More evidence of a Romney cakewalk to the GOP nomination going forward at Nate Silver’s five thirty eight blog.
So, how did the GOP frontrunner celebrate MLK Day? According to Amanda Peterson Beadle, writing at Nation of Change, “Mitt Romney plans to tout his extreme immigration positions during a campaign stop in South Carolina today — with Kris Kobach, the author of Arizona’s and Alabama’s immigration laws, at his side…But as extreme as Romney’s immigration stances have been, campaigning with an anti-immigrant official with ties to a hate group on Martin Luther King Day is beyond the pale.”
Eric Pape lays bare the cluelessness of Romney’s Euro-bashing at ForeignPolicy.com, riffing on Mitt’s insistence that President Obama “wants to turn America into a European-style social welfare state” in stark contrast to Mitt’s steely determination to “ensure that we remain a free and prosperous land of opportunity.” Pape notes for example, that “Since the global economic crisis kicked in, French unemployment increased by about 25 percent. (Then again, American unemployment increased by about 50 percent in that same period — and the U.S. rate is higher, at 8.5 percent, than the averaged unemployment rate of the eurozone’s two largest economies, France and Germany).”
Turns out the low information voter thing is a pretty big problem for Dems, especially when it comes to knowing what the GOP candidates are about, according to a recent Pew Research poll. Dems got work to do.
Michael C. Dawson has a thoughtful and informative rumination on “The Future of Black Politics” at the Boston Review, the lead essay of a forum with nine other experts on the topic.
While at the Boston Review, check out Stephen Ansolabehere’s post on “The Brown Majority,” featuring some worrisome statistics for GOP partisans, including: “Over the coming decade, aging alone will increase the number of Hispanics who are eligible to vote by 25 percent.”
Republicans, don’t read this. Keep blithering about the virtues of “creative destruction” and other elitist concepts from Austrian economists and/or Ayn Rand. Voters love to be patronized with cold, academic jargon. And Mitt, keep telling voters more about what a regular guy you are, being unemployed and stuff. Maybe get a beat-up pick-up truck and a NASCAR hat. Oh, and please talk more about Bain’s wonderful track record.
Get up to speed on the latest political buzz-terms at Katy Steinmetz’s Time Swampland post.
Huntsman’s website erasing in context of his Romney endorsement is a hoot. The Fixx’s Rachel Weiner explains: “In October, Huntsman called Romney a “perfectly lubricated weather vane on the important issues of the day,” who “has been missing in action in terms of showing any kind of leadership….”There’s a question whether he’s running for the White House or the Waffle House,” Huntsman said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in November…He told ABC News around the same time that “the American people, the voters, are going to have a hard time finding, I think, a gut level trust when it comes to someone who has been on so many sides of major issues.”
Regardless of who wins the presidential election, the outcome of four key Senate races in Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, and Virginia will likely be pivotal in securing majority control. Charlie Cook has a savvy update in his National Journal column, “Epic Battles’ Will Seal Senate’s Fate.”
Check out this GOP candidates Rushmore caricature, made, appropriately, of sand.

Today being the MLK holiday, we can be sure that some of the Republican presidential candidates will have nice things to say about Dr. King, and they will trot out the old “content of their character” MLK quote to suggest he was a conservative.
Although King did not formally endorse any presidential candidates, he came very close on occasion, and it’s instructive to recall some of his thoughts on Republican presidents and candidates during his lifetime. On Eisenhower:

In September 1957 I thought it was quite regrettable and unfortunate that young high school students in Little Rock, Arkansas, had to go to school under the protection of federal troops. But I thought it was even more unfortunate that Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, through irresponsible actions, left the president of the United States with no other alternative. I believe firmly in nonviolence, but, at the same time, I am not an anarchist. I believe in the intelligent use of police force. And I thought that was all we had in Little Rock. It wasn’t an army fighting against a nation or a race of people. It was just police force, seeking to enforce the law of the land. It was high time that a man as popular in the world as Eisenhower-a man with his moral influence-speak out and take a stand against what was happening all over the South. So I backed the President, and I sent him a telegram commending him for the positive and forthright stand that he took in the Little Rock school situation. He showed the nation and the world that the United States was a nation dedicated to law and order rather than mob rule.
Nevertheless, it was strange to me that the federal government was more concerned about what happened in Budapest than what happened in Birmingham. I thought Eisenhower believed that integration would be a fine thing. But I thought he felt that the more you push it, the more tension it would create, so, just wait a few more years and it will work itself out. I didn’t think that Eisenhower felt like being a crusader for integration. President Eisenhower was a man of integrity and goodwill, but I am afraid that on the question of integration he didn’t understand the dimensions of social change involved nor how the problem was to be worked out.

