At The Nation, Ari Berman has an update on the preparations to resist Republican-driven voter suppression at the polls on November 6, specifically the efforts of the Election Protection coalition to insure a fair election. Berman explains:

The Election Protection coalition plans to recruit 10,000 volunteers to assist at the polls during early voting and on election day in twenty states, particularly in high-turnout minority voting areas and historically disenfranchised communities. It will staff thirty-two call centers in English and Spanish through its 866-Our-Vote hotline. This conference room will be one of them.
The Election Protection coalition, spearheaded by the Lawyers’ Committee and including groups like the NAACP and Common Cause, was launched after the 2000 election fiasco in Florida. “A lot of folks in the voting rights and civil rights community realized you couldn’t wait until election day to solve issues,” says Eric Marshall, co-leader of Election Protection.

In Virginia, for example, draconian voter i.d. laws designed to suppress pro-Democratic constituencies could actually influence the election. As Berman reports:

In the past, a Virginia voter lacking ID could sign an affidavit attesting to his or her identity and cast a regular ballot. Now that voter must cast a provisional ballot, which will count only if the voter presents proof of ID to the board of elections by noon on the Friday after election day. This change could disenfranchise the 15,000 Virginians who cast a ballot without ID in 2008– which could affect the outcome in one of the nation’s most hotly contested swing states. The proliferation of provisional ballots could also delay the election results. “Can you imagine the presidential election not being called until Friday because of some hang-up in Virginia?” asks Tram Nguyen, associate director of Virginia New Majority, a progressive advocacy group.
“I can pretty much guarantee on the morning of election day we’re going to have numerous poll workers in Virginia giving out the wrong information on identification,” says Dara Lindenbaum, an associate counsel for the Lawyers’ Committee. The average American poll worker is 72, often receives minimal training and is not always up to speed on last-minute election law changes. Lindenbaum was in Hampton Roads on election day 2008, where voters encountered four-hour lines because of broken voting machines and record turnout.

The coalition expects to see plenty of Republican advocates creating confusion at the polls:

n addition to voter suppression laws, this year Election Protection organizers will face another threat: the Tea Party group True the Vote and its local affiliates, which claim to be recruiting a million “poll watchers” to challenge voters they believe are ineligible to vote. In practice, that’s going to mean a lot of conservative white activists stationed outside the polls in heavily Democratic minority neighborhoods, a sure-fire recipe for voter intimidation and harassment. That dynamic is especially troubling in a state like Virginia, where minorities make up 30 percent of the electorate and three out of four new residents are people of color.
Challenger laws date back to the 1870s in states like Virginia, when segregationists challenged the right to cast a ballot of newly emancipated African-Americans. They are still on the books in at least eight battleground states. “Of the 39 states that allow polling place challenges, only 15 require poll challengers to provide some documentation to support their claim that the challenged voter is ineligible,” reports the Brennan Center for Justice. In Florida, for example, any challenged voter must cast a provisional ballot (in 2008, 2.1 million provisional ballots were cast nationally; 69 percent were counted). In Virginia, the challenge must be in writing, and challenged voters may cast a regular ballot if they sign an affidavit affirming their identity.
Outside groups are not allowed in polling places, but representatives of the parties are, so True the Vote is urging its members to become GOP poll watchers, which could increase the likelihood of voter challenges. Often these challenges are based on little more than racial profiling. Videos have recently surfaced of True the Vote activists giving inaccurate training to prospective poll workers falsely claiming, in states like New Mexico, for example, that voters must show ID. “They’re enforcing the law of their gut rather than the law on the books,” says Levitt. “That’s what vigilante squads do, and their hit rates are pretty bad.”

Despite the most extensive voter suppression campaign in history, Berman notes that the Obama campaign “has more than thirty paid staffers working on voter protection in a dozen battleground states,” along with thousands of legal volunteers. It appears that their efforts may determine, not only the election outcome, but the future of America.

