Take a break from the rat-a-tat-tat of the horse race, and give a gander to Rob Capriccioso’s “Game Changer: Nationwide No-Excuse Absentee Voting” over at Campaigns & Elections Politics website. Absentee balloting has become an increasingly important factor in campaigns in recent years, with huge percentages of voters casting early ballots in states like California. But the patchwork of state laws regarding absentee voting falls well short of serving all voters who find it difficult to get to the polls on election day. As Capriccioso explains:

Currently, 21 states plus the District of Columbia restrict voters’ ability to vote absentee. In such states, the elderly, individuals with disabilities or an illness, and those who serve in the military are eligible to vote by mail. Excuses, like having to work, a lack of childcare, or jury service don’t cut it. Twenty-eight states now offer voters the option of voting by mail for any reason, and Oregon conducts its elections entirely by mail.

To help address the problem Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) has introduced the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act, which would permit every voter in every state the right to vote absentee for any reason whatsoever.
Some believe the bill would benefit the GOP. But as TDS co-editor Bill Galston points out in Capriccioso’s article:

“The traditional argument is that the more open the system is to people who are less strongly attached to it, the more likely you are to increase the share of young adults, first-time voters and moderates,” Galston said. “To the extent that that’s true, those factors would work to the advantage of Democrats.”

The legislation would likely lead to changes in the way campaigns are organized, as Capriccioso explains:

Instead of planning for one Election Day in November, campaigns would have to be prepared to compete in a series of mini-rolling elections in every single state. And the audiences they would be playing to would likely be more diverse, since younger voters, moderates and elderly voters often disproportionately take advantage of absentee voting, if it’s available.

The bill has been approved by the House Administration Committee. Similar legislation is expected in the Senate.

We try to be even-handed regarding Democratic candidates in the posts we flag for our readers. This morning, however, despite the split decision in IN and NC, it’s hard to find much encouragement for Senator Clinton on the blogosphere or MSM. Some examples:
Reuters political correspondent John Whitesides’s WaPo article cites Obama’s net pick-up of nine delegates is a “big step” towards his winning the nomination.
L.A. Times reporter Mark Z. Barabak says Obama “remains well-positioned to win the nomination…but has not mustered the strength to finish off Clinton.”
Politico‘s Ben Smith says Obama took “a large and potentially decisive step toward the Democratic nomination” with his huge NC win and strong second-place finish in Indiana.
Clinton supporter Todd Beeton’s MyDD post observes with regret “there is no way to spin away what happened tonight: Senator Clinton had a really bad night and Senator Obama had a phenomenal one.”
James A. Barnes of the National Journal Online notes “Nothing short of a sweep in the remaining contests — including Montana, Oregon and South Dakota, where Obama is favored — is likely to alter the view that Obama is the party’s likely nominee and prevent superdelegates from coalescing around him.”
John Nichols’s post in The Nation, “Obama’s Very Good Primary Night” (via Alternet) gives a solid edge to Obama, who added to both his popular and delegate vote totals.
Open Left‘s Chris Bowers argues that the IN and NC primaries were redundant in the sense that the nomination was already pretty much decided, while his Open Left colleague Tremayne believes Tuesday was more significant because the MSM finally gets it that “the math argument is now unassailable.”
Slate‘s John Dickerson says “tough arguments are all that’s left for Clinton since she didn’t get the win she needed.”
The Grey Lady’s Jeff Zeleny sees “a boost of momentum” for Obama and a strengthened case for superdelgate support for the Illinois Senator.
Salon‘s Walter Shapiro says HRC is “one day and two important primaries closer to oblivion.”
Alan Silverleib and Mark Preston of CNN‘s Washington Bureau have a little encouragement for Clinton: “Looking ahead, there are some bright spots for the Clinton campaign. Next week the campaign shifts to West Virginia, where the demographic and socioeconomic terrain ought to favor her. On May 20, the candidates will battle it out in Kentucky and Oregon. Clinton is also expected to do well in Kentucky, while she will try to defy expectations in Oregon. Her support among Hispanics may bode well for her on the June 1st Puerto Rico primary. Two days later, Clinton will battle it out with Obama in Montana and South Dakota — the final two states to weigh in on this marathon primary season. But unless she scores landside victories in the remaining contests, most pundits predict the delegates will be split about evenly”

