washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

Month: April 2016

April 7: Ted Cruz an “Economic Populist?” Of Course Not!

I’m jaded enough to roll with all sorts of lame claims in the coverage of presidential politics, but one today drove me to an immediate rebuttal at New York:

Time magazine has truly jumped the shark in publishing an interview with Ted Cruz in which he is encouraged without contradiction to call himself an “economic populist.” If Cruz is an “economic populist,” then the term has truly lost all meaning beyond the pixie dust of rhetorical enchantment.
We are supposed to believe Cruz is a populist because he opposes a few relatively small but symbolically rich corporate-subsidy programs like the Export-Import Bank and regulatory thumbs-on-the-scale for the use of ethanol — both objects of ridicule among libertarians for decades. In the Time interview, he leaps effortlessly from the argument that sometimes government helps corporations to the idea that government should not help anybody.

[B]oth parties, career politicians in both parties get in bed with the lobbyist and special interest. And the fix is in. Where Washington’s policies benefit big business, benefit the rich and the powerful at the expense of the working men and women.
Now the point that I often make, and just a couple of days ago in Wisconsin I was visiting with a young woman who said she was a Bernie Sanders supporter. And I mentioned to her that I agreed with Bernie on the problem.
But I said if you think the problem is Washington is corrupt, why would you want Washington to have more power? I think the answer to that problem is for Washington to have less power, for government to have less power over our lives.

Is there any K Street or Wall Street lobbyist who would not instantly trade whatever preferments they’ve been able to wring from Washington in exchange for a radically smaller government that lets corporations do whatever they want? I don’t think so.
Yet it’s hard to find a politician more inclined to get government off the backs of the very rich and the very powerful. My colleague Jonathan Chait summed it up nicely this very day in discussing Cruz’s Goldwater-ish extremism:

In addition to the de rigueur ginormous tax cut for rich people, Cruz proposes a massive shift of the tax burden away from income taxes to sales taxes. So, not only would Cruz’s plan give nearly half of its benefit to the highest-earning one percent of taxpayers (who would save, on average, nearly half a million dollars a year in taxes per household), but it would actually raise taxes on the lowest-earning fifth …
He advocates for … deregulation of Wall Street, and would eliminate the Clean Power Plan and take away health insurance from some 20 million people who’ve gained it through Obamacare. He has defined himself as more militant and uncompromising than any other Republican in Congress, and many of his fellow Republican officeholders have depicted him as a madman.

Cruz would have you believe his unsavory reputation among Beltway Republicans flows from his identification with the working class as opposed to the special interests. As a matter of fact, he’s considered a madman (or a charlatan) for insisting Republicans ought to shut down the federal government rather than compromise or abandon their anti-working-class policies (and their reactionary social policies as well).
Aside from the policies Chait mentions, Cruz also favors (in contrast to Donald Trump) that populist perennial, “entitlement reform,” including the kind of Social Security benefit cuts and retirement-age delays promoted by George W. Bush back in 2005.
And for dessert, in a position that would certainly make William Jennings Bryan roll in his grave, Cruz is on record favoring tight money policies to combat the phantom menace of inflation, along with a commission to consider a return to the gold standard.
One might argue the description of Cruz as an “economic populist” is a small journalistic excess justified by the heat of the GOP nominating contest. But in a general-election matchup between Cruz and Hillary Clinton, we could find ourselves hearing misleading contrasts of Cruz as a “populist” to Hillary Clinton, the “Establishment” pol. Let’s head that one off at a distance, people. Whatever you think of her set side by side with Bernie Sanders, compared to Cruz she’s a wild leveler and class-warfare zealot, favoring minimum-wage increases, more progressive taxes, large new mandates on businesses, continuation and expansion of Obamacare, action on global climate change, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and (of course) opposition to the many reactionary policies Ted Cruz holds dear.

All Democrats should howl with rage at such misappropriations of the economic populist heritage. They might disagree internally as to who is more faithful to that legacy and how much that matters, but if Ted Cruz is part of that club, it’s time to pick a new n


Ted Cruz an “Economic Populist?” Of Course Not!