Give it up for tireless Obama campaigners Bill Clinton and Bruce Springsteen, who just took their road show to Parma, a largely white working-class suburb of Cleveland. It would be hard to identify a better couple to take the message to Ohio’s blue collar workers, and, with Springsteen’s music and Clinton’s message, they did not disappoint. Here’s some of Clinton’s magic, from Peter Hamby’s CNN post on their rally:

“This is the first time in my life I got to be the warm up act for Bruce Springsteen,” Clinton joked to a crowd of roughly 3,000 supporters at Cuyahoga County Community College. “I am qualified because I was born in the U.S.A. And unlike one of the candidates for president I keep all my money here.”
…Clinton said the decline from 8.9% unemployment in October 2011 to the 7.8% jobless rate today is “the biggest one year drop in unemployment in 17 years.”
Clinton noted that Romney once refused to take a position on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill signed into law by President Obama in 2009. Romney’s advisers have said he would not repeal the law, but have continued to dance around the question of whether Romney would have signed the bill.
“What he wants to do is convince the moderate voters that he’s a new man without explicitly disavowing a single solitary commitment he made in the two years he said he was ‘severe conservative’ Mitt Romney,” he said.
He also attacked Romney’s opposition to the federal bailout of Chrysler and General Motors, a measure overwhelmingly backed by voters in Ohio, where one out of eight jobs are linked to the auto industry.
“I love Ohio,” Clinton said. “It’s an old school place. We like our families, we like our communities, we value our personal loyalty … The president had your back. You got to have his back now.”

Then Springsteen came on, said it was like “going on after Elvis.” He sang “Allentown,” “We Take Care of Our Own, “This Land is Your Land,” “No Surrender” and and a new song, “Forward And Away We Go,” written for President Obama, which goes like this:

At The Washington Monthly TDS managing editor Ed Kilgore provides the definitive answer to questions about why wingnuts are putting up with Etch-a-sketch’s cosmetic ‘move-toward-the-center’: Kilgore quotes, via WaPo’s Dana Milbank, Grover ‘the pledge’ Norquist on the topic:

I hear all this as tonal…You’re now in the general election and you’ve already convinced conservatives why they should vote for you…You’re now talking to undecided voters, who have a completely different set of issues.

In other words, it’s a big Republican wink. As Kilgore translates Grover from the GOP-speak, “”I hear all this as tonal” means “it doesn’t mean a damn thing.” Kilgore also quotes Alec McGillis from his TNR post, saying that “the leash” will be “snapped tight again” if Romney actually wins, while the impression of Romney’s moderation could prove useful as an excuse if he loses.” Kilgore concludes that “movement conservatives may be playing a game as devious as Mitt himself.”

We recommend that you read all of Ed Kilgore’s excellent Washington Monthly posts on last night’s debate, including his live-blogging. For now, we’ll just flag Kilgore’s “Tripping Over the Threshold Of an Actual Issue” with these graphs about Romney’s Benghazi Blunder:

Conservatives have now had over a month to tie their endless finger-pointing over the events in Benghazi to some larger theme, and have basically failed. If I were them, I’d probably argue the whole series of incidents shows that the administration (and Democrats generally) think the Global War on Terror–which they never much believed in to begin with–ended with the killing of Osama bin Laden, and have been proven very dangerously wrong. But instead, some conservative have gotten distracted by their Islamophobia into going nuts over the administration’s “apologies” for an obnoxious video, and others have gotten distracted by their lust for war with Iran into making this all about “signals” of America’s “lack of resolve.” And Mitt Romney’s done a little of everything without much clarity.
Last night he stumbled on the threshold of another opportunity to make the Libya killings a major issue by getting an important fact wrong. Had he not done so, he would have still probably devolved into incoherent non sequiturs about the killings somehow emboldening Iran or upsetting the Only Ally In the Whole Wide World Who Matters, Bibi Netanyahu. I suppose he’ll have another few days to get his argument together before the final debate. But the idea that he got “hosed by the ref” at Hofstra is absurd. He planned a hit on Obama, and just screwed it up.

Expect the Republican whining about Crowley calling Romney out for his ill-considered b.s to continue ad infinitum. Meanwhile, read Kilgore’s full post right here.

