My DD’s Scott Shields has a post following up on Justin Blum’s Sunday WaPo article about ‘blue states” leading the charge in creative energy reforms. Yes, we know, it’s hard enough to keep up with national politics, let alone what’s going on in the individual states we don’t call home. Yet, the point is well-taken that the states are laboratories for innovative policy, and if a new legislative reform meets with impressive success, it should be publicized and replicated.
Shields faults the WaPo piece for its narrow definition of “blue” states as those voting for John Kerry in ’04. He argues that states with Dem Governors and/or legislative majorities ought to be included for a fuller picture, and serves up Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer’s plan for coal liquefaction as exhibit “A”.
Shields points out that blue states are also pioneering creative ethics reforms. No surprise there. How could it be otherwise? Yet it does merit a special reminder for Dems looking for fresh policy alternatives amid mounting GOP scandals. To this we could also add social reforms, such as the Maryland state legislature’s recent measure, passed over the GOP governor’s veto, to require Wal-Mart to spend a higher portion of the state’s budget on health security for its workers.
The oft-repeated cliche that “the Democratic party is devoid of ideas” has been nicely refuted by Shields and Blum, and Dem candidates and campaign staffs should master their points. As Shields concludes:

Not only do the national Democrats have a small mountain of policy proposals sitting on the shelf, waiting for Democratic majorities in Congress to pass it, but Democrats in the states are actually getting things done. If anyone wants to know what Democratic control in Washington would look like, look to the states.

This challenge takes on heightened importance, considering that Dem prospects for winning a majority of state governorships in November are exceptionally bright. (See our December 5 th post) Dems may well be on the cusp of an historic opportunity to reverse years of GOP gerrymandering and turn the states into shining demonstration projects that can shape national policy.

Nine months out, Democrats are in position to win modest gains in the U.S. Senate, but could do better in races for seats in the U.S House of Representatives, according to recent opinion polls. If the Senate elections were held today, Dems would have a net pick up of one seat, five short of the number needed to win a majority in the Senate, according to a Wall Street Journal/Zogby Interactive poll of 17 “battleground states” released January 19th. Zogby concludes of Dems’ Senate chances:

They could knock off Ohio Republican Mike DeWine, a two-term incumbent moderate who has angered his home-state base by going against President Bush on judicial nominees, and Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum, a staunch conservative who is running a tough race for re-election this year against the son of a very well-known Democratic icon. Familial politics works in the favor of the GOP in New Jersey, however, as Republican Tom Kean, Jr. the son of a popular governor there, polls well against his Democratic opponents, including Bob Menendez, who was recently appointed to fill the senate seat vacated by Jon Corzine, who resigned after winning the race for governor in November.
Democrats are leading in the Senate races in Minnesota and Maryland, while Republicans appear ready to hold onto their seat in Tennessee.

However, Asked which party’s candidates they prefereered for U.S. Senate races, respondents in a poll of LV’s by Democracy Corps conducted 1/4-8, favored Dems by a 14 point margin.
Zogby didn’t address races in the House of Reps. But the DCorps poll suggests that Dems could win the 15 seats needed to gain a majority in the House. Asked which party they would vote for in their congressional district, respondents favored Democrats by a margin of 50-40 percent. Other polls taken in January by Harris, Hotline, Gallup and AP show leads for Dems of 9, 7, 7 and 13 percent respectively.

by Pete Ross
Dem candidates up for election in November already have plenty of knotty issues to chew on. Not to add to that burden, but a new Salon.com post “Fear of Spying” by Walter Shapiro merits their attention. Subtitled “Democratic strategists say opposing Bush on NSA spying makes the party look weak. Of course, that’s what they said about Iraq,” Shapiro’s article makes the case that the party is not well served by indulging its ostrich reflex on this issue.
He quotes a Democratic party official, who noted “”The whole thing plays to the Republican caricature of Democrats — that we’re weak on defense and weak on security.” He notes the trepidations of unnamed democratic strategists, “obsessed with similar fears that left-wing overreaction to the wiretapping issue would allow George W. Bush and the congressional Republicans to wiggle off the hook on other vulnerabilities.”
Shapiro cites a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press indicating that the public is evenly divided on the issue, with 48 percent agreeing that it was “generally right” to monitor those suspected of terrorist ties “without court permission,” and 47 percent saying it was “generally wrong.”
Osama bin Laden’s recent threat of terrorist violence in the U.S. won’t help leaders voicing concerns about government surveillance much. Yet, in his MLK Day speech, broadcast on C-SPAN, Al Gore made a strong impression as a champion of civil liberties, opposing unbridled government spying on Americans as a serious threat to freedom. Shapiro notes further,

the Democrats’ positioning on the eavesdropping issue invites comparisons to their fetal crouch in the run-up to the Iraqi War. A majority of Senate Democrats voted for Bush’s go-to-war resolution — including John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton — at least partly because the pollsters insisted that it was the only politically safe position, a ludicrous and self-destructive notion in hindsight.

