My one gripe about our otherwise great Democratic convention is that the soundtrack was a little short on country music for a party that aspires to make some inroads into working-class America. Well, Kathy G over at The G Spot has a post that more than makes up for it — a video/radio clip of Ralph Stanley’s endorsement of Barack Obama. Yes, THE Ralph Stanley, the King of Bluegrass, who practically owns ‘the high lonesome sound’. And just for kicks, Kathy throws in four of Stanley’s best videos. Here’s hoping the Obama campaign shows Stanley’s endorsement all over rural America, not just VA. Way Cool.

Yesterday I noted that some conservatives are urging Republicans to oppose the Paulson Plan while hoping that Democrats provide the votes to actually enact it. But there’s a Democratic backlash a-building as well.
The blogospheric Left is increasingly committed to full-scale opposition, viz. this post from Atrios:

Look, right now the choice is, Bush’s Plan, or Something Else. Kill Bush’s Plan now, worry about Something Else later.

Markos Moulitsas is arguing for a delay in any bailout plan until after the elections. And here’s how fellow Kossack Meteor Blades assesses the general situation:

Democrats, in general, and Senator Barack Obama, in particular – as the new head of the Democratic Party – should trash this outrageous dictatorial bailout and stop listening to the advice of those who led us into this mess – including some fellow Democrats of prominence. They shouldn’t tinker on the edges of the administration’s proposal. Their substitute plan should put the pain on the pin-striped grifters where it belongs instead of on those Americans who have been repeatedly victimized by them.

There’s also a lot of talk analogizing the political psychology of the bailout plan, and the choices it presents to Democrats, to the Iraq War Resolution and/or FISA.
But heartburn about the Paulson Plan is not limited to the blogospheric Left. Here’s Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute in an op-ed today:

Rather than be stampeded into hasty action, Congress ought to deliberate long enough to make sure that Main Street doesn’t pay for Wall Street’s sins.

Marshall also links to his (and my) former colleague Rob Shapiro’s remarks on Marketplace yesterday, pointing out that the cost of the bailout would have a devastating effect on the policy options available to the next president.
While Democratic resistance to quick approval of the Paulson Plan is growing, there’s considerable confusion in terms of Democratic strategy. Virtually everyone supports Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to secure substantive changes in the legislation; Paulson has already accepted a couple of key changes, including mortgage foreclosure relief and equity acquisition in bailed out institutions (this latter point being critical to potentially reducing the ultimate net cost to taxpayers). But such changes could also undermine Republican support for the plan, pinning Democrats with responsibility for enacting it, and raising the obvious questions as to why Dems don’t just craft a plan to their own liking and present Paulson and Bush with a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.
In any event, Democrats don’t appear to be just rolling over in a panicked reaction to last week’s market disaster, and letting a Wall Street guy toss three-quarters-of-a-trillion dollars at his old friends, along with foreign investors, with virtually no strings. We’ll soon know just how tough they are willing to be in what will be an extremely momentous series of decisions that could not only affect the November 4 elections, but what happens afterwards for years to come.

The co-editors of The Democratic Strategist are all very strongly associated with the view that, to create an enduring Democratic majority, Dems have to win the support of a substantial minority of working class voters.
In a Brookings Institution study early this spring TDS co-editor Ruy Teixeira provided an up to date analysis of the underlying population demographics that support this view and last month TDS co-editor Stan Greenberg led a team from Democracy Corps that conducted a sophisticated survey and focus group analysis of Macomb county, Michigan seeking to understand the attitudes of working class voters in this election and to find the best ways to win their support.
The objective of winning working class support was clearly evident in the Democratic convention. As Ron Brownstein noted yesterday:

Democrats sought to segment the voters by class. They presented Obama (the “son of a single mom”) and running mate Joe Biden (the “scrappy kid from Scranton”) as working-class heroes who would defend the middle-class because they are products of it. The Democrats portrayed McCain as an out-of-touch economic elitist who doesn’t understand the interests of average families.

