A sober warning from TDS founding editor William Galston’s Wall St. Journal column, “American Optimism Rebounds–Cautiously: The encouraging trends are a flashing yellow light for both parties and their 2016 campaigns“: “Everything now depends on the trajectory of real wages and household incomes over the next 18 months. If they trend up noticeably, validating the current wave of optimism, we will have one kind of national election. If they do not, the Democratic nominee will be pressured to go beyond Mr. Obama’s policies, the Republican nominee will have to lay out a new conservative agenda that redeems the promise of real gains for working- and middle-class Americans, and economists of every persuasion will be called upon to explain how wages can remain stagnant even as labor markets tighten.”
At The Crystal Ball Alan I. Abramowitz explains why “the president’s rising approval rating in recent polls is good news for Hillary Clinton or whomever the Democratic Party eventually chooses as its nominee.”
Steve Singiser crunches some worrisome numbers at Daily Kos and discerns a trend in youth and senior turnouts that presents Dems with “tricky options.” As Singiser explains: “They will either need to reverse the recent trend with older voters (which would relieve the pressure on running up the score elsewhere) or they are going to need a massive youth turnout, and they will need, arguably, no less than 60 percent of them to vote Democratic. Neither are implausible, but both are tall orders. Democrats are better equipped to do so in 2016 (especially if this is anywhere in the realm of reality), but they have four years to figure out how to thread that needle to avoid another midterm meltdown.”
Blue Nation Review’s Jill Bond reports that depite the November elections downer, American unions had a pretty good year, including +92K new members for AFSCME, impressive victories in anti-labor states, including AL and TX, along with minimum wage hikes in 21 states.
Yikes. “A report released by the California Civic Engagement Project (CCEP) at UC Davis finds a mere 8.2 percent of eligible California youth, those aged 18-24, bothered to cast a ballot in the 2014 November election. That means more than 90 percent of young voters sat out the election…Youth comprised a paltry 3.9 percent of all ballots cast in California but accounted for 14.5 percent of the eligible voting population, according to the report authored by Mindy Romero, CCEP Executive Director. By contrast, voters aged 65-74 were overrepresented. This group constituted just 10.4 percent of eligible voters but cast 19.4 percent of all ballots…The study also found that the youth share of California votes is projected to steadily decline over the next 20 years. “Assuming youth maintain their 2012 eligible turnout rate (30.2%) constant through the 2040 general election, we project a steady decrease in the youth share of California’s vote, from 8.1% in 2012 to 6.9% in 2040…”
In Iowa Santorum stakes his claim as the GOP’s champion of blue collar workers. Robert Costa reports on his pitch at the Post.
Cokie Roberts has generated some buzz with her statement on ABC News This Week that President Obama “lost almost 70 Democrats since he’s been president, and more than 900 state legislators. So he needs to give Democrats something to run on.” Politifact says the stats are accurate. But the buzz around Roberts’s blame Obama’ meme fails to adequately address a key factor, the GOP’s new and highly effective strategy of sabotaging bipartisan cooperation at nearly every opportunity noted by James Vega. Also, it seems fair to ask if Democratic state parties’ candidate recruitment and development has atrophied and why.
Stu Rothenberg forecasts a Dem House pick-up between 5 and 20 seats in 2016, well short of the 30 needed to win a majority.
Are draconian parking restrictions reducing voter turnout? When you search “election day” +”parking problems,” google pulls up more than 14 thousand reports from all over the U.S. Some states have tax-free “holidays” for buying computers as the beginning of the school year approaches. Since parking restrictions seem to be on the rise in many cities, How about well-publicized parking ticket-free holidays on election day? Mayors, even in red states, could probably make it policy without legislation.

