The following, by Democratic strategist Mike Lux, author of “The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be,” is cross-posted from HuffPo:
This Republican convention didn’t quite match the Pat Buchanan culture war level of entertainment, but it was close. From the truly odd juxtaposition of the Ann Romney soft and sweet pitch followed immediately by the me, me, me blowhard Chris Christie speech to the bizarro angry old white guy performance of Clint Eastwood getting more attention than Romney last night, this has been a special convention indeed. But in addition to the entertainment value, it did make apparent the battle lines in this election. This campaign will ultimately turn on 4 major things: the battle over Bain, the debate over Medicare, and the questions over who is to blame for this economy and how best to fix it. As a loyal Democrat, I am really pleased as to the strategic decisions the Romney camp has made on Bain and Medicare, because I think we will in the end win those debates decisively. The questions on the economy are much tougher, and I think the Obama team may need to make some adjustments in their strategy on that critical question.
Let me start with Bain, a favorite topic of mine. Romney did as good a job as he could do in describing his work at Bain and making the case for why it was a positive thing. Here’s the weird thing: I couldn’t be more delighted that he did. I’m pleased for 2 reasons. First, the fact that he spent so much time on it and worked so hard to make his case confirms that our side’s attacks on Bain have been striking body blows. Second, and even better, it means that this battle over Bain is going to be fully engaged by their campaign and the media as well as by our side. The Romney camp made the calculated decision that they couldn’t gloss over the Bain experience and keep it at the broad generic level. Instead, Romney made a full-throated defense of his reign as CEO. That means that the Obama campaign and the progressive infrastructure will be able to fully engage this debate, and that the media will have to cover and examine it. And that is a wonderful thing.
It’s wonderful because when you look under the hood even for a moment, Bain stinks. What Romney did there, and the merciless greedy values it shows him to have, should be fully aired out and examined by the media. Our side has never been bothered by Romney’s success in business, it was how he ran his business and made his money. We aren’t bothered by the fact that some of the investments failed, we are appalled by the way Romney loaded these companies up with debt, manipulated the tax code to make big short term profits even if it hurt the companies involved, took big management fees whether the companies involved were doing well or not, and screwed the workers while walking away with big money even when the businesses involved went down the tubes. Bain and Mitt made huge profits even off most of the companies that went bankrupt on their watch, and they did it while doing mass layoffs and out-sourcing, cutting the wages of those workers who were left, and stripping workers’ of their pensions and health coverage. They got rich- really, really rich- because the workers got poorer, and they got profits in the form of tax code manipulations and management fees whether the companies did well or not. If you want to read yet another great explanation of how Bain made its money (and there are many), I highly recommend Matt Taibibi’s truly wonderful piece in Rolling Stone, which should be required reading for every reporter covering this debate.
So when Mitt is bragging about the companies which were success stories, don’t forget a few little things Mitt left out of his speech last night. The first is that they were success stories in spite of the huge debt and management fees Bain saddled them with- the fact that they made it was a lucky thing. Secondly, they weren’t success stories for a great many of their workers, many of whom lost their jobs and pensions and health coverage- and even for those who didn’t, frequently had jobs where the average pay wasn’t exactly sterling. Finally, remember that the failures were usually failures precisely because of Bain’s vulture capitalism.
So let’s have the Bain debate. The more voters know, the better off Democrats are. Which is exactly the case with the Medicare issue as well. In that case, the Romney-Ryan campaign team is well aware of that fact. It is very telling that neither Romney nor Ryan, the intellectual architect of the Republican proposals on Medicare, said a word about their actual plan. Beyond their bogus, thoroughly debunked attacks on the Obama “Medicare cuts”, and beyond pounding their chests saying they “wanted this debate”, Romney like Ryan before him did not say a single word to explain or defend argue for their proposal. As I wrote about yesterday, their strategy is to keep saying as loud as they can that they want this debate precisely so that people won’t notice that they never want to actually have the debate. But by forcing them to speak to the specifics, by explaining exactly what they proposed and what we are for in contrast, we will win this debate by a wide margin. The Medicare coupon idea, where you take your inadequate amount of money and try to negotiate individually with a huge insurance company that may be the only one that serves your market, would be a disaster for most people, and when voters hear about it, they understand that.
The Romney-Ryan strategy on Medicare is a lot like their strategy on discussing their economic ideas: namely, proclaim loudly that they have a plan for jobs and growth and the economy without saying much at all about what that plan does. Romney and Ryan literally spent more time in their speeches talking about having a plan and putting the Democrats “on notice” that they wanted to debate their plan and the fact that their plan would produce all these miracle cures for everything wrong with America than they did actually talking about their plan. The portion of Romney’s speech that was about his plan was 5 very general points discussed in a grand total of 11 sentences. (We’re going to promote trade! We’re going to help small businesses by repealing Obamacare and not taxing or regulating them!) Ryan, the great Republican policy maven, said even less about actual policy.
They aren’t saying much because they really, really don’t want people to know the details, because they know that when people hear the details in focus groups, voters are generally appalled. Which brings me to the last great debate on which this campaign will turn. I am convinced that the more voters hear about Bain and Medicare and other specific policy proposals, the more they will dislike Romney and Ryan. The thing the Republicans have left in the arsenal, though, is as big a weapon as you can have: the bad economic times we have been living through. People are in a foul mood about it, and they have good reason to be. The Republicans did a very effective job at the convention of pounding away on that central issue, and hammering away at the theme that Obama is trying to blame Bush despite not having fixed things. It’s undoubtedly the Republicans most dangerous weapon, their “big one”, because voters want to (a) level the blame somewhere, and (b) have someone fix it. On the ways to fix it, Democrats clearly have the edge, with the entire Republican convention as the best evidence: talk as little about our actual proposals as humanly possible. But on the who is to blame thing, there is a real danger that Republicans will win that argument.
The main place from a message perspective I would fault the Obama campaign is that they have so far failed to tell the story of why this economy has been in such big trouble. There have been plenty of generic references to the failed policies of the past, but I would argue that to seal the deal and win this election, Obama needs to explain to the American public who caused this mess and who is holding us back from recovery: Wall Street and the big special interests who have an iron grip on the throat of our economic system. It has the twin virtues of being completely believable to the American public and completely true. Obama needs to tell that story, and he needs to remind people that the same mega-companies who caused this mess are the exact ones backing Romney-Ryan and personified by Bain Capital and the Romney-Ryan budget.
Every election comes down to a series of big debates. In this one there are 4 big ones that everything will turn on: what does Romney’s tenure at Bain say about him, which side has the better Medicare plan, why are we having such tough economic times, and how do we get out of this mess. I think that right now, we Democrats have an excellent chance at winning on Bain, Medicare, and plans for the future. But if we don’t win on why we are in such trouble, I fear it could pull everything else down. I think Obama can win that debate, but he needs to tell the story of how the Wall Street crowd and the wealthy special interests- Romney and Ryan’s buddies- are choking our economy.

