Behind the high drama of the debate over health care reform, other progressive reforms are gaining momentum, despite being bounced to the back pages. In his latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot‘ at the Center for American Progress web pages, TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira has good news for supporters of legislative reforms to address climate change — new data from the Pew Research Center indicates that “public is ready to move forward in this area.” Says Teixeira:

First, the public rejects the idea that the United States should go alone in addressing climate change. By 56-32, they say that the United States “should join other countries in setting standards to address global climate change” rather than “set its own standards to address global climate change.”
Second, the public gives 50-39 support to “setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if it may mean higher energy prices” (emphasis added).

Teixeira concludes that “legislators should not rest on their laurels even if they succeed in passing health care reform. The public appetite for change is clearly broader than that.”

2010 Congressional Battleground: Stable and Within Normal Historical Range
Overview
With Charlie Cook and Republican leaders raising the prospect of Democrats losing control of the Congress in 2010, we thought it important to expand the Democracy Corps congressional battleground early to determine whether a loss of 41 seats was in the offing based on current polling. A new survey from Democracy Corps conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research across the 75 most competitive congressional districts suggests potential losses for the Democrats well within the normal historical range. Their losses will be offset by some further Republican losses and are unlikely to approach what it would take for Republicans to regain congressional control.
Moreover, the vote and incumbent job approval in the most contested Democratic districts are stable – without sign of a broad deterioration. This should give some perspective.
To be sure, there are serious trends that put some Democrats at risk, particularly a pervasive anti-incumbent mood across all of the Democratic seats; however, this is present in the Republican-controlled districts as well. Voters in both the Democratic- and Republican-held vulnerable seats are unsure if they will reward their members with reelection next November.
Limiting Republican gains is the continuing crash of the Republican Party across these districts. This development is part of the reason that Republicans are having trouble capitalizing on the anti-incumbent mood. It also explains why they will have trouble replicating what the Democrats did in 2006 and 2008, when the Democratic Party emerged with a surprising image advantage across the Republican-leaning districts they picked up.
This memo is based on a survey of 2,000 likely voters in the 55 most competitive Democratic-held districts and the 20 most marginal Republican-held districts conducted for Democracy Corps by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research October 6-11, 2009.
“Analysis: Anti-incumbent mood persists across marginal districts” after the jump

Read more…

TDS co-editor Bill Galston sees signs of trouble in the latest opinion polls. Here’s his take in a New Republic commentary:

The current state of American politics presents a paradox. On the one hand, survey after survey testifies to the rock-bottom standing of the Republican Party. Fewer Americans identify with the party than in the past, and fewer trust it to deal with the country’s problems. On the other hand, there are hard-to-ignore signs of a conservative resurgence. A 15,000 person Gallup survey out today shows that 40 percent of Americans now identify themselves as conservative (up from 37 percent at the time of Obama’s election), while only 20 percent regard themselves as liberal (down from 22 percent). Far more independents (35 percent) consider themselves conservative than was the case a year ago (only 29 percent).
These findings would be less compelling if they were not linked to conservative shifts on specific issues–but they are, and the Gallup organization enumerates a considerable list. Among them: increasing opposition to government regulation of business and gun ownership; an uneasy feeling about the influence of labor unions; increasing support for immigration restrictions and government promotion of traditional values; and diminished support for strong action on climate change. The percentage of Americans who believe that government is trying to do too much stands at its highest level (57 percent) in many years. Trust in government is near all-time lows, and Americans believe that 50 cents of every federal tax dollar is wasted–the highest level ever.

Read the rest of his commentary here:

