OH Sen: Fisher-Portman Race Still Extremely Close

The race for the open Ohio Senate seat is still extremely close according to a new Quinnipiac poll. Democratic Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher holds only a two-point lead over Republican Rob Portman:

Quinnipiac 6/22-27
Fisher 42
Portman 40
Someone else 1
Won't Vote 1
Don't Know 17

The race is effectively tied, with Fisher's lead within the poll’s three-point margin of error. For over half a year, Fisher and Portman have be been polling only a few points apart in this traditional battleground state, and it would not be a surprise to see this race remain close all the way through to the November general election.

While both candidates have net favorable ratings, a majority of voters don't feel they know enough about the candidates to form a judgment at this point:

Lee Fisher (D)
Favorable 28
Unfavorable 17
Haven't heard enough 54
Refused 1

Rob Portman (R)
Favorable 26
Unfavorable 7
Haven't heard enough 66
Refused 1

Democrats hope to tie the relatively unknown Portman to unpopular former President George W. Bush by emphasizing his role as Bush’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

One other interesting highlight from the poll: the new health care law remains unpopular in Ohio. Only 36 percent of Ohio voters approve of the "federal health care overhaul," while 55 percent oppose (though I will note "federal health overhaul" seems like a fairly negative phrasing. I suspect "new health care law" or "health insurance reform law" might poll somewhat better).

updated - a new PPP poll finds the race similarly close with also a very small lead for Fisher.

PPP (6/26-27)
Fisher 40
Portman 38
undecided 22

CA Gov and Sen: Dems Brown and Boxer Hold Small Leads in Latest Poll

The two Democrats running atop the California ticket, gubernatorial candidate (and current state Attorney General) Jerry Brown and Senator Barbara Boxer, both hold modest leads in their respective races according to a new Ipsos/Reuters poll.

Ipsos
Jerry Brown 45
Meg Whitman 39

Barbara Boxer 45
Carly Fiorina 41

Republican candidate for governor Meg Whitman has just come off a heated primary in which she spent huge amounts on advertising. Whitman’s name recognition is likely higher even than Brown, a former governor, at this point, so having any lead right now puts Brown in respectable shape. But Brown is facing a candidate willing to spend well over a hundred million dollars of her own fortune on this political campaign, which should still be a scary prospect for the AG.

The news is a bit worse for Boxer. Not only is Carly Fiorina just four points behind, but Boxer is also an incumbent polling below 50 percent. Having a whopping 78 percent of Californians believing their state is on the wrong track means it is not a good environment for an incumbent. Of course, California is a heavily Democratic-leaning state, and even a substantial national swing to the Republican party might not be large enough to overcome the Democrats’ built-in advantage in the state.

Daily Kos Defrauded by Pollster Research 2000, Markos Alleges

Daily Kos had until recently been sponsoring political polling by pollster Research 2000. Founder Markos Moulitsas broke off the relationship several weeks ago. Today, armed with evidence of significant statistical irregularity, he has released his conclusion that Daily Kos was defrauded by Research 2000 and has renounced the results of polls that Daily Kos commissioned.

We contracted with Research 2000 to conduct polling and to provide us with the results of their surveys. Based on the report of the statisticians, it's clear that we did not get what we paid for. We were defrauded by Research 2000, and while we don't know if some or all of the data was fabricated or manipulated beyond recognition, we know we can't trust it. […]

While the investigation didn't look at all of Research 2000 polling conducted for us, fact is I no longer have any confidence in any of it, and neither should anyone else. I ask that all poll tracking sites remove any Research 2000 polls commissioned by us from their databases. I hereby renounce any post we've written based exclusively on Research 2000 polling.

Also posted on Daily Kos is an article by Mark Grebner, Michael Weissman and Jonathan Weissman systematically laying out the serious statistical oddities in Research 2000's tracking poll data. Based on this information, Daily Kos will be filing suit against Research 2000.

In past postings, other FDL writers and I have made reference to Research 2000 polls commissioned by Daily Kos.

High-Risk-Pool Time Bomb Looms While Baucus Wins Medicare for His Chosen Few

The media are finally waking up to the fact that the temporary high-risk pools created by the new health-care law were completely unfunded. Only $5 billion was set aside for the program, which is probably less than a third of what would be required to keep the program funded until 2014. This should not be news to Congress or people closely following the health-care debate. Back in December 2009, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) clearly concluded, “By 2011 and 2012 the initial $5 billion in Federal funding for this program [high risk pools] would be exhausted.” A fact FDL chose to highlight.

As little as a year ago, this would not have had to become a major problem. I would have expected Congress in 2011-2012 to provide the needed additional funds for the high-risk pools, preventing hundreds of thousands of people from losing their health care. That is before I witnessed the recent fight to kill the tax-extender bill, which contained COBRA subsidies, emergency Medicaid funding and unemployment insurance extension. A cruel indifference to the plight of regular people and fake deficit hysteria have taken over the Senate. The added funding for the high-risk pools may suffer the same fate. This is one of the many foolish political time bombs Democrats wrote into their own health-care bill. They cared more about some CBO price tag than doing it right.

The foolishness of creating new state-based public/private hybrids for health insurance

The trouble that states and the federal government are having with setting up the high-risk pools in time demonstrates an important lesson about the absurdity of creating state-based public/private hybrids to provide health insurance, which the new law does with high-risk pools and eventual exchanges. The decision was idiotic, given that the government for decades has been running the public health-insurance program, Medicare, and providing quality health insurance cost effectively.

Instead of creating these high-risk pools, Congress could have decided to provide the people most in need of health insurance with Medicare. They would have started to receive benefits more than a month ago, and the money would have covered more people. Instead, many will wait at least until August before getting help.

We have proof that expanding Medicare could have been done much quicker. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) made sure to include a provision in the law to expand Medicare to the victims of asbestos contamination in Libby—in his home state. I can happily report that less than two months after the President signed the new law, people in Libby were getting their Medicare cards. Too bad Baucus doesn't use his powerful Finance chairmanship to make sure millions of other Americans in need also get help so quickly.

Byrd’s Death Gives Dems Excuse for Continued Stockholm Syndrome

This headline from “The New York Times,” Byrd's Death Weakens Democrats' Frail Majority, perfectly sums up what a broken, insane Bizzaro World the United States Senate has made of Washington, DC. (Note: Before this post was published, the “Times” changed the headline to Byrd's Death Weakens Democrats' Shifting Majority.) The headline appears ridiculous either way. Even without the late Robert Byrd, the Democratic caucus still has 17 more seats in the Senate than the Republicans. That is near the historic high for any party. Plus, the Democratic Governor of West Virginia, Joe Manchin, will likely appoint a Democratic replacement in short order.

The problem is that the headline is also 100 percent on the mark. The Democrats' majority is very frail. Byrd's death might imperil the financial reform bill because the bill can now likely win only 56 to 59 votes in the Senate. That’s an overwhelming majority, just not a super majority. For the same reason, Byrd's passing will probably prevent the Senate from taking up the DISCLOSE Act since it could win only a large majority of votes. And the frail Democratic majority in the Senate struggled and failed to pass a basic unemployment-insurance extension and more Medicaid money for states.

