Open Left - 2010 elections

Winning the 2010 elections

Mike Lux — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:07:47 GMT

In January of 1998, the news about Monica Lewinsky exploded in the Washington media world. It was 24-7, and red hot intense. Within 72 hours, Republicans were calling for Clinton's resignation or impeachment, and some Democrats- even some liberal ones like Paul Wellstone- were on the verge of doing the same. Clinton survived the first barrage of calls for him to step down, but as that long year wore on, and more and more salacious news came out- topped off by the stained dress in August- it looked worse and worse for both Clinton and the Democratic Party.

Republicans were salivating at their prospects in the November elections, and Democrats were running scared. Pundits were predicting big losses for the Democrats in Congress: 30 plus seats in the House and five or six in the Senate. It didn't turn out that way, though. For the first time in 176 years, the party with a President in office in his 6th year actually picked up seats in the Congress (we picked up 5 in the House, while staying even in the Senate.) Without going into detail as to why (if you want to know more about that, you can go here), the bottom line is that progressives outside the party structure helped chart a bold strategy for winning that made all the difference.

Instead of avoiding the President's problems, we made the case that it was time for the country to move on, that all the Republicans wanted to do was wallow in the mud, and instead the country needed to focus on solving our problems. After initially resisting this approach, Democrats ended up embracing it, and we shocked the political world by picking up five seats instead of losing 30.

2010 is a very different kind of year, but it also looks bad for Democrats right now. It feels a lot like 1994 right now, with a weak economy, an impassioned right wing movement, and a discouraged Democratic base. We didn't do very well in the 2009 elections, and forecasts of ugly job numbers for a long time to come are making a lot of voters feel angry and discouraged. But I am convinced that there is a strategy that can turn the 2010 election around. That strategy needs to be built around health care, jobs, and taking on the big banks. None of these things are easy, but I am convinced that they are by far the best hope Democrats have.

Details on the strategy in the extended entry.
On health care, they simply have to pass a strong bill where at least some important and tangible benefits kick in right away. They just have to if there is any hope in the 2010 elections. To have worked on this issue for a year and come away with nothing of significance to show for it is a political disaster for the entire party. God help any Democrat from a tough district or state on the ballot in 2010, because nothing short of divine intervention will save them.

On jobs the politics are complicated. I think many voters understand the depth of damage to this economy, and don't expect miracles. But can I just make some suggestions to my Democratic friends regarding how NOT to talk about jobs in 2010:

Don't brag about how the GDP is growing, the recession is over, but jobs are a lagging indicator and the job situation will eventually get better.
Don't say "well, we know things are bad, but without us it would have been a lot worse".
Don't talk about how great it is that the banking sector is healthy again, because soon they will be lending money to businesses, and at some point that will mean some of those businesses will start hiring again.

My personal preference would be to fire every Democrat on the White House staff or on Capitol Hill who talks like a macroeconomist. Macroeconomists like Summers and Geithner are thrilled with the 3.5% GDP growth, and thrilled that the banking sector is showing "more health" (read: big profits)- they show about as much political sensitivity as George HW Bush when he looked at his watch in the middle of the debate, or said "Message: I care." Bragging about an improving GDP and explaining how jobs are lagging indicators which will someday trickle down to the unemployed is political death at a time like this. What Democrats should be doing is fighting like cats and dogs for every job that they can deliver, to their districts and to the country. Show that they are moving on this urgent need: get a new jobs bill passed, get a roads/infrastructure bill passed. Show more toughness when the most protectionist country on earth, China, lectures us on being protectionists (they liked us being saps for all those years.) Fight like crazy for new jobs in every venue, every forum, every chance you get- and tell people no matter how many jobs you produce that it is never enough, that you will keep fighting for more. The message has to go beyond the Obama White House mantra that "we won't be satisfied until everyone has a job"- it has to be that we will fight like tigers to produce every job we can now, not in some distant future. Voters understand the deep hole our economy is in, and that things won't be solved overnight, but they want to know that their political leaders are as passionate about solving unemployment problems as the people struggling are to find jobs.

Finally, in terms of the big banks, as I have written before, voters are mad as hell at Wall Street, and they want to know that politicians are not only mad too, but are willing to do something to take them on. Bernie Sanders' two-page bill to break up the big banks was a stroke of political genius, and is great economic policy besides. Based on private polling I've seen, about 85% of the American public would agree with Bernie's statement that if you are too big to fail, you are too big to exist- and they believe it passionately: in every speech I have given over the last year, my single biggest applause line, easily, was that statement. Bernie's simple, straightforward two-page bill is a masterstroke, as it cuts through all the financial gobbledygook of the financial barons, and lays bare a simple way to get done what the public is demanding. I hope Bernie files it as an amendment on the floor to any bill coming up for debate, and forces other Senators to vote up or down on it. The Democrats who are smart will champion the idea and fight for it.

If Democrats follow the safe conventional wisdom formula in the 2010 elections, they will get their butts handed to them. Voters are not happy with incumbents, base Democratic voters feel like no one is fighting for them, independents feel like nobody cares what they think. But if Democrats shed their caution and become fighters, for jobs and health care and the middle class and against insurers and Wall Street, they can pull off the same kind of surprise in 2010 that we pulled off in 1998.

Which is the bigger problem, lower Democratic turnout or voter shift toward Republicans?

Chris Bowers — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:54:36 GMT

The two major problems that Democrats face in the 2010 elections are:

Voters who supported Democrats in 2008, but who are shifting toward Republicans (or other parties) in 2010;
Voters who supported Democrats in 2008, but who will not vote in 2010.

Determining which of these problems is most severe will help determine Democratic strategy in not only the 2010 elections, but in the legislative season leading up to those elections. Should Democrats appeal more to a progress-leaning base unimpressed by Democratic accomplishments so far, or should they turn toward a conservative-leaning swing vote that is slowly finding Republicans more appealing?

