The O'Donnell Effect
Having lost the argument on the issues most important to Americans, Democrats must rely on the perceived weirdness of a few Republican opponents to carry them through to victory in key states. Writing in the New York Times, Democrat strategist James Carville and Democrat pollster Stanley Greenburg explain:
In our latest national poll, we found that the Republican Party and the Republicans in Congress are as unpopular as the Democrats — unusual for a party riding a wave of support. With Republican candidates like Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, Christine O’Donnell, Rand Paul and Carl Paladino dominating the spotlight, Republicans find themselves no more appealing to voters now than they were in 2008.
Daily Beast columnist John Avalon, speaking recently on the John Batchelor show (about 14 minutes in) further expounds upon what he calls the "O'Donnell Effect."
The Democrats have tried to make [O'Donnell] into a symbol of the uncertainty and/or instability that might accompany some of the candidates on the far right of the ballot and I think there is some evidence that since she became a celebrity -- while I think initially she absorbed all the oxygen so that it actually benefited candidates like Sharron Angle from a comparative lack of attention -- in the last couple weeks in the tightening of the races in states like Connecticut, I do think that some of the swing of centrists voters to Democrats in some swing states reflects an O'Donnell Effect...
This is all the Democrats have got, frankly. They're desperately trying to play that card since they've lost most of the debates.
I see where Greenburg, Carville, and Avalon are coming from. At this late stage in the game, there's very little Democrats can do to improve their odds of winning in next week's election. Strategically, perhaps it does make sense to zero in on the strangeness of a few eccentric GOPers. But I simply can't envision how the so-called "O'Donnell effect" would make much of a difference in states other than Nevada, Delaware, Kentucky, and perhaps Alaska. After all, I can acknowledge that South Carolina's Democratic Senate candidate Alvin Greene is an odd fellow, without making inferences about the characters of Democratic Senate candidates in California or New York or Oregon.
The O'Donnell Effect seems like little more than an attempt to grasp at straws.
(h/t Kenneth)
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: The O'Donnell Effect
Nicely done, Diane.
But I'm not sure if I entirely disagree with Carville, et. al.
If I were a somewhat disengaged voter, seeing repeated stories and videos about, say, Alan Grayson might just get me disgusted enough to get off the couch and go cast a symbolically-countervailing vote for my local GOP candidate.
I suspect O'Donnell could have the same affect upon a Democrat.
In closely divided races, this could have a measureable impact on outcomes.
Jul '10
Re: The O'Donnell Effect
Diane Ellis, Ed.:
If you mean short of outright voter fraud, then I agree.
Re: The O'Donnell Effect
Ragnarok
Diane Ellis, Ed.:
If you mean short of outright voter fraud, then I agree. · Oct 26 at 3:31pm
Looks like they're trying that too.
Oct '10
Re: The O'Donnell Effect
Don't forget Richard Blumenthal. That guy is a cross between Uriah Heep and Wesley Mouch.
And how in the world do they get away with running a candidate who serially lied about being in Vietnam?
Edited on Oct 26, 2010 at 3:57pmMay '10
Re: The O'Donnell Effect
Speaking of Alvin Greene, I still can't get over the polls showing him with a consistent 19-20% here in South Carolina. He either has an enormous family or there really is a mass of folks that would vote for a cardboard cutout of Gumby if it won the Democrat primary.
May '10
Re: The O'Donnell Effect
This was my biggest worry with the O'Donnell situation. I suspect it's having a (barely) measurable effect--maybe enough to lose a House seat or three, in addition of course to the one Senate seat.
And no doubt Pat Toomey's aware of the O'Donnell baggage. His race has been tightening significantly, in part due to the O'Donnell saturation in the Philly market.
The Tea Party is an effective but blunt instrument. Even with a stinker or two, it's a net positive.
Jul '10
Re: The O'Donnell Effect
That's the porn constituency.
Jul '10
Re: The O'Donnell Effect
I think we have reached the point of over-analysis. The Democrats are indeed grasping at whatever straws they can lay their grasping hands on. The story here is not that a couple of whacky borderline candidates have emerged from the Tea Party movement. It is that most of those candidates will blow the doors off their opponents.
The other thing that strikes me is that the Tea Party movement was never a "Republican" movement. It is a reaction against the excesses of government. The nature of the race right now reflects the reality that Republicans are somewhat less likely to be held responsible for those excesses than are Democrats. That, and only that, will drive the outcome. O'Donnell could sacrifice babies on Halloween and that basic dynamic will not change.
I fear we have too many people who are professionally invested in having clever explanations for our current situation.
Jul '10
Re: The O'Donnell Effect
Really, the O'Donnell effect?
Let's turn to the polls since 10/14 when she cut Coons' lead in half...oh wait....what do the polls say about that election?
Provide me with data proving this effect, otherwise this is in the words of Rush Limbaugh, "mental masturbation with no climax."
Sep '10
Re: The O'Donnell Effect
If this is the level of political analysis the Dems are getting from their operatives then it is no wonder they are flailing. Correlation does not imply causation. What does Angle, Miller, et al have to do with the current approval ratings of the GOP? Answer: probably very little. If it did then Greenberg could produce a poll question showing the that data specifically. IE, "Do candidates like Sharon Angle, Joe Miller and Christine O'Donell make you more or less likely to vote Republican?" This is true hackery by a pollster.
If one is to make an assumption as to why the GOP is still polling poorly there seems to be a simpler answer. The Tea Party exists because erstwhile Republicans and conservative/libertarian independents were disillusioned with the GOP. The only way the fortunes of the GOP will improve in the future is if they assume the agenda of the Tea Party and like-minded conservatives after November. If the Trent Lott's of the party have their way instead then there will be the approval ratings of the GOP will remain in the dumps and the party will begin to disintegrate.
May '10
Re: The O'Donnell Effect
I get sort of annoyed when we focus too much on la Christine. Nothing personal, it's just that she's gonna lose. Why focus on that when there are so many dazzling races that we'll win?
For the same reason, Dems love to focus on the Delaware race, because at least they'll win that. They could lose everything else, but dammit, they'll win that.
Was it someone on the podcasts who said "we could win 80 seats, but if Alan Grayson survives, the election is a wash."
Oct '10
Re: The O'Donnell Effect
Christine O'Donnell is a gift from the TPartiers to the Dems. She'll cost GOP a few seats that they could have won in the bluest states.
Oct '10
Re: The O'Donnell Effect
The Dems have resorted to throwing stuff at the wall, hoping that something will stick. It doesn't matter what the stuff it, whether it's true or not, or even relevant... whatever sticks, sticks. We'll see a lot more stuff thrown at a lot more walls in the next week!
Sep '10
Re: The O'Donnell Effect
Exactly how many seats would the GOP pick up without the TP? Lets see there’s Castle in Delaware who would probably pull a Specter and “I’ll caucus with the Democrats” Crist.