On Goldwater:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.
While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

On Reagan:

…When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor can become a leading war hawk candidate for the Presidency, only the irrationalities induced by a war psychosis can explain such a melancholy turn of events.

King was more ambivalent about Nixon, who had called King “frequently about things.” King said of Nixon that “it is quite possible that he has no racial prejudice,” and “is absolutely sincere on this issue,” but also that he also considered Nixon a “moral coward” for not taking a strong moral stand on civil rights at a time when it would have helped a lot. (from chapter 15 of “The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.”)
None of this is to say that there were no progressive Republicans who supported the African American freedom struggle –there were some like Senator Jacob Javitz and Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. Interestingly, Republicans including Sen. Goldwater, William Buckley, Sen. Strom Thurmond and President Reagan supported the King holiday bill, despite their stated opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rep. Jack Kemp was instrumental in passing the MLK holiday legislation. There are many rank and file Republicans who admire and celebrate Dr. King today.
In a transparent attempt to back away from his repulsive newsletter, Rep. Ron Paul has recently lauded what he sees as King’s libertarian creds. But Paul opposed both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the MLK holiday.
And yes, there were plenty of racist Democrats during King’s lifetime. It would be fair to say that racial prejudice was a defining characteristic of too many Dixiecrats.
King never gave up hope that both parties would take a strong stand against racial discrimination, and he testified to the platform committees of both major parties. But the record clearly shows which political party today is the more vigorous champion of the cause of racial and economic justice championed by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Paul Begala sums up “Mitt Romney’s Charmless Win in New Hampshire” at the Daily Beast: “…It’s pretty easy to look bulletproof when your enemies are shooting blanks. Yes, Jon Huntsman ran a “comparative ad” that was weaker than baby’s pee. And, yes, Newt Gingrich body-slammed Romney in the Meet the Press debate, essentially calling him a liar and demanding he “cut the pious baloney.” But no one hit him right between the eyes with the kinds of ads Hillary and Barack used, let alone the carpet-bombing Romney’s allies used against Gingrich in Iowa.”
Seems a little early for Republican kumbaya, what with Governor Perry calling Romney a “vulture capitalist” and all.
WaPo’s Chris Cillizza presents compelling data from a Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll which indicate that endorsements don’t matter much. But I still think this one opened some hearts.
The GOP’s Class ‘Warfare’ meme rings a bit ridiculous to the reality-based community. But class conflict is definitely on the rise, according to a new Pew Research poll. As CNN’s Moni Basu reports, “Conflict between rich and poor is at an all-time high, at least in the way of public perception…The survey found that 66% of adults believe there are “very strong” or “strong” conflicts between the two groups. That number spiked 19 percentage points since Pew last posed that question in 2009…The public’s evaluations of divisions within American society, conflicts between rich and poor now rank ahead of three other potential sources of group tension — between immigrants and the native born; between blacks and whites; and between young and old…”
You think Newt’s Bain-Romney attack is hot stuff? Dig Benjy Sarlin’s TPM post, “Dems Prepare To Hammer Romney With The REAL Bain Onslaught“.
Alex Altman has an interesting analysis up at Time Swampland, “What Ad Spending Says About Each GOP Candidate-and Their Success.” Altman notes, “If Romney gets dinged by the air wars in South Carolina, he’s likely to quickly recover in Florida. The state’s size and large number of major media markets make it prohibitively expensive for minor-league outfits to play there.”
Taylor West and Peter Bell agree at Hotline on Call that it’s all about Florida as far as Romney is concerned.
The GOP spin doctors are working overtime, parroting the meme that private equity firms are mighty job-creators. But this Nobel laureate ain’t having it. “…We’re not going to get better policies if the man sitting in the Oval Office next year sees his job as being that of engineering a leveraged buyout of America Inc.”
Election prediction junkees should read this L.A. Times post by Brad Schiller before making any bets.

