washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

Month: December 2013

Creamer: Why Dems Must Resist ‘Right Wing War on Public Employees’

The following article by Democratic strategist Robert Creamer, author of “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” is cross-posted from HuffPo:
For many years the American Right — and many of the most powerful elements of corporate and Wall Street elite — have conducted a war on public employees.
Their campaign has taken many forms. They have tried to slash the number of public sector jobs, cut the pay and benefits of public sector workers, and do away with public employee rights to collective bargaining. They have discredited the value of the work performed by public employees — like teachers, police and firefighters — going so far as to argue that “real jobs” are created only by the private sector.
Last week a conservative court ruled that by going through bankruptcy the city of Detroit could rid itself of its obligation under the state constitution to make good on its pension commitments to its retirees.
It should surprise no one that the Republican Chairman of the U.S. House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, is demanding that a budget deal with the Democrats include a 350 percent increase in pension contribution by all civilian federal employees. That would effectively mean a pay cut of about 2 percent for every federal worker. And that cut would come after a three-year pay freeze and multiple furloughs caused by the Republican “sequester.”
Unbelievably, in Illinois the right wing Chicago Tribune and the state’s corporate elite snookered the Democratic-controlled legislature into passing changes in that state’s pension laws that slashed the pensions of its public employees. The changes affected all state employees and many of Illinois’ teachers. All of them had faithfully made their required contributions to the state’s pension funds for years, even though the legislature regularly failed to make its required payments so it could avoid raising taxes on the state’s wealthiest citizens.
Illinois cut teacher pensions, even though many do not participate in the Social Security system and the state pension is their only source of retirement income.
All of these attacks on public employees — and cuts in public sector expenditures in general — are premised on two myths that are simply untrue.
Myth number one. The Right claims we live in a period of scarcity that requires extreme public sector austerity. They claim “we just can’t afford” to pay people like teachers the pensions that we had agreed to in the past, because “America is broke.”
This, of course, is simply wrong. In spite of the hardships brought on by the Great Recession that resulted from the reckless speculation of Wall Street banks — and even though George Bush thrust our country into an unnecessary war that cost our economy a trillion plus dollars — America is wealthier today than ever before in its history.
Per capita income in America is at an all-time high because productivity per person has gone up 80 percent since 1979.
Of course the Right is able to make the case that “we can’t afford” to pay our teachers as much as we once did, because everyday Americans feel like they have been losing ground – which of course they have. That’s because virtually every dime of that increase in our per capita national income went to the top 1 percent.
The solution to this problem is, of course, to change the rules of the game that have been rigged over the last three decades to bring about this result. By cutting the incomes, pensions and collective bargaining rights of middle class public employees rather than raising taxes on the wealthy, we make the problem worse.
But from the standpoint of the corporate Wall Street elite, that is precisely the idea. They want to continue to siphon off more and more of America’s bounty. And they want to shrink the public sector, because they don’t want to pay taxes at rates like they did back in the ’40s, ’50s and ’60s when the American middle class was born and the portion of our national income going to the top 1 percent actually dropped.
That gets us to myth number two.