The following article, by Democratic strategist Mike Lux, author of The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, is cross-posted from HuffPo:
It has been clear since each parties’ chance to lay out their case in consecutive weeks at the conventions — and Democrats from the presidential race on down made a sustained rise in the polls — that when we go toe to toe with Republicans and engage the debate, the Democrats win. Obama just flat-out failed to engage in the debate the first time around, but this time he came to play. And won decisively. When we debate, we win the debate.
This is the lesson cautious and wonky Democrats need to internalize. When we, as my friend Bob Creamer likes to say, listen to our mother and stand up straight, we win. When we are clear, strong and decisive on defining the differences between Democrats and Republicans on policy, we win. When we engage the debate on philosophy and values, we win and win decisively.
Stylistically, Obama was, of course, a lot better than last time. I loved his toughness, his body language was so much better, his language was crisper and cleaner. But he won last night because he directly, forcefully took the debate straight to Romney. From the first question to his home run of a final answer where he took apart the philosophy Romney exhibited in the 47 percent video, he laid out for the country the differences between the men and their parties.
There is no question voters still have their doubts about Obama, which is natural given the crushing nature of the financial collapse suffered under Bush and the deepest darkest recession this country has seen in 80 years. But when voters hear each party’s case as to how they want to improve things, when they really hear the debate, they side with Democrats because a majority of voters know that our country and our economy work better when we are in it together — when we help lift each other up, when America tries to be more like a family or a community rather than each person acting for themselves and devil take the hindmost. They prefer the philosophy of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bobby Kennedy to that of Ayn Rand and the Social Darwinists, who — along with Romney and Ryan — preached that anyone who was wealthy was a productive person to be rewarded by government, and anyone who struggled was a leech on society.
The ironic thing is that we can win the debate, as Obama did last night, even when the Republicans try to run away from the philosophy and policies they realize are unpopular. Romney again last night tried to sound far more moderate. He talked about expanding Pell Grants even though his and Ryan’s budget would slash them. He talked about compassion even though his and Ryan’s budget ends Medicare and slashed Medicaid and pretty much every other program to help people in the federal budget, and even though his own 47 percnent video show a man utterly devoid of compassion for anyone other than the poor oppressed wealthy. He contradicted his own long-standing policy on contraceptive coverage. Yet even though Romney was scurrying away from his own unpopular platform all night long, Obama still won the debate by stating clearly the difference between the men and their parties on issues, philosophy and values.
Here’s what else Obama figured out how to find the right balance on: the balancing between trying to oversell economic improvements and still laying out the good things he had accomplished in his first term. I was pretty worried about how he would strike that balance, because he was way over on the overselling side on the first debate. But this time, I thought he found the golden mean.
Even though the domestic-oriented debates are over, we need to keep the bigger debate over our values and policies alive. Whenever we engage, we win. Whenever we force Republicans to defend what they have said they believe, we win. And whenever we remind voters what Romney has shown he believes about the 47 percent, we win.
We also need to nationalize this debate. I liked the way Obama took on the Republican House last night, as well as Romney. This election is about big things, and the Republican philosophy is an anchor around their necks up and down the ticket. Obama and the Democrats need to drive that message home: that this isn’t just Romney and Ryan, it’s the entire Republican party.
Whenever we engage the debate, we win the debate. Let’s keep doing it, and lock this victory down.

At the National Journal’s ‘The Next America’ blog, Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin have a post explaining “Demographic Fundamentals Remain Critical to 2012 Presidential Outcome.” Teixeira, a TDS co-founding editor, a senior fellow at both The Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress and guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and John Halpin, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress focusing on political theory, communications, and public-opinion analysis write:

…There is scant historical evidence that the debate will have much of an impact on the eventual outcome of the presidential election…What will matter most are the two fundamentals we outlined in our November 2011 paper, “The Path to 270.” In that report, we argued that the election will boil down to two primary questions. Will the rising electorate of communities of color, the millennial generation, professionals, single women, and seculars that pushed Obama to victory in 2008 be sufficient and mobilized enough to ensure his reelection in 2012? Or will the Republican Party and its presidential nominee capitalize on a struggling economy and greater mobilization from a conservative base that holds the president in deep disdain?

