This item is cross-posted from The New Republic.
In all the puzzlement over the irrationality of Republican governors vowing to turn down the bonanza of federal dollars provided for expanding Medicaid, there’s a reason hiding in plain sight: pure ambition.
It’s no accident that several of the fire-breathers on this subject–notably Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley–have exhibited interest in (or have been reported to covet) higher office.
I don’t know if Rick Perry still wants to be president, or can overcome the impression of buffoonery and incompetence that helped sink his once-formidable 2012 campaign. But I do know that his one big policy mistake involved letting rivals get to the right of him on an emotionally important issue, immigration, and he would not likely make that miscalculation again. Perennial smartest-guy-in-the-room Jindal would almost have to consider running for president at some point as a member of a party that is crazy for minority wingnuts (as Herman Cain’s improbable campaign showed). And the same factor may be motivating Haley, who has the additional challenge of staying in the very good graces of Jim DeMint, who publicly urged governors to do everything within their power to obstruct implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
This doesn’t explain all the Medicaid rejectionists, of course. I doubt Terry Branstad is foolish enough to see a future President of the United States in his bathroom mirror each morning, though he does govern a state with a generous enough Medicaid program that rejecting the expansion is not as big a deal as it is in a place like Texas. As for Rick Scott–who knows? He probably has as good a chance of landing on a 2016 national ticket as he does of getting re-elected governor of Florida. But then he’s a guy whose whole political career began with public opposition to ObamaCare, so he may just be dancing with the one that brung him.
In any event, observers mulling this situation do not seem to have sufficiently absorbed the central reality of Republican politics at this particular moment, which is that it’s well-nigh impossible to move too far to the right. You say you’re a conservative, bubba? Then I’m a true conservative! And if you’re a true conservative, I’m a constitutional conservative! Anyone even distantly dreaming of a Republican presidential or vice presidential nomination understands this dynamic implicitly.

Jonathan Chait’s “Suppression vs. Turnout, the 2012 War” at New York magazine makes a persuasive case that the GOP is riddled with anxiety about demographic change and driven to panic and voter suppression because of it.

When Pennsylvania Republican and State House Majority Leader Mike Turzai boasted that the state’s restrictive new voter ID law would “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania,” he committed a classic Kinsley Gaffe, in which a politician inadvertently blurts out what he really believes instead of what he is supposed to say. Turzai’s gaffe was actually a Bond Villain Gaffe, which is a subset of the Kinsley Gaffe, in which rampant egomania drives you to unadvisedly confess your evil scheme.
The Pennsylvania law, which would knock some three quarters of a million disproportionately Democratic voters off the rolls, is best understood in the context of an electorate that is rapidly growing more Democratic. Ruy Teixeira and John Judis argued a decade ago that the electorate was transforming, so that the groups most loyal to the GOP were shrinking while those most loyal to the Democrats were increasing. I argued in a print story this year that panic over this demographic change was underlying much of the GOP’s behavior in recent years. Conservatives like Sean Trende insisted that the demographic trends that have occurred in recent elections, during which the minority share of the electorate has steadily grown, may not continue.

Chait references Teixeira’s and William Frey’s “new and fascinating column showing for the first time that the trends underlying the Emerging Democratic Majority have indeed continued.” Chait is not exaggerating. The Teixeira/Frey TNR column is shaking up the common wisdom among pundits across the political spectrum. Chait’s point is that GOP fear of demographic transformation is what is driving their all-out war on voting.
You don’t have to be a social psychologist to see that the modern GOP is energized more by fear of political destruction than anything else. Their predictable response is often to suppress others, in this case non-white voters. As Chait puts it, “…The overwhelming thrust of the myriad changes to voting introduced by Republicans since 2010 is to make voting a bigger hassle and discourage marginal, transient, and first-time voters — that is, the component parts of the emerging Democratic coalition.”

A new memo by Priorities USA Action, “Mitt Romney’s Central Qualification Becomes a Significant Liability” sheds new light on his failure to connect in a positive way as an advocate for the middle class. In the memo, written by Jefrey Pollock & Nick Gourevitch, Global Strategy Group and Geoff Garin, Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group, the authors explain:

Mitt Romney’s business experience – the centerpiece of his case for the presidency – has proven to be much more of a liability than an asset in key swing states. Clear negative trends have emerged in recent polling conducted in Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia by Global Strategy Group and Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group on behalf of Priorities USA Action.

