washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

staff

Abramowitz: Declining Influence of Union Voters Challenges Dems

Those who are wondering about the effects of the latest wave of Republican union-busting on union voters should read Alan I. Abramowitz’s column at Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball. Abramowitz, a member of the TDS Advisory Board and author of “The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization and American Democracy,” provides an informative analysis of union members’ recent voting patterns and party i.d. data.
Acknowledging that unions are influential because of the money and turnout manpower they provide for Democrats, Abramowitz then presents data demonstrating that union influence as a voting block is small and declining: “In 1952, 28% of voters were members of union households; in 2008, only 13% of voters were members of union households.” In terms of party identification, he explains:

…Attachment to the Democratic Party among voters in union households peaked in the 1960s. At that time, 69% of union voters identified with the Democratic Party compared with 51% of non-union voters. By the first decade of the 21st century, however, Democratic identification among union voters had fallen to 58%compared with 48% among non-union voters. While union voters remained considerably more attached to the Democratic Party than non-union voters, the gap between the two groups had shrunk considerably due mainly to declining Democratic identification among union voters.

Breaking it down by race, church attendance and marital status, Abramowitz presents data in charts and tables and adds,

The decline in Democratic identification since the 1960s has been much greater among some types of union voters than among others, however. Among African-Americans, who have gone from 10% of union voters in the 1960s to 13% today, there has been no decline in Democratic identification. Between 89% and 93% of African-American union voters identified with the Democratic Party throughout this time period. Among white union voters, however, Democratic identification fell from 66% in the ’60s to 51% in the 2000s. Moreover, the decline in Democratic identification among white union voters has been greatest among socially conservative groups such as regular churchgoers and married men. Among regular churchgoers, Democratic identification fell from 67% in the ’60s to 40% in the 2000s and, among married men, Democratic identification fell from 68% in the ’60s to 44% in the 2000s.
…Evidence from the 2008 National Exit Poll indicates that even in an election in which the economy was the dominant issue, both church attendance and gun ownership exerted a substantially stronger influence than union membership on candidate preference among white voters. It remains to be seen whether an increase in the salience of issues affecting unions such as the collective bargaining rights of public employees will alter this pattern in 2012.

Abramowitz’s findings may be discouraging to Democrats, but he leaves open the possibility that the attacks on collective bargaining rights could sway union voters to support Dems in greater numbers. In addition, unions may be poised for a new era of growth, if only because we may be approaching the point at which millions of workers begin to realize that unions provide the best hope for job security, decent wages and benefits.