Over at Pollster.com, Charles Franklin looks at the data in New Jersey and Virginia. He concludes that a shift of Democratic-voters toward Republicans was a bigger factor in the Democratic defeats in those states than was the lower turnout among (mostly young) Democrats.

Franklin's conclusions are not entirely convincing, because it is difficult to separate the two variables from each other. For example, the large shift among Independents toward Republicans was partially caused by lower turnout among young, Democratic-leaning Independents. The pro-Republican shift among Independents was not just caused by Independents switching their vote from Democrats to Republicans.

However, even if it is not possible to definitely prove whether lower Democratic turnout or voter shift to Republicans is the main problem facing Democrats, even attempting such a determination may present a false choice. First, both of these problems exist, and so addressing only one is always only a partial strategy. Second, there may well be ways to appeal to both disillusioned voters and to swing voters at the same time.

Too often political analysts look at the electorate in the same way that they look at winning a majority of votes for a piece of legislation in Congress. There is an underlying belief that appealing to progressives will lose conservative voters, and vice versa. However, that is not necessarily the case among voters, for whom delivering on promises, objective economic conditions, and the apparent cultural orientation of politicians are often just as important as abstract ideological considerations.

Obviously, improved economic conditions will be one way to simultaneously appeal to disillusioned voters and to swing voters. There might be other ways as well, including an improved national image in the rest of the world, or even success in major 2010 international sporting events (Olympics and World Cup). Clamping down hard on corruption within your own party couldn't hurt, either. Whatever the best paths might turn out to be, the best strategies will reject an either / or of exciting the base and appealing to swing voters as an unnecessary false choice.

Ned Lamont to run for Governor of Connecticut

Chris Bowers — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:58:25 GMT

This just in--Ned Lamont is looking to run for Governor in Connecticut:

NED LAMONT ANNOUNCES FORMATION OF EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE
Norwalk, CT - Ned Lamont, successful businessman, co-founder of the state policy center at Central Connecticut State University, and Democratic nominee for US Senate in 2006, announced that he will be filing papers today with the State Elections Enforcement Commission establishing an Exploratory Committee for statewide office:

"As I have continued to meet with citizens across our state over the last three years, as co-chairman of President Obama's Connecticut campaign and on behalf of health care reform, I have been constantly reminded that Connecticut is not living up to its potential and that too many of our families are being left behind," said Lamont.

"Like businesses, states thrive with strong executive leadership, and they fall behind with weak leadership. As measured by the loss of jobs, young people leaving our state, and the never-ending budget crisis, Connecticut's Chief Executive is simply not getting the job done."

There is no polling on Lamont in this campaign. Republian Governor Jodi Rell is able to run for another term, and was popular as of February. However, that could easily change in the current, anti-incumbent climate.

A couple other Democrats have announced they are running, as well.

There are not many progressive Democratic Governors. Lamont's entry into this campaign could change that.

The election spin is irrelevant--talk to the pocketbook

Chris Bowers — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:12:51 GMT

We can sit around and complain that the post-election spin is not properly giving credit to Democratic and progressive victories in the House, in mayoral campaigns, and in many ballot initiatives outside of the painful defeat in Maine. Or, we can realize that in this instance, given the magnitude of the problems facing the country, spin is insignificant compared to the ~~power of the force~~ economic conditions facing the average American.

When you are highly engaged in political news and activism, there is a tendency to overestimate the importance of winning the messaging war. However, there probably isn't a single American who will vote in 2010 based on how well one side or the other messaged after the 2009 elections. The post-election spin is distant, abstract horse pockey compared to the job market, the health care market, the housing market, and other very real economic problems people are facing in their everyday lives.

As Mike wrote this morning, Democratic performance in the 2010 elections will be based on whether Democrats "deliver the goods," aka, the economic improvements they were hired to produce. If economic conditions still suck in 2010, then Democrats are toast no matter what sort of spin or other abstract positioning in which we engage.

We can already see that in the outcome of the elections last night. Democrats were reduced in the two states where they had been in power for eight years during the economic difficulties (New Jersey and Virginia), but were still able to make gains at the federal level (swept the House seats), where they have really only been in charge for one year. The lesson is clear: if you are in power during an economic catastrophe, voters will replace whoever you are with just about anything.

For now, at the federal level at least, voters still blame Republicans. However, that will no longer be the case by 2010. By that point, we will own either the continue economic slump or the ongoing economic recovery. As such, in both political and human terms, it is imperative that there is an substantial improvement in the economic livelihood of average Americans over the next year. To do this, Democrats are not only going to need to make sure that the health care bill contain benefits that will kick in during 2010 (something which Democrats in Congress are increasingly aware of and delivering), but that there can be additional stimulus spending over the next year.

There is no going to be any way to pass a second omnibus stimulus bill. Support simply is not there for it, either in Congress or in the public at large. However, there are two things that can be done (more in the extended entry):

Pass a series of smaller programs, such as more cash for clunkers, extending unemployment benefits, and extending COBRA benefits.
Use the remaining $317 billion of TARP for non-Wall Street related stimulus. To its credit, the Obama administration has not spent any of the second $350 billion of the Wall Street bailout on Wall Street itself. It spent just under $100 billion on homeowners and the auto industry, and $317 billion remains in the account. Even though some of the remaining money comes from financial institutions paying back the easy loans they received, this still means that that Obama administration has not actually spent any of the second, post-Bush $350 billion on Wall Street.
This is money that can, and should, be used for a second stimulus program. Keep finding effective, targeted, non-Wall Street ways to spend this money: grants to states about to cut jobs, loans to small businesses who can't get credit, more assistance for homeowners, more cash for clunkers, etc. It is a huge opportunity that can be used to provide the economy the stimulus it needs, while circumventing a Congress that would never pass a second omnibus stimulus bill.

