washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

staff

National Security: Edge to Dems

Ruy Teixeira’s latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ post at the Center for American Progress strongly suggests that the conservative wing of the GOP has lost its cred with voters on one of their party’s most reliable issues, national security. As Teixeira explains:

In a May Democracy Corps poll, 57 percent said they supported Obama’s national security policies, compared to just 30 percent who were opposed…In the same poll, 58 percent endorsed the idea that America’s security depends on building strong ties with other nations, compared to 37 percent who believed America’s security depends on its own military strength.

And when it comes to former VP Dick Cheney’s broadsides against President Obama’s national security policy, the Republicans have little to smile about:

…When asked in an early June Democracy Corps poll whether Obama or Cheney has better ideas for keeping the country safe, they chose Obama’s ideas over Cheney’s by 54-39.

Teixeira credits the tanking of the conservative’s national security cred to President Obama’s “progressive approach to our nation’s foreign policy that provides a sharp break with the belligerent, go-it-alone practices of the Bush administration.” Perhaps progressives should also give a pat on the back to Cheney, for providing a timely reminder of the failed policies of Republican rule.


Prevention Now a Top Health Care Reform Priority

Al Quinlan, president of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research has a post up at gqrr.com on their new survey (PDF here), which reveals overwhelming public support for investing in illness prevention as a leading priority of health care reform. Among the findings of the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/Public Opinion Strategies bi-partisan report, which was commissioned by the Trust for America’s Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:

When we asked people whether or not we should invest more in prevention , a big majority (76 percent) said yes, against just 16 percent who said no. This is truly an overwhelming level of support for any initiative—it’s rare to get three-quarters of the country to agree on anything these days (much less on something that involves spending more money)—and it underscores the importance Americans place on prevention as part of their health care and their lives.
Now for those of you who would ask if it is just certain parts of the population who support this, our answer would be, “No.” At least 65 percent of every demographic subgroup supports increasing our investment in prevention. From coast to coast (79 percent in the Northeast, 78 percent in the South, 76 percent in the West, and 72 percent in the Midwest) and across the political spectrum (86 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of Independents), people believe we should invest more in prevention. Even two-thirds of the least healthy among us want a greater investment in prevention.
The importance the country places on prevention represents a real change in attitudes toward health in this country over the past couple decades. In 1987, 45 percent of the country believed we should be giving more emphasis to prevention (11 percent wanted more emphasis on treatment). Today, 59 percent say we need more emphasis on prevention, an increase of 14 percentage points in the prevention column (a real shift, albeit occurring over 20 years).

And the public views prevention as a highly cost-effective investment, as Quinlan notes:

No good discussion of any type of program would be complete without discussing the always-burning question—what about the costs? Does the cost associated with investing in prevention dampen support for it? It doesn’t appear to. By a wide margin (77 – 16 percent), Americans believe that prevention will save us money, rather than cost us money. But saving money isn’t the real reason they want more prevention—health is. Seventy-two percent say that “investing in prevention is worth it even if it doesn’t save money, because it will prevent disease and save lives,” while only 20 percent feel that investing in prevention is not worth it if it doesn’t save money. When it comes to prevention, it’s less about cost and more about reducing disease, keeping people healthy, and improving quality of life.

When it comes to building a consensus in support of health care reform, it appears that investing in prevention as a central priority may be the focus that can unite Americans.


Complex Public Attitudes Dog Health Care Reform

Anyone who thinks that public opinion about health care reform is any less complicated than our health care system should give TDS Co-editor William Galston’s article on the topic in The New Republic a slow read. On policy-holders self interest:

I take as my point of departure a survey Kaiser conducted in October of 2008, on the threshold of the presidential election. It shows that twice as many voters cared about making health care and health insurance more affordable as about expanding coverage for the uninsured, and that only one in ten gave high priority to improving the quality of care and reducing medical errors. Not surprisingly, voters were very concerned about increases in their health insurance premiums and other out-of-pocket costs–indeed, more concerned about this than about increasing employer, government, and national spending combined. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that in evaluating proposed health reform legislation, voters will be looking first and foremost at its impact on their own pocketbooks, with broader issues trailing well behind.

On funding:

…58 percent believed that “if policymakers made the right changes, they could reform the health care system without spending more money to do it.” If the people mean what they say, they are likely to regard requests for additional funds as evidence that Congress has made the wrong changes–that is, unless President Obama and congressional leaders explain why health reform cannot succeed without substantial upfront investments.
…As for financing options, majorities support increasing taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and “unhealthy snack foods” but not soda and soft drinks, which experts regard as major contributors to the rising tide of obesity. (When those who favored this approach heard the argument that so-called “sin taxes” would hit low-income people the hardest, however, six in ten changed their minds and opposed it.) As for taxing employer-provided benefits, a solid majority are opposed, even when they are told that only the “most generous” benefits would be affected.