The Republicans, in contrast “sought to segment the voters along cultural lines”

They presented McCain as the personification of timeless values–honor and duty. Far more importantly (and effectively), they introduced vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin as an embodiment of small-town America who champions conservative social values not only in public life but also in her private life. They completed the picture with tough national security messages that usually resonate loudest with the same traditionalist voters most attracted to conservative social positions. Meanwhile, the Republicans portrayed Obama as an out-of-touch cultural elitist who belittles small towns like Palin’s Wasilla as not “cosmopolitan enough.”

On the surface, national economic conditions would seem to favor the Democrats. But, as Brownstein notes, “The first post-convention polls suggested that the Republicans succeeded more than the Democrats in dividing the electorate along the lines they prefer.”

An array of surveys released this week show McCain dominating among economically pressed but culturally conservative (and generally hawkish) white working-class voters, just as President Bush did in 2004.
In the Diageo/Hotline daily tracking survey this week, Obama was winning just 30 percent of white men without a college education, even lower than the meager 35 percent share that exit polls recorded for John Kerry in 2004. Among white no college women, Obama was attracting just 37 percent, down from Kerry’s 40 percent. Among “waitress moms” (married white women without college degrees), Obama was polling just 33 percent in the Diageo/Hotline survey, no improvement on Kerry’s anemic 32 percent.

To be sure, this is very disappointing (and there is reason to think that these numbers may improve somewhat between now and Election Day). But there are, in fact, entirely reasonable explanations for why the Democratic convention did not produce the movement toward Obama that was hoped for – explanations which suggest how Dems can do substantially better in the future.
(In fact, after the election, The Democratic Strategist will launch a major initiative to bring together Democrats from every sector of the party to develop an organized and coherent three-year strategy for peeling off a significant number of the more “middle of the road” members of the Republican working class coalition in time for the 2012 election.)
But right now, Obama and the Democrats face a difficult strategic choice. As Brownstein notes:

…some analysts wonder whether Obama might be better served by shifting his focus toward upscale voters more likely to recoil from a Republican ticket that wants to ban abortion and has praised the teaching of creationism.
Obama recently dipped his toe in that water with a radio ad presenting McCain as a threat to legalized abortion. This week, Biden also lashed the GOP platform’s opposition to stem-cell research. But [the campaign needs] a more concerted effort from Obama to convince socially liberal constituencies (such as single women or infrequent churchgoers) that McCain and Palin don’t share their values.

In fact, there is actually an even an broader group who may be an even more important target in the next six weeks — not just the members of specific, relatively liberal constituencies but the much wider swath of reasonably thoughtful, middle of the road voters who have not voted Democratic in recent years but who deeply desire a higher, more intelligent level and quality of political leadership than the myopically partisan and ideologically driven Bush administration has provided.
McCain has utterly abandoned these voters in this campaign – both with his cynically dishonest advertising that literally insults their intelligence and with his choice of a running mate whose function is to play the role of a Rush Limbaugh attack dog on the campaign trail rather than demonstrate any capacity to be a potential leader of the Republic.
In the long run there is no question that Democrats must develop a strategy for winning a substantial group of working class voters if they wish to create an enduring Democratic majority. But, in the next six weeks, it may be that the heaviest emphasis should be put on winning the growing number of thoughtful middle of the road voters who were initially attracted to John McCain but who are increasingly appalled by the kind campaign he has chosen to run.