The Democrats’ majority is not frail because it lacks numbers, which it has in abundance. It is frail because the Democratic caucus chooses to be pathetically weak by embracing self-imposed helplessness. It has allowed itself to be completely bent to the will of a minority party. There is nothing legally, constitutionally or physically stopping 50 Democrats plus Vice President Joe Biden from restricting or just eliminating the filibuster this afternoon. Yet Democrats have chosen to forfeit completely their Constitutional right as the majority party in Congress to craft legislation by giving that power to a handful of Republican Senators.

The Democratic majority is frail. But that’s not because its huge Senate majority slipped from 59 to 58. It is frail because it lacks the spirit, will and courage of its convictions.

If Democrats in the Senate can't even convince one another to vote to restore their own power as the duly elected majority, how will they convince regular Americans to bother voting this November to keep them in a permanent state of self-imposed weakness power?

Controversial SC Dem Greene Pays $10K But Can’t Afford Lawyer; State Investigates

If the saga of Alvin Greene, the unemployed man who happened to win the South Carolina Democratic primary for US Senate by a huge margin, had you wondering where he obtained the $10,400 in cash needed to pay the candidate filing fee, you are not alone. The State of South Carolina is also very interested. The reason is the State of South Carolina recently provided Greene with a public defender for a previous, unrelated charge, something he should not have been entitled to if he had sufficient funds to afford one. From the “State” newspaper:

SLED [South Carolina Law Enforcement Division] and the 5th Circuit solicitor’s office are investigating the finances of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Alvin Greene to see whether any laws have been broken in the way he has been representing his financial situation to the state court system.

SLED will use a new state law that allows the agency to issue an administrative subpoena to financial institutions, agency director Reggie Lloyd confirmed Sunday.

Gov. Mark Sanford signed the new law last Thursday. The law requires banks to turn over to SLED basic information about account holders in cases of suspected financial wrongdoing.

If Greene lied about his finances in official court documents, and as a result had the state pay for his lawyer, that might result in criminal charges.

While most of the damage to the South Carolina Democratic Party as a result of Greene's nomination has probably already been done, it further hurts the party to see his name appear in the headlines.

Byrd Did Not Just Write the Book on Senate, He Rewrote Its Rules

Many reports on the late Robert Byrd’s long career as a US Senator are pointing out that Byrd literally wrote the book on Senate rules and history. And while it is true that Byrd did write the quintessential four-part history of the chamber, his real importance comes from the fact that it was Byrd himself who rewrote Senate rules and precedent.

Robert Byrd was in the Senate in 1975 when the number of votes needed for cloture was dropped from 67 to 60. Two years later, in an attempt to circumvent cloture, Senators Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) and James Abourezk (D-SD) performed a post-cloture filibuster (PDF). They did this by offering a slew of amendments without debate, forcing a roll-call vote for each. Now elevated to Senate Majority Leader, Byrd decided he’d had enough, and he created a plan to destroy the possibility of a post-cloture filibuster by changing Senate precedent. With the help of then-Vice President Walter Mondale, Byrd raised a point of order to require the chair to rule all post-cloture dilatory amendments out of order. When Metzenbaum and Abourezk lost their appeal of the chair's ruling, Byrd used the new precedent to rule all of their amendments out of order. With this he created the precedent that a bill, after securing the needed cloture vote, could not be stopped.

Just one year later, Byrd set in motion another plan to change how the Senate was run to get around a filibuster, this time of a nominee. Byrd was afraid that the nominee would face a double filibuster: the motion to proceed to executive session and then the motion to proceed to the first nominee. So when the moment came, Byrd offered a motion to proceed to executive session to consider the first nominee. This was declared a violation of Senate precedent, but Byrd won a simple majority appeal of the ruling by a 54-38 vote and in effect changed how the Senate operated.

Similarly, in 1979, Byrd faced the possibility of a filibuster of several of his proposed rule changes at the beginning of a new Congress. He stated clearly that he believed in the right of a simple majority of Senators to change the rules as Congress began its session. The threat, while never executed, helped Byrd enact many changes to Senate rules.

What’s the relevance of these instances? They show that the Senate's rules and precedents are not fixed in stone since the birth of the Republic. They are modified and changed, often in a blunt manner, by the majority of members who serve in the chamber. Even Byrd, the man who was seen as the great defender of Senate tradition, did not hesitate to use a simple majority vote to change the rules and precedents so the chamber could do its actual work of governing. Byrd defended the rules of the Senate, but he rewrote, exploited and officially ignored those rules when it fit his needs.

I hope reporters and elected officials recall this part of Byrd's history in the Senate and his showdown with Metzenbaum and Abourezk. As we watch the Senate become an ineffectual forum crippled by the ridiculous exploitation of its rules, remember that a majority of senators can put a stop to the nonsense if they want to. The Senate does not exist to protect its rules, traditions and precedents. The rules and precedents should only facilitate the Senate's ability to execute its real, constitutionally prescribed duties. When and if the rules get in the way of that, they need to change.

Why Are Senate Democrats Letting Republicans Ruin Our Economy?

Senate Democrats have again failed to pass a large tax-extender and jobs bill because of a unified Republican filibuster. The bill is meant to stop massive layoffs, make sure poor people don't lose their health care and provide continued unemployment insurance to the many Americans hit hard by the recession. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) firmly stated that she believes Republicans are destroying the economy and the lives of millions of Americas for political gain. From David Dayen:

Stabenow, whose state of Michigan has the second-highest unemployment in the country, did not mince words. “The Republicans in the Senate want this economy to fail,” she said bluntly. “In cynical political terms, it doesn’t serve them if things turn around (in the economy).”

Several left-leaning writers like Greg Sargent have all noted the basic game theory 101 involved. Voters will blame Democrats, and vote for Republicans, if the economy stays bad. So, Republicans have a huge incentive to block Democrats from passing legislation that would improve the economy, and Senate Republicans have the tool to do that with the filibuster.

My question is: If Democratic Senators like Stabenow actually believe Republicans are trying to destroy the lives of millions of Americans and our economy, why on Earth are Senate Democrats letting Republicans do it?

Forty-one Senate Republicans can't constitutionally stop a bill unless the Senate Democrats let them. Fifty Democratic Senators plus Joe Biden can pass any legislation they want if they are willing to play hardball.

If they wanted to, Democrats could pass a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions that could be used for the tax-extender bill. They could than pass the tax bill as a reconciliation measure, which can't be filibustered in the Senate. This process would be very time consuming but could in theory work.

Better yet, Democrats could just take to the floor and use the “nuclear option” to eliminate the absurd anti-constitutional filibuster once and for all. Within an hour, they could end the much-abused practice and pass the tax-extender and jobs bill that millions of Americans desperately need. If Democrats actually believe Republicans are using the filibuster to destroy our economy for political gain, then eliminate it—now. Millions are suffering so Senate Democrats can maintain the silly, destructive traditions of their chamber.