There are times when spin matters, but this is not one of them. Babbling talking heads on television and pithy columnists online have little, if any, persuasive power compared to the pocketbook. Democrats have to speak to their pocketbooks, and that is done through effective policy, not through effective talking points.

1994 and 2010, Part 3: The South

Chris Bowers — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:00:00 GMT

The first part of this series discussed how Perot voters formed roughly two-thirds of the Republican gains in the national House popular vote from 1992 to 1994. While certainly there were multiple factors, including the 1994 health care debacle, polls strongly suggest that NAFTA was their primary source of Perot voter dissatisfaction with Democrats. While the bailout could potentially serve a similar function in 2010, we live in a more polarized era with nowhere near the same percentage of the electorate up for grabs as 1992-1994. As Such, a similar swing in 2010 is unlikely.

In the second part, we looked at how dissatisfaction with President Clinton among the American left was substantial, and led to low liberal and labor turnout in 1994. So far, the American left is significantly more satisfied with President Obama and the current incarnation of the Democratic Party. However, there are still worrying signs that Democrats will experience significant drop-offs in turnout in 2010.

This article looks at the third main piece of the puzzle for Republicans in 1994: southern whites. That year, for the first time, Republicans extended their strong performances among southern whites from the presidential level to the congressional level. Not only was this an essential in helping Republicans find enough seats to take over Congress in 1994, but it also gave their "revolution" enough stability to last for twelve years.

In terms of seats, 1994 was not dominated by the South
While the current incarnation of the Republican Party is heavily associated with the South, at least in terms of seats won, the Republican wave in 1994 was not disproportionately southern.

In 1994, the eleven states that once formed the Confederacy represented 28.7% (125 of 435) of the seats in the House. That year, 29.6% of the Republican net gain in House seats (16 of 54), came from those eleven states. In the Senate, only three of the nine Republican pickups were from former Confederate states. Fueled by southern whites in the South, and Perot voters everywhere else, 1994 was a national victory for Republicans, not a regional one.

Much more, including a cool historical graph, in the extended entry.
In terms of the popular vote, the South wasn't dominant in 1994, but did provide a big assist
As I emphasized in part one of this series, in 1994 Republicans gained more from Perot voters than any other group (roughly 3.5% of the overall 5.1% Republican percentage vote increase). However, southern whites were a close second. Making up 24% of the House electorate, Republicans won 65% of the southern white vote in 1994, up from 53% in 1992. Even considering that there was surely some cross-over between the Perot voters who went Republican in '94 and the southern whites who did the same, jointly these two groups must have formed virtually all of the Republican popular vote gains in 1994.

Long-term southern stability for Republicans
While Republican seat gains in 1994 did not come disproportionately from the South, that their popular vote gains did come disproportionately from southern whites (in addition to Perot voters) made it clear there was further room for the GOP to grow in the region. This extra room to grow provided the 1994 Republican takeover enough stability to last for over a decade.

To demonstrate this, the following chart breaks down partisan representation in the House of Representatives, both inside and outside of the South (defined as the eleven states that once formed the confederacy, and with Bernie Sanders counted as a Democrat):

Partisan Composition of the House, South and Non-South

Election	Dem	GOP	Dem	GOP
	Non-South		South
1992	182	128	77	48
1994	144	166	61	64
2004	154	150	49	82
2006	179	125	54	77
2008	199	105	58	73

Despite the ongoing Democratic obsession with trying to "win back the South" in the 1994-2006 era, Republicans actually continued to gain House seats (and Senate seats, and electoral votes) in the region. In the South, Democrats are still significantly underperforming 1994.

Both now and when Republicans were in the majority, this should not have come as a surprise to anyone. Both Nixon and Reagan (and, in 1998, Bush Sr), had been disproportionately successful in the South. Eventually, this success at the top of the ticket for Republicans was going to trickle down. For the first-time in 1994, Republican performance at he congressional level among white southerners (65%) and white evangelicals (76%) achieved the same heights they had already been scoring for two decades at the presidential level. Further, once it did trickle down, it wasn't going to reverse itself anytime soon. This was the completion of a political trend three decades in the making, starting with the Civil Rights Act. No short term strategy could possibly reverse a trend of this scale.

Could this happen again?
In a word, no. Even if Republicans were to make major gains in the 2010 elections (not impossible), the possibility of another stable, decade-long majority is not currently possible. Compared to 1994, the situation is different for a few key reasons:

There is no large demographic group or region where Republicans are significantly underperforming at the congressional level, compared to their presidential performance, as there was with southern whites in 1994. For example, Republicans actually have a larger advantage in the South right now than they did after the 1994 elections.
As I (and many others) have argued on a regular basis, demographics are turning against Republicans. As such, barring a significant realignment, any Republican majority will be tenuous and unstable over the next decade or two. My favorite way to exemplify just haw far, and how quickly, demographics are moving away from Republicans, is to point out that Dukakis would have narrowly won in 1988 if the country had the same ethnic and religious profile that is has right now.

Overall, while major Republicans gains in 2010 are possible, they are just not very likely. Further, in the unlikely event that Republicans do make major gains, those GOP advances will not be as stable and long-lived as they were in 1994. Whether their leaders like it or not, Republicans are locked into a white Christian voter strategy, and don't have an option to turn back. Such a strategy is not entirely futile, especially when combined with a potential Democratic defeat on health care, depressed Democratic turnout, plus anger at bailouts and vagaries like "big government." There is just no chance it will be a viable Republican strategy for another twelve to sixteen years, because the political landscape has changed significantly since 1994.