Watching video clips of Romney’s flip-flopping on just about every major issue is a tiring experience. But his lurid history of pandering to exploit the latest trends in political idiocy should not distract voters from the raw truth of what he stands for today, which is an all-out capitulation to the agenda of the vulture capitalists.
The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuval explains it well in her WaPo op-ed, “Extremist in Pinstripes.” Vanden Heuval reviews Romney’s extremist positions on social issues, immigration, increasing the military budget and notes his call to push the Supreme Court even further to the right with his appointments.
She provides a disturbing account of Romney’s blase certitude in support of draconian cuts in Pell grants, Medicaid and food stamps, children’s health programs and aid to people with disabilities to “give multinationals a tax holiday” and give millionaires a nearly $300K tax cut, and adds:

This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Romney, as Mike Huckabee once famously noted, “looks like the guy who laid you off.” At Bain, he was the guy who fired you. In a review of 77 major deals that Bain capital did when Romney headed the firm, the Wall Street Journal found that “22% [of the businesses that Bain invested in] either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses.” Of course, Bain produced remarkable returns for its investors, including Romney.

Romney’s flip-flopping proclivities are the easy target for commentators and pundits. But no one should be deluded by speculation that Romney will flip back toward moderate conservatism, if elected. As vanden Heuval argues,

…This isn’t the plan of a moderate. The conservative garb isn’t something Romney has donned for the primaries. These policies…are consistent with Romney’s background as a corporate raider. And as his fundraising shows, they play well in the plush offices of big finance where Romney made his fortune. He is a champion for the 1 percent, peddling a program that will ensure that working Americans bear the cost for the mess left by Wall Street’s extremes while the buccaneer bankers, corporate raiders and private equity gamblers are free to go back to preying on America.

Vanden Heuval’s article should provoke a sobering reassessment among those who have entertained the fantasy that Romney would govern as a moderate. As E. J. Dionne points out, chameleon Romney has proven highly adept as deluding his fellow Republicans across the party’s ideological spectrum that he reflects their views. Dems should not be so gullible, for there is every reason to believe his election would unleash the worst elements of vulture capitalism.

Not a big fan of Gov Christie of NJ. But it was good to see somebody nail former Ambassador Huntsman for his shameless backstabbing careerism in going after the job of the guy who gave him his biggest break. It resonates particularly well after Huntsman’s sanctimonious “I want to be very clear with the people here in New Hampshire and in this country. I will always put my country first.” Substitute “career” for “country” and you have the real key to Huntsman’s character.
Despite’s Huntsman’s zinger citing Romney as exhibit “A” showing why the country is so divided, I have to agree with Joe Klein’s assessment in Time Swampland that “No one really laid a glove on him, not even in the NBC debate on Sunday morning, which was far sharper and more substantive than the ABC debate last night. There was a reason for Romney’s success-and it pains me to disclose it: he was well-prepped by his consultants. His answers were clear, concise, declarative sentences. None of the other candidates seemed to have been prepped at all.”
Elizabeth Warren gets the Fenway thing a lot better than did Martha Coakley.
Mackenzie Weinger of Politico reports a new Pew poll which indicates that 51 percent of “Republican and GOP-leaning voters said the candidates are excellent or good,” compared to 68 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters said they had good Republican candidates four years ago.
Here’s an interesting wrinkle from The Hill: John McCain faults the Citizens United decision for having a “damaging” impact on the GOP presidential field. “…It’s also the result of the worst decision, I think, in at least the last 50 years or so, of the United States Supreme Court called Citizens United, where they basically unleashed without transparency, without accountability, huge amounts of money from these so-called independent campaigns, which you and I know are not independent.”
Nate Silver and Micah Cohen make the case that “Ground Game Determines Candidates’ Strength,” noting that Paul and Romney have the most stable numbers of the current GOP field and the most well-organized campaigns.
New Hampshire’s influence as the earliest primary state could be overshadowed by it’s importance as the state with the strongest pro-GOP trend since 2010, according to Chris Palko at Campaigns & Elections. In addition to the largest swing in the state legislature in 2010, “according to Gallup, only Rhode Island saw a greater decline in Democratic Party identification from 2008 to 2010.”
Quentin Fottrell of SmartMoney.com has some worthwhile insights in “10 Things Pollsters Won’t Tell You: Why you should think twice about those survey results this election season.” Among Fottrell’s insights: “People lie to say what they think is acceptable” (“social respectability bias”), “”The way we ask the questions can determine the answers” and “We’re being outclassed by social network sites.”
Robert Reich’s “How a Little Bit of Good Economic News Can Be Bad for the President” notes a political booby-trap which may lie ahead for President Obama — encouraged discouraged workers.
HuffPo Pollster Mark Blumenthal crunches the numbers and comes up with “…An average across all polls should produce the clearest picture of the outcome…As of this writing it shows Romney’s support declining slightly (to 36.8 percent) followed by Ron Paul (at 17.6 percent), with Huntsman just a point and a half behind (at 16.0 percent) and rising fast, followed by Rick Santorum (11.6 percent), Newt Gingrich (10.0 percent) and Rick Perry (0.9 percent). Huntsman’s momentum is on a track to catch Paul, though who will finish on top is one of those things about which polling simply cannot be certain.”