The Senate Republicans' callous behavior disgusts me. Sadly, I'm only slightly less disgusted by the Senate Democrats who let them get away with it because they don't want to change the made-up rules of their super-fun club. What is worse: ruining the lives of millions for political gain or letting others do it because you don't want to change the rules that give you more power due to the 60-vote threshold for cloture?

If left-wing pundits are going to express their outrage about the Republican behavior in this matter, then they also need to direct it at the Democrats for letting it happen. This is not a game. People's livelihoods are at stake. But I guess among elected Democrats and Washington pundits, that is a distant second choice compared with protecting the "proud Senate tradition" that served for decades to stop anti-lynching laws and civil rights legislation.

NC Sen: Dem Marshall Real Threat to GOP Incumbent Burr

I have long said that Richard Burr (R-NC) is the most, and probably only, endangered incumbent Republican Senator this election cycle. His approval numbers have been poor for a while. With voters taking a general "throw the bums out" attitude, his seat would be one of the Democrats' best pick- up opportunities. Fresh off her overwhelming victory in last Tuesday's Democratic primary runoff, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall is now right on Burr's heels. According to Rasmussen, they are in a statistical tie:

Rasmussen (6/23)
Burr 44
Marshall 43
Some Other Candidate 7
Not sure 6

This poll was taken right after Marshall won the runoff, so she might be experiencing a temporary post- victory boost that will fade in a few weeks. Still, the race should be close this November, with Marshall having a real chance of winning. She is a good candidate who has already won statewide elections. With Democrats expecting Senate losses in states like North Dakota, they'll focus on North Carolina

Good News for Crist, Chafee? Americans Open to Independent Candidates

Almost half the American public is now open to voting for independent and third-party candidates, according to the new NBC/WSJ poll (PDF). This is not too surprising an outcome, given the extremely low current opinion of the two main political parties.

According to the poll, 46 percent of those surveyed are enthusiastic or comfortable voting for a candidate who is independent and is not affiliated with either political party, while only 23 percent have reservations or would be uncomfortable with it. Those are very good numbers. People are also significantly more at ease with voting for an independent candidate than for one endorsed by Barack Obama (36-43) or Sarah Palin (25-52). At the moment, there’s no strong inherent stigma to running as an independent.

The bigger news for potential third-party and independent candidates is that a quarter of people say they are more likely to make such a choice this year for Congress.

If the choice in your district had the following, would you be more likely to vote for a--(ROTATE:)
Republican candidate for Congress, a Democratic candidate for Congress--or an independent or third party candidate for Congress?

Republican candidate ................................................... 31
Democratic candidate ................................................... 34
Independent/third party candidate ................................ 25
Not sure ........................................................................ 10

That is potentially fertile territory for independent candidates. Of course, the problem is that the 25 percent could potentially be split equally among ultra-conservative voters unhappy with Republicans, ultra-progressives unhappy with Democrats and moderate voters unhappy with both parties. If that 25 percent splinters, it would be impossible to line up that vote behind a single candidate.

Despite the improved environment for independents and third parties, I doubt we will see many win the elections in November. The two major parties have huge built-in advantages, and they have crafted our election laws to reinforce them. As long as we have first-past-the-post and single-member districts, instead of instant-runoff voting or proportional representation, overcoming the spoiler-effect issue is a huge hurdle to creating viable non-major candidates.

The few candidates who will benefit from this pro-independent environment already have high name recognition and have established themselves as serious politicians. This poll is good news for two prominent former Republicans running statewide as independents: Charlie Crist for US Senator in Florida, and Lincoln Chafee for Governor in Rhode Island.

Big Money Alert: Oil Companies Spend Millions to Overturn CA Climate-Change Law

In addition to deciding whether or not to legalize marijuana, California voters will decide whether or not to abolish AB 32, the state's tough climate-change legislation. The abolition measure just qualified for the November ballot. Two big oil companies, Valero Energy Inc. and Tesoro Corp., invested heavily in gathering the signatures needed to get it on the ballot and will probably spend millions on the ensuing campaign. From the “Los Angeles Times”:

Supporters of the law [AB 32] say it has spurred a large market for solar, wind and other clean energy sources.

But backers of the ballot effort, who are calling their measure "the California Jobs Initiative,” paint the climate law as "an energy tax." Their initiative would halt enforcement of the law until unemployment in the state, now over 12%, sinks to 5.5% for at least a year. [...]

Proponents of the measure spent $3 million, more than two thirds of it contributed by the two Texas companies and other energy interests, to gather more than 800,000 signatures to place the measure on the ballot. To qualify, the initiative needed 433,971 signatures, equal to 5% of the ballots cast in the 2006 general election.

This follows the same pattern of corporations trying to buy favorable legislation through the ballot-initiative system that we saw on California’s June primary ballot. There, power company PG&E spent millions on its political power grab disguised as a ballot initiative, Proposition 16. It would have made it much harder to set up local utilities and therefore greatly enriched PG&E by protecting it from new competition. Prop. 16 failed narrowly, and we hope this measure, bankrolled by big oil to protect its corporate profits, will suffer the same fate.

CO Sen: Dubious Damage Control: Norton Releases Poll Showing She’s Barely Ahead of Rival

This is not a good sign for Jane Norton in the Colorado Republican primary for US Senate. She has released an internal poll (PDF) showing her with a small lead over Ken Buck, 39 to 33 percent, in an effort to tamp down the narrative that she is quickly falling well behind her rival for the Aug. 10 election. Even if this internal poll is accurate, and it’s likely the most pro-Norton of the internal polls they have, a six-point lead with a huge number of undecided answers is not an especially good position.

Norton skipped the GOP state convention, presumably because she knew she’d have a poor showing. Recently, two independent polls from SurveyUSA (Buck 53-Norton 37) and Magellan Strategies(PDF) (Buck 42-Norton 32) had Buck with a double-digit lead over Norton. The trend of the race is that the conservative, Tea Party-backed Buck has been steadily gaining on onetime front-runner Norton.

I can only guess Norton's team released this poll to try to convince people she is not falling into lost-cause territory. That is never a good place for a campaign to be less than two months from the election.

Americans to Congress: Give Us Jobs, Not Deficit Dance

It is very impressive that the deficit fear-mongers, led by people like Peter Peterson, David Walker and Alan Simpson, have managed to get all of Washington worked into a self-destructive frenzy over the issue of the federal debt. The debt simply is not the issue regular Americans care about right now.

Americans overwhelmingly rank jobs and the economy as the most important challenge facing this country, according to a new CBS News/“New York Times” poll. The disconnect between the Washington elites, who have been swept up in deficit hysteria, and the rest of the country couldn't be more stark.

CBS News/NYT Poll (PDF)
What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?

Economy/Jobs: 40
Oil Spill in Gulf: 13
Health Care: 5
Budget Deficit/Nat’l Debt: 5
War/Iraq/Afghanistan: 3
Immigration: 3
Moral Values/Family Values: 2
Misc. Foreign Affairs: 2
Misc. Government Issues: 2
Politicians/Government: 2
Other: 20
DK/NA: 3

The number for the economy and jobs dwarfs all others. The rise of the gulf explosion as a concern has led to a slight drop in the percentage of people ranking the economy as the top problem. Still, it’s a small reduction while we are in the middle of experiencing one of the greatest environmental disasters in the nation's history.

