) who live in recently solid Democratic districts/states that just might go Red this cycle. Anyway, all the Democratic ballyhooing in 2006 and 2008 didn't seem to hurt them too much. Why is that? Because, to go back to a point in my earlier comment, of the enthusiasm gap. Isn't it possible that the excitement amongst Republicans further dispirits Democrats? I don't pretend to understand mass psychology, but the fact that I am typing this (and that you are reading it) is proof that we are not typical voters. I'll vote no matter what - I've never missed an election of any kind in 25 years - but I don't know how less committed voters respond to ballyhooing.
Besides, I would say Republicans and the Tea Parties are fighting, and will continue to after Nov 2. I have no fear about that. In fact, I think the ballyhooing is helping turn up the heat - keeps people enthused.
One last point - the optimism is based on reality. We have plenty of evidence that something big is happening - plenty. The ballyhooing is hardly just wishful thinking. Americans are angry and fretful, and eager to send a message. Again, there is plenty of evidence to support optimism

[Greg Q]

have my doubts about whether the rather unimaginative and timid Republican Congressional leadership can devise a deterrent.

Fine, I'll create it for them:

Promise Federal workers that, if there's a government shutdown, no Federal Worker who is put on furlough will ever get paid so much as one penny from the time he or she is on furlough / the government is "shut down". No vacation pay, no comp time, nothing. Pass that in every budget that is passed, and watch the Dems run for the hills.

The Democrats in the House and Senate are owned by the SEIU. If the SEIU leadership wants to remain in place, Obama won't get his 1/3.

[Carol Herman]

The larger the pool of republicans winning seats in congress, the more likely there will be democrats who will be willing to meet them "halfway." That means, in the senate: Brown, Collins, Snowe, Sanders, Lieberman, Ms. Lindsay Graham, and perhaps? Mitch McConnell. And, Michael Steele. Will all look for some moderate position that means nothing. But creates legislation. Heck, even John McCain will flash his name around, if he is given "banner headline status."

Now, if Christine O'Donnell wins in Delaware, Mitch McConnell could give her office keys to a broom closet! (If she loses in Delaware? She writes a book ... and terrifies Mitch McConnell!)

The anger level among the People will not dissipate, disappear, or recede. You can't fool me. Just like Pearl Harbor was the "day that shall live in infamy," so, too, will be the reality of having WOKEN THE SLEEPING GIANT ... once referred to as "fly over" country. All the players in the media; and all the players in hollywood, are aging. Wave after wave of changes are ahead.

[Lummox JR]

Better to be pessimistic and wrong than optimistic and wrong. If Republicans and the tea party don't fight, fight, fight, they could still lose big. Some of these fears might be overblown, some not, but we should take them all seriously. I also think the margin of fraud is quite accurate--especially when considering Al Franken. In fact in Illinois that margin may be low; it's not just an open secret but widely known that the state is synonymous with election fraud.

And your last paragraph somewhat contradicts itself, Mike. Whether Obama uses the veto because he's deliberately putting a second term on the line or because he is oblivious to the will of the people, it's still a veto, which is the original point. The man's motives are meaningless if the result is the same either way. I personally think Obama is such an ideologue that he believes that if he pushes his agenda as hard as he can then the public will come around to his way of thinking and reelect him. The one-term comment was meaningful only in the sense that it opens a window into his psyche, that he sees himself as a man doing the right thing against all odds and wants to go down in history as the man who pushed through the great big progressive agenda that will surely lead to utopia. But whatever I think, we won't see a repeal of Obamacare until 2013. Until then however, a Republican Congress could probably gut significant portions of it with his grudging approval, like that idiotic 1099 requirement.

[Conservativewanderer.wordpress.com]

Mike S, take a look at the record of the 2004 Governor's Race in the State of Washington.

Every time a recount showed the Democrat behind, new ballots were mysteriously "found" somewhere, somehow, and miraculously, they always narrowed the lead! For example, see this post and this one from the very thorough Sound Politics coverage of that particular race. Wander through their archives of November and December 2004 to see how crazy that race became.

Never, I say again, never underestimate Democrat fraud potential.

[Curt J.]

I agree the reasoning is weak but the message is sound. Nonetheless, the 5th point is way off base. If the Federal Gov't did absolutely nothing for the next two years, it would be an improvement over the last two.

[MilwaukeeD]

How is "putting the country at Defcon One" not failing his oath of office? The President is promising to take it to the mat, and he might not be happy with the people who are not happy with him.

[Mike S]

Oh, come on. I don't want Republicans to get cocky, either, but your reasons are weak. Fraud? I don't believe for a second that it's worth 5% of the vote - that's just paranoia. Enthusiasm gap? Sure an unenthusiastic vote counts as much as an enthusiastic one, but there are far more of the latter cast! That's the point. There will be far more Democratic inclined voters this year who decide to sit it out than Republican - a reverse of 2008 (and 2006). As for lying, yeah it works, unfortunately. But this time around people are paying far more attention, as your example of foreign money makes clear. That attack - that lie - failed, and actually seems to have harmed the Democrats in the process. Grayson's lies aren't working, nor have Reid's. Lies work when the average voter is apathetic. Not the case this year.
And I would argue the same is true, to some extent, about money. The money advantage will lessen Democratic losses - you are correct. It means that some races that might otherwise be competitive, won't be. But again, money matters less when an electorate is fired up and paying attention. Besides, Democratic money is being spent on an empty platform. People want to vote FOR something - not just against something. By voting Republican people accomplish both - against Democrats, and for repeal of their measures.
Finally, your post-election comments are irrelevant to the post, but you're wrong there, too. Do you really believe Obama doesn't care about a second term? Come on - did someone slip you the Kool-AId? Of course he wants a second term! But who cares? The question is whether he has the political savvy to compromise. He doesn't.

[walt]

What possible good can it do to ballyhoo the GOP lead in poles. If it keeps one conservative home or one tin foil baby to vote its a mistake