In an online-only article Friday, TNR assistant editor Marisa Katz sought to explain the low turnout (35%) in the contested Democratic mayoral primary in DC. Although she almost puts forth a plausible enough argument (more than once), the piece gets tangled up in its own arguments and fails to make its point, whatever that’s supposed to be. The most glaring problem is a simple misrepresentation, and one that should be readily apparent to any District resident circa fall 2002:
Turnout in the primary — a “watershed” contest to replace outgoing two-term Mayor Anthony Williams — was a measly 35 percent among registered Democrats in this almost exclusively Democratic city. That pales in comparison with the most recent significant mayoral elections in Philadelphia and Baltimore, which both saw turnout well into the 40s. More embarrassing, it’s only a couple points higher than in 2002, when Williams’s reelection was so secure that he ran as a write-in candidate.
Katz’s telling creates an image of Williams as political Houdini: And for my next trick, I’ll seek re-election with one hand tied behind my back! The Post seems to have moved its 2002 primary coverage offline, but the DC Watch website accurately names the reason for Williams’ write-in candidacy as “insufficient signatures on petition,” and Wikipedia’s entry on Williams gives a fuller story:
In the 2002 primary, the mayor needed to collect signatures from voters to get his name on the ballot. The firm that he hired to do this had some irregularities with the names on petitions. Examples of faulty signatures on his petitions included Tony Blair, Billy Joel, and Robin Hood. As a result of the dodgy petitions, Williams was fined $277,700 by the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics and was kicked off the ballot, forcing him to run as a write-in candidate.
That sentence would have never made it past the copy desk at the Washington City Paper. Maybe we could consider this another example of DC political types not paying attention to city politics. That being the thing she’s trying to diagnose here, as will become apparent:
I’m not so sure the turnout was all that low, at least going on her examples. She compares DC’s turnout unfavorably with Philly and Baltimore, but she doesn’t identify whether she means the primary or general election of each. The 2003 Philly mayor’s race was hotly contested up to November, but if that contest — featuring physical violence and wiretapping — only pulled in forty-something percent of the electorate, maybe 35% isn’t all that low.
Sure, the 2006 primary turnout was on the low end — but as Henny Youngman would say, “Compared to what?” [Note: Out of the District, Philly and Baltimore, the only primary turnout by registration figures I could find were from the District.]
The article has other problems besides:
Anthony Downs would say [a pollster friend who hadn't been following the mayor's race] was just being rational. In his 1957 essay, An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy, Downs argued that voters want to support candidates who, if elected, give them the greatest utility. But, because it can take a lot of time to divine the distinctions between candidates (and because, even if a voter picks “correctly,” the potential benefits are uncertain and probably small), it makes sense for a voter to remain fairly uniformed [sic]. Presumably the theory applies to political strategists just as well as it does to those who have never given any thought to how to engage an undecided voter.
Economists might say her friend was being rational, all right, but they would be more specific: She displayed what’s called “rational ignorance.” Ms. Katz is right to credit Mr. Downs with the theory, but I’m afraid her explanation — especially with the misplaced emphasis on the concept of utility — doesn’t do it justice. More economics-related language follows:
I’m also a believer in the division of political labor. There are a lot of legitimate political issues out there — some local and some national — and not even the most politically active person can worry about them all. Nor, in a healthy body politic, should they have to. Some people can work to bring attention to the threat of nuclear terrorism while others advocate on behalf of affordable health care. Some people may be hard-pressed to name their member of Congress, but they may have the date of every neighborhood meeting marked on the calendar.
What, do political consultants not care how their children’s schools are run? Or how their tax dollars are used to build the new baseball stadium? Actually, Katz had already dismissed the notion that the low turnout was attributable to political professionals:
Why does the most political city in the country seem to care so little about the right to vote? Of course, not everyone in this town is in politics. And the negative side of the city’s recent and ongoing gentrification has no doubt encouraged disaffection among some residents. Still, the federal government is the region’s largest employer. According to census data, one out of four workers in the city work for government at some level. And that figure doesn’t capture the lobbyists, analysts, and reporters who make a living out of government watching and influencing. How can there be so little interest in government?
There’s almost too many stupid ideas here to address them all: First of all, would gentrification (ooh! scary!) turn people off politics? If it’s the bogeyman Katz implies, shouldn’t that rile up the local activists? More importantly, if the transient professionals and privately-employed political strategists are leaving the nitty gritty of local politics to the civil servants who make up the vast majority of federal employees, who do the government employees leave it up to? Actually, based on the condition of the roads around here, the answer would seem to be no one.
