Excellent Mayor that he is, Cory Booker screwed up big time when he criticized the Obama campaign for holding Romney accountable for his record at the helm of Bain Capital. To paraphrase WaPo columnist Gene Robinson’s quip on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ show, “…Everybody understands why a democrat in the New York metropolitan area is going to be nice to private equity…but not that nice.”
It wasn’t just that Booker is supposed to be a supportive Democrat etc. And, he has walked his comments back somewhat. Putting politics aside for a half-second, Booker’s critique was wrong from both a strategic and factual perspective. What a presidential candidate did for years and then brags about as indicative of his mighty powers of job-creation, most certainly merits rigorous analysis and a tough critique from his opponent. When Romney so frequently references his private sector experience as proof of his ability to lead America to a nation-wide recovery, he not only deserves scrutiny; he invites it.
Robert Reich makes sure Romney gets some of that scrutiny — and more — in his HuffPo column, “Why Obama Should Be Attacking Casino Capitalism — Both Romney’s Bain and JPMorgan.” Here’s a piece of Reich’s take:

I wish President Obama would draw the obvious connection between Bain Capital and JPMorgan Chase. That way his so-called “attack” on private equity is neither a personal attack on Mitt Romney nor a generalized attack on American business.
It’s an attack on a particular kind of capitalism that Romney and JPMorgan both practice: Using other peoples’ money to make big bets which, if they go wrong, can wreak havoc on the economy…It’s the substitution of casino capitalism for real capitalism, the dominance of the betting parlor over the real business of America, financial innovation rather than product innovation…It’s been terrible for the American economy and for our democracy.

Reich goes on to urge Obama to mount a stronger attack vs. JPMorgan Chase’s recent “reckless bets,” and adds,

As a practical matter, the Volcker Rule is hopeless. It was intended to be Glass-Steagall lite — a more nuanced version of the original Depression-era law that separated commercial from investment banking. But JPMorgan has proven that any nuance — any exception — will be stretched beyond recognition by the big banks…So much money can be made when these bets turn out well that the big banks will stop at nothing to keep the spigot open…There’s no alternative but to resurrect Glass-Steagall as a whole.

Reich also blasts “the “carried interest” loophole that allows private-equity managers like Mitt Romney to treat their incomes as capital gains, taxed at only 15 percent, when they’ve risked no money of their own,” and concludes:

If private equity were good for America it wouldn’t need this or the other tax preference it depends on, elevating debt over equity. But the private equity industry has huge political clout, which is why these tax preferences remain…Get it? Bain Capital and JPMorgan are parts of the same problem. The president should be leading the charge against both.

Steven Rattner also puts it well in his New York Times op-ed:

Mr. Obama struck the right balance, emphasizing that he wasn’t attacking private equity but was questioning Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital credentials to be the job creator in chief.
That’s fair, particularly because Mr. Romney himself has been foolishly reweaving history to claim, as recently as last week, that he helped create 100,000 jobs during his time at Bain…Mr. Romney takes credit for every job ever created at every company Bain Capital invested in during his tenure — while ignoring jobs eliminated after his departure.

Worse, adds Rattner,

And in a further effort to deflect attention from the Bain Capital debate, Mr. Romney last week argued that President Obama was responsible for the loss of 100,000 jobs in the auto industry over the past three years.
That’s both ridiculously false (auto industry and dealership jobs have increased by about 50,000 since January 2009) and a remarkable comment from a man who said that the companies should have been allowed to go bankrupt and that the industry would have been better off without President Obama’s involvement.
Adding jobs was never Mitt Romney’s private sector agenda, and it’s appropriate to question his ability to do so.

Despite all of the above a new NBC/Wall St. Journal poll indicates that nearly 60 percent of respondents believe that Romney’s experience gives him cred for economic leadership. The Obama campaign would be suicidal to let that misperception go unchallenged.
It looks like the President gets it, as indicated by the speech excerpt in the ‘Noteworthy’ box above. Whether you call it ‘casino’ or ‘vulture’ capitalism, this is clearly not the kind of ‘free enterprise’ the majority of Americans want to protect, and the President would be remiss if he gave Romney’s whole-hearted embrace of it a free ride.