The trickiest decisions to be made in the closing weeks of the presidential campaign involve the optimum allocation of candidate time, energy and money. The campaigns have to decide how much emphasis and resources they will put into four key messaging tools: speeches; ads; debates and interviews. Among the considerations:
In 2000 Al Gore delivered the best speech of his career to date, when he accepted the Democratic nomination. He looked terrific and it was well-filmed. I remember thinking “Boy, they can make great ads with clips from this speech.” But we never saw any of it again. Speeches are obviously Obama’s strong card, and he will be making plenty of them over the next 7 weeks. But it would be a shame to leave it at that. The Obama campaign should repackage his speeches into a “greatest hits” anthology and buy a fat block of TV time to show them and the huge cheering crowds to the nation, not just stump audiences thither and yon. We Dems haven’t had a speaker this good since JFK. We shouldn’t pay any attention to the McCain campaign’s snarky references to our candidate’s oratory. People want to be inspired, and Obama can deliver the goods. If we don’t make the fullest use of Obama’s speaking skills, we will flunk.
What I have seen of the new Obama ads is encouraging. On the whole, they are pretty sharp and punchy. TV is still king, but other media are critical as well, especially the internet and radio. A new and important consideration this cycle is recycling or producing ads on the internet, going viral with YouTube etc. Plus the always difficult choices to be made about money and TV markets well in advance of broadcast.
There will only be three presidential debates (see details and formats here) plus one veep debate, and both tickets will put in a lot of prep time. Here Obama should focus on soundbite-sized responses to questions, and avoid the temptation to explain things to smithereens. As PA Gov. Ed. Rendell put it, “We’ve got to start smacking back in short understandable bites.” McCain already knows this. Dems might consult with John Stewart and Bill Maher for some punchy zingers. It’s a shame ‘where’s the beef’ has already been done, since it fits the GOP ticket so perfectly. No question should elicit a long, rambling answer. If the question is off point or softball, Obama should practice seizing the opportunity to respond along the lines of “Well, the more important question/point is…”
Media interviews are free ads, as well as potential minefields. McCain may have an edge here, since he gets more free rides from MSM reporters, and his proclivity for shorter answers serves him well. Obama might try floating more zingers in his interviews. A good one-liner can become a devastating meme. A ‘Where’s the beef’ type zinger could be used here as well. Despite an occasional gaffe, Biden may be the best interview in both parties, as evidenced by his record number of MTP appearances. Using his skills more extensively than has been the case for veep nominees thus far could help the ticket.
Apart from messaging, both presidential campaigns will be at full bore in taking advantage of early voting opportunities and in registering their key constituencies before the voter registration deadlines. About half the states will close registration by October 7th, less than a month away. The key decision here is targeting the most likely swing states, and the calculations change almost daily. But the turnout mobilization has to happen everywhere. The “Movement” aspect of the Obama campaign may well provide a decisive edge in turnout — and for victory in a close election.

In modern politics it has become increasingly important to be able to present the Democratic perspective in either very brief, one or two sentence sound-bites or short, one paragraph summaries of major issues and perspectives.
The format of many political discussions on television and radio allows each participant to speak only a few words at a time before being interrupted. Many “roundtables” and other print discussions give each individual commentator space for only one or two paragraphs.
In this kind of communication environment, having a set of sharply worded, succinct statements of the Democratic position on major issues becomes critical.
The speakers at the recent Democratic Convention produced dozens of first-rate sound-bites and short, one-paragraph summaries of this kind. TDS has brought together a large group of these quotes in a convenient format for use by Democratic spokespeople, citizen advocates and grass-roots supporters.
We believe you will find this collection quite useful during the coming weeks.
Read more……

Read more…

The new Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/ Public Opinion Strategies/National Public Radio poll of battleground states, conducted 8/12-14, has Obama ahead by one percent. 65 percent of lv’s say they are seeing negative ads about Obama, with 48 percent saying they are seeing negative ads about McCain.
The latest New York Times/CBS News poll of adults (about 86 percent rv’s), conducted 8/15-19, has Obama ahead 45-42. 25 percent said the candidates’ veep choices “would have influence” on their vote.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, conducted 8/18-18 with (with oversample of Hispanic voters), has Obama ahead 45-42 percent. “a statistical dead heat.” The poll also found “Only half of those who voted for Sen. Clinton in the primaries say they are now supporting Sen. Obama. One in five is supporting Sen. McCain.”
Fivethirtyeight.com has an impressive, comprehensive multi-poll analysis of Senate races that has some good news for Dems, especially Mary Landrieu, who is now well-ahead. “Our model is now characterizing Louisiana as “safe” Democrat.”
Zogby’s 8/15-19, 2008 battleground poll of 10 states sees Obama with 260 electoral votes, with 163 for McCain and 105 electoral votes “too close to call.” Zogby moves FL into the McCain column, and has CO and NH now undecided.
A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll of lv’s, conducted 8/19-20, has Obama leading by a margin of 42-39. 45 percent would vote/lean toward the Dem candidate in their congressional district, compared to 38 for the GOP candidate.
The Princeton Election Consortium latest meta-analysis has Obama up 1.38 percent in recent polls, with an electoral vote edge of 291-247.

