Stacy Mitchell has an article of interest for Dems who want to get a larger share of small business voters, up at Bloomberg Businessweek. Mitchell removes the facade of two organizations which purport to serve small business men and women, but throw them under the bus when big corporations give the nod.
Mitchell cites the examples of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry and the PA chapter of the National Federation of independent Businesses, both of which opposed Gov. Rendell’s plan to cut the business income tax rate for small businesses. The plan would also close a loophole allowing multi-sate retail chains and banks avoid PA taxes, and big biz just wasn’t having it.
But it’s not just the PA affiliates, as Mitchell explains:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the NFIB, together with their state-level affiliates, are among the country’s most powerful lobbying forces. While they claim to speak for small business, a look at their lobbying record suggests their primary allegiance lies elsewhere. The U.S. Chamber has fought to preserve offshore tax havens that only multinationals can use, leaving small businesses at a disadvantage. Both the NFIB and affiliates of the Chamber have lobbied in various states to maintain loopholes like Pennsylvania’s. And neither group has contested the multi-million-dollar tax breaks cities routinely bestow on big-box retailers to the detriment of their independent rivals.
Although the Chamber says it represents 3 million small businesses, that’s misleading. The figure includes members of local and state chambers, which have no say over the national group’s activities. The U.S. Chamber’s direct membership includes some 300,000 small businesses, or about 1 percent of the total nationwide. While small businesses are prominent in its press releases, they’re scarce in its boardroom; the vast majority of the Chamber’s 125 board members represent large corporations. “Our policy priorities are closely aligned with our small-business members,” and the Chamber has a committee that focuses on them, says Giovanni Coratolo, the Chamber’s vice-president for small-business policy.

And with the NFIB, the same priorities are reflected in political contributions:

All 300,000-plus members of the NFIB are small businesses. Yet their politics are out of sync with the broader small-business community. While an American Express poll shows that 32 percent of small-business owners are registered as Democrats and 33 percent are Republicans, 85 percent of the NFIB’s campaign contributions went to Republicans in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics…

And both groups have provided limp support for the kind of credit reform small business people desperately need, according to Mitchell:

The NFIB’s close ties to Republicans may explain its effort to downplay the effect of the credit crisis on small businesses. Ever since President Barack Obama proposed the small-business lending bill now stalled in the Senate, the NFIB has said access to credit is a low priority. An NFIB survey, though, showed that 55 percent of small employers sought loans in 2009, and over half of those couldn’t meet all of their borrowing needs. While the NFIB and the Chamber say they don’t oppose the lending bill, neither has done much to persuade Congress to vote for it. Compare that with the full-court press both groups waged against the financial reform bill. Small businesses paid dearly for Wall Street’s excesses and, as frequent users of credit cards and home equity loans to finance their growth, have much to gain from stronger consumer protections. Yet the U.S. Chamber and NFIB repeatedly cited the interests of small business as a reason to oppose the bill.

Mitchell reports that some local affiliates of both groups have decided to pursue their goals without the support of the national organizations. In addition, new groups like American Independent Business Alliance and the National Small Business Assn. are filling the void left by the chamber and NFIB in representing the interest of small business people, many of whom like the health care reform legislation passed by the Obama administration.
Democrats have a lot to gain by standing tall for the interests of small businesses and by supporting the truly independent organizations which genuinely represent their interests. In so doing, Dems can increase their share of a key constituency — one which also is instrumental in launching the economic recovery America so urgently needs.

It appears that the entire left blogosphere has its collective knickers in a wedgie today over the latest round of downer opinion polls regarding the Democrats’ midterm prospects, and not without reason. Dylan Loewe, however, is marching to a different drummer over at the HuffPo, where he goes all Polyanna in the midst of epidemic doom-saying, also not without reason. Here’s Loewe, excerpted on the topic of the Dems’ longer-than-midterm, prospects:

…There is actually plenty of reason to be optimistic about the future of the Democratic Party — and the progressive ideals it represents. You just have to be able to look past November to see it…But if you step back, look beyond the current moment, and consider the broader context, you’ll see that Democrats are actually in tremendously strong shape for the long term. What happens this November isn’t inconsequential. But it’s also likely to be a temporary bump on a road toward Democratic dominance.
…It seems difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile that idea with the reality that Republicans may be on the verge of taking back Congress. And yet, that’s where we find ourselves: Republicans are about to win a ton of seats. And they are also about to spend a generation in the minority.