The memo, which summarizes findings of five statewide polls, with over 3,800 total interviews with likely voters between June 25 and July 3, 2012, indicates that “37% of voters say that Romney’s business experience at Bain Capital make them LESS likely to vote for him. Just 27% say it makes them MORE likely to vote for him.” and “58% of swing state voters now say it is true that as a businessman, Romney’s priority was making millions for himself and his investors, regardless of the impact on jobs and the employees.”
Moreover, “In all five of these swing states, more voters have an unfavorable view of Mitt Romney than a favorable one. On average, Romney’s favorable rating across these states is 36% favorable and 43% unfavorable.” He also has 12-point net negative favorable rating with independent voters and a 46 percent unfavorable rating in bellwether Ohio.
In five key swing states, CO, FL, OH, PA and VA, the President leads Mitt Romney in a head-to-head matchup. Obama leads his Republican challenger by a 6 percent margin on the average, 7 percent for Independents. Obama stomps Romney as “the candidate best served to meet the needs of the middle class” by a 19 percent margin in the aforementioned swing states.
In what should be a strong clue for the Obama campaign, the authors note that “Priorities USA’s recent ad campaign on Romney’s record as CEO of Bain Capital had a clear negative impact on perceptions of Romney across a variety of metrics,” and they provide data to verify it.
All in all, it looks like Romney’s bragging about his business experience isn’t helping — especially where voters have been well-alerted to his real record on job-creation and job out-sourcing.

Nate Cohn has a TNR post that underscores the pivotal importance of President Obama getting a bigger portion of the white working class than recent polls have indicated to secure key swing states. Cohn links his analysis to a “best fit” chart revealing the relationship between current polling averages in a dozen ‘battleground states’ and the percentage of working class voters who supported Obama in ’08. As Cohn explains:

…Beneath the chaos, there is a discernible organizing principle: Obama has fallen furthest in the states where he accrued the most white and particularly white working class support in 2008.
State and national polls have long shown that Obama’s already tepid support among white voters without a college degree has collapsed. At the same time, the “newer” elements of the Democratic coalition–college educated and non-white voters–have continued to offer elevated levels of support to the president. And predictably, the imbalanced collapse of Obama’s once broad coalition has rejiggered the electoral map.
The correlation is pretty clear, but keep in mind that these numbers are driven by relatively few data points. Changing just a couple of the polls can make or break the relationship: Simply excluding the recent WAA poll in Virginia, for instance, moves that state directly over the best-fit line. I’d also note that there is a similar correlation with white voters, except that the slope of the best-fit line is not nearly as steep, since college educated white voters haven’t moved as decisively against Obama. But overall, it’s a convincing explanation of recent shifts in the electoral map.

Cohn adds that the correlation “might not hold until Election Day,” particularly if Obama improves his polling approvals with white workers in IA, MI and WI. For now, however, “…the imbalanced collapse of Obama’s coalition has redefined the electoral map, leaving Obama embattled in white working class Midwestern states but relatively well-positioned in the diverse “new coalition” states of the Mid-Atlantic and Southwest.”

Michael Tomasky makes some important points in his Daily Beast post, “How Obama Should Play Offense on Taxes”

I hope that this is the first salvo in what will be an ongoing attempt to focus Americans on the tax choices they face, and to educate people a little bit about how taxes are actually paid in this country. It’s a debate he can win hands down, and one that will only tilt the polls even more in his direction and make Mitt Romney look more plutocratic than he already does. But he needs both more facts and more fire.

Tomasky discusses various earnings scenarios to illustrate the injustice of the current rate structure, and the even worse tax policies being championed by House Republicans. He adds,

…Everybody talks about the billions, and they’re important. But we rarely write and talk about how we actually pay taxes. I submit that doing so illustrates the key substantive points on Obama’s side. First, in moral terms, the current rate structure is grossly inequitable. But second and more important, this is about stimulating the economy.

As for the president’s proposed figure of $250,000 or less for renewed tax cuts,

Extending the tax cuts for the working and middle classes will help stimulate the economy. And this is about the only stimulus we’re likely to get, as we know. As for the upper incomes, the GOP line that this will crush small businesses, trotted out tiresomely by the Romney campaign, is blather. The vast majority of small-business owners don’t have incomes like that and will not be affected by Obama’s proposal.

Tomasky urges the president to press his case with full confidence that his tax plan has the support of working people and the middle class, as a way of making it clear just who Romney and the Republicans are really concerned about:

The House is not even going to have a vote on it. We all know this. So tell the American people that the House is the only thing standing between them and the current, lower tax rates, and that Mitt Romney is on the House’s side, not the American people’s, and for what? For the sake of making sure that people who make $1 million a year get that extra $50,000. That would get people’s attention…

And don’t just flog it; Work it hard and steady. As Tomasky, reiterates, “Facts and fire. That’s what we need to see in the next four months.”