If you were unaware of the stakes in the upcoming Wisconsin recall election on June 5th, John Nichol’s report in The Nation provides some perspective:

…Wisconsin is witnessing the most ambitious set of recall elections in American history: not just the executive branch but the most powerful legislative chamber could be flipped from Republican to Democratic control. If Walker and his allies are removed from office, the results will be seen across the country as a rejection of the false premise that cutting taxes for the rich while attacking unions and slashing services will somehow spur job growth. Walker promised that his policies would create 250,000 jobs. Instead of growth, the governor’s austerity agenda has brought about what the Bureau of Labor Statistics identifies as the worst pattern of job losses in the nation…

Democrats have a solid, well-experienced alternative to Scott Walker’s polarizing leadership:

…Walker’s Democratic challenger, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, argues that the governor abandoned fiscal common sense and “created an ideological civil war…in the State of Wisconsin….Former Senator Russ Feingold hails Barrett, a former Congressman, as “a lifelong progressive [who]… stood with me in voting against the deregulation that led to the Wall Street crash, opposing the Patriot Act, and reforming our system of campaign finance.” Barrett also broke with Democratic and Republican presidents to oppose NAFTA and champion labor rights. But the Democrat is not just ideologically distinct from Walker. Whereas Walker’s a my-way-or-the-highway pol, Barrett is known for getting people to work together. Though his pragmatic approach to balancing budgets frustrated some local unions in Milwaukee and led to a split in the labor movement over whom to back in the primary, Barrett has now united unions and the party in the campaign to defeat Walker.

In terms of economic resources for Barrett’s campaign, progressives face a tough reality:

…Barrett spent around $1 million to win his primary; Walker has already burned through $21 million, and his billionaire backers have spent millions more on “independent” ads. The unprecedented spending on behalf of Walker and his allies has made these recall elections an example of what campaigning has come to look like in the Citizens United era: Democrats can’t hope to match the staggering level of corporate cash raised by the GOP, so they will have to accelerate grassroots organizing and get-out-the-vote drives. Wisconsin will test the prospect that people power might yet beat money power…

Dems and progressives have a big edge in ‘feet on the ground’ in the WI race, and both sides agree that this election will likely come down to turnout mobilization. But recent polls show Walker surging, so Walker’s money edge could prove decisive. Clearly, Tom Barret could use some help. If your Democratic governor is in good shape politically and/or financially, or if the governor’s race in your state is a done deal, or if there is no governor’s race at all in your state, consider a donation to Tom Barrett’s campaign at his ActBlue page right here.
The important thing for Dems to keep in mind about June 5th is that it’s not just about Wisconsin and public unions. If Walker wins, it will green-light intensified union-bashing by Republicans across the country and ultimately threaten living standards even for unorganized workers. But if Barrett wins, it will help rebuild the labor movement, check big money in politics and energize progressives for the November elections.

