washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

Month: January 2014

January 15: Bashing Obama Not Good Democratic Idea for 2016

With the MSM (and for that matter, political junkies everywhere) loving electoral horse races as they do, there’s enormous artificial pressure for creating a competitive 2016 Democratic presidential contest. That possibility is largely up to Hillary Clinton, who could create one instantly by deciding not to run. Otherwise, there will be talk about Elizabeth Warren and Martin O’Malley and maybe a few others taking the plunge, until each takes his or her name out of contention.
But for now, what we’ve got is former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a one-time netroots darling who is making all the noises you’d associate with a serious potential candidate, including trips to Iowa. And he doesn’t seem intimidated by HRC.
In an interview with MSNBC’s Benjy Sarlin, though, Schweitzer has unveiled a peculiar strategy: strong opposition to Barack Obama, almost across the board. Here’s part of what I had to say about that major mistake at WaMo today:

Unless this was some sort of screwed-up revival of Teddy Kennedy’s famously disastrous Roger Mudd interview in 1980, Schweitzer’s sure taking an unorthodox route to a Democratic presidential candidacy. Yes, his complaints about Obama’s record are shared by quite a few progressive folk. But generally trashing Obama–or for that matter, trashing HRC–is not the way to build a base for a presidential campaign. According to the latest Gallup numbers, Obama’s job approval rating among self-identified liberal Democrats stands at 84%. That is rather high. Among African-Americans, who play a huge role in many Democratic presidential primaries, it’s at 86% (it’s only 58% among Hispanics, but that includes a decent number of Republicans).
As I’ve observed on more than one occasion, left-bent Democratic presidential nominating candidacies have failed again and again because of poor support from minority voters. There’s virtually nothing about Brian Schweitzer that gives him a natural connection to these voters (unless you count his reported proficiency in Arabic as appealing to Muslims). Making common cause with Republicans in Obama-bashing isn’t going to help.

I also noted that some of Schweitzer’s former fans in the netroots–most notably Markos Moulitsas–are annoyed that he took a pass on running for a critical Senate seat in Montana before seeing the next president of the United States in the mirror. All in all, if he does want to occupy the Oval Office, he’s not off to a great start.
BTW: lest you think this is all just premature crazy-talk given the calendar, keep in mind that we’re just two years away from the likely date of the 2016 Iowa Caucuses. Past candidates have in some cases taken up virtual residence there by this juncture.


Bashing Obama Not Good Democratic Idea for 2016

With the MSM (and for that matter, political junkies everywhere) loving electoral horse races as they do, there’s enormous artificial pressure for creating a competitive 2016 Democratic presidential contest. That possibility is largely up to Hillary Clinton, who could create one instantly by deciding not to run. Otherwise, there will be talk about Elizabeth Warren and Martin O’Malley and maybe a few others taking the plunge, until each takes his or her name out of contention.
But for now, what we’ve got is former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a one-time netroots darling who is making all the noises you’d associate with a serious potential candidate, including trips to Iowa. And he doesn’t seem intimidated by HRC.
In an interview with MSNBC’s Benjy Sarlin, though, Schweitzer has unveiled a peculiar strategy: strong opposition to Barack Obama, almost across the board. Here’s part of what I had to say about that major mistake at WaMo today:

Unless this was some sort of screwed-up revival of Teddy Kennedy’s famously disastrous Roger Mudd interview in 1980, Schweitzer’s sure taking an unorthodox route to a Democratic presidential candidacy. Yes, his complaints about Obama’s record are shared by quite a few progressive folk. But generally trashing Obama–or for that matter, trashing HRC–is not the way to build a base for a presidential campaign. According to the latest Gallup numbers, Obama’s job approval rating among self-identified liberal Democrats stands at 84%. That is rather high. Among African-Americans, who play a huge role in many Democratic presidential primaries, it’s at 86% (it’s only 58% among Hispanics, but that includes a decent number of Republicans).
As I’ve observed on more than one occasion, left-bent Democratic presidential nominating candidacies have failed again and again because of poor support from minority voters. There’s virtually nothing about Brian Schweitzer that gives him a natural connection to these voters (unless you count his reported proficiency in Arabic as appealing to Muslims). Making common cause with Republicans in Obama-bashing isn’t going to help.

I also noted that some of Schweitzer’s former fans in the netroots–most notably Markos Moulitsas–are annoyed that he took a pass on running for a critical Senate seat in Montana before seeing the next president of the United States in the mirror. All in all, if he does want to occupy the Oval Office, he’s not off to a great start.
BTW: lest you think this is all just premature crazy-talk given the calendar, keep in mind that we’re just two years away from the likely date of the 2016 Iowa Caucuses. Past candidates have in some cases taken up virtual residence there by this juncture.


