When it comes to comparing job-creation track records as elected officials, Mitt Romney gets crushed, as The Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky explains: “…Romney–when working in the public sector, not the private, as he obviously would be as president–had a downright embarrassing jobs record, especially for a state with higher-than-average education levels…This, as has been often noted, put Massachusetts at 47th in the nation, only ahead of of Michigan, Ohio, and Katrina-ravaged Louisiana…In his seminal book Unequal Democracy, political scientist Larry Bartels measured the effect of each president’s policies on the economy since Harry Truman by giving them all one year for their policies to start to kick in…by Bartels’s rules, Obama has created a net 3.635 million jobs. Applying the same rules to Romney’s numbers through the same time period–that is, through April of his fourth year in office, 2006–we credit Romney with 64,500 jobs. So he grew jobs by 1.9 percent. Obama’s job-growth rate is 2.35 percent.”
In The New Republic, Walter Shapiro takes a skeptical look that the opening salvo of TV ads for the presidential campaign and finds, despite “an estimated $1-billion-plus orgy spent trying to define the Obama-Romney race” that “all too often, the ads themselves are simply mediocre…Never in political history has so much money been spent to convince so few voters of so little. Take, as a case in point, the dreary dozen of TV spots and web videos put out by the Obama and Romney camps in the last two weeks. These ads offer either visual wallpaper or run-from-the-room negativism. There is not a dollop of surprise or aesthetic flair. These are headache ads transported to politics.” Ouch.
Speaking of excessive negativity in political ads, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar has a Bloomberg Businessweek post up comparing two “throw granny of a cliff” ads from both parties — they literally throw granny off a cliff –, arguing that neither one will help much.
The AP’s Todd Richmond reports that the real story in the Wisconsin recall election may come down to: “a handful of undercard recall races could transform Wisconsin politics just as dramatically in the long run…Pockets of voters in southeastern, northwestern and central Wisconsin will decide recall elections that could hand Democrats control of the state Senate.”
Despite media pessimism about Dems’ hopes in the June 5 Wisconsin Recall vote, Abby Rapoport offers an alternative strategy in The American Prospect, where she explains “How Walker Loses in Wisconsin.”
AP’s David Crary discusses the disconnect between opinion polls showing substantial growth in approval of same-sex marriage on the one hand and continued disapproval in the voting booth in 32 states. “It’s a paradox with multiple explanations, from political geography to the likelihood that some conflicted voters tell pollsters one thing and then vote differently.”
Karl Rove writes in the Wall St. Journal about “Romney’s Roads to the White House” and the “3-2-1” strategy that can get him there. Lotsa “ifs” here.
Rove’s rationale looks like even more of a stretch in light of Donna Cassata’s AP report “Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida — GOP highlights in 2010 now marked by bitter Senate primaries.”
Meg Handley reports at U.S. News on “Homeowners in Battleground States Dogged By Underwater Mortgages.” Says Handley:”…Florida and Ohio are the only swing states that have negative equity levels above the national average…Although nearly one in three homeowners with a mortgage is under water, fully 90 percent of them are still current on their payments, and stresses that negative equity doesn’t necessarily equate to foreclosures.”
Paul Begala does a solid job of blistering two hypocritical fat cat Republicans, Joe Ricketts and former major league star Curt Schilling, who rail against government spending, but use plenty of it in their dubious business ventures. Re Schilling: “The state of Rhode Island has pumped $75 million of taxpayers’ money into Schilling’s unsuccessful 38 Studios, and could flush millions more down Schilling’s commode. Schilling, who earned $114 million in his baseball career, loves to lecture us bleacher bums about government spending. Then Begala throws in Romney for good measure: “…Classic crony capitalism: privatize the gain, socialize the risk. When Romney drove GST Steel into bankruptcy, he and his partners made $12 million in profit and another $4.5 million in consulting fees. But Romney stuck the taxpayers with a $44 million tab for the company’s underfunded pensions.”
After all of the shouting of campaign 2012 is done, look at two sets of stats to predict who will win the presidential election, explains Alan I. Abramowitz in his post “What Does President Obama’s May Approval Rating Tell Us About His Reelection Chances?” at Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball: “…The final outcome will depend on the actual performance of the economy and the public’s evaluation of the president’s job performance in the months ahead. Those interested in assessing where the presidential race stands should focus on these two indicators rather than the day-to-day events of the campaign, which tend to dominate media coverage of the election.”