On the other hand, the federal debt ties for third with just five percent, one in every twenty Americans. Even referring to it as tied for third makes it seem far more important to regular Americans than the poll indicates. All the other issues except the economy and the oil spill are in the single digits and separated only by the margin of error.

As Americans focus like lasers on jobs and turning around the economy, deficit hysteria has caused members of Congress to all but abandon legislation that could increase employment. This incredible disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country on our worst problem helps explain why only nine percent of Americans think most members of Congress deserve re-election.

Tuesday Features Runoffs in NC, SC, MS; Primary in UT

Tomorrow, June 22, features primary runoffs in North Carolina, South Carolina and Mississippi. Utah also hosts a primary, but it is similar to a runoff, thanks to a dual convention/primary system that eliminates many candidates at the convention.

North Carolina

The big contest Tuesday is probably the North Carolina Democratic primary for US Senate. The race is between Cal Cunningham and Elaine Marshall to see who will take on incumbent Richard Burr in the general. Burr is probably the most vulnerable incumbent Republican Senator.

Cunningham has the backing of the Washington establishment and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, while Marshall draws much more support from grassroots and activist organizations like DFA and Moveon.org. In the May 5 primary, Marshall won 36 percent of the vote while Cunningham took 27 percent.

The Republican Congressional primary in NC-08 is also drawing interest. The controversial Tim D'Annunzio is facing off against Harold Johnson. National Republicans are strongly hoping D'Annunzio does not get the nomination.

South Carolina

Nikki Haley came in just below the 50 percent mark two weeks ago in the Republican primary for Governor, forcing her into a runoff with Gresham Barrett. Haley received almost twice as many votes as Barrett in the first round and should easily win tomorrow.

Republican Rep. Bob Inglis (SC-03) looks like he will be the latest incumbent to lose this cycle. In the first round of the primary, he was able to win only 28 percent of the vote, compared with Trey Gowdy's 39 percent.

In the Republican-heavy 1st District, if Tim Scott beats Paul Thurmond (son of the late Senator Strom), he will likely be responsible for increasing the number of African-American Republicans in Congress next year from zero to one.

Mississippi

In Mississippi's 2nd District, Bill Marcy and Richard Cook are competing for the Republican nomination. The seat leans strongly Democratic and is currently held by Bennie Thompson (D).

Utah

In Utah, Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater are competing for the Republican nomination for Senate. In the convention, they both managed to get enough delegate votes to prevent incumbent GOP Sen. Bob Bennett from running in the primary, effectively ending his career. The winner of this contest will likely go on to be the next Senator from Utah. Bennett is endorsing Bridgewater in the primary.

On the House side, there is some interest in the UT-02 Democratic primary. Liberal Claudia Wright had a surprisingly strong showing in the party convention and won the right to take on incumbent Jim Matheson in the primary. Matheson is expected to win, though, with the latest poll showing him in the lead, 52 to 33 percent.

Grow the Base, Strengthen the Base: Lessons from the CCF, Part Three

The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation was a political party in Canada that formed during the Great Depression. Most of its support came from the rural cooperative movement among farmers. Cooperative members made up a large part of its voters, and many of its leaders had held elected posts in cooperatives. Organized labor was another important part of its base of support. So, when the CCF took control of the provincial government of Saskatchewan in 1944, it passed legislation to increase the power and membership of the organization that made up its base of support.

The CCF increased the power and number of cooperatives by establishing a Department of Cooperatives. From “Agrarian Socialism: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation In Saskatchewan: A Study in Political Sociology” by Seymour Martin Lipset:

The Saskatchewan government has given enthusiastic support to the growth of the large cooperative movement of the province.

Since the party took office, cooperative organization has increased greatly. The mjor reason is the general prosperity of the rural areas, which enabled farmers to raise share capital for initial investments. There can be little doubt, however that the CCF government of Saskatchewan, by its enthusiastic support of cooperative, has played an important part in the growth of the movement. It established a separate Department of Cooperatives with its own cabinet minister. Almost every new cooperative that I visited during my stay in Saskatchewan had been organized by members or supporters of the CCF. There are now about 500,000 members of cooperatives, an average of four memberships per farmer.

Cooperatives were already a significant base of economic activity in the province and, thanks to the legislative action of the CCF, their role and memberships increased even more. The CCF also greatly increased the power of labor unions through legislation and executive action when it gained power.

At the first session of the legislature after the electoral victory in 1944, the government enacted a Trade Union Act, which was drawn up by the unions and is probably the most pro-union legislation in the democratic capitalist world. The whole trend of government labor action is biased in the direct of supporting trade-union organization and demands. […]

In the four years of CCF government, trade-union memberships increased by 118.5 per cent. In the same period the unions of the entire country increased their membership by only 25 per cent.

The structure of an economy doesn't just develop spontaneously but is defined by government action and legislation. The CCF passed legislation to support cooperatives and labor unions so they would grow greater. In red states, labor unions are uncommon because of Republican-backed, anti-union “right to work” laws. It is no surprise that in the United States, one of the only common forms of cooperatives, credit unions, are also the only type of cooperative with a federal agency, the National Credit Union Administration, dedicated to them. Health insurance cooperatives, common in many European countries, spread across the United States in the 1930s when they had the support of the Farm Security Administration, but almost disappeared when the FSA stopped actively backing the concept.

Republicans such as George W. Bush have learned this lesson and taken steps to empower their base. Republican administrations have taken action that directly benefits the corporations that traditionally support and finance Republican politics. The Bush Administration was very friendly to the oil companies and used the federal government to help enrich them.

George W. Bush also made sure to use the federal government to empower his base of support among the religious right. He did this through his faith-based initiatives program. It directed federal money to religious organizations that traditionally supported Republicans. Not only did it deliver federal funds to these organizations but helped to increase their importance as social, financial and political networks. By providing needed services, these faith-based organizations became a focal point for communities. They reached out to new people, built up local trust, increased social capital and presumably used that to grow memberships.

Choose Allies Who Won't Abandon You for the Trappings of Power: Lessons from the CCF, Part Two

When trying to change the power structure, it is crucial to choose political candidates and organizations truly dedicated to your goals. The trappings of power are very enticing. An outsider candidate, once elected, might think it’s more rewarding to compromise with the current power structure for modest change, and gain a personal place in the hierarchy, than fight doggedly for several years for real reform.

Real political change is tough, and the easy path of modest concessions combined with significant personal gain has been too attractive an option, even to many good people. It creates an overwhelming desire to compromise, especially in politicians and political organizations that are riding a popular wave to power but are not strongly committed to the movement’s goals. Serious reform can be a long battle. It’s critical to choose candidates and organizations that are truly dedicated to your shared goals and won't abandon the cause.

In 1920, the National Progressive Party formed in Canada to address the many grievances of western farmers. In the 1921 federal election, the Progressives elected 65 of the 245 members in the House of Commons. The province of Saskatchewan was a significant base of support.