I’m jaded enough to roll with all sorts of lame claims in the coverage of presidential politics, but one today drove me to an immediate rebuttal at New York:

Time magazine has truly jumped the shark in publishing an interview with Ted Cruz in which he is encouraged without contradiction to call himself an “economic populist.” If Cruz is an “economic populist,” then the term has truly lost all meaning beyond the pixie dust of rhetorical enchantment.
We are supposed to believe Cruz is a populist because he opposes a few relatively small but symbolically rich corporate-subsidy programs like the Export-Import Bank and regulatory thumbs-on-the-scale for the use of ethanol — both objects of ridicule among libertarians for decades. In the Time interview, he leaps effortlessly from the argument that sometimes government helps corporations to the idea that government should not help anybody.

[B]oth parties, career politicians in both parties get in bed with the lobbyist and special interest. And the fix is in. Where Washington’s policies benefit big business, benefit the rich and the powerful at the expense of the working men and women.
Now the point that I often make, and just a couple of days ago in Wisconsin I was visiting with a young woman who said she was a Bernie Sanders supporter. And I mentioned to her that I agreed with Bernie on the problem.
But I said if you think the problem is Washington is corrupt, why would you want Washington to have more power? I think the answer to that problem is for Washington to have less power, for government to have less power over our lives.

Is there any K Street or Wall Street lobbyist who would not instantly trade whatever preferments they’ve been able to wring from Washington in exchange for a radically smaller government that lets corporations do whatever they want? I don’t think so.
Yet it’s hard to find a politician more inclined to get government off the backs of the very rich and the very powerful. My colleague Jonathan Chait summed it up nicely this very day in discussing Cruz’s Goldwater-ish extremism:

In addition to the de rigueur ginormous tax cut for rich people, Cruz proposes a massive shift of the tax burden away from income taxes to sales taxes. So, not only would Cruz’s plan give nearly half of its benefit to the highest-earning one percent of taxpayers (who would save, on average, nearly half a million dollars a year in taxes per household), but it would actually raise taxes on the lowest-earning fifth …
He advocates for … deregulation of Wall Street, and would eliminate the Clean Power Plan and take away health insurance from some 20 million people who’ve gained it through Obamacare. He has defined himself as more militant and uncompromising than any other Republican in Congress, and many of his fellow Republican officeholders have depicted him as a madman.

Cruz would have you believe his unsavory reputation among Beltway Republicans flows from his identification with the working class as opposed to the special interests. As a matter of fact, he’s considered a madman (or a charlatan) for insisting Republicans ought to shut down the federal government rather than compromise or abandon their anti-working-class policies (and their reactionary social policies as well).
Aside from the policies Chait mentions, Cruz also favors (in contrast to Donald Trump) that populist perennial, “entitlement reform,” including the kind of Social Security benefit cuts and retirement-age delays promoted by George W. Bush back in 2005.
And for dessert, in a position that would certainly make William Jennings Bryan roll in his grave, Cruz is on record favoring tight money policies to combat the phantom menace of inflation, along with a commission to consider a return to the gold standard.
One might argue the description of Cruz as an “economic populist” is a small journalistic excess justified by the heat of the GOP nominating contest. But in a general-election matchup between Cruz and Hillary Clinton, we could find ourselves hearing misleading contrasts of Cruz as a “populist” to Hillary Clinton, the “Establishment” pol. Let’s head that one off at a distance, people. Whatever you think of her set side by side with Bernie Sanders, compared to Cruz she’s a wild leveler and class-warfare zealot, favoring minimum-wage increases, more progressive taxes, large new mandates on businesses, continuation and expansion of Obamacare, action on global climate change, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and (of course) opposition to the many reactionary policies Ted Cruz holds dear.

All Democrats should howl with rage at such misappropriations of the economic populist heritage. They might disagree internally as to who is more faithful to that legacy and how much that matters, but if Ted Cruz is part of that club, it’s time to pick a new name.


