Wanna see what happens when a Democratic House candidate confronts a murky group spending big bucks on ads attacking him? Check out Amanda Terkel’s HuffPo post, “Rep. Peter DeFazio Turns The Tables, Confronts Shadowy Conservative Group Running Attack Ads Against Him (VIDEO).”
Terkel’s post is of interest for a couple of reasons: 1. These shadowy groups are popping up all over the country, with little accountability, in the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision giving them free reign, and 2. DeFazio shows how to reveal their sleazy origins.
Here’s an excerpt of Terkel’s post:

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) is turning the tables on a political group launching attack ads against him in an attempt to bring its shadowy practices to light. On Friday, he went to the Capitol Hill headquarters of the Concerned Taxpayers of America to deliver a letter and speak with members of the organization about making its donors public. But the person who answered the door misrepresented himself and lied, saying he had never heard of Concerned Taxpayers, even though subsequent information shows that he is affiliated with the group…According to Federal Elections Commission (FEC) filings, Concerned Taxpayers is spending $86,000 for ads to help DeFazio’s opponent, Art Robinson.

Terkel goes on to explain that the ads try to portray DeFazio as “a puppet” of Speaker Pelosi, even though he has opposed her on key legislation. Terkel notes that Concerned Citizens’ treasurer is Jason Miller, who is with a Republican political consulting firm, Jamestown Associates, according to the FEC filings and she continues:

DeFazio decided to confront Concerned Taxpayers on Friday, intending to deliver a letter requesting that the group make its donors public. “Since you intend to try and buy Art Robinson a congressional seat, by raising and spending ‘unlimited amounts of money,’ the voters of Oregon are entitled to know who is picking up the tab,” wrote DeFazio.
The Huffington Post, along with a couple of journalists from The Washington Post, accompanied DeFazio on the short walk from the Rayburn House Office Building over to Concerned Taxpayers’ headquarters, listed as 10 E St, SE, which turned out to be a small grey townhouse. DeFazio had to ring the doorbell, knock, and yell through the mail slot before someone came to the door. The man identified himself as Mike Omegna and he told the congressman that he had never heard of Miller or Concerned Taxpayers, nor was his voice on the organization’s voicemail…

Terkel adds,

It appeared that Omegna was dissembling. The Huffington Post called Concerned Taxpayers’ phone number, and the message, in Omegna’s voice, said:
You’ve reached Michael Omegna at Jamestown Associates. I can’t get to my phone right now, but if you leave me your name and number, I’ll get back to you as soon as I can. If this is regarding Concerned Taxpayers of America, please leave a detailed message and I will respond back as soon as possible.
So not only did Omegna clearly have an association with Miller — who works at Jamestown Associates — but he also has a tie to Concerned Taxpayers and his voice was on the answering machine, despite what he told DeFazio.

There’s more. But the important thing is that DeFazio got in their face and exposed their origins, as Terkel reports:

…”We’ve got to take it to them,” he told HuffPost. “I’m an activist, always have been my whole life, and I’m going there to confront them and say, ‘Who are you, and why are you so afraid to disclose where your money come from? Would it totally discredit your attacks on me and other Democrats? Would it totally discredit your organization?’ We don’t know who they are. And as I said earlier, how can we enforce existing law, which does say it can’t be a foreign government, a foreign entity, a foreign individual, but if we are allowed no disclosure, how will we ever know who funded these campaigns?”

It’s clear that, by revealing the source of the ads as something other than a genuine independent ‘citizens organization,’ — and showing his guts in getting a videotaped confrontation — DeFazio increased the chances that the ads will backfire. If DeFazio wins, it may be because enough swing voters admired his courage.

You will have no trouble finding both thoughtful critiques and richly-deserved snarkage regarding the Republicans newly-unveiled credo, “A Pledge to America: A New Governing Agenda Built on the Priorities of Our Nation, the Principles We Stand For & America’s Founding Values.” I liked David Corn’s post on the topic at MotherJones.com, which succinctly exposes the GOP document as a collection of predictable Republican cliches and distortions:

…it offers few surprises: tax cuts for all (including the super-rich), slashing federal spending (without specifying actual targets), downsizing government, more money for the military (especially missile defense), and repealing the health care bill. It decries deficits–though it advocates proposals that will add trillions of dollars to the deficit. It calls for reforming Congress–but in non-significant ways (such as forcing legislators to place a sentence in every bill attesting that the legislation is connected to a principle in the Constitution). It’s full of Hallmark-style patriotism: “America is more than a country.” It’s infused with tea party anger: Washington has plotted “to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values.” It is likely to have little impact on the elections….