Democrats: unity was absolutely indispensable for our recent victories but Dems also face divisive issues they must debate. It is therefore vital Dems figure out how to maintain maximum unity even as they disagree. Here’s where to start.

Democrats: unity was absolutely indispensable for our recent victories but Dems also face divisive issues they must debate. It is therefore vital Dems figure out how to maintain maximum unity even as they disagree. Here’s where to start.


Seifert: Republicans, Take Some Free Advice: Raise the Minimum Wage

The following article is by Erica Seifert of Democracy Corps:
We do not expect House Republicans to take up an increase in the minimum wage during this Congress. But if they did, they would find themselves on the right side of history and public opinion.
A survey of American adults released last week by Quinnipiac University found that 71 percent — including majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans — support raising the minimum wage; 51 percent believe it should be raised to $10.10 an hour or higher.
Our own research has found that raising the minimum wage is consistently and increasingly one of the most powerful policies that we test on our national surveys. As we hear in focus groups across the country, “The minimum wage is way below the cost of living.” These people are not policy experts, but they know the price of gas and groceries.
In a few weeks, Democracy Corps will be traveling to Denver to conduct live dial-meter groups during President Obama’s State of the Union address. Last year, the president’s call to raise the minimum wage to $9.00 an hour received strong approval from the Democrats and Independents in our group.
Carville-Greenberg-minimum-wage-chart.png
And yet congressional Republicans cannot find the will to even allow this issue to come to a vote.
Meanwhile, in unrelated news, the Center for Responsive Politics announced on Monday that — for the first time in history – more than half of all members of Congress are millionaires.


Shriver Report: Women on the Brink

The following is cross-posted from a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner e-blast:
On Monday, Maria Shriver, the Center for American Progress and AARP released the results of a comprehensive new poll of 3,500 Americans. The bipartisan poll–conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and TargetPoint Consulting and sponsored by AARP–reveals a public that understands the changing nature of American families, the economic stress these changes impose on women and the failure of policymakers to adapt to these changes. In a country divided politically, the public comes together to support bold policy changes–from paid leave, to protections for pregnant workers, to pay equity–that support women and families. This survey focuses specifically on “women on the brink:” Groups of women including those with a lower income, women of color, single mothers and others who are one misstep or one calamity away from poverty.
Among key findings of the survey:
An identical percentage of both men and women (71 percent) believe women are “essential” to the American economy.
Nearly two in three (64 percent) believe government should “adapt to the reality of single-parent households and use its resources to help children and mothers succeed regardless of their family status.” A much smaller 51 percent believe government should “reduce the number of children born to single-parents and use its resources to encourage marriage and two-parent households.”
The current economy does not work for many women in our country. Only 28 percent overall believe the phrase, “the harder I work, the more I fall behind,” applies to them. This rises to 54 percent among lower income women and 48 percent among single mothers.
Despite this, most of the women in the survey, including economically marginalized women, are optimistic about their future and their ability to improve their lives. An inspiring 92 percent of women of color, for example, believe, “I have the ability to make significant changes to make my life better.”
In policy terms, these women focus first and foremost on steps businesses and governments can take to accommodate family obligations. For example, paid leave is just as important to these women as increased pay and benefits.
Democrats and Republicans alike come together to support policies that adapt to new American families. An impressive 95 percent of Democrats favor pay equity, for example, as do 88 percent of Republicans.
Additional details about this Shriver Report’s research, including details on this poll can be found here.
In addition, those who want to hear a recording of a poll presentation given on Monday can call this number 1.855.859.2056 and enter Conference ID 33.15.68.42.


Reich’s 10-Point Program to Reduce Inequality

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has emerged as one of the more lucid policy journalists, with a knack for translating complex economic reforms into language that connects with everyday voters, as well as policy wonks. A recent short and simple entry from his blog, via Reader Supported News, “The Lousy Jobs Report and the Scourge of Inequality” rolls out an appealing menu of ten policy reforms in this excerpt:

Businesses won’t create new jobs without enough customers. But most Americans no longer have enough purchasing power to fuel that job growth.
That’s why it’s so important to (1) raise the minimum wage at least to its inflation-adjusted value 40 years ago – which would be well over $10 an hour, (2) extend unemployment benefits to the jobless, (3) launch a major jobs program to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, (4) expand Medicaid to the near-poor, (5) enable low-wage workers to unionize, (6) rehire all the teachers, social workers, police, and other public service employees who were laid off in the recession, (7) exempt the first $20,000 of income from Social Security payroll taxes and make up the difference by removing the cap on income subject to the tax.
And because the rich spend a far smaller proportion of their earnings than the middle class and poor, pay for much of this by (8) closing tax loopholes that benefit the rich such as the “carried interest” tax benefit for hedge-fund and private-equity managers, (9) raise the highest marginal tax rate, and (10) impose a small tax on all financial transactions.
One of the major political parties adamantly refuses to do any of this, and the other doesn’t have the strength or backbone to make them.
Make a ruckus.