Loewe, author of the newly-published Permanently Blue, conjures up an optimistic vision of America’s demographic future, with Democrat-favoring Latinos becoming a pivotal force in forthcoming elections, along with other minorities and young voters. He points out that President Obama should have a significant financial edge in 2012, while the increasingly fractious GOP stable of presidential candidates will be squandering their financial resources on attacking each other.
And Loewe’s optimism on the topic of “The Millenials” may be a little over the top, particularly in light of some of the most recent polls:

Take the younger generation, for example. The Millennials. This is a group that gave Barack Obama two-thirds of its support in 2008, and has consistently awarded the president high marks throughout his first two years. I suppose that’s not all that surprising given that they are, without question, the most socially liberal generation in American history.
Why should that worry Republicans? Because every year between now and 2018, 4 million new Millennials will become eligible voters. That means that 16 million more will be able to vote in 2012 than in 2008, and 32 million more in 2016. Even if they turn out in characteristically low numbers, they will still add millions of new votes into the Democratic column. By 2018, when the entire Millennial generation can vote, they will make up 40 percent of the voting population and be 90 million strong. That’s 14 million more Millennials than Baby Boomers, making the youngest generation the largest in U.S. history.
How can the Republican Party possibly court a generation this progressive, and this substantial, without losing its tea party base? And how can they survive on the national stage if they don’t?
This isn’t a formula for Republican dominance. It’s a formula for Republican extinction.

But Loewe concludes on a less ambitious note:

But November should be understood in context. This is the last election cycle in which this congressional map — designed predominantly by Republicans — will be used. And it will be the last year Republicans can depend on ideological purification without serious retribution at the polls.
The country is changing dramatically, and in ways that are sure to benefit Democrats. That’s why I’m so optimistic about our future. It’s why you should be too. November might be an ass-kicking. But it’s poised to be our last one for quite a long while.

Much of what Loewe is saying has been said before, particularly by TDS co-editor Ruy Teixeira and his co-author John Judis in their book, “The Emerging Democratic Majority” and in Teixeira’s “Red, Blue, and Purple America: The Future of Election Demographics” Loewe could have also added that the Republicans won’t be able to do much of anything, other than more obstruction, unless their midterm wave is big enough to override presidential vetoes, a prospect no observers are taking very seriously.
But it’s good to be reminded in these dark days of Democratic doom-saying, that one midterm election does not necessarily launch a new political era, and it just might be a little blip, the last little victory in a long time for a party without vision or solutions, other than tax cuts as the panacea for all ills.

There’s an interesting discussion going on in the political e-zines about the relative influence of ‘messaging’ and the economy in formulating Democratic strategy. Messaging gurus Drew Westen and George Lakoff have recently posted intriguing and sometimes conflicting arguments about Democratic messaging strategy, while both agree on it’s central importance. Brendan Nyhan, on the other hand has made a well-documented case that “structural factors,” particularly the economy, trump messaging and tactical choices in affecting election outcomes.
Lakoff’s Alternet article, “The Dems Need to Speak to Progressive Values, or Else Lose Badly Come November,” is a hybrid piggy-back/critique of Drew Westen’s recent Huffpo article on Democratic midterm strategy.
After (rightly) praising Westen’s article as “outstanding,” Lakoff explains,

I agree fully with everything he says. But …
Westen’s piece is incomplete in crucial ways. His piece can be read as saying that this election is about kitchen table economics (right) and only kitchen table economics (wrong).
This election is about more than just jobs, and mortgages, and adequate health care. All politics is moral. All political leaders say to do what they propose because it is right. No political leaders say to do what they say because it is wrong. Morality is behind everything in politics — and progressives and conservatives have different moral systems.

Lakoff believes it’s important to understand the moral bearings of Republicans in formulating a sound strategy:

In the conservative moral system, the highest value is preserving and extending the moral system itself. That is why they keep saying no to Obama’s proposals, even voting against their own ideas when Obama accepts them. To give Obama any victory at all would be a blow to their moral system. Their moral system requires non-co-operation. That is a major thing the Obama administration has not understood.

Lakoff joins with many progressives who have said there was never any chance that the Republicans were sincere about bipartisanship and President Obama should accept that as a reality. On HCR, Lakoff adds, “The Obama administration made a policy case, not a moral case…”
I’m sure Lakoff is right that a strong moral case can often excite voters in a favorable way. And just about any progressive policy can be advocated as right and just. But there is danger for candidates in coming off as a high-horse moralist.
One of Lakoff’s more perceptive insights has to do with the center of the political spectrum:

Westen’s discussion of “the center” and of populism in general, misses what is crucial in this election. There is no one “center.” Instead, a considerable number of Americans (perhaps as many as 15 to 20 percent) are conservative in some respects and progressive in other respects. They have both moral systems and apply them to different issues — in all kinds of ways. You can be conservative on economics and progressive on social issues, or conservative on foreign policy and progressive on domestic issues, and so on — in all sorts of combinations.

