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

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

The Republicans’ message du jour buzz term on the eve of President Obama’s SOTU is an oldie, but not-so-goodie: “Class Warfare.” Steve Benen explains it well at Maddowblog:

…Obama is prepared to focus on the growing wealth gap, economic inequalities, the concentration of wealth at the very top, and the fact that the recovery’s prosperity has not been broadly shared. And yes, the predictable, knee-jerk response from the right is to complain about “class warfare.”
But whether congressional Republicans are comfortable with this or not, it was Mitt Romney who told RNC members last week how concerned he is that “the rich have gotten richer” and “income inequality has gotten worse.” It was Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) who complained about a year ago, “Right now, the top 1 percent in this country, the millionaires and billionaires the president demagogues so much, earn a higher share of our national income than any time since 1928.”
Is it “class warfare” when a Democrat notices these national challenges, but sound thinking when a Republican notices? Or does it only count as “class warfare” because the president has presented a credible proposal to do something about it?

Good questions. Many a progressive Democrat would welcome a little more class conflict, since the gap between the super-rich and working people has grown alarmingly under Republican tax policies, union-bashing and wage stagnation.
In addition to their hypocrisy on the topic, Republicans have never gotten a lot of traction with the ‘class warfare’ meme. They hope to win over some small businessmen and women with it, but there is little evidence that ‘class warfare’ hysteria wins much support with this particular constituency. It’s pretty much a preaching-to-the choir ditty, of little interest to persuadable voters who are looking for substantive answers.
It’s equally unlikely that working families struggling to pay their bills and get their kids a better education are going to have much sympathy with the GOP meme-mongers ‘class warfare’ finger-pointing. Odds are they will find President Obama’s expected SOTU message calling for tuition-free community college, paid family leave, and a more significant middle class tax cut of considerably more interest.

In this short clip MLK concludes one of his best speeches on the steps of the state capitol in Montgomery, Alabama at the conclusion of the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march for Voting Rights. As we celebrate the 30th Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, the film “Selma” seems to be gathering momentum for a “Best Picture” Oscar, accompanied by debate about LBJ’s level of support for the Voting Rights Act. I come down in the middle: It’s true that LBJ would not have fought for it and signed it in 1965 without MLK’s determination. But give Johnson some credit for coming up with visionary leadership when it counted.
At The Hill Ben Kamisar’s “Lawmakers Reflect on ‘No’ Votes on the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday” surveys the current and past attitudes of current Republican members of congress who voted against the MLK holiday at the federal or state level. Three of them, Sens. McCain, Hatch and Isaakson say they regret their vote.
At Latin Post Michael Oleaga reports on his interviews of LULAC and Rock the Vote leaders and discusses “How to Mobilize Latino Millennials After Midterms.”
Livia Gershon’s “Why Democrats Can’t Figure Out White Working-Class Voters” at vice.com marshals a combination of revealing anecdotes and analysis to shed some interesting light on the Democrats’ quest for a bigger bite of this elusive demographic. Among Gershon’s insights: “Depending on how you define the white working class, you can come to a wide variety of conclusions about voting patterns. But spend too much time thinking about these details, and you miss a major piece of the puzzle: The huge number of white working-class people, and lower-income people of all races, who don’t vote at all…Elisabeth Jacobs, the researcher, said that if we want to understand how class affects voting as we look toward 2016, the gap between voters and non-voters is in some ways more important than the party breakdown. “If you’re talking about the white working class versus the white working class voters, you’re talking about very different universes of people,” she said.”
Here’s great headline that encapsulates a good idea from WLRN, a PBS affiliate in south Florida: “Democrats’ Free Tuition Strategy: Unleash Eager Parents Against Reluctant GOP” by Rick Stone.
Looks like conservatives are trying to brand Rep. Chris Van Hollen as “Robin Hood” for his new tax plan which would reallocate some income from the wealthy to the middle class. Maybe that’s not such a hot idea, since Robin Hood has been a hero to working people for centuries.
Michael Tomasky’s explains in his Daily Beast post, “The Biggest, Most Important 2016 Debate” that “…Wage stagnation is basically a Democratic issue, one that most voters would probably trust the Democrats to do a better job on than Republicans. Although of course, if it comes to be October 2016 and wages are still as flat as they’ve been since the crash, that could be a problem for the Democrats. So what they need to do is frame wages not as a post-crash, Obama-era problem, but instead to make sure Americans know that this is a deep historical problem, and that the moment to address is right now…The Democratic Party wasn’t always much good at articulating a theory of economic growth that could counter the Republicans’ trickle-down argument. They’re finally finding their voice on this. And so, the real importance of the next election is not the Supreme Court, not climate change, not foreign policy, crucial as all those things are. It’s that it could write the obituary of supply-side economics. ”
Ohio progressives must now prepare for a brutal battle against Republicans’ all-out assault on unions — and middle-class economic security in the buckeye state.
“Simple”might be a stretch. But Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake present a plausible path for Dems to retake a U.S. Senate majority in 2016.

