washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

Month: March 2015

Political Strategy Notes

Alan I. Abramowitz offers an observation in his concluding chapter in The Surge, the U.Va. Center for Politics’ new book about the 2014 and 2016 elections, which ought to inform the strategy of all Democratic campaigns in 2016: “In 2014…Republican House candidates defeated Democratic House candidates by a whopping 30 percentage points among white voters without a college degree, according to the national exit poll. The ability of the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate to reduce the Republican margin among white working-class voters, who were once a vital component of the Democratic electoral coalition, may be just as important as turnout among nonwhites in determining the outcome of the election.”

At Reuters David Adams reports that a Feb. 26-7 poll by Beyond the Beltway found that “most American voters support expanding trade, travel, and diplomatic relations with Havana…Some 64 percent of those surveyed supported ending the embargo, including 74 percent of Democrats, 51 percent of Republicans, and 64 percent of independents…A larger majority of voters – 72 percent – supported expanding travel and trade by Americans and having diplomatic relations with Cuba. Of those, 64 percent of Republicans under the age of 50 agreed that the recent policy changes “are in the best interests of the U.S. and Cuban people.”
For a small state, Maryland has a lot of impressive Democratic political talent, and the upcoming U.S. Senate race to fill retiring Sen. Barbara Mikulski’s seat is shaping up as a marquee contest with tough choices for progressives. Sheryl Gay Stolberg has the story at The New York Times.

“As compared with non-right-to-work states, wages in right-to-work states are 3.2 percent lower on average, or about $1,500 less a year,” according to Elise Gould, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute. So how about a poll that asks respondents “Would you support a ‘right to work’ law, even though states that have these laws have 3.2 percent lower average wages?”

From the report, “America Goes to the Polls 2014“: “States with Election Day Registration (EDR) far outpaced states that don’t allow voters to register or fix a registration problem on Election Day. Voter turnout in the EDR States averaged 48%, 12 points above voter turnout in non-EDR states. Four states used EDR for the first time in a midterm in 2014, bringing the total number of states using EDR to 13…Seven of the top ten states in voter turnout were Election Day Registration states.”

But it’s not all about EDR: The report also notes that “Nine of the top ten had competitive statewide races. In contrast, the 19 states with the lowest turnout states in 2014 had no competitive statewide races. Nor did any of those bottom 19 states allow voters to correct a registration issue when they went to vote. Nevada, Tennessee, New York, Texas and Indiana made up the bottom five with barely more than a quarter of their state’s voters participating.”
From the same report, here are the leading reasons given for not voting in the 2014 midterm elections: 1. Schedule Conflicts with Work or School – 35%; 2. Too Busy, Out of Town, Sick, or Forgot – 34%; 3. Didn’t Like Candidates, Didn’t Know Enough or Didn’t Care – 20%; 4. Missed Registration Deadline, Recently Moved, or No Transportation – 10%.

In his Washington Monthly post, “Beware the Narrative,” TDS managing editor Ed Kilgore adds to an insightful observation in a “The Week” post by Paul Waldman. Kilgore notes: “I became really phobic about “narratives” during the 2014 election cycle, when the “Great-Big-Adults-of-the-GOP-are-back-in-charge” narrative first drove primary coverage, and then affected the general election as MSM types refused to see The Crazy in GOP candidates like Joni Ernst and Thom Tillis and Tom Cotton–because The Narrative said it had been banished. That’s one of the larger lessons I wrote about in Election 2014, as a matter of fact…Media types should know their own temptations well enough to be on constant alert of narrative-driven coverage of Hillary Clinton. Once they go there, it will be hard ever to come back.”

The New York Times editorial “Republican Idiocy on Iran” observes “Besides being willing to sabotage any deal with Iran (before they know the final details), these Republicans are perfectly willing to diminish America’s standing as a global power capable of crafting international commitments and adhering to them.” The editorial also quotes President Obama: “It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” he said. “It’s an unusual coalition.”


