The following article by Anna Greenberg, Senior Vice President at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, is cross-posted from HuffPo:
In 2004, John Kerry had a problem with women voters. Pundits declared that Kerry was losing women voters – the so-called Security Moms – due to their deep-seated concerns about terrorism. These security moms simply trusted George Bush more to keep their children safe. Never mind that this swing bloc of mothers did not exist (security-focused women voters were Republicans), it was also clear that concerns about terrorism were not the main drivers of women’s vote choice (see my piece, “The Security Mom Myth“). This narrative was but one in a long series of narratives (e.g., Soccer Mom, Waitress Mom) that stereotype and simplify a complex and diverse women’s electorate.
Ten years later, here we go again. The tragic and horrific acts by Islamic State, Russian aggression and the deepening crisis in Iraq are disturbing and contribute to a sense of unease at a time when most voters think the country is on the wrong track. Recently, the NRCC launched a new ad offensive against Democrats highlighting a “weakness” on terrorism, declaring that Staci Appel (IA-3) would give “passports to terrorists,” that Dan Maffei (NY-24) would give terrorists constitutional rights and that Rick Nolan (MN-08) does not support the fight against Al Queda.
Some now declare the reemergence of the Security Mom, citing surveys and focus groups that show women expressing elevated levels of concern about safety and security with ominous implications for Democrats. To be sure, an election cycle defined by security concerns would not be ideal for Democrats.
But we should not conflate an expression of concern about terrorism with it as a driver of vote choice. First, voters typically look to the President and to the military for security, not to members of Congress. (Name one Democratic incumbent who lost his or her office for voting against the first, and popular, Iraq War.) Moreover, there is a world of difference between where we are now and where we were just after the 9-11 attacks. According to Gallup, in June 2002, 46 percent said terrorism was the most important problem facing the US; just 4 percent do so today. A majority of voters says that this year, their decisions will be driven by domestic issues. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (9/3-7), 64 percent of voters say that domestic issues such as the economy, healthcare, and immigration are more important to their vote than international issues such as Iraq, Russia and terrorism (22 percent).
It is true that a few surveys suggest women are more concerned about terrorism than men: for instance, in a CNN/ORC poll (9/5-7), 18 percent of women say they are very worried about terrorism compared to 8 percent of men. But in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, there is no difference between men and women in prioritizing domestic issues over international issues when it comes to the election. In a Pew Research Center study (9/2-9), the biggest “priority gaps” between men and women are on issues like abortion, birth control, economic inequality and healthcare rather, than terrorism and foreign policy.
Finally, men are significantly more likely to support military action around the world. This has been true historically and it is true now. In another Pew study (9/11-14), women are more opposed (33 percent) than men (25 percent) to “Obama’s plan for a military campaign against Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria” and more concerned (46 percent) than men (37 percent) that US military action will “go too far”.
There is no doubt that Americans are feeling a profound sense of insecurity and recent international turmoil contributes to this unease. But voters are still more focused on the state of affairs at home with women are no more likely to prioritize terrorism and security as a voting issue than men. Even in the “Walmart Mom” focus groups cited in most coverage of this issue, the authors note that women’s concerns about the Islamic State were tied up with other issues related to safety like school shootings, Ferguson, and crime. But every election cycle, commentators trot out gender stereotypes to try to define the “women’s vote” as a monolithic bloc and this election is no different.

It comes a little late for the 2014 midterm elections, but Brian Beutler’s “How to Save Obamacare: Make It a Women’s Issue” at The New Republic has some buzz-worthy advice for Democrats:

As Matt Yglesias observed at Vox last week, in our political discourse, we tend to lump all “women’s issues” together into the same category as culture war flashpoints like abortion. But for public opinion purposes, this is a big mistake. In truth, the politics of things like childcare and wage equality cut very differently than the “social” issues we associate them with, and that’s at least in part because they alter the distribution of income. Higher wages, family leave, subsidized childcare–all of these increase women’s income, and, thus, their economic power.
That helps explain why they’re winning political issues. Transfer payments and “big government” aren’t exactly in vogue right now, but gender equity is very popular. And the key is that Obamacare doesn’t stand apart from these issues in any way.
Whether you like Obamacare or you hate it, chances are you don’t think of it as a heavily gendered initiative, like equal pay. But though the debate over Obamacare centers around nominally gender-neutral values–should the government guarantee coverage, and are the benefits too generous?–the law operates as a substantial income transfer from men to women. For the past few years, this aspect of the law has given rise to rancorous debates over contraception and maternity care. But the contraception and maternity care guarantees are both manifestations of the fact that the law prohibits gender rating. Women consume more health care than men. This is in large part by accident of the fact that men don’t get pregnant and give birth. Before Obamacare, insurers sorted that out by charging women higher premiums than men. Women were therefore less likely to be able to afford insurance on the individual market than men, more financially dependent on their employers for insurance than men, and thus faced greater tensions between their familial and professional ambitions than men. Obamacare doesn’t end these inequalities, obviously, but it seeks to curb them. As a result, employers and spouses are less able to interfere in women’s professional and reproductive decision making.