Political Strategy Notes

Just to set the record straight, not all of those Republicans now saying nice things about Mandela supported his cause when it counted, as Jordan Michael Smith reports in his New Republic post, “All the Terrible Things Republicans Used to Say About Nelson Mandela: Reaganites called him a terrorist and a phony.” Smith points out that Reagan put Mandela on the “terrorist” list and Cheney also called Mandela a terrorist, while Norquist supported the apartheid government.
Now that the Obamacare website is functioning well, Republicans are shifting their attack meme to highlight cases in which individual policy-holders are paying more to get less under the ACA, report Bloomberg’s Mike Dorning, Derek Wallbank and Alex Wayne.
But Bloomberg’s John McCormick explains why “Angry Self-Insured Voters Dim Democratic House Takeover Strategy.” McCormick notes “… House Democrats represent more than a third of the districts with above-average proportions of residents who get health insurance through individual policies, Census Bureau data compiled by Bloomberg shows.” The article goes on to note cases in which some of these policy-holder end up paying more and getting less, but it’s unclear what percentage of self-insured are having this experience.
From Ari Berman’s The Nation post (via Moyers & Company) “Ohio GOP Resurrects Voter Suppression Efforts“: “…Ohio Republicans are once again resurrecting efforts to make it harder to vote. Last month, the GOP-controlled Ohio Senate, on a party-line vote, voted to cut early voting by a week, eliminating the “Golden Week” when Ohioans can register and vote on the same day during the early voting period (Senate Bill 238). The legislation was introduced and passed in one week, with almost no time for substantive debate. The Senate also passed a bill preventing the secretary of state or individual counties from mailing absentee ballots to all eligible voters unless the legislature provides the money, which they are unlikely to do (Senate Bill 205)…These restrictions — and additional measures being considered by the legislature — have the potential to impact millions of voters in the Buckeye State: 600,000 Ohioans voted early in 2012, more than 10 percent of the state’s electorate and 1.25 million voted by mail, 22 percent of the electorate.”
The first fruits of filibuster reform will soon ripen, as Timothy M. Phelps reports in his L.A. Times article “Filibuster rule’s end should help Obama reshape a key court.” As Phelps explains “On Monday, the U.S. Senate is scheduled to cast a historic vote to confirm Patricia Millett, an experienced Supreme Court advocate and taekwondo black belt, as a judge on the second-most powerful court in the land, tipping that court’s balance of power to Democrats for the first time in nearly three decades.”
Beth Reinhard asks a good question at the National Journal: “Can Democrats Make 2014 About the Minimum Wage?” She notes “…Democrats see the opening that Garcia and other low-income, typically Republican voters appear to be offering on the issue. A Gallup poll last month pegged support for raising the minimum wage at 76 percent and found majority support across the board, including Republicans (58 percent), whites (72 percent) and southerners (80 percent)…”It’s almost like political malpractice not to push the minimum wage at this time,” said Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank that hosted Obama’s speech on income inequality.”
DCCC head Rep. Steve Israel marshals a shrewd argument in favor of the Undetectable Firearms Act, which is being opposed by the NRA and Republicans: “I can’t understand why anybody would want to make it easier and more convenient for bad guys and criminals to smuggle plastic guns onto airplanes…To me, this is the consummate example of common sense.”
Here’s a disturbing Reuters report that “Democrats wouldn’t reject U.S. budget deal over jobless aid: senator” by Caren Bohan and Aruna Viswanatha.
At The Nation Reed Richardson has a brutal critique of Third Way centrism in the wake of their latest round of liberal-bashing: “So if Third Way really doesn’t offer much besides run-of-the-mill Republican-lite boilerplate,why does it merit any media oxygen in the first place? The question, essentially, answers itself–Third Way’s corporate-heavy, economic austerity agenda dovetails with the likes of the Beltway media’s “pain caucus.” That an ineffectual advocacy outfit like Third Way can still command a healthy pick of establishment op-ed perches is no coincidence. In its 2012 tracking study of think-tank citations, media watchdog FAIR found centrist and conservative groups overwhelmingly dominated. Only two center-left–and no progressive groups–cracked the top 10. (And true to its word, the academically lightweight Third Way didn’t even make the list.)”


Three interesting reactions to Third Way’s malicious ad-hominem attack on Elizabeth Warren and progressive Dems

It appears that some of the chaps at The Third Way have overestimated their cred as critics of liberalism, along with their assessment of thoughtful voters’ appetite for ad hominem attacks.
In her Daily Kos post, “Social Security expansion now very real. Thanks, Third Way!,” Joan McCarter explains:

Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA.), honorary co-chair of Third Way and gubenatorial candidate, is now a cosponsor of a bill to expand Social Security. That’s after Third Way president Jon Cowan, Jim Kessler, the group’s senior vice president for policy called the legislation “exhibit A of this populist political and economic fantasy.” The “fantasy” that is going to doom, DOOM, Democrats. Of course, Schwartz isn’t leaving Third Way. And she’s also coming pretty late to the “expand Social Security” party.
…Schwartz isn’t running on that, on her pro-austerity, cut Social Security record, but is instead essentially repudiating it. Not just that, she’s now embracing that “populist political and economic fantasy” that Third Way swears is political ruin for any Democrat. Go figure.
When Sen. Sherrod Brown signed on to the bill to expand Social Security, it made news. It gave the movement real momentum. When Sen. Elizabeth Warren joined the team it catapulted the issue into what could be a centerpiece in the 2014 and 2016.
And that’s what put Third Way and the whole world of Wall Street “Democrats” into panic mode, coordinating a full-frontal assault against her and this issue. That assault has fallen completely flat. Nothing proves that more than Allyson Schwartz’s name on the Strengthening Social Security Act.
So thanks, Third Way! Now we’ve got ourselves a real rallying point for real Democrats.

The Third Way’s populist-bashing seems tethered to a long-dead template, which mistakenly assumes that most voters are ideologues who actually care where candidates fit on political spectra. As Paul Waldman puts it in his Politico post, “Left Turn = Dead End?Why class warfare won’t defeat Hillary in 2016“:

The real question isn’t so much whether there’s ideological room to stake out on Clinton’s left flank–there certainly is–but whether another candidate could capture the liberal imagination the way Obama did in 2008. Part of the problem is that when your party is in power, the hunger for victory doesn’t gnaw nearly so intensely at your gut as when you’re on the outside. Liberals felt a powerful combination of anger and hope in 2008, but today their sentiments are a much quieter mix of defensiveness and disappointment. The president they elected then has done some admirable things, but his second term is likely to be defined largely by defending those gains and fending off an increasingly reckless GOP. It’s necessary work, but it’s not the kind of thing you write songs about.
Obama might have been the liberals’ choice in the 2008 primaries, but it wasn’t because he was the most liberal. It was because he embodied almost everything liberals wanted in a candidate, most of which had little to do with ideology. He was new and fresh, multiracial and cosmopolitan, and untainted by the compromises and cowardice Democrats saw their party gripped by in the previous decade.
Most of all, Obama made voters understand what a vote for him said about them. If you were an Obama supporter, you were supposed to be forward-thinking, creative, optimistic, courageous and youthful. (That was the genius, for instance, of hip-hop artist will.i.am’s viral campaign video.) It wasn’t too different from the marketing message that has worked so well for Apple, and after feeling beaten down for eight years, it was just what liberals wanted.
It’s possible that another Democratic politician could make people feel something like that again, even with the idealism of the 2008 Obama campaign ground down in the messy reality of governing. Some believed Elizabeth Warren could be that candidate, and no one has spoken more often or more eloquently about inequality in recent years than the Massachusetts senator. But Warren now says she isn’t going to run (though, of course, she could change her mind). There might well be a governor or senator out there who could emerge as a liberal champion, but if so, whoever it is is lying low at the moment.

As for the Third Way’s cred in the wake of their Warren-bashing, Paul Krugman says it well in his “Pathetic Centrists” post:

I mean, going after Warren and de Blasio for not being willing to cut Social Security and their “staunch refusal to address the coming Medicare crisis” ??? Even aside from the question of exactly what the mayor of New York has to do with Medicare, this sounds as if they have been living in a cave for years, maybe reading an occasional screed from the Pete Peterson complex.
On Social Security, they’re still in the camp insisting that because the system might possibly have to pay lower benefits in the future, we must move now to cut future benefits. Oh, kay.
But anyway, they declare that Medicare is the bigger issue. So what’s this about “staunch refusal” to address Medicare? The Affordable Care Act contains lots of measures to limit Medicare costs and health care more generally — it’s Republicans, not progressive Democrats, who have been screaming against cost-saving measures (death panels!). And health cost growth has slowed dramatically, feeding into much better Medicare projections…
…So what does Third Way think it would mean to “address the Medicare crisis”? They don’t say. But my strong guess is that they mean raising the Medicare age; living in their cave, they probably haven’t gotten the memo (literally) from CBO concluding that raising that age would hardly save any money.
It’s just so tired and tiring. If being a “centrist” means fact-free denunciations of progressives for not being willing to cut entitlements, who needs these guys?