The authors believe these two issues will “remain the central issues of the election” and discuss the impact of three key demographic groups, “minorities, college-educated whites, and noncollege/working-class whites.” They conclude that “Obama should be significantly advantaged in 2012 by demographic change, especially a projected increase in minority voters and decrease in white working-class voters.”
Halpin and Teixeira add further, “…if the president’s minority support holds up in 2012, with the level of Hispanic support being the biggest question mark, he could absorb quite a lot of falloff in his support among white working-class voters and still win the election,” particularly if the president retains the support of white college-educated voters.
The authors then explore the prospects of the presidential candidates with respect to these groups in 2012:

….Based on analysis of the most up-to-date information about eligible voters from the Current Population Survey, the overall minority composition of the electorate increased by 3 points since 2008, while the percentage of white working-class voters declined by an equal amount (see data below preceding map). White college graduates increased also, but only very slightly, about two-tenths of a percentage point.
…These new figures are based on changes in the composition of eligible voters, which may or may not be fully reflected in the composition of actual voters, depending on turnout patterns. Given that minorities’ turnout tends to be relatively low while white college graduates’ turnout is relatively high, the shifts we see in 2012 may still wind up close to our original projection.

Verifying that the president is holding his 2008 support levels from minority voters, the authors note further, “in 11 national polls of Hispanics conducted from December of last year through August 2012, Latino voters have favored Obama over Romney by an average of 43 percentage points, substantially higher than the margin of 36 points they gave the president in 2008.”
Regarding the president’s support among college-educated whites, the authors say that the president is also close to matching or surpassing his 2008 performance with this group. With respect to the pivotal white working-class demographic,

…If the minority and white college-educated vote hold up as well in November as they have in recent polling, Romney needs to generate a huge margin among white working-class voters to have a decent chance of winning–closer to the 30 points congressional Republicans won this group by in 2010 than the 18-point margin received by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in 2008.
In fact, if Obama replicates his 2008 performance among minorities and white college graduates, then Romney would need to carry white working-class voters by double McCain’s margin (36 points) even if the minority vote does not grow at all. And if the minority vote does grow as expected, he would need north of a 40-point margin among the white working class to prevail…Romney has not been remotely close to that level of support among white working-class voters. He’s been averaging around the same margin McCain received in 2008…Romney, to be successful in November’s election, needs to greatly exceed his currently observed upper bound of support among white working class voters.

Teixeira and Halpin caution, however,

…Demographics are important but not determinative of election outcomes. Politics and campaigns matter in putting together viable electoral majorities. A few weeks out, it is certainly possible to see Romney building on his debate performance to turn a surge of conservative activism and white working-class skepticism into a narrow victory should the president’s supporters end up being as apathetic as they were in 2010 and if late-deciding voters break heavily against him. But it is also possible to envision many voters, including some segments of the white working class, turning away from the perceived radicalism of the Republican ticket and agenda and returning the president to office by a few percentage points.

As the authors conclude, “Many difficult challenges lie ahead for both candidates and campaigns to consider. The complex mix of demographics, economics, and ideology makes this already close race even more vigorously contested.”

Take a short break from debate hysteria and horse race analysis and give a read to a couple of posts by TDS Founding Editor Ruy Teixeira, as he discusses why President Obama should begin focusing on growth as a unifying theme that can solidify his electoral coalition into an enduring force that can enact and implement policy.
At ABC News/Univision, Teixeira explains why Obama’s lead with Latino voters appears even stronger than in 2008, and why the president will need to focus increasingly on growth as a central goal. First on why Obama has such a solid edge with Latinos :