Corn links to other critiques, left and right:

liberal Ezra Klein dissects its internal contradictions; tea partier Erick Erickson decries the “Pledge” as a sell-out of the tea party movement; Republican curmudgeon David Frum finds it retro and short on “modern” and “affirmative” ideas for governing during a recessionary year.

But I like Corn’s reverse content analysis:

…Below is a list of words and phrases and the number of times they are each mentioned in the 45-page “Pledge.”
Wall Street: 0
Bank: 0
Finance: 0
Mortgage crisis: 0
Derivative: 0
Subprime: 0
Lobbying: 0
Lobbyist: 0
K Street: 0
Campaign finance: 0
Campaign contribution: 0
Campaign donation: 0
Disclosure: 0
Climate change: 0
Environment: 1 (“political environment”)
Alternative energy: 0
Renewable: 0
Green: 0
Transportation: 0
Infrastructure: 0
Poverty: 0
Food: 0
Food safety: 0
Housing: 0
Internet: 0
Education: 0
College: 0
Reading: 0
Science: 0
Research: 0
Technology: 0
Bush administration: 0
That list is as telling as the actual contents.

Democratic candidates should be able to leverage Corn’s list for crafting responses. Corn is probably right that the Republicans’ latest nothing burger will have considerably less political impact than the ‘Contract for America,’ revealing though it is of the GOP’s intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

The ‘skip-the-south’ school of Democratic strategy may have some splainin’ to do on the day after the midterms, specifically how Democrats took the governorships of the three largest southern states. Granted, this is an optimistic scenario, though not such an unrealistic one, given recent opinion polls. Here’s Republican activist and political commentator Hastings Wyman’s take, in excerpts from his post at the Southern Political Report:

…Although the GOP is poised to take over the governors’ mansions in Oklahoma and Tennessee, Democrats are in a strong position to take the governorships away from GOPers in three larger Southern states – Florida, Georgia and Texas. The Democrats’ prospects are strongest in Florida, where the state’s Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink (D) is leading in the governor’s race, followed by Georgia, where the revelation of Republican Nathan Deal’s undisclosed debts has suddenly made the Peach State race a tossup. Finally, although Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) continues to lead in voter surveys, he hovers under or around 50% and could face an upset on November 2. Democratic victories in one, two or three of these key states would be a major help to the party next year when all states must draw new lines for congressional and state legislative districts.
…At this point, Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink (D) has the edge – though not a wide one – over multi-millionaire businessman (health care) Rick Scott (R) who still hasn’t gotten the backing of his primary foe, GOP establishment favorite Bill McCollum. Sink has had “really, really effective ads so far. They are funny and light,” says University of South Florida Professor Susan MacManus, a political scientist. Moreover, Scott is under fire because his former company, Columbia/HCA, was fined $1.7 billion for Medicare fraud. The fine was levied three years after Scott left the company, but some of the misdeeds occurred while he was still there. Scott notes that he was never charged with a crime, but this is a significant negative in this senior citizen-heavy state. Scott is attacking Sink for connections to the Obama Administration, citing union-sponsored ads attacking Scott for opposing the President’s stimulus package and the GOP is likely to benefit from a much higher turnout, as was evidenced in the primaries. The “Obama for America” group is working on Democratic turnout, but it isn’t finding the kind of enthusiasm that was there in 2008, among volunteers or voters…A CNN-Time survey announced September 8 gave Sink 49%, McCollum 42%. The Real Clear average of polls taken between August 11 and September 7 showed Sink with 43%, Scott 39%. Leans Sink.
With term-limited Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) leaving office, there were contested primaries to succeed him in both parties. The Democrats nominated former Gov. Roy Barnes. For the GOP, ex-Congressman Nathan Deal (R) came from behind to win a hard-fought runoff with 50.2% of the votes…The GOP was looking strong here, but recent revelations that Deal failed to disclose, as required by law, $2.3 million in loans due in February 2011, have quickly turned the race into a battle. There has even been talk of Deal’s withdrawal; however, Georgia law prevents substitution of a party nominee within 60 days of a General Election, so it’s Deal or nothing for the GOP. An InsiderAdvantage survey, announced September 16, showed Deal with 42%, Barnes 42% and Monds 5%. This contrasts with the same firm’s August 18 poll which gave Deal 45%, Barnes 41% and Monds 5%. A Mason-Dixon poll, however, announced September 19, showed Deal leading 45% to 41% for Barnes. Moreover, 700,000 Georgians voted in the Republican Primary, 400,000 in the Democratic Primary, the lowest turnout in the party’s gubernatorial primary since World War II. Toss up.
…After serving 13 years in office and having been reelected by a plurality of 39% in a four-way race four years ago, Gov. Rick Perry (R) faces an electorate that is a bit tired of him. Rice University political scientist Earl Black says, “Perry has alienated enough people over the years that what should be an easy win will be at best a modest win – if he wins.”
He also is being hurt by a divisive primary in which he rallied the state’s Christian conservatives to defeat more moderate US Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R), whose supporters (30% in the primary) may not all line up behind him, but may end up in the column of Houston’s respected former mayor, Bill White, the Democratic nominee, or one of the minor party candidates. White’s biggest problem is Obama’s unpopularity, and that outside of Houston, where the former mayor is well-known, the race may turn on Republican-vs.-Democrat, rather than on the identity of the candidates. Polls have shown a consistent lead for Perry, but he has rarely exceeded 50%, a weak sign for a well-known incumbent. White also places the blame for the state deficit on Perry, who counters that the national recession caused it. A poll of registered voters, taken by the University of Texas/Texas Tribune on September 3-8 gave Perry 39%, White 33%, Glass 5% and Shafto 1%. A Zogby poll released September 8 gave Perry 44%, White 41%. And a PPP (D) survey released September 8 gave Perry 48%, White 42%. Real Clear’s average of polls taken between August 22 and September 6 showed Perry with 47%, White 40%. Leans Republican.

An interesting perspective from a Republican who knows the southern political landscape. In this year especially, you might think Democrats would be wise to invest their resources outside of the south. But it appears that the “time for a change” meme that hurts Democratic congressional candidates just may help our southern candidates for governor in the three largest southern states.

As the political ad wars heat up for the Fall stretch of the midterm campaign, television is still regarded as the pivotal media, according to a recent Ad Week report (via Reuters) by Mike Shields. Conversely, spending for digital media has been disappointing this year, as Shields explains:

Following the recent digital-savvy campaigns led by Obama and Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, many expected a slew of imitators to emerge during the 2010 midterms, leading to a surge in online spending. But political ad insiders say that with the exception of a handful of digital-focused campaigns, few candidates are dumping dollars onto the Web, outside of social media and search. And with six weeks or so to go before Election Day, not many watchers are expecting a sudden surge.
According to Borrell & Associates, political spending on digital media should double this year vs. 2008, reaching $44.5 million. Despite that hefty growth rate, “that’s really not much,” said Kip Cassino, Borrell’s vp of research. Some estimates place digital spending at 1 percent of total political media dollars. “There’s more of it, but it’s still a fraction,” said Evan Tracey, president, campaign media analysis group, Kantar Media.
“Spending has just not developed this year,” said Ted Utz, managing director of the local rep firm Petry Digital. Utz said his company works with around 10 top political ad agencies. “They are staffed up and poised to place digital money, and it’s been really anemic…

Rightly or wrongly, it appears most political campaigns, or the ad agencies advising them, believe that television still provides the most powerful message machine, as Shields explains:

Perhaps the biggest factor holding back digital spending is political consultants’ love affair with TV, which, according to Cassino, gets two of every three dollars spent in this arena. TV has a long track record of getting people elected, particularly in local congressional races, where a candidate might be running “for the 10th or 11th term,” said Cassino. “So they hand digital planning to the kid who comes in as a volunteer.”