March 11: Republicans May Be Privately Praying SCOTUS Saves Obamacare Subsidies

Theda Skocpol of Harvard and Lawrence Jacobs of the University of Minnesota have published the best analysis yet available of what will and won’t likely happen if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down certain Obamacare subsidies in the case of King v. Burwell. I wrote about it earlier today at the Washington Monthly:

Skocpol and Jacobs note that the major national policy changes–most notably bans on discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, and limitations on price discrimination against the old and the sick–would stay in place. And in states that either already have or could be expected to quickly adopt their own exchanges, life would go on as before:

Overall, from half to three-fifths of Americans reside in states where subsidies probably or certainly would not be discontinued. These states almost all have effectively functioning marketplaces where growing numbers of insurers are offering competitively priced plans and making solid profits.

The rest of the states are for the most part governed by conservative Republicans, and aside from the immediate distress of people losing subsidies and probably insurance altogether, Obamacare waivers that adapted exchanges for use by the entire Medicaid population would be endangered. Worst of all, the ensuing debate will focus on the real linchpin of GOP resistance to Obamacare, which is equitable treatment of old and sick people. But as Skocpol and Jacobs note, that is precisely the most popular element of the Affordable Care Act.

So far, Republicans have been able to denounce “ObamaCare” without discussing popular specifics. But that strategy will collapse if the Supreme Court threatens profits and benefits already in place – and a new Republican Party strategy may prove hard to devise amid splits between ultra-conservatives eager to destroy the health reform law and pragmatists seeking to modify and live with it.

Yep, that about sums it up. Conservatives may be publicly asking SCOTUS to toss a spear into the Great White Whale of Obamacare. But privately they may be praying for a reprieve from waves of discontent that might capsize their entire ship.

The other wrinkle worth mentioning is the idea floated by Justice Alito during oral arguments over King v. Burwell that the Court might strike down the subsidies but build in a delay in the effective date to let Congress and/or the states get their acts together. But as Skocpol and Jacobs show, the dilemmas the situation creates for Republicans aren’t going to be cured by time.


Republicans May Be Privately Praying SCOTUS Saves Obamacare Subsidies

Theda Skocpol of Harvard and Lawrence Jacobs of the University of Minnesota have published the best analysis yet available of what will and won’t likely happen if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down certain Obamacare subsidies in the case of King v. Burwell. I wrote about it earlier today at the Washington Monthly:

Skocpol and Jacobs note that the major national policy changes–most notably bans on discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, and limitations on price discrimination against the old and the sick–would stay in place. And in states that either already have or could be expected to quickly adopt their own exchanges, life would go on as before:

Overall, from half to three-fifths of Americans reside in states where subsidies probably or certainly would not be discontinued. These states almost all have effectively functioning marketplaces where growing numbers of insurers are offering competitively priced plans and making solid profits.

The rest of the states are for the most part governed by conservative Republicans, and aside from the immediate distress of people losing subsidies and probably insurance altogether, Obamacare waivers that adapted exchanges for use by the entire Medicaid population would be endangered. Worst of all, the ensuing debate will focus on the real linchpin of GOP resistance to Obamacare, which is equitable treatment of old and sick people. But as Skocpol and Jacobs note, that is precisely the most popular element of the Affordable Care Act.

So far, Republicans have been able to denounce “ObamaCare” without discussing popular specifics. But that strategy will collapse if the Supreme Court threatens profits and benefits already in place – and a new Republican Party strategy may prove hard to devise amid splits between ultra-conservatives eager to destroy the health reform law and pragmatists seeking to modify and live with it.

Yep, that about sums it up. Conservatives may be publicly asking SCOTUS to toss a spear into the Great White Whale of Obamacare. But privately they may be praying for a reprieve from waves of discontent that might capsize their entire ship.

The other wrinkle worth mentioning is the idea floated by Justice Alito during oral arguments over King v. Burwell that the Court might strike down the subsidies but build in a delay in the effective date to let Congress and/or the states get their acts together. But as Skocpol and Jacobs show, the dilemmas the situation creates for Republicans aren’t going to be cured by time.


