Jennifer Steinhauer’s New York Times report “States Try to Alter How Presidents Are Elected” illuminates an interesting dilemma for Democrats. Stehhauer writes about the GOP-led effort to change California election law to to apportion the state’s electoral votes by Congressional district, instead of the existing winner-take-all system of allocating state electoral votes. Dems quite correctly see this as a thinly-veiled plot to take some of their California electoral votes, which would surely happen, should the proposal be enacted.
When a recent effort to do pretty much the same thing in North Carolina came close to passing, however, many Dems were encouraged. Why? because Dems would almost certainly pick up a few districts and therefore a few electoral votes in the tarheel state, enough to have put Al Gore in the White House in 2000, if apportionment of electoral votes by district had been in place at that time. (Chris Bowers wrestles with the N.C. reform proposal in his Open Left post here). According to Steinhauer, DNC Chair Howard Dean, on learning of the GOP’s California gambit, persuaded the N.C. Democratic leaders to table the measure until next session.
What’s wrong with apportioning of electoral votes by district? Steinhauer explains it this way:

Had the electoral votes been allocated by Congressional district nationwide in 2000, President Bush’s electoral margin of victory would have been just over 7 percent, or eight times his take that year, according to FairVote.

While it would have been nice to pick up a few electoral votes in N.C., it would have weakened Dems’ arguments against the same reform in CA.
Republicans can’t be credible in appealing for the apportionment of electoral votes by district as a “reform.” Last year, the California Assembly passed a bill to award all of the state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill.
The most promising way to get rid of the electoral college is the interstate compact approach, in which a group of states with a majority of electoral votes (270) each passes legislation committing all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote nationwide. According to the National Popular Vote Bill website,

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency. In April 2007, Maryland became the first state to enact the bill. So far, the bill has passed 11 legislative chambers. In 2007, the bill passed the Arkansas House, California Senate, Colorado Senate, and North Carolina Senate as well as both houses in Hawaii, Illinois, and Maryland. In 2006, the bill passed the Colorado Senate and both houses in California.

The NPV website has a nifty map showing the progress of the reform on a broader scale. Rob Richie and Ryan O’Donnell of Fairvote further explain the approach in their TomPaine.com post here.
The NPV campaign does seem to be gathering momentum. This may be our best shot at preventing a replay of the 2000 debacle.

In the wake of the AFL-CIO’s decision not to endorse any Democratic presidential candidates before the primaries, Open Left‘s Chris Bowers takes a shot at predicting the breakdown of endorsements by individual unions.
Bowers sees Edwards with the strongest chances to win the endorsements of the Steelworkers, Firefighters, Carpenters, Transport Workers Union, Machinists, Boilermakers and UNITE-HERE. In the comments on Bowers’ article, ‘Peter from WI’ says Edwards is in position to get the the endorsements of two giant unions, the Teamsters and SEIU, as well, but he also believes that most national unions won’t endorse anyone before the primaries. Tasini at Daily Kos gives Edwards the inside track to win endorsements from the Laborers and UFCW. Bowers doesn’t say anything about the UAW specifically, but he says Edwards “also seems to be competitive among every other union in the country, with the exception of the American Federation of Teachers.” Edwards recruitment of former Rep. David Bonoir, a trusted supporter of the UAW, as his national campaign manager, however, may give Edwards the cred to get the UAW’s embrace.
The AFT endorsement will likely go to Clinton, according to Bowers, and he also gives her a chance to get the nod from the Firefighters, Teamsters and AFSCME (The New York Times reports AFSCME is “leaning” toward Clinton). Obama is “in the running” for endorsements from AFSCME, SEIU and the Teamsters.
Apparently none of the “second tier” candidates are given much of a chance to get major union endorsements, despite all of them having generally pro-labor records (with some significant disagreements about trade). Some state and local union affiliates free to make separate endorsements, however, may spread their support more broadly over the Democratic field.
Edwards, the son of two union organizers, has campaigned energetically for union support, as part of his strategy to win the votes of one of the largest swing constituencies, the white working class. (For more on this, see Fortune Magazine Washington bureau chief Nina Easton’s CNN article, “John Edwards: Union Man“). Although most workers are not union members, the unions provide money, muscle and credibility for their endorsees, and many unorganized workers take favorable note of the AFL-CIO endorsement in the general election.
Happily for all the Democratic candidates, whoever wins the Democratic nomination will get the endorsement of the AFL-CIO, and it is certain to be labor’s strongest effort ever.