DCorps: GOP Budget Cuts Backfiring in Swing Districts

A new Democracy Corps strategy and research paper, “The Budget Battle in the Republican-Obama Battleground,” based on a survey of likely voters in 50 ‘battleground districts’ conducted 3/13-17, spells trouble for House Republicans occupying swing districts. From the Overview:
The Republicans’ proposed budget cuts are in trouble in the 50 most competitive Republican-held Congressional districts – nearly all of which gave a majority to Obama in the last presidential election. Support drops dramatically after respondents hear balanced information and messages, and incumbents in these battleground seats find themselves even more endangered.
These battleground voters are currently split on the Republican plan to cut domestic programs by $61 billion, with 46 percent in favor and 46 percent opposed. This would be a dramatic decline in support from January when Democracy Corps found 60 percent support for the Republicans’ budget cuts.
And after a balanced debate on the issue, support for the Republican budget plan drops sharply, to 41 percent, with a 52 percent majority opposed. The more voters hear from the Republicans on this issue, the less they like. In fact, after hearing the budget debate, 53 percent agree, the more they hear from Republicans like their incumbent, “the less I like.” Just 39 percent say the more they hear, “the more I like.” And this is reflected in the vote, as it moves a net of 5 points towards the Democrats, giving them a 47 to 44 percent lead on the ballot.
Much of the shift up to this point has come among Democrats and Democratic base groups, with independents still holding back from Democrats on budget issues. But it is independents that move in response to the messages and attacks tested in this survey.
Democrats and progressives have a strong case to make against the Republicans by focusing on their budget priorities: specifically, the Republicans’ plan to protect wasteful special-interest subsidies for oil companies and tax breaks for millionaires, while cutting support for veterans, education and Medicare and Social Security. Other critiques are weaker, but progressives clearly can win this debate – even in the battleground of Republican seats.
Key Message Recommendations
* Throughout this poll, the strongest framework and attacks center on the priorities and choices Republicans are making, not the severity of the cuts. Democrats strongly defeat the Republican arguments in the former framework, but not within the latter.
* The Democrats’ strongest thematic attack again is grounded in an attack on priorities – raising serious doubts for over 60 percent of respondents and driving voters away from the Republican budget in our regression modeling.
* Republican cuts to funding for homeless veterans, their support for oil subsidies, their support for privatizing Medicare and Social Security, and their cuts to Head Start and anti-poverty programs are their biggest specific vulnerabilities.
* The most popular Democratic proposals for addressing the deficit are “eliminating subsidies for oil and gas companies” and “instituting a surtax on families making over one million dollars a year” – which is totally consistent with the priorities framework.
[1] Based on a survey of 1,000 likely voters in 50 battleground congressional districts conducted March 13-17, 2011. This battleground was split into two tiers of 25 districts each. These districts include 44 that were won by President Obama in 2008 and were chosen based on the 2008 presidential margin, the 2010 congressional margin and race ratings from Charlie Cook and others. The margin of error for the entire sample is +/- 3.1%. In each tier it is +/- 4.5%. Please see our memo and attached graphs, which explore the political situation in these districts.


Creamer: Fight Cuts in Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security

In his latest HuffPo post, political strategist Robert Creamer sounds the call to arms, urging Dems to resist cuts in three major entitlement programs.

Friday, the Democratic group Third Way published a memo arguing that Democrats should support “entitlement reform” — by which they mean cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I don’t doubt the sincerity or intentions of their proposal, but I believe that if Democrats took their advice it would result in a moral, economic and political disaster.

Creamer dissects and eviscerates conservative arguments for “entitlement reform,” revealing them as schemes to rip off working people to fatten the already bulging wallets of the uber-wealthy. He then rolls out public opinion data to show how little support there is for conservative “entitlement reform”:

“Entitlement Reform” would spell political disaster for Democrats. The Third Way memo argues that next year’s election will be about “deficits.” That’s just non-sense.
First, a recent CBS News poll found that 51% of Americans say the economy and jobs are the most important problem facing our country today — but just 7% cited the budget deficit.
…The polling shows clearly that the voters oppose cuts in in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
• The public opposes cutting Social Security benefits by 70% to 80%.
• Two-thirds of likely voters oppose raising the retirement age.
• Up to two-thirds support making the Social Security Trust fund solvent for generations by raising the payroll tax to cover income above $107,000 a year.
…A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that a 51% to 46% majority says the government should do more, rather than less…It found that by 54% to 18%, Americans do not believe that cuts in Medicare are necessary to reduce the deficit. Forty-nine to twenty-two percent say cuts in Social Security are not needed.

Creamer points out that elections are not about “issues” per se. Rather elections are about candidates’ credibility as leaders who will protect and advance the interests of the middle class. He explains how this plays out with respect to entitlements:

…if a voter becomes convinced that a candidate actually intends to take something away that they value — to cut their Social Security or Medicare benefits, for instance — they will decide in a nano-second that the candidate advocating that position is not on their side…Most Americans believe that they are owed their Social Security and Medicare benefits since they have paid throughout their working lives into Social Security and Medicare. Voters don’t view Social Security and Medicare just as “government programs.” They view them as “insurance programs.” Americans believe they deserve Social Security and Medicare benefits just as they would the benefits owed under any other insurance contract.

With respect to senior voters, Creamer has a warning:

The Third Way memo argues that seniors rarely break for Democrats anyway. Precisely. President Obama won in 2008 while losing seniors by eight points. Last fall, Democrats lost seniors by 21 points. The President can win re-election while losing seniors by 8 points – but not by 21. The election passes through states with old populations – like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida.
A decent chunk of seniors who voted against Democrats last year have to be convinced that Democratic candidates are on their side in 2012, or Democrats are toast. If they see Democrats bargain away their Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits — or those of their kids — they won’t vote Democratic in November of 2012. It’s that simple.