The following commentary by leading Democratic strategist Robert Creamer, is cross-posted from The Huffington Post:
The Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid — and a majority of Members of the Senate — support the inclusion of public health insurance option in the Senate’s health care reform bill. The debate over where the Senate of the United States stands on this question is now settled. The Senate — like the American people, the House of Representatives and the president — supports a public option.
What is not settled is whether the majority will be allowed to have an up or down vote on a health care bill that includes a public option.
The question is: will any of the Democratic Senators join with the Republicans to prevent an up or down vote on a bill containing a public option — one that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people?
Will any of those Democratic Senators allow themselves to be used by the insurance industry to stifle the will of the majority of Americans who want to end that industry’s stranglehold over the American health care system?
Sixty members of the Senate caucus with Democrats — 58 Democrats and two independents (Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders). These 60 members share in the benefits of being part of the majority party, including committee chairmanships. Together they control enough votes to end a Republican filibuster aimed at blocking health insurance reform, and allow an up or down vote that this critical bill deserves. This should be a no-brainer. To their credit, many Democrats who are not strong supporters of the public option have in fact indicated that they would not stand in the way of an up or down vote. Yet several Democratic Senators have not yet committed to vote with the Democratic leadership and support a vote to proceed.
Remember that to pass a bill in the Senate you only need 51 votes — or 50 votes plus the tie-breaking vote of the vice president. We do not need every Democrat to pass a bill. But every one of them must vote to end debate on a bill to allow an up or down vote to take place, since ending debate in the Senate requires 60 votes.
If some Democrats disagree with the content of the bill — or oppose a public option — so be it. They should vote no on final passage. But they should never side with the Republicans on a procedural vote to prevent an up or down, majority vote on the substance of the issue.
Frankly, if a Democrat votes against the party on a procedural vote and empowers the Republicans to block a vote on the party’s top domestic priority, the caucus should strip that Senator of all of the power that comes from being part of the majority party — including committee chairmanships.
It is one thing to oppose the substance of a bill. It’s another to oppose the party leadership on a procedural motion and block the will of the majority. That kind of breach of party discipline makes it impossible for a majority party to govern. On procedural votes members of a majority party have to stick together or they might as well not be in the majority — they hand the reins over to the minority.
In this case they would also be thwarting the will of the voters who — very intentionally — ended Republican control of Congress and put Democrats in the majority so they could make change.
By voting with Republicans on a procedural vote, a Democrat would, in effect, be handing the gavel back to Republican Senator Mitch McConnell. They would be allowing the minority Republicans and their insurance industry allies to set the parameters for the kind of change is even allowed to come to a vote in Congress.
That would be true on any issue. But it is especially true of the party’s marquee issue, health care reform. By joining with the Republicans and preventing its leadership from calling an up or down vote on health care reform, a Democratic Senator would be engaging in a traitorous act. Not only would he or she be preventing implementation of a critical party priority. That Senator would also be politically endangering many of the swing seats held by House and Senate Members who are up for re-election next year.
That’s right — it is the swing district Democrats that would be endangered by the failure to pass President Obama’s health insurance reform. Look at what happened after the 1993 failure of the Clinton health plan that was also the centerpiece of his presidency. In 1994, Democrats lost 54 seats. Of those, 36 were incumbents. It wasn’t the members from strong Democratic districts, who had fought hard for health care reform, who lost. It was mainly members from swing districts, rural districts and southern districts.
The Clinton health care bill never came to a vote in the House, but only 11 of the 36 incumbents who lost had co-sponsored the bill. Many of the 25 others had opposed the Clinton health care plan. Didn’t matter; they were the biggest political victims of the failure of health care reform.
History shows that when the popularity and job performance rating of an incumbent President drops, the odds of swing Democrats being elected to Congress drop as well.
And it wasn’t just that swing voters lost faith in Democrats. Base Democratic voters failed to turn out. Republican base voters — smelling Democratic blood in the waters — turned out in record numbers.
The fact is that just as a rising political tide lifts all boats, when the political tide recedes those in the shallowest political water are most likely to be left aground.
Failure to take action on health care would be the most likely way to end the majority status for Democrats. Such a failure would massively damage the political standing of the president and the Democrat brand. That, in turn, would sink swing district Democrats. The Republicans know this. That’s why they are fighting so hard to prevent the passage of health insurance reform. Any Democratic Senator who helps them is endangering fellow Democrats.
That is particularly true since polls show that the policy question at issue, the public option, is uniformly popular in swing, frontline and Blue Dog districts. The firm of Anzelone Liszt recently released the results of a poll it conducted in 91 Blue Dog, Rural Caucus and frontline districts. The poll found that 54% of the voters in these battleground districts support the choice of a public option.
In fact, throughout the country, giving consumers the choice of a public option is one of the most popular elements of the overall health insurance reform bill.
But what is more important is that Democrats in swing districts need a public option to convince voters to favor a health insurance mandate. Anzeloni and Liszt make clear in their polling report that in swing districts: “It’s wrong to think about the public option in isolation from other elements of reform. Forcing an individual mandate without a public option is a clear political loser (34% Favor / 60% Oppose), and only becomes more palatable when a public option is offered in competition with the private sector (50% Favor / 46% Oppose).”
Turns out that a public option provides a political inoculation against backlash to a mandate. That’s because people have no stomach for being herded into the arms of private insurance industry like sheep to the slaughter. They want to know that if the government is going to require them to get health insurance, that it also provides the choice of a not-for-profit public plan — that they are not left at the mercy of private insurance CEO’s.
It is fine for each Democrat in the Senate to vigorously advocate his or her own position on health care. But once the majority of the Senate has made up its mind, no Democrat should be allowed to side with the Republicans to block the majority will — to block the Congress and the President from taking action. Not only would that be terrible for the country — it threatens the majority status of the Democratic Party.
If a Democratic Senator votes to prevent his party from having an up or down vote on its top domestic priority, he is endangering the political lives of his swing district colleagues. That would be unforgivable.
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on amazon.com.