The article quotes Clinton and Gore advisor Elaine Kamarck’s observation that by ignoring the issue, Dems will

leave the critique open to the far left. And that will exacerbate two problems the Democrats have: one, that they look too far out of the mainstream, and the other, that they don’t believe in anything…a political party that is always the namby-pamby ‘me too’ party is a party that isn’t going to get anyplace.

Hearings on illegal eavesdropping are scheduled to begin Feb. 6 in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Shapiro worries that Dem supporters may be seduced by “the frail hope that the Republicans will self-destruct” and won’t get that “politics sooner or later becomes a test of character and not merely a paint-by-numbers exercise in low-risk electioneering.”
The hunch here is that Kamarck and Shapiro may be right, and Dem candidates and strategists should get a copy of Gore’s speech (available here), which did a good job of addressing mainstream concerns about government spying. Dems can differ about how much the issue should be emphasized with various constituencies, but a clear, unified position can only help.

by Pete Ross
As the Senate Judiciary Committee begins hearings on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, public opinion polls indicate that Dems opposed to Alito have an uphill struggle. According to the most recent Harris Poll, conducted 12/8-14:

Almost equal thirds of all adults believe Judge Alito should be confirmed (34%), should not be confirmed (31%) or are not sure (34%). However, a majority of Republicans (65% vs. 9%) favor his confirmation, while a plurality of Democrats (48% vs. 14%) oppose it. Independents are split (34% for confirmation; 38% against).

The Harris poll reveals that the most formidable hurdle to defeating the Alito nomination may be ignorance about his views:

Opposition to the confirmation of Judge Alito would probably grow substantially if most people believed he would vote to make abortion illegal. A 69 to 31 percent majority of the public say they would oppose his confirmation if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal. Majorities of Democrats (86%) and Independents (74%) feel this way. However, a majority of Republicans (56% vs. 44%) would support his confirmation if they believed he would vote to make abortion illegal.
The potential impact of abortion on Republican attitudes toward Judge Alito is particularly interesting. The 56 percent majority of Republicans who would support his confirmation if they believed he would vote to make abortion illegal is less than the 65 percent who now support his confirmation.

Other polls taken during the same period show stronger support for the Alito nomination. In an ABC News/Washington Post Poll conducted 12/15-18, 54 percent of respondents supported confirmation of Alito, with 28 percent opposed. But 61 percent said, if Alito is confirmed, they want him to uphold Roe v. Wade — which is highly unlikely, given his stated views on abortion rights.
When a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll conducted 12/13-14 asked respondents “If you were voting on Samuel Alito’s nomination, would you vote to confirm him or not?”, 35 percent said they would vote for him and 27 percent said they would not. And a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted 12/9-11 found 49 percent in favor of Alito’s confirmation, with 29 percent not in favor.
There are other compelling reasons, aside from abortion rights, for Dems to strongly oppose the Alito nomination, including his dismal record and archaic views on environmental protection, worker rights and individual liberties. Given the current ideological balance on the court, this is clearly the most important nomination in many years.
There is no guarantee that a better informed public would automatically translate into a Senate majority against his confirmation. But if Dems launch a strong public education campaign, backed up by an energetic “call your senator” effort, polls suggest Alito can be stopped.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has decided to focus on winning races in seven states to regain a majority in the U.S. Senate, according to New York Senator Chuck Schumer, chair of the DSCC. The Associated Press reports that the targeted Senate races will be in Arizona, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Missouri, Montana and Tennessee. Dems currently enjoy a better than 2-1 fund-raising advantage, with $22 million in their campaign war chest, according to the AP.
The article also offers insight into Schumer’s strategy for individual campaigns, noting:

In part to counteract charges that Democrats are disconnected from average Americans, Schumer has for years boosted his political strength by constant public appearances throughout New York state.
Every year, he has visited each of the 62 counties, talking up local issues or touting some new piece of federal funding. In 2004, that effort paid off with Schumer winning all but one county.
It is a strategy he is preaching to 2006 candidates.
Schumer is also trying to pare his party’s message down to a few straightforward ideas.
“Mostly, it’s the meat and potato issues: Save Social Security. Fix prescription drugs. Energy independence,” he said.