None of this is to disparage the legitimate role of political centrists in the Democratic party’s internal debates. But next time they pop off, Third Way polemicists might try bringing their ‘A game,’ and give the juvenile liberal-bashing a rest.


Special AKA Tribute to Nelson Mandela

Writers all over the world are today mining their stock of superlatives to honor Nelson Mandela. And there have been many musical tributes to Mandela. Senegalese super-star Youssou N’dour did an entire album in tribute to him, and numerous artists have recorded songs honoring Mandela, including Nickleback, Johnie Clegg, Raffi, Elvis Costello, Dolores Keane, Christy Moore, Hugh Masekela, Zahara and many other African musicians. Probably the biggest global hit was “Free Nelson Mandela” by The Special AKA from Coventry U.K., which goes like this:


Teixeira: Here Are Winning issues for Dems in 2014

The following article by TDS founding editor Ruy Teixeira is cross-posted from ThinkProgress:
As the Obamacare situation stabilizes, Democrats are starting to come to their strategic senses and realize their best course of action is to defend the program, not run away from it.
But that’s not enough. If Democrats want to maximize their chances of holding the Senate in 2014 and making at least some progress in the House, they need to go on the offensive on issues that will mobilize their base and split their opposition. A new poll from National Journal shows how.
In the poll, respondents were asked first about whether legislation would be passed in the next year to address various issues. Of the issues tested, three were deemed more likely than not to generate successful legislation: “Creating jobs by increasing federal spending on infrastructure projects like roads and bridges” (56 percent likely/39 percent not likely); “Requiring universal background checks on all gun sales” (53-43); and “Reforming the immigration system to increase border security and provide a pathway to citizenship for people in the U.S. illegally” (49-46).
This expectation is borne of desire, not fatalism. The poll followed up by asking respondents whether they’d be pleased or disappointed if legislation actually passed in these areas. The results were quite one-sided. By 77-21, Americans said they’d be pleased rather than disappointed if legislation was passed to create jobs through infrastructure spending. By 74-22, they said they’d be pleased to see universal background checks on gun sales (including an astonishing 56 percent who said they’d be “very” pleased, the highest of all the issues tested). And by 66-28, they said they’d be pleased to see a pathway to citizenship make it through Congress.
So the public wants and expects action in these three areas. Who’s standing in the way? Congressional Republicans, of course.
And here’s the beauty, tactically speaking: not only do these issues hugely appeal to the Democratic base, they also appeal to the majority of Republicans, thereby making these issues potential vehicles for splitting the GOP vote. A large majority of Republicans would be pleased to see more infrastructure spending to create jobs; 66 percent would be pleased to see universal background checks on gun sales and 57 percent of GOP identifiers would like to see immigration reform happen.
Mobilize the base, split the opposition — these issues are political gold for the Democrats. And while we’re speaking of political gold for the Democrats, it would be remiss not to mention raising the minimum wage, an issue not tested by the National Journal poll but likely to be voted on in the Senate shortly. This is also an issue that gets overwhelming public support, particularly from the Democratic base, but splits the Republican party. Moreover, this split in support has a very distinct class character. In a recent Pew Research poll, working class (non-college) Republicans supported the proposal by 58-40, while college-educated Republicans opposed it by 60-34. Similarly, low income Republicans (less than $30,000) supported raising the minimum wage by 68-31 while high income Republicans (over $75,000) opposed such a raise by 57-40.
Job creation through infrastructure spending. Universal background checks for gun sales. Immigration reform. Raising the minimum wage. Music to Democratic ears and a prescription for political success. Maybe Democrats should think about taking their medicine.