The Washington Post’s “Want to end partisan politics? Here’s what won’t work — and what will” by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, provides sound analysis of 9 “solutions,” five bad (3rd party; term limits; balanced budget amendment; public financing of elections; and “stay calm”) and four good (realistic campaign reform; independent redistricting commissions and instant run-off voting; restrict the filibuster; and automatic registration, open primaries and a fine for not voting/lottery prize for winning voter stub).
DemFromCt has an exclusive Daily Kos interview with TDS Co-Editor William Galston on election-related concerns. Among Galston’s observations: “As for military voters…Obama is getting much higher marks for his conduct of defense and foreign policy than for his stewardship of the economy. Along with other Americans, military people like his aggressive conduct of the war on terrorists. Indeed, it appears that Obama has neutralized–at least for now–longstanding Democratic vulnerabilities in this area…the Obama administration has worked hard to earn the trust and support of veterans. It has been particularly forceful in areas such as health care and rehabilitation for wounded veterans, and in recent months it has been emphasizing employment opportunities for former military personnel as well…”
At U.S. News Rebekah Metzler reports on the Obama campaign’s prospects for winning a bigger bite of veterans’ votes. “…Obama has overseen dramatic troop draw-downs in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the official ending of the war in Iraq, as well as his successful efforts to ramp up pressure on al Qaeda, which culminated with the death of Osama bin Laden…Obama has increased funding for veteran healthcare, successfully pushed for tax credits for businesses that hire veterans, and approved a beefed-up GI bill that allows veterans to obtain their undergraduate degrees for free.”
WaPo’s Matt Miller has a whining lament on the demise of Americans Elect (which squandered $35 million and couldn’t produce a candidate) and he takes a bitter pot shot at the ‘false equivalency police.” Somehow he still doesn’t get it that dividing the only serious opposition to the lunatic right by launching a brand new third party with vaporous principles is a really bad idea, the very opposite of what is needed for “rebuilding upward mobility and economic security.”
Linda Killian, whose book, “The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents,” was shredded in a review by Ruy Teixeira, has a post up at WaPo, in which she sorta kinda backs away from some of her overstated assertions.
Nicholas Confessore’s “‘Super PACs’ Let Strategists Off the Leash” reveals how the Citizens United decision balkanizes campaign strategy-making, as well as upping the ante.
With the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act a few short weeks away, we can only hope that a couple of the conservative justices give thoughtful consideration to a new survey of sick and not sick Americans commissioned and conducted by NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health. The poll found that 45 percent of the sick say that the quality of health care is a “very serious problem,” nearly a third say it has gotten worse, 73 percent say the cost of health care is a very serious problem and 70 percent said the cost has gotten worse.
A new poll by Vanderbilt University painfully illustrates the failure to educate the public about the Affordable Care Act’s benefits. While a strong majority favors key provisions of the Act, the poll found that 50 percent of Tennesseans would like to see the bill thrown out. Yet, as Tom Wilemon reports in The Tennessean, “The law has helped 51,684 young adults in the state gain coverage, lowered prescription costs for 86,818 Medicare recipients and made preventive exams free for more than 1 million Tennesseans…it would provide insurance to 466,000 state residents who now are without coverage.”
Thomas B. Edsall has a New York Times rumination on trouble spots looming for the Obama campaign with respect to women, class, race, gay and lesbian and a range of ‘cultural’ issues.
Despite the Democrats’ troubles in NC, Facing South’s Chris Kromm reports that a dramatic increase of Latino voters in NC, as well as Florida, could be pivotal in November. As Kromm notes, “…The change has been fastest in North Carolina, where the percentage of voters who identify as Hispanic doubled between 2008 and 2012. Even more striking, the share of the N.C. electorate falling into the category of “other” — those who don’t identify as white, black, Hispanic or American Indian, which often includes Asian-Americans, Hispanics and multi-racial voters — rose by 252 percent. Overall, the total number of voters in North Carolina not identifying as white has grown by 5.6 percent over the last four years, bringing their share of the electorate to 29 percent.”
MyDD has an interesting post by ‘The Opportunity Agenda’ entitled “What You Just Said Hurts My Head” about ‘cognitive dissonance’ and resistance to “painful” change of political attitudes.

MJ Lee reports at Politico that Herman Cain picks up the cudgel after Romney smartly disavows the Super-PAC planned Rev. Wright attacks (for now). Presumably, Cain’s entry into the fray is designed to soften the race-baiting criticism. But it still looks like a concerted “high” road/low road dog and pony show.
From WaPo, quoth an aide to Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel: “The Mayor was livid when he read that the Ricketts were going to launch a $10 million campaign against President Obama – with the type of racially motivated ads that are insulting to the president and the presidential campaign…He is also livid with their blatant hypocrisy.” Well. Friggin. Done. When hypocritical rich wingnuts ask for huge taxpayer/public handouts, while funding Super-PAC ads attacking Dem leaders and government as fundamentally evil, they should get pushback from elected officials, especially Dems.
Nate Silver crunches the stats at FiveThirtyEight, and concludes that “Democrats’ Odds of Retaining Senate Improve.”
The Obama campaign is about to launch a new website, “Gotta Vote” to help voters navigate through the maze of voter suppression laws passed by the GOP in the states. According to Politico’s Brian Tau, “The online tool — which will be live shortly — gives voters detailed state-by-state information on how and when to register. It also collects phone numbers and email addresses, offering to remind potential voters when to register. It also seeks volunteer attorneys to become “victory counsels” to help “voter protection efforts” across the country. It also has a Tumblr where voters can ask process questions.”
Here we go again with filibuster reform. Maybe it would be wise to wait a few months.
From John Nichols’ update on the Wisconsin recall in The Nation: “Barrett spent around $1 million to win his primary; Walker has already burned through $21 million, and his billionaire backers have spent millions more on “independent” ads. The unprecedented spending on behalf of Walker and his allies has made these recall elections an example of what campaigning has come to look like in the Citizens United era: Democrats can’t hope to match the staggering level of corporate cash raised by the GOP, so they will have to accelerate grassroots organizing and get-out-the-vote drives. Wisconsin will test the prospect that people power might yet beat money power.”
Ronald Brownstein’s “The Political Class Divide Deepens” at the Atlantic discusses polls indicating that “All whites expect their financial situation to improve over the next year, but those with college-degrees are more optimistic…Non-college whites are somewhat more restrained in their expectations: 50 percent of both blue-collar white men and women expect to be better off, about double the share that expects to lose ground.” Brownstein also notes of Obama’s prospects re the white working-class, “…the “polls consistently showing him falling below his showing last time among whites — especially the blue-collar whites cool to his social agenda and still glum about the economy.”
In his NYT ‘Campaign Stops’ op-ed, “Reaching Catholics,” Jim Arkedis, senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute argues that there is a strategy that can enable Obama to maximize support from Catholics. In a nut graph, Arkedis explains: “…The Ryan budget imposes “a particular burden on the middle-class and the most vulnerable.” This argument should form the bedrock of Obama’s faith-based appeal to persuadable Catholics…A broad, upbeat theme of social justice will be enough for Obama to reach persuadable Catholics, who can interpret the message in concert with their beliefs. The president might quote Pope John Paul II, who once said, “Radical changes in world politics leave America with a heightened responsibility to be, for the world, an example of a genuinely free, democratic, just and humane society.” They must hear the message often and at least 15 percent of the time in Spanish.”
Blue Dog John Barrow (D-GA12), makes the case in his WaPo op-ed, “Fewer moderates? Blame redistricting” for “nonpartisan commissions to draw district lines” to reduce what he sees as hyper-partisanship.
A sobering read awaits Dems at Talking Points Memo, where Benjy Sarlin’s “Forget Jeremiah Wright: Democrats’ Real Worry Is GOP Money” notes among his worrisome observations: “…Overall, though, Republicans — and especially Romney — have proven more adept by far at raking in game-changing amounts from big donors…The bigger impact may be on down-ballot races, which will help determine the effectiveness of the next president regardless of party…”Somebody dumps $15 million on the presidential election and they won’t be overwhelming the race,” Hasen said. “But $15 [million] on a Senate or congressional race will be huge and have a major effect, especially with control of the Senate up for grabs.”

Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg report in the NYT that top GOP strategists have joined forces with conservative billionaire Joe Ricketts to prepare for a political ad campaign that may set a new standard for viciousness. According the the authors, one part of the plan includes,

…running commercials linking Mr. Obama to incendiary comments by his former spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose race-related sermons made him a highly charged figure in the 2008 campaign.
“The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in a big, attention-arresting way,” says the proposal, which was overseen by Fred Davis and commissioned by Joe Ricketts, the founder of the brokerage firm TD Ameritrade. Mr. Ricketts is increasingly putting his fortune to work in conservative politics.

The ad would reportedly front an “extremely literate conservative African-American” who would say that Obama presents himself as a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.” This particular group of conservatives seems terminally obsessed with the Jeremiah Wright fuss, which the public may now see as a no-longer relevant yawner.
But it is a clear harbinger of the depths of the low road Republican campaign to come. It’s all part of the strategy of using Super PAC’s to do the dirty work, while the Romney campaign stays on the ‘higher’ road:

…Should the plan proceed, it would run counter to the strategy being employed by Mitt Romney’s team, which has so far avoided such attacks. The Romney campaign has sought to focus attention on the economy, and has concluded that personal attacks on Mr. Obama, who is still well liked personally by most independent voters surveyed for polls, could backfire.
…The strategists grappled with the quandary of running against Mr. Obama that other Republicans have cited this year: “How to inflame their questions on his character and competency, while allowing themselves to still somewhat ‘like’ the man becomes the challenge.”
Lamenting that voters “still aren’t ready to hate this president,” the document concludes that the campaign should “explain how forces out of Obama’s control, that shaped the man, have made him completely the wrong choice as president in these days and times.”

The ad would run during the Democratic convention in Charlotte. It also calls for billboards and aerial banners etc.
In his TDS strategy memo warning of a GOP “propaganda campaign of a scope and ferocity unparalleled in American History,” Andrew Levison predicted that the Republican PACs would take the lead in the low-road campaign. “The ads–which will come from Super-PAC’s more than official sources–will be ugly and distasteful: they will portray Obama as deeply “un-American”–foreign and alien to the heartland values and daily life of the “real” America.” the reasons, as Levison suggests,