The targeting decision may create some buzz among Democratic strategists, some of whom have made compelling arguments against focusing on a few races to the detriment of others. See, for example, Ruy Teixeira’s article making the case against narrow targeting of House of Reps seats, “Do the Math: Expanding the Playing Field in 2006 Is Actually A Very, Very Smart Idea.”
The GOP currently holds a 55-44 lead over Dems in the Senate, with one Independent voting Democratic. In 2006, 5 open Senate seats will be contested, with 14 Democratic senators seeking re-election and 14 incumbent Republicans seeking re-election. The Cook Political Report rates five races for Senate seats as tossups, with four of the seats currently held by Republicans.

by Pete Ross
Swing State Project has an interesting article on the bumper crop of Dem candidates, who are veterans of the armed forces and a soon-to-be-launched PAC, “Band of Brothers” designed to give them some leverage. Swing State’s David NYC notes that vets bring some built-in advantages to a campaign, including:

Veterans’ views on matters of war and national security are often accorded greater respect in the public sphere (whether fairly or unfairly). These issues are going to matter a whole hell of a lot in 2006, and we need candidates willing to engage – not avoid – this debate.
The media typically adores veterans, especially the straight-talking kind. (Think Hackett & McCain.) Moreover, our lazy media has bought into the GOP’s smear of the Dems as “weak on security” wholesale. It doesn’t matter how sophisticated our think-tank-produced plans on foreign policy are – the media just doesn’t care. But if you’ve worn a dogtag around your neck or have had ribbons pinned to your chest – now that is something the media can understand.
The American people love our armed forces. The military always ranks at the very top when pollsters ask people how much confidence they have in various public institutions.
Strength in numbers: It’s a lot easier to Swift Boat a lone vet in isolation. While I put nothing past today’s GOP, it’s much harder to slander your opponents when you’re talking about dozens and dozens of men and women across the country. And these guys, I can assure you, will fight back when attacked.

All good points. Candidates should be careful, however, about overplaying the vet card, as Kerry may have done at the ’04 convention, and Bush certainly did on the aircraft carrier. Vet status works best in combination with a little humility. Make it known, but as much as possible, let others praise the candidate for her/his service. GOP Senator McCain seems to work this technique effectively.
Band of Brothers already has a new website, featuring a list of Democratic vets running for office. Presumably, the group will also support women candidates. The PAC will provide money, expertise and training to vets running as Democratic candidates and is now accepting contributions.

By David Gopoian
Evaluations of campaign performance should be tied to meaningful benchmarks. A classic measure of political expectations is one based on the partisan composition of specific populations. The attainment of 51% of the vote may be evaluated differently, for example, if earned in a jurisdiction that typically supports one’s own party in contrast to a jurisdiction that typically does not.
In this post, I compare Kerry’s share of the two-party vote in the 50 states, plus DC, to a measure of the expected Democratic vote in each. The expected vote measure is derived from an analysis of the voting behavior of national populations across five previous presidential elections. Estimates of the likelihood of a Democratic vote for specific categories of partisan identifiers are then applied to the state-level exit samples of voters in each state.
The first column of numbers shows the Expected Democratic Vote for each state. This percentage represents a partisan benchmark for Democratic candidates – the percentage he should get given the partisan makeup of a state’s electorate.
An interpretation might flow as follows: given the sample of voters who actually voted in Massachusetts in 2004, the typical Democratic candidate should have expected to have gotten 62.9% of the vote. Kerry’s actual vote of 62.5% in the exit poll indicates that Kerry came very close to matching how a Democratic candidate should have performed in his home state.
Examining the 19 states that Kerry won, plus DC, it is apparent that his actual vote percentages were within one rounded percentage point of the expected Democratic vote in all but 6 of them. The exceptions were DC, Vermont, and Illinois where he ran above expectations and Hawaii, Rhode Island, and New Jersey where he ran below expectations. In the remaining 14 states, Kerry ran about as well as should have been expected of the Democratic nominee..
The problem, of course, is that these 20 states left Kerry 19 electoral votes shy of the White House. There were seven other states a Democrat should have won based on partisan inclinations of voters. These included West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, New Mexico, Missouri, Iowa, and Louisiana. Granted, in many Southern and Border States, partisan attachments do not necessarily carry much clout for the evaluation of political figures associated with the national Democratic Party.
However, a case could be made that the partisan benchmarks for these states are not unrealistic. In the 2004 election, West Virginia elected a Democratic Governor with 65% of the vote; Arkansas re-elected Senator Lincoln; Kentucky gave its Democratic Senate challenger 49% of the vote. Missouri had just elected a dead Democrat over a live Republican to the Senate four years earlier. And Gore won both Iowa and New Mexico in 2000.
In fact, there are 12 states where the expected Democratic vote ranged from 49% to 51% — the very definition of swing states. Kerry won only two of them – – New Hampshire and Wisconsin. He lost four others where he finished within one rounded percentage point of meeting expectations for a Democratic candidate (Iowa, Florida, Ohio, and Nevada).
Three of the remaining six swing states were southern states where Kerry ran at least 6 points behind expectations for a Democratic candidate (North Carolina (-6), Louisiana (-8), and Kentucky (-11). He also ran below expectations in Montana by 8 points. The last two, potentially winnable swing states were lost without a battle – Virginia, where Kerry ran 3 points worse than expected and Missouri, where he ran 4 points below expectations.
I’ll leave it to readers to draw inferences about the past campaign and about future ones as well. In the graph below, blue is used to highlight pro-Democratic inclinations or performance, pink to illustrate pro-Republican tendencies or performance, and yellow to show differences that did not deviate markedly from partisan expectations. The Kerry Vote column is based on weighted exit poll data, not official election returns.

