tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-75357666484938149112024-02-20T12:28:11.293-05:00Walker ReportOutside Thinking from Inside the BeltwayUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger877125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-77434979316483816972010-09-20T14:48:00.001-04:002010-09-20T14:48:47.227-04:00For Conservatives, Making Every GOP Moderate Fear Them Might be Worth Losing DelawareAll over the country right now elected moderates in the Republican Party are probably not sleeping easy as the result of Christine O'Donnell's surprise victory in Delaware. The reason for their dread is that frankly O'Donnell is a bad candidate, Mike Castle was a really good general election candidate and Delaware is extremely blue state. They may be thinking if O'Donnell can beat Castle in deep blue Delaware, none of us are safe.<br /><br />Christine O'Donnell's victory last week is different from other Tea Party-backed primary upsets. Marco Rubio forced moderate Charlie Crist out of the Republican Party in Florida, but Rubio has been a good candidate with successful history in politics and was electable in a swing state like Florida. In Nevada, Sharron Angle beat Sue Lowden but Lowden was damaged goods and the state likely an unlosable race. Ken Buck was polling as strongly as Jane Norton in Colorado's general. Despite Alaska's Senate candidate Joe Miller clearly being less electable than incumbent Lisa Murkowski, the state is red enough that in this current political environment Miller's credibility might not matter.<br /><br />With O'Donnell the dynamics are very different. O'Donnell is a bad candidate. She has already run for statewide office twice and lost. She has a host of bizarre statements and positions that can be used against her from <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/17/902449/-DE-Sen:-More-Christine-ODonnell,-in-her-own-words">fear of mice with human brains</a> to her <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/christine-odonnells-1996-anti-masturbation-campaign-on-mtvs-sex-in-the-90s.php">vocal opposition to masturbation</a>. Her polling numbers are terrible in the general election and she'll likely lose.<br /><br />On the other hand Mike Castle was also a great general election candidate because of his unique history in the state. Not only was he almost guaranteed to win but national Republican groups probably didn't need to spend a dime to help him, freeing up money for tighter races. Despite it being a good year for Republicans, having an almost guaranteed pick up in one of the blue states in the union is a very rare thing for a party. There is probably no other moderate in the Republican Party who could more justifiably use the electability argument in their defense.<br /><br />This is what should make O'Donnell's victory so deeply frightening to GOP moderates everywhere. O'Donnell was the "wrong" insurgent candidate, Castle was the "wrong" moderate to try to take out and Delaware was the "wrong" state. Yet despite all that Castle was still taken out. What this means is there is no moderate Republican, no matter how electable, no matter how blue their district and no matter how poor their potential primary challenger can truly feel safe.<br /><br /><strong>The move might not be as foolish as for conservatives many think</strong><br /><br />Many are trying to depict the conservative support of O'Donnell as pure foolishness costing Republicans a seat in the Senate, this may not be the case. The loss of a single seat which would vote with them 60-70% of the time is a clearly a loss from their policy perspective. But over the long term I can see how the sacrifice might be worth it. By putting the fear in every moderate Republican everywhere in the country, O'Donnell's primary win could have the effect of moving rightward dozens of conservative members of Congress who now feel unsafe voting against their base.<br /><br />Wayne Wheeler of the Anti-Saloon League -- probably one of the most powerful and suave political activists in American history -- understood the <a href="http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/06/07/retribution-lessons-from-the-anti-saloon-league-part-one/">importance of fear</a>. Wheeler forced through the passage of the 18th amendment not because huge majorities in Congress on a personal level strongly agreed with prohibition, but because they were afraid to vote against the prohibitionist base. In politics you don't elected officials to agree with you; you just need them to be too afraid to vote against you.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-13698428197136382852010-09-07T14:40:00.001-04:002010-09-07T14:40:52.320-04:00DCCC Attempts to Counter Bleak Narrative with Internal PollsThere has been a lot of bad news for Democrats recently. A Gallup poll found Republicans with a <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/142718/gop-unprecedented-lead-generic-ballot.aspx">historically large, ten-point lead</a> on the generic ballot question, and the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010_Elections/abc-news-poll-2010-midterms-revolt-status-quo/story?id=11570169">ABC News/Washington Post poll</a> found Republicans with a 13-point lead among likely voters on the generic ballot. Many <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-bafumi/a-forecast-of-the-2010-ho_b_697051.html">political prognosticators</a> are also projecting Democrats losing control of the House.<br /><br />In what can only be assumed is an attempt to counter the “Democrats are doomed” narrative, the DCCC has released five internal polls of swing districts taken by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. Not surprisingly, they paint a much better picture for Democrats in the midterms.<br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;">All polls are of 400 likely voters</p><br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://dccc.org/blog/archives/kissell_leading_johnson_by_12_in_new_nc-08_poll/">DCCC</a> (8/25-29)<br /><strong>NC-08</strong><br />Larry Kissell (D) 48<br />Harold Johnson (R) 36<br />Thomas Hill (L) 6</p><br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://dccc.org/blog/archives/bright_leading_roby_by_9_in_new_al-02_poll/">DCCC</a> (8/23-26)<br /><strong>AL-02</strong><br />Bobby Bright (D) 52<br />Martha Roby (R) 43</p><br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://dccc.org/blog/archives/perriello_tied_in_new_va-05_poll/">DCCC</a> (8/24-26)<br /><strong>VA-05</strong><br />Tom Perriello (D) 42<br />Robert Hurt (R) 44<br />Jeff Clark (I) 6<br /><a href="http://dccc.org/blog/archives/herseth_sandlin_leading_noem_in_new_sd-al_poll/"><br />DCCC</a> (8/31-9/2)<br /><strong>SD-AL</strong><br />Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D) 50<br />Kristi Noem (R) 41</p><br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://dccc.org/blog/archives/arcuri_leading_hanna_by_13_in_new_ny-24_poll/">DCCC</a> (8/29-31)<br /><strong>NY-24</strong><br />Mike Arcuri (D) 50<br />Richard Hanna (R) 37</p><br />These polls are more favorable to Democrats than what little independent polling I have seen on these races. For example, a recent <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=4099b8a6-042d-4f2b-83ab-eea110a4b379&c=77">SurveyUSA poll</a> found Perriello trailing Hurt by 23 points, and an August 6 Rasmussen poll found <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_house_of_representatives_election/south_dakota/election_2010_south_dakota_house_of_representatives">Herseth Sandlin losing by nine points</a>. It would be very interesting to see crosstabs and projected turnout for all these polls. The problem is not really that voters who supported Democrats are now backing Republicans, but that most pollsters are finding Democratic-leaning voters are not planning to vote this November.<br /><br />While at or just below 50 percent in a poll is not a great place for an incumbent to be, these numbers don't reflect the huge wave you would expect, given recent generic ballot polling. Seeing that the DCCC’s numbers are from internal polls, probably selected from the best polls of all swing districts, released now to counter the Democrats are in real trouble memo, I would take the findings with a grain of salt.<br /><br />The fact that even the best polling the DCCC has show Perriello losing speaks to just how much trouble he is in.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-60596750462931215862010-08-30T13:00:00.000-04:002010-08-30T13:01:15.885-04:00Will Joe Miller's Win Put the Alaska Senate Seat in Play?It looks like Sarah Palin-backed ultra-conservative Joe Miller will actually win the Alaska Senate Republican primary against incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski. Votes are still being counted but Miller has the lead. The big question: is there any hope that Democrat Scott McAdams may actually win the general election this year? To help answer the question Tom Jensen at PPP has <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_AK_829.pdf">polled the two-person and potential three-person race</a> (PDF) with Murkowski running on the Libertarian Party ticket.