TDS contributor Alan I. Abramowitz has a new post up at Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball which should dampen the spirits of GOP progosticators. Abramowitz spells out the reasons why Republican hopes for winning back control of congress next year are unmerited. Says Abramowitz:

…There are important differences between the makeup of the American electorate now and the makeup of the American electorate then, differences that make a repeat of the 1994 outcome highly unlikely…
The most important difference is that nonwhites make up about twice as large a share of the electorate now…First, whites generally make up a larger share of the electorate in midterm elections than in presidential elections–the presence of a presidential race appears to be a more important motivation for voting among African-Americans, Hispanics, and other nonwhites than among whites. This means that the nonwhite share of the electorate in 2010 is likely to be lower than the all-time record of 26 percent that was set in 2008. Second, however, the data show a clear upward trend in the nonwhite share of the electorate in both types of elections. This means that the nonwhite share of the electorate is almost certain to be higher in 2010 than it was in 2006.

More specifically, Abramowitz adds,

The weakness of the Republican Party among nonwhite voters is a much bigger problem for the GOP today than it was back in 1994. In that year, 86 percent of the voters were white while only 9 percent were African-American and only 5 percent were Hispanic or members of other racial minority groups…Based on the average rate of change in the racial composition of the electorate over the past two decades, by 2010 we can predict that no more than 76 percent of voters will be white while at least 11 percent will be African-American and at least 13 percent will be either Hispanic or members of other racial minority groups.

Moreover,

Based on the 2008 results and the projected racial make-up of the 2010 electorate, Republican candidates would have to win almost 60 percent of the white vote in order to win 50 percent of the overall national popular vote in 2010. That would be even more than the 58 percent of the white vote that Republican candidates received in 1994 and much more than the 54 percent of the white vote that Republican candidates received in the 2008 House elections.

Given recent polling and demographic trends, Abramowitz believes Dems could lose up tp 20 house seats in 2010 and perhaps 1 or 2 Senate seats, a far cry from any 1994 replay. And if the Democrats pass an impressive health care reform bill, all bets are off.

DemFromCT has an informative Kos post on support for the President and health care reform, among other issues. He quotes from Jonathan Weisman’s Wall St. Journal report on On the latest WSJ/NBC News poll conducted 9/17-20 by Hart/McInturff:

…The president has shored up eroding support for his top domestic priority, with the survey showing he has arrested the slide in support for his health-care plan following this month’s speech to Congress.

On the same poll, from MSNBC’s First Read:

According to the poll, the president’s health-care numbers have slightly increased, although that increase remains within the margin of error. Thirty-nine percent believe Obama’s health-care plan is a good idea, which is up three points since August. Forty-one percent say it’s a bad idea.
In addition, 45% approve of Obama’s handling of health care, while 46% disapprove, which is up from his 41%-47% score last month. By comparison, just 21% approve of the Republican Party’s handling of the issue…And who will get blamed if health care doesn’t get passed this year? Per the poll, 10% say Obama, 16% say congressional Democrats, and 37% say congressional Republicans.

From the poll’s PDF:

Do you think it would be better to pass Barack Obama’s health care plan and make its changes to the health care system or to not pass this plan and keep the current health care system?
Better to pass this plan, make these changes 45
Better to not pass this plan, keep current system 39

The poll indicates 73 percent of respondents agree that it is “extremely important” or “quite important” to give people a choice of a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for health insurance.” When asked however, “Would you favor or oppose creating a health care plan adminsitered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies?”, 46 percent favored the idea, with 48 percent opposed. DemFromCt notes that only 15 percent of respondents said they understood the legislative proposals being debated in congress “very well,” and he adds:

What they do understand is that they want something that requires that health insurance companies cover people with pre-existing medical conditions (63% say “absolutely must be included”, another 26% “would prefer” it be included), but people don’t want mandates to buy insurance (23% don’t want that included, and another 34% say it absolutely must not be in there).
…We’ve reached a stabilization of opposition and support of Obama’s health care policies for now, along with job approval. Obama continues with strong personal approval numbers.
The fate of the Congress rests with health reform and until that’s settled, the public is likely to take a dim view of Congress, especially on the R side. But that won’t stop voters from taking it out on Democrats… the generic D vs R congressional number in this poll is only +3 for Dems. If I were them, I’d take this as a strong signal to produce something on health reform. Failure is not an option.

