Cognitive linguist George Lakoff’s HuffPo post “How the State of the Union Worked” credits President Obama with an exceptionally lucid and compelling SOTU address:

Briefly, the speech worked via frame evocation. Not statement, evocation — the unconscious and automatic activation in the brains of listeners of a morally-based progressive frame that made sense of what the president said.
When a frame is repeatedly activated, it is strengthened. Obama’s progressive frame was strengthened not only in die-hard progressives, but also in partial progressives, those who are progressive on some issues and conservative on others — the so-called moderates, swing voters, independents, and centrists. As a result, 77 percent of listeners approved of the speech, 53 percent strongly positive and 24 percent somewhat positive, with only 22 percent negative. When that deep progressive frame is understood and accepted by a 77 percent margin, the president has begun to move America toward a progressive moral vision.

Lakoff sees significance in the telling response of the opposition to Obama’s SOTU. “John Boehner looked shamed as he slumped, sulking in his chair, as if trying to disappear” and “Marco Rubio’s response was stale and defensive: the old language wasn’t working and Rubio kept talking in rising tones indicating uncertainty.” He adds:

The president set his theme powerfully in the first few sentences…First, Obama recalled Kennedy — a strong, unapologetic liberal. “Partners” evokes working together, an implicit attack on conservative stonewalling, while “for progress” makes clear his progressive direction. “To improve it is the task of us all” evokes the progressive theme that we’re all in this together with the goal of improving the common good. “The grit and determination of the American people” again says we work together, while incorporating the “grit and determination” stereotype of Americans pulling themselves up by their bootstraps — overcoming a “grinding war” and “grueling recession.” He specifically and wisely did not pin the war and recession on the Bush era Republicans, as he reasonably could have. That would have divided Democrats from Republicans…Then he moved on seamlessly to the “millions of Americans whose hard work and dedication have not yet been rewarded,” which makes rewarding that work and determination “the task of us all.”

President Obama “provided a patriotic American progressive vision that seamlessly adapts the heart of the conservative message…We, the citizens, use the government to protect us and maximally enable us all to make use of individual initiative and free enterprise.” explains Lakoff. He gives Obama high marks for a well-paced conclusion:

And it was a smash finish! Highlighting his gun safety legislation by introducing one after another of the people whose lives were shattered by well-reported gun violence. With each introduction came the reframe “They deserve a vote” over and over and over. He was chiding the Republicans not just for being against the gun safety legislation, but for being unwilling to even state their opposition in public, which a vote would require. The president is all too aware that, even in republican districts, there is great support for gun safety reform, support that threatens conservative representatives. “They deserve a vote” is a call for moral accounting from conservative legislators. It is a call for empathy for the victims in a political form, a form that would reveal the heartlessness, the lack of republican empathy for the victims. “They deserve a vote” shamed the republicans in the House. As victim after victim stood up while the republicans sat slumped and close-mouthed in their seats, shame fell on the republicans.
And then it got worse for republicans. Saving the most important for last — voting reform — President Obama introduced Desiline Victor, a 102-year spunky African American Florida woman who was told she would have to wait six hours to vote. She hung in there, exhausted but not defeated, for many hours and eventually voted. The room burst into raucous applause, putting to shame the republicans who are adopting practices and passing laws to discourage voting by minority groups.
And with the applause still ringing, he introduced police officer Brian Murphy who held off armed attackers at the Sikh Temple in Minneapolis, taking twelve bullets and lying in a puddle of his blood while still protecting the Sikhs. When asked how he did it, he replied, “That’s just how we’re made.”

Putting the speech in perspective, Lakoff limns the power of Obama’s vision:

President Obama, in this speech, created what cognitive scientists call a “prototype” — an ideal American defined by a contemporary progressive vision that incorporates a progressive market with individual opportunity and initiative. It envisions an ideal citizenry that is in charge of the government, forcing the president and the Congress to do the right thing.
…The president can’t do it. Congress can’t do it. Only we can as citizens, by adopting the president’s vision, thinking in his moral frames, and speaking out from that vision whenever possible. Speaking out is at the heart of being a citizen, speaking out is political action, and only if an overwhelming number of us speak out, and live out, this American vision, will the president and the Congress be forced to do what is best for all.