The dominant Liberal Party offered the Progressives concessions on farmers’ issues and representation in the cabinet. The party leadership favored more unity with Liberals, and the issue divided the young party. From “Agrarian Socialism: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation In Saskatchewan: A Study in Political Sociology” by Seymour Martin Lipset:

Within two years the Progressive group in the House found themselves gradually led back into the Liberal fold by [Progressive national leader T. A.] Crerar and others. They continually supported the government on controversial issues against the Conservatives, although they were able to gain a few concessions from the Liberals on the tariff and the government marketing of wheat. In 1924 a few of the more radical members from Alberta and Saskatchewan broke with the Progressive Party because it was too closely allied with the Liberals

The result of the Progressive experiment taught many Saskatchewan farmers a needed lesson. A new movement requires leaders who believe in it; if they are forced to act radically, they will revert to their original conservatism at the first opportunity. In interviewing members of the Saskatchewan CCF who were active in the Progressive movement, I was struck by the number of old farmers who expressed the view that "you can't trust any politician, even those on our side," and then described the Progressive "betrayal."

Many readers of Firedoglake have seen firsthand in the past two years how important it is to choose leaders and support political organizations that are dedicated to your goals and will not abandon you. It’s crucial to choose allies that don't just talk a good game but are prepared to take real action.

In Canada, some of the Progressive officials and voters later joined other parties, including the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The CCF and its leadership were more dedicated to the needs of rural farmers.

Choosing candidates dedicated to the cause dovetails with the importance of having local associations and financial and social networks filled with self-elected officials. For example, much of the party leadership of the CCF came out of the western farmers’ cooperative movement and held posts in the local cooperatives. This produced a broad talent pool of potential candidates for higher office.

It also self-selects a leadership that is dedicated to the cause at all levels. If a person joins a local association, makes friends in the association, wins a first elected position in it, works up through its hierarchy and uses it as a base of support for a political campaign, those experiences will likely make the candidate committed to the organization’s long-term goals.

How to Turn Local Groups into Incubators of Progressive Candidates: Lessons from the CCF, Part One

The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) was a left-wing political party that emerged in rural western Canada during the Great Depression. The party won control of Saskatchewan's provincial government in the 1940s. While in power, the CCF created the government-run single-payer health insurance system, which was soon adopted nationwide. The CCF is the source of Canada's universal health-care system.

Not surprisingly, much of the CCF’s original support came out of the rural cooperatives common among Canadian farmers on the Great Plains. These cooperatives not only provided an organizing and unifying focal point outside of the traditional political system, but served as an incubator for future elected political leaders in the CCF. The new political party and its leaders did not spring from nowhere, but out of existing political, social and financial networks. From Agrarian Socialism: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation In Saskatchewan: A Study in Political Sociology by Seymour Martin Lipset:

In Saskatchewan it has been possible to trace the social and economic backgrounds of leaders of an organized protest movement. Information was obtained about the social, economic, and political backgrounds of delegates attending the provincial conventions in 1945 and 1946. These delegates, who were elected from forty-five constituency conventions held throughout the province, represented the best large-scale cross section of secondary party leaders. […]

Three-quarters of them held some position in a local or provincial cooperative.

A large number of cooperatives in Saskatchewan had a high proportion of official positions compared with general membership, creating a wealth of members who served in an elected post in these member-run organizations. These people formed the foundation that became the elected leadership and candidates of the CCF.

58.9 per cent of those CCF delegates more than 45 years of age in 1945 held posts in cooperatives before the CCF was organized; it is clear that CCF did not win control of the cooperative movement from the outside, but rather that the existing cooperative leaders organized the CCF.

The elected officials in the cooperatives formed a large pool of potential recruits to run for political office and to be elected to positions within the CCF. By being position- holders, these potential candidates also had a built-in base with a trusted network of potential supporters within their cooperatives. We know that being elected to a position, regardless of how small, is a great predictor of a person's willingness and ability to win larger elections. Nothing breeds success like success.

For example, running for Congress seems like a daunting hill to climb. But if you have been elected as the chair or treasurer of the local chapter of an organization, you might feel comfortable using that as a base of support for run for town council. Going from town council to, say, state legislature might then feel like a modest progression. The jump from state representative to Congress becomes a less frightening undertaking.

Several political movements have shared the pattern of candidate development by moving leaders from relatively modest spots in local associations to more important offices. The Christian right developed local leadership among those elected to positions in churches and school boards. The churches served a similar organizing and unifying focal point that cooperatives did for the CCF. These churches are incubators for electing community leaders: deacons, elders, prayer or fellowship meeting leaders and more that in turn use these positions as a base to run for higher office.

Progressives could learn a lesson about leadership development from the CCF and the Christian right. I'm disappointed that the progressive movement does not have an overwhelming number of small, locally elected positions in independent organizations. Nor are there many strong financial and social networks that lean progressive but are not purely political, with local elected leadership. By promoting local chapters and associations with high levels of involvement, electing minor local position holders, a progressive organization can create a broad pool of talent to draw from for future leaders and candidates for higher office.

Obama's Approval Numbers Dangerously Low in Battleground Districts

A new NPR survey of 70 battleground districts is full of bad news for Democrats. Republicans have a strong lead in the generic ballot in the swing districts surveyed, wining by 49 percent to 41 percent. The poll found that Republicans voters are energized, while Democratic voters are disengaged. Probably the most problematic finding was how low President Obama's approval rating is in swing districts.

President Obama's approval ratings are much lower in these competitive districts than they are nationally: 54 percent of the likely battleground voters disapproved of Obama's performance; 40 percent approved.

"It's very problematic for the President to have a 40 percent approval rating in these 60 Democratic districts," [Republican pollster Glen] Bolger said. "When you look at history, when the President is below 50 percent nationally, his party tends to lose more than 40 seats."

Democrats can only hope that Obama's approval numbers are the temporary victims of the BP oil disaster, and that if and when that situation leaves the front page, they’ll rebound somewhat. But still, that probably accounts for only a few percentage points. The economy and jobs remain the top concerns for voters. Barring a significant uptick in employment, it’s tough to see Democrats’ election prospects and approval numbers seriously improving before November.

With short-term deficit hysteria infecting Congressional Democrats, the federal government may not take major steps to improve the employment situation any time soon. Democrats have scared themselves into inaction. Ironically, the effect of the poor economy, due to federal paralysis, will probably be more politically damaging than any major piece of legislation they could have passed.

In Big States, It Helps to Have Big Wealth to Spend on a Primary

In California, two very wealthy former CEOs, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, both won their respective statewide primaries with large margins. The size of their victories was in no small part due to their ability to spend large amounts of their own money in a large state with many diverse and expensive media markets. Spending big on your own primary campaign is also helping two millionaire political newcomers in Florida, according to a recent Quinnipac poll.

Political neophyte Rick Scott has surged to a 44-31 percent lead over Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum in the race for the Republican nomination for governor, apparently powered by a multi-million-dollar television ad blitz to introduce him to voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

In the contest for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination, Jeff Greene, another political unknown with deep pockets, is following a similar approach of large TV ad spending to move into a statistical dead heat with Kendrick Meek, the independent Quinnipiac University survey finds: Meek gets 29 percent to Greene's 27 percent with former Miami Mayor Maurice Ferre at 3 percent. The biggest number, 37 percent, are undecided.