<br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_AK_829.pdf">PPP</a> (PDF) (8/27-28)<br />Joe Miller (R) 47<br />Scott McAdams (D) 39<br />Undecided 14</p><br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Joe Miller (R) 38<br />Scott McAdams (D) 22<br />Lisa Murkowski (L) 34<br />Undecided 6</p><br />The important point about the poll is that Democrat Scott McAdams is not well known in Alaska. 23% of voters have a favorable view of him, 24% have an unfavorable view, and 53% are not sure. This is not surprising given that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has invested no money in the race and until recently <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/races/election.php?state=AK">McAdams had raised less than $10,000</a>. Currently McAdams is basically a blank slate meaning there is huge potential for movement, either positive or negative.<br /><br />Polling only eight points down in a Republican state in a Republican year, Alaska is not a bad place to be for McAdams as a no-name Democrat. There are several top-tier Democratic recruits with very expensive campaigns in what are thought to be battle ground states which have recently polled eight points or more behind their Republican opponent.<br /><br />McAdams benefits from Joe Miller's very high unfavorable numbers. Only 36% have a favorable opinion while 52% have an unfavorable opinion of him. Miller has taken some extremely and unpopular positions on which McAdams could easily hammer. It is not inconceivable that after McAdams runs even a modest amount of what should be relatively cheap campaign ads to improve his name recognition with Alaska's voters, there could be significant improvement in his poll numbers.<br /><br />The three-person race numbers are interesting but I suspect they have no predictive power. Three-way races can be extremely volatile and clearly McAdams has a lot of potential for growth. In a three-way race it is not inconceivable McAdams could pull off a narrow victory by simply rallying the die-hard 35.5% of the Alaska electorate that voted for John Kerry in 2004.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-65884521085197760232010-08-17T16:51:00.001-04:002010-08-17T16:51:29.011-04:00PA Sen: Toomey Holds Big Lead Over Sestak Thanks to Large Enthusiasm GapRepublican Pat Toomey holds a substantial nine-point lead in his Pennsylvania Senate race against Democrat Joe Sestak, according to a new <a href="http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/toomey-moves-ahead-in-pa-sen-race.html">PPP poll</a> of likely voters. Sestak suffers from tanking support for Obama and a serious enthusiasm gap. Currently, only 40 percent of likely voters in Pennsylvania approve of Obama's job performance while 55 percent disapprove.<br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_PA_817.pdf">PPP</a> (PDF) (8/14-16)<br />Joe Sestak 36<br />Pat Toomey 45<br />Undecided 20</p><br />That is a serious deficit for Sestak in what many people thought was going to be a close race in a traditional swing state. One of the big problems for Sestak, according to PPP, is that Democratic-leaning voters are not enthusiastic about this election, many saying they are not sure to vote this November.<br /><blockquote>This is our first poll of the race explicitly surveying likely voters and given the considerably greater enthusiasm on the Republican side we're seeing an electorate in the state that voted for John McCain by a point in 2008, in contrast to Barack Obama's actual 10 point victory in the state.</blockquote><br />It seems Obama's is having problems with the base that extends well beyond the handful of individuals Robert Gibbs labeled the “professional left.” With enthusiasm on the Democratic side so weak, it might be time for the White House to reverse its strategy of attacking the dedicated progressives, and instead do things that might actually get the base excited. For example, Elizabeth Warren could not only have been <em>appointed </em>to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but through several different means, she could be put in power right away to start protecting rank-and-file Americans.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-24229260131107753942010-08-11T18:37:00.001-04:002010-08-11T18:37:29.127-04:00Pew: Dems, GOP Even on Generic Ballot; Highly Disengaged Youth Vote "Leads" Unenthused ElectorateAccording to a new <a href="http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/643.pdf">Pew Research poll</a> (PDF) of registered voters in the upcoming congressional election, 45 percent are leaning Democratic while 44 percent are leaning Republican. This does not bode well for Democrats, since they need to have a significant lead in the generic ballot if they hope to hold onto their large majorities in the House and Senate. At the same time, these numbers also don't point to a massive Republican wave. By comparison, at about this same time in 2006, Democrats led Republicans 50 percent to 39 percent.<br /><br />The enthusiasm gap might be more important than the generic poll number. Pew, like almost every other pollster, has found Republicans far more engaged and excited about voting than Democrats. From <a href="http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/643.pdf">Pew</a>:<br /><blockquote>Republicans and conservatives continue [sic] express far greater interest in the election than do Democrats and liberals. More than half of Republicans (55%) say they have given a lot of thought to the election, compared with 37% of Democrats. Among Republican-leaning independents, 62% have given a lot of thought to the election; Democratic-leaning independents are much less engaged (29%). Among Republicans, conservatives are far more engaged than those who describe themselves as moderates or liberals (62% vs. 41%).</blockquote><br />The poll also found engagement among young voters to be dismal. Pew found only 23 percent of voters under 30 to have “high campaign engagement.” That is less than half of the percentage of voters over 50 who have high engagement.<br /><br />As a young person who is deeply involved in politics, I find this very disappointing. I know the importance of politics, and while I understand why many young people are tuning it out, this is still an unfortunate development. However, there is one small silver lining for me personally because I love good political data and care about the issue of marijuana legalization.<br /><br />Since youth engagement and turnout is likely going to be very low across the country, it will be easier to determine if having Prop 19 to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana on the ballot results in increased engagement and turnout among young voters in California. Neither Democrat Jerry Brown nor Republican Meg Whitman seems to have the ability to fire up young voters for the gubernatorial race. If youth turnout in California significantly exceeds the levels in other states, it would be logical to conclude that having marijuana legalization on the ballot was responsible.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-47977795768597968192010-08-11T14:29:00.002-04:002010-08-11T15:50:02.048-04:00WA Sen: Patty Murray and Dino Rossi Set to Be "Top Two"The next primary elections scheduled this summer are Washington and Wyoming, coming up on August 17th. The latest polling from <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=f9bb1102-9a1a-4a4d-963d-9c6143c23c3b&c=28">SurveyUSA</a> of the Washington senate primary strongly point to the fact that Democratic incumbent Senator Patty Murray and Republican Dino Rossi will be the two candidates that advance to the general.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=f9bb1102-9a1a-4a4d-963d-9c6143c23c3b&c=28">SurveyUSA</a> (8/6-9)<br />Patty Murray (D) 41<br />Dino Rossi (R) 33<br />Clint Didier (R) 11<br />Paul Akers (R) 5<br />Others 5<br />Undecided 4<br /><br />Murray and Rossi have a double digit leads over all other candidates in this single, open primary contest, and should easily be the top two vote-getters. It looks like the Democratic and Republican parties will get their top choices for November.<br /><br />It is important to remember the Washington State "primary" is not like most states where it is up to the parties to select their nominees for the general election, either through convention or plebiscite. Washington, and California starting in 2012, adopted the top-two primary system. All candidates, regardless of party, compete in the same "primary," and whichever two candidates, regardless of party, get the most votes are the <em>only</em> two candidates to make it on the November ballot.<br /><br />This system means, in theory, the general election could be a race between only two Democrats or two Republicans, or--as is the case here--November contests will be restricted mostly to the best-known or best-financed competitors.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-47766475767783536332010-08-11T14:29:00.001-04:002010-08-11T14:29:32.195-04:00CO Gov: John Hickenlooper May Be the Luckiest Man in PoliticsJohn Hickenlooper, Mayor of Denver and Democratic nominee for Governor of Colorado, may be the single luckiest Democrat running for office this year. Only a few months ago, it looked like he was going to face a very tough election against a solid Republican candidate, Scott McInnis, in a bad political climate for Democrats. Polling had the <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CO_520.pdf">race dead even</a> (PDF). That was until <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/14/scott-mcinnis-plagiarism-_n_645716.html">McInnis was caught plagiarizing</a>, creating a domino effect of unbelievable good fortune for Hickenlooper.