Obama’s SOTU address was a transformative departure, in Lakoff’s view. “That is how the president has changed public discourse. He has changed it at the level that counts, the deepest level, the moral level.” The palpable discomfort of Republican leaders reacting to the SOTU address, alluded to by Lakoff, also indicates the power of the president’s frame — yet another testament that the president’s messaging has matured and he is rising to the challenge of his times.

by Stan Greenberg


James, our panel of swing voters, and I all agree: President Obama gave a good speech on Tuesday night. The president was right to focus on the economy and the future of the middle class. By taking on the issues that matter to everyday Americans, he was able to not only shift the polling numbers — but to shift the agenda, from austerity to growth.

The following article, by Democratic strategist Mike Lux, author of “The Progressive Revolution; How the Best in America Came to Be,” is cross-posted from HuffPo:
No surprise that a populist progressive Democrat like me would like President Obama’s State of the Union address that talked so much about lifting up the middle class. But there’s a background story on getting to the president’s message last night that is little known but worth telling.
January of 2011 was a very bleak moment for progressive leaders. The Tea Party Republicans had just taken over the U.S. House as well as way too many state legislative chambers and governors’ seats, but that wasn’t the only reason we were depressed. President Obama, clearly shaken by the massive losses of 2010, was in retreat both in his messaging and in his political strategy. He had decided to spend almost as much of his rhetorical firepower as the Republicans on the deficit issue, and was eagerly looking to compromise with them — “meet them more than halfway,” as he was fond of saying. Obama had just given in on a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent, and it was clear he was willing to give up a lot more. By the summer of 2011, Obama’s political low point, he had given up an enormous amount in spending cuts for progressive priorities on both a budget-cutting compromise in the spring and the debt ceiling deal in the summer, and gotten no concessions at all from the Republicans on tax increases for the wealthy.
Three things happened, though, that turned the political tide and brought us to our present political moment: a handily re-elected and confident president with his highest approval ratings ever and a strong populist progressive message.
First, this president and his political team showed themselves quite good at learning from their mistakes, as they switched strategies and message. Second, the Republicans seriously over-reached, following their far-right base over the political cliff on issues, and nominating the ultimate symbol of Wall Street arrogance as their party’s standard bearer. And third, progressives showed that they could create a way to influence the debate and pull the president toward a stronger, clearer message.

Read more…

The title of Eric Boehlert’s HuffPo post, “Press Yawns While Partisan Republicans Shred Cabinet Confirmation Process” sews it up nicely. But read on to get the full outrage it ought to provoke in all Americans who believe that both parties have an obligation to negotiate in good faith a reasonable bipartisan consensus. You know, like congress used to do back in the day before the GOP groveled at the feet of its unhinged wingnuttiest flank. Here’s some of what Boehlert has to say:

By launching a drawn out campaign against Hagel, Republicans have torn up decades worth of tradition on the Senate Armed Services Committee in terms of working across party lines to confirm secretaries of defense. But according to Politico it’s the Democratic chairman who faces a “conundrum” over the lack of “bipartisan spirit” in the Senate. It’s the Democrat who has to deal with the “damage” done by Republican maneuvers.
Sometimes it seems the Beltway press will do anything to avoid blaming Republicans for their wildly obstructionist ways. It’s a pattern of timidity that has marked Obama’s time in Washington, D.C. Indeed, the press for years now has insisted on providing no framework with regards to the radical ways that now define the GOP.
By refusing to hold Obama’s opponents accountable, and by actually making media stars out of the ones who actively obstruct, the press simply encourages the corrosive behavior. (By the way, this is the same Beltway press corps that has routinely blamed Obama for not successfully changing the tone in Washington.)