As the Senate Finance Committee takes health care reform amendments and proposals, this poll indicates that there is a fair amount of ambivalence in public attitudes toward some of the particulars of health care reform, but not about the need for reform — and who is expected to lead the way forward.

TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira’s latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ at the Center for American Progress website provides a timely indication of just how marginal are the Obama-haters the conservatives are trying to claim are a majority. Teixeira cites a new Pew Research Center poll, conducted 9/10-15 and explains:

…The public’s view of Obama remains, in fact, very favorable across a wide range of characteristics. The conservatives’ extreme views on Obama are just that—extreme—and should in no way be confused with the American people’s views…In the Pew poll, 83 percent describe Obama as a good communicator, 78 percent describe him as warm and friendly, 70 percent describe him as well informed, 69 percent describe him as well organized, 68 percent describe him as “someone who cares about people like me,” 65 percent say he is a strong leader, 64 percent say he is trustworthy, and 58 percent say he is able to get things done.

Teixeira also notes that Obama has impressive credibility as an innovator, according to the Pew poll, which found that “the public says by 63-30 that Obama brings a “new approach to politics in Washington” rather than “business as usual.” Teixeira concludes that it’s no surprise that “conservatives are confusing their own benighted views with those of the general public.”

In The American Prospect TDS Co-Editor Stan Greenberg reviews an important new book by Lynn Vavreck, “The Message Matters.” Greenberg, whose strategic advice was instrumental in electing and re-electing Bill Clinton and helping Al Gore win the popular vote in 2000, says that Vavreck “breaks new ground in showing how presidential candidates effectively use the economy when it works in their favor and how some candidates win even when the economy is working against them.” In his review, Greenberg explains:

For decades political scientists have tried to predict the outcome of elections by constructing statistical models that use different measures of economic performance and ignore the character of the candidates and the choices of their campaigns. As a pollster who has helped direct campaigns, I have never found these academic models all that convincing. Missing the final vote by up to 8 points, as their forecasts often do, would have gotten me fired. And in most presidential elections, predicting the winner is not rocket science, and barbers and bartenders do as well as the modelers.
With considerable elegance, Vavreck departs from the dominant tradition in election forecasting by focusing on the strategies that candidates follow, including the narratives they build, and by showing respect for what voters learn from the campaigns. Voters do use the economy to judge the incumbent’s leadership and project future performance, but in some elections they also respond to other issues such as trust, domestic policy, and national security.

And further,

According to Vavreck’s analysis, if you want to know who wins the presidency and by how much, you start with the candidate who has been helped by the economy during the nine months before July 1 of the election year. If the economy has been growing, that’s the candidate of the incumbent party; if the economy has been stagnant or declining, it’s the challenger. Each of these is in a position to run what Vavreck calls a “clarifying campaign.” That is an appealing phrase for me, as it implies that what counts is not just the economy but how a campaign frames the economic argument to political effect.
…Strategy and message do indeed matter. You come away from this book with a new respect for the power of the economy. While other issues matter in elections, when a presidential candidate focuses on the economy, voters are more likely to listen and more likely to use the economy in assessing the candidates. But you also come away with a new respect for the campaign and candidate. The campaigns that understand the times and run the right clarifying or insurgent strategy add 6 points to their vote share.
Although Vavreck draws heavily on quantitative data and modeling, she conveys a sense of excitement about her breakthrough in understanding how presidential elections work. Human decisions matter: Campaigns can rise above the dull determinism of the economy. And voters are fairly discerning about what campaigns are saying on issues that matter to them.

Greenberg moves toward his conclusion with a comment that may be particularly important for team Obama to fully-appreciate:

As I write in my book, “Dispatches from the War Room“, national leaders often want to tout macroeconomic growth before it has produced gains that people see firsthand. The Democrats lost in 1994 as Clinton spoke prematurely of his economic successes, though by 1996 real gains in income helped produce a very different outcome.

Given current economic forecasts of “at best, halting growth” in the months ahead, Greenberg concludes “The message will matter in 2010 and 2012, more than ever.”