Politico‘s Carrie Budoff Brown has some good tips for getting the early skinny on today’s primary elections in North Carolina and Indiana. For NC Brown advises “keep an eye on Raleigh-Durham area turnout,” which is a quarter to a third of the state-wide turnout. She quotes Morgan Jackson, a North Carolina political consultant, who says if turnout approaches 40 percent, it’s “good news” for Obama. Brown adds:

…Durham, which is 44 percent African American, could provide a gauge on turnout among one of Obama’s most loyal constituencies. Charlotte, Greensboro and Winston-Salem, all at least one-third black, are also worth watching. Obama needs strong turnout in towns with black colleges and universities, such as Elizabeth City in the northeastern corner of the state…
…Kokomo’s Howard County is the bellwether to watch…It is urban and rural, with a mix of African Americans and blue collar workers, some employed in the Chrysler plants…it tends to back the winner in gubernatorial, congressional and state legislative races.

For Indiana, Brown advises monitoring the turnout in Indianapolis, Gary and Bloomington, expected to be Obama strongholds. In terms of overall turnout, Brown says:

Analysts are expecting far bigger turnout this year than in 2004, when about 22 percent of voters cast ballots in the presidential primary, said Russell Hanson, a political science professor at Indiana University-Bloomington…A much bigger turnout is good news for Obama because it means “those who haven’t been politically engaged in the past are coming out,” Hanson said. “If that is not happening, then that is working in Clinton’s favor because the traditional [party] machinery is working.”

All good tips. Check also local television stations, like Raleigh’s WNCN 17 (NBC) and WRAL (CBS). For Indiana, check Indianapolis ABC affiliate WRTV and Fort Wayne’s WKJG (NBC). For newspapers, The Gary Post-Tribune, the Kokomo Tribune and The Charlotte Observer should be good for turnout updates.

A host of recent opinion polls indicate that the economy has replaced the war in Iraq as the leading issue of concern for Americans, at least for the time being. While some Republicans may welcome the distraction from the Iraq mess and think they are in safer territory in discussing economic issues, they will find scant comfort in comparing economic performance under Democratic and Republican administrations. To see why, check out this insightful and well-documented eriposte chart (flagged in Rick Perlstein’s current post at Blog for Our Future), comparing economic data under Democratic and Republican presidents. A few examples culled from the chart:

Real Disposable Personal Income Growth per year 1953-2001: D 3.65 %; R 3.08 %
Unemployment 1962-2001: D 5.1%; R 6.75%
GDP growth 1962-2001: D 3.9%; R 2.9%
Inflation 1962-2001: D 4.26%; R 4.96%
Percentage growth in Total Federal Spending 1962-2001: D 6.96%; R 7.57%
Yearly budget deficit 1962-2001: D $36 billion; R $190 billion

Mercifully for the Republicans, economic data from the current Bush Administration is not yet included, since the chart compares completed Administrations.

Despite all the Chicken Little hand-wringing about potential damage resulting from the heated Democratic Presidential campaign in the wake of the Pennsylvania primary, there was some bad news for McCain in the results coming out of PA. Frank Rich explained it well in his Sunday NYT column “How McCain Lost in Pennsylvania“:

…as the doomsday alarm grew shrill, few noticed that on this same day in Pennsylvania, 27 percent of Republican primary voters didn’t just tell pollsters they would defect from their party’s standard-bearer; they went to the polls, gas prices be damned, to vote against Mr. McCain. Though ignored by every channel I surfed, there actually was a G.O.P. primary on Tuesday, open only to registered Republicans. And while it was superfluous in determining that party’s nominee, 220,000 Pennsylvania Republicans (out of their total turnout of 807,000) were moved to cast ballots for Mike Huckabee or, more numerously, Ron Paul. That’s more voters than the margin (215,000) that separated Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama.
Those antiwar Paul voters are all potential defectors to the Democrats in November. Mr. Huckabee’s religious conservatives, who rejected Mr. McCain throughout the primary season, might also bolt or stay home. Given that the Democratic ticket beat Bush-Cheney in Pennsylvania by 205,000 votes in 2000 and 144,000 votes in 2004, these are 220,000 voters the G.O.P. can ill-afford to lose. Especially since there are now a million more registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania. (These figures don’t even include independents, who couldn’t vote in either primary on Tuesday and have been migrating toward the Democrats since 2006.)