Yesterday I flagged an AlterNet post by Leo W. Gerard, international president of the United Steelworkers union about a coalition of shareholders, workers and public interest groups mobilizing to address outrageous executive pay, environmental and worker safety concerns. I expressed hope that this coalition would also address corporate contributions to political campaigns.
Having just read a New Republic article, “Reining In Corporate $$, The Back Door Approach,” I can report that such stockholder’s campaigns are already well underway. According to the author, Alec MacGillis, here quoting from a WaPo article by Tom Hamburger and Brady Dennis:

…Reformers have decided that their best hope for trying to rein in secret spending is to straight to corporations. As The Post reports: “One of the most polarizing fights over money in politics has been unfolding this spring at annual corporate meetings, where shareholders are mounting an intensifying effort to push companies to disclose the money they spend on lobbying and political campaigns. The transparency push, playing out at shareholders meetings from coast to coast this spring, has received cheers from campaign finance reformers and some corporate governance experts. It has drawn ridicule from critics such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who see the effort as an attempt by liberal groups to squelch the voice of the business world….

MacGillis adds:

…The Sustainable Investments Institute, a Washington nonprofit that tracks shareholder resolutions, found that 109 — nearly a third of those up for votes at annual meetings in 2012 — sought more disclosures about spending on politics and lobbying….To date, 101 major companies have agreed to disclosure and board oversight of some of their political spending, according to Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability, which rates companies on the issue. Freed and others argue that disclosure can help executives and directors avoid reputational risk to their firms.

Naturally big business leaders and their journalistic apologists are in an uproar about the shareholder movements for disclosure of political donations, even though most of the resolutions have been defeated. But some companies, like Microsoft, are beginning to see the upside of transparency of their political donations.
As Dan Bross, Microsoft’s senior director of corporate citizenship, puts it, “As a company, we believe in openness, transparency and accountability…We are doing what we believe is right.”
As MacGillis notes, the shareholder movement does nothing to directly force more transparency among wealthy individuals or privately-held companies. However, he adds that “the momentum toward encouraging disclosure from corporations is as good as any place to start when the other avenues are blocked.” It seems to me that, by setting a higher standard of accountability, the shareholder movement may yet have a positive effect on individuals and privately-held companies.
The shareholder campaigns should not be considered a substitute for legislation and litigation to compel transparency in political donations. But they can contribute to public awareness that transparency of corporate political donations is both desirable and possible.

Leo W. Gerard, international president of the United Steelworkers union, has an article up at AlterNet, “Workers of the World Unite — with Shareholders,” which all 99 percenters should find encouraging. Gerard explains:

At Citigroup, shareholders had their say on CEO pay — and they yelled, “No damn way!”…Concerted action by shareholders, workers and public interest groups compelled corporate change in several other cases this spring as well…At least three CEOs resigned. Executives truncated one shareholder meeting to 12 minutes. And across America and Europe, CEOs lamented the end of automatic approval for excessive executive compensation.
A wave of corporate change is rising because the rabble and the stockholders share an interest: decent corporate governance. To shareholders, decent means more long-term corporate vision providing reasonable returns and fewer risky, quick-profit schemes benefiting only executives. To workers, the unemployed, community and environmental groups, decent means operating corporations in the best interest of the nation, including treating workers with dignity and refraining from polluting. Together, the rabble and the shareholders wield power.