Political Strategy Notes

GOP strategist Ed Rogers worries at WaPo that Democrats could well benefit from stock market and oil booms, and be sitting pretty come next November.
Elizabeth Warren says she is not running for president, and The Fix’s Sean Sullivan explains some of the reasons why.
…And Esquire’s Charles Pierce channels a little Gore Vidal to explain (via Reader Supported News) why that’s a good thing.
At Real Clear Politics, Sean Trende analyzes “Democrats’ 2013 Drop-Off Problem” and what it might mean for 2014. “What does this mean for 2014? Possibly nothing. There is a lot of football left to be played, the president’s job approval rating could rally significantly, the Democrats could become enthused, and drop-off could become a non-issue…But if that doesn’t happen, Democrats have a real headache coming on. Let’s assume they can expect a drop-off of four to five points from Obama’s 2012 performance, all other things being equal. Twenty-eight House Democrats occupy seats where Obama won less than 55 percent of the vote…”
Kyle Kondik notes at Sabato’s CrystalBall that “Late filing deadlines give Republicans a chance to find better candidates in places where they’re lacking.” Same is true for Dems, however.
A new poll of 2,089 18- to 29-year-olds, which was conducted online by GfK between Oct. 30 and Nov. 11 by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics suggests Dems need a better Obamacare pitch to young voters. As Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports at the News York Times, “A solid majority, 56 percent, disapproved of the law when it was called the Affordable Care Act. Just 17 percent said the measure would improve the quality of health care; 78 percent said quality would either stay the same or get worse. Half said the law would increase costs, while 46 percent said costs would decrease or stay the same.”
Be that as it may, Tracy Seiple reports at the San Jose Mercury-News that “The startling finding by the Public Policy Institute of California says that young and healthy people are overwhelmingly more likely to seek health insurance than older and sicker people…The PPIC numbers on young people who plan on signing up for insurance appear to mimic an early analysis by Covered California, the state’s online health exchange, that trumpeted its first-month enrollment figure of 30,830 people, including 6,900 who are between 18 and 34.”
Mark Blumenthal and Ariel Edwards-Levy point out at HuffPollster: “In a CNN poll released in November, opinion on the health care bill was split among those aged 18 to 34, with 48 percent supporting the law, 33 percent opposing it because it was too liberal, and 12 percent because it was not liberal enough. Younger Americans were also more optimistic on the law’s prospects. Just 25 percent in that age group called the law a failure, compared with 40 percent or more in older age groups. Seventy-one percent said the law’s problems would be solved, while 50 percent or fewer of older Americans predicted they would.”
One of the most potentially-powerful, but most underutilized message points Dems could use more aggressively to mobilize young voters against the GOP is conservatives’ unflagging assault on the environment, nicely documented in “ALEC calls for penalties on ‘freerider’ homeowners in assault on clean energy” by The Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg and Ed Pilkington.


Benenson: Dems’ ‘Guiding Light’ Must Be ‘A More Secure Economy’

From a strategy memo entitled “The Polling Lay of the Land” by Obama pollster Joel Benenson:

Our data continues to show, unequivocally, that the nation’s economic health remains voters’ overriding priority.
Even amid a cascade of news cycles focused on the Affordable Care Act, Syria, the government shutdown and the NSA, voters’ primary focus has never shifted from their economic well-being and financial security.
While we have seen a marked increase in voters ‘ sense of financial stability throughout most of 2013 – worries about the immediate loss of jobs or homes had subsided – we have a long way to go before voters feel truly secure in their economic futures, and that of the nation.
Fully aware of the long road ahead, voters are extremely eager to see Washington once again put economic issues at the center of their attention.
Over the course of 2013, we have seen improvement in voters ‘ views of the economy. Four years of deeply entrenched pessimism around the economy has finally begun to give way to a brighter outlook.
After steadily improving since January, this June we reached high points on two key metrics we have been tracking since 2009:
68% of voters described the economy as “getting better”, a 9-point increase over our 2012 average. Just 29% – mostly Republicans – said the economy is “getting worse”.
21% of voters rated the economy as “excellent” or “good”. This number was in almost invariably in single digits from 2009 until 2012 , and averaged 13% throughout that year.
However, the government shutdown and debt ceiling fight all but wiped out this burgeoning optimism. We are starting to see these metrics slowly creep back up, but the shutdown and ongoing dysfunction have had a lingering effect on views of the economy.
The number saying the economy is getting better dropped to a shutdown low of 50% in mid-October…By last week, this figure had ticked back up to 56%, still well below the highs of the first and second quarters of this year.
Our guiding light needs to be our focus on creating a more secure economy for hard-working American families, with smart investments now and for the next generation.