<br /><br />McInnis was caught plagiarizing much of the work he had been paid several hundred thousand dollars to produce. This did not sit well with Colorado voters, creating an opening for the only other person in the primary--political novice Dan Maes. Maes is not only an extreme conservative but also has some downright crazy ideas. For example, he thinks steps taken to make Denver more bike friendly were <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_15673894">all part of an elaborate plot by the United Nations to take over Denver</a>.<br /><br />McInnis and Maes refused to bow out of the primary, which would have allowed the Republican Party to nominate a candidate with at least a shot of winning. This angered, among others, former Rep. Tom Tancredo. So he has <a href="http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/07/26/tancredo-will-run-for-governor-as-american-constitution-party-candidate/12382/">filed to run for Governor</a> on the American Constitution Party ticket.<br /><br />The best result of a bad situation for Republicans was that scandal-ridden McInnis would beat conspiracy theorist Maes last night in the primary and at that point, the party could convince McInnis to drop out. That would give them a chance appoint a more electable nominee. The GOP had no such luck. Maes pulled off a squeaker victory and it sounds like he is in it to the end.<br /><br />So this November, John Hickenlooper will take on both Dan Maes and Tom Tancredo. Instead of facing one extreme right-wing candidate, he gets two. Because we use a first- past-the-post election system, Maes and Tancredo are sure to split the right-leaning vote. The <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15642187">latest polling</a> shows Hickenlooper with a 22-point lead in the three-way matchup. Hickenlooper is at 46 percent with Maes and Tancredo tied at 24 percent each.<br /><br />There has been a lot of talk about how lucky Harry Reid (D-NV) was to get Sharron Angle as an opponent, because it gives him a better shot of winning re-election. Well, Reid's luck is nothing compared with Hickenlooper’s.<br /><br />Update - PPP is out with some <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CO_811.pdf">new polling</a> (PDF) showing Hickenlooper in really fantastic shape. In a three way race it is Hickenlooper 48%, Dan Maes 23%, Tom Tancredo 22%.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-61271887231255092352010-08-06T12:29:00.000-04:002010-08-06T12:30:07.469-04:00July Jobs Numbers: For Dems, the Most Important (and Worst) Political News of the DayThat latest <a href="http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/08/06/jobs-report-weak-private-sector-growth-stuck-on-9-5-unemployment/">job numbers are bad news</a> for the country, and, as a result, bad news for the incumbent political party, which will inevitably feel the brunt of voter anger over the economy. The country lost 131,000 jobs in July, and there is no indication the jobs market will improve in the three months leading up to the November election. Congressional Democrats have done nothing recently that should noticeably increase employment and nothing new is expected to become law in the next month. This is a recipe for a bad midterm election for Democrats.<br /><br />The correlation between <a href="http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/07/12/its-the-economy-stupid-democrats/">economic performance leading up to an election and the success of the incumbent party</a> is very close. Bad economic conditions heading into an election have historically meant electoral losses for the party in power, and this year looks no different<br /><br />The November election is fast approaching. People's opinions about how the economy is doing will soon jell, if they haven't already. Even if things begin to improve in late September, that could easily be too late to actually change minds and votes. There is now almost no time left for Democrats to do anything to significantly help employment before the election. That is why this jobs report is so important<br /><br />Unlike tracking polls or horserace polls, this jobs report is probably the most important piece of political news in a long time. Democrats have failed to take the action needed to reduce unemployment before the election and will pay at the polls for this failure. Pathetic and <a href="http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/07/15/democrats-blame-senate-gop-for-failure-to-govern-voters-still-blame-democrats/">fabulous excuses</a> about weird Senate rules and a mean Republican minority are not going to change voters' minds or save Democrats this November.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-37190183487425525262010-08-05T12:10:00.000-04:002010-08-05T12:11:12.230-04:00Don’t Know Much About History: Chris Dodd Defends Filibuster with FictionIt is intolerable to hear senators go on about the importance and traditions of their chamber when they seem to not understand or to willfully ignore both. The latest example is Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) defending the 60-vote threshold for cloture (put in place roughly 40 years ago) by essentially citing made-up history about Congress. From <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/dodd-presses-senate-fresh_n_670433.html">Huffington Post</a>:<br /><blockquote>"I made a case last night to about ten freshman senators, you know, you want to turn this into a unicameral body? What's the point of having a Senate? If the vote margins are the same as in the House, you might as well close the doors," Dodd told reporters in the Capitol.</blockquote><br />Dodd is either ignorant of our country's entire political history, or he is calling the founders idiots. We know the framers of the Constitution intended for both the House and the Senate to pass laws with the same simple majority vote and wrote that into the document. The first Senate even had a rule that would have prevented a filibuster, ensuring all laws needed only a simple majority to pass.<br /><br />There is zero evidence that the founders set up the bicameral legislature with the purpose of having one require super-majorities to pass basic laws—in fact, there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Anyone who took high school US history would know the reason the founders created two chambers was a grand compromise--one house dividing representation by population, the House of Representatives, and one house providing equal representation for all states, regardless of population—that would be the Senate. At the time the Constitution was drafted, individual states were far more autonomous, and most citizens saw themselves as loyal to their state, and not the federal government. Small-population states feared delegations from large-population states could easily dominate the House—a bicameral legislature was a concession to small states. Dodd seems wildly unaware of this history.<br /><br />For Dodd to claim that there would be no purpose to having the Senate if it wasn't a chamber requiring super majorities is especially absurd given that it wasn't until roughly one hundred years after the Senate's founding that they created the two-thirds vote requirement for cloture. By that logic, Dodd thinks the founders fools--creating a Senate with absolutely no purpose until some senator exploited a sloppy rules change decades later. It was that first filibuster that eventually led to the creation of super majority cloture votes several more decades after that. According to Dodd, it was only then that the Senate had any reason for being.<br /><br />The great irony of Dodd claiming that elimination of the filibuster would make Congress a “unicameral body” is that the filibuster has already done that. The House is all but meaningless at this point because a bill now must be crafted expressly to garner 60 votes in the Senate. The Senate has stolen almost all power from the other chamber. Eliminating the filibuster would actually restore Congress to a true bicameral body by putting the two chambers on equal footing when it comes to crafting legislation.<br /><br />If freshmen and sophomore Democratic senators find Dodd’s ridiculous argument compelling, my already low opinion of the Democratic party will take another hit. This nonsense from Dodd just reaffirms my joy at his impending retirement. I would like to suggest he uses his golden years to actually take some classes in basic US history.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-58019438617567012742010-08-04T10:44:00.000-04:002010-08-04T10:45:13.041-04:00What If People Actually Vote for Hard-Right, Tea Party Republicans?There has been much hope--or dread, depending on which party you support--that the embrace of arch-conservative and Tea Party-backed candidates in contest primaries could seriously cost the Republican Party several Senate seats this November. By my count, the GOP could lose at least five Senate race as a result of embracing a more conservative challenger against the establishment choice: Nevada, Kentucky, Colorado, Florida and Pennsylvania. If the Republican Party fails to make significant gains this year because of the close outcome in these races, that would be a strategic failure by the conservative base. But currently, polls don't indicate that championing right-wing nominees will cause the GOP to lose these races.