If a war on inequality is indeed the Democrats’ best strategy for 2014-16, then Reich’s agenda makes good sense.


Dems: A Successful Populist Strategy Will Require More than Just Progressive Economics. It Must Also Include a Populist Approach to Overcoming the Widespread Distrust and Hostility toward Government

Dear Readers:
In the last few months a new populist consensus has dramatically emerged within the Democratic coalition. It includes a major focus on inequality as a central social issue, a renewed priority on reducing high unemployment and a commitment to developing a firm and comprehensive progressive economic agenda for the elections in 2016.
President Obama’s December speech on inequality and Bill and Hillary Clinton’s participation in Bill deBlasio’s inauguration this month highlighted the degree to which this new populist consensus now extends to all sectors of the Democratic coalition.
The complex challenge Democrats must now face is to convert this broad consensus into a set of specific programs and policies and a coherent political strategy that will be capable of convincing a majority of Americans to vote Democratic once again in 2016.
The Democratic Strategist is therefore pleased to present the following significant TDS Strategy Memo, the first of a series that will address this central challenge.
A Successful Populist Strategy Will Require More Than Just Progressive Economics. It must also Include a Populist Approach to Overcoming the Widespread Distrust and Hostility Toward Government.
You can read the Memo HERE
We believe you will find the memo extremely useful and important.
Sincerely
Ed Kilgore
Managing Editor
The Democratic Strategist


Political Strategy Notes

Even Christie’s mentor, the respected former Republican Governor Thomas H. Keane has serious doubts that the NJ governor is ready for prime time. Paul Steinhauser reports at CNN Politics that “Plenty in his own party happy to see Christie get comeuppance.”
With congress in gridlock, Nicholas Confessore writes in The New York Times about how “A National Strategy Funds State Political Monopolies.” Confessore notes, “”People who want to see policies enacted, and see things tried, are moving their activity to the states, and away from Washington,” said Ed Gillespie, a longtime Republican strategist who has played a central role in efforts to swing state legislatures to Republican control. “There is a sense that you can get things done.”…At a time when Washington appears hopelessly divided and gridlocked, elected officials in one-party states have aggressively reshaped government policy, whether legalizing same-sex marriage and marijuana, abolishing taxes and regulations, or restricting guns or labor unions.”
At New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait writes about “That Awkward Moment When Republicans Have to Hurt the Poor Before They Can Love Them.”
Chait, like TDS’s James Vega, also wonders if the Republicans’ top newspaper columnist is losing it.
For an interesting mini-history of Republican-driven voter suppression in a major swing state, read “Manipulating voting laws to win elections has long been a GOP game in Ohio” by ThePlain Dealer’s Thomas Suddes. Chrissie Thompson of the Cincinnati Enquirer explains the latest round of Ohio’s voter suppression laws here.
At the Social Worker Helper Shoshannah Sayers, deputy executive director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, explains how “Redistricting: The Hidden Side of Voter Suppression” disenfranchises minority voters in NC. Also at SWH Lydia Long writes about NC college students getting mobilized against voter suppression.
Even a right wing group’s commissioned poll finds that only 36 percent of respondents believe that voter fraud (which Republicans use to justify voter i.d. restrictions) is a “major problem,” reports Josh Israel at Think Progress.
Scott Clement reports at The Fix that “…43 percent of Democrats called themselves liberal in 2013, compared with just 32 percent who said this 10 years ago. The shift toward liberal identity has come about equally from moderates (minus five points since 2003) and conservatives (minus six points). By contrast, the trend line for liberal identity among Republicans and independents is flat.”
Wonkblog’s Neil Irwin makes the case why no one should get freaked out about the latest jobs report: “All the other evidence we have on how the economy is doing is inconsistent with a mere 74,000 newly added jobs, and in fact is more consistent with the 200,000-ish levels of previous months. Manufacturing surveys are reporting strong output. Trade numbers are looking favorable. Business investment appears strong. Indeed, overall GDP growth for the second half of 2013 now looks to have been the strongest in years.