At the Washington Post Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane report that “Democrats, in a stark shift in messaging, to make big tax-break pitch for middle class” — a plan which “calls for a massive transfer of wealth from the super-rich and Wall Street traders to the heart of the middle class.”
Give it up for Sean Penn, who just raised $6 million for Haitian relief at an event honoring President Clinton — in one night.
“Are Independents Just Democrats and Republicans by Another Name?” by Ali Elkin and Sasha Issenberg at Bloomberg Politics affirms that “A record number of independents in a country that is as ideologically riven as ever is a paradox that’s not really a paradox. Most of the new independents are liable to be indistinguishable from Democrats or Republicans by belief–they just wouldn’t want to call themselves that.”
Look who’s talking.
Aaron Chatterji’s NYT op-ed “Don’t Look to States for New Ideas” notes that “…State politics have become much more partisan. After the 2014 elections, 60 percent of the states are completely controlled by a single party. The power of state policy innovations is that they traditionally had bipartisan fingerprints, allowing an enterprising national politician from either party to lay claim to them. In the new world of single-party states, very little bipartisan legislation will emerge.”
$721 Million — the amount the energy industry spent on the 2014 midterm elections, reports Bill DiBenedetto at TriplePundit.
At Campaign for America’s Future Richard Eskow’s “Populism Rises – And The ‘Center’ Strikes Back” provides an update on the internal Democratic Party struggle between the liberal and conservative flanks and the debate about what constitutes “real populism.”
At last some highly favorable opinion traction for Obamacare, reports Juan Williams at The Hill.
Under the sub-category “Folksy Panderin,” The Daily Beast’s Olivia Nuzzi posts on the latest weirdness from Republican presidential wanna-be Mike Huckabee, who may be experiencing some anatomical anxieties.