To be fair, there are some fine reporters and columnists inside the beltway who call out the GOP’s obstructionism on a regular basis. But overall, Boehlert is right that way too many reporters and their editors, inside the beltway and out, have either bought into the Republican’s false equivalency memes or are too lame or lazy to take a stand.
Too many Americans have been numbed by the obstructionism and shrug it off as business as usual. But the problem is actually deepening, as Boehlert explains:

Both in terms of Republican obstructionist behavior and the press’ unwillingness to call it what it is, the trend has reached its pinnacle with the current confirmation mess. And it’s getting worse. Fox News this week reported Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) was threatening to block a confirmation vote on Jack Lew, selected by the president to be the next secretary of treasury.
Discarding centuries worth of advise-and-consent tradition (i.e. the winning president picks his cabinet), Republicans have radically rewritten the cabinet confirmation rulebook while journalists have stood quietly by, not bothering to inform news consumers about the dramatic shift taking place. Instead, the press treats it all as being commonplace; as just more partisan bickering.
And when not downplaying the ramifications or erroneously suggesting Obama’s “picking fights” with “controversial” cabinet picks like Hagel, journalists have bungled the story altogether, giving Republicans political cover in the process.

Boehlert provides other examples and puts the problem in historical context, but adds, “it’s never been done with this frequency before in modern American history…We’ve never seen anything like the coordinated, dubious efforts by outside conservative groups and Republican members in Congress to block Hagel’s confirmation. (Or to make sure Rice was never nominated.)…But if you turn on cable news you’ll hear a Beltway editor claim “everybody does it.”
However, concludes Boehlert, “They didn’t. Until now.”

Here’s what we said back then:
Watch out Dems: Don’t underestimate the conservative “Benghazi scandal” narrative. It isn’t irrational, trivial or vacuous. It serves to support four very important attacks on Obama. As a result, conservatives are going to play it for all that its worth
The Hillary hearings didn’t produce a shred of new or damaging information, but for the GOP that’s not really the point. Like the Whitewater so-called scandal in the 1990’s that never found any wrongdoing, it’s the pure theatrics and atmospherics that they are after – the constant repetition of the suggestion that there is some hidden truth that would deeply discredit Obama and his administration.
Eventually, the buzzword becomes completely disconnected from any specific content; Benghazi is a “Scandal” simply because the echo chamber repeats the word until until it becomes a stock stump speech cliche.
Whitewater went on for ten years. So we can count on hearing about Benghazi in 2014 and 2016 – and there won’t be a single shread of new information in any of it.

At the Washington Monthly Political Animal, TDS managing editor Ed Kilgore, who live blogged extensively, observed:

… While Obama’s speech probably won’t move public opinion mountains, and he may have been a mite subtle in calling out the GOP, it was a strong performance that left Republicans looking either clueless (Rubio) or uncomfortable (Boehner). On the big issues, Obama and Democrats were already playing from a stronger hand, and he strengthened it on a pretty broad front tonight.

In another WaMo entry, Kilgore added, “I thought speech clever in how he handled challenge to GOP; very Clintonian in policy offerings (and better than past SOTUs); and pretty good at taking advantage of areas where public opinion pretty much already on his side. Minimum wage increase good example: Republican pols and business leaders hate it, public loves it.”
On Sen. Rubio’s much-hyped response, Kilgore notes, “Better delivery than Jindal, but his speechwriter ought to be fired. Was there anything “new” in it at all? Even a single original line? Don’t think so.”
At the American Prospect Jamelle Bouie credits the President with advancing a “bold progressive agenda,” but one with little chance of passing, with the exception of a modest gun violence and immigration reform. Bouie concludes that it’s “a signpost for future Democrats and not a plan of action.”
An editorial in today’s New York Times added, “While many of the president’s proposals were familiar, and will probably be snuffed out by politics, his speech explained to a wide audience what could be achieved if there were even a minimal consensus in Washington.” In a New York Times op-ed, former Clinton speechwriter Ted Widmer conceded that “much of the program unveiled in the address will get stalled,” but added “This was an important State of the Union, a declaration of principles as President Obama begins his next term.”
The Nation’s Josh Eidelson notes that organized labor liked the president’s proposal to index the minimum wage for the first time.
At WaPo’s The Fix, Chris Cillizza credits the President with unprecedented seriousness on curbing gun violence: “Obama’s comments on guns will be the lasting legacy of this speech and a sign that his past pledges to use all of his political power to bring about measures he believes will curb gun violence was not simply rhetoric.” Cillizza also noted “as direct a call for action by Congress on climate change as you will hear from a president.”
The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent has an insightful post on the SOTU, observing “The proposals Obama laid out yesterday are likely to continue cementing the degree to which core growing constituencies — Latinos; young voters; college educated whites, especially women; and even to some extent non-college white women — identify with the Democratic Party. Reflexive GOP opposition to all these things could exacerbate the party’s estrangement from these groups.”
Sargent also cites a CNN poll showing that :

…77 percent had a very or somewhat positive reaction to it. The more important findings, however, may be related to the policies he proposed. Seven in 10 said the gun policies would move the country in the right direction; over three fourths approved of the immigration policies; and nearly two-thirds said his plans will improve the economy.

