washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

The Rural Voter

The new book White Rural Rage employs a deeply misleading sensationalism to gain media attention. You should read The Rural Voter by Nicholas Jacobs and Daniel Shea instead.

Read the memo.

There is a sector of working class voters who can be persuaded to vote for Democrats in 2024 – but only if candidates understand how to win their support.

Read the memo.

The recently published book, Rust Belt Union Blues, by Lainey Newman and Theda Skocpol represents a profoundly important contribution to the debate over Democratic strategy.

Read the Memo.

Democrats should stop calling themselves a “coalition.”

They don’t think like a coalition, they don’t act like a coalition and they sure as hell don’t try to assemble a majority like a coalition.

Read the memo.

The American Establishment’s Betrayal of Democracy

The American Establishment’s Betrayal of Democracy The Fundamental but Generally Unacknowledged Cause of the Current Threat to America’s Democratic Institutions.

Read the Memo.

Democrats ignore the central fact about modern immigration – and it’s led them to political disaster.

Democrats ignore the central fact about modern immigration – and it’s led them to political disaster.

Read the memo.

 

The Daily Strategist

April 25, 2024

Do the Tighten Up, Part II

The latest data point being seized on by conservatives to support the idea that the presidential race is “tightening” is yesterday’s results for the Investors Business Daily/TIPP national tracking poll, which had Obama’s lead down to 1.1%. This is supposed to be especially important because IBD/TIPP came closest to predicting the 2004 results.
Nate Silver, bless his pointy little head, noticed a really bizarre internal finding in that poll: it showed McCain beating Obama by a 74-22 margin among 18-24 year-old voters. He proceeds to blow up the whole survey:

Suppose that the true distribution of the 18-24 year old vote is a 15-point edge for Obama. This is a very conservative estimate; most pollsters show a gap of anywhere from 20-35 points among this age range.
About 9.3 percent of the electorate was between age 18-24 in 2004. Let’s assume that the percentage is also 9.3 percent this year. Again, this is a highly conservative estimate. The IBD/TIPP poll has a sample size of 1,060 likely voters, which would imply that about 98 of those voters are in the 18-24 age range.
What are the odds, given the parameters above, that a random sampling of 98 voters aged 18-24would distribute themselves 74% to McCain and 22% to Obama?
Using a binomial distribution, the odds are 54,604,929,633-to-1 against. That is, about 55 billion to one.
So, there is an 0.000000002% chance that IBD/TIPP just got really unlucky. Conversely, there is a 99.999999998% chance that one of the following things is true:
(i) They’re massively undersampling the youth vote. If you only have, say, 30 young voters when you should have 100 or so in your sample, than the odds of a freak occurrence like this are significantly more likely.
-or-
(ii) Something is dramatically wrong with their sampling or weighting procedures, or their likely voter model.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, a huge batch of new state polls yesterday gave John McCain what Silver called his worst polling day of the year.


Obamacons Exodus Holds Lesson for Dems

The Economist has a heart-warming (for Dems) cartoon depicting elephants bailing out of a sinking GOP ship and swimming toward a ship bearing an “Obama ’08” campaign flag, as pleasantly surprised donkeys watch them scramble on board. The accompanying article, “The Rise of the Obamacons,” notes:

The biggest brigade in the Obamacon army consists of libertarians, furious with Mr Bush’s big-government conservatism, worried about his commitment to an open-ended “war on terror”, and disgusted by his cavalier way with civil rights. There are two competing “libertarians for Obama” web sites. CaféPress is even offering a “libertarian for Obama” lawn sign for $19.95. Larry Hunter, who helped to devise Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America in 1994, thinks that Mr Obama can free America from the grip of the “zombies” who now run the Republican Party.