Benenson has more so say on this topic of critical importance, and we urge Dems who want to win in 2014 to give it a thoughtful read.


Women Candidates and Voters Central to Dem Hopes for 2014

The National Journal’s Shane Goldmacher asks an important question about the 2014 elections, “Can Democrats Still Win With a Women-Centered Strategy?” Subtitled “Democrats want 2014 to be a Year of the Woman (and women’s issues), betting that the GOP’s 2012 gender gap holds for another cycle,” Goldmacher’s post adds some clarity to the discussion about Democratic grand strategy for the 2014 campaign.
Democrats are appropriately nervous about the relatively low non-presidential year turnout of their key constituencies and the correspondingly high voting percentages of the more pro-GOP demographic groups. Historical patterns are hard to deny, and it’s an uphill argument to counter that 2014 will somehow be different. Yet some unusual trends emerged during the last year, including rock-bottom approval ratings for the GOP, which includes a sharp downturn among senior voters, who tend to lead off-year turnout percentages.
Then there is the GOP shutdown wild card, which many believe will be largely forgotten a year from now. But Democrats might pick up a small number of seats with some well-targeted reminders, and the explosive growth of Latino voters should also help contain the Republicans’ expected gains. Dems hope, further, that gridlock fatigue and an economic uptick in the coming months will also give them enough of an edge to hold the senate and cut deep into the GOP majority in the House.
Many believe, however, that the Republicans’ rapidly declining support among women could be the pivotal factor next November. As Goldmacher notes,

The Democratic Party is hoping 2014 will be a Year of the Woman–again…As party operatives prepare for the 2014 midterm elections, Democratic women are being cast in starring roles, on the ballot and at the ballot box, as the party tries to take back politically important governor’s mansions and keep its fragile majority in the Senate.
“The importance of women to the Democratic Party in 2014 cannot be overstated,” said Jess McIntosh, a spokeswoman for EMILY’s List, which recruits and supports Democratic women candidates. “They are running in our biggest, most important races in the country.”

Goldmacher notes that Democrats are fielding some strong women candidates in high-profile state-wide races in 2014, including Wendy Davis (TX Gov.) Alison Lundergan Grimes (KY Senate), Mary Burke (WI Gov.), Allyson Schwartz (PA Gov), Michelle Nunn (GA Senate) and Natalie Tennant (WV Senate). Democratic strategists “believe the slate of prominent women on the 2014 ballot will make the contrast with Republicans all the clearer ,” says Goldmacher.
He warns, however, that Democratic U.S. Senators Landrieu and Hagan hold two of the most endangered seats being heavily-targeted by Republicans, and GA, WV and KY remain tough states for Democratic candidates. The GOP is fielding some women candidates as well, but most of them seem lackluster in comparison to Democratic women candidates, like Wendy Davis. Further, ads Goldmacher,

The recent victory of Democrat Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia governor’s race showed that issues of abortion and contraception remain salient. McAuliffe bombarded the airwaves on those topics en route to running up his margin of victory among unmarried women voters to 42 percentage points, according to exit polling.
“It’s a deep problem for the Republicans,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
The Supreme Court’s announcement last week that it will take up a case about whether employers may refuse to provide contraceptive coverage means that the volatile issue of birth control again will be injected in the midst of the 2014 campaign. The case will be decided in the middle of next year.
Democrats have made plain that the “war on women” playbook will be key to their efforts to unseat McConnell. Last week, Grimes rolled out the endorsement of Lilly Ledbetter, the namesake of the pay-equity law signed by Obama, and her campaign issued a memo on women’s issues, noting that Grimes is an “advocate for women” and would be “Kentucky’s first female United States senator.”

