A creative ad from Kathleen Williams, Democratic candidate for Montana’s sole House seat. Recent polling indicates that she is now in position for an upset victory over Rep. Gianforte. Here’s her ActBlue page.

At nbcnews.com Heidi Przybyla reports on what could be the largest transfer of wealth from working people to the rich in history and the messaging strategies Democrats are deploying to challenge it in the midterm camapigns:

Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee issued the study, based on calculations by the nonprofit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, late last week. It shows that the estimated $2 trillion cost of the Bush and Trump-era tax cuts through 2025 is the same amount Republicans have proposed cutting from Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Obamacare.

“It is a dollar-for-dollar transfer of benefits to those who need help the least paid for by those who need help the most,” said Phil Schiliro, a Democrat who’s served in several government positions including as President Barack Obama’s legislative director.

At The St. Louis American, Charles Jaco zeros in on the GOP’s game:

These are not unintended consequences. By slashing taxes for the rich and corporations, Republican lawmakers are maneuvering the United States into a position where deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare will be necessary within six years to keep the government from going bankrupt. That’s the GOP long game. Cutting government revenue to the point where social programs will have to be reduced or eliminated is the entire point.

Przybyla adds that the report, “Families & Seniors Foot the Bill for GOP Tax Cuts,” also “concludes that the average beneficiary from social safety net programs would stand to lose $1,500 a year under proposed cuts.” Further,

It underscores a message that Democratic congressional candidates, like Danny O’Connor in Ohio’s 12th Congressional District that voted overwhelmingly for Trump, have been trying to make in television advertising, stump speeches, press releases and polling memos.

Of all the issues polled by NBC News in September, entitlement cuts are uniquely unpopular, with 82 percent of Americans opposing cutting Social Security and Medicare to pay for the tax cuts…Senate Democratic leadership is now urging all vulnerable Democrats to seize on the link between the tax cuts and entitlements.

Katrina vanden Heuval, editor of The Nation and Washington Post columnist, notes further,

A Morning Consult-Politico poll taken Oct. 11-14 reports that among voters who prioritize senior issues such as Social Security and Medicare, Democrats enjoy a 19-point advantage (52-33) over Republicans…Seniors have been the most conservative voting cohort, while having the highest turnout. Republicans won the senior vote convincingly in the 2010 and 2014 midterms. Trump won 53 percent of the senior vote in 2016. However, notes vanden Heuval, “If these concerns dent the Republican margin among seniors, a blue wave would be virtually assured.”

The Boston Globe’s Michael A. Cohen adds,

According to a report last week from Bloomberg News, an internal Republican National Committee poll shows that the GOP’s top legislative accomplishment has become an albatross around the neck of the party. By a margin of 61 percent to 30 percent, those polled view the tax cut as benefiting “large corporations and rich Americans” over “middle class families.” A majority of voters fear that the measure will lead to cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, something that Republicans have already hinted at.

Przybyla writes that “Democrats are seizing on the issue in affluent areas like the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., as well as working-class Trump strongholds in the north (Maine’s 2nd Congressional District); the south (Arkansas’s 2nd District) as well as the industrial Midwest…In central Ohio’s 12th District, which voted for Trump by 11 points, [Democratic candidate Danny] O’Connor is running an ad attacking incumbent Republican Troy Balderson for protecting “big corporations” by backing “their huge tax giveaway.”

Przybyla concludes: “It’s a message that proved potent in 2006, the last Democratic wave election, after then-President George W. Bush formed a commission to study privatizing Social Security…It also marks a shift in messaging for a party that recognizes simply decrying “tax cuts for the rich” is a losing strategy without explaining its impact on the federal budget and individual households.”

The following article by Ruy Teixeira, author of The Optimistic Leftist and other works of political analysis, is cross-posted from his blog:

A little more than two weeks ’til election day. Time for another check-in on the various House forecasting models.