From Sean McElwee’s Politico post, “The Income Gap at the Polls“: “…The gap between voters and non-voters breaks down strongly along class lines. In the 2012 election, 80.2 percent of those making more than $150,000 voted, while only 46.9 percent of those making less than $10,000 voted. This “class bias,” is so strong that in the three elections (2008, 2010 and 2012) I examined, there was only one instance of a poorer income bracket turning out at a higher rate than the bracket above them. (In the 2012 election, those making less than $10,000 were slightly more likely to vote than those making between $10,000 and $14,999.) On average, each bracket turned out to vote at a rate 3.7 percentage points higher than the bracket below it…This class bias is a persistent feature of American voting: A study of 40 years of state-level data finds no instance in which there was not a class bias in the electorate favoring the rich–in other words, no instance in which poorer people in general turned out in higher rates than the rich. That being said, class bias has increased since 1988, just as wide gaps have opened up between the opinions of non-voters and those of voters.”
Here’s an interesting by-product of lower voter turnout — fewer signatures are needed to get issues on ballots where applicable. Case in point: Ohio, where it will now require almost 80K fewer signatures to get pot legalization on the ballot.
No ‘exploratory’ yada yada yet. But it looks Like WI Gov. Scott Walker is running for the GOP presidential nomination.
A worthy strategic insight from Isaiah J. Poole’s post, “How Democrats in 2015 Can Honor Mario Cuomo’s Progressive Vision” at Moyers & Co, “Now that political timidity and triangulation is a proven loser, it’s time to be bold, passionate and visionary…”In the minds of a lot of voters, economic fairness and the Democratic brand have in some ways separated, which is really tragic because that really is what we stand for,” said Rep. Keith Ellison, (D-MN), co-chairman of the House Progressive Caucus in an interview with the McClatchy News Service. “The president can help rebuild that brand.”
Democratic strategist Robert Creamer writes at HuffPo about the paradox of Nancy Pelosi’s political influence increasing as a result of GOP House gains in 2014.
And Bloomberg News provides an excellent and welcome example of Pelosi’s leverage — leading the successful opposition to a Republican measure to further weaken Dodd-Frank.
Greg Sargent previews the upcoming fight over President Obama raising the overtime pay threshold of the Fair Labor Standards Act, below which the private sector is required to pay overtime. Progressives want it increased to $51,000 from $23,660 — an excellent example of a reform which could have wide middle class appeal.
Jonathan Chait explains why “Why the Republican Congress’s First Act Was to Declare War on Math.” The GOP has implemented “dynamic scoring” to destroy the impartiality of the Congressional Budget Office.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren has coined an apt term, which may prove useful for describing “dynamic scoring” and other forms of GOP statistical manipulations — “magical accounting.”

For a transcript of NPR’s new interview with TDS founding editor Ruy Teixeira, click here.
Here’s another transcript worth reading — of Steve Inskeep’s NPR interview with President Obama, nicely summarized up by Peter Sullivan at The Hill. “At the end of 2014, Obama said he could “look back and say we are as well-positioned today as we have been in quite some time economically, that American leadership is more needed around the world than ever before — and that is liberating in the sense that a lot of the work that we’ve done is now beginning to bear fruit…Obama finished the year with a flurry of executive actions, including moves to give 4.5 million illegal immigrants legal status and open relations with Cuba. Along with a climate change agreement with China and a deal with congressional Republicans that will keep the government funded through September, the jolt of work pushed back at any sense he’s entering the lame-duck, powerless portion of his presidency…”I think one of the things I’ve learned over six years, and it doesn’t always suit the news cycle, is having some strategic patience.”

No one should be surprised that the GOP is relying on a wave of right wing judicial activism to advance their agenda, as Michael D. Shear reports at The New York Times — all the more reason for Democrats to never again allow an easy ride for Republican court nominees.
At Bloomberg News, Billy House’s “Political wake or wake-up? House Dems mull strategy” explores how Democratic members of congress will cope with Boehner’s enhanced majority. House notes, “”We’ve got to get ready for an alley fight” with House Republicans, said Rep. Raul Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat and progressive caucus co-chairman with Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota…The question is what agenda House Democrats will push heading toward the 2016 presidential election year after losing 13 seats in the Nov. 4 election. The 247-188 House majority won by Republicans will be their largest since the Congress elected in 1928. Democrats lost the majority to Republicans in 2010.”
The Huck revs his engine for the GOP’s 2016 demolition derby. If he greases his way through to win his party’s nod, Dems will put his sound-bite powers to the test when they make him explain his serial encitement of voter suppression and sabotage.
A GOP lion passes, and evokes memories of a time when Republicans opposed voter suppression and actually negotiated in good faith for the benefit of the country.
Speaking of the the current Republican party’s inability to negotiate in good faith, departing Sen. Saxby Chambliss now sheds crocodile tears for the decline of bipartisanship, even though he supported his party’s ‘wall of obstruction’ strategy with very few exceptions.
Michael Tomasky says Dems must assertively defend government, and plugs a new website dedicated to doing just that. “I believe that it is possible to make government interesting and appealing, says Tomasky, “and to surprise people with all that government does for them every day that they take for granted and just assume was the handiwork of the “more efficient” private sector…When the Republicans come after the EPA, Democrats need to be ready to talk about all that the EPA has accomplished over the years–the rivers and lakes made swimmable and fishable, the polluting power plants made cleaner, and all the rest. I never hear a Democrat talk about these goods, which are, in the literal sense, indivisible–for us all.”