The following article by TDS founding editor William Galson, author of The New Challenge to Market Democracies: The Political and Social Costs of Economic Stagnation, is cross-posted from HuffPo:
As President Obama strode to the podium to deliver his 2015 State of the Union address, he had good reason to feel confident. Helped by a surge of job creation, and probably by lower gas prices as well, public satisfaction with the state of the economy and confidence in its future course had risen substantially during the past three months. Not coincidentally, so had the president’s job approval. Seemingly unfazed by his party’s rout in the 2014 midterm elections, he responded by going on the offensive with a series of bold executive orders and actions. And the White House’s innovative decision to release major policy proposals in advance of the speech garnered public attention, much of it favorable.
Still, as Mr. Obama began speaking, a key uncertainty remained: What balance would he strike between the desire to shape the political terrain for 2016 and the imperatives of governing in 2015? The former required bold initiatives, of a kind likely to evoke sharply negative reactions from Republicans who command majorities in both the House and the Senate. But successful legislating this year will require compromise with those very majorities. Could he thread the needle, making the Democratic political case for next year without undermining the possibility of legislative progress this year?
Mr. Obama delivered a clear, forceful, partisan speech whose substance stood in tension with his closing invocation of One America. In working to shape the political terrain for 2016, he may have weakened whatever prospects there were for meaningful cooperation with the opposition this year on issues other than trade.
The White House apparently believes that Republicans will be able to distinguish between agenda-setting rhetoric and the quieter process of legislation. Republican leaders probably can. Whether their rank-and-file will be able or willing to do the same is another matter. Early in his speech, the president tried to crystallize the changing public mood. We’ve been through tough times over the part fifteen years, and for many, the tough times remain. “But tonight,” he declared, “we turn the page.” He dubbed 2014 a “breakthrough year” for the U.S. economy and cited the end of U.S. combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Overall, he affirmed, “The shadow of crisis has passed.”
No doubt many Republicans would disagree, especially about the state of the world. And they would have a case. There is an arc of crisis from Europe to North Africa and throughout the Middle East. As the United States has retreated, the forces of oppression and anarchy have advanced. In recent surveys, majorities of Americans have expressed rising fears about terrorism and doubts that Mr. Obama’s approach to our adversaries has been tough enough. The president’s stated determination to avoid “costly wars that strain our military” may not reassure these skeptics. And his declaration that he would veto new sanctions on Iran while negotiations on its nuclear program continue will only bolster the determination of many legislators in both parties to enact those tougher measures.

Read more…

The painful process of winnowing down a potentially gigantic Republican president field is now officially underway with two events, one yesterday and one tomorrow.
Yesterday Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush got together in Utah to discuss–well, we don’t know exactly what they discussed. But what apparently began as a courtesy call by Bush on the “titular head of the Republican Party” became something else after Romney abruptly put himself back into the Invisible Primary with aggressive moves towards a candidacy. They’re now practically stumbling over each other in the pursuit of donors and perhaps campaign staff. Perhaps they divided them up yesterday; perhaps they just agreed neither of them would make any moves that would wind up representing a murder-suicide for the Establishment wing of the GOP. We’ll have to wait and see.
Tomorrow’s event is public (though it will undoubtedly be accompanied by private meetings and much kissing-of-the-ring of its primary host): the Iowa Freedom Summit being co-hosted by the famous nativist and all-around right-wing bully-boy Rep. Steve King in conjunction with the public-spirited folks at Citizens United. This is the first major “cattle call” of the 2016 cycle, where proto-candidates will give sequential speeches, mixed in with local and national conservative celebrities. The would-be presidents include John Bolton, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Scott Walker. Also there will be Jim DeMint, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, and Iowa’s new conservative heartthrob, Joni Ernst. Bush and Romney won’t be there because of “scheduling conflicts,” which might have been their Utah meet. Rand Paul won’t be there because he doesn’t do cattle calls (other than actual debates). Others (Pence, Kasich, Graham, Rubio) probably haven’t done enough to be counted as being serious about running. I have no idea why Bobby Jindal isn’t going to be there, other than it conflicting with his “trade mission” to Europe wherein he’s insulting Muslims.
In any event, aside from the speakers the event will include a large crowd of conservative activists and a horde of media folk. Both will be watching for several “stories:” (a) 2008 Iowa Caucus winner Mike Huckabee vs. 2012 winner Rick Santorum for Christian Right leadership; (b) Chris Christie dealing with a rare hostile audience; (c) Rick Perry trying to show his “new” slick persona; (d) Glenn Beck faction favorite Ben Carson with his first real spotlight speaking appearance; (e) Scott Walker trying to dispel the “Next Pawlenty” image by showing some fire; and (f) seeing who will do the most to pander publicly to King’s POV on immigration. There’s even a remote possibility someone will try to do a “Sister Souljah” gesture towards King and/or Iowa conservatives, though a tropical hurricane hitting Des Moines may be more likely.
But in any event, by Monday someone will have moved up or down–or maybe out–in the 2016 contest.