Working Class Discontent Limned in New Poll

The headline is not completely justified by the story, but John Merline’s Investors Business Daily report on a new IBD/TIPP poll on working-class attitudes towards the President and current economic policies and trends should be of interest to Democrats in particular.
Merline explains that self-identified “working-class” respondents in the poll had an average family income of “just over $50,700 (in comparison to those who self-i.d. themselves as “middle class,” who had and average family income of $70,800, and self-i.d. “upper-middle class” with “close to $100,000” in average family income):

By wide margins, this group is more likely to say the country is headed in the wrong direction, the economy is getting worse, and they fear losing their jobs than any other income class…Just 36% approve of the job Obama is doing as president, compared with 43% overall, and vast majorities say his policies haven’t helped the middle class.

Merline adds further,

..nearly two thirds of the working class (64%) say the country is headed in the wrong direction. Nearly as many (60%) say they’re not satisfied with federal economic policies. And 53% say the economy is not improving.
This is in sharp contrast to the views of the upper-middle class. More than half of this group (51%) say the country is headed in the right direction, 53% are satisfied with federal economic policies, and 65% say the economy is improving.
Meanwhile, about 43% of working-class families are worried that they or someone in their household could lose their jobs in the next 12 months. That’s higher than any other income class — even lower-class people are less concerned. Just 28% of the nation as a whole are worried about layoffs.
The working class are even more likely to say their taxes are too high (61% say this) than the middle class (49%), the upper-middle class (48%), or the nation as a whole (52%)..More than half of the working class (53%) hold an unfavorable view of Obama’s leadership, and a similar share disapprove of the job he’s doing. Both are higher than the nation overall…The working class are also more likely to oppose ObamaCare (53% oppose the law) and want it repealed (50%), than the country overall (47% and 44% respectively).
…They also are far more hostile to Obama’s executive action granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants — 62% of the working class oppose it, compared with 49% of the middle class and 48% of the upper-middle class.

Perhaps the only good news for Dems in Merline’s report is that “38% of the working class said they are Democrats, compared with 34% of all those polled,” and a similar racial makeup.” I would add that his Obama approval data seems a little more unfavorable than what we are seeing in other current polls.
Merline doesn’t provide any breakdown of racial data, so his report is of limited value in regard to pinpointing current attitudes of the white working class, which Dems hope will vote at least a little more Democratic in upcoming elections. Insofar as the working class includes all races, the poll is more about how different family income groups perceive current policies, which has some value, though limited, as well. Class remains a more complex social entity, influenced by racial, occupational and regional factors, among others.


Creamer: GOP Senators Sabotage Diplomacy, Push Towards War

The following article by Democratic strategist Robert Creamer, author of “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” is cross-posted from HuffPo:
According to Bloomberg News:

A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran’s leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama’s administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.

Their action is a brazen, breathtaking attempt to sabotage U.S. foreign policy and stampede America into another war in the Middle East.
While U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is trying to negotiate the most critical elements of a deal to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and avoid war, the Republicans are actively trying to undermine his efforts to get a deal.
Can you imagine the reaction if members of Congress had sent a similar letter to the Soviets urging them not to sign an arms control agreement because the United States would not keep our end of the bargain?
If the Iranians are unwilling to sign a verifiable agreement with the international community to limit the application of their nuclear know-how to peaceful purposes, the U.S. will be left with two horrible options: a nuclear Iran or war.
Unbelievably, these GOP senators are actively discouraging Iran from signing such a deal by arguing that the United States cannot be trusted to keep up our end. That is shocking. It’s like someone interfering with negotiations being conducted by a hostage negotiator by trying to convince a hostage taker not to surrender because he will shoot him anyway.


Tomasky: Obama’s Selma Speech Defines Real Patriotism, Challenges Nation


At The Daily Beast Michael Tomasky describes President Obama’s speech at the 50th anniversary commemoration of the Selma to Montgomery March for Voting Rights: “It was the strongest statement about the liberal definition of patriotism I’ve ever heard a president deliver. It was also confrontational and challenging–an unapologetic manifesto for the values of blue America.” (text of speech here). Tomasky adds,

That’s something we don’t hear a lot about, the values of blue America. No, it isn’t because we don’t have them. It’s that we don’t parade them in the public square quite as much as conservatives do, while conservatives aren’t exactly shy about caricaturing in public their version of liberal values (we love sodomy and baby-killing and so on).
But there are liberal values. Some, we all know about–tolerance, diversity, etc. But another central one has to do with the way in which liberals love our country, and it goes like this: Yes, of course this is a great country. But it is change that has made it so. It’s a country that was founded on the highest ideals of the day, many of which are eternal, but it was also a country where ownership of human beings of a certain race was legal. So no, it wasn’t so great. It had to be made great. And by the way it’s not really as great as it should be yet. That’s a process that, the human condition being what it is, will never have an end.