Creamer says that if Democrats cave and approve proposed entitlement cuts, it will prove to be “a moral, economic and political disaster.” His post merits a read from all Democrats– especially those who want to be re-elected in 2012.


TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira: Gay Marriage Gains Support

The cultural conservatives continue to rail against same-sex marriage. But there is compelling opinion data indicating that their position is losing mainstream support. As TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira reports in this week’s edition of his ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ at the Center for American Progress web pages:

The first piece of evidence is from the General Social Survey, a long-running academic survey conducted by the University of Chicago. In just-released data from their 2010 survey, we find that 46 percent of Americans now say that same-sex couples should be allowed to get married, compared to 40 percent who are opposed. That compares to 12 percent in favor and 73 percent opposed in 1988 when the question was first asked.
A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll confirms this finding. Fifty-three percent in that poll said it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to get married compared to 44 percent who thought it should be illegal. This is the first time the poll has found majority support for gay marriage since it started asking the question in 2003.

Teixeira predicts that “We will see more, even stronger findings like these as the months and years go by.” Cultural warriors will undoubtedly continue to fan the flames of animosity towards same-sex marriage. But it appears that this battle is just about over.


POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS – MARCH 2011

from Electoral Studies
Leaders, Voters and Activists in the Elections in Great Britain 2005 and 2010
Norman Schoeld, Maria Gallegoa and JeeSeon Jeon
Discussion of the relationship between parties and the electorate is often based on the notion of partisan constituencies, that parties adopt policy positions that correspond to the average position of the party supporters. In contrast, the Downsian.spatial model. assumes that parties are purely opportunistic and maneuver to gain as many votes as possible. A third, more empirical model, based on the early work of Stokes, assumes that voter choice is based on the evaluation of each of the party leader.s competence or ability to deliver policy success. Such an evaluation can be provided by individual voter overall assessment in terms of the leaders. character traits. This paper attempts to relate these three classes of models by examining the elections in Great Britain in 2005 and 2010. Using the British Election Study, we construct spatial models of these elections in Great Britain as well as in the three regions of England, Scotland and Wales. The models incorporate the electoral perceptions of character traits. We compare the equilibrium vote maximizing positions with the partisan positions, estimated by taking the mean of each of the parties voters.preferred positions. We de.ne an equilibrium to be a stable attractor if the vote share at the equilibrium exceeds the share at the partisan position by a signi.cant proportion (determined by the implicit error of the stochastic model). We infer that none of the equilibria are stable attractors, and suggest that the partisan positions are also preferred by the party activists, the key supporters of each party.
Strategic campaigning, closeness, and voter mobilization in U.S. Presidential elections
Damon M. Canna and Jeffrey Bryan Coleb
The scholarly literature on voter mobilization is ambivalent regarding the effects of closeness on turnout. Economic analyses of turnout (i.e. the classic calculus of voting) contend that as elections become closer, voters perceive their participation as more valuable because there is a greater chance that they will cast the deciding vote. Other work argues that voters do not take closeness into account because the probability that their vote uniquely changes the outcome of an election is quite small even in close elections. Still, this second perspective maintains that closeness may increase turnout because elites distribute campaign resources to places where election results could be affected by mobilizing additional supporters. While the latter perspective is theoretically well-developed, empirical support for the notion that elite activity (rather than citizen perceptions) connects closeness and turnout is limited. Using improved measures of closeness and campaign activities, we test for citizen perception and elite mobilization effects on turnout in the context of U.S. Presidential elections. Results show that while closeness has no direct effect on turnout, elites indeed target campaign activities on close states and the asymmetric distribution of resources across states results in higher turnout in battleground states.
Raising the tone? The impact of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ campaigning on voting in the 2007 Scottish Parliament election
Charles Pattiea, David Denverb, Robert Johns and James Mitchell
Most survey-based research on campaign effects in British elections has focussed on exposure to the campaign. Far less attention has been given to how the campaign is perceived, although American research on the effects of negative campaigning suggests that this is a potentially important area. The article investigates the extent to which vote choices in the 2007 Scottish Parliament election were affected by perceptions of the parties’ campaigns as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’. Partisanship and increased exposure to a party’s campaign increased individuals’ chances of rating a campaign positively. Other things being equal, however, campaigns which come to be seen in a negative light backfire on the party responsible, reducing the propensity of people to vote for it.