At The National Journal Karyn Bruggeman’s “Democrats’ Attempts to Win Back Working-Class Whites Are Getting an Early Test” reports on the second coming of Jack Conway, this time as Democratic candidate for Governor of Kentucky. “Republican strategist Scott Jennings views Conway a serious candidate, and anticipates Democrats will run a management-style campaign based on Beshear’s record, while doing what they can to avoid ideological issues… “I do believe he’s a better politician with a better story than Alison Grimes, and he actually has a resume,” said Jennings, who ran McConnell’s super PAC last year. “He’s a tougher candidate and a better candidate than he was in 2010.”
“In my state it’s working…People are healthier, they’re getting their lives back, they’re getting work, and that’s the reason I’m doing it.” – Ohio Republican Governor John Kasich on Obamacare, as reported by Greg Sargent.
Turns out the hog castratrix’s family has benefitted handsomely from government subsidies, despite her government-bashing. Jen Hayden has the story at Daily Kos.
The Daily Beast’s “How Can Obama Get His Mojo Back In the State of the Union? Study Bill Clinton” by Gil Troy is an interesting read for prospective Democratic candidates, a glimpse into what gives Bill Clinton’s political persona its magic. Troy offers this centrist advice for the President: “Obama can copy some Clinton tactics. With unemployment down but GDP up, Obama finally can deliver some of the good news his predecessor was lucky enough to sprinkle throughout his speeches. Obama can flummox Republicans and appeal to the public by seizing the center rather than lurching left, acting as president of all the people, not a partisan leader of the opposition-to-the-opposition. He can mix sweeping big-picture reforms with more easily achieved, small-bore adjustments that improve Americans’ quality of life. He might even integrate it all into a coherent, comprehensible, and accessible vision such as Clinton’s opportunity-responsibility-community mantra, so Americans have a sense of forward momentum.”
Those who believe the Democrats’ problem in too much centrism already, however, may prefer Michael Tomasky’s Beast post, “Obama Dares GOP to Help the Middle Class in His State of the Union,” which makes a case that Obama is now doing fine, honing in on a winning mantra: “People are now willing to start thinking about longer-term economic goals. A quickie CNN poll found that the speech was extremely well-received: 51 percent very positive, 30 percent somewhat positive, only 18 percent negative…That really should worry Republicans, no matter how many seats they have in Congress. Our politics is becoming about one big thing on which the Republicans have nothing to say. Actually, they do have something to say, and it’s “No!” They looked ridiculous, sitting on their hands, refusing to applaud simple and obvious things that have 60, 65 percent public support. I have a feeling more such moments await them.”
More than 56 million Americans, or about 19 percent, have disabilities, and over 38 million have severe disabilities, according to the U.S. Census. If you thought numbers like that would deter Rand Paul from suggesting that most of them are faking it, you would be wrong.
Way too early for gloating about poll numbers. But this graph in Jeremy Diamond’s CNN report may spotlight endurable weaknesses in the campaigns of the two GOP front-runners: “About a quarter of voters said Romney’s 2012 run as his party’s nominee makes it less likely they will support him in 2016 and 34% of voters said Jeb Bush’s legacy status — with a father and brother who have served as president — make them less likely to support his presidential ambitions.”
Larry J. Sabato explores the role of political slogans over the decades. Despite all of the work that goes into crafting campaign slogans, my hunch is that clever one-liners, sometimes delivered with no premeditation, (“Where’s the Beef?”) have had more impact in recent years.
Awesome ‘toonage.

I certainly agree with E.J.. Dionne’s contention that the president is discarding most of his lingering illusions about Republicans. But just as importantly, he’s learning to play them like a violin on occasions. I assessed his ability to flummox Republicans in the State of the Union Address over at TPM Cafe yesterday.

Republicans were very much bystanders last night. Obama did not allude to the midterm elections nor acknowledge the GOP takeover of the Senate. He did not treat Republican attacks on his use of executive authority as some sort of clash of the titans, and briskly bundled most of his veto threats into a single paragraph. His specific economic policy proposals (packaged as “middle class economics”) were exceedingly well-tested and very popular, and because Republicans oppose them all, he left them sitting on their hands.
And he managed to diminish recent GOP complaints and demands, dismissing the Keystone XL pipeline as just another infrastructure project, mocking the Cuba policies he is discarding as archaic, and describing his immigration actions as the exasperated expedient of a president tired of Republican divisions. Obama also probably wrong-footed Republicans by giving so little time to the tax proposals that got so much attention in the last few days. There was no hard-edged “populist” appeal to denounce as “class warfare” or “income redistribution.”

Sen. Joni Ernst’s official “response” to the SOTU Address wasn’t quite as disastrous as, say, Bobby Jindal’s in 2009. But it was empty and mostly focused on her autobiography, and it played right into Obama’s efforts to suggest that the GOP had nothing to “sell” on the economy beyond a controversial pipeline project (a big chunk of Ernst’s speech was about the Keystone XL).

What the evening indicated is that the GOP that came out of the November midterms so full of confidence and ready to put Barack Obama in his place continues to be off-balance and divided when it’s not simply opposing whatever the president proposes. And as the 2016 Republican presidential nominating process heats up–beginning just a few days from now with Rep. Steve King’s candidate vetting exercise in Des Moines, the so-called Iowa Freedom Summit–the vague pieties of King’s junior U.S. Senator tonight just won’t cut it.