One of the standard features of most debates about health care reform is the comparison of our system with that of other industrialized nations. Usually the evidence presented is anecdotal, but sometimes statistics having to do with mortality rates, expense etc. are trotted out. Rick Newman of U.S. News & World Report has an angle on international health care systems comparisons that merits some consideration, as he reports (flagged by TomPaine.com) on a health care consumer satisfaction study in six nations, including the U.S.:

The Deloitte Center for Health Solutions surveyed 14,000 people in six countries, asking them to grade their own healthcare system from A to F. The standardized results allow comparisons among all six countries…Here’s how all six countries fared. The survey data are from Deloitte. Also included are cost data from the OECD, to give a sense of who’s getting the most satisfaction per healthcare dollar:
Canada: Percent rating the healthcare system A or B: 46 percent; D or F: 15 percent; annual healthcare spending per person: $3,895
France: A or B: 63 percent; D or F: 12 percent; spending: $3,601
Germany: A or B: 18 percent; D or F: 44 percent; spending: $3,588
Switzerland: A or B: 66 percent; D or F: 14 percent; spending: $4,417
United Kingdom: A or B: 32 percent; D or F: 20 percent; spending: $2,992
United States: A or B: 22 percent; D or F: 38 percent; spending: $7,290

As Newman notes, Germany is the real shocker here. He doesn’t explain why. But, clearly the U.S. is the worst bargain of the lot when cost is factored in. So much for the “greatest health care system in the world” meme. As Newman concludes:

…Deloitte’s survey data show that socialized medicine in Canada and Britain is more popular than the quasi-capitalist healthcare system in America—which costs far more. Brits and Canadians may be more satisfied partly because they have a higher tolerance for government bureaucracy than Americans do. But the findings also undercut claims that the British and Canadian systems don’t work.

Newman doesn’t report on the reasons behind the satisfaction stats. But a couple of the reader comments responding to his article are instructive. Here’s Jim Atherley’s explanation:

I’m a Canadian currently living in the US. I’ve spent 22 years in Canada and 27 in the US, so I have plenty of experience with both systems. Having said that, I can assure you that the Canadian system is far superior. The US system is an expensive nightmare by comparison.
In the US, I have lower taxes but I’m forced to deal with outrageous monthly premiums, fear of being dropped at any time, fear of losing my coverage if I change jobs, fear that my wife won’t be covered because she had a benign tumor 10 years ago, etc. I also have to cough up “co-pays” for every office visit, must meet high deductibles (thousands of dollars out of pocket) before insurance even pays a penny, then have “lifetime maximum” limits on top of that – and the price just keeps going up every year. When it’s all said and done, my tax advantage here has vanished.
Meanwhile, in my 22 years in Canada, I never once paid a penny for medical care. I had gall bladder surgery, spent time in ER for a badly cut hand, spent a week in hospital with broken bones from a motorcycle crash, had many trips to the family doctor with sick children – and NEVER had to wait any unreasonable amount of time – and certainly never paid a bill. Prescriptions are also half the price in Canada.
When you phone the doctor here, the first question they ask is “what insurance do you have?” When you phone the doctor in Canada, the first question is “What seems to be the problem?” This whole debate about which system is better is a non-issue to anyone who’s actually lived under both systems. If I get laid off here (and lose my insurance), I can always go back to Canada – thanks God for that.

if the fear-mongers succeed in blocking health reform in the U.S., maybe the Canadians will have to build a long fence to keep Americans out.

President Obama’s speech on health reform last week ” went far toward dispelling confusion and promoting clarity,” according to TDS Co-editor Ruy Teixeira, who explains in his latest CAP ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ that conservatives,

…didn’t like President Barack Obama’s speech last Wednesday on health care reform….Recall these data from last week’s snapshot: At that point (before the speech) the public, by a 60 percent- to 31-percent margin, said the president had not clearly explained his plans for health care reform. But among those who watched the speech last Wednesday views are now quite different. According to a CNN post-speech poll, 72 percent now believe he has clearly stated his goals for a health care bill, compared to just 26 percent who thought he could have been clearer in his speech.

Teixeira cautions that a need to be cautious in interpreting the data because “those interested enough to watch the speech—compared to the public as a whole—are a group relatively sympathetic to the president.” Still, Teixeira explains, it’s “striking how successful Obama was in clearly communicating his goals,” and he adds:

Moreover, a dial testing study conducted by Democracy Corps among independent and weak partisan voters in Colorado suggests that he did not just succeed among those sympathetic to him to begin with. Among the group studied by Democracy Corps—about evenly split between initial supporters and initial opponents of Obama’s health care approach and between Obama and McCain voters in last year’s election—support for Obama’s health care plan went up from 46 percent to 66 percent over the course of the speech.