As some may recall, the last time I did this was about a month ago. That was a few days before the Ford/Kavanaugh hearing and about two weeks before the Republicans hit their relative high point after that hearing.

The current reading of the forecasts is about two weeks after that high point and it is interesting to note that, at least in terms of House takeover chances and seat gains, the current forecasts have reverted to very close to where they were a month ago right before the Ford/Kavanaugh hearing took place. 538 and CBS Battleground are actually stronger on the Democrats’ chances, while the Economist and Crosstab predictions have slightly weakened.

So, here are the current forecasts (readings from a month ago in parentheses, except for CNN which had not yet released a forecast at that time)

538:

probability Democrats take House: 85 percent (80)
predicted Democratic seat gain: 39 (37)
predicted Democratic popular vote margin: 8.9 (8.5)

Economist:

probability Democrats take House: 71 percent (71)
predicted Democratic seat gain: 28 (29)
predicted Democratic popular vote margin: 8.4 (8.6)

Crosstab/G. Elliot Morris:

probability Democrats take House: 75 percent (78)
predicted Democratic seat gain: 35 (38)
predicted Democratic popular vote margin: 8.9 (9.2)

CBS Battleground:

probability Democrats take House: no estimate
predicted Democratic seat gain: 31 (29)
predicted Democratic popular vote margin: no prediction

CNN

probability Democrats take House: no estimate
predicted Democratic seat gain: 31
predicted Democratic popular vote margin: no prediction

Given these data, what are we to make the of the spate of stories downgrading Democrats’ chances for a “blue wave”? It depends on the story but one of the most common points made is that Democrats’ chances to take the Senate have eroded. That appears to be true but of course that was never very probable anyway; only the very highest of blue waves could possibly have got that done.

The most interesting point made is that Democrats’ chances of really big gains in the House may have eroded. That is, even if the Democrats’ chances of gaining enough seats to take the House aren’t much changed, their chances of gaining, say, 40-60 seats have dropped.

Those who make this assessment base their view on the perception that more reddish, rural districts have had their Republican bases engaged by the Kavanaugh fight and Trump’s grandstanding–as well as perhaps the sheer proximity of the election–and are now much less susceptible to Democratic insurgents.

That could be true though there are some countervailing factors that push the House calculus in the opposite direction. These include the Democrats’ massive fundraising advantage–identified by Nate Silver as a factor that could result in greater Democratic than expected–and the poor performance of GOP Senate and governor candidates in the Midwest which could hurt downballot Congressional candidates.

Perhaps this is why the 538 model still gives the Democrats as much chance of exceeding a 61 seat gain (10 percent) as dropping below a 19 seat gain.

In her article, “How Democrats could win back the House on health care, in 4 polls,” at The Fix, Amber Philips reports some good polling news for Democrats:

We have three polls out this week that tell that story.

In an Oct. 14 Washington Post-ABC News poll, 82 percent of voters said health care is one of the most important issues in their votes for Congress — precisely matching the king of top issues in elections, the economy. That poll finds voters trust Democrats over Republicans to improve their health-care situation.

(Washington Post graphics)

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll out Thursday also finds that voters say health care is the top issue, over the economy. That goes for the all-important independent vote. And it holds true for voters in swing states like Florida and Nevada, both states with competitive governor’s and Senate races.

Perhaps the most devastating find for Republicans comes from a new Fox News poll. Voters who say health care is their most important issue prefer Democrats by 24 percentage points.

Republicans, of course, are fighting back, trying to cover up their assault against Obamacare’s key provision protecting Americans with previous health conditions, but it looks like the damage is done.

Meanwhile, Democrats can gain further ground with high-turnout senior voters by calling attention to a major rip-off in the GOP’s health care bill. “Under the GOP’s health-care bill, insurers would be allowed to charge older adults up to five times more than younger people. Under Obamacare, rates were capped at three times more,” reports Michelle Fox in “Older Americans slapped with ‘age tax’ in GOP health-care bill: AARP” at cnbc.com. Fox adds,

“Right now, health care is barely affordable for those people who are over age 50. Raising it any more is just what we call an ‘age tax’ and would just make it unaffordable for them,” David Certner, legislative counsel and legislative policy director for government affairs at AARP, said in an interview with “Power Lunch.”