The following article, by Erika Seifert, is cross-posted from DCorps.
Mitt Romney will need to make up a lot of ground tonight if he is to restore his image heading into the fall campaign season. The most recent Democracy Corps survey, which concluded on Monday, finds that almost half of all voters (47 percent) still give Mitt Romney a negative personal rating. This is despite the fact that the Republican ticket dominated the news through much of August — first with the nomination of Paul Ryan, and more recently with abundant headlines leading up to the Republican convention.
This will be a significant challenge for Romney in a close, but remarkably decided election. This year, more than any other, clear lines were established early on and most voters have either selected a candidate or decided to stay home on November 6. This most recent survey finds that just 1 percent of likely voters remain undecided. Even as early as June, just 2 percent were undecided. In the last week of the 2008 election, by contrast, 3 to 4 percent remained undecided.
While the vote remains close — Obama holds a marginal 2 point edge over Romney — the Republican challenger has thus far been unable to make inroads among key voting blocs, largely because of his high personal negatives. Once again, our poll shows that negative personal ratings of Romney are a stronger predictor of the vote than even party identification.
By a significant 11-point margin, voters prefer Barack Obama over Mitt Romney when it comes to looking out for the middle class, and by a 3-point margin on health care reform. By a marginal 2 points, voters say they trust the President more than Romney to make the right decisions for the future.
While Romney holds the edge on which candidate would do a better job on the economy in general, the President is now even with Romney on having the right approach to taxes. This is an issue where we expect Republicans to dominate, but as this recent Los Angeles Times/USC survey finds, voters reject the Republicans’ hard line on tax cuts for the wealthiest.