On health care as a national priority:

This brings me to the April tracking survey. It showed that respondents think reforming health care is only the fourth most important priority (on a list of eight), behind improving the economy, stabilizing Medicare and Social Security, and reducing the federal budget deficit. It is hardly surprising that partisans divide sharply: Democrats rank health reform second from the top, Republicans second from the bottom. Independents, whose ranks have swelled since the election, place it fifth.

Galston has an interesting section on the experts opinions vs. public opinion, with this nugget about the proposed compulsory purchase of health insurance:

Consider, finally, the proposition that all individuals, including those who are young and healthy, should be required to purchase health insurance. Most experts and policymakers agree that without this “individual mandate,” insurance companies will continue to screen out prospective beneficiaries with preexisting conditions and other discouraging health profiles, and the linchpin of current reform proposals will snap. Unfortunately, the people don’t agree: A Rasmussen survey published in late May indicates that only 31 percent of Americans favor requiring everyone–including young adults and those in good health–to purchase insurance. And when they were asked what should happen when those who choose not to buy insurance end up in emergency rooms, three quarters say they should receive treatment even if they can’t pay.

Galston concludes with a warning to political leaders to level with the American people about “the choices they face if we are finally to achieve universal health insurance with meaningful cost containment.” He urges bringing the public into the discussion to help avert “another catastrophic failure.” Such a buy-in can increase public confidence in the reforms that are enacted — and help strengthen the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats.


Health Care Reform: The Price of Inaction

Progressives preparing to engage in the battle for health care reform can get a little basic training at the Center for American Progress web pages, where two articles make it clear that taxpayers bear a hefty burden as a result of inaction on health care reform. In “The Cost of Doing Nothing on Health Care,” Peter Harbage, CAP health care policy advisor and CAP Research Associate Ben Furnas explain:

Our analysis shows that the broken health care system will cost us between $124 billion and $248 billion in lost productivity this year alone due to the almost 52 million uninsured Americans who live shorter lives and have poorer health. In fact an analysis by the Institute of Medicine found that, “the estimated benefits across society in healthy years of life gained by providing health insurance coverage are likely greater than the additional social costs of providing coverage to those who now lack it.”
These findings are based on a 2008 analysis by the New America Foundation, which found that the national economic cost from lost productivity in 2007 was between $104 billion and $207 billion. Economic costs from lost productivity have increased by about 20 percent during the two years since the New America Foundation conducted its analysis. The low bound of this estimate represents just the cost from uninsured Americans’ shorter lifespan. The high bound represents both the cost of shortened lifespan and the loss of productivity due to the reduced health of the uninsured.

The authors source their data from Institute of Medicine’s report on the economic cost of uninsurance, the Congressional Budget Office and the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research and North Carolina Institute of Medicine.
In the second CAP article David M. Cutler, Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics at Harvard University, offers some interesting statistics in his summary report “Health System Modernization Will Reduce the Deficit

Health care modernization involves four broad steps: investing in infrastructure; measuring what is done and how well it is performed; rewarding high-value care, not just high-volume care; and realigning consumer incentives to encourage better health behavior.
This report (PDF here) analyzes how such reforms would affect the federal budget over time. It shows that health system modernization could increase productivity growth in health care by 1.5 to 2.0 percentage points annually starting in four to five years. The impact of such productivity improvement would be substantial. The federal government would save nearly $600 billion in health spending over the next decade, and $9 trillion over the next 25 years. Over time, these savings would more than offset the cost of providing insurance coverage to all Americans and put the United States on a path to long-term fiscal balance.

Of course the human costs of not enacting meaningful reforms would be absolutely staggering. As the debate over the economic costs of health care reform intensifies this summer, however, reform advocates would do well to note these figures in marshalling their arguments.