The Economist article goes on to cite a recent WaPo/ABC News poll indicating Obama is winning 22 percent of self-described conservatives, “a higher proportion than any Democratic nominee since 1980” and calls the roll of the more recent conservative intellectuals endorsing Obama, including General Powell, Francis Fukuyama, Christopher Buckley, Douglas Kmiec and Kenneth Adelman. (See Ed Kilgore’s Oct. 14 TDS post on the Buckley endorsement of Obama for a longer list)
The Economist article also does a good job of probing the “why” of the exodus of conservative intellectuals:

For many conservatives, Mr Obama embodies qualities that their party has abandoned: pragmatism, competence and respect for the head rather than the heart. Mr Obama’s calm and collected response to the turmoil on Wall Street contrasted sharply with Mr McCain’s grandstanding.
Much of Mr Obama’s rhetoric is strikingly conservative, even Reaganesque. He preaches the virtues of personal responsibility and family values, and practises them too. He talks in uplifting terms about the promise of American life. His story also appeals to conservatives: it holds the possibility of freeing America from its racial demons, proving that the country is a race-blind meritocracy…

I doubt that the smarter conservatives believe an Obama presidency will “free America from its racial demons,” but I do believe that they like the fact that Senator and Mrs. Obama achieved so much without affirmative action.
But the larger lesson of the ‘Obamacons’ may be that temperament and style of leadership can trump policy. Many of these same conservatives believe that Obama is one of the more liberal members of the Senate. But they like his prudence and deliberate manner of decision-making. True conservatives also respect competence, and it’s not hard to imagine them wincing painfully at the McCain campaign’s blunder of the day. The McCain campaign’s Keystone Kops routine has made it embrarrassing for many conservatives to wear his campaign button, while Obama continues to make impressive gains on a daily basis.
There is a lesson here for Democrats, that it is possible to win the support of thinking conservatives without compromising unduly on progressive reforms. Yes, it helps a lot to have blundering adversaries, but dems would do well to remember the conservative exodus of ’08 and the way Obama handled himself to help make it happen.


Socialists and Muslims

The constant campaign of innuendo suggesting that Barack Obama is some sort of Muslim is well known, and only credible to, well, the extremely credulous. But the other smear-word being aimed at Obama is right out in the open, launched by all sorts of respectable conservatives, and is just as crazy from any objective point of view as the suggestion that the Democratic nominee secretly prays five times a day while facing Mecca: Obama is a socialist!
Google “Obama socialist” and you get 3.6 million links. Blogsearch the same term for a much smaller universe and you get 13,000 links in the last week, and more than two thousand in the last day. Both John McCain and Sarah Palin have used the word “socialism” to describe Obama’s fiscal policies, albeit through fond references to the assessments of their buddy Joe (sic!) the Plumber (sic!).
I’ve been around a while, and can’t recall any other Democratic presidential nominee being tarred with the S-word very often, outside the truly far-right fever swamps. “Liberal,” sure. “Ultra-liberal,” sure. Even “leftist,” sure. But unlike those L-words, “socialism” connotes a pretty specific set of views, mainly involving public ownership of the means of production.
What has Obama said to merit this sudden and massive effusion of red-baiting? His fiscal proposals, the main occasion for all the S-word slinging, basically amount to returning top tax rates to where they were during the Clinton administration. Nobody much called the Big Dog a “socialist,” as opposed to all the others terms of abuse he endured. And the top tax rates proposed by Obama would be a lot lower than they were during the administrations of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon and Gerald Ford. Yes, the John Birch Society called Ike a communist, but that wasn’t a very common view (conservative intellectual Russell Kirk said: “Ike’s not a communist. He’s a golfer.”).
How’s about Obama’s “socialized medicine” health care proposal? Does that earn him the S-word? C’mon. Surely any socialist worth his salt would propose, as an absolute minimum, a government-run single-payer health care system like that operating in Canada and (in one form or another) Europe. Not Barack Obama, who insists on maintaining private health insurance and consumer choice as the backbone of his plan for universal health coverage.
Since Obama hasn’t proposed nationalizing any major (or minor) industries, and is relying on a resolutely centrist economic policy team, the “socialist” label is, well, simply bizarre, unless the word has no real meaning.
But if there’s anything more incredible than calling Obama a “Muslim” or a “socialist,” it’s calling him a “Muslim socialist,” as a local Republican leader in New Mexico did this week. (It’s not an unusual charge; it was recently hurled directly at Obama by voters in North Carolina, who probably didn’t come up with it by themselves).
It doesn’t take an advanced degree in religion or Middle Eastern Affairs to become at least dimly aware that Islam and socialism are not terribly compatible. And this is particularly true of Jihadist strains of Islam. Al-Qaeda, you may recall, was basically born in the struggle of jihadist against “atheistic communists” in Afghanistan. The Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, were all developed in violent opposition to secular-leaning socialists in the Muslim world, particularly in Egypt and Palestine. There are rich traditions of Christian socialism and of Jewish socialism, to be sure. But not so much Islamic socialism.
So make up your minds, Obama-haters. There’s not any real evidence to support any of your smears, but if you must use them, pick one and stick with it.