The latest polls show a Huntsman surge, and Santorum tanking in NH, so Santorum’s 15 minutes may be up sooner than later. But we shouldn’t let this political moment pass without a comment on the ‘Santorum as working-class hero’ snowjob.
Google Santorum +”working-class,” and you’ll pull up headlines like “Santorum fits working class bill,” “Like Rocky Balboa, Rick Santorum is a working class hero” and “Santorum: The Blue-collar Candidate – The former senator touts his working-class roots” etc. The conservative echo chamber is parroting the meme with impressive message discipline. Top conservative pundits, including Brooks, Will and Krauthammer have jumped on the Santorum as working-class hero bandwagon.
It’s not hard to understand why. One of the largest swing constituencies, the white working-class has trended toward the GOP in recent elections. According to Wall St. Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel

…Barack Obama did better than John Kerry or Al Gore with these voters, though even he earned just 43% of their vote…That was Mr. Obama’s high point. In 2010 a record 63% of this bloc voted for the GOP. And there are signs that, whether out of calculation or desperation, Team Obama may be abandoning them altogether–instead looking for 2012 victory in a progressive coalition of educated, socially liberal voters, combined with poorer ethnic voters, in particular Hispanics.
The white working class will make up as much as 55% of the vote in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Front-runner Mitt Romney knows it, as does Mr. Santorum. Their fight in New Hampshire and beyond will increasingly be over who can earn more points with this group. Their styles are very different, if equally damaging to the conservative growth message.

Santorum is making a hard-sell pitch for the blue collar vote, as Strassel reports:

Mr. Santorum surged in Iowa as the “I’m One of You” candidate. On the stump, and in his victory speech in Iowa, he’s highlighted his working-class roots. He kicked off his campaign near the Pennsylvania coal mines where his grandfather worked, and he talks frequently of struggling steel towns…He’s the frugal guy, the man of faith, the person who understands the financial worries of average Americans. He’s directly contrasting his own blue-collar bona fides with those of the more privileged Mr. Romney.

In reality, however, Santorum’s working-class creds are awfully thin. His father was a clinical psychologist and his mother was an administrative nurse — clearly more of an upper middle-class upbringing than a blue collar culture. Yeah, he had a grandfather who was a miner, but it’s not like he grew up in a mining family as the GOP meme-propagators would have us believe.
Worse, much of his career in public office has been dedicated to serving as an eager bell-hop for the wealthy. More recently, as the Washington Post reported,

Santorum earned $1.3 million in 2010 and the first half of 2011, according to his most recent financial disclosure form. The largest chunk of his employment earnings — $332,000 — came from his work as a consultant for groups advocating and lobbying for industry interests. That included $142,500 to help advise a Pennsylvania natural gas firm, Consol Energy, and $65,000 to consult with lobby firm American Continental Group, and its insurance services client.