Social pressure, surveillance and community size: Evidence from field experiments on voter turnout
Costas Panagopoulos
Citizens participate in elections, at least partly, because they perceive voting as a social norm. Norms induce compliance because individuals prefer to avoid enforcement mechanisms–including social sanctions–that can be activated by uncooperative behavior. Public visibility, or surveillance, increases the likelihood of norm-compliant behavior and applies social pressure that impels individuals to act. Some scholars have linked social pressure to community size, advancing the notion that pressure to conform to social norms is heightened in smaller, less populous communities in which citizens interact frequently and where monitoring behavior is less onerous. Others argue that even highly-populated communities can exhibit “small world” properties that cause residents to be sensitive to social pressure. In this paper, I analyze data from a recent field experiment designed to test the impact of social pressure on voting taking interactions with community size into account. The findings I report suggest community size does not moderate the impact of social pressure.
from Perspectives on Politics
The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican
Vanessa Williamson, Theda Skocpol and John Coggin
In the aftermath of a potentially demoralizing 2008 electoral defeat, when the Republican Party seemed widely discredited, the emergence of the Tea Party provided conservative activists with a new identity funded by Republican business elites and reinforced by a network of conservative media sources. Untethered from recent GOP baggage and policy specifics, the Tea Party energized disgruntled white middle-class conservatives and garnered widespread attention, despite stagnant or declining favorability ratings among the general public. As participant observation and interviews with Massachusetts activists reveal, Tea Partiers are not monolithically hostile toward government; they distinguish between programs perceived as going to hard-working contributors to US society like themselves and “handouts” perceived as going to unworthy or freeloading people. During 2010, Tea Party activism reshaped many GOP primaries and enhanced voter turnout, but achieved a mixed record in the November general election. Activism may well continue to influence dynamics in Congress and GOP presidential primaries. Even if the Tea Party eventually subsides, it has undercut Obama’s presidency, revitalized conservatism, and pulled the national Republican Party toward the far right.
Blue-Green Coalitions: Fighting for Safe Workplaces and Healthy Communities. By Brian Mayer
Laura A. Henry
When do labor-environmental coalitions emerge and endure? In a period when headlines are dominated by economic recession, unemployment, and oil spills, the focus of Brian Mayer’s book takes on practical urgency. The question is theoretically intriguing as well. Labor unions are often characterized as archetypical interest-based organizations, representing industrial workers’ concerns for their own material well-being. Environmental mobilization, in contrast, is seen as a quality-of-life movement most commonly associated with members of the postindustrial middle class who possess leisure time and resources sufficient to enable their activism. When the question of how to regulate industries that employ toxic chemicals arises, these two groups can become locked in an acrimonious jobs versus the environment debate, making them more likely antagonists than allies. This sense of latent opposition is captured by one worker’s assertion that greens want to “save the whales and kill the workers” (p. 2). How can these divisions be overcome? In his clearly written and compelling book, Blue-Green Coalitions, Mayer argues that concern over the effects of hazardous materials on human health offers one avenue for generating powerful and enduring coalitions.
Response to Laura Henry’s review of Blue-Green Coalitions: Fighting for Safe Workplaces and Healthy Communities
Bryan Mayer
Both the labor and environmental movements have recently experienced significant crises of faith in their ability to mobilize enough popular support to carry on with their respective missions. At a 2004 meeting of the Environmental Grantmakers Association, a report entitled “The Death of Environmentalism” proclaimed that environmentalism as a special interest group had accomplished its goal of raising awareness but had ultimately failed to galvanize a sustainable social movement. Mirroring that debate within the environmental movement, in 2004 the Service Employees International Union called for major reforms within the AFL-CIO; demanding that the labor federation focus on organizing new workers rather than defending its existing members. This divide within the AFL-CIO ultimately led to the formation of the Change to Win coalition, with several other major unions joining the SEIU in a new reformist coalition federation.
from Public Opinion Quarterly
Rethinking the Role of Political Information
Matthew S. Levendusky
Political information is a central variable for the study of mass behavior; numerous theories argue that voters with more information behave fundamentally differently from those with less. Nearly all of the empirical support for these theories, however, comes from cross-sectional data. As a result, these findings are typically biased, and systematically overstate the effect of information on behavior. I demonstrate how to minimize these biases and more accurately estimate the effects of information using several different analytical techniques. These adjustments cause the estimated effect of information to shrink dramatically, often falling to one-half to one-quarter of its former size. I conclude by discussing the implications of my results for the study of political information and political behavior more generally.
Social Identity Processes and the Dynamics of Public Support for War