<br /><br />While the more conservative or Tea Party candidates in those primaries may not be as electable as the establishment choices, the polling data indicate they could still easily win. A recent <a href="http://www.whas11.com/community/blogs/political-blog/Paul-leads-Conway-by-eight-in-new-poll-99703184.html">SurveyUSA poll</a> found Republican Rand Paul leading Democrat Jack Conway in Kentucky, 51-43. While some polls have shown the race to be close, <a href="http://www.pollster.com/polls/ky/10-ky-sen-ge-pvc.php">no independent poll in months</a> has found Conway in the lead. In Colorado, Tea Party favorite Ken Buck is <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15642187">tied with both possible Democratic nominees</a>, according to a recent poll. <a href="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1475&What=&strArea=;&strTime=0">Quinnipiac’s latest poll</a> of the Pennsylvania Senate race has the GOP’s Pat Toomey tied with Democrat Joe Sestak. While many think Sharron Angle has been a gift for Democrat Harry Reid, <a href="http://www.lvrj.com/hottopics/politics/polls/july_30_2010_1.html">Mason-Dixon found Reid with a single-point lead</a> over Angle, and <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NV_720.pdf">PPP had him with only a two-point lead</a>. Angle could easily overcome that deficit.<br /><br />According to the polls, Florida seems to be the only state where Marco Rubio's insurgent challenge against the former establishment choice, Gov. Charlie Crist, has a real chance of costing Republicans a seat. But that requires a lot of luck on the part of Crist, now an independent, to keep his early lead and let two unpopular Democratic candidates battle each other for months. Given that it is a three-way race, the picture could still change in Rubio's favor. If the Democrat gets a large enough default Democratic vote and Republicans come home, Rubio would have a path to a small plurality victory.<br /><br />Even if these more conservative candidates end up performing worse than a more moderate Republican would have, that’s unimportant as long as they win. In American politics, getting just one vote more than your opponent has the same outcome as getting a million more votes. These hard-core conservatives only need to be electable enough.<br /><br />If the electoral environment continues to get worse for Democrats, Republicans who are on the cusp could conceivably win narrowly. If the economy starts to improve and with it Democrats’ chances, many of these Republicans could end up losing narrowly. Whether the conservative primary challenges leave a legacy of brilliant grassroots action or self- destruction will depend on the electorate and the economy. While it is possible that embracing Tea Party-backed candidates could cost the GOP several Senate races this November, the poll data indicate that Democrats can’t bank on this.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-9588219474818548282010-08-03T19:04:00.000-04:002010-08-03T19:05:02.323-04:00WA Sen: Patty Murray Holds Lead in Tight Senate Race; Rossi Likely Other "Top Two"Recruiting Dino Rossi to challenge incumbent Sen. Patty Murray was a big pick-up for the Republican Party. He has managed to make Washington state’s Senate race competitive, according to a new <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_WA_803.pdf">PPP poll</a> (PDF).<br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_WA_803.pdf">PPP</a> (PDF) (7/27-8/1)<br />Patty Murray 49<br />Dino Rossi 46<br />Undecided 5</p><br />Washington is a very blue state, but these numbers indicate that Rossi has a legitimate chance of winning. Even if he doesn't win, forcing Democrats to spend resources in a state like Washington to defend a sitting Senator will still have value for the GOP. It also allows Republicans to claim, somewhat credibly, that they might take back the Senate. With Washington state now seriously contested, Republicans are reaching the necessary total of semi-competitive candidates.<br /><br />The good news for Murray is that Rossi is pretty much a known quantity from his two previous unsuccessful statewide campaigns. While Rossi is currently only a few points behind, he likely has much less room to grow than most challengers would at this point.<br /><br />For Rossi and Murray to face each other, they also need to be the top-two vote getters in the primary. In Washington’s system, all candidates of all parties appear on the same ballot, and the top two, regardless of party, are the only ones to make it to the ballot in the general. PPP polled the primary and found Rossi and Murray with huge leads.<br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_WA_803.pdf">PPP</a> (PDF) (7/27-8/1)<br />Paul Akers (R) 4<br />Clint Didier (R) 10<br />Patty Murray (D) 47<br />Dino Rossi (R) 33<br />Other candidates 1<br />Not sure 6</p>Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-32111329528765370132010-08-02T13:48:00.002-04:002010-08-02T13:49:29.770-04:00CO Sen: Challenger Romanoff Surges Ahead of Incumbent Dem BennetA new poll shows challenger Andrew Romanoff pulling ahead for the first time over appointed Democratic Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, who has held the lead for most of the campaign. Romanoff has been significantly outspent by Bennet, who has also drawn on support from the President and the DSCC. Yet a recent <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15642187">poll for “The Denver Post”/9News by SurveyUSA</a> has Romanoff taking the lead over the incumbent.<br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15642187">SurveyUSA</a><br />Andrew Romanoff 48<br />Michael Bennet 45<br />Undecided 8</p><br />This is a significant improvement for Romanoff. With the primary roughly a week away on August 10, having momentum and a small lead is about as good as it gets for an underfunded challenger.<br /><br />In response to this poll, the Bennet campaign quickly released an <a href="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/co_41_bennet_37_romanoff_benne.php">internal poll that had him beating Romanoff by just four points</a>. If this is, presumably, the best recent internal poll the Bennet campaign has, releasing it does little to change the idea that Bennet has a real chance of losing the party's nomination.<br /><br /><strong>On the Republican side, Buck holds lead</strong><br /><br />SurveyUSA also polled the Republican Senate primary. Establishment choice, former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, is still trailing Tea Party favorite Ken Buck. While Norton had an early lead for weeks, now Buck is holding onto a solid margin.<br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15642187">SurveyUSA</a><br />Ken Buck 50<br />Jane Norton 41<br />Undecided 10</p><br />If Buck wins next Tuesday as expected, this year will mark an incredible string of failures for establishment GOP candidates in Senate primaries. In Florida and Pennsylvania, the establishment Republicans were driven out of the party by their primary challengers. In both Nevada and Kentucky, the establishment choice lost big. Finally, in Connecticut, establishment pick Rob Simmons is expected to lose his strangely suspended (but not really suspended) campaign against Linda McMahon.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-17114177618813219862010-08-02T13:48:00.001-04:002010-08-02T13:48:39.566-04:00Majority of Nevada Voters Still Oppose Marijuana LegalizationA majority, 52 percent, of likely midterm voters in Nevada oppose marijuana legalization while only 42 percent support it, according to a new <a href="http://www.lvrj.com/news/legalizing--taxing--marijuana-opposed-99712824.html?ref=824">Mason-Dixon poll for the “Las Vegas Review-Journal”</a>.<br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://www.lvrj.com/news/legalizing--taxing--marijuana-opposed-99712824.html?ref=824">Mason-Dixon</a> (7/26-28)<br />Would you support or oppose legalizing and taxing marijuana in Nevada?<br />Support 42<br />Oppose 52<br />Undecided 6</p><br />This implies that in Nevada, there has been effectively zero increase in support for legalizing marijuana since 2006, when Question 7, a ballot measure to legalize and tax marijuana, failed<a href="http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Nevada_Question_7_%282006%29"> by a 56-44 margin</a>. It is hard to believe, given that pollsters like <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/123728/u.s.-support-legalizing-marijuana-reaches-new-high.aspx">Gallup</a> and <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2010/43_say_marijuana_should_be_legalized_42_disagree">Rasmussen</a> have shown significant increase in support nationally for legalizing cannabis. There is no legalization initiative is on Nevada’s November ballot.<br /><br />Probably more important than comparing this recent poll with the official results for Question 7 is to compare it against the last Mason-Dixon poll on marijuana legalization, taken right before the 2006 election. That poll found<a href="http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Nov-03-Fri-2006/news/10599765.html"> 35 percent for Question 7, 53 percent against and 12 percent undecided</a>. So, comparing only polls by the same pollster, we are seeing a 7 point increase in support for marijuana legalization since 2006. That’s a decent improvement in only four years, and in line with what we have seen nationwide.