Still A Zero Sum, Two-Party Game

Chris Bowers — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:40:23 GMT

President Obama's approval ratings are, as was probably inevitable in this type of economic climate, declining. The Democratic advantage in the generic congressional ballot is eroding (I see no reason to exclude Rasmussen from that average). Job ratings for congressional Democrats are also going down. Fewer Americans are self-identifying as Democrats, too.

At the same time, Republicans are not showing an increase in support. Fewer Americans are also self-identifying as Republicans, and the GOP has made up no ground in partisan self-identification. Republicans have not increased their numbers in the generic congressional ballot, even though they are closer to Democrats than before. The Republican Party is viewed as, or more, unfavorably than it was in late 2008. Further, congressional Republicans have not seen any increase in their job approval during 2009.

Overall, what we are seeing so far is not a shift toward Republicans from Democrats, but rather an increase in the number of people who dislike both parties and have become "undecided" as a result. As such, if 2010 was a presidential election year, I would say this environment was ripe for a Perot-style, third-party challenge to once again break into the double-digits of popular support. The best bet for such a challenge would be an anti-Wall Street General, given the extremely low popularity of Wall Street and the high favorability maintained by the military.

For such a challenge to reach 15%-20% national support, the American exceptionalist, Perot line of anti-trade, anti-immigrant, anti-war, and now, in our own era, pro-coal is probably the best bet. It wouldn't win, but it would temporarily shake a lot of voters loose. Such voters would mainly come from the Republican coalition.

However, 2010 is not a presidential election. As such, given the consistently poor performance of third-parties in congressional elections, it is highly unlikely that increasing dissatisfaction with both parties will lead to a third-party breakthrough in the midterms. Here are the national popular vote totals for all third parties, combined, in House elections since 1978 (more in the extended entry):
Third-party % of National House Popular Vote, 1978-2008
1978: 1.9%
1980: 2.1%
1982: 2.5%
1984: 1.3%
1986: 2.3%
1988: 1.5%
1990: 4.1%
1992: 5.3%
1994: 6.1%
1996: 4.1%
1998: 4.9%
2000: 5.7%
2002: 5.4%
2004: 4.2%
2006: 3.9%
2008: 2.8%

Third parties have not done well in congressional elections. Even the minor third-party boomlet of 1990-2004, which never produced more than two independents in the House (and Bernie Sanders was the only candidate elected on a third-party ticket), has waned in recent years. The reason for this is that the most prominent third "parties" tend to be little more than cults of personality for prominent individual candidates (Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, Ralph Nader, Joe Lieberman). When you have to run candidates in 400+ congressional districts, the cult of personality model doesn't fare well.

So, we remain in a zero-sum, two-party game. While Republicans have not gained in popularity, in order to reduce the size of the Democratic majorities in Congress, they don't necessarily have to do so (at least in 2010). Simply closing the gap on Democrats would be enough. This could result in significantly reduced voter turnout, which would also benefit Republicans, as polling in Virginia currently shows.

Democrats are not going to be bailed out by a third-party, or by continuing dislike of Republicans. More than anything else, what they need right now is for the economy to turn around.

2010 Economic Policy Largely Already Set

Chris Bowers — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:47:17 GMT

It doesn't take much political analysis to conclude that the state of the economy in the fall of 2010 will largely determine the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections. In areas of the country where economic conditions are improving for most people, Democrats will likely do extremely well. In areas of the country where economic conditions are either stagnating or continuing to deteriorate for most people, Republicans should see improvements from their 2006 and 2008 performances. No amount of spin, or strategic improvements, or even progressive infrastructure can do much to change this dynamic.

Also of note, there is very little in the way of new economic policy that will change this dynamic. This is because federal economic policy for the period between now and October-November of 2010 has largely already been passed and implemented. The policy battles in which we are currently engaged will mainly impact economic conditions in 2011, 2013, and even further down the road. Here is why:

Trains that have already left the station

Bailouts: Don't expect much, if anything, in the way of new, congressionally mandated bailouts to financial institutions or automakers between now and 2010. Such bailouts highly unpopular, and will not take place in another election year.
Stimulus: Don't expect a second, large-scale stimulus, either. Given low public support for a second stimulus plan (only 27% according to a recent CBS poll), the current stimulus is the only plan we should expect to get. Discussions about whether or not we should have another one are entirely academic. Personally, given that I think we needed a larger stimulus, I also think we need a second stimulus, but it just ain't going to happen.
Budget. The non-health care aspects of the federal budget are also a done deal. The votes to pass the budget are already in place, and the budget will cover federal spending until September 30th, 2010. That is only five weeks from the 2010 elections.
Health Care: Major provisions of health care legislation, including a public option and requiring insurance companies to accept all applicants, will not take effect until 2013. So, even if health care reform passes, it isn't going to have much impact on economic conditions for not only the 2010 elections, but even for the 2012 elections.

Collectively, this means that federal spending plans from now through the 2010 elections is already in place. Given that Democratic electoral fortunes are largely tied to the state of the economy come election time, in the short-term, the policy mold for the midterm elections has largely been cast.

While the mold has largely been cast, in the extended entry, I look at the areas where Democrats can still nibble around the edges to improve economic conditions for most people by 2010.
Compared to the size of the four bullet points listed above, the four listed below largely nibble around the edges. However, cumulatively, they can still have a not insignificant impact, especially if the economy really is already on the mend (I doubt that, but it is possible).

What can still make a difference

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES): Some of the more optimistic forecasts for the ACES indicate that, largely due to the mandated efficiency standards in retrofitting buildings, it can create 1.7 million jobs that will last at least a decade. If the bill is passed before the end of 2009, with 2010 efficiency requirements (a 30% increase in the current bill) for buildings intact, that will have an impact on economic conditions by the end of 2010. Certainly, it will impact the economy by 2011 and 2012.