At ExxonMobil’s shareholder meeting next week, Gerard reports, activists will introduce resolutions to establish a climate change/greenhouse gas reductions task force for the company. The coalition will also protest the failure of the company to implement health and safety reforms at one of its major refineries, even though refinery explosions have killed 17 workers during the last 7 years.
They will also try to force CEO and Chairman Rex Tillerson to give up one of his offices at the company, because corporate boards are supposed to oversee executives and their pay, which is how Tillerson helped to leverage himself a big pay hike last year — from $29 million to $34.9 million, while the company denied smaller pay raises for its all-female clerical staff at Baytown. Gerard also notes that shareholder activists have checked exorbitant pay raises at Citigroup and three large British companies. Overall, adds Gerard, U.S. CEO’s make 325 times the pay of a “typical worker.”
The grand strategy of the worker-shareholder coalition going forward, according to Gerard, is “to demonstrate at more shareholder meetings than ever in American history to make corporations more accountable to their communities, workers and shareholders.”
In addition to addressing outrageous executive pay, environmental and worker safety concerns, it’s just possible that the shareholder-worker coalition could have a beneficial impact in checking corporate contributions to political campaigns. Activist shareholders have experienced some impressive success over the years. But it now looks like their future campaigns can do even more to compel accountability in corporate governance, opening up a new and promising strategy for progressive change.

Nate Silver makes a good case for using a new term, “elastic,” rather than “swing state” to describe states that are “…relatively sensitive or responsive to changes in political conditions, such as a change in the national economic mood. (This is in the same way that, in economics, an elastic good is one for which demand is highly sensitive to changes in prices.) According to Silver’s numerical rankings, the five most “elastic” states are, in order: RI; NH; ME; HA and VT. The least ‘elastic’ five (excluding DC) are, in order: MS; AL; SC; LA and GA.
The Democratic Governors Association ponys up $1 million for TV ads and GOTV to defeat Scott Walker in WI.
The Obama Administration and campaign are fighting back against the Romney/GOP meme that the President is a “big spender,” hammering the fact that “the rate of spending growth under President Obama is lower than under any president since Eisenhower…Spending under Mr. Obama (including the stimulus) has grown by about 1.4 percent a year, compared to 7.3 percent in George W. Bush’s first term, 3.2 percent in Bill Clinton’s first term, and 8.7 percent in Ronald Reagan’s first term. When inflation is taken into account, spending is now actually falling, the first decline since Richard Nixon.” as David Firestone reports at the NYT.
An eyebrow-raising Quinnipiac University poll gives Romney a 6-point edge over President Obama, “after trailing Obama by 7 points in late March.” But Palm Beach Post writers George Bennett and John Kennedy report that Dems have about a 40-36 percent registration advantage in FL, while Quinnipiac’s weighted sample is 34 percent Republican and 31 percent Democrat.
Jamell Bouie’s Plum Line post, “Why we should expect Obama to lose Florida in 2012” suggests Obama campaign resources might be more productively deployed elsewhere.
In the U.S. the argument is about the morality of felon disenfranchisement of 5.3 million American citizens, and whether people who have served time in jail should be allowed to vote. Meanwhile, The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that prisoners in the region have the right to vote, and the Brits are all bent out of shape about it, since they have had a ban on prisoner voting for 140 years and the uproar has generated lots of bipartisan jabber in the UK about affirming national sovereignty. Only two states in the U.S., Maine and Vermont, allow prisoners to vote.
At Politico, David Catanese reports that Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown are in a stat tie in their race for the Senate seat currently held by Brown. But the good news for Warren is that “more than two-thirds of voters — 69 percent — said Warren’s Native American heritage listing is not a significant story, with just 27 percent saying it is.”
Demos has an excellent guide to the Voter Empowerment Act.
At Political Animal, Ed Kilgore has a couple of zingers regarding Romney’s responses in a recent interview with Mark Halperin. On Romney’s explanation why the economy would almost certainly improve in the first year of his term: “Wow, this is a “confidence fairy” that doesn’t even need to see any action; just one look at the manly visage of Mitt Romney, and the money will start flowing again!” On Romney’s explanation for why he is not advocating spending cuts for that first year: “Keynesianism! Keynesianism! Call Jim DeMint! Romney’s not for immediately balancing the budget! Romney thinks public-sector jobs are real! Romney doesn’t think the confidence fairy would offset spending cuts!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worse, adds Rattner,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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