Beutler goes on to note that “In polling Obamacare fares noticeably worse with men than with women and points out that “the ACA substantially enhances women’s economic security.” At this point it appears that the most serious threats to Obamacare comes from Supreme Court meddling, not from voters — it’s unlikely that Republicans are going to get enough of a majority to repeal it and replace it with nothing anytime in the foreseeable future. But it may be that a campaign to better inform women swing voters about the ACA’s benefits for women could help Democrats in 2016, if not in 2014.

Georgia has highest unemployment rate of 50 states, Republican Governor suggests statistical conspiracy has suddenly erupted. Meanwhile Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp is reportedly “sitting on” 51 thousand voter registration forms.
From Jackie Calmes’s “To Win Back Older Voters, Democrats Talk Up Social Security” in the New York Times: “Democrats are stepping up their appeals to older voters in the final stretch before the midterm elections, spurred by polls showing the party has regained some support lost in the Obama years…”Doing even a little bit better with seniors can have a substantial impact,” Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster, said.”…In the first half of September, one in five Democratic ads dealt with either a candidate’s commitment to the programs or, more often, the threat from Republicans, according to Kantar Media CMAG, a nonpartisan media monitor. By comparison, one in 10 Republican ads mentioned the programs, typically to answer Democrats’ assaults.”
At The Daily Beast Linda Kilian has a profile of Sam Wang, “Meet the One Numbers-Cruncher Who Foresees Democrats Holding the Senate.”
Costco, which used to favor Democrats in political contributions, is now shifting their money to Republicans in Washington state. Something to do with liquor taxes. “We’ve had support from certain Republicans in the Legislature, and we thought it was appropriate. It’s as simple as that,” [Costco CEO Jim] Sinegal said of the donations. “I’ve been supportive of Democrats in the past, and on a national basis continue to be.”
“Can Obama Use the Campaign Against ISIS to His Political Advantage? Probably Not,” argues George E. Condon at The National Journal.
Aaron Blake charts “The decline of the conservative Democrat” at The Fix, and cites an 11-point slide in NC and AR voters who self i.d. as Democrats since 2008.
“Younger voters, who tend to back Democrats but are less likely than other groups to turn out during midterm years, are among the least interested in the election. In the new Journal/NBC/Annenberg survey, only 20% of voters younger than 35 said they had a keen interest in the election…Among people age 65 and older, a far higher share, 62%, described themselves as highly interested in the election,” reports Reid J. Epstein at The Wall. St. Journal.
Kyle Kondik of Sabato’s Crystal Ball moves NC Senate race from toss-up to “leans Democratic.”
New American Media’s Khalil Abdullah explores “Will Ferguson Be a Tipping Point for Black Youth Voter Turnout?”

There are a lot of obnoxious Republican candidates running for high office this November. But none of them bug me as much as Tom Cotton of Arkansas. I explained why at Washington Monthly yesterday, after reading a long profile of the man from Molly Ball of The Atlantic:

Cotton’s special status as the not-so-secret superstar of the GOP’s future isn’t just attributable to the resume or to his intellectual or political talents (the latter, in fact, are suspect when it comes to actual voters). A lot of it is about the way in which he manages to be a True Believer in the most important tenets of all the crucial Republican factions. He’s adored by Neocons, the Republican Establishment, the Tea Folk, the Christian Right, and most of all by the Con-Con cognoscenti that draw from both these last two categories. He will immediately be a national leader if he’s elected to the Senate, perhaps succeeding Jim DeMint as the guy who is in charge of keeping the pressure on the party to move steadily right on every front. (One might think Ted Cruz performs that function, but he’s a bit too clearly self-serving).
Ball puts a lot of emphasis on what we can learn about Cotton from his college thesis, which he gained access to in an exclusive. I’d say it most confirms what we already know: the man believes America has drifted from an inflexibly perfect ideology down the road to serfdom and conquest via the willingness of politicians to follow rather than lead the greedy masses who look to government to compensate for their moral weaknesses.