I think this is important. Just as the term “Independent” is misinterpreted to suggest those who identify themselves as such have a predictable political ideology, those who are often self-identified as “Centrists” or “Moderates” do indeed often embrace liberal AND conservative views on various issues — which makes it close to impossible to formulate a coherent issue-focused strategy to win their votes.
Political ideology is often complex. At the Beck rally the other day, for example, I noticed that his first mention of Martin Luther King, Jr. in his opening speech got a substantial and sincere-sounding applause, presumably from many wingnuts. What’s up with that? Perhaps MLK’s integrity and humility transcend differences on issues. Or maybe it’s just his icon status got some respect from the less unhinged members of Beck’s audiences.
Lakoff argues further that “the swing voters are really swing thinkers.” He emphasizes the importance of appealing to them by “framing all issues in terms of your values. Avoid their language, even in arguing against them…It just activates their arguments in the brains of listeners.”
Over the longer run, Lakoff advocates training “spokespeople all over the country in using such framing and avoiding mistakes.” He concludes, “The Democrats cannot take their base for granted. Only moral leadership backed by actions and communicated effectively can excite the Obama base once more.”
After giving Lakoff and Westen due credit for their interesting and useful insights, it seems prudent to give fair consideration to a different view, well-articulated by Brendan Nyhan in a recent link-rich post shared by Pollster.com and HuffPo regarding what he calls the “tactical fallacy” of messaging gurus and others. As Nyhan explains:

The problem is that any reasonable political tactic chosen by professionals will tend to resonate in favorable political environments and fall flat in unfavorable political environments (compare Bush in ’02 to Bush ’06, or Obama in ’08 to Obama in ’09-’10). But that doesn’t mean the candidates are succeeding or failing because of the tactics they are using. While strategy certainly can matter on the margin in individual races, aggregate congressional and presidential election outcomes are largely driven by structural factors (the state of the economy, the number of seats held by the president’s party, whether it’s a midterm or presidential election year, etc.). Tactical success often is a reflection of those structural factors rather than an independent cause.
What advocates of the tactical view have failed to do is provide a viable counterfactual — where is the example of the president whose messaging succeeded despite a similarly poor economy? TNR’s John Judis has tried to argue that Reagan was more successful than Obama in 1981-1982…but as I have pointed out…the 1982 election results do not suggest Republicans significantly overperformed and Reagan’s approval ratings (both on the economy and overall) were extremely similar to Obama’s at the same point in their presidencies.
The reality is that Obama’s current standing — and the rush to blame it on tactical failures — could be predicted months ago based on structural factors. His approval ratings largely reflect a poor economy. Similarly, Democrats were likely to suffer significant losses in the House no matter what due to the number of seats they currently hold and the fact that it is a midterm election. Nonetheless, expect the tactics-are-everything crowd to be saying “I told you so” on November 3.*
* Bonus prediction: If the economy rebounds before 2012, the media will rediscover the tactical genius of Obama and David Axelrod.

A sobering notion. Maybe the messaging strategies of Westen and Lakoff have very limited value in a tanking economy, and might work better in an economy that is at least moderately hopeful. If Nyhan is right, the Democrats’ best strategy for the 2010 midterms may be to target a few pivotal campaigns and spread campaign resources less broadly.

The political websites are all abuzz about the latest Gallup generic ballot poll, which indicates an all time midterm GOP advantage of 10 percent. If that wasn’t downer enough for you, here’s a couple of nut graphs Harry Enten’s Pollster.com post, “Underestimating the Likely Gallup Voter Edge:

…As noted, a 10% Republican lead on Gallup’s generic ballot is unprecedented, and it will likely get worse once Gallup switches over to a likely voter model. Congressmen and political analysts alike have mentioned that Republicans could possibly do 4% better on a likely voter model. Upon further examination, however, I think it could be worse for Democrats. Why? History.
Gallup has a relatively famous likely voter model that has been in place since 1950. Therefore, we can compare past differences in the generic ballot between registered and likely voter models to give us an idea of how different they will be this year…

Entern then crunches data from final Gallup midterm polls since 1994, comparing rv and lv figures, along with “enthusiasm gap” data, and offers two observations:

First, Republicans have for the past four midterms always done better on the final Gallup likely voter poll than registered voter poll by at least 4%. This deviation is to be expected as midterm electorates tend to be older and whiter than presidential year ones.
Second, the gap between the likely and registered models benefited Republicans greatest in years where they had large leads in enthusiasm. In both 1994 and 2002 (where Republicans held at least a 8%+ edge in Gallup’s final measure of enthusiasm), the Republicans margin was 7% and 11% higher respectively on the likely voter model. In 1998 and 2002 when Democrats had a lead in enthusiasm, they “only” picked up 5% and 4%. The Republicans edge on net enthusiasm was 28% a month ago, which means that voters this year are even more enthusiastic than in 1994 or 2002….