Scott L. Althaus and Kevin Coe
Contemporary theories of opinion dynamics–exemplified by Zaller’s “receive-accept-sample” model–tend to assume that attitude change should occur only following exposure to new, attitude-relevant information. Within this prevailing view, the expected direction and magnitude of opinion change is largely a function of the tone and content of the new information to which one is exposed. In contrast, social identification theories show how opinion change can occur when a person’s environmental context activates social knowledge stored in long-term memory. These theories propose that attitude change can result merely from increasing the perceived salience of a social conflict. They further propose that the direction and magnitude of opinion change should be unrelated to the tone or content of the information that draws attention to the conflict. This study examines how the ebb and flow of war news on the front page of the New York Times is related to changes in levels of domestic public support for major American military conflicts from 1950 to the present. We find no consistent or compelling evidence that levels of aggregate war support change in ways predicted by information updating models. To the contrary, a social identification process appears to be underlying the aggregate dynamics of war support.
Measuring Americans’ Issue Priorities: A New Version of the Most Important Problem Question Reveals More Concern About Global Warming and the Environment
David Scott Yeager, Samuel B. Larson, Jon A. Krosnick and Trevor Tompson
For decades, numerous surveys have asked Americans the “Most Important Problem” (MIP) question: “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?” Global warming and the environment have rarely been cited by more than a small number of respondents in these surveys in recent years, which might seem to suggest that these have not been the most important issues to Americans. This paper explores the possibility that an additional method of assessing the public’s priorities might support a different conclusion. Three experiments embedded in national surveys (two done via the Internet, the other done by telephone) show that when asked the traditional MIP question, respondents rarely mentioned global warming or the environment, but when other respondents were asked to identify the most serious problem that will face the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it, global warming and the environment were the most frequently mentioned problems. Furthermore, a large majority of Americans indicated that they wanted the federal government to devote substantial effort to combating problems that the world will face in the future if nothing is done to stop them. Thus, future surveys might include both versions of the MIP question to more fully document Americans’ priorities.
Electoral Competition and the Voter
Shaun Bowler and Todd Donovan
This article examines how electoral competition, in the form of district-level campaign expenditures, affects voters’ opinions about elections. We direct our attention at how voters perceive competition, and at how electoral competition affects how people perceive elections. Although people generally overestimate the competitiveness of U.S. House races, we demonstrate that perceptions of competition are connected to actual levels of campaign activity. We also find that electoral competition may have contradictory democratic effects. District-level spending is associated with greater attention to news about the local campaign, but also with greater dissatisfaction with election choices.
from Political Science Quarterly
The Republican Resurgence in 2010
Gary C. Jacobsen
Analyzes the 2010 midterm election as a referendum on the Obama administration, driven fundamentally by the economy, but intensified by the deep animosity of the President’s opponents, the Republicans’ success in nationalizing the election, and the political failure of Obama’s legislative successes.
Managing Fear: The Politics of Homeland Security
BENJAMIN H. FRIEDMAN
Argues that the United States has spent excessively on homeland security since September 11. He outlines psychological and political explanations for this overreaction and concludes that these factors make some overreaction to terrorism unavoidable but offers four strategies to mitigate it.
from Politics & Society
What Do We Really Know About Racial Inequality? Labor Markets, Politics, and the Historical Basis of Black Economic Fortunes
William Sites & Virginia Parks
Racial earnings inequalities in the United States diminished significantly over the three decades following World War II, but since then have not changed very much. Meanwhile, black–white disparities in employment have become increasingly pronounced. What accounts for this historical pattern? Sociologists often understand the evolution of racial wage and employment inequality as the consequence of economic restructuring, resulting in narratives about black economic fortunes that emphasize changing skill demands related to the rise and fall of the industrial economy. Reviewing a large body of work by economic historians and other researchers, this article contends that the historical evidence is not consistent with manufacturing- and skills-centered explanations of changes in relative black earnings and employment. Instead, data from the 1940s onward suggest that racial earnings inequalities have been significantly influenced by political and institutional factors–social movements, government policies, unionization efforts, and public-employment patterns–and that racial employment disparities have increased over the course of the postwar and post-1970s periods for reasons that are not reducible to skills. Taking a broader historical view suggests that black economic fortunes have long been powerfully shaped by nonmarket factors and recenters research on racial discrimination as well as the political and institutional forces that influence labor markets.
The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-Publics