And, as Marcus Stern and Kristina Cooke recently reported for Reuters,

As a senator, Santorum went further, playing a key role in an effort by Republicans in Congress to dictate the hiring practices, and hence the political loyalties, of Washington’s deep-pocketed lobbying firms and trade associations, which had previously been bipartisan.
Dubbed “the K Street Project” for the Washington street that houses most of these groups, the initiative was launched in 1989 by lobbyist Grover Norquist, whose sole aim, he said, was to encourage lobbying firms to “hire people who agree with your worldview, not hire for access.”
…Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal government watchdog group, named Santorum among three “most corrupt” senators in 2005 and 2006, accusing him of “using his position as a member of Congress to financially benefit those who have made contributions to his campaign committee and political action committee.”

Santorum has won some blue collar support by promoting his message of “industrial renewal,” and supporting protectionist measures, as John Nichols reports in The Nation. But, as Nichols, says, “There is no reason to overplay Santorum’s commitments. He is an economic conservative who would side more often with Wall Street than Main Street.”
In 2002, for example, Senator Santorum received a 15 percent rating from the AFL-CIO. Not many Senators had a lower score.
Republican strategists are so desperate for a candidate who can relate to the blue-collar “Reagan Democrats” that casting an arch conservative, silk-stocking lawyer like Santorum as a working class hero seems a reasonable stretch. If Santorum does recover from his latest poll dive, it shouldn’t be too hard for Dems to expose his policy agenda as more anti-worker than not.
Note from James Vega:
Using exactly the same, utterly and shamelessly idiotic “grandfather’s history plus general geographical area” theory of social class, Mitt Romney can claim to be “the authentic descendent and representative of Mexican-American autoworkers” – his grandfather lived in Chihuahua, Mexico most of his life and Romney himself grew up “in the shadows of the automobile factories of Detroit”
Newt, on the other hand, can polish his credentials in the African-American community by claiming to be “a scholar of African society whose congressional district was a short distance from Ebenezer Baptist Church where Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement”

Romney’s tax return could be a game-changer, and not in a good way for Republicans. Talking Points Memo’s Brian Beutler explains why Mitt is extremely reluctant to release it.
Liz Novak sounds the call at In These Times: “Occupy the Electoral Process.” Yes, it’s important to have a non-electoral protest track to push forward a progressive agenda. But now the tea party is mobilizing its resources to elect right-wingers from the white house to the court house, and the Occupy Movement can make the difference that prevents a reactionary takeover.
The Occupy Movement will find lots of useful data for the campaign against inequality in a study, flagged by Jim Hightower, of social justice records of all 31 members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The survey ranks “each nation in such categories as health care, income inequality, pre-school education, and child poverty rate. The overall performance by the U.S. – which boasts of being an egalitarian society – outranks only Greece, Chile, Mexico, and Turkey. Actually, even three of those countries performed better than ours in the education of pre-schoolers, and Greece did better than the U.S. on the prevention of poverty.”
Dems interested in upgrading their campaign blogs should have a gander at Andrew Clark’s “The five best campaign blogs of 2011” at Campaigns & Elections.
The Forum has a special issue out on “Governing through the Senate,” which ought to be of interest to U.S. Senate candidates and campaign workers. Abstracts and guest passes are free. “…Charles O. Jones considers its inherent peculiarities as the institution meant to ‘go second’ in a separated system; Sarah Binder argues that the modern Senate is moving away from its constitutional role; Frances Lee considers the role of party competition in shaping senatorial behavior; Barry Burden asks about the influence of senatorial polarization and party balance within the bicameral context; and Daniel DiSalvo contrasts partisan polarization with divided government as influences on senatorial behavior. Randall Strahan observes one particular senator negotiating this complicated framework; Wendy Schiller and Jennifer Cassidy consider the dynamics of cooperation (or not) among same-state senators; and Andrea Hatcher contrasts a majority leader who lost re-election with another who won. Ryan Black, Anthony Madonna, and Ryan Owens examine a very private form of senatorial obstruction, ‘blue slip behavior’; Gregory Koger examines what is surely the best-known form of obstruction, the filibuster; Eric Schickler and Gregory Wawro argue that, whatever its collective impact, senators have multiple reasons to protect this filibuster; and James Wallner closes with a substantive realm, budgeting, where the absence of policy action by the Senate is critical. In book reviews, Joseph Cooper uses Matthew N. Green, The Speaker of the House: A Study in Leadership, to think about the study of Congress more generally, and Matthew Green responds; Amnon Cavari reviews B. Dan Wood, The Myth of Presidential Representation; and Philip Brenner reviews Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us.”
The Monkey Cage has a revealing chart that displays the racial demographics of New Hampshire in stark contrast to that of the United States.
Get up to speed on “Racial Profiling, Republican Candidates, and Rights Violations: the Immigration Debate at Year’s End” by Kari Lydersen, from In These Times via Alternet.
Nick R. Martin has a post at TPM Muckraker on “Report Says ALEC Wields Disturbing Level of Influence’ In Virginia.” Martin explains “The Virginia General Assembly introduced at least 50 bills since 2007 that appear to be near carbon copies of legislation first imagined by the American Legislative Exchange Council, more widely known as ALEC, the report found…The report also said taxpayers spent more than $230,000 to send state lawmakers to ALEC conferences, where they then met with corporate lobbyists behind closed doors. Of the bills apparently drafted by ALEC, three became law, the report said.”
Brad Reed has a good Alternet post, “8 GOP Primary Moments That Would Make Jesus Weep” that Christian voters should find of considerable interest.
Please sign The Democratic Governor’s Association petition to stop voter suppression in the state of Florida. “Now that they control a majority of statehouses across the nation, Republicans are attempting a bold power grab to disenfranchise voters and repeat the Florida election debacle of 2000…Right now, states with Republican governors or new GOP majorities are ramming through bills designed to make it harder for people to vote. They’ll stop at nothing to steal the Presidency. We have to act now to stop these bills from becoming law. The Democratic Governors Association is the only organization devoted solely to electing Democratic governors who will veto any and all attempts to limit voter rights…Stand with the DGA and demand that Republicans stop their politically-motivated attempts to suppress votes.”
In a saner nation, Ta-Nehisi Coates’s post on “Saviorism” at The Atlantic would be the last word anyone would need to read about the warped credo of Rep. Ron Paul.

