For your daily dose of political irony, read “Ron Paul backed by workers he’s aiming to show door, The GOP’s most ardent budget hawk is drawing the most money from federal workers and contractors” by Bloomberg’s Nick Taborek in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. As Taborek reports:

Ron Paul, the presidential candidate who says he’ll shrink government the most, is attracting more campaign cash than any of his Republican rivals from two unlikely sources: U.S. government workers and employees of the biggest federal contractors.
…”There is at the bottom of this a truly bizarre set of paradoxes, where many of the people who are attacking government the most are ultimately heavily dependent on it,” said Don Kettl, dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland.

According to FEC data,

Paul…has said he’ll cut $1 trillion in his first year in office, leads in donations from federal employees, with $95,085 through Sept. 30. That is more than four times the $23,000 federal employees gave to Mitt Romney, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by Bloomberg…Paul has said he would eliminate the departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior and Housing and Urban Development.

It’s not just government employees who support the candidate most likely to gut their jobs, reports Taborek:

Paul, who opposed the Iraq war, has raised $76,789 from employees of the top 50 government contractors, a group led by weapons makers such as Lockheed Martin Corp. and Raytheon Co. Romney has raised $65,800 and Rick Perry $16,250.

Taborek notes that President Obama has raised more money from federal employees than any Republican. That makes sense. Paul’s fund-raising success with federal employees, contractors and military personnel, however, is more of a head-scratcher, especially at a time when government workers are under relentless assault from Paul’s party. According to a recent Paul campaign email, he is “the only candidate who plans to cut about $1 trillion of the $3.5 trillion federal budget in the first year of his term.”
As Taborek explains: “Paul said in an Oct. 5 speech at the National Press Club in Washington that he leads in fundraising from the military because troops support his opposition to foreign conflicts.”
Paul has done well in fund-raising and GOP polls, despite his embrace of a range of quackish economic policies. If it’s because of his isolationist clarity, that’s significant.
Paul is no threat to President Obama. But If his gains are built on tapping a large well of dovish isolationism, then perhaps President Obama should take note and speed up our disengagement from Afghanistan. In so doing, the President just might get a bigger bite of the large number of voters who are tired of funding nation-building abroad.

Indiana has been trending red in polls this year. But it’s beginning to look like Hoosier GOP leaders have been infected with the lemming virus that has driven their Ohio and Wisconsin brethren to the edge of the abyss. Republicans are now preparing to re-introduce so-called “right-to-work” legislation in the upcoming session, according to Mark Guarino’s Monitor report.
Marian Wang explains “Uncoordinated Coordination: Six Reasons Limits on Super PACs Are Barely Limits at All” at Propublica.org.
In his article, “When Did Liberals Become So Unreasonable?,” New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait wonders if liberal expectations have gotten a little unrealistic, since every Democratic President is a disappointment to progressives. Says Chait: “…Liberals are dissatisfied with Obama because liberals, on the whole, are incapable of feeling satisfied with a Democratic president. They can be happy with the idea of a Democratic president–indeed, dancing-in-the-streets delirious–but not with the real thing. The various theories of disconsolate liberals all suffer from a failure to compare Obama with any plausible baseline. Instead they compare Obama with an imaginary president–either an imaginary Obama or a fantasy version of a past president. ”
Congratulations are in order for Demos, on reaching a milestone — helping one million voters in five states — Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia and Illinois fill out voter registration forms since 2007, and implement the oft-neglected section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires public agencies to assist voters.
The GOP’s “voter fraud’ follies get their due in Ryan J. Reilly’s “GOP New Mexico Sec of State Finds Tiny Fraction Of The Voter Fraud She Alleged” at Talking Points Memo. According to Reilly, “New Mexico Secretary of State Dianna Duran said earlier this year that her state had a “culture of corruption” and referred 64,000 voter registration records to police that she thought were possible cases of voter fraud. Now a new report from her office proves she was completely right, 0.0296875 percent of the time…”
The Hill’s Bob Cusack has some interesting scorekeeping in his post at The Hill, “Winners and losers emerge from supercommittee’s partisan stalemate‬.” Cusack sees it as particularly good news for President Obama: “Without a doubt, the debt panel’s flop helps his cause…In the coming weeks, Obama and congressional Democrats will go on the offensive on extending the payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance, two issues that were expected to be taken off the table by the supercommittee.
Gene Robinson isn’t having any of the false equivalency Koolaid regarding the Super Committee’s big flunk in his WaPo column, “Robinson: Republican obstinacy doomed the supercommittee.”
It’s always fun when a Republican strategy memo is published to the dismay of its authors, all the more so when the authors include two former members of Speaker Boehner’s staff now working as lobbyists. The memo in question is essentially a pitch from the Geldug, Clark, Lytle and Cranford lobbying firm to the American Bankers Association. The lobbyists would provide a survey of attitudes towards OWS and big banks and an analysis of OWS leaders and backers, and strategy papers on coalition planning and advertising — all for a mere $850K. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes broke the story (video clip exclusive here), MSNBC has the memo here and John Reed of OpEd news puts it in perspective here. One stated goal in the memo: “to provide cover for political figures who defend the industry.”
Upper of the day: Meg Handley’s “5 Reasons the Economy Will Be Better in 2012” at U.S. News Politics.
Michael Bailey and Forrest Maltzman attempt a data driven analysis to answer the question in their American Prospect post title “Will the Supreme Court Overturn Obamacare?” The theory seems a little dicey, but Dems should like their prediction: “here is ours: 6-3 or 7-2 to uphold the law.”