Whatever the problems of the ACES in reducing greenhouse emissions, weakening the Clean Air Act and giving away money to polluters, this is a real positive to the legislation that needs to be supported.
State and local budget battles: While the federal budget for fiscal year 2010 is largely already in place, many state and local governments (most notably California and Pennsylvania, which represent one-sixth of the national population combined) are facing major budget showdowns this summer (and fall). The outcomes of those battles will have a major impact on the amount of local services available to people. As such, they will also have an impact on the 2010 elections.
Cash for clunkers. While we can't expect a full-scale second stimulus, expanding the cash for clunkers program and unemployment benefits will have a not insignificant impact on the economy. If cash for clunkers eventually becomes a $3 billion, or even $5-10 billion, program, it should result in creating economic activity five times that amount.
Extending unemployment benefits. 1.5 million Americans are projected to lose their unemployment benefits by the end of the year. Extending those benefits through December 31st, 2010--as proposed by Rep. McDermott of Washington--would result in tens of billions of economic activity.

Will it be enough for Democrats to avoid losing seats in 2010? That is an extremely difficult prediction to make. However, it is important for the future of progressivism that the economy does turn around quickly. Even if the Democratic trifecta did not institute policies that many progressives thought went far enough, the public will still use the state of the economy in 2010 and 2011 as the benchmark for the efficacy of using the government as the spender of last resort. If the economy does not improve, this basic tenet of progressive economic will take a huge hit in public opinion for a long time to come.

It is also worth noting that if the economy does turn around, progressive economics will be vindicated and embraced by an entire generation of voters for a long time to come. High risk, high reward.

The Future of Democrats in Texas

Mike Lux — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:07:55 GMT

Crossposted at Burnt Orange Report

I have been involved in national politics in one way or another for about 25 years now, and have been part of literally thousands of national discussions on political targeting. For most of that time, the state of Texas sticks out as the great oddity, the exception to all other demographic trends that seem to hold true around the rest of the country. At the beginning, people in targeting meetings are always saying things like "If you look at the demographics in Texas, it ought to be winnable." By the end of every cycle, none of us at the national level is targeting the state and the state-wide Democratic candidate loses by 10-12 points.

It wasn't always this way. In the 1960s, a President from Texas led the way in getting civil rights legislation, Medicare and Medicaid, and many of the other progressive reforms of that decade. Even as the rest of the south was turning to the right and the Republican Party in those years, Texas elected crusading liberal Ralph Yarborough in 1964. A couple of decades later, Democrats - including legendary populist progressive Jim Hightower - swept to power in the 1980s, culminating with Ann Richards historic victory in the 1990 Governor's race.

But that was a while ago now. The Rove-DeLay machine has been remarkably effective over the last couple of decades. Democrats have not won a gubernatorial race since Richards' victory (and they haven't won a Presidential race since Carter in 1976). Republicans have controlled both Senate seats since Lloyd Bentsen stepped down in 1993. They have had the majority in both legislative chambers since 2003. And this has all happened as the number of Hispanics in Texas has steadily, inexorably risen year after year.

I explain why that's so important, and what I think the future of Democrats in Texas looks like, in the extended entry.
In the other big state where Hispanics have grown so dramatically and consistently as a percentage of the population, California, the state has become overwhelmingly blue in Presidential, Senate, congressional, and state legislative elections, even though it had consistently supported Republican Presidential candidates in prior decades. Only the most moderate Republican governor in the country has kept the gubernatorial chair in GOP hands. All the smaller states in the southwest with steadily growing Hispanic populations - ~~Arizona~~, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada - have gone from being Republican strongholds to being purple - and all of them went for Obama last year.

Look at these Texas statistics (according to data from the Forward Texas Foundation):

Anglos will be down to 52% of the adult population by 2010, and 49.99% - less than half - by 2012.
85% of the new adult citizens eligible to vote since 2002 are minorities, most of them Hispanics.
Barack Obama, who didn't spend a dime targeting Texas in the 2008 general election, lost Texas by about 950,000 votes. Between 2008 and 2012, there are projected to be 1.2 million additional eligible minority voters added to the population of the state.

With statistics like these, and the trends in other formerly Republican southwestern states, you would think Democrats would be confidently developing a Texas strategy for 2010 and 2012. With George Bush gone and discredited, the DeLay machine out of commission, and a really nasty 2010 gubernatorial primary in the works between Kay Bailey Hutchison and goofy incumbent Rick Perry, you would think Texas would be at or towards the top of Democratic target lists. But in two recent trips to Texas, one to Austin and one to Houston, my talks with Texas Democrats did not reveal anything close to that kind of optimism. Sentiments ranged from being very pessimistic about the gubernatorial race to some folks who thought it was "possible if everything went our way." And very few people I know either in Texas or in the Obama political operation are taking Texas seriously as a potential swing state in the 2012 election.

So what is going on in Texas? It's not that there aren't some smart Democratic political operatives doing good work there. For example, Matt Angle, Martin Frost's former head of the DCCC, has led an effort to revitalize the state Democratic Party, and has made significant progress in picking up competitive state legislative seats, rebuilding the party's voter file, increasing candidate fundraising, and creating a strong opposition research and rapid response capability. Another example is the great work of Burnt Orange Report in becoming the Texas blogosphere's online hub for progressive political activism.

But the fundamental problem for Texas Democrats will not be solved until the political class there and nationally finally does something about the elephant in the room: the abysmal turnout of minority voters, especially Hispanics. In 2008, Hispanics made up 32% of eligible voters in Texas, a number which will likely be about 35% by 2012, but they were only 20% of the electorate. In the 2006 off-year elections, while 45% of eligible Anglos voted, only 37% of African-Americans, 24% of Asian-Americans, and 25% of Hispanics voted.