Political Strategy Notes

Crystal Ball wizards Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley see several Senate and Governor’s races “Move Toward Democrats.” The authors note, “the Crystal Ball is changing six Senate race ratings, all in a Democratic direction.” As for the governorships, “A weak Republican presidential nominee could endanger GOP incumbents running for reelection in Indiana and North Carolina, prompting us to also shift the ratings for those contests in the Democrats’ direction.” Read the article for more details.
For those interested in the races in the state legislatures of America, keep an eye on Tennessee, where an interesting down-ballot strategy is taking shape — 23 Democratic women are running for seats in the state senate and house, supported by Women for Tennessee’s Future. “It’s the latest strategy unveiled by Democratic activists, and it could have some legs,” writes Dave Boucher in The Tennessean. “Organizers of the effort — including longtime Tennessee Democratic operative Krissa Barclay and Lisa Quigley, chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Nashville — believe a combination of Hillary Clinton atop the Democratic ticket and Trump atop the Republican ticket only helps strong Democratic women.”
Nate Cohn argues that “If Cruz Keeps This Pace, Trump Won’t Get a Majority of Delegates.
Jonathan Chait discusses “The Pragmatic Tradition of African-American Voters” to help explain why Sen. Sanders lags with this constiuency well behind former Secretary of State Clinton — despite Sanders’ participation in civil disobedience protests against racial segregation as early as 1963.
Here’s a simply-explained summary of the new Treasury Department rules curbing corporate “inversions” that cut billions from their taxes and force American workers and small businesses to pick up a larger share of the tab for needed benefits and services. Republicans, particularly those who have benefited from Pfizer’s support, are quite bent out of shape about it. But the measures give Democrats a tangible policy to support, while Repubican candidates argue that large corporations bailing out of their obligations to the U.S. is a good thing.
WaPo’s Sari Horwitz provides a disturbing profile of “The conservative gladiator from Kansas behind restrictive voting laws.”
Democratic rising stars, Sens. Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren explain at HuffPo why the Obama Administration’s “new guidelines that establish a professional and legal obligation for retirement advisors to provide advice that puts their clients’ interests first.” But they also offer a critique of the quality of retirement for middle class Americans that could resonate with senior voters: “Americans are retiring later in their lives than ever before. Hardworking families struggling to make ends meet have a difficult enough time saving money for retirement. Over 30 percent of Americans don’t have any retirement savings…More than half of lower income Americans don’t believe a comfortable retirement is attainable…Americans who work hard and play by the rules deserve to be able to retire comfortably with the dignity and security they have worked so hard for.”
Those who like graphic explanations of political trends should check out “What’s Driving Trump and Clinton Voters to the Polls” by Jon Huang and Karen Yourish at The New York Times.
Often remembered for his hippie-bashing “Okie from Muskogee,” the late Merle Haggard matured into a gernuine working-class bard, who suported some progressive causes. “Haggard’s truest allegiance was to the working class and anyone struggling, hard on their luck,” writes Kim Ruehl at CNN.com. “He didn’t want us to feel bad for anyone; he wanted us to recognize their humanity.” AP’s Kristin M. Hall reports, “More recently, he was a backer of prominent Democrats. In 2007 he unveiled a song to promote Hillary Clinton and two years later he penned “Hopes Are High” to commemorate Obama’s inauguration. In “America First,” he even opposed the Iraq War, singing “Let’s get out of Iraq, and get back on track.”


Lux: 2016 Republicans Horrible for American Business

The following article by Democratic strategist Mike Lux, author of The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, is cross-posted from HuffPo:
I have long believed that progressive economic policies are far better for most businesses than the policies of the modern Republican party. Oh, sure, Republicans will do a good job of taking care of their biggest contributors and closest special interest cronies — the Koch brothers won’t have to worry much about pollution laws or anti-trust enforcement if the people they support control the government. But for most businesses, progressive policies are going to help them a lot more than they hurt them. As I have written in the past:

Higher wages mean more disposable income for customers. Paid sick leave and decent health care benefits mean more stability in the workforce for most companies. Breaking up the biggest banks and fair rules for the financial industry would mean far more investment and better terms on loans for most small businesses. Better schools mean more productive workers.
Converting to a green economy and making adequate investments in infrastructure and R&D would mean the creation of thousands of new businesses and millions of new jobs, a lot of them high wage. Vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws and prosecuting businesses that manipulate markets mean that honest businesses can better compete with big corporations who have an unfair advantage.