The following article, by TDS Co-founder Ruy Teixeira, is cross-posted from Univsion News:
The minority vote looks rock solid for President Obama as we head toward November’s election, coming very close to the 80 percent support level he received in 2008.


Part of this of course is due to overwhelming backing from black voters. But it was more or less expected that African-American voters would continue to support the first African-American president by very lopsided margins. It was less expected that Latinos would be as strong as they have been so far for Obama. Indeed, in ten national polls of Hispanics since December of last year, Latino voters have favored Obama over Romney by an average of 44 points, substantially higher than the margin of 36 points they gave Obama in 2008.


It is striking how uniform this support appears to be across segments of the Latino population. In a July Latino Decisions poll, Obama was ahead of Romney 70-22 percent among all voters. This included margins of 72-19 among the foreign-born, 69-25 among the U.S. born, 76-15 among Spanish speakers, and 66-28 among English speakers. In addition, Obama was ahead 72-20 percent among those who said they voted in 2008 (Obama actual margin in 2008 was “only” 67-31).


How important is a strong overall minority vote to Obama? Without it, he cannot absorb the additional losses he is expected to suffer among white voters this November, particularly white working-class voters. But if the minority vote remains as strong as it is now, Obama can still win even if Romney’s advantage among white working-class voters is far greater than John McCain’s 18 point margin in 2008. In short, the minority vote, where a big Latino margin is so vital, is Obama’s insurance policy in a year when he is sure to receive a reduced share of the white vote.


In addition, judging from eligible voter trends, minorities should be a larger share of voters in 2012 than 2008, making that insurance policy all the more potent. Since Hispanics are providing the bulk of the increase in minority eligible voters, without solid Hispanic turnout–still a question mark given relatively low voter enthusiasm among Hispanics–the projected increase in minority voters is not likely to happen. That would enhance the importance of Obama’s white working class problem.
Of course, the election is still two and a half months away. There’s still a chance Romney could undercut Obama’s support among Hispanics and weaken the minority voting bloc backing Obama. But Romney’s recent selection of Paul Ryan as a vice presidential running mate augurs poorly for Romney’s chance of doing so.


Start with Ryan’s positions on immigration. There is essentially no daylight between his
positions and those Romney supports; Ryan, like Romney, opposes any path toward citizenship or permanent legal status for illegal immigrants and Ryan, like Romney, opposes the DREAM Act. Ryan has the additional distinction of having voted against the proposal in Congress, something Romney never had the opportunity to do.


Then there are Ryan’s famously hard line positions on massively cutting spending, particularly on Medicare, while ruling out any tax increases for the affluent. Recent Latino Decisions data show that Latinos oppose cutting spending on Medicare to reduce the national debt by an overwhelming 73-22 margin. And just 8 percent think cutting spending without raising taxes on the wealthy is the best approach to reducing the budget deficit. Finally, 55 percent of Hispanics think more federal spending to stimulate the economy is a better way to grow the economy than cutting taxes (31 percent). None of this, of course, is at all compatible with the views of Romney’s new running mate.


Romney still has some time to chip away at Obama’s overwhelming lead among Hispanics. But time is running out and the Ryan selection is just the latest sign that the Romney campaign lacks a strategy for cutting into that lead.