<br /><br />In 2012, the next time marijuana legalization will likely be on the ballot in Nevada, the voter demographics should be different because it is a presidential year. Also, if Proposition 19 passes in neighboring California and is successfully implemented for two years--or if it fails to pass--that could significantly move opinion in Nevada. I would be surprised if support levels don’t clearly change by 2012.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-64349265108204399952010-07-30T14:27:00.000-04:002010-07-30T14:28:04.625-04:00FL Sen: Crist Remains Strong, Meek Remains… MeekWhen governor Charlie Crist dropped out of the Republican primary, left his party and decided to run as an independent most people thought he did not stand much of a chance of winning. Yet since that time Crist has not only been able to consistently maintain a small lead and actually increase it slightly according to a new <a href="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=1483">Quinnipiac poll</a>.<br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=1483">Quinnipiac</a> (7/22-27)<br />Kendrick Meek D 13<br />Marco Rubio R 33<br />Charlie Crist I 39<br />Someone else 1<br />Wouldn't vote 1<br />DK/NA 14</p><br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Jeff Greene 17<br />Marco Rubio R 32<br />Charlie Crist I 37<br />Someone else -<br />Wouldn't vote 1<br />DK/NA 12</p><br />While this is not a huge lead for Crist, one shouldn't really expect a huge leads in three way contests, in both possible match ups Crist lead of Rubio is well outside the polls margin of error. While the poll says it would be best for Crist if Kendrik Meek wins the Democratic primary I'm not sure that is the case. Billionaire Jeff Greene definitely has a lot of his own money to spend on campaign advertising but will get very little institutional backing and has tons of baggage. Markos Moulitsas is calling on <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/29/888736/-FL-Sen:-Can-Meek-even-get-out-of-the-Democratic-primary">all Democrats to back Crist</a> if Greene wins the August 10th primary.<br /><br />The fact that Greene is polling as technically the strong Democrat in the general election speaks very poorly of Meek's Campaign. With Meek <a href="http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/07/29/florida-races-become-a-billionaire-boys%E2%80%99-club/">currently trailing Greene in the Democratic primary</a> and unable to make the case that he is actually electable in the general election, it is hard to see how he really rallies supporters for upcoming primary.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-42402679665791394852010-07-19T14:14:00.000-04:002010-07-19T14:15:25.141-04:00Arizonans, Stung by Unelected Gov, Will Vote to Change SystemThe state of Arizona doesn't currently have the position of lieutenant governor in its government, but that could change if voters approve a ballot measure this November. Right now, if the Governor prematurely vacates the office, the Secretary of State is the replacement. That is how Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer ended up becoming Governor, by replacing Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano when she left to become Secretary of Homeland Security. From the <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/07/18/20100718secretary-of-state-arizona.html#ixzz0u8fQDahe">“Arizona Republic”</a> via <a href="http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/07/18/arizona-voters-will-vote-in-november-on-having-a-lieutenant-governor/">Ballot Access News</a>:<br /><blockquote>Lawmakers this year approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 1013, which asks voters to consider changing the secretary of state's title to lieutenant governor.<br /><br />Arizona is one of only a handful of states that do not have a lieutenant governor. The question goes to the voters Nov. 2.<br /><br />The move would require a party's nominee for lieutenant governor to run on a joint ticket with that party's nominee for governor. The goal, supporters say, is "truth in advertising" --to make clear to voters that the lieutenant governor would become the state's top executive should the governor leave office before the end of his or her term.</blockquote><br />Arizona is experiencing firsthand the importance of a line of succession for Governor. They’ll get the chance this November to <a href="http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/scr1013h.htm">change the state's constitution</a> if they don't like the current process. This reform would create a single joint general-election ticket for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, so they are always of the same political party, creating consistency in government. It does mean the party in the Governor's mansion will also always have control of the traditional functions of the Secretary of State. In addition, it will slightly shorten the general ballot by eliminating the separate statewide vote for Arizona’s second in command.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-1953539068264861032010-07-13T10:51:00.001-04:002010-07-13T10:51:32.492-04:00CA Gov, Sen: Republicans Whitman, Fiorina LeadingBoth top Republican candidates in California--gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman and Senate nominee Carly Fiorina--are leading in their respective races, according to a new <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=d525bd62-80d2-4884-86a1-8c48ad920150&d=0">SurveyUSA poll</a> of likely voters.<br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=d525bd62-80d2-4884-86a1-8c48ad920150&d=0">SurveyUSA</a> (7/8-11)<br /><strong>Governor</strong><br />Meg Whitman 46<br />Jerry Brown 39<br />Others 7<br />Undecided 8</p><br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Senate</strong><br />Carly Fiorina 47<br />Barbara Boxer 45<br />Other 3<br />Undecided 5</p><br />The poll is bad news for Brown, who has been struggling to generate excitement for his campaign. Whitman's lead is well above the poll’s four percent margin of error. Having spent roughly $80 million so far on a very sophisticated campaign, she has been able to flood the zone. Looking at the internals, Brown appears to have yet to rally his base. Democratic voters support him only by 64 percent to 20. As the November election nears, most Democrats will likely come home to Brown and improve his numbers.<br /><br />This is just the latest poll to show the California Senate race effectively dead even. This poll has Fiorina beating incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer, but her two-point lead is within the margin of error. The GOP has a very narrow path to gaining control of the US Senate. It requires Republicans to sweep all the contests, including Fiorina winning in California.<br /><br />President Obama's job-approval numbers are dragging down both Democrats. Among likely voters, 41 percent have a favorable view of his job performance, 43 percent have an unfavorable view and 14 percent have a neutral view.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-15726882334556811252010-07-13T09:51:00.001-04:002010-07-13T09:51:47.956-04:00FL Sen: Rubio Raises Millions; Crist Strikes Back with Anti-Drilling Ballot MeasureThe competitive three-way race for the open Florida Senate seat has some interesting new developments. Republican Marco Rubio is boasting impressive fund-raising numbers, pulling in more than <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/108185-rubio-raises-45-million-in-second-quarter">$4.5 million in the second quarter</a>, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is pushing to place an offshore-drilling ban on the ballot.<br /><br />While still leading in the polls, Crist needs to thread the needle carefully to win in November. It seems the best strategy is to paint Rubio as an extremist. This has two goals. First, it helps Crist, running as an independent, win votes from moderate Republicans and right-leaning independents. It also helps Crist to shore up the left-of- center vote. If Crist can keep the future Democratic nominee's poll numbers in the teens, he can peel off left-leaning voters by depicting the actual Democrat as a spoiler. Voting for the Dem will only throw the election to the right-wing boogeyman, Rubio.<br /><br />I suspect the goal of painting Rubio as a radical played a role in Crist <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/08/1721560/crist-orders-special-legislative.html">using his gubernatorial power to call a special legislative session to put a constitutional ban on offshore drilling</a> on the November ballot. Due to the BP oil disaster, <a href="http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/dcblog/2010/06/poll_crist_leads_florida_senat.html">support for offshore drilling has collapsed in Florida</a>, shoving Rubio’s pro-drilling stance far outside the mainstream. Sticking the measure on the ballot will keep the issue front and center until the election.