While reproductive rights are key concerns of women in general and unmarried women in particular, women candidates are addressing the full range of socio-economic concerns that influence swing voters, including men. “There are lots of reasons women make great candidates,” [Democratic pollster Anna] Greenberg said. “It’s not because they can just talk about abortion.”
Goldmacher notes that “men also can appeal to women voters on traditionally women’s issues,” and adds:

…McAuliffe is the latest example. Anna Greenberg…noted that television ads about abortion, birth-control access or defunding Planned Parenthood aired in nearly every competitive congressional race last cycle, whether the contest featured a Democratic women against a Republican man, or vice versa.

While some pundits have noted that the gender gap is racial in that most white women voters have voted for Republicans in recent elections, the percentage is still significantly less than for white men. And McAuliffe’s stunning margin of victory among unmarried women in a bellwether state also underscores the wisdom of Democrats recruiting more women candidates and male candidates who can address issues of concern to women voters in a positive way.
At present 10 percent of Republican House and Senate members are women, compared to 25 percent of all Democratic members of both houses, according to the congressional record. In 2012, “Of the more than 1700 women serving in state legislatures, roughly 60 percent are members of the Democratic Party,” reports the Center for American Women and Politics.
In the last non-presidential election year, 2010, the gender gap favoring Democratic candidates was “more widespread in this election than in any other,” said Susan J. Carroll, a senior scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics. “Typically, we see gender gaps in about two-thirds of all statewide races. This year we saw gender gaps in all but a couple of contests,” despite significant Republican gains nationwide. With respect to House races, 49% of women compared with 42% of men voted for Democratic candidates in their districts.


Teixeira: Another Way Immigration Could Tear The GOP Apart

The following article by TDS founding editor Ruy Teixeira is cross-posted from ThinkProgress:
Remember when Republicans were the masters of the “wedge issue” — masterfully manipulating public opinion splits on same-sex marriage and other policies to divide the Democratic coalition and cruise to victory? No more. Marriage equality, in fact, now seems to work as a wedge in the other direction, splitting the GOP coalition and forcing moderates into the Democratic camp.
Though few have noticed, it’s starting to look like immigration reform is following the same agenda. Immigration used to divide the Democratic coalition, but now it threatens to split the GOP — and for reasons entirely independent of losing the Latino vote.
Check out these results from a new Public Religion Research institute poll. PRRI asked respondents how the immigration system should deal with undocumented immigrants living in the United States, and found that the vast majority — 63 percent — of Americans said they should be offered a pathway to citizenship. 18 percent said undocumented immigrants should be allowed to become permanent legal residents but not citizens, while a mere 14 percent said they should be identified and deported:
immig-ref-by-party-479x319.png
Here’s the amazing thing: while 63 percent overall supported a path to citizenship, so did 60 percent of Republicans! The latter number is actually higher than support levels among independents (57 percent). Support for a path to citizenship has clearly gone mainstream — and bipartisan.
So if there’s bipartisan support, where’s the bipartisan action? The answer is simple: division in the Republican Party. Tea Party Republicans tend to be adamantly, furiously opposed to immigration reform, and they wield a huge amount of influence inside today’s GOP. The chart below from Alan Abramowitz illustrates the extent of that influence:
tea-party-2.png
Tea Party supporters are 52 percent of all Republicans, 57 percent of general election voters, 64 percent of primary voters, 76 percent of rally attendees and a remarkable 80 percent of donors. No wonder immigration reform isn’t getting anywhere.
So where does that leave Republicans who favor a path to citizenship? Until things change — and the Tea Party looks as strong as ever after some post-2013 election rumblings — the issue is pushing them right out of the party.
Immigration reform is generally viewed as an issue where GOP intransigence could wind up supergluing Latinos to the Democratic Party. That’s right, but these data suggest there’s another part to the equation. The GOP could wind up not just failing to gain Latino support but actively losing part of their own coalition. For a party that’s already battling the effects of long-term demographic change, that’s very bad news.