Shields notes that political consultants tend to be skeptical about banner ads, and that there is a dearth of studies assessing the impact of digital ads. Of the spending for digital advertising, most of the growth has been in search ads — Google search ads are up 800 percent over 2008, and there has also been an uptick in “locally targeted Facebook self serve ads,” along with some growing campaign interest in YouTube “promoted videos.”
Shield’s article did not break down the remaining 32 percent of political ad spending in terms of print, telephone, radio, billboards, direct mail and other media, all of which can be useful in “micro-targeting” specific constituencies. But it’s clear that political campaign budget managers and consultants still see television as the best way to reach everyone.
Shields quotes a ‘veteran online political ad operative,’ who says that candidates still treat digital media “as a stepchild. “Look at Meg Whitman in California,” he said of the former eBay CEO. “She’s putting all her money in TV.”
With respect to Democrats in particular, more spending on digital ads might nonetheless be a cost-effective investment, especially given concerns about turning out the progressive base. But it’s not hard to understand the lopsided investment in television in light of internet demographics. according to one demographic analysis, 38 percent of seniors age 65+, who turn out to vote in impressive numbers, are internet-active, vs. 93 percent of 18-29 year-olds, 81 percent of age 30-49 and 70 percent of those 50-64 years of age.

Conservative and Republican surrogate organizations are launching their fall midterm ad campaigns this week in a big way — big enough to overshadow ad spending by pro-Democratic groups. The ads offer interesting insights to what the GOP perceives as pivotal constituencies, Democratic weak spots and, perhaps the GOP’s vulnerabilities. As Jeremy P. Jacobs reports in his Hotline On Call post, “Starting Lineup: 60 Plus Steps Into The Election“:

…60 plus, which bills itself as the conservative alternative to AARP, is going up with nearly $4M worth of ads in 10 congressional districts Thursday and Friday. The group plans to stay up with the ads for four weeks and this is just the beginning of what 60 plus plans to spend this year, a source with the campaign tells Hotline On Call.
The ads are another example of the advantage Republicans hold this year among third party groups. When added to the millions the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Prosperity and American Crossroads are spending, 60 Plus’ ads show that the Democrats are at a distinct disadvantage this year in this area.
The ads are all similar. They feature testimonials from senior citizens and criticize the Democrat in the race for backing health care reform and siding with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Jacobs links to this sample ad, said to be similar to others, which strikes me as more ‘preaching to the choir’ than crafted to win swing voters. Here it is:

What is interesting about the ’60 plus’ ad is the targeting of seniors, as well as the shameless fear-mongering about HCR. But does sneering at “liberals” really win any new hearts and minds? Perhaps it’s a ‘turn-out-the-base’ ad, a clue to the GOP’s overall strategy. In this opening series, they may be banking that most swing voters will stay at home, or perhaps they will address swing voters in another ad later on.
Clearly, the Republicans are not taking seniors for granted, hopefully because their internal polling indicates many seniors have a problem with Republican fooling around with Social Security and Medicare. There should be more than enough material for Dems and progressive groups to launch a counter-offensive targeting seniors. The problem is money to buy ads. Now would be a good time for Democrats to contribute to support pro-Democratic ads, since time and available ad space is limited.
Jacobs says the ad buys are targeted to specific House races:

The ad buys are in districts that are both must wins for the GOP this year — such as Rep. Allen Boyd’s (D) FL 02 and Rep. John Boccieri’s OH 16 — and districts that would likely represent the GOP winning back the majority — such as Rep. Joe Donnelly’s IN 02 and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ in AZ-08.
The districts, broken down below, do share one common thread: In each, the Republican challenger is at a substantial cash-on-hand disadvantage to the Democrat. These ads, like the other conservative third-party group ads, will be critical to GOP challengers’ — and the NRCC’s — efforts to combat the Dems’ cash advantage.
The ads will go up in the following districts on Thursday, with the size of the ad buys in parenthesis: AZ 01 ($395K), AZ 05 ($460K), AZ 08 ($164K), FL 02 ($340K), FL 08/24 (same ad — $925K), PA 03 ($194K), PA 11 ($250K), TN 08 ($485K)….Ads will go up in OH 16 ($463K) and IN 02 ($200K) on Friday.