Jeffrey Sachs’s post “The Super Committee’s Big Lie” at the HuffPo has some information Democratic campaigns should find helpful in crafting responses to GOP myth-mongering about taxes. Sachs, a Columbia University economist and director of The Earth Institute, has harsh words for the Super Committee in general. But the most interesting and potentially useful part of his post has to do with making an important distinction between the economies of Southern and Northern Europe:

…Each day, Republicans warn us that if we raise taxes we will end up like Europe, that is, in collapse. Democrats, for their part, go silent, not sure what to make of the argument.
Here’s what to make of it: it’s plain wrong. Europe per se is not in crisis. Southern Europe is in crisis. Northern Europe, by contrast, where the taxes are higher than in Southern Europe, is vastly outperforming the United States.
Consider three key dimensions of the economic crisis: high unemployment, large budget deficits, and high current account deficits (broadly meaning more imports than exports). To compare how countries are doing, I’ll create a simple Misery Index equal to the sum of these three indicators. In 2010, for example, the U.S. had a Misery Index equal to 23.4, the sum of a 9.6 percent unemployment rate, a budget deficit equal to 10.6 percent of GDP, and a foreign (current account) deficit of 3.2 percent of GDP.
When we calculate the Misery Index for the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe, we find that, lo and behold, the U.S. ranks among the most miserable performers, 5th out of 20 countries. The country with the highest Misery Index is Ireland, followed by Spain, Greece, Portugal, and the United States. All five countries deregulated their financial markets and thereby experienced a housing bubble and bust.
The lowest macroeconomic misery is in Northern Europe. Norway has the lowest score, followed by Switzerland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, and Demark. All seven countries have lower unemployment rates, smaller budget deficits as a share of GDP, and lower foreign deficits as a share of GDP, than the U.S. We look pretty miserable indeed by comparison.
Yet, miracle of miracles, these seven countries collect higher taxes as a share of GDP than does the U.S. Total government revenues in the U.S. (adding federal, state, and local taxes) totaled 33.1 percent of GDP in 2010. This compares with 56.5, 34.2, 39.5, 45.9, 52.7, and 43.4 percent of GDP in Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, and Denmark, respectively. These much higher levels of taxation are raised through a combination of personal, corporate, payroll, and value-added taxes.
The Northern European countries earn their prosperity not through low taxation but through high taxation sufficient to pay for government. In five of the seven countries, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Netherlands, and Sweden, government spending as a share of GDP is much higher than in the U.S. These countries enjoy much better public services, better educational outcomes, more gainful employment, higher trade balances, lower poverty, and smaller budget deficits. High-quality government services reach all parts of the society. The U.S., stuck with its politically induced “low-tax trap,” ends up with crummy public services, poor educational outcomes, high and rising poverty, and a huge budget deficit to boot.

For a more extensive breakdown of the data in Sach’s ‘misery index,’ see here.
It’s a point that merits more repetition in public debate. I’ve noticed that even many liberals, including some commentators, talk about the ‘troubled European economy,’ in part because of a misguided tendency to think of the EEC as an economic entity that trumps the economic policies of individual nations. I once saw Sachs make the correction with a couple of sentences in a televised panel discussion to good effect, leaving his fellow panelists and viewers better educated about the possible effects of fair taxes, as well as what’s really going on in Europe. It’s not the kind of message you can boil down into a soundbite, but I’m thinking Sach’s argument could be leveraged to help Dems with high-information swing voters.