…By the fall of 2012 Republicans and conservatives will be literally desperate to increase turn-out among a conservative political base that is very ambivalent about Romney and which has extremely little enthusiasm for him or his country-club Republican persona. There is only so much that conventional TV advertising can do to create an artificial “real folks” image for a candidate who is as ostentatiously privileged and aloof as Romney. In order to turn-out the base on Election Day Republican strategists will agree that it will be necessary to create a climate of genuine mass hysteria about the horrors of a second Obama term.
…The most important goal of this low road campaign will be to create a fierce and widespread hysteria among the conservative base–enough to overcome their lack of enthusiasm for Romney and bring them out to vote in record numbers. But this campaign will also have a significant impact on non-conservative, relatively apolitical voters as it circulates via social media and face to face communication. Among the vast majority of average Americans today there are now informal social media networks (e-mail, Facebook, photo-sharing sites etc.) of 10-30 or more family and friends. Within these networks there are almost always a small group of passionate tea-party/Rush Limbaugh advocates–cantankerous cousin Buford who continually passes around all the latest e-mail rumors (“they’re gonna’ secretly implant chips with 666 on em’ into all the dogs when they go to get their vaccinations”) and bossy Aunt Louise who thinks that photo-shopping Nancy Pelosi’s head onto a zombie or vampire photo or using the “fun-house mirror” tool on Obama is the absolute height of mordant satire. These individuals will be the conduit through which the massive low road campaign will circulate virally.

The best Democratic response suggests Levison, would be a “communications campaign that aggressively attacks the low road slanders from a relatively “middle of the road”, moderate perspective and which puts pressure on Romney to either embrace or repudiate them…forced to choose between alienating his conservative or moderate supporters.” Examples of messages Levison suggests include “”This election should be an honest debate and not a smear campaign using secret money” and “Oh come on. Get real. I’m sick of hearing lies every day on my TV and telephone.”
Clearly the Obama campaign needs a quick response team dedicated, not only to launching strong counter-punch attacks, but also sound bite-sized responses that appeal to average voters’ sense of decency. The right-wing Super PACs are poised to take the tone of campaign 2012 way south in terms of sleaze, and Dems should get ready to rumble.

“Merkozy” takes another torpedo square in the belly, as Germany’s Social Democrats smash Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democratic Union in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s most populous state. That should put an end to the GOP’s denials that Europe is rejecting austerity polices. The Social Democrat-Greens coalition took about 50 percent of the votes — almost twice what Merkel’s party received (26 percent).
If that doesn’t quite convince you that Europe’s austerity binge is tanking, check out Craig Stirling’s Bloomberg report, “Cameron Suffers Setbacks in U.K. Opinion Polls.”
This NYT article by Andrew Martin and Andrew W. Lehren makes it hard to see how any current issue could carry as much freight with young voters as the soaring costs of higher education. Thus should be a strong edge for Dems, since GOP policy gimmicks to get around more substantial federal and state government investments are pretty unconvincing — provided Dems’ can boil their edge down into digestible soundbites.
What’s Rand Paul trying to prove with the gay-bashing?
Speaking of gay-bashing, take a sneak peek at this forthcoming Newsweek cover, and see if you think it is designed to undermine President Obama.
If you want data on how the President’s new position on same-sex marriage is playing out with the base, particularly African Americans, Nate Silver has a clear-eyed take. Silver presents a probability distribution chart indicating that Black voters are highly likely to stick with Obama and “there are other key constituencies within the Democratic Party — like younger voters, coastal whites and, increasingly, Hispanic voters — who are supportive of gay marriage. And gays and lesbians themselves, and their families, are an important constituent group for Democrats. (They are more numerous, for instance, than Jewish voters.)”
Ezra Klein broadsides the false equivalency apologists for trying to spread the blame for polarization. Citing “a polarizing force on the Republican Party that simply doesn’t exist in today’s Democratic Party,” Klein produces recent election data proving that “…there is simply no denying that the Republican Party has gone much further right than the Democratic Party has gone left, and that, from policy pledges to primary challenges, it has done much more to discourage its members from compromising than the Democratic Party has. So if you think polarization is the main problem in Washington today, then Mann and Ornstein are right: Your beef is largely with the Republicans.”
Sara Robinson’s Alternet post, “How Conservative Religion Makes the Right Politically Stronger” provides an interesting theory of conservatives solidarity edge. As Robinson says, “…Regular observance of shared rituals is central to this power. Religious conservatives attend services at least once a week…to affirm their commitment to their shared values, celebrate and mourn the passages of life, and connect with each other not as workers and warriors, but as human beings…Those rituals are social superglue. They build trust that extends outward into everything else these communities do. They inspire and engage people’s hearts, minds, bodies, and spirits, offer incredible healing and solace when things go wrong, and provide a ready-made outlet for celebration and re-commitment to doing even more when things go right.” Robinson argues that progressives should more frequently leverage rituals and gatherings to build fellowship and solidarity.
Seems to me all the Democratic hand-wringing about NC is a waste of time. Even assuming the state is moving to the right, Obama has several plausible paths to 270 e.v.’s without it, and the blue carpet will be rolled out in Charlotte, regardless.
John Nichols, the go-to guy for inside skinny and sharp analysis of the progressive uprising in Wisconsin, has an insightful post, “Will People Power Defeat Scott Walker and His Cronies?” at The Nation. Nichols observes, “The protesters–union members fighting assaults on collective bargaining and the farmers, small-business owners, retirees and students who supported them–are not just forcing new elections. They are forcing their way into the political process as candidates, elbowing aside traditional politicians and old approaches to campaigning. It’s not that the newcomers aren’t raising money, crafting smart messages or buying thirty-second spots. They’re serious contenders. But they are running on the terms of a movement they have built, mounting campaigns that are people-centered, high-spirited and unapologetic in their support of labor rights and economic justice…And they are starting to win.”