Calling the president’s speech “a stirring defense of one vision of the country that was also an implicit and sometimes explicit critique of the other vision,” Tomasky elaborates: “In paragraph after paragraph, the speech essentially says: These are the truest Americans–the protesters, the outsiders, and the agitators who read the words of the founding texts and forced the system to live up to them.” Tomasky quotes from the speech:

What greater expression of faith in the American experiment than this; what greater form of patriotism is there; than the belief that America is not yet finished, that we are strong enough to be self-critical, that each successive generation can look upon our imperfections and decide that it is in our power to remake this nation to more closely align with our highest ideals?…That’s America!”

Tomasky notes that even Presidents Reagan and Bush signed legislation extending the Voting Rights Act, while today’s Republicans dodge the issue at best, with few exceptions. Further, says Tomasky, “The Republican Party has never in its history been as flagrantly open about specifically seeing to it that as few black people vote as possible as it has been in these last few years (and yes, yes, the Democratic Party was once worse, but that was a very different Democratic Party).”
Tomasky explains in his conclusion, “Conservatives don’t think that change is what makes this country great” and are “terrified of the greater changes (demographic, etc.) that everyone knows are coming.” For now, however, Americans can be grateful that we have a president with the vision and eloquence needed to affirm the best of our country’s values, as we remember and honor the courageous heroes of Selma and their passion for real democracy.


Political Strategy Notes

In political boomerang news, Sahil Kapur of Talking Points Memo reports on “The 5 GOP Presidential Hopefuls Most At Risk If SCOTUS Guts Obamacare.”

It’s just a student vote at one university, but there’s a hint for increasing college student voter turnout in this headline and story. Lots of students care strongly about environmental issues and they just might turn out in more impressive percentages for candidates who do the same.
Here’s another disturbing example of college student voter apathy, and another indication of the failure of California to leverage the NVRA motor voter provision, as referenced in our March 6 staff post. As Benjamin Genta reports at The Daily Bruin, “Less than 9 percent of eligible voters aged 18 to 24 turned out to vote in the 2014 midterm election this past November in California, a historic low, according to a January UC Davis report…In Los Angeles county, it was even less, with only between 5.5 and 7.5 percent of the same age demographic casting their ballots.” Quite a downer for those who remember a time when California college students lead the nation in political action…

At HuffPo Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, writes, “More than 20 countries around the world mandate voting. I had the opportunity to visit Australia last year, where citizens either vote or pay a small fine. Voter turnout there is nearly universal. In Canada, registrars go door to door registering citizens to vote, like we do with the census. In elections there, about 70 percent of voters regularly go to the polls…Mandatory voting would ensure that all voices were heard, that fewer could be shut out. It would broaden the pool of voters and limit the concentration of power that is now enjoyed by certain wealthy and corporate interests of our society. It would help build a sense of duty and responsibility in our citizenry. And it would be healthy for our democracy.”

In his column, “50 years later, Selma’s struggle is not over,” E. J. Dionne, Jr. makes the case for compulsory voting: “…Let’s be more adventurous and make voting in federal elections an obligation of citizenship…Yes, “compulsory voting” seems a nonstarter in the United States, as my political scientist friends Tom Mann, Norm Ornstein and I well know. The three of us have been arguing for this idea based on our experiences in Australia, a country for which we have great affection, where voters are required to go to the polls. The system works well, raising turnout especially among the less well-to-do and the less ideological. This creates a more moderate and more representative electorate. Crucially, such a law tells state and local governments that instead of creating barriers to voting, they should ease the way for citizens to fulfill their civic duty.”