Beth Fouhy explores the intersection of electoral politics and OWS in this morning’s AP update, “Democrats See Minefield in Occupy Protests.”
Many pundits agree that President Obama’s strong card is his impressive accomplishments in international affairs. But how much his achievements will factor into voter choice is an open question. Maryland University political scientist Thomas F. Schaller offers some insights in his post, “Will Obama’s Foreign Policy Wins Lead to a Win Next Year?” at Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball.
Robert Kuttner’s “Don’t Save Republicans from Themselves” at The American Prospect makes the case, short and sweet, for Dems to hold the line and refuse to sign on a Supercommittee deal favored by the GOP before the automatic cuts kick in. Says Kuttner: “The Democrats are holding all the cards. Is this really the moment to save the Republicans from themselves?”
Republicans are running scared about the Supercommittee deliberations. According to a Newsmax.com report, “Norquist: Democrats Sabotaging Supercommittee to Help Obama” by Paul Scicchitano and Kathleen Walter, the GOP’s chief government-basher has gotten his knickers all in a twist over, horrors, a political party putting political advantage before the good of the country.
Gingrich’s GOP opponents would have no trouble compiling a richly-detailed “Top Ten Reasons Why Newt is Unelectable,” list. But this latest revelation could be the deal-breaker.
David Catanese’s Politico update, “Outside groups begin assault with ads” reports that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is shelling out $1 million for their first salvo of ad buys targeting a dozen [Democratic} Senators and 50 congress members, including Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Jon Tester (D-MT).
Here’s the Chamber’s attack ad targeting Sherrod Brown because he opposed unlimited drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and supported ending oil subsidies.
Meanwhile, Republicans are apparently having a hard time finding well-rounded candidates to help them take back control of the U.S. Senate, reports Jennifer Steinhauer in her New York Times article, “Feuding Hurts G.O.P.’s Hopes to Win Senate.” “The biggest fear among Republicans is of divisive primaries in which Tea Party-backed candidates prevail in states where they cannot win the general election, as happened in 2010 in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada, or that weaken the preferred candidate in the process.”
The Grey Lady also has a nicely-packaged wrap-up of “The Battle for the Senate” to date with a color-coded map and snap-shot summaries for each race.
The Republican House Freshman aren’t doing so well in fund-raising, reports Fredreka Schouten in USA Today. “Two-thirds of the Republican freshmen who captured Democratic-held seats in the GOP’s 2010 takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives saw their fundraising dip in the past quarter, campaign-finance reports show…The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has seen its fundraising surge, collecting $6.6 million in September, nearly double its August haul. The National Republican Congressional Committee raised $3.8 million in September, a 27% increase from its total the previous month.”
2011 may go down in U.S. political history as the GOP’s year of strategic blunders. Evan McMorris-Santoro of Talking Points Memo piles on in his post, “The Arizona Immigration Bill Seems To Have Created A New Swing State.”
Barbara Morrill has posted “The John Boehner Cries Caption Contest” over at Daily Kos. More than 200 entries so far.

Political statistics junkies will be buzzing today about Nate Silver’s “A ‘Radical Centrist’ View on Election Forecasting,” a characteristically-perceptive analysis at his Five Thirty Eight blog. It’s a response to a recent critique of Silver’s New York Times Magazine article, “Is Obama Toast? Handicapping the 2012 Election.” The critique, entitled “Why Data Wonks Are Wrong About Presidential Elections,” written by Ron Klain, a former Biden staffer, argues that statistical forecasts don’t help much with campaign strategy.
I haven’t yet read Klain’s post, so I can’t make a sound assessment about how accurately Silver describes his argument. But Silver’s post has merit even as a stand-alone essay on the nuances and concerns of political forecasting, one likely to be widely-discussed in poly sci classes this week.
I can certainly see good uses of forecasting in formulating strategy. Ad placement and timing, candidate travel, messaging and policy positions can all benefit from political forecasting. That’s not to say forecasting is the primary strategy tool for political campaigns, nor to deny that it’s been overvalued.
To a some extent, political forecasting is a sideshow of more immediate use to academics, journalists, gamblers and water-cooler chat than it is to political campaign workers. Accurately predicting which candidate wins gives political forecasters some cred as advisers and commentators. And, “If the election were held today” polls, more than forecasts, can tell a candidate that she/he is not doing well with union members, single women or suburbanites, for example. That can be helpful for tweaking messaging, ads and other campaign activities.
But Silver makes it clear that it would be folly for a campaign to marshal most of it’s resources in response to a forecast or poll and he is quite candid about the limitations and misuses of forecasting:

…Forecasters who are not conscientious about their methodology will wind up with models that make overconfident forecasts and that impute meaning to statistical noise…I would not paint all the forecasters with the same brush. Two political scientists who I know have a very sophisticated understanding of these problems are Larry Bartels at Princeton and Robert Erikson at Columbia. Others, like Hans Noel, will publish models, but provide very explicit disclaimers about their limitations. But there others who tweak as many knobs as they can, and there are bloggers and reporters who take all of the results at face value and don’t distinguish the responsible forecasts from the junk science. The problem is made worse when a game show is made out of forecasting and everyone competes to see who can get the most overfit model published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Silver weighs the relative influence of economic statistics, campaign strategy, candidate skills and ideology and unpredictable events, and discusses the difficulty of quantifying such factors. He notes that a lot of forecasting models flunked last year, and he cautions that the 2012 elections are likely to be especially problematic for forecasters. “We have already had an extremely wide array of outcomes in the various special and interim elections that have taken place around the country so far this year,” says Silver, “and we’ve had a very wild Republican primary, suggesting that voter preferences may be more malleable than normal.” He adds that even the best forecasting models don’t do such a great job of explaining the why of outcomes.
Alan I. Abramowitz, senior columnist for Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball and member of the TDS Advisory Board, also has an insightful critique of Silver’s New York Times Magazine article, noting “several problems with Silver’s model,” among them,

…First, it isn’t really a forecasting model because the growth rate of the economy during the year of the election won’t be known until long after the election is over. In addition, the measure of the opposition candidate’s extremism is highly subjective…More importantly, Silver’s model may underestimate Barack Obama’s chances of winning a second term in the White House because it does not take into account the advantage enjoyed by first-term incumbents. And that advantage, as we have seen, is quite substantial.

But Silver does believe that political forecasting models can be made better and better, and can be increasingly useful in political campaigns. Anyone interested in data-driven political analysis should find Silver’s perspective a good read.

For a striking visual representation of how geographically broad-based was the victory over union-bashing in Ohio, take a gander at the map in Dante Atkins’s Daily Kos post “That’s not ‘overreach.’ That’s just the Republican Party.”
Also at Kos, Chris Bowers reports on the Walker recall campaign, along with the effort to recall GOP Wisconsin state senators, as well as dirty tricks being used to obstruct the recall.
With just a few more states to go in the redistricting process, Stuart Rothenberg’s Roll Call post “House Overview: What’s In Play? Democrats Look to Take Back the Chamber in 2012” has an iffy prognosis for Dems. “At this point, with redistricting still up in the air in key states, Democrats appear positioned to gain House seats, but not all that close to the 25 seats they would need to regain a majority in the House…Democrats need some breaks in the final redistricting states, some additional recruits and almost certainly a shift in the national political environment to improve their chances of winning back the House.”
Elizabeth Warren’s first TV ad is out with a simple, direct populist message that ought to win some Bay State swing voters. ActBlue has raised over $2.5 million for her campaign from almost 60 thousand supporters.
Again at Kos, via Alternet, in his article, “10 Stories of People Moving Their Money, Despite Banks” Efforts to Stop Them,” Markos Moulitsas succinctly debunks the myth that banks really welcome the withdrawal campaigns because it relieves them of the administrative costs associated with smaller depositors. Says Kos, “…Not only do they relentlessly advertise for new business on billboards, TV, direct mail and other places, but they fight tooth and nail to prevent people from closing their accounts.” Kos could have also mentioned that megabanks have bent over backward to persuade migrant workers to become depositors, despite their very modest average balances.
Did you know that a third of 18 year-olds have no driver’s license? Further, “18 percent of Americans over the age of 65, one- quarter of African-Americans, and 15 percent of low-income voters do not have a photo ID.” These and other facts bearing on voter suppression can be found in “Protecting The Right To Vote: Testimony for the Committee on the Judiciary” submitted by Demos.
Voter suppression is critical for Republican success in the southern states, where the African American and Latino populations are growing fastest. The Economist doesn’t take voter suppression into consideration in “The politics of the South: Hunting for votes,” but the overview of Democratic prospects in the region in light of recent elections is discouraging, with some exceptions. Still, as The Economist warns, President Obama “will struggle to keep his job next year unless he can win at least one of the three southern states he carried in 2008: Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.” Without addressing the topic directly, the article lends support to the argument that the Obama campaign may now have better prospects in the Rust Belt.
Speaking of Democratic ineptitude in the south, Ashton Pittman, progressive columnist for “The Student Printz,” serving southern Mississippi, has a revealing column explaining why “Democrats Can Only Blame Themselves” in the magnolia State. Pittman explains: “For the first time since Reconstruction, Republicans are likely to hold the majority in the Mississippi House of Representatives. In an election that saw progressive victories all across the country, including a major one right here in Mississippi, the Democratic party in Mississippi has only itself to blame..Things were so bad for the Democratic party that it wasn’t even able to field candidates for lieutenant governor, secretary of state, or auditor.” But it’s the whys of it that makes Pittman’s column a good read for Dems who want to do better in the deep south, where highly favorable demographic trends are in motion.
Danielle Kurtzleben of U.S. News Politics has a fun featurette, “The 10 Most Unionized U.S. Cities.” Hint: If you guessed Frisco and Vegas like I did, you would be wrong. Interesting, though, that all but two of the top ten are in CA or NY.
Ezra Klein has a stinging critique of “The Democrats’ Peculiar Negotiating Strategy” up at his WaPo wonkblog. After citing a depressing litany of right turns and cave-ins in the negotiating process, Klein concludes, “So far, Republicans have not said yes to any of the deals the Democrats have offered. They continue to assume a better deal is just around the corner, and thus far, they have been right.”
Also at The Post, Eugene Robinson makes a persuasive case that “Republicans aren’t closing the deal with voters.” Says Robinson: “The Republican field has utterly failed to develop a convincing narrative about the economy. The candidates act as if widespread disappointment with the performance of Obama and the Democrats will be enough to win the election. But voters are being given every reason to suspect that GOP policies will make things worse.”