Jacobs also links to a GOP ad for the campaign to hold Republican Senator Richard Burr’s seat. This one seems more designed to win swing voters, albeit with the shopworn ‘Democrats are spendthrifts’ meme. What gives it additional buzz is that the same actors were featured in a pro-Democratic ad which was credited with helping to unseat Republican Senator Elizabeth Dole two years ago — a clever idea. I’m not sure it’s effective, though. You decide:

Note that seniors are also the lead characters in this ad, although a 20-something woman is thrown into the mix to cover another demographic they are worried about. I would hazard a guess that Elaine Marshall, his opponent, is polling well with young women in NC. This ad requires a more creative response to piggy-back on the existing ad buzz in this campaign (maybe a humorous depicting of Burr as an empty suit, or maybe The Invisible Man, since his lack of concrete accomplishments is already a bit of a meme in NC political circles). But Democrats would be well-advised to take the senior vote as seriously as do their adversaries.
The other thing that these ads share in common is that they are attack-focused, with a little “not like us/me” tacked on at the end of the NC ad. There’s not much else an obstructionist party can do but attack the pro-active party and its candidates. In response, Democratic challengers and incumbents alike should not waste too much time playing defense. The “He/she distorted my record” whine is the swan song of the loser. Especially for the post-Labor Day segment of midterm campaigns, the best defense is a ferocious counter-attack in ads and in every opportunity for media sound-bites.
The formidable challenge for Dems in the coming weeks is adequate funding for ads. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is reportedly budgeting $75 million for political ads, almost all of it for defeating Democrats. Many other conservative groups have ponied up big bucks for ads to defeat Democrats. Such are the rancid fruits of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission.

When John Boehner sent up his raise-the-age-for-Social Security-Benefits-to-70 trial balloon back in June, he caught some predictable flack. Maybe not enough, if the current street protest demonstrations in France against raising the age for retirement benefits are any indication.
Yes, I know, unions are much stronger in France, as is class consciousness in general. France is far more progressive in terms of social benefits than the U.S., as well as other European countries. And yes, there is growing and broad discontent with the Sarkozy government’s performance on a range of economic concerns, which helped to get those huge crowds out in the streets of Paris and across France.
Nonetheless, it was President Sarkozy’s proposal to raise the age of eligibility for minimum retirement benefits from 60 to 62 ( from 65 to 67 for a full pension) that sparked the most massive protests demonstrations France has seen in two decades. It’s not just the graying of the French population. It’s also the feeling among middle-aged and young workers that they are about to get screwed because Sarkozy’s center-right government has mismanaged the economy. Apparently, the U.S. isn’t the only country in which the government’s primary retirement security program is a ‘third rail.’
Sarkozy isn’t the first French leader to catch hell for trying to weaken retirement benefits. In 1995, President Jacques Chirac withdrew his proposal to weaken retirement benefits for transport workers after strikes crippled France.
The differences between French and U.S. politics notwithstanding, American seniors don’t like politicians weakening their government retirement benefits any more than do their counterparts in European countries. They may not take it to the streets quite so readily, but they will take it to the polls, and they vote in disproportionately large numbers, especially in midterm elections.
Boehner’s proposal wouldn’t fully kick in for 20 years — intended no doubt as a buffer zone to protect his party from angry seniors. But many seniors are rightly suspicious of any screwing around with Social Security, as a ‘slippery slope’ that sets a dangerous precedent. And the 20 year buffer zone wouldn’t come as much comfort to middle-aged workers, who are also a large midterm demographic — the age 45-59 demographic were 34 percent of mid-term voters in 2006. It’s up to Democrats to remind them, again and again, that Boehner’s idea delays their retirement eligibility.
So the events in France may indicate that Boehner got off way too easy. A little grumbling here and there doesn’t get it as a response, when the guy who will be running the House of Representatives if his party carries the day on November 2nd starts setting the stage for screwing millions of American workers.
No, it’s not as much an issue of immediate concern as jobs and economic recovery. But Boehner’s putting the weakening of Social Security benefits on the table ought to merit more outrage. As usual the print and broadcast media let him off easy, but that’s partly because Democrats didn’t raise enough hell about it. That can be changed by raising the issue more frequently in speeches and ads, and maybe in time enough to do some good on November 2nd.

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.