One of the more comforting notions being bandied about the print pundocracy is that the states can play a leadership role as “policy labs” in pioneering health care reforms. Massachusetts is the most-frequently-cited poster boy for this meme, and it seems likely that Mitt Romney, now leading the Republican field in early-primary states, will make emulating the Massachusetts system a cornerstone of his campaign, should he win the GOP presidential nomination.
Climbing on this particular bandwagon may not be such a great strategy for Dems, if Ezra Klein is right. Klein’s Washington Monthly article “Over Stated: Why the ‘laboratories of democracy’ can’t achieve universal health care” pinpoints some serious flaws in the “letting the states take the lead” strategy of health care refom. As Klein explains:

The idea of giving universal health care a little more time in the laboratories of democracy may sound tempting to certain cautious, bipartisanship-loving Beltway observers. But letting states continue to take the lead would be disastrous, for one very simple reason: providing health care for all citizens is one of those tasks, like national defense, that the states are simply unequipped to manage on their own. The history of state health reform initiatives (and there’s quite a history) is a tale of false hopes and great disappointments. The deck is stacked from the start, and the house—in this case the insurers, the providers, and other agents of the status quo—always wins. The new raft of reforms may prove different, but they probably won’t. Universal care advocates must be realistic about that, and think hard about how to convert the energy in the states into a national solution before the current crop of novel experiments fail—because fail they almost certainly will.

Klein expounds on the initially-promising, but ultimately-disappointing history of health care reforms adopted by Washington, Hawaii, Tennessee and Oregon. He notes that Massachusetts is not a representative state for a ‘lab’ because, unlike many states, it had a small base of uninsured to begin with and plenty of money. He also discusses serious problems with current statewide health care reforms pending in California and Illinois.
Klein has identified important limitations of systemic health care reform in the states, and he makes a convincing argument that the states really can’t lead the way to universal coverage. This is not the same thing as saying the states have no role to play in pioneering piecemeal reforms on the road to universal health care. A round-up of interesting incremental reforms at the state level would provide a welcome addition to the debate.

Todd Gitlin’s TPM Cafe post “Impeachment Pit” adds some common sense to the debate about the wisdom of impeaching Bush and Cheney. Gitlin concedes the strong legal case for impeachment based on the puppet’s and his master’s reckless commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, then adds “But impeachment is one those apparently golden ideas that tarnish in the bright light of day.”
Gitlin quotes from Michael Tomasky’s insightful WaPo op-ed, “The Dumbest Move the Dems Could Make,” arguing,

Read more…

Sooner or later, even the most skeptical among us succumb to a bout of wishful thinking — it’s human nature. Perhaps this accounts for the 6 percent uptick in the percentage of Americans who think Bush’s surge policy is beginning to work, according to a Rasmussen poll, released August 3.
Administration spin doctors are working overtime and having some success in persuading MSM to parrot the party line, that the surge is beginning to work. In this case, however, the spin is about to collapse under the weight of the facts. Juan Cole, professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan lays it out today in his Salon post “A surge of phony spin on Iraq.” On the political goals, Cole explains:

Read more…

Progressive political blogs are abuzz with the fallout from the vote expanding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to permit warrantless wiretapping on American citizens. You can read about it all over the pro-democratic blogosphere.
But Glenn Greenwald has the most persuasive argument that Dems who voted against the FISA expansion need fear no political repercussions. As Greenwald explains in his Salon post “Attention Democrats: GOP fear-mongering does not work“:

Read more…

A new DCorps strategy memo by James Carville, Stan Greenberg and Ana Iparrraguirre, “2008 House Battle Moves Into Republican Territory,” discusses DCorps second battleground survey of the 70 most competitive congressional districts. The authors see class of ’06 Dems holding solid leads and Republican House members lagging by an average of 5 percent — for a net Democratic gain of 20 seats as a realistic goal. “There really could be another wave election,” say the authors.
As for the Senate. MyDD’s Todd Beeton has an interesting post, “How Realistic Is A 60 Seat Majority?” Beeton reports that MoveOn’s Washington Director Tom Mattzie sees a path to a 60-seat fillibuster-proof majority. Want a little icing on the cake? David Brooks, never unduly optimistic about Democratic prospects, said on the Chris Matthews show that the GOP is in such bad shape that Dems could run congress for a decade.

Good News for Democrats, as well as America’s kids. The U.S. House of Reps. has passed legislation providing health care coverage for 4+ million uninsured children in low-income families. The legislation which passed by a vote of 225-204 (10 Dems opposed, 5 Republicans supporting), also prevents cuts in Medicare payments to physicians and is partly financed by a 45 cent per pack increase in the federal cigarette tax (NYT coverage here).
Of course President Bush has threatened a veto, should similar legislation pass the Senate, which will provide a clear demonstration of which party gets it that health security — especially for all American children — is a cornerstone of true national security. Rep. Albert R. Wynn (D-MD) said it well: “If America is the greatest country in the world, then all of our children should have health insurance.”
Despite Bush’s threatened veto, the principles undergirding the legislation enjoy the support of the American people, explains Ruy Teixeira, in his recent post on the topic at The Century Foundation‘s web pages:

The public, on the other hand, seems very supportive of expanding health coverage for children and even thinks that we should make such coverage universal. A June Democracy Corps poll last month found that almost half the public—47 percent—chose “expand health coverage to every child in the U.S. through the existing State Children’s Health Insurance Program” as one of the top two priorities that Congress should focus on in the coming year. They chose this more than they chose any other option, including immigration reform (36 percent), promoting alternative energy and energy conservation (29 percent), reforming the alternative minimum tax (29 percent), reforming lobbying (15 percent), and putting labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (15 percent).
One objection that has been made to the proposed bills is that increased cigarette taxes would provide some of the funding for the program expansion. Would that faze the public? Not according to a May 2007 CNN poll. Almost three-quarters (73 percent) of the public surveyed said they would favor “a national health insurance program for all children under the age of 18, even if this would require higher taxes,” compared to just 25 percent who dissented.

Back in January, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, joined by a group of children of House members, called the House to order, “in the name of America’s children.” Predictably, the GOP accused her of grandstanding. Apparently she meant business.

Doug Usher, sr, v.p.and director of research and polling at D.C.-based Widmeyer Communications, has a keeper for Dems interested in forging a consensus for health care reform. Usher’s article in The Politico, Are voters ready for health care reform?, explores the the latest opinion data on health care reform and finds it complex and and somewhat paradoxical:

On its face, revamping our health care system should be a political winner. Voters see two fundamental problems with health care. First, it costs too much: 74 percent in a recent Democracy Corps poll say they are dissatisfied with the cost of health care, a number matched in a Kaiser Family Foundation poll from 2006 (80 percent). Second, 70 percent of voters believe the number of uninsured people is a very serious problem, according to a recent New York Times poll.
A strong majority believes health care is a top domestic priority — 55 percent, according to the Times poll — and 64 percent believe the federal government should guarantee health care for all Americans.
All of this appears to create an environment for sweeping reform; indeed, 90 percent of Americans say the health care system as a whole needs change — 54 percent say “fundamental change” is necessary, and 36 percent say the system should be “completely (rebuilt).” Just 8 percent believe the system needs “minor changes.”

Sounds like a mandate for far-reaching reforms. But not so fast, argues Usher:

But the picture changes dramatically when questions shift from the systemic to the personal. Despite concern about the broader health system, Americans are generally satisfied with the care they currently receive. In the Times poll, 77 percent of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their care; 82 percent say the same in the Democracy Corps poll, compared with 89 percent in the Kaiser poll. Indeed, the Kaiser poll finds high satisfaction across a broad range of health care dimensions: communication with the doctor (87 percent), availability of emergency care (83 percent), availability of appointments (82 percent), specialists (79 percent), getting the latest treatments (78 percent) and getting treatment without waiting (73 percent).