‘Money, Boots on the Ground, and the Passion to Win’

Yesterday, J.P. Green concluded his post on health care reform politics with a warning to fellow Dems to get their act together to confront the coming ‘tidal wave’ of propaganda from health care providers. Bernie Horn reports in his post “We’ll Win Health Care in 2009 with a Strong, Coordinated, Progressive Movement” at the Campaign for America’s Future ‘Blog for Our Future’ that progressives are doing just that. As Horn notes,

This year, progressive organizations are ready to fight. They have the money, boots on the ground, and the passion to win.
First, the money: Progressive groups are poised to spend more than $82 million this year to enact legislation guaranteeing quality, affordable health care for all. This includes campaign funding that has been committed by Health Care for America Now; the two main labor federations, AFL-CIO and Change To Win; and mobilization groups such as MoveOn.org and Democracy for America. For progressives, that’s an unprecedented financial effort.
Second, the organizing: The Health Care for America Now (HCAN) coalition started last year with a bit more than 100 organizations. Today, it includes 1,000 groups that collectively represent over 30 million members. HCAN’s national campaign manager, Richard Kirsch, emphasizes that “the heart of this campaign is not inside the Beltway.” HCAN now has more than 140 paid organizers in 40 states working exclusively to build support for federal health care reform while other organizations, such as SEIU and CWA, have hundreds more organizers in the field.

Horn, Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People,” also quotes Eli Pariser, president of MoveOn.org:

The Bush years have taught progressives how to do political campaigns in a different way. It’s not enough to state your argument and hope for the best. You have to get out into the country and build constituencies in key districts and have the apparatus and enforce discipline.

Horn’s concluding cri du coeur:

Enough is enough! We will not allow the health care crisis to continue. We will not stand by as thousands or even millions of Americans inevitably die because they can’t afford health insurance. We will not calmly watch our friends and neighbors, and sometimes our families, be bankrupted by health care costs. We will not say it’s okay for private health insurance companies to enrich themselves at the expense of our wellbeing and our lives. We lost in 1994, but will not lose again.
This is our time. This is our chance.


Lakoff: GOP ‘Stealth’ Attack Seeks to Reframe Empathy

Today Alternet gives George Lakoff the lead article, “Conservatives Are Waging a War on Empathy — We Can’t Let Them Win.” Lakoff’s concern here is what he sees as an attack on one of the Democratic Party’s defining values, through “reframing.” As Lakoff explains:

The Sotomayor nomination has given radical conservatives new life. They have launched an attack that is nominally aimed at Judge Sotomayor. But it is really a coordinated stealth attack — on President Obama’s central vision, on progressive thought itself, and on Republicans who might stray from the conservative hard line.
…Empathy is at the heart of progressive thought. It is the capacity to put oneself in the shoes of others — not just individuals, but whole categories of people: one’s countrymen, those in other countries, other living beings, especially those who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed. Empathy is the capacity to care, to feel what others feel, to understand what others are facing and what their lives are like. Empathy extends well beyond feeling to understanding, and it extends beyond individuals to groups, communities, peoples, even species. Empathy is at the heart of real rationality, because it goes to the heart of our values, which are the basis of our sense of justice.

Lakoff sees the GOP reframing of empathy as a sort of code for the feelings of the ‘bleeding heart liberal.’ As Lakoff puts it:

Empathy in this sense is a threat to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of “justice.” It is no surprise that empathy would be a major conservative target in the Sotomayor evaluation.
But the target is not empathy as it really exists. Instead, the conservatives are reframing empathy to make it attackable. Their “empathy” is idiosyncratic, personal feeling for an individual, presumably the defendant in a legal case. With “empathy” reframed in this way, Charles Krauthammer can say, echoing Karl Rove, “Justice is not about empathy.” The argument goes like this: Empathy is a matter personal feelings. Personal feelings should not be the basis of a judicial decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, “justice is not about empathy.” Reframe the word “empathy” and it not only disqualifies Sotomayor; it delegitimizes Obama’s central moral principle, his approach to government, his understanding of the nature of our democracy, and progressive politics in general.

Lakoff goes on to discuss the spins on empathy by various conservatives, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, Newt Gingrich and G. Gordon Liddy. But Lakoff feels it’s important to understand the subtext of their attacks:

The real target here goes beyond Sotomayor. In the last election, conservative populists moved toward Obama. Conservative populists are working people, mostly white men, who have conservative views of the family, of masculinity, and of the military, and who have bought into the idea of the ‘liberal elite” as looking down on them. Right now, they are hurting economically, losing their jobs and their homes. Empathy is something they need. The racist card is an attempt to revive their fears of affirmative action, fears of their jobs — and their pride — being taken by minorities and women. The racist attack has a political purpose, holding onto conservative populists. The overt form of the old conservative argument is made regularly these days: liberalism is identity politics.