Eugene Robinson’s WaPo column, “The GOP’s crime against voters” spotlights voter suppression in Pennsylvania with a revelation that ought to provoke outrage among citizens who believe that access to the ballot should be protected by elected officials across the political spectrum:

Late last month, the majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Mike Turzai, was addressing a meeting of the Republican State Committee. He must have felt at ease among friends because he spoke a bit too frankly.
Ticking off a list of recent accomplishments by the GOP-controlled Legislature, he mentioned the new law forcing voters to show a photo ID at the polls. Said Turzai, with more than a hint of triumph: “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania — done.”
That’s not even slightly ambiguous. The Democratic presidential candidate has won Pennsylvania in every election since 1992. But now the top Republican in the Pennsylvania House is boasting that, because of the new voter ID law, Mitt Romney will defy history and capture the state’s 20 electoral votes in November.

There have been similar Republican slip-up boasts in other states over the last year or two, you may have read about. It seems it’s not enough for Republicans to suppress the voting rights of their fellow citizens. They like to brag about it.
The worst part is that Turzai’s prediction may be right. As Robinson explains of PA:

…It turns out that 758,939 registered Pennsylvania voters do not have the most easily obtained and widely used photo ID, a state driver’s license. That’s an incredible 9.2 percent of the registered electorate.
Most of the voters without driver’s licenses live in urban areas — which just happen to be places where poor people and minorities tend to live. More than 185,000 of these voters without licenses, about one-fourth of the total, live in Philadelphia — which just happens to be a Democratic stronghold where African Americans are a plurality.

Robinson goes on to show that voter fraud is close to non-existent, noting that “an extensive, nationwide, five-year probe of voter fraud” resulted in the conviction of “a grand total of 86 individuals,” and most of those cases were about felons or immigrants who may not have known they were ineligible to vote. It’s not like the Republicans don’t know this. Robinson adds that “Pennsylvania and other voter ID states have, in essence, passed laws that will be highly effective in eradicating unicorns.”
One wonders how alert swing voters and even Republican voters of conscience who value voting rights as a cornerstone of democracy are processing the increasing revelations about the GOP voter suppression campaign. It would be a great day for democracy if large numbers of them register their protest at the ballot box on November 6, in agreement with Robinson’s understanding:

…The Republican-led crusade for voter ID laws has been revealed as a cynical ploy to disenfranchise as many likely Democratic voters as possible, with poor people and minorities the main targets…Recent developments in Pennsylvania — one of more than a dozen states where voting rights are under siege — should be enough to erase any lingering doubt: The GOP is trying to pull off an unconscionable crime.

It’s possible to be a conservative and still take principled stand that voting rights for all citizens, not just Republicans, must be protected and those who obstruct voting rights for any citizen must be penalized. The hope is that the general election will show that there is broader outrage about voter suppression than is now apparent.

IN a July 5th article, Business Week calmly explained in a few brief sentences why mandates make sense. It’s a useful sedative for hysterical conservatives in this propaganda-filled election year.

Insurance mandates, far from being unique to Obamacare, are all around us. States require drivers to carry liability insurance. Your state government also provides you with–and charges you for–insurance against losing your job. The federal government mandates flood insurance for anyone living in a flood plain who has a federally insured mortgage. Social Security is mandatory insurance against a penniless old age, and the premiums are deducted from your paycheck, whether you like it or not…
The logic of getting everyone to jump into the risk pool is powerful: Left to their own devices, many people will choose to go uncovered against fire, flood, car crashes, and cancer. Then, if something bad happens, they throw themselves on the mercy of society. The cruel solution would be to let them live (or die) on the streets. To our societal credit, we are unwilling to do this. A coverage mandate at least ensures that people who create the risks will bear the costs, on average, over time.
…The point of a mandate isn’t only to protect people from the consequences of going unprotected; it’s also to prevent the rest of us from having to pick up the tab. That’s why the argument made by some conservatives–including Chief Justice John Roberts–that if the government can force us to buy health insurance it can force us to buy broccoli, doesn’t hold up. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg countered, unlike broccoli, refusing to buy health insurance comes “at the expense of another consumer forced to pay an inflated price.”