[The thesis] is in keeping with the rigidly idealistic persona, and the starkly moralistic worldview, he has exhibited since he was an undergraduate. It is a harsh, unyielding, judgmental political philosophy, one that makes little allowance for compassion or human weakness.

It’s especially revealing that this Man of Principle is campaigning in Arkansas as a generic Republican, counting on the partisan leanings of the state and midterm turnout patterns to give him a Senate seat that a more candid presentation of his views might endanger, even in such a conservative state. I don’t know that it would matter to most Arkansans that they have the power to make or break Cotton’s career as a smarter version of Jim DeMint, but they do.

And if it doesn’t matter to Arkansans, it does to the rest of us who might otherwise have to deal with his self-righteousness for Lord knows how long.

With a majority of prognosticators (but not all of them) still predicting enough Republican gains to produce a change of control, it’s a good a time as any to look at some of the factors that could turn the trajectory around. I discussed several at TPMCafe yesterday:

What should prudent Republicans fear?
Money. You may find it shocking to learn that Democrats actually appear to have a national money and advertising advantage, at least in Senate races. But it’s true. Here’s how Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report puts it in his National Journal column:

Perhaps the biggest untold story of this election is how so many Republican and conservative donors, at least those whose last name isn’t Koch, have kept their checkbooks relatively closed. In many cases, GOP candidates are not enjoying nearly the same financial largesse that existed in 2012, and in some races, they are well behind Democrats …
Many Republican and conservative donors appear to be somewhat demoralized after 2012. They feel that they were misled about the GOP’s chances in both the presidential and senatorial races that year, and/or their money was not well spent. In short, they are giving less if at all, and it has put Republican candidates in a bind in a number of places.

As for the Kochs, they haven’t outgunned Democrats as they expected either, as the Washington Post‘s Matea Gold explains:

Led by a quartet of longtime political strategists with close ties to Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Majority PAC has elbowed out other pro-Democratic groups and been on the leading edge of attacks against conservative donors Charles and David Koch. The group has become a fixed center of gravity in the left’s expanding constellation of super PACs and interest groups.
Perhaps most notably, the super PAC has held its own on the air against Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group that is the primary political organ of a network backed by the Koch brothers and other wealthy donors on the right. By the end of the summer, the two groups had run nearly the same volume of television ads nationwide, according to Kantar Media/CMAG data analyzed by the Wesleyan Media Project.
The “Republicans will get all the breaks down the home stretch” assumption a lot of folks are making could be based on mistaken ideas of GOP financial supremacy.

Turnout. We’ll soon know if the much-discussed $60 million Bannock Street Project of the DSCC, aimed at applying the targeted voter outreach efforts of the 2012 Obama campaign to the enormously critical task of reducing the party’s “midterm falloff problem,” is a myth or a miracle, or (more likely) something in-between. My own guess is that it’s likely to have the greatest impact in states with a previously under-mobilized minority vote (e.g., Arkansas and Georgia), or with an exceptionally strong pre-existing GOTV infrastructure (e.g., Iowa). Polling this year is generally showing a “likely voter” boost for Republicans that’s substantial but not as large as in 2010; reducing it even more — perhaps beneath the polling radar — is the Bannock Street Project’s goal.
Misinformation. It’s alway possible that the impression of a big year for Republicans is based on inadequate information, including spotty or inaccurate polls. That, of course, can cut both ways. FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver suggested this week that polling in Alaska over the last several cycles has consistently over-estimated Democratic performance. But on the other hand, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution survey giving Republican gubernatorial and Senate candidates in Georgia a small lead among likely voters estimated the African-American percentage of the electorate at 24 percent, significantly lower than in 2010, which seems, well, very unlikely. There’s also a very recent polling trend in Colorado, North Carolina, Iowa, and Michigan suggesting that these states may not look as good for Republicans as before, calling into question a general impression of a uniform pro-GOP drift.
Kansas. Nobody handicapping 2014 races as recently as three weeks ago factored in the possibility that Kansas, of all places, might become a sudden GOP sinkhole. Now Sen. Pat Roberts is in real and consistent trouble against independent candidate Greg Orman, as part of what appears to be a self-conscious revolt of moderate Republican voters who are also threatening to throw Gov. (and former Sen.) Sam Brownback out of office. Even if a national GOP intervention saves the Kansas ticket, this is money and effort that was supposed to be expended somewhere else.
And the sudden emergence of Kansas as a battleground raises on other possibility pre-triumphal Republicans should ponder:
Candidate Error. While Republicans avoided nominating a Christine O’Donnell or a Ken Buck this year (Senate nominees who were obviously weaker in a general election than their primary rivals), it’s not clear yet they didn’t unconsciously nominate another Todd Aiken or Richard Mourdock (purveyors of siliver-bullet-disaster gaffes) or Sharron Angle (someone with a rich record of extremist positions that negative ads could exploit). While Iowa Democrat Bruce Braley probably committed the most damaging single gaffe (his remark to Texas lawyers about an “Iowa farmer” chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee in the event of a GOP takeover) of the cycle so far, his opponent, Joni Ernst, seems capable of something just as bad, and also has Angle’s problem of telling wingnuts exactly what they wanted to hear for too long. And until Braley dissed Chuck Grassley, the most gaffe-prone Senate candidate in the country was probably Georgia’s David Perdue, who’s hardly out of the woods himself.