These voter turnout problems are not inevitable. Texas is 47th in the country in turnout of eligible voters. And other states, with investment of resources to make it happen, have shown dramatic increases in Hispanic voter turnout that Texas has not seen: Colorado increased Hispanic turnout by 86% in 2008 over 2004, while New Mexico had 50% Hispanic turnout in the 2006 off-year elections compared to 25% in Texas.

It is a simple, undeniable fact: if Texas got the number in Hispanic turnout that these other states got, they would become a purple or even blue state overnight.

This hasn't happened in part because Texas is a big state and it would cost a lot of money to run the kind of voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives that have happened in other states, and national Democrats have written off Texas year after year as unwinnable, so they haven't invested the resources. But money alone is not the reason: Texas Democrats have raised and spent tens of millions of dollars per election in statewide races over the last couple of decades, but they've spent the vast majority of their money on expensive TV advertising buys. The consultants who run Texas Democratic politics don't make money on voter registration or GOTV drives, they make money on TV ads, and they have never invested in the kind of project that would pick up far more voters for Democrats than most media campaigns. And while I don't believe you can win a statewide campaign without spending money on TV, I also don't believe you can win in Texas as a Democrat if you don't devote a whole lot more to the field.

It's time to change this dynamic once and for all. Democrats already are the dominant party in California, New York, and Illinois, while Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan are purple. In the next tier of states in the electoral college, Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana became purple in 2008, joining long time blue (Massachusetts, New Jersey) and purple (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri) double digit states. Imagine if the last of the big states became purple again, making Georgia the biggest solidly Republican state. It would be extremely tough for the Republicans to put together an electoral college majority if that were the case.

It's time for Texas and national Democrats to make this kind of investment in voter engagement work in Texas.

Victim of DADT runs for Congress CA-10

ARDem — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 03:13:11 GMT

When Ellen Tauscher announced she was headed for the State Department it seemed there would be no shortage of Democrats running to replace her in this safe district, including California's Lt. Gov, John Garamendi, who ducked out of the race for governor when he got no traction and decided not to contest Republican held CA-03. Recently though, CNN's Campbell Brown (bleck!) interviewed a candidate I hadn't heard anything about until now, and after watching the clip I walked away impressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Anthony Woods is impressive for many reasons. Raised by a single mother, he went on to serve his country in two tours in Iraq, receive an education at Harvard and a Master's degree from the Kennedy School of Government. He was a co-recipient of the Robert F. Kennedy Public Service Award and organized missions to help rebuild hurricane-ravaged New Orleans. Hell, he spent a summer bicycling across the country to raise money for Habitat for Humanity. But all that wasn't good enough for his government. Woods wanted to serve his country on a third tour of Iraq, but was discharged simply because he is gay.
Woods comes off as a very polished speaker, and he clearly knows from his interview with Brown how to avoid putting his foot in his mouth. What's more, the guy is well rounded, having worked as an economic policy advisor, giving him credibility on what is probably always the number one issue in a campaign. Personally though, I'm excited about the possibility of sending a victim of DADT to Congress to give the LGBT community a voice and a face there for this unjust policy that Obama has, frankly, failed us on. What's more, Woods would be the first black-LGBT person elected to Congress and could potentially work to build bridges and initiate dialogue between two communities that don't always see eye to eye.

The iceing on the cake??? Woods is a self-described progressive Democrat. He's a clear underdog in this race with plenty of big names and established politicians, but Woods has a lot of personal qualities that hint at the possibility of an upset. Clearly, he's someone we need to watch, and I'd argue he's a Better Democrat we should support.

http://www.anthonywoodsforcong...

Next cycle, donate strategically--not emotionally

desmoinesdem — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:25:05 GMT

Last October, Representative Michele "Crazy as Steve King" Bachmann (MN-06) disgraced herself on "Hardball" and sparked a ridiculously successful fundraising drive for her Democratic opponent, El Tinklenberg. I was impressed by the enthusiasm and kicked in a few bucks for Tinklenberg myself, but I was dismayed to see bloggers continue to help him raise money even after he'd raised more than $750,000 and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had promised to spend an additional $1 million in his district. Within a few days of Bachmann's notorious comments, Tinklenberg had more money than he needed to run a solid media and GOTV campaign during the final two weeks before the election.

Since most Congressional races against incumbents are longshots, I wanted to see the netroots expand the field by raising $50,000 or more for a large number of unheralded challengers.

A fellow Iowa blogger sent me this piece from CQ Politics about how Tinklenberg's campaign committee was the largest donor to the DCCC in March, giving a total of $250,000:

You may recall that his Republican opponent was Rep. Michele Bachmann, whose mid-October comment that Obama "may have anti-American views" angered Democrats nationwide and spawned an avalanche of contributions to Tinklenberg in the waning days of a campaign that Bachmann won by 46 percent to 43 percent, with a third-party candidate taking 10 percent.
Apparently the money was coming in too fast for Tinklenberg to spend completely: he raised $3 million for his campaign, of which $1.9 million came in after October 15, and had $453,000 in leftover campaign funds at the end of 2008 and $184,000 at the end of March.

I'm not saying it wasn't worth getting behind Tinklenberg. Bachmann is among the worst Republicans in Congress, and this district rightly seemed winnable. However, the netroots clearly funneled way more money to Tinklenberg than he could spend effectively.

What if a million of the dollars we sent to the MN-06 race had been spread around 10 or 20 other districts? A bunch of the candidates I wanted to support as part of an expanded field got blown out by large margins, but an extra $50,000 could have made the difference for Josh Segall in AL-03, or for several candidates who weren't on my radar, such as Bill Hedrick in CA-44.

The netroots rally for Tinklenberg started out as a good cause but took on a momentum of its own. It didn't help that Tinklenberg sent fundraising e-mails to his new donors every day or two during the home stretch, even after he had more than enough money to close out the campaign.