Politico’s Alex Isenstadt reports on Democratic strategy to energize Latino turnout in 2016. California Rep. Tony Cárdenas, the incoming chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’s political action committee, plans to double their spending on Hispanic turnout and “elect two or three additional Hispanic Democrats to the House in 2016, and over the next decade to double their number to 50.”
At the Washington Times, no less, Robert W. Merry, political editor of The National Interest, presents an argument that “if Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Warren have their way, their party will begin taking steps to…bring those working-class Americans back into the fold. If Republicans are flat-footed, the new Democratic populists could create a major fault line between themselves and Republicans on the issue of the big Wall Street banks. That represents the biggest threat to Republicans going into the 2016 elections.”
A political geography feast awaits you at this link.
Interesting nuggets from a Monkey Cage report a new study of political activism by Jenny Oser, Jan E. Leighley and Ken Winnegon: “Our study identifies four types of voters…(1)”All-around activists” (5 percent of voters), who are highly active in all participatory opportunities…(2)”Traditional campaigners” (8 percent of voters), who are particularly active in traditional offline campaign activity…(3)”Persuaders” (12 percent of voters), who are highly engaged in online means to communicate directly to representatives…(4)”Low engaged” (76 percent of voters), who are unlikely to be politically active beyond voting.”
Although it is understandable why so many Dems blame the south for the party’s troubles, the political situation in Michigan highlights the painful reality that Democratic state parties need better strategy in all regions.
Lest we forget, there are elections in the U.S. in 2015, as well as 2016. At stake are three governorships (KY, LA MS), legislative elections in four states (LA, MS, NJ and VA), along with numerous citizen initiatives and mayoral races in 20 major cities. Some particulars here.
Also for 2015, John Perr’s Kos post, “Three ways the GOP will sabotage the government and the economy in 2015” and Sam Baker’s “Why Liberals Should Fear the Supreme Court in 2015” at The National Journal should help get you politically-prepped for the new year.
The midterm drubbing notwithstanding, it looks like President Obama is now doing a good job of positioning his party for 2016. Steve Benen has an interesting take along these lines at Maddowblog.
It’s only Monday, but here’s a good candidate for the ‘No shite, Sherlock’ headline of the week.

Jennifer Granholm, who knows how to deliver a fierce convention speech, has some message tips for Dems heading into 2016.
A little louder on this, Dems.
Larry Sabato & co. tier out the Dem and GOP presidential fields. It’s early yet, but it’s hard to see any of the GOP wanna-bes generating much excitement, while Dems have two big-buzz potential candidates already.
Why the turnout trend is even scarier than we thought.
Here’s a disturbing look at the Alabama Democratic party, which is not atypical of the problems state Democratic parties face throughout the South. At least someone is writing about how to begin fixing them.
Mona parrots the GOP is “the manly Daddy party” meme and shows what columnists on deadline do when they have nothing to say.
Sheri and Alan Rivlin have a good Huffpo roundup of mid-term post mortems, including some salient thoughts of TDS editors and contributors.
Heaven forbid students should learn anything from one of history’s most influential thinkers, says the neo-McCarthyist Weekly Standard.
These guys are hilarious. Here’s hoping they get more into political satire.

Writing at The Hill, Democratic strategist James Carville addresses a question much on the minds of Democratic activists and operatives everywhere: “Why do people vote against their interests?” Carville, co-author of “It’s the Middle Class, Stupid!” with TDS founding editor Stan Greenberg, focuses here more on the phenomena of well-off voters casting their ballots for Republicans — even when the record shows that the economy and the stock market do substantially better under Democratic Administrations.