Well, here we are a few days at most before Barack Obama’s running-mate announcement, and exactly ten days before McCain’s, and nobody much knows what’s going to happen.
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire provides an assortment of confident predictions that Obama will choose Kaine, Biden, Reed or Sebelius. Several somebodies are obviously wrong.
And on the Republican side, conservatives went into crisis mode today over reports that the McCain campaign was sounding out GOP officials around the country about the potential repurcussions of a pro-choice Veep (presumably Ridge or Lieberman). Meanwhile, the news that McCain was going to announce his decision in Dayton, Ohio, on August 29, led to speculation that the Bush White House’s favorite, Ohioan Rob Portman, was the choice. But Portman indicated less than a month ago that he hadn’t been vetted.
We’ll all know soon enough, but those who are bored or annoyed with the endless veep speculation should understand that it’s provided a public vetting of potential heartbeat-from-the-presidency prospects to complement the private vetting. And that’s a good thing.
Until quite recently, this potentially momentous decision was often made casually, and with little or no vetting. Nixon picked Spiro Agnew during the 1968 Republican Convention, mainly because he was one of only two “moderate” candidates not vetoed by Strom Thurmond, whose championship of Nixon in the South headed off a lethal delegate stampede to Ronald Reagan. Nobody knew enough about Agnew to figure out that he was taking sacks of cash from highway contractors, and would continue to do so until the revelation of his corruption forced him to resign. The politically disastrous choice of Tom Eagleton by George McGovern in 1972 was a panicky last-minute decision made after more desirable running-mates had turned down the position, and without the benefit of the minimal vetting that might have exposed his serial drunk-driving charges, if not his electro-shock therapy sessions. (As Hunter Thompson later said: “There were any number of political reporters who could have told them that Tom Eagleton was a man who didn’t mind taking thirteen or fourteen tall drinks now and then.”). Another highly significant Veep choice, according to most accounts, was a sheer accident: the Kennedys offered the vice-presidential nomination to Lyndon Johnson in 1960 because they assumed LBJ would turn it down.
Hasty and fortuitous running-mate decisions are now a thing of the past. Given the political and meta-political implications of an unwise choice (aside from the more recent examples, cf. John Tyler and Andrew Johnson in the 18th century), enduring endless Veep speculation is a small price to pay for that.

To further the exploration of ideas for increasing voter turnout noted in J.P. Green’s TDS post yesterday, check out Harold Meyerson’s American Prospect review article about a new book of interest, “Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout” by Yale poly sci proffs Donald P. Green and Alan S. Gerber. As Meyerson explains, the authors, who tested numerous GOTV tactics, conclude that personal contact, including door-to-door canvassing, trumps other approaches, when it comes to getting rv’s to cast ballots.

