Watching the Huskers last night was painfull but seeing Kansas and Nebraska play got me thinking about Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas. One of the biggest upsets of this last election cyle was Nancy Boyda's win over Jim Ryun. This was in a district with a PVI of +7.3R similiar to Ne 02 which has a PVI of +9R and Ne01 with a PVI of +11R. Kansas now has Democratic Governor Sebelius, Rep. Boyda, and Rep. Moore all representing this state with a 300,000 registered Republican advantage.
How does this happen? The case Frank makes is that Kansas voters are choosing their moral values over their economic self interest however, these issues can be intertwined. In fact, Nebraska and Kansas have a long history of politicians articulating a vision of the American economy in moral terms. This is what was so great about Ben Nelson's political narrative of "Main Street" vs. "Wall Street". In this simple image he painted himself as representing the people and of course Ricketts representing the powerful. This is the most potent narrative (people vs. the powerful) democrats can use because it divides the Republicans two main groups; the business class and the "values" voters. Boyda and Nelson have used this message effectively and it is this economic populism that can win over areas of republican voters. In the next two years this should be the message conveyed to voters about Jeff Fortenberry and Adrian Smith. These politician represent Nelnet and Club for Growth respectively,they do not represent the people. Hopefully Nebraska can emulate Kansas in 06 and pull off an upset of it's own in 08.
1 comment:
So you made the point and then your call to arms is off target. If the example is Boyda which you compare to NE-2, then why not say it is Terry who should go in 08?
PS - In NE-3 maybe you could get Sandy Scofield to run again. She was the closest thing to a winner the democratic party has had, ever in the 3rd (1990 - Barrett v. Scofield <1%).
Sorry Kleeb Kool-Aid Drinkers.
Post a Comment