Simon Niemeyer
This article investigates the prospects of deliberative democracy through the analysis of small-scale deliberative events, or mini-publics, using empirical methods to understand the process of preference transformation. Evidence from two case studies suggests that deliberation corrects preexisting distortions of public will caused by either active manipulation or passive overemphasis on symbolically potent issues. Deliberation corrected these distortions by reconnecting participants’ expressed preferences to their underlying “will” as well as shaping a shared understanding of the issue.The article concludes by using these insights to suggest ways that mini-public deliberation might be articulated to the broader public sphere so that the benefits might be scaled up. That mini-public deliberation does not so much change individual subjectivity as reconnect it to the expression of will suggests that scaling up the transformative effects should be possible so long as this involves communicating in the form of reasons rather than preferred outcome alone.


New DCorps Poll: GOP House Majority in Jeopardy

Good news from Democracy Corps:

A new DCorps survey A new survey by Democracy Corps in 50 of the most competitive battleground Congressional districts — nearly all of which gave a majority to Obama in the last presidential election — shows the new Republican majority very much in play in 2012.
The Republican incumbents in these districts, 35 of them freshmen, remain largely unknown and appear very vulnerable in 2012 (depending on redistricting). In fact, these incumbents are in a weaker position than Democratic incumbents were even in late 2009, or Republican incumbents were in 2007 in comparable surveys conducted by Democracy Corps.

You can read the rest of the DCorps overview right here.


‘Slow Warming’ Toward Obama in New Poll

The National Journal’s Ronald Brownstein reports that a “slow warming trend toward President Obama continued in the latest Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll,” with 30 percent of respondents agreeing that the president has “changed his approach in office” for the better, during the past several months, while only 13 percent said he had changed it for the worse (Half saw no change).
Brownstein believes that the poll indicates that “some voters may be giving Obama a second look as he has repositioned himself with a series of high-profile bipartisan legislative agreements and a new rhetorical emphasis on international competitiveness.” Brownstein adds,

even in groups that have been skeptical of the president, pluralities believe that he is moving in the right direction. Independents, seniors, and college-educated white men all broke solidly for Republicans in the 2010 midterm landslide. But about 30 percent of each group said they believed that Obama’s approach to office was improving. In each case, that was at least double the share that said his performance was deteriorating.
…Most political scientists and electoral strategists agree that a president’s approval rating is the best barometer of his chances for reelection, and on that front, Obama continued to improve his standing, although only gradually.
In the latest survey, 49 percent of those polled said they approved of Obama’s performance as president, and 44 percent disapproved. That’s a change only within the margin of error since the December Heartland Monitor, when 48 percent approved and 46 percent disapproved. Still, Obama’s approval rating is the highest the poll has recorded for him since September 2009.