This would be less surprising if it was soon after McCain clinched a winning number of delegates. But it’s been a while, now. One would expect a large portion of PA GOP voters to sit their primary out, since their votes didn’t count for much. However, when more than a quarter of PA GOP voters cast ballots against their nominee, even after the nomination is decided, McCain and the GOP have some healing of their own to do before they can crow about divisions between Democrats.

One of the fears about the fallout from a hard-fought presidential primary season is the possibility of a “sore loser” effect, in which a substantial number of voters who supported the losing candidate vote for the nominee of the other party. This is a growing concern for Dems in ’08, particularly in light of McCain’s much-trumpeted crossover appeal.
Alan I. Abramowitz addresses the issue in his post “Will Disappointed Dems Vote for McCain? Crossover voting and defection in past elections” at Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball. Abramowitz, author of Voice of the People: Elections and Voting Behavior in the United States, crunches the numbers from past elections and polls, and his tightly-argued analysis provides encouragement for Dems. As Abramowitz concludes,

This November, barring a major disaster at the Democratic convention, it is highly unlikely that many Democratic voters will cross party lines to vote for John McCain. It is equally unlikely that many Republican voters will cross party lines to vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. In contrast to the fluidity and unpredictability that has characterized the nomination contests in both parties, the voting patterns in November will be highly predictable and consistent with those seen in other recent general elections — close to 90 percent of all votes will be cast by party identifiers for their own party’s presidential candidate. Whichever party turns out more of its own supporters on Election Day is likely to emerge as the winner.

Clearly the downside for Dems here is that hopes for our nominee getting substantial Republican votes are also not well-supported by historical data. Better to put all of that hopeful energy into mobilizing and turning out Democrats and Independents.

With Senator Clinton getting most of the ink and broadcast time in her historic run for the White House, it’s easy to forget that there are a number of important congressional races with women candidates. The 16 women serving in the U.S. Senate and 74 women members in the House of Representatives represent an all-time high in both chambers. In percentage terms, however, that works out to 16 percent of the Senate and about 17 percent of the House, a less than impressive achievement for a nation that prides itself in being the world’s greatest democracy. The numbers could increase modestly after the November elections. CQ Politics‘ Greg Giroux has a round-up of many of the races where women have prospects in November. As usual, most of the women candidates are Democrats.

Marking the 40th anniversary of the assassination of his father, Martin Luther King III has an op-ed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution proposing a cabinet-level officer “whose responsibility will be to make a measurable impact on eradicating poverty.” King explains further that,

A poverty cabinet member is necessary today more than ever. Our next president will be taking over a government that faces virtually the exact same poverty rate my father found so appalling back in 1968. The U.S. Census Bureau reports the current poverty rate is just over 12 percent, as it was in 1968, while the number of people living in poverty has grown from 25 million to more than 36 million, including 12 million children. Even worse, a family of four with two children and an annual income of $21,027 is not even considered poor by our government’s reporting standards. Many people have become immune to these statistics, but we cannot wait for another Katrina to truly grasp that America is awash in poverty.
The work of the cabinet officer must transcend the ceremonial. His or her principal focus must be highlighting successful programs working at the local level, developing new, more accurate measurements for poverty, and setting benchmarks for success by which the administration will be judged.

It’s an interesting idea, and one which has reportedly elicited some interest from the three leading presidential candidates. We’ve got cabinet secretaries for Treasury, Commerce, Labor and other departments that address economic concerns, but mostly from a business perspective. But a cabinet secretary charged with focusing exclusively on reducing poverty could be a significant step toward making government more responsive to human needs than corporate concerns.
When King’s father was assassinated, he was organizing the Poor Peoples’ Campaign, a national coalition to advocate for impoverished Americans of all races. Democrats who want to honor Dr. King in a meaningful way would do well to give his son’s suggestion serious consideration.