Maybe the majority of blog readers who gave $10 or $20 or $50 to Tinklenberg wouldn't have given to some other longshot Congressional challenger. Maybe people need an emotional trigger before they are willing to open their wallets. But in future election cycles, we need to be smarter about how we focus our energy and our fundraising efforts during the final weeks of a campaign. There's no shortage of wingnuts worth targeting. Also, a fair number of good incumbent Democrats will probably need our help in 2010, depending on how the economy looks 18 months from now.

Any ideas or suggestions on how to raise money effectively during the next cycle would be welcome in this thread.

White House Official Throws Chris Dodd Under Bus To Protect Geithner and Summers

Chris Bowers — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:00:00 GMT

(Via Jane Hamsher) Back in mid-February during the fight over the stimulus package, Senator Chris Dodd was pushing for retroactive restrictions on bonuses paid to employees of financial companies receiving bailout money. This measure, which would have applied to AIG bonuses, was opposed by both Wall Street and the Obama administration:

As word spread Friday about the new and retroactive limit -- inserted by Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut -- so did consternation on Wall Street and in the Obama administration, which opposed it.

Both Larry Summers and Tim Geithner personally asked Senator Dodd to remove the retroactive provision, because they thought it meant banks would give the government its money back:

The administration is concerned the rules will prompt a wave of banks to return the government's money and forgo future assistance, undermining the aid program's effectiveness. Both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, who heads the National Economic Council, had called Sen. Dodd and asked him to reconsider, these people said.

While Dodd refused to back down, at the request of the administration the retroactive language was stripped from the final bill during the conference report anyway. Now, a source deep inside the Obama administration is telling the press that the bonuses are Dodd's fault, and that Geithner is the one who is outraged:

Word of the bonuses last week stirred such deep consternation inside the Obama administration that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told the firm they were unacceptable and demanded they be renegotiated, a senior administration official said.(...)

The administration official said the Treasury Department did its own legal analysis and concluded that those contracts could not be broken. The official noted that even a provision recently pushed through Congress by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, had an exemption for such bonus agreements already in place.

Don't forget that Chris Dodd is the most endangered Democratic Senate incumbent in 2010, as he currently trails his Republican challenger Robert Simmons. Hard to imagine how Dodd's re-election chances will be helped by a senior White House source telling the New York Times that Dodd is to blame for the AIG bonuses.

More in the extended entry.
So, let's recap what we learned about Geithner and Summers today (once again, mostly Geithner):

We learned today that Federal Reserve Bank attorneys knew about the bonuses for months, and were looking for ways to block them.
Last month, Senator Chris Dodd proposed legislation that would have stripped the bonuses in the past, present and future.
Tim Geithner and Larry Summers both personally asked Chris Dodd to drop that legislation. He refused.
The legislation was dropped during the conference report anyway.
Tim Geithner claims that, after looking into it for months, he determined there was no way he could have stopped the bonuses. Larry Summers agrees.
A senior White House source tells the New York Times that Geithner is ourtaged by the bonuses. However, the source notes that Geithner's analysis concluded that Chris Dodd, the most vulnerable Democratic Senator in 2010, is to blame for this because he wrote an exemption for AIG into recent legislation. This is even though Geithner and Summers both personally asked Dodd to drop legislation that would have retroactively stripped the AIG bonuses.

Now, some elements inside the administration have reached the point where they are placing blame for something Geithner and Summers did--block legislation that would have stripped the bonuses--on the person who wrote the legislation that would have stripped the bonuses. And that person just happens to be the most vulnerable Democratic Senators in 2010.

Glad to see that some senior administration officials value Geithner and Summers more than either Democratic Senate seats, or even more than honesty. There is a serious problem inside the Obama administration on this matter, and dismissals are needed to solve it.

In a related development, Republicans tied Democrats in the congressional generic ballot in one poll today, and took the lead in the other. I guess the new "Geithner uber alles" strategy isn't working out to well for Democrats.

2010 Is Required To Set Up 2012 and 2014

Chris Bowers — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:57:09 GMT

We have spent the last three months feverishly dissecting and working on Obama administration appointments and policy. Now, with House and Senate dotting the i's and crossing the t's on the jobs / stimulus package, and with the President's Day congressional recess coming up in a few days, let's take a short break and return to elections for a moment.

The first principle we must keep in mind for the November 2nd, 2010 elections is that if we lose seats next year, we will be in serious danger for 2012 and 2014. While we are in no real danger of losing the Democratic trifecta in 2010, if we lose seats then it is virtually a guarantee the trifecta will be gone in 2012 or 2014. In the extended entry, I explain why.
Given that Republicans need to win 40 House seats to take back the majority, and that, assuming Al Franken wins, they need to win 10 Senate seats to take back the majority, we are not in real danger of losing the trifecta in two years time. Recent problems caused by Republican governance make such a sweep highly unlikely in either chamber. This is especially the case in the Senate where, of the 35 Senators up for election in 2010 (Gillibrand included), only 16 are Democrats. As such, Democrats only need to win 7 of the 35 Senate campaigns in 2010 in order to retain the majority, which is an extraordinarily easy task.

However, if Democrats lose seats in the 2010 election, even though they will maintain control of the trifecta, they will be in serious jeopardy in both the 2012 and 2014 elections. There are three reasons for this:

First, after four years of the trifecta, if Democrats have not produced real accomplishments to turn the country around, voters will be ready to turn back to Republicans. While the 2003-2006 Republican trifecta, not to mention the Bush Presidency, will still be a recent memory, if Democrats don't do any better, they will be thrown out on their ears.
Second, since we must show real accomplishments after four years of trifecta rule in order to do well in 2012 and beyond, it is necessary to still have legislative momentum on our side. Given the difficulties we have already had with the jobs / stimulus package, if we were to lose seats in the House and Senate in 2010, that momentum would completely stall. Republicans would be able to wring even more concessions out of us, and Democrats will become even more centrist and cautious. So, losing seats will go a long way toward sinking our legislative possibilities.
Third, since there is a census in 2010, if Republicans do well in the midterm elections, they will control redistricting. This will give them a built in advantage in the House for the 2012 and 2014 elections. Also, in the Senate, 43 of the current 59 Democratic Senators will be up for election in either 2012 or 2014. So, if we lose Senate seats in 2010, it is almost a foregone conclusion that Republicans will take back the Senate. The only question will be if it happens in 2012 or 2014.