I doubt I’m alone in wondering whether my fellow Dems should be pouncing on the Romney bully story with such incautious glee. There’s the usual caveats: it’s a high school story, for Pete’s sake; Did it really happen that way and how solid can the verification be after all those years? (the alleged victim is deceased); Anyway, who wants to be held accountable for every regrettable thing they did as a teenager?; Does it make Dems look petty when they go that far back to expose character failures of political adversaries?; Isn’t this disturbingly reminiscent of the “Aqua Buddha” story that backfired so devastatingly on Jack Conway’s campaign to defeat Rand Paul in the KY Senate race, (and that was college, not high school)? etc. etc.
On the other hand, what makes the story somewhat compelling, regardless of the aforementioned concerns, is Romney’s evasively funky, deer-caught-in-the headlights responses to questions about it, which add to the impression of a guy who is incapable of straight talk. In addition, Romney’s persona is not only that of the archetypical, Ayn Rand-reading boss who fires workers willy-nilly and justifies it as ‘creative destruction’; it’s all too easy to see him as the emblematic preppy prick you hated in high school.
So, I guess it makes sense for Dems to mine the story for a bit, in that it contributes to the mounting evidence that the GOP is nominating an unusually cold-hearted and double-talking presidential candidate — even for them. But I do think such stories, whether true or exaggerated, have a very limited shelf-life, after which they begin to make the accusers look like tiresome moralists.

Paul Kane’s WaPo survey, “Democrats have real chance to hold on to Senate majority” cites Sen. Lugar’s defeat by Richard Mourdock as a big break for Dems.
According to the latest update on the battle for control of congress by Larry J. Sabato and Kyle Kondik, “A good early bet is for the margins of control to narrow in both houses of Congress. Republicans should win the House of Representatives again, but Democrats will pick up some seats, maybe cutting the GOP majority of 25 by a third or (only if Obama wins handily) by as much as half. The Senate appears likely to be very narrowly divided, with Democrats holding on by a seat or, more likely, Republicans gaining technical control by a seat or two. It might even come down to a tie-breaking vote by the newly elected vice president or the eventual party-choice decision of Maine’s Angus King, the Independent frontrunner for Republican Olympia Snowe’s Senate seat. We believe he’ll ultimately caucus with the Democrats, but there’s a lot that can happen between now and next January that might change that calculus.”
Mourdock is a tough, experienced campaigner, as Politico’s David Catanese points out. But he has some huge vulnerabilities, as Guy Cecil, the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, notes in Paul Steinhauser’s CNN.com report: “Richard Mourdock is a right wing Tea Party ideologue who questioned the constitutionality of Medicare and Social Security, says there should be more partisanship and less compromise in Washington, and actually compared himself to Rosa Parks.”
Although some Dems lament the defeat of Lugar (see here) as the loss of a “model for collegiality,” Michael Tomasky argues at the Daily Beast that it’s not such a great loss for bipartisanship, since Sen. Lugar caved to wingnut lunacy when he could have provided leadership for moderation. “Lugar did not support a single really major Obama initiative,” notes Tomasky. “What today’s GOP needs is a Margaret Chase Smith moment. Smith, the moderate GOP senator who was the first of her party to denounce the demagoguery of Joe McCarthy. In fact, take few minutes right now if you can and read the “Declaration of Conscience” by Smith and six other Republican senators from June 1, 1950, and consider whether you can imagine any national Republican voicing such sentiments today, being so critical of her or his own party.”
Tim Jones points notes in his Bloomberg Businessweek post, “Wisconsin Republican Voters Rival Democrats in Recall” that Gov. Scott Walker that Republicans had a strong GOTV effort in their primary, more than matching the Democratic turnout for all candidates in their primary. Democratic candidate Tom Barrett needs more dough to beat Gov. Walker in the recall election, and Dems who want to help recall Walker can make contributions at his ActBlue web page.
Yes, it’s just a snapshot, but this AP-GfK Poll suggests that President Obama might pick up some votes by moving a little more strongly toward disengagement from Afghanistan between now and November.
I don’t see a huge downside for President Obama because of his new position on same-sex marriage. Half of Americans support same-sex marriage, and at least some opponents of same-sex marriage will be OK with his leaving marriage legislation up to the states. And most of those who feel strongly that he shouldn’t even express personal sympathy with gay and lesbian couples who want to marry aren’t going to vote for him any way. It could be a net plus in terms of energizing a large constituency (4% self-identified as gay, lesbian of bisexual in 2008 exit polls, with an estimated 601,209 “same-sex, unmarried partner households” in the U.S.).
Apparently Romney gets very uncomfortable with questions about medical marijuana, which could reflect his fear of alienating young voters.
In a welcome counter-attack against voter suppression, the Connecticut state legislature has passed a bill providing for same-day and on-line voter registration, which is expected to increase voter turnout by 4-5 percent overall, more for people of color, youth and other groups.