In addition, Brownstein reports that for the first time since September ’09, more independents approved than disapproved of Obama’s performance (47-43 percent). Even more encouraging, Brownstein notes that “the fire of intense opposition to Obama seems to be slightly cooling,” down 9 percent from August, and “The gap between Obama’s strong supporters and fervent detractors is the narrowest it has been since January of 2010.”
However, the poll indicates that President Obama still hasn’t made much headway with whites in particular:

Obama’s approval rating among whites remained at just 39 percent; it hasn’t cracked 40 percent since September 2009…As in those earlier polls, a solid plurality of whites placed more trust in Republicans…In April 2009, whites put more trust in Obama over Republicans, by 17 percentage points; now whites trust Republicans over him, by 14 points…In no Heartland Monitor since last April have more than one-quarter of whites said that Obama’s agenda is increasing their opportunities.

The trendline may nonetheless be bending in Obama’s direction, as Brownstein concludes:

Asked about the impact of the president’s policies, 36 percent say that his actions have already made the country significantly worse off. Only 13 percent say that the country is already significantly better off because of his policies, but another 44 percent say that although Obama’s efforts have not yet produced significant improvement, they are beginning to move the nation in the right direction.
That combined 57 percent, almost unchanged over the past year, represents Obama’s margin of hope. That is the potential majority coalition that still sees cause for optimism in his course, even if he hasn’t yet closed the sale.

It’s early, and a lot can change over the next 20 months. But with the economy improving, the “hopeful majority” may grow and provide President Obama with the edge he needs for a second term.


‘…And A Battle We Need to Win’


Via Greg Sargent:

Liberal groups are going up with a new version of their much-discussed ad featuring ordinary Wisconsinites making the case for public employee barganing rights — and this time, the new spot focuses on four Wisconsin state senators who are top targets for the Dem recall drives
“Republican Senators like Alberta Darling should enjoy their last several weeks in office,” says Charles Chamberlain, the director of Democracy for America, which is airing the ad along with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “The local energy around recalling Republicans is unlike anything DFA, the PCCC, or most other political organizers have seen in a long time.”

Sweet


Yet Another Bogus Public Employee Horror Story

Here we have an emblematic example of the bogus overpaid-public-employee-horror-story brought to you by, who else, a Republican state Senator. Here’s how Greg Sargent rolls it out in his Plum Line column:

…Wisconsin GOP state senator Randy Hopper — a top target of the Dems’ recall drive — is running a new ad that slams public employees by decrying a “union bus driver in Madison making $160,000 a year.” The driver has been widely presented as the archetypal overpaid and overstuffed public employee — and a number of you seemed very interested in his case — so I thought I’d look into it a bit more.
Turns out that a little digging proves beyond doubt that pointing to this as evidence that public employees are overpaid is entirely bogus.

Sargent goes on to point out that the guy made his dough by working lots of o.t. at time-and-a-half above his hourly base ($26 per hour) — which he earned as a result of his nearly 40 years on the job. And when employees rack up large amounts of overtime, that often results from a manpower shortage caused by ill-considered r.i.f.s and layoffs.


Bowers: Wisconsin Recall Drive Rolling Fast

Chris Bowers Flags Greg Sargent’s post reporting on the even-better-than-expected pace of the effort to recall 8 Republican state senators in Wisconsin for supporting legislation to take away bargaining rights for state workers. The recall campaign has collected 45 percent of the required signatures after just 20 percent of the allotted time for the petittion drive. Bowers adds:

…That’s an excellent pace, but keep in mind there are two good reasons why it’s important to gather far more than the minimum number of required signatures.
The first reason is to make sure that in the event of challenges to the petitions, there is a comfort zone when they are filed. We need as many signatures as possible in order to guarantee that the petitions are certified and the recall elections take place.
The second reason is because signing a recall petition is a first-rate means of identifying voters for the recall election. Anyone who signs a petition can be easily targeted for GOTV operations. As such, the closer we get to 50%+1 of the votes cast in 2008 just through recall signatures, the closer victory becomes.

Bowers reports that Daily Kos will be releasing opinion polls in all 8 senate districts at 11:00 a.m. today. For those who want to donate to the recall effort, Kos has a button here.