Today the big news is that House Republicans have managed to screw up a one-car funeral by adding provisions to a long-awaited federal ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy that would limit the rape exception. This produced a revolt among House Republican woman and the handful of remaining “moderates” and forced the leadership to yank the bill–intended as a treat for visiting antichoice protesters in Washington for the annual March for Life–and substitute a less base-satisfying reconfirmation of the ban on federal funding for abortions.
No, the 114th Congress is not off to a real good start for the GOP.

In his Washington Post column “Obama ditches his illusions about Republicans,” E. J. Dionne, Jr. provides a perceptive analysis of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and a preview of the Administration’s endgame strategy leading up to 2016. Dionne explains:

“This is good news, people.”
With those five words, President Obama made clear that he thinks it’s far more important to win a long-term argument with his partisan and ideological opponents than to pretend that they are eager to seize opportunities to work with him. He decided to deal with the Republican Party he has, not the Republican Party he wishes he had.
Those ad-libbed words followed what ranks as one of the more polemical passages ever offered in a State of the Union address. “At every step, we were told our goals were misguided or too ambitious,” he declared, “that we would crush jobs and explode deficits. Instead, we’ve seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade, our deficits cut by two-thirds, a stock market that has doubled, and health-care inflation at its lowest rate in 50 years.”
Good news, indeed, and in telling the Republicans that all their predictions turned out to be wrong, he reminded his fellow citizens which side, which policies and which president had brought the country back.
His analysis of the nature of his political opposition, in turn, dictated the approach he took in the rest of the speech. There was no point in hedging on his wishes, constraining his hopes or compromising in advance. Earlier in his administration, he might have begun the negotiations by offering his interlocutors their asking price upfront and then moving backward from there. No more.

Dionne notes the specific reforms the President proposed: redistributive tax proposals, guaranteed sick leave for all, expanded child care, tuition-free community college, equal pay for equal work, “laws that strengthen rather than weaken unions,” as well as a free trade agreement (which unions oppose).
Dionne concludes, “Obama clearly still believes that the country is less divided than our politics allows us to be. But he is no longer drawn to the illusion that his adversaries in the other party will beat their swords into plowshares anytime soon. He is battling not just for a personal legacy but also on behalf of a perspective that he hopes the country will someday embrace.”
Many progressives feel that President Obama took too long to accept that the Republicans had no interest in bipartisan compromises. But Dionne is right that Obama’s SOTU ends the era of extending olive branches to a party more interested in destroying his presidency than helping Americans achieve economic and health security.

The following article is cross-posted from a DCorps e-blast:
Online dial testing with 61 white swing voters across the United States and two follow-up online focus groups – one with white non-college educated men and women and one with unmarried women – show that President Obama’s agenda to bring America closer together as a “tight knit family” scored big. The President’s speech generated strong, positive reactions to policies ranging from investment in infrastructure and college education to a populist agenda that takes on special interests and the wealthy in order to make sure the middle class gets its fair share.

“Let’s close the loopholes that lead to inequality by allowing the top one percent to avoid paying taxes on their accumulated wealth. We can use that money to help more families pay for childcare and send their kids to college.”
His proposals resulted not only in major gains on crucial traits and issues, but bolstered the President’s standing as well. President Obama’s personal favorability improved from a neutral rating (44 percent warm, 44 percent cool) to a net +33 (66 percent warm, 33 percent cool), the largest post-State of the Union shift seen for the President in recent years. Tonight’s speech clearly inspired our audience of swing voters.
The President comes away from this address with much to celebrate. In focus groups, voters note that the President was stronger, more confident, and more relaxed than they have seen him recently, and that they liked his positive vision, with one participant concluding that the president was “almost the guy that was elected 6 years ago, that [was] going to do a lot for the country.”
The President was also successful in crafting an agenda that reached across partisan lines. Despite a deep partisan divide in the November elections and in various issue debates, there was little polarization between Democrats and Republicans throughout the speech, with the Republican dials near or above 50 for most of the President’s address.
The President successfully communicated a strong sense of advocacy for middle class Americans, reflected in big gains on impressions of him as a leader, someone who is on voters’ side, and someone who understands the challenges facing Americans. Voters also express greater confidence in the President than in Republicans on key issues Obama highlighted in the speech–including growing American industries, jobs and trade, handling issues facing working women and families, finding new ways to get better jobs that pay more, and having good plans for the economy.
Importantly, the President also appealed to key voters he and Democrats need to win–particularly unmarried women and working class voters. However, there is more work to do to convince these swing voters that the President and Congress can come together on issues and actually make progress on this ambitious agenda.
Read the full memo