While many believe that Senator Lugar’s defeat by a right-winger, who believes Paul Ryan’s budget is not conservative enough, gives Dems a good shot at a pick-up, yesterday’s elections were generally hailed by conservatives, especially in NC, where voters approved a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. Campbell Robertson of The New York Times got it right in his lede; the big story in NC was the record turnout.

As expected, North Carolinians voted in large numbers on Tuesday for an amendment that would ban same-sex marriages, partnerships and civil unions, becoming the 30th state in the country and the last in the South to include a prohibition on gay marriage in the state constitution…About half a million people voted early, a record for a primary in the state, and turnout on Tuesday was unusually high as well.

Further down in Robertson’s article, he notes, “Opponents had raised almost twice as much money as the amendment’s supporters and had a robust network of volunteers and get-out-the-vote workers.”
The ad war was also fierce in NC, and no doubt GOTV muscle is even more effective in non-presidential elections, in which overall turnout is normally smaller. There was also a lot of interest in the gubernatorial primary and some congressional races — Republicans hope to pick up as many as four congressional seats in NC alone. But it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the NC vote supports the argument that investing significant financial resources into GOTV is cost-effective, even for conservatives. And it’s clear that tea party GOTV in Indiana was instrumental in defeating Lugar.
Despite Democratic chest-beating about our superior ground game, one of the lessons of yesterday’s elections is that Republicans can leverage it to good effect also. Yes, Dems have a GOTV edge, particularly with experienced union campaign and turnout workers. But Republicans are not clueless about campaign warfare. They will also be investing heavily in GOTV in the months ahead.
Also in The Times, Jeff Zeleny reports on the intensifying debate among Dems regarding the strategic deployment of financial resources in ads or GOTV. As Zeleny reports, key Dems leaders are concerned that a $100 million plan by liberal donors to lift voter turnout could duplicate Obama campaign efforts already in place and undermine Dems air war:

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and other officials conveyed concern that Democratic candidates could be at a disadvantage if the contributors, many of whom had stayed on the sidelines of the 2012 campaign until now, decide not to spend money on television ads that push back against a torrent of attacks from conservative “super PACS” in the presidential election and Congressional races.
…”The idea that these progressive groups are essentially re-creating the wheel is perplexing and troubling,” said David Krone, the chief of staff to Mr. Reid. “Why go off and build a redundant grass-roots and get-out-the-vote organization that the Obama campaign is clearly invested in?”