Even better, Obama appears to have smashed Republican myth-mongering in key issue areas of health reform:

…Those who thought “will get health care costs under control” described health care reform well went up from 42 to 64 percent; those who thought health care reform will allow you to keep your current insurer and doctor if you choose increased from 54 to 80 percent; those who thought health care reform meant increasing competition and lowering prices for health coverage went up from 44 to 74 percent; and those who thought health care reform will give individuals and families more choice and control increased from 36 to 60 percent.

The President’s speech had it’s critics among Democrats who felt it didn’t adequately support key progressive priorities. But Teixeira makes it clear that, in terms of changing public views on the Democratic reform package, it appears to have been a solid success.

With his speech before Congress and the nation tonight, Barack Obama was effective in cutting through the misinformation and partisan bickering over health care and reaching swing voters, many of whom entered the evening harboring real skepticism about his plan. Obama succeeded in reassuring voters of all political stripes on some of their biggest concerns about reform while also energizing supporters and avoiding the kind of polarization that could drive away independents and Republicans. Moreover, the reaction of Republicans in the audience, including the heckling of the president by Rep. Joe Wilson, generated a strong backlash among focus group participants who expressed deep frustration with Republicans for putting partisan politics ahead of solving the nations’ problems.
Democracy Corps conducted dial testing of the speech with 50 independent and weak partisan voters in Denver, Colorado, followed by focus groups with voters whose support for Obama’s health care plan increased after seeing the speech. The dial group participants were evenly divided among those who initially supported and initially opposed the plan, with an almost equal division between Obama and McCain voters.
These swing voters reacted strongly to Obama’s message. Support for Obama’s plan jumped 20 points, from 46 percent before the speech to 66 percent after. Importantly, Obama also achieved one of his principal goals of boosting the intensity of support. Prior to the speech, just 2 percent of these swing voters supported the plan strongly while 26 percent opposed it strongly; by the end of the evening those numbers were virtually reversed, with 28 percent supporting the plan strongly against just 8 percent strongly opposed. The president was also extremely successful in moving the needle on areas where progressives have struggled over the last few months, making great strides in reassuring voters on issues like the deficits and taxes, seniors and Medicare, choice and control, competition and costs, and government intervention

TDS Co-editor Ruy Teixeira’s latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ at the Center for American Progress web pages demonstrates why opponents of health care reform spread lies and distortions about progressive reform proposals. Teixeira says that the lynchpin of their strategy is to insure that “the public can remain confused about what is actually in these plans.” Teixeira explains:

This strategy, as appalling as it is, makes sense from their avowed goal of stopping health care reform. As poll after poll has documented, the public strongly supports the basic reforms that the health care bills would deliver. The latest example of this comes from an end of August CBS News poll. In that poll, 79 percent support “requiring health insurance companies to cover anyone who applies,” 72 percent support “the government setting limits on the amount that health insurance companies can charge people for insurance premiums, co-pays, and out-of-pocket expenses” and 71 percent support “the government providing subsidies to help low-income people buy their own health insurance from private insurance companies.”
These are items that are sure to be in any health care reform bill that Obama signs. But does the public know that? Very doubtful. In the same poll, respondents were asked “Do you think you understand the health care reforms under consideration in Congress, or are they confusing to you?” By an overwhelming 67 percent to 31 percent, the public confessed they are confused by the health care reforms before Congress. This is the confusion the conservatives are so assiduously trying to cultivate.

Teixeira notes further that 60 percent of the public agrees that President Obama “has not clearly explained his plans for health care reform,” nearly double the percentage of those who feel he has done so. If the President meets the challenge of clarity in his speech on health care reform tonight, he could do a lot toward eradicating much of the confusion and lies about the Democratic plan — and lead America toward a new era of health security for all.

Alex Koppleman of Salon.com‘s ‘War Room’ flags an interesting YouTube video (10 mins) showing how Al Franken adroitly handled a group of tea party constituents. Franken respectfully considers their concerns and calmly explains why the Democratic health care reform package is economically-feasible, without getting too wonky. It’s a good training clip for dealing with concerned constituents. What is interesting here is that initially-skeptical constituents appear to be somewhat reassured by Franken’s command of the details.
Another audio-visual resource for messaging on health care is the new film, “Money-Driven Medicine,” which aired on Bill Moyers Journal a week ago. The film is based on Maggie Mahar’s book, “Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much.” Alternet’s report on the book and film features an interview and transcript of a segment.