But the real danger, according to Lakoff is Democratic complacency in underestimating the power of the Republican echo chamber:

Radical conservatives know that Sotomayor will be confirmed. They also know that their very understanding of the world is being threatened by Obama’s success. But they have a major strength. They have their message machine intact, with trained spokespeople booked on TV and radio shows all over the country. Attacking Sotomayor, even when they know she will win, allows them to rally their forces and get swing-voting conservatives thinking their way again.

And the needed response by Dems — to confront the challenge head-on:

Democrats should go on offense. They need to rally behind empathy — real empathy, not empathy reframed as emotion and personal feeling. They need to speak regularly about empathy as being the basis of our democracy. They need to point out that empathy leads one to notice real social and systemic causes of our troubles and to notice when and how judicial decisions and legislation can harm the most vulnerable of our countrymen. And finally that empathy is the reason that we have the principles of freedom and fairness — which are necessary components of justice…Above all, Democrats should be aware that the attack on Sotomayor is not just about Sotomayor. It is an attack on the basis of our democracy and must be answered.

A worthy challenge, and one which Dems should meet, lest we cede the ability to define our core values to our adversaries.


Public Support for Immigration Reform Rising

In his latest Public Opinion Snapshot at the Center for American Progress website, TDS Co-editor Ruy Teixeira reports on an encouraging development regarding public attitudes toward immigration reform. Reports Teixeira:

…We might have expected tough economic times to inflame cultural prejudices, thereby promoting intolerance of immigrants. Instead, the reverse seems to be taking place, as confirmed by new polling from the Pew Research Center.
Their just-released 2009 Values Survey shows that 63 percent favor “providing a way for illegal immigrants currently in the country to gain legal citizenship if they pass background checks, pay fines, and have jobs,” compared to just 34 percent who are opposed. That’s up from a 58-35 split on the issue in December of 2007.

Teixeira adds that the Pew survey indicates that “moral values” in general seem to be “declining precipitously” as a voting issue., with only 17 percent now saying moral values is their “most important voting issue,” down from 27 percent in a Pew poll conducted in November 2004. Teixeira notes that “the economy/jobs is up 29 points as a voting issue, health care is up 8 points, and education is up 6 points.” He concludes,

Perhaps the decline of moral values voters has allowed the immigration issue to emerge from the shadow of the culture wars and be considered on its own merits. If so, that’s a very good thing for our country and for sound public policy.

And not a bad omen for Democrats who support immigration reform.


Sotomayor Pick May Seal FL for Obama in ’12

Turns out that President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice could be a stroke of political genius — because there is a good chance it may end the GOP’s hopes of winning Florida’s electoral votes in 2012.
So writes Bill Pascoe in his CQPolitics article “Did Obama Just Use the Sotomayor Nomination To Lock in Florida?” As Pascoe says,

In the 15 presidential elections going back to 1952 — of which Republicans have won nine, and Democrats six — Florida was part of the winning GOP coalition in each of the party’s nine national victories…In fact, one has to go all the way back to 1924 to find the last time the GOP won the presidency without winning Florida.

Even more interesting, it’s not all about Cuban-Americans being sympathetic to an Hispanic nominee:

…While everyone knows of Florida’s huge Cuban-American population, how many outside of Florida know of the massive influx of Puerto Ricans that has taken place over the last decade and a half?…According to the 1990 census, Florida was home to 241,000 Puerto Ricans. A decade later, that number had swelled to 482,000. And by 2007, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund estimated that 650,000 of them lived in Florida — most of them in central Florida, along the I-4 Corridor that is the political fault line in statewide contests.
According to that same Pew Hispanic Center study, 393,000 of them were registered to vote….The ongoing Puerto Rican migration to Florida is so huge that it may well be the case that by the time of the next presidential election in 2012, Puerto Ricans make up the largest Hispanic voting segment in Florida.

And if Obama needs a good surrogate to remind Hispanic Floridians of the Sotomayor nomination when 2012 rolls around, her mother, Celina Sotomayor, who lives in Margate just north of Miami, would do nicely.


‘Millennial Generation’ Leads Pro-Democratic Shift

In his May 18 ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ at the Center for American Progress (CAP) website, Ruy Teixeira expounds on an extremely encouraging development for progressive Democrats, the dawning of the “millennial generation” — those born between 1978 and 2000 — as a political force. As Teixeira explains:

Between now and 2018, the number of Millennials of voting age will be increasing by about 4 and a half million a year and Millennial eligible voters by about 4 million a year. And in 2020, the first presidential election where all Millennials will have reached voting age, this generation will be 103 million strong, of which about 90 million will be eligible voters. Those 90 million Millennial eligible voters will represent just under 40 percent of America’s eligible voters.
Last November’s election was the first in which the 18- to 29-year-old age group was drawn exclusively from the Millennial generation, and they gave Obama a whopping 34-point margin, 66 percent to 32 percent. This compares to only a 9-point margin for Kerry in 2004. Behind this striking result is a deeper story of a generation with progressive views in all areas and big expectations for change that will fundamentally reshape our electorate.