And there is a ton of data that show the economy consistently does better under Democratic governance than under the Republicans:
2016-04-05-1459865402-865965-Dempartnersblogpost.png
Now, though, in the post-apocalyptic moonscape that is the Republican party of 2016, it has become clear that the modern Republicanism of Trump and Cruz is even worse for the business community than the numbers suggest they historically have been. If, as the saying goes, the corporate world craves stability, the Republican party of today threatens instability on a mass scale. It’s bad enough for the business community if the man who has offended almost every demographic group in America outside of non-college educated white men is the Republican nominee.
If the convention becomes a mess, the fight is between Trump and Cruz and some yet to be named establishment savior, then you have the specter of the riots Trump promised if he doesn’t get the nomination — and riots are rarely good for business. The potential of this going from ugly to violent is all too real, and that doesn’t exactly bode well for consumer confidence. We are already seeing this remarkable dynamic play out, as corporate America is in a state trying to figure out what the hell to do about the Republican convention this summer. Check out this rather remarkable article by Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman in the NYT the other day.
In it, they say:

Some of the country’s best-known corporations are nervously grappling with what role they should play at the Republican National Convention, given the likely nomination of Donald J. Trump, whose divisive candidacy has alienated many women, blacks and Hispanics.

And they go on to discuss the organizing work being done by some of the leading progressive organizations in the country, including Color of Change, Ultraviolet, and other major groups representing Latinos, Muslims, and the array of other constituencies deeply offended by Trump and Cruz’s rhetoric.
The fundamental problem is this: the U.S.A. is becoming more and more diverse in its racial and ethnic background, its religion, its lifestyle choices and its thinking. Businesses of all stripes want to appeal to those consumers (not to mention markets in the rest of the world) and hire the best people they can from those constituencies. Meanwhile, the Republican party has become the party of reaction against what America has become. The Trump/Cruz party openly embraces racism, nativism, misogyny and lack of toleration. They want to ban Muslims from entering the country and turn their neighborhoods into cordoned off war zones. They want to build walls to keep the rest of the world out. They are enthusiastic and unrepentant about insulting everyone not like them. And this is not good for business.
This conflict for business keeps coming up in different battles. The fights we have seen in Indiana, North Carolina, and Georgia over LGBT rights are not going away, and we will see this play out in all kinds of other ways as well.
What is good for business is customers with money in their pockets, young people able to enter the workforce with a good education backing them up, more federal dollars for R&D, 21st century roads and bridges and airports, and a financial system that invested in entrepreneurial start-ups rather than being focused on financial speculation. A good business climate requires communities that welcome every kind of person that wants to work hard and play by the rules, which is why the most diverse and welcoming cities in America tend to be the healthiest economically. Most businesses don’t need lobbyist-crafted special tax loopholes or sweetheart deals, they just want to be able to compete on a level playing field. And this kind of America is what progressives and Democrats are offering them.
I have been in business for most of the last two decades. My partners and I at Democracy Partners have built our business around the idea of embracing, working with, and supporting progressive constituencies. I would suggest that most businesses in America would be well served to do the same.
The Republican party of 2016 has jumped the rails and is about to crash. The business community needs to make sure it doesn’t crash along with them.


Galston: GOP Wall May Keep Them Out of White House

At Brookings, William A. Galston analyses data from “a massive rolling survey of more than 42,000 Americans conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute” and concludes it could mean some very bad news for Republicans.
Galston, a former policy advisor to President Clinton and presidential candidates and Brookings Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, explains that “strong majorities of Americans–Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike–favor immigration reforms that would allow immigrants living in the United States illegally to qualify for citizenship if they meet certain requirements.” Further,

There are partisan differences, of course. 72 percent of Democrats support a path to citizenship for immigrants living here illegally, compared to 62 percent of Independents and 52 percent of Republicans. Conversely, 30 percent of Republicans opt for identifying and deporting them, compared to 19 percent of Independents and only 11 percent of Democrats. Still, support is strong across the board. For example, 54 percent of white evangelical Christians favor a path to citizenship.
…In a possible harbinger of the general election this fall, views on immigration vary widely by geographical location. The West and Northeast are more positive than negative about the impact of immigration; the reverse is true for the South and Midwest. Majorities of Americans in 21 states believe that immigration is a net plus for the country, as do pluralities in 20 additional states. Pluralities in 6 states endorse a negative view of immigration, while 3 states are statistically tied.
…On the other hand, the positive view of immigration enjoys majority support in crucial swing states such as Colorado and Florida and a near-majority of 49 percent in Virginia. Support for this view is strong even in long-time red states such as Arizona (55 percent), Texas (52 percent), and Georgia (50 percent)…