<br /><br />Rubio mainly needs just to run a good enough campaign to make voters think he is not crazy. Because of the three-way split, Rubio doesn't even need to appeal to the true center. He needs only to win heavily with Republicans and take the bulk of the right- leaning independents to piece together a sufficiently big plurality. Rubio will have ample resources to run an impressive statewide campaign if he can fine-tune his appeal to the voters.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-34423244198702697702010-07-12T15:03:00.000-04:002010-07-12T15:04:51.374-04:00Portland, Maine to Vote on Instant Runoff; New York May FollowThis November, voters in Portland, Maine will decide whether to adopt <a href="http://www.fairvote.org/what-is-irv">instant runoff voting</a>, sometimes called ranked voting or alternative voting, for the mayoral race. From <a href="http://www.pressherald.com/news/city-voters-to-decide-elected-mayor-and-ranked-choice-voting_2010-07-02.html">“The Portland Press Herald”</a>:<br /><blockquote>Commissioner Nathan Smith, who chaired a subcommittee that researched the issue, said he has become convinced that the system is better than a primary or a runoff election because there is typically a sharp drop-off in voter turnout in a second election.<br /><br />Also, holding a second election would be more costly for the city and the candidates, he said.<br /><br />In a single plurality election with multiple candidates, a well-organized minority faction could elect a mayor with only narrow public support. Under ranked-choice voting, that would not happen, he said.</blockquote><br />Portland is the largest city in Maine, making it a potential model for adopting instant runoff voting elsewhere in the state. Currently, the mayor of Portland is not an elected position, but if the ballot measure reforming the city's charter passes, the office of mayor would become a citywide elected position, selected by instant runoff voting.<br /><br />Portland is not the only major city where voters may soon decide if they want to adopt instant runoff voting. New York City's Charter Revision Commission is also looking closely at adopting it. From <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703609004575355552364713916.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">“TheWall Street Journal”</a> (behind paywall):<br /><blockquote>The proposal, known as instant runoff voting, would allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If a candidate fails to reach 40%, the threshold in New York City for winning a party's nomination in citywide races, the ballots would be counted again, with voters' rankings used to simulate a runoff. [...]<br /><br />The Charter Revision Commission plans to release Friday a report that explores the possibility of instant runoff voting. The 15-member commission intends to solicit public input on the concept and decide by early September whether to place the proposal on the Nov. 2 ballot.</blockquote><br />New York currently has traditional top-two runoff elections, which tend to see large dropoffs in voter participation for the second round of voting. If the city adopts instant runoff voting, it would be the largest political entity in the United States to use it. Currently, a few Americans cities like Minneapolis use the system, which <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/politics/10483841.stm"> the United Kingdom will possibly adopt for its House of Commons election</a>. Australia uses it extensively at all levels of politics, include the national House of Representatives.<br /><br />If New York City implements instant runoff voting, it would be a large step forward for those hoping to end the zero-sum politics produced by our first-past-the-post election system. A significant portion of New York State residents live in the city, giving instant runoffs real potential to spread to statewide elections. New York's tradition of fusion ballots and important minor parties makes it potentially more receptive to this kind of reform.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-1048690704448796442010-07-12T15:02:00.000-04:002010-07-12T15:03:33.332-04:00It's the Economy, Stupid DemocratsGrowth in real disposable income leading up to an election is a near-perfect predictor of how the incumbent party will do, says Ezra Klein in a <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/its_aways_the_economy_stupid.html#comments">perceptive article.</a> This close correlation should not be surprising. People judge the majority party based on how much their personal economic standing has improved or deteriorated, as well as their friends’ and family’s.<br /><br />It is always the economy.<br /><br />With this in mind, we can zero in on the true failure of the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats from a political standpoint. The data Klein points to show how modest the impact of the actual campaign is on the election. The court intrigue of the Washington bubble, arguments about procedure, CBO price tags and tallies of highly compromised legislative “wins” will have a negligible impact on voters’ decisions.<br /><br />Yet, despite how unimportant these things are to electoral outcomes, somehow they have become all-consuming priorities for the Administration and Congressional Democrats. Take, for example, the health care bill, which became dominated by one feature -- the CBO price tag -- at the expense of good policy or politics.<br /><br />Democrats missed a perfect opportunity to focus on health care reform as a way to inject additional stimulus. Though the Affordable Care Act waits till 2014 to start many of the benefits, it delays implementing taxes or cuts to pay for them until several years beyond that. Without changing the general policy of what is now law, through a combination of Medicaid expansion, temporary COBRA subsidies, better funding of high-risk pools, dental care rebates, voluntary money to states that set up exchanges early and more, the health care bill could have been a way to inject roughly $100 billion of spending into the economy this year, helping people and encouraging start-up businesses. Instead, the new benefits won't really kick in until 2014.<br /><br />The most egregious problem for Democrats is they have allowed Senate Republicans to destroy their election hopes in November. Democrats like Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) openly acknowledge that Senate Republicans are using the filibuster to block pro-growth legislation <a href="http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/06/25/why-are-senate-democrats-letting-republicans-ruin-our-economy/">in order to keep the economy weak</a>. As we can see from the data, it is a brilliant political strategy and is likely to pay off for the GOP in November. Yet, with their jobs on the line, Democrats have chosen to defend arcane Senate rules instead of playing procedural hardball to advance good policy and even better politics. The <a href="http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/29/only-32-of-americans-know-the-senate-bill-did-not-get-bipartisan-support/">vast majority of Americans don't even understand</a> the Senate rules that Democrats are defending at the cost of their majority. By not eliminating the filibuster, or at least threatening to as the GOP did to force compromise, Democrats have effectively committed political assisted suicide and taken the economy down with them.<br /><br />Inside-the-Beltway arguments and deficit self-talk have doomed Democrats in November because they fail to see how important it is to address the immediate needs of regular Americans. Democrats have<a href="http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/11/after-unemployment-extension-white-house-shutting-down-stimulus-efforts/"> given up on even trying</a> to improve voters’ economic well being before Election Day.<br /><br />It brings to mind the probably false legend of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, but even that comparison is unfair. The story claims Nero at least purposely burned the city so he could build a new palace. Democrats are instead arguing about rules, Beltway squabbles and deficits while their own majority goes up in smoke around them.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-29627459295695416302010-07-09T16:35:00.000-04:002010-07-09T16:36:07.459-04:00When Geithner Talks About Reducing the Deficit, He Means Steal from the Poor and Give to the RichI have long held the belief that when Republican deficit hypocrites talk about “reducing the deficit,” they are simply using it as <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/further-adventures-in-fake-deficit-hawkery/">secret code for “exploiting regular Americans.”</a> They almost never have plans that would actually reduce the deficit. Their "deficit reduction" plans are mainly schemes like taking Medicare and Social Security from middle-class people, not raising taxes on the rich or implementing policies like direct drug-price negotiations, which would reduce government cost but hurt the profit of large corporations.