OK, that’s bad. Worse, Enten concludes:

…I believe that it is quite possible that at least on the final Gallup generic ballot (prior ones may differ) the Republican margin on the likely voter model could be 5-10% greater than on the registered voter model.

Polling data for numerous individual races lends cred to the national polls, including Gallup. True, Gallup has had some issues on occasion with accusations of GOP bias. But now that most of the polls have turned quite sour for Dems, it’s hard to deny that Republicans have opened up a big lead in numerous races, whether or not Gallup overstates the GOP lead by a few points.
While there is little encouragement for Dems in recent polling numbers, at least it does appear that Democrats are getting together a decent ground game for the midterms. That doesn’t mean the Republicans won’t match or top it. And not to lard too much lipstick on the pig, but I’m also encouraged that Dems are targeting seniors — the “older and whiter” voters Enten cites above. As Chris Cilliza explains in his ‘The Fix’ post, “Can Social Security save Democrats this fall?” at WaPo:

Democrats, faced with a worsening national political climate and daunting historical midterm election trends, are turning to Social Security as an issue where they believe they can score political points and set the stakes of what a Republican-controlled Congress would look like.
At least a half-dozen Democratic House candidates as well as several Democratic Senators in tight re-election races have featured claims that the GOP wants to either privatize or eliminate the retirement plan entirely in new television ads, and party strategists promise there are far more commercials to come.

Cillizza spotlights an impressive video ad by Indiana Democrat Rep. Baron Hill, who blasts his Republican opponent, Todd Young, who called Social Security and Medicare “welfare programs.” Cillizza cites several other Democratic House and Senate candidates who have launched similar ads, and he adds,

The strategy behind the Democratic attacks is simple. Older voters are deeply suspicious of any changes to the retirement program — it’s not an accident that Social Security is referred to as the “third rail of American politics” — and they also happen to be the most reliable voters in lower turnout midterm elections.
According to exit polling from the 2006 midterms, nearly three in ten (29 percent) of voters were 60 and older; Democrats won that age group 50 percent to 48 percent.

Cillizza cautions that Social Security is a relatively low priority concern in voter rankings, well behind the economy. But with seniors, it’s always a hot button issue. Not all Republicans have attacked Social Security quite so stupidly as has Todd Young, although Sharron Angle and others could give him a run for the booby prize.
Ironically, the Democratic outreach to seniors seeks to tap their conservative (as in ‘cautious’) perspective — the wingnut campaign to eliminate Social Security is a radical idea, and few seniors would volunteer to be their guinea pigs. if Dems can gain an edge with seniors and turn out a larger than usual percentage of Latino and African American voters, and if the voter registration edge Dems now have translates into a better than average mid-term turnout, the much-trumpeted Republican takeover of congress will have to wait for another year.

Drew Westen’s ideas about Democratic strategy are always worth consideration, as are his thoughts from his latest post at HuffPo, “What Created the Populist Explosion and How Democrats Can Avoid the Shrapnel in November.” Westen provides an extensive and, in places, painful diagnosis of the Dems’ current political predicament, which is worth a read, if only so we don’t repeat some of the more costly miscalculations. Then Dr. Westen offers this prescription:

…Having recently tested messages on economics and jobs, including how to talk about deficits and taxes — widely assumed to be Democrats’ Achilles Heel, particularly now — there is little question that if Democrats and progressives from center to left simply say what they believe in ways that are evocative, values-driven, and speak to people’s worries and anger, many stand a good chance of surviving November, particularly when their opponents have nothing to say other than warmed-over rhetoric about cutting taxes to millionaires and multinationals and fiscal restraint except where it cuts into profits of their campaign contributors. Even the most evocative boilerplate conservative messages fall flat against honest messages that speak to the need to get Americans working again. And on issue after issue, no message is more resonant right now than one that sides with working and middle class Americans and small business owners against special interests, big business, and their lobbyists.

As for specifics, Westen advises:

…It may be too late for the kind of jobs bill we should have seen a year and a half ago, but it isn’t too late for Democrats to go on the offensive against the Republicans — virtually all of them — who opposed extending unemployment insurance to millions of Americans who were thrown out of work by the Republicans’ corporate sponsors. It isn’t too late for Democrats to contrast their support for the highly popular aid to state and local governments that just saved the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers, firefighters, and police all over the country with Republicans’ desire to throw them out onto the street. It isn’t too late to make a voting issue out of the bill the Republicans are stalling that would give small businesses a fighting chance in an economy stacked against them, and to make clear that one party stands for small businesses, which create 75 percent of the new jobs in this country, and the other party stands for big businesses that outsource American jobs and offshore their profits to avoid paying their fair share of American taxes. It’s not too late to pass a bill that would limit credit card interest rates to a reasonable percent above the rate at which credit is made available to credit card companies. It’s not too late to pass the first badly need “fix” to the health care reform act to demonstrate to Americans that Democrats mean it when they say this was just the first step, namely a law that stops insurance companies from increasing their premiums by 40 percent while cutting the size of their networks by 50-75 percent, which violates the principles of affordability and choice that were so essential to efforts to sell health care reform to the public. It’s not too late to vow to change the rules of the Senate to prevent the use of the filibuster to give every special interest veto power over every important piece of legislation. It’s not too late to introduce legislation that’s been on hold in both the House and Senate to guarantee fair elections, so that the voice of everyday Americans is heard over the voice of the special interests that finance political campaigns.
On every one of these issues, a strong populist message trounces anything the other side can say. But Democrats need to play offense. They need to take up-or-down votes on bill after bill, including those they expect the other side to block, knowing that every one of those votes has the leverage of a campaign ad behind it. They need to change the narrative from what sounds to the average American like a whiny and impotent one — “the Republicans won’t let us do it” — to a narrative of strength in numbers shared with their constituents. And they need to make every election a choice between two well-articulated approaches to governance — and to offer their articulation of both sides’ positions and values.

Westen’s point about the kind of tone Dems should project resonates especially well at this political moment. Then he gets down to particulars:

…What Democrats have needed to offer the American people is a clear narrative about what and who led our country to the mess in which we find ourselves today and a clear vision of what and who will lead us out…That narrative might have included — and should include today — some key elements: that if the economy is tumbling, it’s the role of leadership and government to stop the free-fall; that if Wall Street is gambling with our financial security, our homes, and our jobs, true leaders do not sit back helplessly and wax eloquent about the free market, they take away the dice; that if the private sector can’t create jobs for people who want to work, then we’ll put Americans back to work rebuilding our roads, bridges, and schools; that if Big Oil is preventing us from competing with China’s wind and solar energy programs, then we’ll eliminate the tax breaks that lead to dysfunctional investments in 19th century fuels and have a public-private partnership with companies that will create the clean, safe fuels of the 21st century and the millions of good American jobs that will follow.
That’s what Democrats stand for. It’s time they said it.

Westen’s challenge may seem ambitious this late in the midterm game, and a couple of readers’ responses after his article argue that he has overstated the Democratic reluctance to attack. There is no question in my mind, however, that our attack could be stronger and more focused along the lines Westen advocates. There is still time to implement some of Westen’s suggestions to good effect — not only for the midterms, but for 2012 and the long haul.

In her ‘The Notion’ post, “Fight Tea Party Voters with Fresh Voters,” The Nation’s Laura Flanders has some good news for Democrats, who may be getting discouraged by downer opinion polls. Apparently the Justice Department’s decision to finally enforce the National Voter Registration Act is having a significant impact. Flanders explains:

In a handful of swing states where voting rights groups have sued and won in recent years, the result is impressive: hundreds of thousands of low-income people, two-thirds women, registering since 2008.
In Missouri, where John McCain beat Barack Obama by less than 4,000 votes, nearly a quarter-million voter registration applications have been filed by Missourians while applying for state public assistance benefits since August 2008. In Ohio, where George W. Bush beat John Kerry by nearly 119,000 votes in 2004, low-income Ohioans filed 100,000 voter applications in just the first six months of 2010.
Project Vote, Demos, The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the local civil rights groups who sued these states and won (forcing turnarounds at state public assistance agencies) have been waging a lonely fight to implement the National Voter Registration Act. The 1993 law requires a range of state agencies, not just motor vehicles, offer voter registration services.
That fight became a little less lonely in June, when, for the first time, the Justice Department announced it would start enforcing the NVRA’s voter registration mandate. This April, 40 million Americans applied for Food Stamps. If 10 percent of those people registered to vote – a smaller percentage than seen at Missouri public assistance agencies after settling its NVRA suit – the nation’s voter rolls would grow by several million…The numbers from Missouri and Ohio dwarf the size of the largest tea party rallies. Already, right-wingers fear these voters and NVRA compliance, commenting on websites that poor people should not vote for any number of ugly reasons…

Turnout and voter registration are not the same thing. But, if Democrats pay a little more attention to turning out these ‘fresh’ voters, it could insure that we retain control of the House and Senate. As Flanders concludes, “…Instead of obsessing about the tea partiers — give those newest voters some good reason to use that vote!.” Less nail-biting about unfavorable polls and putting more time, sweat and money into our midterm ground game will serve Dems well.