Mallory Simon reports at CNN on the likely timetable for the U.S. Supreme Court hearings and their decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act:

Oral arguments would probably be held in late February or March, with a ruling by June, assuring the blockbuster issue will become the topic of a hot-button political debate in a presidential election year.

As Simon reports, a key issue to be decided by the Supremes is “whether the ‘individual mandate’ section of the law – requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties – is an improper exercise of federal authority.”
The Republican hope is that the high court will rule the Act unconstitutional. Simon quotes CNN’s senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, “Many states have challenged this and said, ‘This is different because it requires individuals to buy a private product, that is health insurance,’ and that is something [they feel] the federal government simply does not have the authority to do.”
If the court made such a ruling, would that mean state laws requiring drivers to purchase car insurance would also be in jeopardy? It’s OK for state governments to make such a requirement, but not the federal government?
As for the political consequences of the Supreme Court ruling, Toobin speculates:

“If the law is struck down, if the central achievement of President Obama’s domestic policy is struck down, I think that would be very, very bad for him; the idea that he spent all this time on something that was unconstitutional,” Toobin said. “If he wins, I think it’s a benefit. Gratification by a basically conservative Supreme Court, I think, will be seen as a victory for him and will likely give him some momentum heading into the convention…”

Mallory reports that the White House nonetheless feels confident about the challenge, since three out of four circuit courts have upheld the Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality, including rulings by “highly conservative judges.”
It also appears that the tide of public opinion may be turning in favor of the Act. According to “CNN Poll: Support rises for health insurance mandate” by Bill Mears and Paul Steinhauser,

The public is divided over the idea of requiring all Americans to have health insurance, according to a new national survey. But a CNN/ORC International Poll [conducted 11/11-13] also indicates that support for the proposal, a cornerstone of the 2010 health care reform law, has risen since June.
According to the poll, 52% of Americans favor mandatory health insurance, up from 44% in June. The survey indicates that 47% oppose the health insurance mandate, down from 54% in early summer…”The health insurance mandate has gained most support since June among older Americans and among lower-income Americans,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “A majority of independents opposed the measure in June, but 52 percent of them now favor it.”

Some might argue that there is little reason to hope that the Supreme Court has gotten any better since Gore v. Bush, in terms of doing of the GOP’s bidding. But it seems to me that there is less cover here for a politicized decision, particularly in light of the courts of appeals rulings. It’s going to take some awfully tortured reasoning by five justices to argue that the coverage requirement is illegal. It could happen, but I’m betting that there is at least one conservative justice who doesn’t want such an embarrassing mockery on his legacy.
In sum, the legal arguments supporting the law’s constitutionality are strong, and the public, though divided, favors the mandate, and increasingly so. Unless the High Court is now hopelessly — and shamelessly — politicized, the law will likely be upheld.