…Immigration, after all, while hugely important to Hispanic voters, is not the only issue that concerns them by any means. Jobs and the economy are also of the highest importance, hardly surprising given the state of today’s economy. Indeed, in the LD tracking poll, 54 percent thought jobs and the economy was the most important issue facing the Latino community, compared to 39 percent who thought it was immigration reform and the DREAM act.
It is this strong concern with the economy that helps explain how Obama could have such an unusually large lead. On question after question on the economy, Obama is favored by very wide margins among Hispanic voters. In the LD poll, voters chose Obama over Romney by 72-20 as the one they have confidence in to improve economic conditions. Similarly, in the Telemundo poll, 58 percent believe Obama is better prepared to create jobs and improve the economy over the next four years, while just 22 percent think Romney is better prepared. And by 76 to nine percent, Latinos see Obama as best able to look out for the middle class.
Latino voters also believe conditions have started to improve on Obama’s watch. In the same poll, by 60 percent to 32 percent they believe the economy is recovering and by 50 percent to 9 percent they think the economy will get better, not worse, over the next twelve months.

However, warns Teixeira, “If Obama is reelected, he will still have to deliver the robust economic growth these voters need to realize their economic aspirations. This may be difficult.” Teixeira cites the low, 1.6 percent, growth rate since 2000 as a daunting challenge Obama must tackle after the election if eh wants to hold Latino support for the Democrats.

Read more…

TDS Managing Editor Ed Kilgore makes an important distinction in his Washington Monthly post, “Change and Safe Change.” After acknowledging that “Obama needs to improve significantly in the ability to define a second-term agenda,” Kilgore makes the case for “depicting Romney’s entire agenda as a leaner and meaner version of W’s.” Kilgore adds:

Romney, much like Bush in 2000, is presenting himself as the candidate not just of change, but of safe change–the hyper-confident moderate technocrat, who will assess the country’s challenges each day without fear or favor, and do what is best without worrying about his party’s “base” or the radical ideologues who represent it. Like W., Romney is touting a reputation (in Mitt’s case, a bit questionable and long in the tooth) for working with Democrats, and is also asserting a degree of empathy and “compassion” notably lacking in the GOP these days. This ingredient of his latest self-presentation is just as important to his cause as the mantle of “change.”
So while it may seem complicated for Obama to label Romney as the candidate of the same-old, same-old, and also as a radical, it is both accurate and effective. The two candidates have different agendas for the future, and while one is well-tailored to tough current challenges, the other is essentially an effort to advance the worst qualities of Richard Nixon and the worst policies of George W. Bush and Barry Goldwater.

As Kilgore concludes, “It shouldn’t be that terribly hard to distinguish a reactionary from a change agent. “Change” isn’t always good when it’s not “safe,” and a better alternative is readily at hand.”

The following article is excerpted from a Democracy Corps memo:
The campaign has reached a tipping point where we believe the president has to offer a bold narrative, policies, and choice if he is to win re-election and get to a substantial enough victory that enables him to govern and face the great challenges ahead. The first debate really did disrupt the race and presents a painful real-time test of what happens when the president tries to convince people of progress and offer a very modest vision of future change. Voters are not looking for continuity but changes that help the average Joe.
Up until now, with Romney campaigning solely on Obama’s failures, a focus on America’s middle class was enough. But it is now – and there are enormous opportunities for the President to use this moment. In the first debate, Obama did not make a bold case for the bold policies he would offer in the next four years. In the Vice Presidential debate, Joe Biden thankfully struck blows on Romney’s authenticity, duplicity, truthfulness, coziness with the rich and disregard for the middle class, but he gave no hint of Obama’s plans for jobs and growth.
In dial-meters conducted by Democracy Corps for Women’s Voices. Women Vote Action Fund during the debate, Obama lost the attention of independents and unmarried women when he spoke about economic progress or talked about the progress of the last four years. With most of the President’s surrogates saying, “give him more time to finish the job” and with the President closing the debate making the same small offer, Romney got the opportunity to be heard as the voice of change.
Obama won most support when he said what he would do to make the economy better in the years ahead, but both Romney and Ryan spent much more time on that future and sounded like they had a real plan to make the economy better.
Read the full memo at Democracy Corps.