CNN Senior Political Editor Mark Preston has a post up at CNN.com’s ‘Political Ticker,’ reporting on the Republicans’ campaign to sink Democratic midterm candidates by linking them to ‘Obamacare.” Preston notes that Democratic candidates are treating the GOP effort as a distraction, trying to refocus voters on economic issues, which the Republicans generally ignore, lacking any alternatives, other than offering tax and spending cuts as a panacea. Preston highlights the spending behind the GOP propaganda campaign:

A new analysis by Campaign Media Analysis Group for CNN shows that federal and state political candidates have spent $24 million on anti-health care reform television commercials since Congress passed the bill in late March. Over the past 30 days alone, more than $6 million has been spent on TV ads attacking the law, and there is no sign these commercials are going away…Of the $24 million spent so far criticizing the health care law, Republicans have run $11.3 million worth of commercials where the term “Obamacare” is used – a not so subtle attempt to link Democratic candidates to a president who suffers from a disapproval rating of 51 percent.
“Based on the advertising and messaging, this is clearly being used by Republicans as a wedge issue,” said Evan Tracey, president of CMAG and CNN’s consultant on political TV ad spending. “The GOP is using the passage of the bill against Democrats in a growing proportion at both the state and federal level.”
In contrast, the CMAG analysis shows that $6.3 million has been spent on pro-health care reform TV ads since Congress approved the legislation.

The Republicans may be wasting their money. Recent Polls indicate that the health care issue now ranks well behind the economy among voters priorities. And, as TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira recently noted in his ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ post,

On the health care reform law, the most recent Kaiser Health tracking poll now has 50 percent voicing a favorable reaction to the new law, versus just 35 percent unfavorable. This reverses a 44-41 unfavorable verdict from two months ago.

In addition, other polls indicate that many who disapprove of the Affordable Health Care Act wanted the coverage to be broader, with a greater investment and role for the federal government, and they are not likely to be receptive to the Republicans effort to gut the legislation entirely.
Sure, it’s possible that the GOP could do some damage with their ads. But it may not be a cost-effective investment, or to use an Econ 101 analysis, the opportunity cost of not investing the dough in promoting their competitive candidates could be substantial.
Democrats ought not invest too much of their midterm financial resources, nor media face time, in defending the health care Act. But it would be a perfectly legitimate investment for the federal government, particularly HHS, to produce and distribute public service ads and interviews with experts on the legislation for television, radio, print media and the internet debunking the distortions being promulgated about the Act and explaining why is a good law. This is not pending legislation; it’s the law of the land, and the federal government not only has the right to explain the Health Care Reform Act to the public; it has a duty to do so. This law can save countless lives and help millions of people with their health care struggles, and the government has an obligation to help citizens understand it better. And, as Teixeira explains, concerning the findings of another Kaiser Health tracking poll back in the Spring,

…As the poll shows, the public does not currently believe they have enough information about the new law to clearly understand how it will affect them personally. Just 43 percent say they now have enough information to make this judgment, compared to 56 percent who say they don’t. Thus, more information could presumably make a difference to current feelings about the Affordable Health Care Act.

Yes the GOP would whine and howl about using government resources for what they believe to be a partisan cause. Tough. And yes, Republican-friendly media probably wouldn’t take the Affordable Health Care Act PSA’s or interviews, but many stations would, as might PBS and NPR. It would be a shame, bordering on political negligence, if the Administration failed to seize this opportunity. This is one of those times when it might be useful to ask WWFDRD — “What would FDR do?”

Dems who are nervous about President Obama’s comments regarding the placement of the Islamic Center near ground zero should read Michael Scherer’s ‘Swampland post’ at Time, “Grover Norquist Says Mosque Controversy Is Bad For Republicans.” Here’s Norquist, quoted by Sherer:

It’s the Monica Lewinsky ploy…The Republican Party is on track to win a major victory in November based on the issue that Democrats are spending the country blind…There isn’t a single voter in the country that was planning on voting for the Ds, who says, ‘Oh, mosque issue, now I will vote for the Rs.’

Norquist cites the Lewinsky affair as an example of being “distracted by shiny things,” one which lead the GOP in the wrong direction: “They nationalized the election around an irrelevancy” and lost 5 House seats.” Norquist also feels the Mosque issue gave Harry Reid a hook to separate himself from President Obama: “Harry Reid says, ‘Oh, is this a get out of jail free card?'”
In addition to the distraction effect, Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a former operative for Newt Gingrich, worries about the damage targeting any minority does to GOP hopes for votes from other minorities, as Scherer explains:

Over the long term, Norquist also sees danger for Republicans not just among Muslim voters, but among other religious groups as well. “Religious minorities all go, ‘I get it. This means me too,'” he said. He pointed to a recent story in the Jewish newspaper The Forward, called “When Shuls Were Banned in America,” which draws connections between the current mosque controversy and New York’s history of antisemitism.
“Long term, you could do to the Muslim vote and every other religious minority what Republicans did to the Catholic vote in ‘Rum Romanism and Rebellion,'” Norquist added, using a phrase uttered at a speech attended by Republican presidential candidate James Blaine in 1884, which arguably cost him victory in that election, by alienating Catholic voters.
Such stands are not out of character for Norquist, who has long waged a battle to make the Republican Party more inclusive of racial and religious minorities. 
During the Bush Administration, Norquist served as an informal envoy to the American Muslim community. He has also been an outspoken supporter of immigration reform, arguing that it was important that Republicans not alienate Hispanic voters. “Tom Tancredo has done damage to the Republican Party in states he has never visited,” Norquist says, referring to the former Colorado congressman best known for his frequent denunciation of illegal immigration on cable television.

Former Republican congressman from Florida and now CNN anchor “Morning Joe” Scarborough agrees with part of Norquists’ argument. In blasting Newt Gingrich for saying the Mosque at ground zero would be “a symbol of Muslim triumphalism,” Scarborough protested, “This is madness…There are elements of our party that are marching through the fevered swamps of ideology.” (Do watch the ‘Morning Joe’ video clip at the link for an interesting take on the controversy).
That’s a discovery which won’t come as much of a shocker to alert followers of American politics. I would add, however, that such ‘shiny things’ won’t help Dems much, if we get distracted by them. Let the Republicans and tea party folks ride that turkey to political oblivion if they like — while Democratic candidates focus instead on establishing their cred as strong advocates of Social Security, Medicare and jobs.

Democracy Corps has an important report on voter attitudes, “The Big Decisions Ahead on Economic Renewal and Reduced Debt,” which should be of considerable interest Democratic candidates and their campaigns.
The DCORPS analysis is based in part on a new poll, co-sponsored by Democracy Corps and Campaign for America’s Future, with support from MoveOn.org, AFSCME and SEIU. The analysis provides compelling data indicating that candidates who advocate cuts in Social Security benefits and show little interest in creating jobs “face major voter backlash.”
The poll, which was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research from 7/26-29, provides revealing opinion data and analysis on social security, job-creation and deficit-reduction. From the Democracy Corps analysis of the data:

Voters are united on this key point: Social Security and Medicare are off-limits as a way to reduce the deficit…As Social Security celebrates its 75th anniversary this week in the midst of this troubled economy, voters across the political divide want these programs defended….Voters say spending cuts for Social Security and Medicare should not be part of any deficit reduction plan by a wide 68 to 28 percent margin.

DCORPS founder Stan Greenberg and Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) co-director Robert Borosage held a ‘press call’ on August 12th discussing the implications of the poll for the debate over jobs and deficits. On the same call, progressive leaders from MoveOn.org Political Action and CAF announced major campaign to get candidates on record opposing any cuts in benefits, including raising the retirement age.
In his recent HuffPo article, on the tea party and Republicans Democratic strategist Robert Creamer, who lead the effort to stop Bush’s privatization schemes, explains:

Major Progressive organizations have launched a new coalition to press Members of Congress to defend Social Security and Medicare, and the issue has vaulted to the top of the issue agenda for Democratic candidates across the country. Democratic House Members conducted more than 100 events to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of Social Security over the last weekend — and to pledge their opposition to privatizing Social Security or cutting its benefits. That includes commitments not to raise the retirement age — an idea that is just terrific for guys who fly around in corporate jets, but doesn’t go over so well if you happen to haul bricks on construction sites or flip mattresses in hotel rooms for a living……Americans United for Change — which was first organized to run the successful campaign to defeat Bush’s 2005 attempt to privatize Social Security — has launched a major new initiative to stop the “Republican sneak attack on Social Security and Medicare.”
…The public soundly rejected President Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security in 2005. You’d think that the experience of the stock market meltdown where millions of people saw their life’s savings go up in smoke would be enough to convince even the most orthodox right-winger that it’s a terrible idea to tie Social Security to the ups and downs of the stock market. But economic reality doesn’t seem to break through the Republican’s ideological and self-interest blinders.

The polling data suggests that House GOP leader John Boehner’s call for Social Security benefit reductions to pay for tax cuts for rich could sink Republican candidates. Adds Creamer:

Congressman Paul Ryan, who would be Chairman of the House Budget Committee if the Republicans were to take back control of the House, has published a detailed “Roadmap” on how he would privatize Social Security and abolish Medicare and replace it with vouchers for private insurance. Much of that “roadmap” was actually included in the Republican budget alternative that Ryan convinced the Republicans to support last year. Now that vote has begun to come back to haunt some of the members who would just as soon keep their economic views safely in the closet before the voters cast their ballots.