From Clarence Page’s syndicated column “Democrats must connect with working-class whites“: “Two decades later, many Democrats still ask why so many working-class whites “vote against their economic interests.” Blogging in the New York Times after November’s elections, Tom Edsall said Democrats really should be asking themselves: “What has the Democratic Party done for these voters lately?”…I think the most important question in politics, regardless of race, creed or color, is simply, “Who’s on my side?”

Quote of the day goes to Eric Alterman, from his post “Why Nobody Seems to Mind That Bill O’Reilly Is a Total Fraud” at The Nation: “…Fox News has become a kind of Frankenstein’s monster of the mainstream media’s own creation. O’Reilly, Ailes and Murdoch are not trying terribly hard to fool anyone. They know what business they’re in; they are feeding red-meat propaganda to (mostly elderly, white) right-wing knuckleheads.” It’s a ‘preaching to the choir’ operation, unlikely to persuade anyone looking for credible information to make an informed voting decision.

Republican Governors of AL, MI, NV, OH, ME, KS, and IA are prepping to raise taxes or user fees of one sort or another, reports Mark Niquette of Bloomberg Politics.
Many have noted the absence of Republican leaders, other then George Bush II, in Selma for the 50th anniversary commemoration of the voting rights movement. Taking a tip from the late Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who once said, “In the best tradition of our committee, there is hardly anyone here. . . . We know we are not discussing capital gains,” maybe O’Connell and Boehner should hold hearings on capital gains in Selma.


March 6: No, Democrats Are Not “Panicking” Over HRC Email Saga

As the MSM and Republicans crank up the scandal machine to hype up and pre-judge the Hillary Clinton email “scandal,” the former are finding plenty of Democrats who seem to be upset (if not “panicking”) as well. But all is not as it seems, as I pointed out today at Washington Monthly.

Sorry, but I’m going to have to call BS on Politico‘s big story from Gabriel Debenedetti last night suggesting that Democrats are in a state of near-panic over the HRC “email crisis.” The piece is festooned with quote after quote–some attributed, some blind–from early-state Dems, mostly in Iowa, arguing that Hillary’s “problem” means that other candidates should get into the race–you know, just in case. Indeed, that’s the thrust of the quote that supplies the alarming “she could implode totally” headline:

[W]hile the overall message of trust in the presumptive frontrunner is clear, the saga is also exposing deep party-wide anxieties about having so much invested in a single candidate, more than 20 months before November 2016.
“It adds more reason to get other people involved in this process, to make sure we have other strong, good candidates running,” said Larry Hogden, chairman of Iowa’s Cedar County Democrats. “Because, who knows? She could implode totally.”

You’d think after maybe the third or fourth statement from an Iowan to that effect, it might occur to Debenedetti to wonder why they keep bringing this back to the need for a bigger Democratic presidential field. Could it be that Iowans (and for that matter, activists from New Hampshire and South Carolina) want a bigger field for reasons other than anxiety about HRC? Because maybe a competitive field gives them the attention, and yes, money, that they absolutely live for in the early states? Should it perhaps be noted that Iowa Democrats were talking exactly the same way long before anybody knew a thing about HRC’s email practices?

Look, there’s nothing inherently wrong with wanting a competitive Democratic nominating process this cycle, whether it’s because particular Dems think (a) it’s fun and lucrative; (b) it’s necessary to “keep Hillary honest,” or (c) HRC’s the wrong nominee altogether. But Democrats who feel any of these ways need to come clean about them, and not add credibility to a “narrative” that at first blush feels like a continuation of the Clinton Scandal Industry of the 1990s.


No, Democrats Are Not “Panicking” Over HRC Email Saga

As the MSM and Republicans crank up the scandal machine to hype up and pre-judge the Hillary Clinton email “scandal,” the former are finding plenty of Democrats who seem to be upset (if not “panicking”) as well. But all is not as it seems, as I pointed out today at Washington Monthly.

Sorry, but I’m going to have to call BS on Politico‘s big story from Gabriel Debenedetti last night suggesting that Democrats are in a state of near-panic over the HRC “email crisis.” The piece is festooned with quote after quote–some attributed, some blind–from early-state Dems, mostly in Iowa, arguing that Hillary’s “problem” means that other candidates should get into the race–you know, just in case. Indeed, that’s the thrust of the quote that supplies the alarming “she could implode totally” headline:

[W]hile the overall message of trust in the presumptive frontrunner is clear, the saga is also exposing deep party-wide anxieties about having so much invested in a single candidate, more than 20 months before November 2016.
“It adds more reason to get other people involved in this process, to make sure we have other strong, good candidates running,” said Larry Hogden, chairman of Iowa’s Cedar County Democrats. “Because, who knows? She could implode totally.”