Nate Silver gives Romney a 42 percent chance of winning the Iowa caucuses, followed by Ron Paul at 34 percent and Rick Santorum at 20 per cent. The final Des Moines Register poll, which has an impressive track record, indicates a 2 point lead for Romney over Paul. Ezra Klein also sees a Romney win. Howard Dean and Ed Schultz predict a Santorum upset nonetheless.
Mark Blumenthal has an instructive post at HuffPo Pollster, “Newt Gingrich Under Attack: How Much Did Negative Ads Matter?” As Blumenthal explains, “Assuming that 45 percent of the ads run in two markets were anti-Gingrich, and using the statistics we provided from the IowaPolitics records, Hutchins estimated that the average television viewer in those two markets would have seen anti-Gingrich ads roughly 60 to 80 times in December.” But John G. Geer argues at Politico that it isn’t the attack ads that have tanked Newt; it’s the frontrunner scrutiny of his lengthy baggage.
Give it up for John Nichols, whose Nation post headline “Iowa’s $200-Per-Vote Caucuses Reward Negatives, Nastiness, Narrow Thinking” pretty much nails the dark side of the caucuses.
For those who take the Iowa Caucuses more seriously, Kyle Leighton’s “Just Who Votes In The Iowa Republican Caucuses?” at Talking Points Memo has the skinny: “A recent national Public Policy Polling (D) survey of Republican primary voters showed that 42 percent considered themselves “very conservative,” while the latest numbers from the Des Moines Register released Saturday night show that only 34 percent of likely GOP caucus-goers define themselves that way. There are the same amount of moderates in both sample sets, so data shows the Iowa group is tilted a little more to the center on the ideological scale. There is confirming data in other PPP numbers specific to Iowa…NBC News and Marist College recently partnered to run a survey with a huge sample size of Iowans: they polled nearly 3,000 registered voters in the state and then whittled down to who would be voting in the Republican caucuses…Nearly a quarter of respondents described themselves as moderates or liberals, and only 46 percent said they were evangelical or fundamentalist Christians. A majority, 54 percent, said they were definitely not. The cross-party voting affects the numbers strongly on other labels: nationally, the PPP numbers show that 57 percent of Republican primary voters view themselves a supporter of the Tea Party. But NBC/Marist data from Iowa shows a 46 – 47 split against support of the conservative movement..”
Lest anyone be tempted to read too much into the Iowa Caucus results, however, Juan Cole has a couple of pie charts in his “Conservative White People’s Primary” that put the demographics into clear perspective.
The Nation’s editor Katrina vanden Heuval has an interesting WaPo op-ed “Voting rights, super PACs and the media cloud the election” urging readers not to get too distracted by the horse race aspect of the primaries. Instead “pay attention to three issues that could affect the outcome of the election, even though they have nothing to do with the campaigns themselves” — the impact of voter suppression, big money from the super PACs and MSM “false equivalence” reportage.
Ronald Brownstein reports at National Journal on Santorum’s success in winning support of working-class Republicans.
Mark Lander of the New York Times ponders the ramifications of the Obama campaign’s strategy targeting the “do-nothing congress.” Joshua R. Earnest, the president’s deputy press secretary, describes the meme thusly: “the image of a gridlocked, dysfunctional Congress and a president who is leaving no stone unturned to try to find solutions to the difficult financial challenges and economic challenges facing the country.” Not bad, but “do-nothing Republicans” would be a more accurate term, since more congressional Dems have negotiated and compromised in good faith, than have Republican House members.
Sasha Issenberg’s Slate.com post “The 12 Kinds of Undecided Voters,”
 is more intuitive than data-driven.” But it nonetheless sheds some light on a large constituency.
John Huntsman may be toast. But he should get a consolation prize for the most creative attack ad thus far, “The Ron Paul Twilight Zone.”
Iowa does get one thing very right, however, according to “GOP windbags have little to say about a huge Iowa success story” by Daily Kos’s Meteor Blades. “In all the hot air that has been expended in what one person rightly called a glorified straw poll, hardly anything has been said about one of the state’s major accomplishments, getting roughly 20 percent of its electricity from 2800 wind turbines across the state…Many Republicans seem to view wind power, and fossil-fuel alternatives in general, as a socialist plot…While the Republican candidates pretend to care about jobs and pretend that Democratic efforts to create more of them have been utter failures instead of just not enough, wind power has generated more than $5 billion in private investment in Iowa, some 4000 jobs with a payroll of $70 million.”