Why We Need Election Reform

Well, here we are twelve days from the general elections, and only now is the political world focusing on the high likelihood of voter supression shananigans. It would have been nice if the persistence of these tactics had led to national legislation to deal with the national problem of wildly varying, arbitrary, and partisan election administration.
A New York Times editorial on voter-list purges and other voter suppression tactics starkly exposed the situation:

Congress and the states need to develop clear and accurate rules for purges and new-voter verification that ensure that eligible voters remain on the rolls — and make it much harder for partisans to game the system. These rules should be public, and voters who are disqualified should be notified and given ample time before Election Day to reverse the decision.
For this election, voters need to be prepared to fight for their right to cast a ballot. They should try to confirm before Nov. 4 that they are on the rolls — something that in many states can be done on a secretary of state or board of elections Web site. If their state permits it, they should vote early. Any voter who finds that their name has disappeared from the rolls will then have time to challenge mistakes.

Americans shouldn’t have to “fight for their right to cast a ballot.” And we can only hope that after this election, finally, the next president and Congress get serious about election reform.


Gay Marriage Wars in California

The epicenter of the latest battle in the war over gay marriage is California, where Proposition 8, which would ban celebration or recognition of same-sex marriages, is fueling an expensive and highly competitive campaign.
Polls earlier this year showed Prop 8 losing decisively, which led to a lot of premature talk about the decline of this classic conservative wedge issue. But the pro-Prop 8 campaign, rooted in evangelical churches and heavily bankrolled by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), made definite gains and appeared to pull ahead in public opinion last month.
Now there are dueling polls on Prop. 8. A Survey USA poll on October 17 showed the initiative ahead by a narrow 48-45 margin. But last night, the Public Policy Institute of California released a poll showing Prop. 8 losing among likely voters, 52-44.
It does appear by all accounts that the momentum behind Prop. 8 may have peaked a bit early. Spending on both sides is heavy (over $20 million each), and roughly equal.


Better Barone

I’m happy to report that for the first time in quite a few years, I’ve read a piece by Michael Barone that wasn’t ruined by his Republican bias.
It’s a pretty basic article for non-junkies on polling, and it covers issues ranging from the Bradley Effect to exit polls with a brisk competence. The only false note was his suggestion that Barack Obama’s lead in the polls is roughly the same lead Thomas Dewey enjoyed at this point in 1948.
For political people over a certain age, Barone’s devolution into Republican talking points distribution has been a sad development. As co-founder of the Almanac of American Politics, Barone once was (and still could be, if he wanted to) the preeminent objective numbers-cruncher of them all. And indeed, the Almanac itself remained relatively free of Barone’s Republican proclivities until pretty recently (I did a review of the 2006 edition noting the growing starboard tilt of that onetime Bible of Politics).
So it’s nice to find a brief moment when the old Barone–the better Barone–reappears. We’ve missed him.


The “He’s a Muslim” Rap Persists

Beliefnet’s Steve Waldman drew attention today to a finding in the new Pew poll that I missed: the persistent belief of many voters that Barack Obama is a Muslim.
Currently 55% of registered voters correctly identify Obama as a Christian, while 12% say he’s a Muslim, and the rest are unsure. These numbers have been remarkably stable since June. Among voters who say they support John McCain, only 47% say Obama’s a Christian, while 16% say he’s a Muslim (down from 19% last month).
In defense of Colin Powell’s claim that Republicans bear significant responsibility for the Obama-the-Muslim myth, Waldman provides a good compilation of evidence from conservative journals and Republican operatives who have sought to fan the flames by alluding to an Obama-Muslim connection.
But in the end, maybe it doesn’t matter that much. Far and away, the age demographic with the highest levels of confusion over Obama’s religious identity (45% Christian, 19% Muslim) is under-30 voters, his strongest generational group. And 8% of Obama supporters think he’s a Muslim, but don’t care, as well they shouldn’t.