You’d think after maybe the third or fourth statement from an Iowan to that effect, it might occur to Debenedetti to wonder why they keep bringing this back to the need for a bigger Democratic presidential field. Could it be that Iowans (and for that matter, activists from New Hampshire and South Carolina) want a bigger field for reasons other than anxiety about HRC? Because maybe a competitive field gives them the attention, and yes, money, that they absolutely live for in the early states? Should it perhaps be noted that Iowa Democrats were talking exactly the same way long before anybody knew a thing about HRC’s email practices?

Look, there’s nothing inherently wrong with wanting a competitive Democratic nominating process this cycle, whether it’s because particular Dems think (a) it’s fun and lucrative; (b) it’s necessary to “keep Hillary honest,” or (c) HRC’s the wrong nominee altogether. But Democrats who feel any of these ways need to come clean about them, and not add credibility to a “narrative” that at first blush feels like a continuation of the Clinton Scandal Industry of the 1990s.


Can the Motor Voter Law Still Help Increase Turnout?

Stuart Naifeh has a lengthy post Democrats should find of interest up at Demos, “Driving the Vote: Are the States Complying with the Motor Voter Requirements of the National Voter Registration Act?” Naifeh opens with a snapshot of the current reality:

In 1993, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) with the goal of increasing voter participation in elections by requiring states to make voter registration more accessible. One of the key provisions of the NVRA, known as “Motor Voter,” requires state motor vehicles departments (“DMVs”) to incorporate voter registration into the driver’s license application, renewal and change-of-address processes. Despite the popularity of this mode of voter registration, the “Motor Voter” provision is not performing up to its potential, and, in many states, implementation of the statute’s requirements is severely wanting.

Naifeh says there are “radical variations among states in the numbers of motor vehicle department transactions that result in a voter registration application…Some states are generating voter registration applications from a large proportion of those who come into the DMV to obtain or update a driver’s license or ID card while in others, the DMV registers only a tiny fraction of voters engaging in licensing or ID card transactions.”
While many would say that the motor voter legislation has been a failure, judging by overall registration statistics in recent years, Naifeh believes the law still has great potential: “According to Demos’ analysis, over 18 million additional voter registration applications could be submitted through DMVs in a two-year period if lower-performing states increased their performance to the level of states at the 75th percentile…”
Further, adds Naifeh, “the most successful states typically use technology solutions to further streamline the process, reduce errors, and ensure voters remain registered when they move.” He devises complex metrics to evaluate the states’ compliance with the motor voter law in light of the wiggle room states are allowed in their implementation policies and procedures.
He concludes that Michigan (“Robust Integration of Voter Registration”) and Delaware (“Effective Use of Technology”) lead the states in using the motor voter law effectively. The worst are California (“Separate Voter Registration Application Requiring Duplication”) and Nevada (“No Integration, Duplication, and Confusing Forms”). In between, a broad range of states have plenty of room for improvement
Naifeh suggests a range of “model procedures” states can use to improve their compliance with motor voter legislation. He concludes,

Twenty years after the enactment of the NVRA, many states are failing to offer meaningful opportunities for individuals to register to vote during motor vehicles department transactions. To realize the NVRA’s promise of “enhanc[ing] the participation of eligible citizens as voters,” states must take seriously Section 5’s mandate to make registering to vote an integral part of obtaining, renewing, or updating a driver’s license or state identification card. The states that are most successfully implementing Motor Voter provide evidence that by adopting cost-effective, commonsense procedures and relying on existing technology and infrastructure, this goal is attainable…

It appears Naifeh has done the most serious research to date on how to make the NVRA live up to its considerable potential. If more Democratic leaders in the underperforming states will study and accept his challenge with the seriousness it deserves, the party — and the nation — would benefit significantly.