<br /><br />Sadly, it appears the Obama Administration now falls firmly in the same camp of having “deficit reduction” just mean stealing from the poor to give to the rich. While he talks about how we need to reduce the deficit, on the other hand he fights diligently to increase the deficit by making sure hedge-fund managers and wealthy Wall Street investors pay a lower tax rate than teachers and police officers. From <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/07/08/geithner-offers-hope-on-20tax-rate-for-capital-gains-dividends/">“The Wall Street Journal”</a>:<br /><blockquote>In a CNBC interview late Wednesday, [Treasury Secretary Tim] Geithner said the Obama administration still hopes to hold the top tax rate on both capital gains and dividends to 20% next year – the level the White House has been proposing since taking office.<br /><br />Of course, a 20% rate would represent a big increase over the current 15%. But it’s a lot better than the 39.6% top rate for dividends that congressional Democrats have signaled they were planning next year for higher earners.</blockquote><br />This shows what a complete farce Obama’s Cat Food Commission really is. It might force hard-working janitors to labor two years longer by raising the Social Security retirement age, but what it really cares about is assuring extremely low taxes for wealthy people on Wall Street. The people who helped ruin the economy have the Obama Administration fighting to protect their low taxes, while the people they hurt are losing their retirement money. So much for shared sacrifice.<br /><br />Until we adopt a more cost-effective health care system like single payer (which would completely eliminate the long-term deficit), end our wars, make real cuts to our bloated Pentagon budget, end corporate welfare programs and make Wall Street millionaires pay at least as much taxes as a school principal, no one in Washington, Republican or Democrat, should dare even think about cutting Social Security or Medicare to reduce the deficit.<br /><br />Obama's talk about wanting to reduce the deficit was just talk. His Administration thinks helping Wall Street is far more important. Good to know where we rank: Wall Street Millionaires > Corporate Welfare (PhRMA, for- profit hospitals, too-big-to-fail banks, military contractors and more) > Deficit Reduction > Regular People.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-66839803923009541102010-07-09T16:34:00.001-04:002010-07-09T16:34:57.609-04:00New Campaign Will Spend up to $15 Million to Push Public Financing of ElectionsCommon Cause and Public Campaign have launched a multimillion-dollar campaign to push for the adoption of voluntary public financing of federal elections. Their goal is to spur Congress to pass the <a href="http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/more/summary">Fair Elections Now Act</a>. From <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/07/good-government-ad-campaign_n_638887.html">Huffington Post</a>:<br /><blockquote>Common Cause and Public Campaign, two organizations known for exposing the murkier influences on legislative and electoral processes, are staking $8 million to try and burnish Congress with the willpower to pass the Fair Elections Now Act. And they're willing to spend as much as $15 million on their campaign-season gambit.<br /><br />"We'll draw it out until we win," said David Donnelly, the campaign manager for the Campaign for Fair Elections. "We will continue the advertising, continue the grassroots organizing, continue the targeting and creative action.”</blockquote><br />The bill would provide public campaign money to candidates who proved they had a broad base of support by raising a set threshold of small-dollar donations. The program would be completely voluntary but would at least give candidates a way to run a viable campaign without needing to beg rich donors and powerful corporations for money.<br /><br />The corrupting influence of big-money donations on our politicians is one of the biggest problems with our country. It is effectively a form of legalized bribery, and the result is felt well outside issues related to good government. Why do we pay nearly twice as much as the rest of the world for health care? Why can't Congress approve the highly popular deficit-reducing policy or drug re-importation? Why can't we deal properly with the concept of “too big to fail”? <a href="http://firedoglake.com/2010/05/11/stop-me-if-youve-heard-this-one-before/">The answer almost always tracks back to the fact that those reforms would hurt corporations with deep pockets</a>. Corporations that are prepared to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/democrats-fear-they-cant_n_639202.html">spend huge amounts on political campaigns</a>.<br /><br />While the corrupting influence of money is not the only problem with our government, helping to fix it through voluntary public financing would at least move us toward a government more representative of regular people. You can't expect members of Congress to stand up to corporations when<a href="http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/07/06/money-for-nothing-wall-street-punishes-dems-for-appearing-to-tackle-financial-regulation/"> their jobs depend heavily on getting "gifts"</a> from those same groups. It is like having the guards of the hen house paid for with gifts directly from the foxes.<br /><br />Our system of money in politics is rotten to its core. If we ever adopt viable, voluntary public financing for all federal elections, I suspect in a few decades people will look back and be shocked that regular Americans ever tolerated the current system.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-28423200381589833732010-07-09T16:32:00.001-04:002010-07-09T16:32:32.384-04:00CA Props: Marijuana Legalization Losing Narrowly, Anti-Gridlock Measure Winning with VotersCalifornians want to fight it out on marijuana legalization, ease up on budgeting procedure and stay strong on resisting climate change, according to <a href="http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2342.pdf">Field Poll</a> (PDF) results on some of the state’s ballot initiatives. Field surveyed on four of the <a href="http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/06/28/from-cannabis-to-climate-change-ca-voters-face-10-crucial-initiatives-in-november/">10 Propositions</a> that will be on the ballot this November.<br /><br /><strong>Prop. 19: Marijuana Legalization</strong><br /><br />The poll shows Prop. 19 losing narrowly, 48-44, with eight percent undecided. Of all four ballot initiatives polled, it had the most voter recognition. A full 77 percent of those polled had heard of it. This continues the pattern we have seen in other polls, with <a href="http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/06/30/california-split-almost-evenly-on-Prop.-19-few-left-undecided-about-marijuana-legalization/">almost all voters having an opinion of Prop. 19 and very few undecided</a>.<br /><br />Men slightly favor Prop. 19, 48-47, but women disapprove, 50-41. The Field Poll also confirms the pattern of young voters under the age of 30 heavily supporting marijuana legalization, 52-39, but those over 65 opposing it strongly, 57-33. Support divides fairly evenly for voters between 30 and 65. The success or failure of Prop. 19 will probably depend on whether marijuana legalization being on the ballot motivates young supporters to turn out in unusually high numbers.<br /><br /><strong>Prop. 25: Majority Vote for State Budget</strong><br /><br />This measure to eliminate the super-majority requirement of a two-thirds vote in the state legislature to pass a budget has super-majority support among voters. Among California voters, 65 percent support the measure while only 20 percent oppose it, and only 15 percent are undecided. It even has majority support among Republican voters, 58-25. While it’s still early, Prop. 25 looks likely to pass in November.<br /><br />The two-thirds requirement to pass a budget, along with the two-thirds requirement to pass tax increases, has caused nearly endless gridlock in Sacramento, perennially late budgets and unpopular horse trading to get the last few votes. It has created huge dysfunction in the state government, and it looks like the voters have finally had enough. For non-California readers, think about how extremely dysfunctional the US Senate is with its 60-vote super-majority requirement to end a filibuster.<br /><br />Prop. 25 will restore a simple majority vote to pass the budget but leave in place the two-thirds requirement for tax increases. Prop. 26, which would impose a two-thirds requirement on new fees or levies, was not polled<br /><br /><strong>Prop. 23: Suspension of State’s Climate-Change Law</strong><br /><br />Prop. 23 is on the ballot because <a href="http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/06/23/big-money-alert-oil-companies-spend-millions-to-overturn-ca-climate-change-law/">two big oil companies spent millions to put it there</a>. It is another disgusting display of corporations literally trying to buy favorable laws by using the ballot initiative system. If passed, Prop. 23 would suspend AB32, the state’s greenhouse-gas reduction law.<br /><br />The poll finds California voters rejecting this attempt to gut climate-change legislation. It is currently losing, 48 percent opposed to 36 supporting, with 16 percent undecided. Democrats and nonpartisans strongly oppose the measure, but Republicans support it.<br /><br />The strong opposition to Prop. 23 should send a signal to politicians in Washington, DC, where climate-change legislation is all but dead. Even while experiencing one of the worst economic downturns in decades, voters in California are still committed to regulations meant to reduce global warming.