The following commentary by Mike Lux is cross-posted from the Huffington Post.
The intensity is ratcheting ever higher as we move toward the final stages of the health care fight. It’s been a good week for reformers overall. Pelosi and Reid are both whipping for strong bills, including a very strong public option (in the House) or a respectable public option (in the Senate). Progress is being made on other key components of the package including the affordability issue. Even traditional media sources like the Washington Post and the New York Times are waking up to the fact that even though they have been declaring health care reform on life support and the public option dead for six months, something decent might actually pass.
The only down moment of the week has been the confusion caused by the White House on the Senate strategy. This whole muddled are-they-or-aren’t-they backing Harry Reid or backing Snowe’s trigger-designed-not-to-trigger mess was just a poorly handled distraction. I mean, look, anyone who has been in DC longer than a week knows that if you have a meeting at the White House with more than five people in it, that certain folks with their own agenda will start leaking stuff to the media, so whatever the intent of all that was, it was bound to undermine Reid and our overall momentum. The White House is now on the record denying that was their intent, and folks there have sworn to me they are backing Reid to the hilt, so I believe them and that’s all good, but it was still a mess.
I think we’re still moving forward, though. The next few days will tell us what kind of deals can be cut, but no matter what, I think the strategy for progressives remains the same as it has been from the beginning of this fight:
1. House progressives have to stay strong and united in pushing for a strong public option and more affordability for the middle class. Health care reform will not pass without the votes of the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and they need to continue to say a big “Hell no” to triggers that are written to never trigger and co-ops that are designed to never compete with the insurers. If House progressives absolutely refuse to fold, the final bill will have a solid public option and decent affordability for the middle class.
2. The 30 core progressives on health care in the Senate need to stay strong and stay together as well. They need to keep pushing Reid and the White House to reject the Snowe trigger that will never trigger, and they need to twist the arms of their last couple of colleagues who are holding out. The idea that one or two Senators are going to stop the entire rest of the Democratic party from delivering on the biggest issue in front of Congress in 50 years is an outrage, and those Senators should be told in no uncertain terms that nothing they want will ever again see the light of day if they support the Republican filibuster on this issue.
3. Everyone in the broader progressive community needs to be 100% clear that the Snowe trigger written to never trigger is deader than a doorknob. To call this a compromise is actually pretty funny. Fundamental to health care reform is real competition and a check on the market power of the insurance industry. Without that, private insurers will continue to raise their rates and otherwise screw people over at will. The trigger as written by Snowe has a Catch-22 in it that makes sure it would never be triggered in real life, so it would provide no competition or check on insurance power whatsoever. Come on now: if you are going to ask progressives to compromise, don’t give us something that is no compromise. Most progressives understand we need to compromise some, and in fact we already have compromised an enormous amount, but we aren’t going to let you give us nothing.
I think we are still on track to win this fight and get a very decent health care bill, and in fact the momentum is building. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid deserve an enormous amount of credit for continuing to push forward on a strong bill in spite of all the obstacles being thrown in their way. Progressives need to stick together and not allow themselves to get rolled on phony compromises. If they do, we are going to be able to celebrate a huge victory before the year is out.

1. Can anyone find a single serious military analyst who believes that the Taliban can actually take over Afghanistan as long as the current 66,000 US troops remain in the county?
If not, why do almost all the commentaries that advocate a major troop increase over and above the current 66,000 end up describing the negative consequences if the Taliban completely takes over the county as a major argument in favor of such an increase?
2. Can anyone find a single serious definition of the term “news organization” that includes the phrase “organizing and promoting anti-administration street demonstrations” as a normal aspect of such an organization’s operation?
If not, why do so many commentators describe the administration’s criticism of FOX as attacks on a “news organization”?

NYT‘s ‘Bloggingheads’ has a short, but interesting discussion between Proffs Mark Kleiman of UCLA and Steven Teles of Johns Hopkins about how Democrats should “frame the 2010 election.” Teles takes up most of the time, but Kleiman makes a salient point in arguing the Democrats had better ‘front-load’ the regulatory benefits (“no pre-existing conditions, no recisions” etc) as opposed to expenditures of the health reform package to get any creds from voters next year. Teles urges Dems to not run “defensively” and he emphasizes the importance of creating a sense of “delivery” to constituents and the problematic “traceability” (to Dems) aspect of the stimulus.