In his National Journal post, “A Model for Obama?,” Ronald Brownstein sorts out the political leanings of white workers in Ohio, in light of a Hart Research/AFL-CIO survey of voters conducted 11/6-8 and the vote on issue 2, which repealed the ban on collective bargaining for Ohio public workers. Brownstein explains:

As impressive as the depth of the win was its breadth…the survey, released Wednesday afternoon, offers the best picture available of the coalition that overturned Kasich’s prized legislation:
–The repeal campaign won broad support. Fully 86 percent of union members voted to repeal, but so did 52 percent of non-union voters. A solid majority of every age group voted to repeal. Not only did 92 percent of liberals vote to repeal but so did a preponderant 70 percent of moderates. (Conservatives supported maintaining the law by almost two-to-one). Nearly three-fifths of independents voted for repeal, along with over nine-in-ten Democrats. Almost three-fifths of whites, as well as a big majority of minorities, voted to repeal.
–The repeal vote reached well into the groups that powered the Republican surge in 2010. A 54 percent majority of whites older than 60 voted to repeal, according to figures from the survey provided by Hart Research’s Guy Molyneux. So did a 61 percent majority of whites without a college education. Even a 55 percent majority of non-college whites who do not belong to a union voted to repeal. All of those are groups that have not voted much in recent years for anything favored by Democrats. Even 30 percent of self-identified Republicans and one-fourth of voters who backed Kasich in 2010 voted to repeal.
The success of the repeal vote among the overlapping groups of senior and blue-collar whites – each of which, nationally, gave 63 percent of their votes to Republican House candidates in 2010, according to exit polls – might be the most striking result in the poll. For Democrats who want a class conscious message from Obama in 2012, it’s evidence that these prodigal Democratic voters can still be reached with an edgy on-your-side appeal.

The white house should learn the important lesson from the vote and the poll, argues Molyneux:

The idea that you can get Democratic voters, not just young and African-American voters, but working class voters energized and excited about fighting for their economic interests is a lesson I hope the White House will take on this…What killed Kasich was the sense that he was looking out either for the rich and powerful or his own party’s political interests. Either way he was not focused on helping average working families in Ohio. And I think that’s what Obama needs to set up about his opponent – motives and concern and in whose interest they are going to govern.

In his New York Times op-ed “How Obama Can Win Ohio,” John Russo, co-director of the Center for Working-Class Studies at Youngstown State University, offers this encouraging assessment:

According to CNN exit polls from the last few elections, union household voters remain a strong presence in Ohio, even after more than three decades of de-industrialization. Twenty-eight percent of Ohio voters come from union households, compared with 23 percent nationally. In 2008, they underperformed for Obama, who won 56 percent of their votes in Ohio versus 59 percent from union households across the country. No similar data exists for the 2010 midterm election, but many labor leaders admit that Kasich beat the Democratic governor, Ted Strickland, in part because voters from community groups and union households either voted Republican or stayed home (essentially giving half a vote to Kasich).
If union households in Ohio lost their enthusiasm for Democratic candidates in recent years, Kasich’s actions, together with the national Republicans’ just-say-no politics and kill-Medicare initiatives (like the Paul Ryan budget), have made the Democrats look a lot better than they did in 2010.
It all comes down to math. In 2008, 2,933,388 Ohioans voted (or 51.5%) for Obama, 258,897 more than McCain won. If union households maintain their proportion of the electorate, and if just 1 percent more of them vote for Democrats, they can add 15,700 votes to the Democratic vote and subtract the same number from the Republicans – a swing of more than 31,000 votes. If Ohio’s union household voters increase their support for Democrats by 3 percent – that is, if they match the national average for union household voters – they would generate 47,100 additional votes for Obama, a swing of 94,200 votes. That alone could give the president Ohio’s electoral votes.
But because of Senate Bill 5, we might reasonably expect an even larger shift. A recent Quinnipiac poll suggests that the anger generated by the anti-union bill and the organizing fostered by the effort to overturn it has 70 percent of union household voters planning to support Obama and the Democrats in 2012. That translates into an increase of 219,829 votes for Obama, a swing of almost 440,000 votes. Put differently, a mobilized Ohio labor movement with 742,000 members, including many teachers, police officers, and firefighters who have often voted Republican, will be more likely to vote for Democrats in 2012.

Russo believes that Obama must press the case for “a positive economic vision and a program for economic change” and the President’s jobs legislation and Obama’s recent initiatives on mortgages and student loans should help.
Writing in The Daily Beast, Michael Tomasky adds in his post, “Ohio Vote Shows Obama Winning Back the Rust Belt“:

…The larger context in which this vote took place is important, too. And that context is Operation Wall Street, income inequality, Republicans in Congress killing the jobs bill piece by piece, Obama finally getting some blood flowing through those veins again instead of water. People have started to care about class issues, and it’s pretty clear what they think: The Republican Party isn’t representing them (unless they happen to live in a household with an income of at least $368,000 a year). In the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 76 percent agreed that “the current economic structure of the country is out of balance and favors a small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country.”
What this means for next year is twofold. First, it suggests that Davids Plouffe and Axelrod should work the Rust Belt. Plouffe in particular has been signaling a strategy that would put more emphasis on Virginia and Colorado and North Carolina (where the convention is being held) at the expense of states like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan. But the way Democrats and majorities of independents are acting in those Rust Belt states now, they’re looking more like states Obama can hold. You may have seen the Ohio poll in which, despite his low approval rating, Obama beats all the Republicans handily–Mitt Romney by nine points, 50 to 41, and the others by double digits.