So I’m not trying to claim DC is anybody’s idea of a participatory democracy, but when she asks “How can there be so little interest in government?” there are several answers she doesn’t consider:
- The government isn’t very interesting (the differences between mayor-in-waiting Adrian Fenty and his closest rival, Linda Cropp, were more about style than substance).
- Assuming they’re numerous enough to matter, perhaps the political professionals get enough politics at work.
- Perhaps the locals are turned off because they don’t have full federal representation (a possibility she sets up, but never develops).
- And we could answer with another question: Why doesn’t the same question apply to other cities — like, say, Philly and Balmer?
Editor, please! Ah, they’re probably too busy blogging.
Both Cole and Sullivan have voiced greater concerns about the direction of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism, and about the Republican Party’s priorities regarding social issues than most mainstream conservative bloggers (and more than 
Stabbing Eastward: Lamont, the Netroots and Barack Obama
Shortly after Ned Lamont upended Holy Joe Lieberman in the CT SEN primary this summer, I noted a report by TNR’s Ryan Lizza arguing that Washington Democrats would steer clear of the race from there on, letting the blue-on-blue rhetorical violence work itself out. Two and a half months later, that looks eerily prescient. Lamont has fallen behind in the polls, and there’s little question that a victorious Lieberman would retain his committee assignments even if the newspapers called him (I-CT).
Also not looking too bad: My question at the time, about what the Lamont primary victory — then hailed by some as the first breakthrough win for a netroots candidate — about what this would mean:
Keep that in mind as you read excerpts from yesterday’s Matt Stoller classic, “Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In The Front”:
Leaving aside the obvious question of which side the Stollerites are supposed to be bleeding from, there’s enough hyperbole here to last until the first big straw poll.
As I’ve demonstrated previously, Stoller’s over-reliance on self-righteous anger and quick imputations of bad faith to his political opponents (even those ostensibly on his side of the fence) makes him seem less a sharp-tongued political street brawler and more like a circus clown exaggerating his act.
And as usual, the response in the MyDD comments is mixed. A contingent protests that Stoller is being unreasonable, but his sentiments are shared by a larger set. Meanwhile, Stoller’s hyperventilation obscures what is actually a pretty interesting question to pick apart: How did Lamont lose his momentum, and what explains Senate Democrats’ reluctance to join the netroots in the War on Lieberman? I recommend this thread, which includes MyDDer Chris G gamely trying to explain to the wounded ‘roots that it’s not all about them:
Quite. Senate Democrats are too worried about being stabbed by Joementum in a 50-49 split to carry out any personal vendetta against the netroots. It’s not personal. It’s politics.
Still, as for MyDD, it’s a marked improvement from last week’s poll-frustrated Conn. voter-bashing thread:
Now that’s what I call people power.
Another interesting thing about the philosophical and political differences between the Beltway establishment and Democratic-aligned bloggers is the split opinions about Barack Obama. If you don’t know that Obama ‘08 is in its ascendancy at the moment, then you must be in a persistent vegetative state. With Republican newspaper columnists Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks offering genuine praise of the freshman Democrat, it becomes all the more clear that his surge is a media-driven sensation. Though hyped excessively by celebrity-obsessed reporters, Barack Obama has demonstrated, potentially, a very broad appeal. Yet there is one group seemingly impervious to his charms: the netroots, of course.
First, note Stoller’s derogation of Obama above. It’s not the first time; Stoller has a long history of badmouthing Obama going back to the 2004 convention in Boston, where he was disinvited by Terry McAuliffe’s DNC from continuing on as a coordinator after writing that Obama hadn’t said “anything really interesting or useful.”
But also note the comments from others in the threads below the post. Here’s one, from a former Hillary Clinton supporter (somewhat rare among liberal bloggers in good standing) no less:
And this one:
Maybe Krauthammer and Brooks know something the MyDD crowd doesn’t? In any case, Obama is not without his defenders:
In the meantime, you have to wonder: if Washington Democrats’ lukewarm support for Ned Lamont is tantamount to treason, what would the netroots say if Barack Obama actually got the nomination in 2008? Or Clinton/Obama?
P.S. It’s worth remembering that only a week ago, Stoller posted a comparatively thoughtful essay titled “Why Barack Obama Should Run for President.” Was he being disingenuous then or is he being exciteable now? It’s hard to tell, but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the answer is both.