by EDM Staff
Supported by recent public opinion polls, a growing chorus of Democratic leaders is calling for an accelerated timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. But the centrist Democratic Leadership Council’s president Al From and pollster Mark Penn have warned Dem leaders that a hasty withdrawall from Iraq could be a “trap,” according to a report in the Sunday WaPo. As John Harris and Chris Cillizza note in their article,

While a poll taken by Penn for the DLC showed voters opposing the Iraq war 54 to 44 percent, they warned that “Democratic leaders could be playing with political dynamite if they call for an immediate pullout of American troops…
From and Penn said the most defensible ground for Democrats is a middle path: rejecting deadlines for troop withdrawal but endorsing “clear benchmarks” to measure progress and hold Bush accountable for the results.

Penn and From argue that it is important for Dems to consider public opinion about Iraq in light of Americans’ views about the Democratic Party in general.

In Penn’s survey, 13 percent of voters said they would favor a “liberal Democrat” for president, and 43 percent of independent voters said they regard the party as “too liberal.” Forty-two percent of these unaligned voters also said they perceive the party as becoming more liberal.
While the problems of Bush and Republicans have “opened the door” for Democrats, Penn and From wrote, to take advantage of this “Democrats need to capture the vital center and bring an abrupt halt to what voters see as the party’s drift to the left.”

Other poll analysts have argued that it’s not so much that the Democratic Party has drifted to the left on the issue of withdrawall from Iraq, but a very real shift of the “vital center” of public opinion. (See, for example, Ruy Teixeira’s Dec. 15 post.) Either way, the stakes are huge, and Dems must get it right to win the center in ’06 and ’08.

A Democracy Corps Poll conducted by Greeberg Quinlan Rosner from 12/8-12 brings good news for Dems 11 months before the 2006 congressional elections. The poll found that 50 percent of likely voters said they would vote for the Democratic candidate for Senate in their state if the election were held today, with 42 percent saying they would vote for the Republican. In the House races, 49 percent of LV’s said they would vote for the Democratic candidate, with 41 percent for the Republican. The poll also found that 60 percent of respondents agreed that “things have gotten pretty seriously on the wrong track” and 53 percent disapproved of the way Bush is “handling his job as President.”

by EDM Staff
If a major opinion poll showed a majority of Americans favored impeaching President Bush if he lied about his reasons for going to war in Iraq, natch it would get broad press coverage, right?
Wrong, according to Jamison Foser’s expose of mainstream media’s pro-Republican bias over at Media Matters. His article, “Media Continues to Ignore Impeachment Polling” argues that Bush pretty much got a free ride from ostensibly non-partisan major media, which ignored the Zogby Poll result noted above. In the Zogby poll, 53 percent of respondents agreed that Bush should be impeached if he lied about his reasons for leading America to war in Iraq. Foser does cite a short ‘honor roll’ of media that did report the story:

Only five news reports available on Nexis mention the latest Zogby poll: the Froomkin [WaPo] column, an Investor’s Business Daily editorial, a column in the University of Massachusetts student newspaper, a “Potpourri” feature in West Virginia’s Charleston Gazette, and a column in the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Froomkin’s November 7th WaPo column also cited an Ipsos-Public Affairs Poll showing 50 percent of respondents in agreement with the need to impeach. Foser reports that other WaPo writers lamely defended the paper’s decision not to do a poll on the impeachment question, even though the Post and other papers nearly drowned their readers in ink about former President Clinton’s impeachment prospects.
There’s more, and Foser makes a slam dunk case that Bush benefits significantly from lapdog media in this story and others at Media Matters.