“So Republicans may have a fight on their hands in states they have long taken for granted,” says Galston, “especially if immigration becomes a more prominent issue in the campaign.” And if first or second generation Americans organize opposition to restrictive immigration policies, “Republican candidates who are eager to discuss their opposition to comprehensive immigration reform may ultimately regret that strategy come November.”


Exit Poll Reveals Factors Behind Sanders Wisconsin Win

Sen. Bernie Sanders beat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Wisconsin primary with 56.5 percent of the vote to his adversary’s 43.1 percent, his sixth straight primary victory. “The preliminary Wisconsin results gave 45 pledged delegates to Mr. Sanders and 31 to Mrs. Clinton, who maintains a lead of roughly 250 delegates,” notes Amy Chozick in the New York Times. “Mr. Sanders would need an estimated 56 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to overtake Mrs. Clinton.”
Sanders also outpolled Republican Ted Cruz, who won the GOP primary, while Democratic runner-up Clinton ourtpolled Republican runner-up Trump. Sanders got about 36 thousand more votes than did Cruz and Clinton got 47 thousand more votes than did Trump. However, Cruz, Trump and Kasich received over 54 thousand votes more than did Sanders and Clinton together.
AP’s Chad Day and Emily Swanson share some results from AP/Edison Research exit polling in WI:

On the Democratic side, voters chose Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who they saw as the more exciting, inspiring and honest candidate, according to early results of exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research…But even then, more voters view former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as the candidate most likely to beat Trump, who has been the Republican front-runner throughout the primaries.
…Nearly 60 percent say Sanders inspires them more about the future of the country…Democratic voters were more likely to describe Sanders than Clinton as honest. About nine in 10 say so of Sanders, while about 6 in 10 say so of Clinton… But more than half also say Clinton is the candidate best suited to beat Trump. Three-quarters say Clinton has realistic policies, more than the two-thirds who say that of Sanders.

Swanson and Day report that Sanders ran ads emphasizing job losses linked to trade agreements during former President Bill Clinton’s administration. Further,

Democratic voters in Wisconsin are divided on the effect of trade on unemployment, but among those who think trade takes jobs, 6 in 10 supported Sanders…About 4 in 10 Democratic voters say trade with other countries takes away jobs in this country, while 4 in 10 see trade as beneficial, exit polls show. Only about 1 in 10 sees trade as having no effect on jobs in the United States.

As for demographics,

Young voters supported Sanders by an overwhelming margin. More than 6 in 10 men voted for Sanders, while women split about evenly between the two candidates…Six in 10 white voters went for Sanders, while 7 in 10 black voters voted for Clinton. Self-described Democrats split about evenly between the two candidates, while about 7 in 10 independents voted for Sanders.

Regarding the upcomming Democratic primaries in delegate-rich New York (April 19th) and Pennsylvania (April 26th), Chozick writes, “…Wisconsin, with a population that is 88 percent white, does not reflect the larger and more diverse populations of New York and Pennsylvania, more comfortable terrain for Mrs. Clinton.” Chozick adds that, In 2008, “Barack Obama defeated Mrs. Clinton in Wisconsin by 17 percentage points.” In that race, however, Obama had the support of younger voters, who are now favoring Sanders, as well as voters of color.
As a former U.S. Senator from NY, Clinton will likely have an edge in that state, although Sanders has some New York roots, and trade is a significant issue in western parts of NY. Sanders may find stronger than expected support in PA, were job losses from trade deals are a continuing concern.


