As a former Army and Air Force intel specialist and a career sales rep, I developed a healthy respect for “numbers.” Yes, numbers can lie, that is true, but they only lie in the way they get used and, at times, manipulated; numbers themselves are raw data largely. From the numbers or data points, certain assumptions arise following analysis and on those can be based the disposition and use of forces. It is part of the overall strategic planning and certainly gets down to the tactical nuances. It is way more complicated than this, but let’s keep it simple.
So, when Charles [Carr, in his Southpaw column] proclaimed that the Democratic Party would do well to invest in the recent former President as the savior of the party to bring them back from the brink, I sat up, blinking from my nap. Something just wasn’t right. So, just as the business news does at the bell, “Let’s do the numbers.”
Other modern presidents lost more governorships, Senate seats, or state legislative chambers during their tenure, but from 2009 to 2016, the recent former President lost more net House seats and more state legislative seats. That speaks to the weakness of his influence at the more local level. A red flag for the future.
Now the numbers. Since 2009, Democrats across the country have a net loss of 13 governorships, 11 Senate seats, 63 House seats, 949 seats in state legislatures, and 29 legislative chambers. I took these from a neutral source, the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
In any case, were I given this information to use to advise my commander on what and where to best deploy and in what numbers, I might not suggest what Charles is suggesting. Perhaps under that cream that allegedly rose to the top in those eight years there was a whole bunch of curdled stuff just below the surface. But then, I am not Charles’ advisor. Probably shouldn’t have said a thing.
MICHAEL BURKE, Escondido