That is an impressive display of the power of big campaign spending, especially in states with several expensive media markets. Scott has never held important office and is best known for his anti-health care ads. He has a huge lead over McCollum, even though McCollum is a veteran politician who has previously won statewide office and has the backing of the state party establishment.

Greene is an extremely wealthy man who’s come out of nowhere to pull into a tie with Meek. Meek was expected to walk to the nomination until Greene jumped in at the last minute. Meek has been in Florida politics for years, has the support of the party establishment and boasts the endorsement of big names like Bill Clinton.

Here are two serious, long-term politicians who are not polling well compared with their self-financed, wealthy opponents. As the August 24 primary approaches and voters focus more on the election, we will see if the benefits of being able to spend big hold up.

Extending COBRA Should Be a Political No-Brainer

It is good to see that Senate Democrats are acting more progressive less evil less clueless than their House counterparts. They are pushing to include the COBRA subsidies in the tax extender bill after the House dropped them. From Huffington Post:

Unless the law is changed, any worker laid off after June 1 will not be eligible for COBRA subsidies, though workers laid off earlier will continue receiving the subsidy.

Extending COBRA will cost $8 billion, but [Sen. Robert] Casey, who led the last effort to extend benefits, is unfazed. "It's an emergency and when you're in an emergency you use emergency spending," he said in a conference call with progressive media Wednesday. "My amendment will make sure that we have eligibility for COBRA extended through November. To do otherwise would be a terrible mistake for real people, for real families, and a terrible mistake for our economy."

For a second, let’s leave aside the moral issue that we should help people in need. Let's also leave aside the huge hypocrisy of Democrats pounding out the message last year about how important it was to provide more people with health insurance. On a purely political basis, not including the COBRA subsidies is a horrible idea.

Democrats spend a whole year working on a new law to expand health insurance. Yet, a significant number of House Democrats thought it would be a good idea to cut off health insurance for thousands of people by not extending the COBRA subsidies. By the mid-term election, there would probably be more uninsured Americans than before Democrats starting working on health care. It is hard to come up with a better way to undermine the last two years of Democratic control and the health care law.

I doubt any members of Congress will lose a single vote because they voted for a tax extender bill with, say, a $123 billion price tag instead of $115 billion. On the other hand, if thousands of additional Americans lose their health insurance, after Democrats spend a whole year on a bill "guaranteeing health insurance for all Americans," that could really cost members of Congress some votes. It is good to see the Senate Democrats for once are planning on doing the sensible thing, and are not joining the House Blue Dogs’ collective political suicide pact on this issue.

Finding Leverage Points, Flexing Muscles: Lessons from the Anti-Saloon League, Part Four

Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it and I shall move the world.
--Archimedes

Leverage is literally a force multiplier. In politics, a relatively small number of very dedicated volunteers, donors and voters can have an impact far greater than their numbers if they act with precision. The secret is finding the right fulcrum or leverage point to focus your energy. It is important to choose places where you can use your limited power for maximum effect. Wayne B. Wheeler of the Anti-Saloon League understood this perfectly.

By the time Wheeler stepped onto the national stage, he had long since mastered his legislative parlor tricks. When Lincoln Steffens had visited Columbus several years earlier, Wheeler explained his tactics to the great muckraker. “I do it the way the bosses do it, with minorities,” Wheeler said. By delivering his voters to one candidate or another in a close race, he could control an election: “We’ll vote against all the men in office who won’t support our bills. We’ll vote for candidates who will promise to.”

Wheeler made the Prohibition vote the deciding voting bloc in close elections. Even a small group of dedicated supporters became incredibly powerful. They could reward supportive candidates or, more important, dispense retribution to those in office who failed to deliver. In a close election, if you can swing even a few percentage points of the total vote as a bloc, you get to decide who wins the election. You can demand almost anything you want from the candidates. Wheeler found the right leverage points to multiply his force.

I have heard Firedoglake founder Jane Hamsher describe it this way: If you lightly hit someone in the stomach, they don't feel much. If you lightly hit the bicep, they don't feel much. But if you lightly hit just that right spot on their funny bone, they feel it.

Finding the pressure points was an important part of the Anti-Saloon League's success. It became the decider in close elections. The ASL knew how to make the most out of its resources and achieved the rare goal of passing a Constitutional amendment. What’s important is not just the size of a political organization but where and how well it uses its numbers to create the greatest impact.

Valuing Natural Allies over Existing Animus: Lessons from the Anti-Saloon League, Part Three

These are the necessities of politics: exposure, campaign contributions, volunteers and votes. If you want to reward or punish politicians, these are the tools at your disposal. If, like the Anti-Saloon League in the early 20th century, you hope to achieve massive national political change, you’ll need to cast your web wide to find dedicated allies across the country.

The ASL focused like a laser on one issue, Prohibition. Its goal was to pass anti-liquor laws. This tight focus allowed the ASL to reach out to a diverse coalition of allies.

[Texas Sen. Morris] Sheppard was a Yale man, a Shakespeare scholar and one of the Senate’s leading progressive figures. But all that mattered to [ASL lobbyist Wayne] Wheeler was that Sheppard also believed that the liquor sellers preyed most dangerously on the poor and uneducated.

In fact, Wheeler’s devotion to the dream of a dry America accommodated any number of unlikely allies. Billy Sunday, meet pioneering social worker Jane Addams: you’re working together now. The evangelical clergy of the age were motivated to support Prohibition because of their faith; reformers like Addams signed on because of the devastating effect that drunkenness had on the urban poor. Ku Klux Klan, shake hands with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW): you’re on the same team. The Klan’s anti-liquor sentiment was rooted in its hatred of the immigrant masses in liquor-soaked cities; the IWW believed that liquor was a capitalist weapon used to keep the working classes in a stupor.

Progressives, labor unions, evangelicals, the Klan and women's suffragists did not have much in common. Although they all strongly agreed on the "evil" of alcohol, they had very different and sometimes counter-intuitive reasons for doing so.

The ASL realized this and was able to bring together a powerful cross-cultural coalition, spanning loyalties and ideologies. The Prohibition movement’s broad coalition helped it reach into communities all over the nation, and it became an overwhelming force.

The lesson is clear. If you want to achieve significant policy change, you need to look for allies who might be equally dedicated to this narrow cause, outside an obvious political or tribal identity. People can be dedicated advocates for your issue but for completely different reasons. This means not just working with your enemies but repackaging your sales pitch for different audiences. Finding out how to do that is critical for building popular support.

FL Sen: Crist Manages to Hold Lead for Now

Gov. Charlie Crist, running as an independent, holds a narrow lead in the three-way Florida Senate race, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll. The race is still very close and Crist’s fate might rest on who wins the Democratic primary August 24: Kendrick Meek or Jeff Greene.

Quinnipiac (6/1-7)
Kendrick Meek (D) – 17%
Marco Rubio (R) – 33%
Charlie Crist (I) – 37%
DK/NA – 11%

Jeff Greene (D) – 14%
Marco Rubio (R) – 33%
Charlie Crist (I) – 40%
DK/NA - 11

If Greene manages to win the primary, some of the Democratic vote shifts to Crist, according to the poll. That small shift could be decisive.