Obama can win the Democratic nomination even if he loses the Pennsylvania primary. But PA may be an excellent proving ground for testing his November prospects with one of the largest groups of swing voters, the white working class. As Kate Sheppard explains in her post in today’s American Prospect:

The question for months has been whether Barack Obama can appeal to the working-class, white demographic that has been Hillary Clinton’s stronghold. It propelled her to victory in Ohio, and has appeared to remain solidly behind her throughout the primary. But with nearly three weeks still to go before Pennsylvanians head to the polls, Obama is taking his campaign directly to these voters — and fine-tuning his populism in the process. It’s a good exercise for a candidate who will need the support of blue-collar, swing voters in the general election.

Obama has tweaked the “soaring rhetoric” of his earlier speeches to more effectively connect with the bread and butter concerns of PA workers, according to Sheppard and Michael Powell in his New York Times article “Obama Is Moving to Down-to-Earth Oratory.” As Powell notes:

Mr. Obama’s effort to master a plain-spoken and blunt language that extends back centuries in Pennsylvania is accompanied by no small stakes. Voters here, as in neighboring Ohio, where Mr. Obama lost the white and aging blue-collar vote, tend to elect politicians whose language rarely soars and whose policy prescriptions come studded with detail.

It may be working. Some recent polls indicate a narrowing of Clinton’s lead, as TDS noted yesterday.
However, PA is not the perfect test for winning white working class voters because the demographic is skewed toward older workers, as Powell explains:

Mr. Obama grabbed a big chunk of the male working-class vote in Wisconsin, and another chunk in Virginia and in Maryland. But Pennsylvania is both blue-collar and aging — it has the third highest median age in the nation. And that has proved to be a troublesome demographic for him and a rich target for Mrs. Clinton.

If Obama wins PA, or does substantially better than expected, McCain will have a lot to worry about with this pivotal constituency.

George Lakoff’s Alternet post “What Made Obama’s Speech Great” is a must-read for political speechwriters, candidates and strategists. Interestingly, Lakoff leaves the linguistic heavy-lifting to others and uses his powers of analysis to show how Obama’s speech taps into something a lot larger than the buzz about Rev. Wright’s remarks — America’s longing for brotherhood. The whole article deserves a read, but here’s a teaser:

As a linguist, I am tempted to describe the surface features: the intonation, the meter, the grammatical parallelisms, the choice of words. These contribute to eloquence. I’m sure the linguistics community will jump in and do that analysis. Instead, I want to talk about the structure of ideas.
…What makes this great speech great is that it transcends its immediate occasion and addresses in its form as well as its words the most vital of issues: what America is about: who are, and are to be, as Americans; and what politics should be fundamentally about.
The media has missed this. But we must not.

Lakoff’s article might make a good introduction to Obama’s speech in those future speech anthologies J.P. Green referenced on Monday. At Alternet, you can also read Drew Westen’s equally-enthusiastic take (originally in HuffPo) on Obama’s speech, sampled in this excerpt:

…Obama offered the most eloquent, intellectually penetrating, and most moving description of the complexities of race in America of any politician in recent history. But he did more than talk about race. He began to build a progressive narrative that Democrats, and the progressive movement more broadly, have had difficulty developing….

And Westen offers this interesting view of Obama’s link with the white working class, as revealed in the speech:

…the meaning of Obama’s loyalty to his pastor in the face of enormous pressure to cast him aside is not likely to be lost on white males who value strength, courage, honor, and loyalty. Nor is an aspect of his life story many Americans may not have known, about the role played by his two white working-class grandparents in his upbringing; or his criticism of the failures of fatherhood in the inner cities; or his willingness to speak openly about the seething resentments of the millions of white men who punch a time card every day, feel increasingly unable to provide for their families as the price of gas skyrockets and heath care moves beyond their reach, and who don’t view themselves as all that privileged.

It’s by no means certain that Obama’s speech will prove to be a ‘net plus’ with voters going forward. But with academic luminaries like Lakoff and Westen weighing in with such glowing reviews, it will likely be of considerable interest to students of speech in the years ahead.