The following post is by TDS contributor Alan I. Abramowitz, author of The Polarized Public:
Are both sides equally guilty of making false or misleading statements, as media commentators often assume, or is one side more guilty than the other? Well, based on analyses by the investigative website Politi-Fact of statements made by President Obama and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, there is a clear winner here.
As of today, Politi-Fact has rated 380 statements by President Obama and 141 by Mitt Romney, more than enough statements by each to come to a clear conclusion: Romney has been far more guilty of lying and misleading the public than the President. Thus far, 46% of Obama’s statements have been rated as “true” or “mostly true” compared with only 31% of Romney’s statements. On the other hand, 41% of Romney’s statements have been rated as “mostly false,” “false” or “pants on fire” compared with only 28% of the President’s statements.
And even though Politi-Fact has rated more than two times as many Obama statements as Romney statements, Romney has received almost three times as many dreaded “pants on fire” ratings, 13 versus 5 for the President. Almost 10 percent of Romney statements have been given the pants on fire designation compared with barely one percent of the President’s statements.

Despite the Republicans’ “repeal and replace” Obamacare frenzy, the latest opinion polls indicate that most Americans want to keep the law or expand it, reports TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira in his latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ at the Center for American Progress web pages:

With the Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare, conservatives have redoubled their attacks on the law. They say the whole law is so bad that nothing less than full repeal is warranted.
They are hoping that continued public reservations about Obamacare, documented in many polls, will fuel their fight for repeal. But they are overestimating the public’s appetite for outright repeal. In reality, the public’s view of the law is quite complex: Reservations co-exist with sentiment that most of the law’s changes are necessary and perhaps even need to be expanded.
In the latest edition of the Kaiser Health Tracking poll, for example, 53 percent of respondents said Obamacare should either be kept as is (25 percent) or expanded (28 percent) versus 38 percent who thought the law should be either repealed and replaced with a Republican-sponsored alternative (18 percent) or repealed and not replaced (20 percent).
Similarly, in a just-released CNN/ORC poll, 52 percent of respondents said they favored all (9 percent) or most (43 percent) of the provisions in the health care law, compared to 47 percent who said they opposed most (34 percent) or all (13 percent) of the provisions.

As Teixeira concludes, “This does not sound like a public thirsting for immediate and total repeal of Obamacare. Conservatives would be wise to develop a more nuanced approach to the law to match the public mood.”

Like many Democrats, I was cheered to read Donovan Slack’s Politico report a couple of weeks ago about a Bloomberg survey, “Obama leads 53-40 in national poll,” outlier though it may have been. But what really lifted my spirits was an entry in the comments on the poll by a former math professor, Richard Schwartz. His succinct wrap-up provides a prime example of why political message-makers should draw from the insights of those who are not political professionals. Here are Schwartz’s comments, which should have pretty good shelf-life as pro-Obama talking points up through election day:

The poll results are not surprising when one considers a number of factors, including the following:
1. Mitt Romney and other Republicans are promoting policies similar to or often worse than those that had such disastrous results during the Bush administration, including converting a three-year major surplus, which was on track to completely eliminate the total federal debt, into a major deficit, creating very few net jobs (none in the private sector), and leaving the country on the brink of a depression, with an average of 750,000 jobs being lost during its last three months.
2. Republicans have obstructed efforts to get our country out of the tremendous ditch they left us in by voting no on and sometimes filibustering many Democratic proposals, some of which they previously supported and sometimes even co-sponsored. Hence, it is not surprising that a recent poll showed that 49% of Americans believe that Republican Congress members are purposely sabotaging the U.S. economy in order to defeat Obama and other Democrats, while only 40% disagree.
3.. Republicans support continued tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and highly profitable corporations, while basic social services that middle class and poor people depend on are being cut and teachers, police officers, fire fighters, and others are losing their jobs.
4. Republican legislators have voted against providing funds to save jobs of teachers, police officers, and fire fighters, providing unemployment benefits to long-time unemployed people, and providing medical benefits to 9/11 responders.
5. Republicans are generally in denial about the tremendous dangers from climate change, in spite of a very strong consensus in peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and statements by scientific academies all over the world, as well as the many wake-up calls we have been receiving in terms of severe storms, tornados, floods, heat waves, droughts, and wildfires, that climate change is a major threat, largely caused by human activities. Anyone who thinks that climate change is a hoax promoted by liberals should visit the website of the “Republicans for Environmental Protection.” (www.rep.org). This conservative group was only able to endorse four percent of Republicans in the 2010 U.S. midterm elections because so many Republicans are in denial about climate change and other environmental threats.
6. The Republican Party has moved far to the right under the influence of the Tea Party. There are very few moderate Republicans in Congress today.
7. While far more needs to be done, Democrats have enacted policies that have turned the economy away from the possible depression that the Bush administration left the U.S. on the brink of. More net private-sector jobs have been created already during the Obama administration than during the entire eight years of the Bush presidency.

As Schwartz concludes, “While Democratic policies have not always lived up to our hopes, largely due to Republican obstructionism, a return to Republican rule would be a nightmare. Hence, it is essential to vote Democratic in 2012.”
So there.