The tendency of Republicans to proclaim victory prematurely may turn modest gains into disappointment, if they aren’t careful.

At NBC News Alastair Jamieson, Kiko Itasaka and Kelly Cobiella ask “Will Scotland’s Independence Referendum Be Decided by Teen Voters?” Like Brazilians, Scots can now vote at age 16.
HuffPost Pollster reports that “A Quarter Of Gubernatorial Races Look Like Tossups.”
Union organizer gets McArthur “Genius grant.”
Tired of all the pundit prognosticating about the midterm elections? The Upshot has a gizmo you can use to “Make Your Own Senate Forecast.”
This is an interesting take on faith-based GOTV.
Michael D. Shear and Carl Hulse make a case at The New York Times that “World Events Muffle Democrats’ Economic Rallying Cry.” They are right that there’s not much that can be done about media giving most of the air time and ink to the horrific violence in the Middle East. But Dems should be able to score a few points by reminding voters that Republicans initiated the disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan that helped create it and sent the U.S. and world economies into a tailspin.
Here’s a good update on political apps.
Lots of “Dems in disarray” hoo ha in the MSM this week. But Greg Sargent flags a telling comment from Karl Rove that “each passing day brings evidence as to why a GOP Senate majority is still in doubt.” Sargent notes also that Republicans get squirmy at the mere mention of anything to do with reproductive rights these days, and “Rove’s own Crossroads GPS has reacted by running ads designed to simply change the subject, which suggests that Dems really are turning cultural issues to their advantage.”
Wouldn’t it be more surprising if it were otherwise?

At The Nation John Nichols posts on “Scotland’s Referendum on Austerity,” with the theme of his argument well-encapsulated in the title. Nichols writes from Glasgow:

Thursday’s Scottish referendum vote is often framed in terms of the politics of nationalism–and the desire of a people for self-determination. And of course there have always been, and there still are, impassioned Scottish nationalists…But the reality that becomes overwhelmingly clear in the last hours before the referendum vote–which polls suggest will see an exceptionally high turnout and a close finish–is that this process is being shaped by the politics of austerity.
… [British Prime Minister David]Cameron has implemented an austerity agenda that threatens the National Health Service and broader social services, undermines trade unions and communities, and deepens inequality. Despite the devolution of some powers to a Scottish Parliament over the past decade, Scotland is still governed in many of the most important senses from London–even though less than 17 percent of Scots backed Cameron’s Conservatives in the last election, giving the Tories just one of Scotland’s fifty-nine seats in the British Parliament.

So, clearly, Scotland would be better off independent from a purely progressive standpoint, in the sense that it could get free of Tory economic austerity policies. He adds that the “Yes, Scotland” campaign will mean:

We can use Scotland’s wealth to build a fairer nation.
Scotland’s NHS [National Health Service] will be protected from creeping privatization.
We spend money on childcare instead of Trident missiles.
A lower pension age and higher pensions.
The end of Tory governments we don’t vote for.
Decisions about Scotland will be made by the people who care most about Scotland, the people who live here.