The following article by political strategist Robert Creamer, author of “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” is cross-posted from HuffPo:
Going into the Republican Convention, Mitt Romney had one major political mission: to convince swing voters that he isn’t just the guy who fired their brother in law — that he understands their lives and is on their side.
Given his record as Governor of Massachusetts — 47th among the 50 states in job creation — and his history at Bain Capital, Romney can’t really make the case he has any experience creating jobs.
But the thing that really stands between Romney and swing voters is the perception that he has zero empathy — no comprehension of what life is like for everyday Americans.
So the Republicans tried very hard to tell stories that humanized the otherwise robot-like Romney. But here is the bottom line: when multiple speakers have to testify how authentic you are — you’re not.
The first night of the Convention did feature Ann Romney delivering a simple message: you like me, I love Mitt — so he must not be so bad.
But it also featured a cast of governors doing auditions for 2016 saying very little about Romney and a great deal about their own “successes.” When Chris Christi gave the Convention’s Keynote address, he didn’t even mention Romney until the very end of his speech.
Night two featured Paul Ryan whipping up the right-wing base and delivering brazen lies about the Obama record. Ryan’s speech was a feast for fact checkers. From his assertion that Obama failed to prevent the shutdown of the GM plant at Janesville — which was closed before Obama took office — to his attack on the Obama for failing to take seriously recommendations from the Debt Commission which he himself voted to oppose.
Most egregious was Ryan’s claim that Obamacare “cut” Medicare by over $700 billion. In fact, of course, far from “cutting” Medicare benefits, Obamacare actually improved Medicare benefits and achieved $700 billion of savings for the Medicare program by cutting huge overpayments and subsidies to big insurance companies. Not one Medicare recipient has had his or her guaranteed benefits cut by ObamaCcre — and Ryan knows it.
Of course, all the while Ryan was lying about the fake “Obamacare” cuts in Medicare, he and Romney are planning to eliminate Medicare. They have made clear they want to replace it with a voucher program that would provide a fixed amount of money per person and require that seniors shop for coverage on the private insurance market. Their plan will raise out of pocket costs by $6,400 and eliminate the guaranteed benefit that defines Medicare and has meant that American retirees haven’t had to worry about their health care costs for over half a century.
The final night of the Convention, the Republicans made a concerted effort to “humanize” Mitt Romney. They put up a string of former friends and associates to tell stories aimed at trying to make him seem more caring and human.
Then Bob White, the Chairman of Romney for President and former partner in Bain Capital, talked about his business experience. White told the story of how Romney was asked to come back from Bain Capital and return to Bain Consulting to save it from collapse. Of course White ignored the fact that, as a new article in Rolling Stone indicates, he achieved that recovery through a federal bailout.
The essential role of the government, by the way, is a consistent, though never mentioned, theme that continued when it came to Romney’s “turn around” of the Salt Lake Olympics that receive a larger federal subsidy — $1.3 billion — than all of the previous Olympics combined.
Then came Tom Stemberg, the CEO of Staples, which had been funded by Bain Capital, who argued — in one of the stiffest, least “everyman” speeches ever — that when the Obama campaign contends that Romney is out of touch with ordinary people, “they just don’t get it.” In fact, Tom led the assembled delegates in the chant: “they just don’t get it”. Multi-millionaire Tom Stemberg is a strange choice to serve as cheerleader for how Mitt Romney understands ordinary people.

Read more…

New polling data indicates that the American Public strongly favors keeping Medicare the way it is and opposes turning Medicare into a voucher system, reports TDS Founding Editor Ruy Teixeira in his latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot at the Center for American Progress web pages.

Last week we also received new polling on the issue and, as expected, the public continues to support keeping Medicare as it is today. Let’s start with their general support for keeping Medicare (or Social Security) benefits as they are: By 51 percent to 33 percent in a new Pew poll, the public thinks this goal is more important than taking steps to reduce the budget deficit.

Nor does the public have much sympathy for converting Medicare into a voucher system, explains Teixeira:

Moving on to the specific plan to turn Medicare into a voucher, the plan was tested by the recently released Washington Post/Kaiser poll. Respondents were given two choices: A) Medicare should continue as it is today, with the government guaranteeing all seniors the same set of health insurance benefits, or B) Medicare should be changed to a system in which the government guarantees each senior a fixed amount of money to help them purchase coverage either from traditional Medicare or from a list of private health plans. The public favored choice A, keeping Medicare the way it is today, by a strong 58-36 margin.

Teixeira acknowledges that conservatives are unlikely to abandon their voucher scheme, despite it’s weak public support. “But these data suggest that no matter how much they try to disguise the plan and make its changes sound benign, they are likely to meet a wall of public skepticism.” it appears that Democrats are on very safe political ground in their opposition to GOP voucher “reforms.”