Teixeira references another new CAP study “The Political Ideology of the Millennial Generation,” by John Halpin and Karl Agne, which indicates

Overall, Millennials expressed far more agreement with the progressive than conservative arguments. Indeed, of the 21 values and beliefs garnering majority support in the survey, only four can be classified as conservative. Moreover, six of the top seven statements in terms of level of agreement were progressive statements. These statements included such items as the need for government investment in education, infrastructure, and science; the need for a transition to clean energy; the need for America to play a leading role in addressing climate change; the need to improve America’s image around the world; and the need for universal health coverage..,.When asked in the 2008 National Election Study whether we need a strong government to handle today’s complex economic problems or whether the free market can handle these problems without government being involved, Millennials, by a margin of 78 to 22 percent, demonstrated an overwhelming preference for strong government.

On May 13th, David Madland and Teixeira had a more in-depth post, “New Progressive America: The Millennial Generation,” on the political attitudes of this important demographic group. First, the demographic explosion:

We can start with the sheer size of this generation. Between now and 2018, the number of Millennials of voting age will increase by about four and a half million a year, and Millennial eligible voters will increase by about 4 million a year. In 2020—the first presidential election where all Millennials will have reached voting age—this generation will be 103 million strong, of which about 90 million will be eligible voters. Those 90 million Millennial eligible voters will represent just under 40 percent of America’s eligible voters.
The diversity of this generation is as impressive as its size. Right now, Millennial adults are 60 percent white and 40 percent minority (18 percent Hispanic, 14 percent black, 5 percent Asian, and 3 percent other). And the proportion of minority Millennial adults will rise to 41 percent in 2012, 43 percent in 2016, and 44 percent in 2020 (21 percent Hispanic, 14 percent black, 6 percent Asian, and 3 percent other). This shift should make the Millennial generation even more firmly progressive as it fully enters the electorate, since minorities are the most strongly progressive segment among Millennials.

Most encouraging, the progressive attitudes among the Millennial Generation are not confined to young people of color:

…White Millennials are far more progressive than the population as a whole in every area, on cultural, economic, domestic policy issues, and more. In 2008, they supported Obama by 54-44, a 21-point shift toward the progressive candidate compared to 2004. Not only did Obama win white Millennials overall, but he also won both white Millennial college graduate and noncollege voters (by 16 and 6 points respectively). The latter result includes a 12-point (54-42) margin for Obama among the overwhelmingly working-class 25- to 29-year-old white noncollege group, a stunning 40-point swing relative to Kerry’s 35-63 drubbing among the same group in 2004. This suggests that as relatively progressive white working-class Millennials replace older white working-class voters in the electorate, the white working class as a whole could become less conservative and more open to progressive ideas and candidates.

Teixeira and Madland go on to outline the progressive views of Millennials on key issues, like health care, abortion, same sex marriage, foreign policy and Iraq, unions, government’s role in the economy and clean energy. The authors conclude that the Millennial Generation “will fundamentally reshape our electorate…We are on course for a new progressive America, and the rise of the Millennial generation is one main force behind this transformation.”


Annual Polling Meeting: Video Interview Clips

For those interested in the role of the pollster in developing political strategy, Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com has some video clip interviews from the annual gathering of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), the world’s largest association of polling professionals. The first of three installments has four video clips. For a good overview, scroll down and start with his interview of the conference Chair Michael Link, Chief Methodologist/VP for Methodological Research at The Nielsen Company, who describes some of the hot buzz topics being discussed at the meeting.
Blumenthal also provides two clips with one of the most experienced living pollsters, Lou Harris, who describes his work with JFK and how JFK responded to polling (He was amazed when Harris accurately predicted the exact percentage of his 1958 U.S. Senate re-election win, 71 percent of the vote). Harris, the first presidential pollster who “served on a super-straegy committee,” also discusses his concerns about the polling profession and the moral responsibility of pollsters, among other topics.
Blumenthal interviews Temple University Proff Christopher Wlezien about the comparative accuracy of polls and political prediction markets. He also links to a new paper by Wlezien and Robert Erikson “Markets vs. Polls as Predictors: An Historical Assessment of US Presidential Elections,” presented at the meeting. (hint: don’t bet the ranch on markets just yet).