What Green and Gerber have done would seem conceptually obvious–except, no one has done it before. Working with academic colleagues and a range of political and civic groups and campaigns across the nation, they ran more than 100 experiments in elections over the past decade, testing which get-out-the-vote tactics–direct mail, phone banks, door-to-door canvassing, radio and television ads–actually turned out more voters. They designed all manner of GOTV efforts and employed them on groups of randomly selected voters while not employing them on a control group of other randomly selected voters, then checked after the election to see who’d voted and who hadn’t, and whether those results had any correlation to the respective GOTV drives. They worked with nonpartisan good-government groups, with groups trying to mobilize African American, Latino, low-income, or environmentally inclined voters, and occasionally, and, remarkably, with candidates’ campaigns–remarkably, because not many candidates will respond favorably to establishing a control group of voters who don’t get canvassed or phoned or mailed on his or her behalf.
…Green and Gerber are concerned simply and totally with the actual electoral system we have saddled ourselves with, and their goal, as they put it, is to produce a “shopper’s guide” for candidates pondering whether to use robocalls or canvassers. The great question they hurl at the reader in their very first sentence bears no trace of the controversies over postmodernist theory: “What are the most cost-effective ways to increase voter turnout?”
…the sheer number and scale of the experiments they’ve run make Get Out The Vote a signally important tool to campaigners trying to figure out how best to campaign. It is also a signally important challenge to portions of the political- consulting industry, most particularly those consultants whose GOTV campaigns rely on recorded phone calls, paid phone bankers, or typical direct mail.
What Green and Gerber have found, in brief, is that the personal touch matters. “Door-to-door canvassing by friends and neighbors is the gold-standard mobilization tactic,” they write. It’s the contact itself that’s the key: the kind of message that the canvassers delivered–whether they handed voters a position paper or a potholder–in itself had no effect on turnout rates. Phone banks staffed by genuinely enthusiastic and chatty volunteers worked as well.

Gerber and Green’s book undoubtedly has more to say about advertising choices, and sounds like a must-read for GOTV organizers.

Not going to Denver, but wishing there was some way you could be more involved in the Democratic convention? The DNC is holding 1,300 Party Platform meetings in all 50 states between July 18 to 27th (nitty-gritty here). A broad range of programs, including “town hall-style meetings, radio call-ins, and web chats” have already been scheduled. The Obama campaign has a ‘plug-in-your-zipcode‘ tool identifying local meetings. As National Platform Director Michael Yaki says, “The renewal of America begins with listening to the hopes, fears, and dreams of the American people..”
As Senator Obama prepares for his trip abroad, Elizabeth Bumiller of The New York Times has a report on his large, ok huge, team of foreign policy advisors, organized into issue areas and briefing him via email on a daily basis.
Chris Bowers’ latest Open Left forecast sees a 5-6 seat pick-up for Dems in the Senate. Perceptive reader comments on individual races follow his post.
Hotline‘s Matthew Gottlieb says the latest St. Louis Post-Dispatch/KMOV-TV poll data indicates that Missouri “has become a solid Obama state,” which is good news, considering the Republicans never win the white house without it. As a result Gottlieb sees Obama’s Electoral College lead upgraded to 292-234 (270 wins).
Lest we wallow in unbridled optimism, former Dukakis campaign director Susan Estrich writes in her Real Clear Politics post that her candidate was 20 points ahead of Bush I in mid-July ’88, and still lost. Despite abundant Democratic advantages this cycle, Estrich argues that Dems must now put aside internecine bickering: “it’s time to stop whining and start working. Otherwise, it will be hello President McCain.”
E.J. Dionne, Jr. reviews Al Gore’s buzz-generating speech on energy independence at Constitution Hall, which may begin the “compelling narrative” on the topic Democracy Corps says Dems need.
Michael Sean Winters has an interesting TNR article advising Obama how to win Catholic voters, who are 23 percent of the electorate and even more influential in swing states, like PA, NV, NH and WI. Winters, author of “Left at the Altar: How the Democrats Lost the Catholics and How the Catholics Can Save the Democrats,” says “Catholics are ripe for Obama to pick if he can master the distinctive ways they view economic issues. Unlike the gloom-and-doom preaching of Calvin’s heirs, Catholicism has a more positive take on the possibilities of human culture and politics that would fit Obama’s politics of hope nicely.”
Here’s a simple, but very effective video ad that could be broadly-used by Democratic candidates for the white house and Congress — and making a point that merits repetition.