And while there are currently tax credits in place to help offset costs, the current bill reduces those tax credits, he noted. “There’s a double whammy here.”

Fox notes that conservative supporter of the GOP bill Jeff Miron, director of economic studies at the Cato Institute, “believes it’s the right policy to make the system work efficiently…It is only current near elderly who are going get particularly penalized by this transitional effect.”

Scant comfort for senior voters. It will be interesting to see how many of the “near elderly” are paying attention at the ballot box on November 6th.

In his New York Times op-ed, “What the Left Misses About Nationalism: The perception of a common national identity is essential to democracies and to the modern welfare state,” John B. Judis warns, “In the United States, Mr. Trump’s nationalist policies have not been without merit. Where his predecessors have feared alienating China, he has boldly challenged its transfer of technology, cybertheft and hidden trade subsidies and barriers.”

However, Judis, author of “The Nationalist Revival: Trade, Immigration, and the Revolt Against Globalization,” adds, “But much of what Mr. Trump has done to make America great may eventually make it poorer”:

His corporate tax cut accelerates globalization’s race to the bottom. Much of the savings have already gone to corporate buybacks rather than new investment, and the resulting loss of tax revenues will threaten social spending for the people he claims to represent…His Hobbesian take-no-prisoners approach to trade and foreign policy — sowing conflict with allies as well as rivals and foes — will threaten the underpinnings of global peace and prosperity, which still depends on a grudging acceptance of American economic and military power. There are already foreshadowings of future financial disorder — in discussions by the European Union, Russia and China to defy American sanctions against Iran by creating a new funding authority that would evade the dollar and by Russia and China’s decision to use their own currencies rather than the dollar as the medium of exchange. Mr. Trump’s immigration initiatives, too, have merely reinforced cultural resentments and done little to stem the oversupply of unskilled and easy-to-exploit unauthorized immigrants.

“In all of these areas,” Judis writes, “Mr. Trump has harmed, not strengthened, our nation.” However, Judis adds,

Yet in the United States, the liberal opposition has generally failed to acknowledge what is valid in the today’s nationalist backlash. Many liberal pundits and political scientists continue to echo Hillary Clinton in characterizing Mr. Trump’s supporters in 2016 as deplorables. They denounce Mr. Trump’s tariffs without proposing any plausible means of counterbalancing the huge surpluses from China and Germany. They dismiss as a lost cause the attempt to revive the towns of the Midwest and South by reviving manufacturing. They rightly insist that the United States find a way to integrate and assimilate the country’s 12 million or more unauthorized immigrants, but they ignore the continuing flood of people without papers crossing the border or overstaying their visas and they dismiss attempts to change national priorities toward skilled immigrants.

Here is the simple truth: As long as corporations are free to roam the globe in search of lower wages and taxes, and as long as the United States opens its borders to millions of unskilled immigrants, liberals will not be able to create bountiful, equitable societies, where people are free from basic anxieties about obtaining health care, education and housing…To achieve their historic objectives, liberals and social democrats will have to respond constructively to, rather than dismiss, the nationalist reaction to globalization.

Somewhere in between Trump’s reckless trade policies and the Clinton era’s unbridled globalism there is a sound trade and immigration strategy that can benefit American workers. If the Democrats don’t find it, explain it and own it soon, others will — and win the loyalty of working-class voters needed for an enduring political majority.

The following article by Ruy Teixeira, author of The Optimistic Leftist and other works of political analysis, is cross-posted from his blog:

Something Is Happening Here But You Don’t Know What It Is–Do You, Mr. Trump?