<br /><br /><strong>Prop. 18: Water Bonds</strong><br /><br />The state legislature put the proposition on the ballot to approve a $11.1 billion bond measure related to water development. It is currently winning 42-32 but has a very high undecided rate of 26 percent. Only about one-quarter of voters had heard of Prop. 18 before the poll, so opinions are definitely not firm. Of all the ballot measures polled, this one is likely to see a significant change in the level of support going forward.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-13752041273732091382010-07-06T15:54:00.000-04:002010-07-06T15:55:21.206-04:00Communication First: Making Media to Move the Mainstream - Lessons from the Nonpartisan League, Part OneLarge corporations with a huge corrupting political influence are exploiting regular people. Bankers and traders on an exchange are selling phantom commodities to make huge profits to the detriment of the working class. A left-leaning group turns to politics to address these grievances, and the Chamber of Commerce and the mainstream attack it as “socialist,” unpatriotic and the tool of big labor. This is not modern times but the 1910s in the rise of the Nonpartisan League in North Dakota.<br /><br />The NPL was one of the most powerful political organizations in American history and the speed of its rise to power was unprecedented. The organization was formed in 1915 by two men sitting around a kitchen table. By 1918, it had taken complete control of the government of North Dakota and enacted much of its platform. Its success and failures hold a wealth of lessons for anyone interested in political organizations.<br /><br />Arthur Townley was the founder and driving force behind the NPL. He understood that the establishment media at the time were favorable to the status quo. Townley knew that to maintain a strong political organization, he had to speak directly to his members. An effective political organization needs to counteract the inevitable spin and propaganda from political forces aligned against it. That is why establishing its own newspaper was one of the NPL’s first actions. From <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=sTTUn2OaI0IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:ISBN0816601127#v=onepage&q&f=false">“Political Prairie Fire” by Robert Morlan</a>:<br /><blockquote>In laying the plans for the Nonpartisan League, the power of the press had not been overlooked, for Townley knew full well that the organization could be held together only if continuous information and stimulation reached the members through a publication devoted solely to that purpose. It had originally been planned to start the Nonpartisan Leader in December of 1915, and the members had been so informed. In August, however, it had become obvious that the opposition press was succeeding in causing doubts in the minds of many members; also it dawned on the leaders that most of the postdated checks were dated in October and that if the members heard no more of the organization before then, payment would be stopped on a great many. They therefore decided to start the paper as soon as possible. [...]<br /><br />The Leader, in general a moderately well-edited paper with a breezy conversational style, served three principal purposes—it provided a channel of direct news and information, a means by which the leaders might guide the actions of the members, and a method of combating the tide of bitter opposition which almost instantly arose.</blockquote><br />The need for a political movement to have its own independent news source and a way to speak directly to its supporters is a lesson modern progressives have learned and are relearning. Progressive blogs and e-mail lists can do this even better than any independent paper could do at the turn of the last century. The Internet has allowed contemporary progressive bloggers and organizations to work around the mainstream media. It’s not a new phenomenon, but the Internet has made the task much easier. No doubt Townley would have easily grasped the political potential of digital communication.<br /><br />It is a good thing that the NPL quickly set up its own paper, because the establishment media almost instantly attacked the new group. Without the “Leader” it is likely the continued smears and distortions would have eroded the organization’s support.<br /><blockquote>[A]lmost at once the great majority of both city dailies and rural weeklies, led by the Grand Forks Herald and the Fargo Courier-News, commenced a campaign of violent opposition. It was based principally on the grounds that the League was promoting socialism and that the leaders were "carpetbaggers" bent on driving the state into financial ruin and filling their own pockets with the farmers' money.</blockquote>Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-20879796052129471572010-07-06T15:53:00.000-04:002010-07-06T15:54:14.940-04:00KY Sen: To Know Him is Not to Love Him: Paul Drops to Even with ConwayRepublican Rand Paul and Democrat Jack Conway are tied in their Kentucky Senate race, 43-43, according to <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_KY_706.pdf">a new PPP poll</a>. Kentucky is currently held by retiring Republican Jim Bunning, making this Senate race, along with Missouri, New Hampshire and North Carolina, one of the Democrats’ best hopes for going on the offensive in 2010.<br /><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_KY_706.pdf">PPP</a> 6/28-30<br />Conway 43<br />Paul 43<br />Undecided 14</p><br />It appears Conway's best hope is to turn the spotlight on Paul and depict him as a man with extreme views, far outside the mainstream. The increased media attention on Paul’s more controversial statements has hurt his favorability numbers. From the <a href="http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/07/kentucky-senate-race-knotted.html">PPP blog</a>:<br /><blockquote>The more Kentucky voters get to know Rand Paul, the less they like him. When PPP first polled the race in December Paul's favorability was a +3 spread at 26/23. By May it was a -7 spread at 28/35. Now it's a -8 spread at 34/42. The national media attention Paul has received has hurt his cause with voters in the state--38% say it has made them less likely to support Paul while 29% say it has made them more inclined to vote for him and 33% say it hasn't had an impact on their attitude toward Paul one way or the other.</blockquote><br />The fact that Democrat Conway is doing well in a Republican-leaning state in what is shaping up to be a good year for the GOP is a reminder that there is some truth to the old line, "All politics is local."Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7535766648493814911.post-336062630570267032010-07-02T18:15:00.001-04:002010-07-02T18:15:43.422-04:00Cook Predicts GOP Wave in November; I Predict a Wave of Misdirected Dem PanicCharlie Cook, founder of <a href="http://www.cookpolitical.com/">The Cook Political Report</a>, sees a <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cr_20100630_6929.php">Republican wave coming in November</a>. While not always right, Cook has been at this for a long time and is a respected name in political forecasting.<br /><blockquote>Among all voters, there has been a significant swing since 2008 when Democrats took their new majority won in 2006 to an even higher level. But when you home in on those people in this survey who are most likely to vote, the numbers are devastating. The NBC/WSJ survey, when combined with a previously released NPR study of likely voters in 70 competitive House districts by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and Republican Glen Bolger, point to an outcome for Democrats that is as serious as a heart attack. Make no mistake about it: There is a wave out there, and for Democrats, the House is, at best, teetering on the edge.</blockquote><br />Anyway you slice it, the numbers are bad news for Democrats. Cook points out that Democratic voters are less enthusiastic about voting, and the generic ballot has swung in the Republican direction. This dire warning from Cook will send Washington Democrats into a further panic, which will probably result in them doing even more things that will crush enthusiasm among their base. They’ll ramp up their misguided faux deficit fear-mongering while millions struggle without a lifeline in the recession.<br /><br />I want to make a small point about the generic ballot. Democrats currently hold an unusually large majority in the House. In 2008, Democrats won about 53 percent of all votes cast for Congress. To keep all their House seats, Democrats don't need to win just the majority of votes cast for Congress but need to receive a similarly big majority of them. Even if Democratic candidates manage to get a majority of votes for Congress in November, if it’s only a small majority, say 50.5 percent, the result will be a large loss of seats.<br /><br />This November, especially because of how districts are gerrymandered, Republicans could win what is declared an overwhelming victory, a net gain of 30 or more seats, even though Democrats receive more total votes for Congress than Republicans.Jon Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572685384863064332noreply@blogger.com0