A chief complaint of many Republicans is that Asian-Americans and Jews strongly support and vote for Democrats despite the affluent economic standing many have achieved. Similarly, Democratic strategists struggle to understand why 77 out the 100 poorest and most government-dependent counties in the United States voted for Mitt Romney in 2012.
But the people who consistently and overwhelmingly vote in large numbers against their interests are stock market investors.
I have no earthly idea why a stock market investor would vote Republican — all you have do is look at the numbers. The numbers are staggering, breathtaking and unimaginable. How anyone with even a penny in the market would vote for their interests and choose a Republican is unexplainable.

It’s true. One of the biggest myths in American politics is that the Republicans are better for business. Carville continues:

Since Obama was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009, Standard & Poor’s 500 index has gone up approximately 115 percent, the Dow Jones industrial average has experienced a growth rate of 146 percent and, perhaps most impressively, Nasdaq has grown in size by 188 percent. Two thousand days into his presidency, the major stock indexes under Obama have had average gains of 142 percent — compare that to the record under Reagan, who saw gains at 88 percent during that same time period.
Russ Britt of MarketWatch notes, “the average stock-market gain under four post-Depression Democrats through each one’s 2,000th day in office has outpaced the average gain of the four Republicans in the era by a factor of nearly 4 to 1. Democratic gains have averaged 133%, while Republican market advances have had a mean of 33%.”

Obviously such stats have not been lost on Warren Buffet and a few more of the most savvy business leaders. For the most part, however, stock market investors and other well-off business leaders parrot the GOP party line that Obama and Democrats are bad for business — against all credible evidence. Nonetheless, as Carville concludes,

Political pundits will spend the next few months asking questions about presidential candidates’ qualifications and if they will be able to make tough decisions. The one thing we do know, thanks to history, is that that stock market is likely to do well if Democrats win. If the stock market is among your considerations, I will close with the findings of the two foremost experts on this topic and the larger comparisons of economies under Republican and Democratic presidents, Princeton University professors Mark W. Watson and Alan Blinder:
“The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics.”
With such glaring facts and evidence, I ask stock investors to reexamine, reconsider and reinvest their confidence in the Democratic Party. Franklin Roosevelt was famously called by his fellow affluent Americans a “traitor to his class.” Well, if history was any guide, FDR wasn’t a traitor at all. He was the first in a series of Democratic presidents whose policies benefited the same wealthy people who railed against him.

Carville doesn’t probe the psychology of political self-delusion that leads so many business people to vote against their economic interests. A list of possible reasons might include the fact that not all successful business people are that smart, or even well-informed about the record Carville examines. Then there’s also the politics of resentment — some people are more comfortable voting their knee-jerk resentments over their interests. In the case of business people who voted against Obama and other Democratic candidates, there is probably some racism, thinly-disguised with a veneer of economic cliches that don’t hold up under scrutiny. And there will always be the tax-haters who like Republicans because they advocate reducing their taxes, along with gutting programs that benefit less well-off people.
In recent years, there has been an even larger discrepancy between the voting patterns of white working-class voters in many states and their economic interests, which are under almost constant assault by Republican politicians. From tax cuts for the rich financed by massive budget cuts for needed services, to undermining unions, opposing an increase the minimum wage, to restricting health care coverage, to outsourcing to refusing to invest in infrastructure upgrades, Republicans are engaged in relentless pursuit of policies that reduce the real income of workers. Yet majorities of white workers continue to vote for Republicans in most states.
It’s regrettable that so many voters don’t look at the big picture, and get it that the economy does better under Democratic leadership, which benefits everyone and gives America a more livable society. No magic cures here. As always, the only remedy for ignorance is education. Dems have to do a better job of widely-sharing the economic realities Carville has presented here.