The news from the Rustbelt continues to be very poor for the GOP–yet this is the region that sent Donald Trump to the White House. What’s going on?

Here’s a snippet from Thomas Edsall’s Times’ column on the Rustbelt:

“Nate Silver, the founder of the political website 538, tweeted:

‘By far the Democrats’ strongest region in Senate + Gov + House polling has been the Midwest, and I don’t think you’d really gather that from the tonality of the reporting, which tends to fixate on demographic change and therefore finds races in the South & the West a lot sexier.’

According to both Democratic and Republican operatives, Republican difficulties in the region stem in part from the trend among many Obama 2012-to-Trump-2016 voters to switch back to the Democrats.

Nick Gourevitch, whose Democratic firm, Global Strategy Group, is polling in the Midwest, wrote in an email: “In general, we are seeing Obama-Trump districts returning to the fold as competitive seats.” He went on:

“Our postelection research on Obama-Trump voters showed that many of them were conflicted voters who had mixed feelings about supporting the president and that not all of them were the die-hard Trump supporters some in the media like to report them to be.”

Huh. So maybe all those Obama-Trump voters aren’t hopeless racists the Democrats are better off ignoring.

Martin Longman adds on the Washington Monthly blog:

“Trump’s victory came about because he surprisingly won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin which were all considered part of an impenetrable blue wall for the Democrats, but the Democrats look extremely strong in both the senate and governor’s races in all three of those states.

This can’t be explained by demographic change and it isn’t based solely on turnout models and assumptions. A lot of Democrats who voted for Trump in the industrial Midwest just have no intention of voting for a Republican in the upcoming midterms…..

It’s the formerly blue element that distinguishes the Midwest from other Trump strongholds. Many midwestern lifelong Democrats were attracted to Trump precisely because he was taking a battle-ax to the Republican establishment and so it’s unsurprising that these voters won’t transfer their loyalty from Trump to down-ticket conservatives. Because of union membership and socioeconomic status and tradition, these voters having been voting against Republicans all their lives. They made an exception for Trump and many still support him. Some will even vote for candidates that promise to help the president or that Trump has explicitly endorsed. But the snapback comes from the fact that most longtime Democrats supported Trump but not the party he leads.”

And a new Politico/AARP poll of Pennsylvania finds:

“Pennsylvania was the linchpin of Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, but it could be ground zero of Democrats’ 2018 comeback. Not only are the incumbent Democratic senator and governor prohibitive favorites to win reelection, but Democrats could also pick up as many as a half-dozen congressional seats — roughly a quarter of the seats the party needs nationwide to win back the House.

Fewer than two years after Trump became the first Republican presidential candidate to carry Pennsylvania since 1988, a new POLITICO/AARP poll shows both Sen. Bob Casey and Gov. Tom Wolf with double-digit leads over their GOP challengers. And Democrats have a slight edge on the generic congressional ballot — which, combined with a new, court-imposed congressional-district map unwinding GOP gerrymandering, portends major gains in next month‘s elections.”

This is a trend to keep an eye on. Not only will it be key to Democrats’ results in 2018 but sustaining it will be central to defeating Trump in 2020. In fact, you could reasonably say if the Democrats can sustain this momentum in the Midwest/Rustbelt through 2020 their chances of defeating Trump will be very good indeed. Of course, Trump will pull out all the stops to reach voters in this area of the country in the next two years and he will by no means be easy to defeat. But developments this year could make for a very promising beginning for Project Trump One Term President.

The following article by Ruy Teixeira, author of The Optimistic Leftist and other works of political analysis, is cross-posted from his blog:

Remember the Third Way, that crazy nineties thing? Or maybe you’re trying to forget it. Spearheaded by fearless leaders Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroder, it was supposedly a reinvention of the left to adapt to a new stage of capitalism and channel the benefits of that dynamic system to the middle class and poor. That meant jettisoning many traditional programs of the left and concentrating on unleashing capitalism, rather that criticizing it. The resulting cornucopia of growth would be good for everybody. That was, the Third Wayers said, the only road forward.