The following commentary by Chris Bowers, originally published on Open Left on 10/21, is an important contribution to the ongoing discussion of Democratic strategy:
New polling on the 2009 Virginia Governor’s election is horrendous for Democratic nominee Creigh Deeds. Of the five polls where the majority of interviews were conducted over the last ten days (that is, since October 11th), Deeds trails by an average of 12.0%. The margin is the same whether you are looking at the median or the simple mean. With only 13 days until the election, it is highly unlikely that Deeds is going to make up such a large deficit.
Perhaps the most important factor in Deeds’ impending defeat will be the lack of turnout among Obama voters. In 2008, President Obama won Virginia by a margin of 52.6%-46.3%. However, two recent polls, Survey USA (by 1%) and PPP (by 6%), show McCain voters outnumbering Obama voters within the 2009 Virginia electorate.
In both the Survey USA and PPP polls, Deeds scores 80% of Virginians who voted for Obama in 2008, and 5% of Virginians who voted for McCain. McConnell has 12% of Obama voters in PPP, and 19% in Survey USA. The Republican nominee also has the support of 88% of McCain voters in PPP, and 95% according to Survey USA.
As such, if the 2009 Virginia electorate had the same 52.6%–46.3% proportion of Obama and McCain voters as it did last year, Creigh Deeds would be 9% closer in both the Survey USA and PPP polls:
Survey USA (2008 turnout model in parenthesis)
McDonnell (R): 59% (54%)
Deeds (D): 40% (44%)
PPP (2008 turnout model in parenthesis)
McDonnell (R): 52% (47%)
Deeds (D): 40% (44%)
If the Obama-voting Democratic base was an excited in 2009 as it was a year ago, Deeds would still be losing, but he would be within striking distance. Instead, he is about to get wiped out, and decided to rev up the base with statements like this from last night :

At the final debate of race last night, Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Creigh Deeds said he “shared the broad goals” of health care reform, but would “certainly consider opting out” of a public option “if that were available to Virginia.”
“I’m not afraid of going against my fellow Democrats when they’re wrong,” Deeds said. “A public option isn’t required in my view.”

Deeds has since backpedaled from this statement, but a campaign clarification at a press gaggle doesn’t cancel out a televised debate. The damage is done: Deeds isn’t afraid to go against Democrats when they are wrong. Fine. If that is the way he thinks, then I hope enjoys getting wiped out at the polls because Democrats don’t turn out for him. At least, as the Democratic nominee, he ran on a campaign he could believe in: attacking Democrats.
Many Democrats still take it as obvious that moving to the right is the best way to win elections, because the Democratic and liberal vote is static and doesn’t change. Deeds’ predicament is a perfect example of why that thinking is stupid and self-defeating. Currently, he trails by 12%, but he would be 9% closer if Democrats in Virginia were as excited about his candidacy as they were about Obama’s.
The liberal and Democratic vote is not static. It can vary both as a percentage of the total electorate, and in its support for Democratic nominees. For example, in the 2008 election, liberals were actually a slightly larger swing vote for President Obama than either moderates or conservatives. Also, in 2006, Democrats improved their share of the national House vote more from self-identified Democrats than from Republicans and Independents combined.
I am not arguing here that exciting the liberal and Democratic base is the most important aspect of a campaign for Democratic nominees. Rather, I simply wish to point something out that should be obvious to Democratic politicians and campaign operatives: both turnout levels and partisan preference for self-identified liberals and self-identified Democrats vary from election to election. Those variations will have an impact on the outcome of any given election, and are largely determined by the behavior of the Democratic nominee. As such, ignore–or even actively distance yourself from–the liberal and Democratic base at your own peril.

Open Left‘s AdamGreen flags Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight.com post, “Why The (Impure) Public Option is (Probably) Gaining Momentum,” which provides an insightful 10-point explanation of why this pivotal health care reform is finding new traction. Silver’s #1 should be a source of encouragement (despite the zinger) for progressive bloggers:

1. The tireless, and occasionally tiresome, advocacy on behalf of liberal bloggers and interest groups for the public option. Whatever you think of their tactics — I haven’t always agreed with them — the sheer amount of focus and energy expended on their behalf has been very important, keeping the issue alive in the public debate.

Among Silver’s other factors:

2. The fact that the CBO thinks it will save money.
5. The “innovation” of the opt-in/opt-out family of compromises, which have more liberal “street cred” than co-ops or triggers and are potentially also much more politically advantageous.
6. The fading from memory of the tea party protests and the “government takeover” meme.
7. Polls in myriad swing states and swing districts showing the public option is reasonably popular in these regions.