“Most Qualified”

Amidst sinking poll numbers for his running-mate, and considerable criticism of his choice of Sarah Palin from conservatives, John McCain’s “amazed” at all the buyer’s remorse. So amazed, in fact, that he’s engaged in a bit of hyperbole in describing Palin’s qualifications:

John McCain called out fellow Republicans who have questioned running mate Sarah Palin’s credentials Tuesday.
“What’s their problem?” McCain asked during an interview with radio host Don Imus.
“She is a governor, the most popular governor in America,” McCain said. “I think she is the most qualified of any that has run recently for vice president.”

Now that’s an interesting claim. If McCain means Palin is the most qualified of all recent vice presidential candidates, then he’s saying she more qualified than former White House Chief of Staff, Congressman, and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney; former Congressman and Senator Al Gore; and his own reputed favorite for vice president, Joe Lieberman.
If he’s saying she’s the most qualified Governor to run recently for vice president, well, that’s another thing. The last sitting Governor to appear in the second spot on a major-party ticket was Spiro T. Agnew in 1968. Palin may well be more qualified than ol’ Ted, who we now know was accepting brown bags stuffed with cash from road contractors before, during and after his first Veep bid.
Want to guess the last time a sitting Governor ran for vice president on the Democratic ticket? 1924, when William Jennings Bryan’s younger brother, Charlie, then Governor of Nebraska, ran with John W. Davis in one of the great electoral disasters of the twentieth century.


Pew: Broad Obama Gains

The new Pew Research poll I wrote about last night has some pretty interesting internal findings.
Comparing the two candidates’ standing in this poll to a mid-September Pew poll in which they were basically tied, the trends are clear and broad. In September McCain led among white voters 52-38. Now they’re tied at 45%. Obama’s gained 8% among men, 5% among women. Among white men and white women alike, Obama gained 7%. Most strikingly, Obama was down 50-36 among white non-college-educated voters in September. He’s closed the gap to 45-42.
Looking at the electorate from a religious-affiliation point of view, Obama made high single-digit gains between the September and October polls among mainline Protestants, Catholics (both weekly attendees and those who are less observant), and less-observant white evangelical Protestants. (McCain still leads among white evangelicals overall by a 67-24 margin).
Obama leads significantly among voters who are “strong” supporters of one candidate or the other (36-21). And in a question that got a lot of attention in the last presidential cycle, 77% of Obama supporters say they’re voting for him instead of voting against McCain. In the 2004 exit polls, only 43% of Kerry voters said that.
Pew rates 23% of voters as “swing” in the sense of not being completely certain of how they will vote. Of those, 8% lean to Obama, 6% to McCain, while 9% claim to be purely undecided.
Any way you slice it, Obama’s lead over McCain is exceptionally broad-based and doesn’t seem to depend on any particular demographic group. And with under two weeks left, that doesn’t offer much of a strategic target for John McCain.


Two Big Polls Show Big Obama Lead

Earlier today we drew attention to Nate Silver’s analysis of national tracking polls. But two big standard polls, which happen to be among the most credible, came out today, and they both show Barack Obama at over 50% with a double-digit lead.
Pew Research’s poll, which has a relatively large sample and a respected methodology, shows Obama up by fourteen percentage points among both registered voters (52%-38%), and likely voters (53%-39%). Pew had the two candidates tied among likely voters in mid-September.
Meanwhile, a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has Obama up 52%-42% among registered voters. Two weeks ago Obama led in this poll 49%-43%.
There’s lots of interesting internals in both polls–particularly Pew–but I’ll get to those tomorrow. The topline finding from Pew is that Obama’s support is now more solid and more positive than McCain’s–much as George W. Bush’s support was four years ago as compared to John Kerry’s–and voters really don’t like McCain’s campaign, by big margins. The NBC/WSJ finding that’s getting a lot of attention tonight is the evidence that Sarah Palin is having a significant negative effect on assessments of John McCain’s judgment and temperament. It seems Palin’s a bigger problem for McCain than George W. Bush.