Tomasky believes the Ohio vote debunks the conventional wisdom that Dems can win either the base or the center, but not both. As Tomasky says, “…What the Ohio result shows is a way to unite liberals and moderates, Democrats and independents, behind one message that both want to hear. That hasn’t happened much in recent American history. The White House had best be alert to it.”
In the wake of the Ohio vote it’s now clear that the GOP made a huge blunder in declaring class war on unionized workers, providing Dems with a powerful weapon. As Molyneux puts it, “…If the class-conscious Ohio repeal campaign genuinely offers Obama a roadmap to remaining competitive with more older and blue-collar whites, he can keep graying Rust Belt states like Ohio and Wisconsin in play – and reduce his need to repeat his 2008 breakthroughs in the diverse and fast growing new swing states across the Sun Belt.”

Alan I. Abramowitz writes on “Why Barack Obama Has a Good Chance of Winning a Second Term, And why Nate Silver may have underestimated his chances” in Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball. As Abramowitz says, “According to the Time-for-Change forecasting model, which has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in every presidential election since 1988, Barack Obama has a good chance of winning a second term in the White House next November. The main reason for this is that the Democratic Party has only held the White House since 2008. That makes Obama a first-term incumbent, and first-term incumbents rarely lose…Could Barack Obama be the next Jimmy Carter? There is clearly a chance that he could, if the condition of the U.S. economy deteriorates in 2012 and/or the president’s approval rating slips further into negative territory. But because of the first-term incumbent advantage, the model gives Obama a good chance of winning a second term even with fairly modest economic growth next year and an approval rating in the low- to mid-forties…”
Also at the Crystal Ball, Glen Bolger’s “Obama’s Destiny: Does It Lie in Demographics, or in the Political Environment?” gives Obama the edge in demographics, but the shaky economy makes it too close to call.
Nation of Change has has an update on Bank Transfer Day, noting “The day was a huge success with over 250 events in every corner of the country and over 10,000 people attending, and that’s counting only the events tracked by MoveOn.org and Rebuild The Dream…Move Your Money made local news all over the country – in Madison, Oakland, Detroit, Atlanta, Baltimore, Seattle, Albuquerque, St. Louis, and dozens of other cities…Let’s make every day Bank Transfer – continue to spread the pledge to your neighbors and communities. Demand that banks be held accountable.”
In his Washington Post column, “The right-wing’s shellacking,” E. J. Dionne Jr. has an insightful observation about the one downer in the Ohio vote: “One of the only referendum results the GOP could cheer was a strong vote in Ohio against the health-insurance mandate. While health-reform supporters argued that the ballot question was misleading, the result spoke to the truly terrible job Democrats have done in defending what they enacted. They can’t let the health-care law remain a policy stepchild.”
For the centrist take on Tuesday’s elections, check out Mark Trumbull’s Monitor post, “Election results 2011: Voters signal that GOP overreached.” Also Joe Klein’s Swampland post “Election 2011: A Victory for the Silent Majority.”
Seniors may be a fairly quiet high-turnout demographic. But that doesn’t mean they are not pissed off. Jennifer C. Kerr reports for the AP that “The Associated Press-LifeGoesStrong.com poll found a baby boom generation planning to work into retirement years — with 73 percent planning to work past retirement, up from 67 percent this spring…In all, 53 percent of boomers polled said they do not feel confident they’ll be able to afford a comfortable retirement. That’s up from 44 percent who were concerned about retirement finances in March.”
A blue tide is rising in the once-red ‘burbs of Philly. The Inquirer’s Anthony R. Wood and Josh Fernandez have the skinny here.
Guess who is taking Michigan for granted. Lisa Lerer and David J. Lynch report at Bloomberg.com on “Romney Defends Auto Bailout Opposition in His Native State.” Their article quotes David Cole, chairman emeritus of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor: “”Without the intervention of the Bush and Obama administrations, we would have seen the liquidation of both Chrysler and probably GM,” Cole said in August. “That would have taken the whole industry down. We would have seen a disaster in terms of the job impact.” Michigan’s Republican Governor Rick Snyder agrees: “It wasn’t just one or two companies at risk, but the entire national supply chain,” Snyder told the Detroit News. “Losing that would have had a devastating impact on the economy.” But Romney just doubled down in last night’s debate: “My view with regards to the bailout was that, whether it was by President Bush or by President Obama, it was the wrong way to go…”
Romney nonetheless got a free ride from his competitors last night, according to Paul Begala’s zinger-rich review of the proceedings at The Daily Beast. Begala observes: “I am astonished that no one laid a glove on Mitt Romney. They didn’t even take a swing. (And yet his hair was oddly tousled. How much you wanna bet he focus-grouped the new ‘do?).” As for Perry, Begala eulogizes “It was as dramatic and cringe-worthy a self-immolation as I’ve ever seen. I was in the room, 10 feet from Howard Dean when he screamed in Iowa. I was in the hall in Richmond when George H.W. Bush looked at his watch in the middle of a debate. But I have never seen a more devastating moment of self-destruction. What’s next, Perry endorsing Cain’s 9-9… ummm, what’s the third number?”
Perhaps this video clip of tea party Congressman Joe Walsh’s meltdown could be a useful resource for Psych 101 classes studying the “type A” and “authoritarian personality.”
Where are the Democratic women candidates? Democratic gains notwithstanding, there wasn’t much in Tuesday’s elections to cheer about in terms of women’s empowerment, as the Center for the American Woman in Politics reports: “Women failed to gain ground in the 2011 state legislative elections…With legislative contests in four states, even if every outstanding race is decided in favor of a woman, the national total will drop from the current number of 1740,” observed CAWP director Debbie Walsh…”The national total of women elected statewide will increase by just one — to 72 — as a result of elections in three states. It’s discouraging that we’re nowhere near the peak statewide number of 92 women, achieved in 2000.”