It appears Democrats have much to gain by focusing media attention on GOP “reforms” that weaken Social Security, whether reduction in benefits or raising the retirement age. Seniors over age 60, who comprised 29 percent of the electorate in the 2006 midterms, will likely be a pivotal force on November 2nd. As Creamer notes of Republicans,

…Many of those swing districts that they would so dearly like to win this fall have lots of senior voters. They had been counting on scaring those voters into supporting Republican candidates with visions of “death panels” and lies about health reform-induced cuts in Medicare.

But it looks like Republicans made a serious mistake, says Creamer:

Many of those seniors don’t like “government spending” — but by that they are definitely not referring to their Social Security or Medicare. They view both as social insurance — as programs they have paid into throughout their working lives in expectation that they would be entitled to the advertised benefits — the same way they would under any insurance plan. In focus groups the moment you tell these voters that Republicans support privatizing Social Security or replacing Medicare with vouchers for private insurance, Republican support plummets.
…The Republicans have a lot to worry about when it comes to these issues. Polls show that if the voters are talking about Social Security and Medicare on Nov. 2, Republican fortunes will drop like a rock. In fact, these two issues are like kryptonite to Republican chances. That’s why you’ll see mainstream Republicans scramble like mad to downplay their true intentions — and change the subject over the weeks ahead. Republican Leader John Boehner — who completely supports Ryan’s “Road Map” — made the mistake several weeks ago of blurting out that he supported raising the Social Security retirement age to 70. Since then he has ducked and weaved when it comes to Social Security.

Despite the gloomy projections of Democratic defeat in the upcoming midterms, the DCORPS analysis indicates that Dems have a formidable card to play regarding the Republicans’ unpopular positions on Medicare and Social Security. And if Dems can find a way to show that GOP candidates are equally-clueless about the public’s desire for a stronger federal investment in creating jobs, predictions of a Republican takeover of congress may prove to be a misguided fantasy.

Politico‘s Ben Smith presents a memo by Administration poll analyst Joel Benenson arguing that “Republican unpopularity could be the Democratic Party’s best defense against its own unpopularity.” According to Benenson’s bullet points:

• Today’s NBC/Wall St. Journal poll underscores the fact that with fewer than 90 days until the mid-term elections, the Republican Party’s standing is at one of its lowest points ever and its competitive position vs. the Democrats looks much as it did in the summers of 1998 and 2002, neither of which were “wave” elections.
• The NBC/WSJ poll shows that not only is the Republican Party’s image at its lowest point ever in their polling, their ratings are still lower than Democrats’ and their party image has worsened much more than the Democrats when compared with the last midterm elections in 2006.

See also Ed Kilgore’s post on the survey here. Further, Benenson adds,

• Only 24 percent of Americans gave the Republicans a positive rating while 46 percent were negative for a net of -22 (28 percent were neutral). This positive rating is not only a historic low, it is down 9 points since May — just three months ago. In addition, in July of 2006, a year in which Republicans lost 30 seats, their rating stood at 32 percent positive, 39 percent negative for only a -7 net rating or a change in the net rating of -15. During the same period the Democratic rating slipped only slightly by a net of -4 points from 32/39 in July 2006 to 33/44 today.
• This overall outlook is also consistent with an ABC/Washington Post poll from a month ago (7/13/10) that showed Americans’ confidence in Republicans in Congress to make “the right decisions for the country’s future” lagging behind Democrats:
– 73 percent say they are not confident in Republicans in Congress while 26 percent say they are, for a net negative confidence rating of -47 points.
– Democrats in Congress are at 32 percent confident (6 points higher than the GOP) and 67 percent who say they are not confident (6 points lower than the GOP), for a net confidence rating of -35, which is 12 points better than the congressional Republicans.
• When asked in the NBC/WSJ poll whether they prefer Democratic or Republican control of Congress after the November elections, 43 percent said Democrats and 42 percent said Republicans. While Democrats had a 10-point margin in 2006 when they gained 31 seats, the previous two midterms also showed a deadlocked preference in the summers of 1998 and 2002 in the NBC/WSJ polls. In both of those elections, the gains were only in single digits: 5 seats for the Democrats in 1998 and 8 seats for the Republicans in 2002.
• In addition, a Pew poll from early July showed that Republicans have a significant image deficit among Americans on the question of which party is “more concerned about people like me.” In that survey of 1800 Americans, 50 percent said Democrats were more concerned about people like them while only 34 percent said Republicans were.

Cherry-picked as Benenson’s data may be, all three polls appear to be methodologically-solid. If Benenson is right, Dems are in a better position, image-wise than Republicans. There’s plenty of room for improvement for Dems, but the GOP is in a deeper mess in terms of the way they are viewed by the public.

Read more…