At Salon.com, Joan Walsh called attention to the dog that didn’t bark:

Maybe most important, he didn’t use the address to make another call for a “grand bargain” to avert either sequester cuts or a future government shutdown or debt-ceiling crisis, as had been suggested. He didn’t commit to disturbing Social Security cuts like chained CPI. And while we need more details on his vague reference to making “wealthy seniors pay more” for Medicare, since it could involve a regressive form of means-testing, he didn’t use this moment to rally the country behind benefit cuts.

At Politico, Katie Glueck has a round-up of “Obama’s 10 best lines, including this gem on his infrastructure proposals: “And I know that you want these job-creating projects in your districts. I’ve seen you all at the ribbon-cuttings.”

HuffPo Pollster flags four separate posts with differing perspectives by Sam Wang, Jonathan Bernstein, Michael McDonald and John Sides on the effects of gerrymandering.
Sam Wang’s NYT op-ed explains gerrymandering as an exceptionally-effective form of disenfranchisement:

…Gerrymandering is a major form of disenfranchisement. In the seven states where Republicans redrew the districts, 16.7 million votes were cast for Republicans and 16.4 million votes were cast for Democrats. This elected 73 Republicans and 34 Democrats. Given the average percentage of the vote it takes to elect representatives elsewhere in the country, that combination would normally require only 14.7 million Democratic votes. Or put another way, 1.7 million votes (16.4 minus 14.7) were effectively packed into Democratic districts and wasted.
…Democrats would have had to win the popular vote by 7 percentage points to take control of the House the way that districts are now (assuming that votes shifted by a similar percentage across all districts). That’s an 8-point increase over what they would have had to do in 2010, and a margin that happens in only about one-third of Congressional elections.

Jonathan Bernstein takes issue with some of Wang’s reasoning. Foe example,

What really annoyed me about Wang’s case against gerrymandering is that he makes a point of bashing “ugly” districts — you know, the ones that have odd shapes, such as the one that gave gerrymanders their name in the first place. The piece is illustrated with some of them. What’s wrong with that? If districts are going to be “fair” to Democrats (that is, get the same ratio of seats as votes), then because of where Democrats and Republicans live it’s precisely the value of having “pretty” (compact, regular-shaped) districts that’s going to be violated. Under current conditions, compact, regular districts strongly tend to favor Republicans. One can argue for them anyway, but anyone who cares more about partisan “fairness” shouldn’t also be playing up the importance of “pretty” districts. Well, to my tastes no one should care about compactness; there’s simply no reason, in my view, to care about the shape of districts, all else equal. But at the very least, anyone complaining about ugly districts should know the very predictable effects of compactness.

John Sides argues at Wonkblog that voting behavior is not about gerrymandering so much as it is about political party:

…The most important influence on how members of Congress vote is not their constituents, but their party. This makes them out-of-step not only with the average American — the “broad-based public opinion” that Obama mentioned — but also, and ironically, with even their base. Members are more partisan than even voters in their party….Democrats and Republicans are just polarized, no matter whether their district is red, blue or purple. It’s hard to imagine that creating more competitive districts will mitigate polarization. Members in purple districts are pretty polarized, too.

Of course there is a counter-argument that the point is not that gerrymandering determines voting behavior. Rather, gerrymandering is about herding party supporters into compact districts to dilute the effects of their voting power. Michael McDonald tweets at Elect Project, “Gerrymandering deniers: new research published soon shows compact districts = less biased plans.” He responds to Sides that ” I agree a small bias favoring Rs among compact districts – including VRA constraint – but R gerrymandering well beyond this.
It’s an interesting debate. But it’s important to note that none of the four participants are arguing that districts could not be made more fair. Certainly, Democrats have nothing to lose by fighting for a more even-handed approach to congressional redistricting.