Ohio voters had their say on Tuesday, and more of them voted against the Republican union busting law than voted for Governor John Kasich. According to the latest returns (with 99 percent of precincts reporting), 61 percent of voters opposed the union-busting legislation, which stripped collective bargaining rights from 350 thousand public employees, with 39 percent supporting it.
A visibly shaken Governor Kasich hemmed and hawed on camera about how he was going to take some time for “reflecting” on the vote. Apparently it hadn’t occurred to him that Ohio voters respected their teachers, fire fighters, police and other public servants more than fat-cat ideologues who want to crush trade unions in the Buckeye state.
You won’t be shocked to learn that union-busters tried the usual dirty tricks, including the old “Election day is tomorrow” (not today) robo-calls. GOP media errand boy Mike Huckabee even ‘jokingly’ suggested creating confusion about election day at a pancake breakfast/rally in Mason, Ohio on Friday, according to Molly Reilly’s HuffPo report:

“Make a list,” said Huckabee, referring to supporters’ family and friends. “Call them and ask them, ‘Are you going to vote on Issue 2 and are you going to vote for it?’ If they say no, well, you just make sure that they don’t go vote. Let the air out of their tires on election day. Tell them the election has been moved to a different date. That’s up to you how you creatively get the job done…The crowd laughed at Huckabee’s remarks. In 2009, he made a similar joke in Virginia, saying, “Let the air our of their tires … keep ’em home. Do the Lord’s work.”

What ‘Lord’ would that be? This one doesn’t quite pass the ‘WWJD’ sniff test.
Indeed, his remarks raise a serious question: If someone repeatedly advocates illegal voter suppression in a ‘joking’ manner, should he/she be held accountable? Maybe it’s time for the authorities to answer that question.
So, how did the ‘We Are Ohio’ coalition defeat the lavishly-funded union-busters? Mike Hall explains it well in his AFL-CIO Blog post “Ohio Voters to Kasich: “No, No, No“:

After the Ohio legislature rammed the law through in late March–ignoring an outpouring of public opposition including demonstrations that brought thousands to the state capitol in Columbus–Ohio working families began a massive mobilization to repeal the law.
In just a matter of weeks, volunteers from the We Are Ohio coalition collected more than 1.3 million signatures to put S.B. 5 repeal on the ballot. With polls showing growing support for repeal and a rapidly shrinking approval rating, in August Kasich even offered a so-called compromise. But working families rejected the deal and continued the fight for full repeal.
As the election drew near, unions and community groups knocked on doors, made phone calls and distributed literature around the state. In the past weekend alone, volunteers knocked on more than 450,000 doors.

When well-organized people power goes up against big right-wing money, don’t bet against the people.