And, in addition to points 1 and 6, Silver’s point #9 should be of particular interest to activists concerned about media strategy for health care reform:

9. The insurance industry’s “senior moment”: forgetting that this isn’t 1993 and that the shelf life of a misleading study would be measured in hours (rather than days or weeks) and would damage its credibility in the process.

Green’s post also includes a video clip, in which Rachel Maddow (who else?) conducts a substantive interview of Green, co-chair of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Green presents a compelling argument explaining why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s most important legacy as a public servant would be providing strong leadership for the public option — and may be his best shot at saving his own bacon (54 percent of Nevadans want it).

Eric Boehlert of Media Matters for America has a fresh angle on Fox News being taken seriously as a bonafide news organization. Instead of simply blasting Fox for its bogusity, Boehlert asks a more pertinent question:

I understand Fox News still wants to enjoy the benefits of being seen as a news operation. It still wants the trappings and the professional protections that go with it. But it no longer functions as a news outlet, so why does the rest of the press naively treat it that way?

Boehlert expalins further:

Rupert Murdoch’s cable cabal is now, first and foremost, a political entity. Fox News has transformed itself into the Opposition Party of the Obama White House, which, of course, is unprecedented for a media company in modern-day America. That partisan embrace means the news media have to expand beyond typing up Fox News-ratings-are-up and the White-House-is-angry stories, and it needs to start treating the cable channel for what it is: a partisan animal.
The press needs to drop its longstanding gentleman’s agreement not to write about other news outlets as news players –not to get bogged down in criticizing the competition — because those newsroom rules no longer apply. Fox News has exited the journalism community this year. It’s a purely political player, and journalists ought to start covering it that way.

Boehlert quotes Glen Greenwald’s observation that “Seems like a fairly new phenomenon that we now have a political movement led by a TV “news” outlet — that usually happens elsewhere” and adds,

In a follow-up email to me, Greenwald noted the similarities between Fox News’ overt role in U.S. politics with places like Venezuela, where the opposition TV station led the failed 2002 coup attempt against Hugo Chavez, as well as Italy, where Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, a media magnate, uses his TV ownership to agitate. “Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch are really using that model to organize and galvanize this protest movement,” wrote Greenwald. “It’s a totally Fox News-sponsored event.”
Completely detached from traditional newsroom standards, Fox News has become a political institution, and the press needs to start treating it that way. The press needs to treat Fox News the same way it treats the Republican National Committee, even though, frankly, the RNC probably can’t match the in-your-face partisanship that Fox News flaunts 24/7. Think about it: Murdoch’s “news” channel now out-flanks the Republican Party when it comes to ceaseless partisan attacks on the White House…in recent years the RNC used to use Fox news to help amplify the partisan raids that national Republicans launched against Democrats. It was within the RNC that the partisan strategy was mapped out and initiated. (i.e. it was the RNC that first pushed the Al-Gore-invented-the-Internet smear). But it was on talk radio and Fox News where the partisan bombs got dropped. Today, that relationship has, for the most part, been inversed. Now it’s within Fox News that the partisan witch hunts are plotted and launched, and it’s the RNC that plays catch-up to Glenn Beck and company.

Need some quantitative verification? Boehlert’s got it.

…The Fox News defense that it’s a just a few on-air pundits who (relentlessly) attack the White House and that the news team still plays it straight is, at this point, a joke. What kind of “news” team, in the span of five days, airs 22 clips of health reform forums featuring only people who oppose reform? What kind of “news” team tries to pass off a GOP press release as its own research — typo and all? What kind of “news” team promotes a partisan political rally? (Or did I miss the 100-plus free ads that CNN aired in 2003 promoting an anti-war rally?)

Boehlert also shares a perceptive quote from a New Yorker article by Hendrick Hertzberg:

This sort of lunatic paranoia — touched with populism, nativism, racism, and anti-intellectualism — has long been a feature of the fringe, especially during times of economic bewilderment. What is different now is the evolution of a new political organism, with paranoia as its animating principle. The town-meeting shouters may be the organism’s hands and feet, but its heart — also, Heaven help us, its brain — is a “conservative” media alliance built around talk radio and cable television, especially Fox News. The protesters do not look to politicians for leadership. They look to niche media figures like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and their scores of clones behind local and national microphones.

Boehlert adds some scary statistics about the beliefs of Fox news viewers and he discusses the limp MSM reportage about Fox — essentially a free ride from some of the more ‘reputable’ national media, which Boehlert persuasively argues is the real scandal. Fox is now the most watched cable news program. But apparently that doesn’t mean Fox’s competitors have the good sense to take them on.