Usher notes further:

The 64 percent majority in the Times poll that believes the government should guarantee health insurance for all shrinks to 48 percent when asked their support if a universal program were to raise their own health insurance cost. The 60 percent in the same poll who say that they would be willing to pay higher taxes to insure everybody shrinks to 49 percent when a $500 price tag is attached to it.

If health care reform advocates fail to adequately take such satisfaction levels of currently insured voters into account, Usher believes it could backfire on election day. He concedes that “the hypotheticals posed by these questions may be misleading.” An important point. Indeed, most advocates of both fundamental and incremental health care reforms argue, often convincingly, that their reform plans would actually save taxpayers money, compared to the plans that most insured Americans have. Certainly, no political candidate is saying “My plan will only take an extra $500 per year out of your pocket.”
Usher sees hope in the reform plans being pioneered at the state level, and notes that Canada’s much-praised health care system emanated from the provincial, not federal, level of government. No doubt there is much more the states could do, such as the reforms being explored by Massachusetts and California. But most Americans would surely agree that a nation as prosperous as the U.S. can find a way to provide a health care plan that covers every illness and every person.

The broad-based focus groups that appear on television late in the election cycle rarely offer much in the way of useful insights for political strategy. But focus groups composed of specific ‘swing voter’ demographic groups can shine valuable light on strategy choices for political campaigns.
Toward that end, Democracy Corps has just issued a report sharing the findings of their latest focus group project, targeting likely 2008 voters in two congressional districts held by GOP moderates who won close elections in 2006. All of the focus group participants were political Independents or “weak partisans” who had voted for both Democrats and Republicans over the last two elections. One focus group (conducted July 18), based in Rochester, NY, included two sub-groups, each with annual household income below $50K, older non-college educated men and non-college educated young women. The second group (conducted July 19), based in Arlington Heights, IL, was composed of older, college-educated women and younger, college-educated men, with each group earning a household income above $50K.
The focus group analysis, published as a memo by DCorps’ Karl Agne, tried to find out if GOP moderate incumbents had separated themselves from President Bush and to evaluate whether they could be defeated by Democrats next year. The analysis found a strong trend of deepening voter frustrations, a “poisonous” political environment driven by the Iraq quagmire with rising anger about the loss of life, lack of mission, wasted resources and consequent neglect of America’s domestic problems (topped by health care). Worse still for the GOP, “Positives that we used to hear on strength, commitment to the military, values and fiscal discipline have simply disappeared.”
The cautionary note sounded for Democrats is that “Optimism for the new Congress is quickly waning.” Focus group respondents credited Democrats with good intentions, wanting change and ending Bush’s ‘blank check’ in Congress. But they felt that “things simply haven’t changed under Democratic control.”
The focus group tested some pro-Democratic ads, and the analysis found that the most effective one of the lot by far nailed Bush for his vetoes of: legislation to withdraw troops from Iraq; implement homeland security recommendations; lower student loan rates; expand health coverage for uninsured children; stem cell research; and allow Medicaid to negotiate lower prescription drug prices.
With respect to Iraq, focus group participants support a carefully-calibrated withdrawal, but oppose measures to de-fund the Iraq War. However, they do want congress to overturn Bush’s vetoes. One particular catch-phrase, “Simple choice – ‘stick with Bush or get with the people” resonated with the groups.
The analysis also helped clarify the focus groups’ attitudes toward immigration. The participants generally supported both denying government benefits to non-citizens, while providing “a path to citizenship.” Concerns about “fairness” seemed to provide some common ground for a consensus on immigration reform.
Such focus groups can help discern workable strategies for winning the support of targeted swing constituencies. A lot can happen in 15 months. But, If the DCorps analysis is correct, Dems are in a strong position for a big win next year.