Even if the independence vote fails, writes Nichols, The Tory government will face enormous pressure to relax austerity policies. So the referendum will do some good for working people in Scotland, regardless of the outcome. Hard to argue with any of that if you are a progressive, right?
Hmmm. Maybe not. Michael Tomasky looks at it from a different angle at The Daily Beast. But first, consider that Scotland has a population of about 5.3 million, about the same as metro Detroit. England, however, has a population of about 53 million, about 10 times that of Scotland. Further, adds Tomasky:

The biggest implications of tomorrow’s Scottish vote are political, and they aren’t good for Labour in the long term.
Imagine with me for a moment that the states of New England left the United States of America. Yes, absurd–if anyone ought to leave someday, it’s the yellow-bellies who left the last time so that they could preserve their God-given right to keep other humans as property, not the patriots who founded the damn country. But let’s pretend.
Well, the implications would be many and weighty, both for the diminished USA and for the new entity. How would all the economic questions be sorted out? Would the New Englanders need passports? What would American higher education be without Harvard and Yale and the others? Would the Celtics stay in the NBA? But being a political person, I’d find the most interesting questions to be the political ones, and of the many that would arise, the bluntest would clearly be: Could the Democrats ever win a presidential election again?

Tomasky adds with impressive candor “I can’t say that I care about Scotland one way or the other, but I do care whether Labour can continue to win elections, and if you care about that too, this is the sense in which you have a stake in the outcome… You take away Scotland, you take a major base of Labour strength. No wonder Labour is making a huge “no” push, sending native son Gordon Brown up to campaign as the vote nears.”
Tomasky links to a nifty graphic representation of the political stakes of the vote on Scottish independence, which you can see right here.
No doubt Prime Minister Cameron doesn’t want to be the U.K. leader who presided over the final dissolution of the empire, but some of his fellow Tories are licking their lips at the prospect of purging Scotland’s Labour M.P.s. Cameron is also surely worried that a “yes” vote would restart the troubles in Ireland in a big way, and perhaps lead to the unification of Eire, and history would say it’s all his fault.
But it’s not an easy call for thoughtful progressives. Sure self-determination is a good thing from a liberal point of view. But millions of English workers — and the Labour Party of our closest ally getting politically-screwed — not so much.

From Samnatha Lachman’s HuffPo post “Here’s How Progressives Plan To Beat Back The GOP Tide“:

“How do you encourage a discouraged electorate?” Karen Nussbaum, Working America’s executive director, asked at a press briefing last week…”It’s a matter of reaching these folks,” she said, explaining that the organization has set a goal of reaching 1.5 million households — or 2.5 million voters — by Nov. 4. The group plans to hold 25,000 face-to-face conversations with voters every week until then.
…As part of this effort, roughly 400 Working America canvassers will go door-to-door between now and Election Day to talk to voters, with instructions to steer the conversation away from disapproval of President Barack Obama toward more local economic issues. The group’s rationale is that while white, working-class males might remain agitated with Obama, they could nonetheless be persuaded on economic grounds to vote for Democrats in key races, like Mark Schauer, who is running against Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R), or Alison Lundergan Grimes, who is challenging Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Lachman quotes Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, “who surveyed 1,000 low-propensity Democratic voters in the group’s target states, such as those who did not vote in the 2010 midterms but voted in 2012 because Obama was on the ballot.”

In a memo for MoveOn summarizing the poll results, Lake listed a number of messages that motivated so-called “drop-off” voters, including: “Republicans will take away a woman’s right to choose and restrict access to birth control”; “Republicans will cut access to health care for 8 million people and let insurance companies refuse to cover people with preexisting conditions”; “Republicans will cut back workplace protections for women, denying them equal pay for equal work”; and “Republicans will cut funding for Head Start and K-12 education.” Voters were also swayed by the idea that their state could decide which party controls the Senate.

Meanwhile, AFL-CIO Political Director Michael Podhorzer says that his canvassers will be “talking with voters “about how they’re going to pay their gas bills or rent, how they’re going to get by,” they will understand how voting for a Republican incumbent will lead to more of the same…”This is about taking the election down from the cacophony on television to, ‘How are you going to make your mortgage payment?”
All good messages for 2014. But it’s about making it personal this time, not only with ad buys and other tools of the media arsenal, but with more up-close, face-to-face contact and the human touch.