Zeleny adds that many Dem strategists still believe that “television advertising was the most powerful way to win races. Democratic strategists have spent months trying to lure Mr. Soros and other donors into the fray of election spending…”Why would they rule out this tried-and-true medium?” Mr. Krone said on Tuesday. “I can guarantee the Republicans are covering all bases and will have a coordinated plan.”
The Obama campaign is reportedly in pretty good shape in terms of preparations for the ad campaign, with Jim Margolis as chief ad guru (profile of Margolis and his strategy here). But down ballot, many Dem candidates are in urgent need of funding for ads.
The debate will likely continue until all possible ads buys are made. No one really knows what is the optimum allocation of pro-Democratic funds into the air war and ground game. But Krone is right that it would be folly to assume that the GOP will come up short in funding either offensive.

Nate Silver crunches some numbers relating presidential election prospects to average job growth per month, and reports at FiveThirtyEight that “…if 150,000 jobs are created in an average month from now through October, the regression equation projects a very close result, showing a victory for Mr. Obama in the popular vote by about 1 percentage point…Mr. Obama’s breakeven number on job creation is now slightly lower than when we had calculated it a few months ago — about 125,000 jobs per month rather than 150,000.”
A new USA Today/Gallup poll of swing states has some welcome news for Dems, according to Susan Page’s USA Today report: “For the first time, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting — a shift from a 14-percentage-point GOP advantage at the end of last year to an 11-point deficit now….By a yawning 27 points, those surveyed describe Obama as more likable than Romney — not a frivolous asset. The candidate viewed as more likable has prevailed in every election since 1980. Even among Romney’s supporters, one in four call Obama more likable…By 10 points, voters say Obama is more likely to care about the needs of people like themselves. By 7 points, they call Obama a stronger and more decisive leader.”
Brian C. Mooney’s Boston Globe article “Democrats doubling down on Swing States” has this interesting spending strategy note: “A Globe analysis of Democratic National Committee disbursements in recent months shows that the party is investing more money per electoral vote in New Hampshire than in any other state.”
At The Fix, WaPo’s Chris Cillizza does a good job of explaining why Arizona really is in play for Dems this year: “According to the 2010 Census, three in 10 Arizonans are Latino, up from roughly 25 percent of the state’s population 10 years ago. In both 2004 and 2008, the Democratic presidential nominee won the Hispanic vote convincingly — Kerry by 18 points, Obama by 15 — but there simply weren’t enough Latinos to counter the strong margins the Republican nominee enjoyed among white voters…The growth among the Latino population — along with the presence of [Democratic senatorial candidate Richard] Carmona, who is Hispanic, and outrage within the community over Brewer’s immigration law — makes Democrats optimistic that 2012 will be different…Democrats are also banking on moderate white Republicans — particularly women — being turned off by the conservative direction Brewer has taken the state, highlighted most recently by her signing a bill that would effectively defund Planned Parenthood.”
Adam C. Smith of the Tampa Bay Times (via Politico) has an update with some state-by-state stats on why the Latino vote is shaping up as the pivotal force in the 2012 presidential elections. “…If Romney can’t narrow Obama’s considerable lead among Latino voters, key battlegrounds including Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Florida could be out of reach for the Republican nominee.”
Virgil Dickson reports at PR Week that “Republicans are launching a door-to door outreach campaign targeting Latinos in the coming weeks to raise support for Mitt Romney in the general election,” but “Romney and the Republican National Committee have virtually ignored Hispanic media outlets, according to NBC/Smart Media Delta.”
Krugman riffs on the failure of austerity in the French and Greek elections, which indicate a popular preference for expansionary policies. Krugman doesn’t get into it here, but the end of “Merkozy” as a viable economic strategy for recovery in the real world makes austerity a little tougher for the GOP to sell.
David Gauthier-Villars’s “Voter Anger Sweeps Europe ” in the Wall St. Journal notes that the anti-austerity wave was also reflected in local elections in Germany: “…Ms. Merkel’s coalition of Christian Democrats and pro-business Free Democrats suffered defeat in a closely watched state election in the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein Sunday, suggesting Ms. Merkel’s options for ruling beyond 2013 are narrowing. ”
In The New York Times, Thomas B. Edsall takes a sobering look at the GOP’s Super PAC edge, and he quotes David Axelrod to underscore the point: “No president has ever faced the kind of onslaught we are about to see. We expect the super Pacs, and their more insidious, non-disclosing cousins – the 501c4 front groups – to spend as much as a billion dollars. They will act as a tag-team with Romney, allowing his team to carry a positive message as the super Pacs rain negative ads down on the president. To date, they have dwarfed Priorities and other Democrat-leaning efforts, so we’ve had to spend millions of dollars responding to super Pac attacks.”