Looking at the cross tabs, Crist’s support is built on a strong base of independents, significant percentages of Democrats and, to a lesser degree, Republicans.

In a three-way race with Meek, Crist gets 28 percent of Republicans, 37 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of independents. Against Rubio and Greene, Crist gets 28 percent of Republicans, 46 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of independents. By contrast, Rubio gets just 7 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of independents in the Meek matchup and 6 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of independents with Greene in the race.

As the race starts to focus more on issues (like what party Crist would caucus with), Crist's challenge is going to be juggling to keep his bloc of Republican supporters while not alienating his Democratic voters, and vice versa.

I still think Crist’s best and possibly only path to victory is to depict the Democrat in the race as the spoiler. He needs to make the case to the Democratic-leaning electorate that he is the only one who can beat Rubio and that a vote for the Democrat is a wasted vote, helping Rubio win. For that strategy to work, Crist needs to cement his place in the electorate's mind as the front-runner. If Crist’s poll numbers start slipping, I suspect they will quickly snowball downhill.

If Meek is able to rally all the Democrats to his side with a base-heavy strategy, he could possibly win if Crist and Rubio split the right/center share of the vote. There’s no path for Crist without netting a significant number of the Dem-leaning voters. The outcome of the Democratic primary will be crucial to Crist.

CA Voters Nix Baby Step on Public Financing, Pass Game-Changing Primary System

On June 8, California voters turned down campaign-finance reform but embraced an unusual new primary system. The results last night were a mixed bag. The biggest disappointment is that Prop. 15, a small step toward public financing of elections in California, failed by a wide margin. It looks like the corrupting influence of big money in politics will continue for a long time in the state. In retrospect, it was probably a bad decision to put Prop. 15 on the primary ballot when the big races were on the Republican side, with no major Democratic statewide races.

The lack of movement toward public financing of elections is even more disappointing because elections are likely to get more expensive in California, thanks to the passage of Prop. 14. The primary voters yesterday voted to make this the last “primary” as we know it. The so-called top-two primary ballot measure passed by a wide margin. This means all candidates will run in the same “primary” and the top two vote getters, regardless of party, will advance to the general. In effect, this moves the general election to June, with a runoff election months later in November. This eliminates the ability of parties to select their nominee for the general election and makes it unlikely any third-party candidates will be on the November ballot. The official description of Prop. 14 was very misleading. Voters in several districts may not realize what they signed up for when they face a choice between just two Democrats or two Republicans in general elections.

The good news is that Prop. 16, a disgusting power grab by power company PG&E, appears to have lost. The proposition would have made it much more difficult for local entities to create new utilities to compete with the power giant. PG&E spent millions on the ballot measure but the people of California rejected this naked attempt to use the initiative system to protect a corporation's profits.

The California Chamber of Commerce backed Props. 14 and 16, while opposing Prop. 15. The corporatists won a few last night but it was not a clean sweep. I hope the voters of California enjoy the huge campaign spending by Meg Whitman, because without public financing of elections and with a new “primary” system that will likely make running for office even more expensive, it is a sign of things to come.

Empower Your Allies, Enfranchise Your Voters and Change the Rules: Lessons from the Anti-Saloon League, Part Two

The Prohibition movement and the women's suffrage movement became inseparably linked by the early 20th century. The belief on both sides of the Prohibition issue was that women were more likely to be anti-liquor voters. So, the greater the enfranchisement of women, the greater the chance to pass anti-alcohol legislation. This is why brewers and distillers fought against women's suffrage:

The brewers and distillers knew women were the Prohibitionists' chief allies and saw the WCTU [Woman’s Christian Temperance Union] as its most formidable foe. The repeated failure of many state legislatures to bring about women's suffrage must be laid at their door.

…and why Prohibition supporters fought for women's rights (via Smithsonian magazine, an article I recommend to anyone interested in political movements):

The suffrage movement had long shared a constituency with the anti-liquor movement. Frances Willard and the WCTU campaigned actively for both causes. Susan B. Anthony had first become involved in securing the vote for women when she was denied the right to speak at a temperance convention in 1852 in Albany, New York. By 1899, after half a century of suffrage agitation, Anthony attempted to weld her movement to the Prohibition drive. “The only hope of the Anti-Saloon League’s success,” she told an ASL official, “lies in putting the ballot into the hands of women.” In 1911, Howard Russell’s successor as the league’s nominal leader, Purley A. Baker, agreed. Women’s suffrage, he declared, was “the antidote” to the efforts of the beer and liquor interests.

Prohibitionists had trouble winning with the current set of election rules, so they went out and changed the rules to empower and enfranchise their natural ally, women. Prohibitionists made common cause with women's suffragists. This long-term planning to push for legislative action helped to increase the power of the Anti-Saloon League.

Finances motivated another move. Taxing liquor was a large source of government money, so if it was ever outlawed, there would be a need for an alternative source of revenue. The income tax became that other source. The ASL helped pass the 16th Amendment to impose income tax in 1913:

This was not the only alliance that the ASL made with other movements. Though in its public campaigns it stuck to its single issue, the league had worked with Western populists to secure ratification of the income tax amendment.

Changing tax policy was a prerequisite to make Prohibition possible politically and financially. The lesson for advocacy groups: Lay indirect groundwork to ease policy transformation.

A lesson for the modern Democratic Party

The Democrats have failed to learn the lesson from the Anti-Saloon League about empowering your allies and changing the rules to enfranchise your likely voters. Democrats completely blew a rare chance this year to use their unprecedented control of the federal government to push for statehood for Washington, DC. This would probably give Democrats two Senators and one House member by enfranchising hundreds of thousands of likely Democratic voters. Instead, Democrats utterly failed, thanks in part to the power of the NRA, which has clearly learned from the ASL's success.

If Democrats want to secure their power, they should push for legislation that makes it easier for their likely supporters to vote for them. Same-day voter registration would spur infrequent voters (who tend to vote more for Democrats) to participate in elections. Hispanics have been trending Democratic, so easing the citizenship process for immigrants from Latin America should increase the pool. Equally, it has been a political failure by Democrats not to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which could increase union membership, helping Democrats by empowering a traditional ally.

Prop. 15: Will California Vote to Curb the Political Power of Corporations?

In addition to selecting party nominees today, Californians will also decide on several ballot measures. One of them is Proposition 15, the California Fair Elections Act. It would be one small step toward reducing the power of corporations in politics by providing for voluntary public financing of elections.

Prop. 15 would place a modest registration fee on state lobbyists, and use the money to provide voluntary public financing for Secretary of State candidates who are able to meet a threshold of small donations. Perhaps more important, it would repeal a restriction that currently prevents the state legislature and local municipalities from passing any laws on public financing. If the limited public financing of Secretary of State races works out, Prop. 15 would also make it easier for the state legislature to expand it to more elections.