Behind the ‘Independent’ Facade: Partisan Embarrassment

At The Monkey Cage John Sides addresses an interesting question, “Why are so many Democrats and Republicans pretending to be independents?” Sides interviews via email political scientists Samarra Klar and Yanna Krupnikov, who have written “Independent Politics,” which explores the dynamics behind the increase in the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as “Indpendents,” even though numerous studies have documented a sharp rise in political partisanship in recent years, as measured by attitudes toward policies and candidates.
The authors explain that “People “go undercover” — or hide their partisanship behind the label “independent” — because they are too embarrassed to admit their partisanship. Being embarrassed to admit your partisanship leads you to avoid behaviors that are overtly partisan.”
“This is a big problem for democratic politics,” say Krupnikov and Klar, “since overtly partisan behaviors are often the behaviors that have the most political “voice.” In short, independents are just the tip of the much larger, more consequential iceberg of political inaction.”
Unfortunately, the interview doesn’t have much to say about the role of political “branding” or “shaming,” which may be a significant factor in party self-i.d. Republicans have for decades conducted a relentless campaign of villification of the term “Democrat,” likening those who embrace it to weak-minded dimwits who raise taxes, throw money at social problems and advocate government meddling in all aspects of citizens’ lives. Many Democrats have trashed Republicans as greedy defenders of ill-gotten wealth and advocates of racism and other forms of bigotry.
Generally, the Republican message machine has done a better job of implanting the meme in the media, perhaps as a result of superior message discipline and coordination, in stark contrast to Democrats who rarely focus on a single message of the day.
At present, however, more Americans self-i.d. as Democrats than Repubicans. According to a Gallup Poll reported on January 11th, 42% identify as independents, 29% as Democrats, 26% as Republicans. Firther, reports JeffrewyM. Jones at Gallup,

Last year, in addition to the 29% of Americans who identified as Democrats, another 16% said they were independents but leaned toward the Democratic Party, for a combined total of 45% Democrats and Democratic leaners among the U.S. population. Likewise, 26% of Americans identified as Republicans and an additional 16% identified as independents but leaned toward the Republican Party, for a combined total of 42% Republicans and Republican leaners.

Klar and Krupnikov note, however, that “Popular portrayals of partisanship, particularly over the last two decades, have been decidedly negative, focusing on polarization and disagreement.” Further, say the authors:

The parties provide plenty of fodder for this narrative. In the book we coded a series of presidential debates, as just one example. We find that the percentage of phrases used in presidential debates that conveys insurmountable conflict between the two candidates has dramatically increased over recent decades.
When Americans learn about politics, they learn that partisans are angry and stubborn. And, understandably, people don’t want to seem this way to others. With dozens of surveys and experiments, one clear message resonated over and over again: Associating oneself with partisan anger, stubbornness, and inflexibility does not seem like the best way to make a great impression.
On the other hand, being independent and above the partisan morass seems much more impressive. This is yet more evidence that, even in anonymous surveys, people behave in ways that they perceive to be socially desirable and that cast them in the most positive light.

Then there is the Trump phenomenon, which is a growing source of embarassment for Republicans. No one should be surprised if the fallout of his campaign includes a drop in the the percentages of those who call themselves “Republicans.” A Democratic landslide in November may also produce a substantial uptick in self-proclaimed Democrats. Most people would rather hang out with the winners.
The consequences of negative branding of political parties and polarization, say the authors — “a reluctance to discuss politics in social settings, a refusal to wear stickers or put up yard signs, a hesitance to even publicly admit which candidate you’re supporting — are, ultimately, a bad thing for democracy.”
Calling oneself an “Independent” is often based more on a reluctance to indentify with either the Republican or Democratic party, than a genuine political philosophy. But how many of those who call themselves ‘Independents’ do so because they are low-information voters who lack the confidence to be assertive about their beliefs, or conflict-averse individuals who simply dislike arguing?
Increasing the numbers and percentage of those who self-identify as Democrats can certainly be helpful for campaign fund-raising, recruitment of volunteers and GOTV on election day. But the best course for Democrats may be not to worry too much about party self-identification — as long as Dems get most of the votes of those who call themselves ‘Independents.’
When Democrats begin to win stable majorities nation-wide and in most of the states, they will be able to enact legislation that benefits ever-increasing numbers of citizens. When that happens, the Democratic ‘brand’ will attract many more supporters.