In his The Plum Line column, Greg Sargent reports on “The GOP’s game plan to end Obama’s presidency,” based on “the book,” a 500-page memo the GOP has compiled, featuring the President’s quotes and videos the Republican plan to use against him. Sagent explains:

National Republicans who are putting together the battle plan to defeat Obama face a dilemma. How do they attack Obama’s presidency as a failure, given that voters understand just how catastrophic a situation he inherited, continue to like Obama personally, and see him as a historical figure they want to succeed?…The answer is simple: Republicans will make the argument that Obama fell short of expectations as he himself defined them.
…The game plan is to remind Americans of the sense they had of Obama as a transformative figure in order to claim that he fell short of the promise his election seemed to embody:

One reason for the strategy, notes Sargent, is President Obama’s likability. The GOP apparently is concerned that personalized attacks against the President could backfire, because polls indicate that many who disapprove of his record like him nonetheless.
The “Obama vs. Obama” strategy is rooted in a double-barreled assault: “Republicans will now attack him for failing to transcend partisanship and achieve transformative change.” Sargent elaborates on the strategy’s built-in weakness :

…Obama had barely been sworn into office before the national Republican leadership mounted a concerted and determined effort to prevent any of Obama’s solutions to our severe national problems from passing, even as they openly declared they were doing so only to destroy him politically. Republicans have admitted on the record that deliberately denying Obama any bipartisan support for, well, anything at all was absolutely crucial to prevent voters from concluding that Obama had successfully forged ideological common ground over the way out of the myriad disasters Obama inherited from them.

Further, polls indicate that the public is not likely to be hustled by the GOP faulting Obama for inadequate bipartisanship, especially since the president has taken so much heat from inside his party about excessive bipartisanship. Most voters now know that Republicans have no intention of extending anything resembling a bipartisan spirit toward the President. Blaming the President for the failure of bipartisanship is a very tough sell.
The second prong of the GOP strategy, blaming the President for the failure to achieve transformative change, is also made problematic by the public’s awareness of Republicans’ refusal to negotiate in good faith on anything. Also, whether you like the Affordable Care Act or not, Dems can make a compelling case that the legislation is, in fact, transformative. Dems, however, have failed thus far to vigorously defend the legislation and ‘sell’ the extraordinary benefits of the act for millions of citizens. It’s about turning the ACA into a political asset, instead of a source of concern.
In terms of the economy, Sargent notes another major flaw in the GOP strategy:

While it’s true that disapproval of Obama on the economy is running high over government’s failure to fix the economy, the independents and moderates who will decide the presidential election agree with Obama’s overall fiscal vision — his jobs creation proposals and insistence on taxing the wealthy to pay for them. They also recognize that Republicans are more to blame than Dems for government’s failure to implement those proposals…

If the Republicans stick with the flawed strategy of ‘the Book,’ Democrats shouldn’t have much trouble crafting a persuasive response. In a way, GOP complaints about the failure of bipartisanship and the inability to create transformative change call attention to their responsibility for both failures. Instead of ‘Obama vs. Obama,’ their strategy could end up looking like ‘Republicans vs. the GOP.’

Laura Meckler has a sobering article at The Wall St. Journal, “Democrats Lag in Voter Registration.” According to Catalist, a group with Democratic ties that studies voting, “In North Carolina, half of all people who registered to vote in 2008 were oriented toward the Democrats, and about 20% were oriented toward Republicans, a 30-percentage-point advantage for Democrats…Since then, that advantage has been erased. Republican-oriented voters have run slightly ahead of presumed Democratic voters in new registrations in North Carolina throughout 2010 and 2011…The picture is similar among new registrations nationally. Democrats had a 2-to-1 advantage in 2008, but in the most recent quarter, Republicans were slightly ahead, Catalist found.”

Many progressives applaud the retirement of Dem Sen. Ben Nelson. Others worry that the GOP may have just clinched a Senate takeover.

Salon’s Jefferson Morley interviews Thomas Frank about his new book, “Pity the Billionaire: The Hard-Times Swindle and the Unlikely Comeback of the Right.” Frank addresses the failure of liberalism and Democratic messaging, the rise of the tea party, “a cognitive withdrawal from the shared world” and ‘utopian market populism’ as chasing “the dream more vivid than life itself.”

It’s still a little gimmicky, but here’s the first thing I’ve read that makes an Obama-Clinton ticket sound interesting.

Recent polling in Iowa suggests Paul has not been damaged by reports about his racist newsletters, according to Slate.com’s Dave Weigel. My guess is Paul’s largely low-information constituency doesn’t read, know or care much about racial injustice and many simply have a high tolerance for bigotry in general. Newt and Bachmann, to their credit, have denounced Paul’s newsletters, while Mitt, as usual, cowers in the shadows.

Am I alone in thinking this endorsement smells a little like a set-up?

David Lauter of the L. A. Times Politics Now reports that “Latinos by a 2-to-1 margin disapprove of how President Obama is handing deportations of illegal residents, but by an even larger margin, Latino voters favor him over Mitt Romney, according to a new survey by the Pew Hispanic Center..Among the registered voters in the survey, Obama led Romney in a hypothetical matchup by 68%-23% — about the same margin by which Obama defeated John McCain among Latino voters in 2008, according to exit polls.”

Emily’s List has just published a “GOP Presidential Scorecard,” rating the Republican candidates according to their positions on five major issues of concern to women. Hint: Newt flunked worst.

It isn’t all about electoral politics. Dara O’Rourke writes at The Boston Review about another track for progressives activists, the awakening of the “Citizen Consumer.”

Jeffrey Toobin’s “Holder’s Legacy” at The New Yorker urges the A.G. to accept a worthy challenge: “…To define his legacy as Attorney General–as something more than the guy who tried, and failed, to have Guantánamo Bay detainees tried in federal court in New York. There is a purity, a simplicity, about the voting-rights fight that is sadly absent from many modern civil-rights battles. This is not about special privileges, or quotas, or even complex mathematical formulae. It’s about a basic right of American citizenship, which is being taken from large numbers of people for the most cynical of reasons. The laws are, quite literally, indefensible–so Holder ought to make the states that have them try to defend them. That would be a legacy that would make any Attorney General, and any American, proud.”

Time out for a little levity at Op-Ed News, where Rev. Dan Vojir’s “Driving The Clown Car: A (Serious) Look At GOP Campaign Managers With Nonetheless HILARIOUS UDATES!” reviews the latest Republican shenanigans.