This alone is not the solution to the corrupting influence of big donations on politics. It’s a very modest step in the right direction. Ideally, robust voluntary public financing of all elections will allow candidates to make a viable run for office without needing to spend several hours each day begging rich donors and corporations. This would reduce the influence of deep-pocket special interests and result in more legislation to help regular Americans.

That is why several progressive organizationssupport the measure, such as Credo, Courage Campaign, DFA, Moveon.org, California NAACP and Health Care For All-California, as well as politicians like Alan Grayson. Not surprisingly, the dominant donor in opposition is the California Chamber of Commerce. The big corporate interests clearly don't feel like giving up even a small amount of their political power.

So if you live in California, don't forget to vote, even if your local ballot does not include a contested primary. You have an opportunity to take a small step to reduce the political power of corporations and very wealthy individuals.

Today is Election Day! If you live in one of the 11 states with a primary today (California, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia and Arkansas), don't forget to go to the polls.

Retribution: Lessons from the Anti-Saloon League, Part One

Power in politics comes from the ability to destroy. The ability to take out an incumbent or end politicians’ careers if they cross you is how a group gains the power to influence policy in America. The Anti-Saloon League understood this concept well and used it to become one of the most powerful pressure groups in American history.

The league started in 1893 and by 1920, had led the fight to accomplish the difficult task of passing the 18th Amendment, mandating the prohibition of alcohol's manufacture and sale. ASL founder Howard Russell understood the importance of retribution.

"The Anti-Saloon League,” Russell said, “is formed for the purpose of administering political retribution.”

This is from an excellent “Smithsonian” magazine article, “Wayne B. Wheeler: The Man Who Turned Off the Taps,” which examined how the Anti-Saloon League managed to become so politically powerful and achieve the impressive feat of pushing through the 18th Amendment. Wheeler was a member of the ASL executive council and its head Washington, DC lobbyist.

It is important not to underestimate how politically powerful the Prohibition movement was for a time and what a monumental achievement it is to pass a Constitutional amendment. It was able to get three-quarters of state legislatures to pass the 18th Amendment in 394 days. The ASL also went directly against and effectively killed what was the fifth-largest industry in the nation. Wheeler was the man Senators feared to cross.

The Anti-Saloon League understood that the carrot is important but the stick is critical. That, to quote Machiavelli, it is “safer to be feared than loved.” If you want to affect policy, you need to make those with the power--legislatures and governors in both parties--fear for their political careers if they cross you.

In 1905, the popular Ohio Republican Gov. Myron T. Herrick worked to make some changes to a local prohibition bill. The ASL organized more than 300 anti-Herrick rallies and mobilized supporters against him. Herrick was defeated, in a good year for Republicans.

Anyone running for office can promise interest groups to support their cause. Campaign promises are easy and cheap because politicians running for office don't pass bills, only those already in office do. If you want your goals to be realized, sitting politicians must fear, more than anything else, retribution from failing to deliver to your group. This inherent understanding was part of Wheeler's political genius. As he once told a friend:

“We are teaching these crooks that breaking their promises to us is surer of punishment than going back on their bosses, and some day they will learn that all over the United States—and we’ll have national Prohibition.”

If you want to be part of a successful political movement, you should study past, successful movements to understand how they gained power and achieved their goals. The Anti-Saloon League was for a time one of the most successful American interest groups ever. Studying it provides modern political movements with several lessons. The most important is that real power comes from the ability to administer political retribution. It is not just the ability to help people get elected but the cunning to take out those who have crossed you.

Take a moment to picture the big political groups that have been effective at advancing legislation, like the NRA. That’s an organization politicians fear.

Senate at Stake: The Three Big Primaries Tomorrow

Tuesday, June 8 is one of the biggest days in politics this cycle with primary elections in 11 states: California, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia and Arkansas, which hosts a primary runoff. In three of these states--Arkansas, California and Nevada—voters are choosing contenders for crucial seats in the US Senate, and one incumbent is fighting for her job.

Arkansas Democratic Primary: Bill Halter vs. Sen. Blanche Lincoln

This race will likely receive the most attention tomorrow. In the May 18 primary, Lincoln managed to get more votes than Halter, picking up 44.5 percent to his 42.5 percent. Thanks to DC Morrison’s surprisingly strong third-place showing with 13 percent, no candidate was able to secure the 50 percent plus one needed to win in the first round. In accordance with Arkansas election laws, this dictates a runoff between the top-two vote getters. On the Republican side, John Boozman got 53 percent, so he does not face a runoff.

This race is about more than just which Democrat will run in the general election. The contest between Halter and Lincoln has important overtones of accountability, the direction of the party, the power of the grassroots and populist, anti-Washington anger.

National labor unions and progressive organizations (including some associated with FDL) have rallied behind Halter and provided millions of dollars to oppose Lincoln. Their backing has less to do with Halter's rather standard Democratic positions and more to do with an intense dislike of Lincoln, who flip-flopped on, and then helped to kill, the public option for health care.

As the incumbent, Lincoln has the backing of President Obama, the national party establishment and former President Bill Clinton. A mysterious group has also spent at least $1.5 million on ads on her behalf.

The latest Dailykos/Research 2000 poll shows Halter with a small lead over Lincoln.

Dailykos/Research 2000 (6/2-4)
Halter 49%
Lincoln 45%

The race is still very close and could be decided by each campaign’s ability to turn out supporters, which makes the strange mass closing of polling locations so critical. Also, there are Democratic Congressional primary runoffs in the 1st and 2nd districts, which may help increase turnout in areas where Lincoln did well in May.

If Halter wins, it will make for an almost-unprecedented three sitting Senators losing their party’s nod this cycle. The other two are Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Arlen Specter (D-PA).

Nevada Republican Primary: Sue Lowden, Sharron Angle, Danny Tarkanian

Senate Majority Leader and Democratic Nevada Sen. Harry Reid is viewed as one of the most vulnerable incumbents this year, heating up the Republican primary to see who will take him on in the general election.

Early on, establishment candidate and former Nevada GOP chairwoman Sue Lowden was the favorite, but she has fallen due to a series of stumbles including “chickens for check-ups” and a possible violation of campaign finance law related to a donated RV. Her fall has been Sharron Angle’s gain. Angle is the very conservative Tea Party candidate and has the backing of the Club for Growth. While she has improved significantly in the polls in the final weeks, the contest is still a legitimate three-way race among Angle, Lowden and Danny Tarkanian. Primaries are tough to poll, and it’s possible that anti-Angle voters, seeing Lowden weaken, may move to Tarkanian.

Mason-Dixon (6/1-3)
Angle 32%
Tarkanian 24%
Lowden 23%

Suffolk (6/1-2)
Angle 32%
Tarkanian 25%
Lowden 24%

California Republican Primary: Carly Fiorina, Tom Campbell, Chuck DeVore

This race to take on Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in the general election is a perfect demonstration of how crucial a big war chest is in a hugely expensive media market. Tom Campbell was once the front-runner but was unable to keep up with Fiorina's spending. As the former CEO of HP, Fiorina is able to draw on her vast personal fortune to fund her campaign. Recent polling shows Fiorina with a strong lead.

Field (5/27-6/2)
Fiorina 37%
Campbell 22%
DeVore 19%