That didn’t work out so well. Turns out capitalism, left to its own devices, is still capable of great damage and dramatic underperformance for most of the population. It is therefore of interest to see former proponents of the Third Way admitting it’s time for a rethink–a big rethink. One such is William Galston, who was Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Domestic Policy and one of leading theorists of the whole Third Way movement, especially in its US “New Democrat” form. Galston’s article at the British site, Unherd, “How the Third Way Lost Its Way“, is quite critical of his former movement and says:

“The Third Way’s programme of incremental adjustments to social democracy within a framework of optimism about globalisation, democratisation, and demographic diversity can do little to address today’s much deeper structural problems…

To stem rising economic inequality and geographical divergence, we will need more government intervention and regulation than the creators of the Third Way contemplated, along with much greater investment in the fundamentals of equal opportunity. To sustain a rules-based international order, the rules must pay less attention to economic aggregates – and more to sectors, regions, and economic classes – than the proponents of the WTO imagined. To be sustainable, immigration regimes will have to pay more attention to the economic and cultural effects of entrenched practices. What works in San Francisco will not necessary work in Scranton; the Midlands may reject what London cherishes.

In the international domain, the decision to allow China to enter the World Trade Organisation without committing to the practices of a market economy has produced distortions that the West must address – but from a far weaker position than it enjoyed two decades ago.”

No argument with any of this but I do think the article lets the Third Way off a bit easy in its original incarnation. Galston’s view seem to be that it was right on in the nineties, just times changed so it’s not so good any more. My critique is sterner.

The Third Way, as Galston notes, posited that the structure of capitalist societies was changing and that the traditional working class was becoming less important. But that analysis went little beyond observations on the white collarization of work and the assertion that the left was best-served by leaving capitalism alone to generate riches that could be redistributed and repurposed . The former view showed only a crude understanding of the depth of the social transformation affecting Western industrial societies, while the latter was simply wrong as an assessment of contemporary capitalism’s ability to function well without proper guidance and regulation.

It was not, and is not, unreasonable to argue that fast and equally distributed economic growth is critical to providing adequate levels of economic mobility for the middle class and poor. Third Way advocates, with their starry-eyed view of contemporary capitalism, thought they had found the right approach to producing such growth. They had not.

The left can and must do better. Time for a Fourth Way that deals with actually-existing capitalism instead of the benign version favored by the Third Way movement.

When you go to dnc.org welcome page, you have to scroll down to the bottom to find the 2+ minute video clip the DNC uses to introduce the Democratic Party to the public. Here it is:

It may be too late to improve the video ad a month out from election day. But perhaps the DNC’s video-makers could benefit from some feedback from Democratic rank and file and activists. What’s your take?

Some questions to consider: How important are political ads? Does the Democratic Party need an ad that introduces what the party is all about, or should it just present ads from individual candidates?

Does this ad help Dems present an appealing ‘brand’? Does it speak to all American persuadable voters, or preach to the choir?

Does it reach out to neglected constituencies?  Does it say enough about the pivotal issues? What would be the optimum mix of positive, self-branding videos vs. negative ads attacking opponents?

Should the ad be longer than 2 minutes, or should there also be some longer videos? Is it adequately focused on the midterm elections? Should there be just one intro video on the welcome page, or some more robust, targeted ads on different topics and addressing different constituencies?

The following article by Ruy Teixeira, author of The Optimistic Leftist and other works of political analysis, is cross-posted from his Facebook page:

How Far Left Is the Democratic Party Moving?

I address this question in a new article for the British site, Unherd. I argue that the Democratic party is indeed moving left but not in the fashion envisioned by self-conscious radicals like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

“The Left in America is on the rise…But how far Left is this surge? And what does it stand for? Can it really be compared with the hard Left radicalism seen elsewhere across the globe?