So, in short, we need 2010 to set up 2012 and 2014. We need to run up as large a buffer in the Senate as possible. We need to control redistricting. We need to be able to maintain legislative momentum. We need to be able to start fixing the many problems the country faces. We won't be able to do any of these things if Republicans perform well in the 2010 elections.

With this in mind, let's look at some minimum and maximum goals for the 2010 elections:

U.S. House. At a minimum, we need to reach 258 seats after the 2010 election in the House. This would be a net gain of one seat after the 2008 elections. Such an achievement would make it impossible to credibly argue that the country is unhappy with the way Democrats are governing, since it rewarded them with an extra seat.

The maximum goal for the House is a net of 12 non-Blue Dog seats, thus creating a non-Blue Dog majority. Currently, there are 229 members of the House who are either Blue Dogs (51) or Republicans (178). We need to take away twelve of those seats, which probably means an overall Democratic net of about 16 House seats, given that Blue Dogs account for about one-quarter of all seats we win from Republicans. Such a majority would not have to deal with fiscal responsibility summits and PAYGO extortion.
U.S. Senate: The minimum for the Senate is a net pickup of two seats. Not only would this bring the Democratic total to 61, thus giving us the filibuster with room to spare, but it would also mean that Democrats won a majority of 2010 Senate races (18 of 35). Jointly, these two developments would make it impossible to argue that the country would prefer more centrist, or more Republican, governance. So, we maintain legislative momentum.

The maximum goal for the Senate is a net pickup of eight seats, bringing the Democratic caucus to a whopping total of 67. Such a rout would actually allow Senate Democrats to change Senate rules (cough, filibuster, cough), and even to pass constitutional amendments through the chamber.

Picking up 12 non-Blue Dogs and eight Senators, while difficult, are achievable targets for 2010.

In the Senate, there are already five open Republican seats: Florida, Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio. With the exception of Kansas, where we can run the popular Kathleen Sebelius, we already have a Senator in all of these states. As long as we get the right candidate combination, all five of these seats can be won.

Additionally, Pennsylvania (Arlen Specter) can be won, bringing us to six. In Kentucky, senile Jim Bunning is unpopular, and only won by 2% in 2004, but insists he is running again anyway. That's seven. The best bet for the eighth seat is probably North Carolina, a newly minted blue state with a freshman Senator who holds a seat that has changed party hands in six consecutive elections. It won't be easy, and it will require running the table without suffering any losses, but a net Senate pickup of eight seats is not impossible.

In the House, 30 Republicans won re-election with 55.0% of the vote or less. While that number is significantly greater on the Democratic side, it does still show that a net pickup of 16 seats or more is at least possible. With one or two successful primary challenges against Blue Dogs, netting 12 non-Blue Dogs in the House becomes even more doable.

So, that is the broad outlook for now. I'll have a look at redistricting in a separate post, because it is a vast subject that deserves special attention.

A Way Forward For Republicans

Chris Bowers — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:45:00 GMT

Looking through recaps of last night's defeat in the Georgia Senate election, I agree with a lot of what Matt, Kos and Nate Silver have written.

Matt argues that it the country hasn't shifted so far to the left that a progressive has a decent shot in a statewide election in Georgia. Rather, we all knew it was always a longshot campaign, and people didn't want to invest in such a difficult election both after big wins in November and with so much other positive news for Democrats. Even Obama didn't invest himself too strongly, not wanting to risk political capital so recently after his election. So, Democratic turnout and activism were both down, making an already underdog campaign virtually impossible to win. I agree: we have moved the country, but a large, stable leftward shift has not yet materialized. We have more work to do.

Kos makes similar points to Matt about the lack of Democratic activist and voter enthusiasm, adding that special election and runoff elections have frequently swum against the dominant political tide. For example, Democrats won the Louisiana runoff in 2003, while Republicans won it in 2007. Republicans won the CA-50 special election in June 2006, but Democrats won the SD-AL and KY-06 special elections in early 2004. In all of those cases, the next federal election turned in the opposite direction. So, perhaps this result doesn't really mean much at all nationally, and is simply local. Again, I agree.

Nate brings up a more disturbing possibility: Democrats are already in the hot seat in the mind of the electorate, and will lose seats in both 2010 and 2012 unless they make real progress turning the country around. In other words, if Democrats can't fix the nation's problems, the country will actually turn back toward Republicans, and there will be no two to four year grace period as I have previously surmised. The reason Nate's thesis is so disturbing is that a new Democracy Corps poll shows he is probably correct.

More in the extended entry.
First, Nate writes:

The Democratic message in 2010 will essentially be one of two things...

1. Obama's accomplished X, Y and Z and showed the country the way forward, let's give him leaders in Congress who can continue to deliver for the middle class, or,

2. Obama accomplished X, but he couldn't accomplish Y and Z because the Republicans obstructed those measures to protect the special interests ... let's put partisanship behind us and elect leaders in Congress who can represent the common good.

Nate is correct about the messaging. That is how Democrats will run in 2010. As such, it is important to note a Democracy Corps poll released today showing that this legislation needs to be passed quickly and produce quick results. Otherwise, two years from now, the country won't still be overwhelmingly blaming Republicans if it doesn't:

Q.32 Now I'm going to read you some pairs of statements. After I read each pair, please tell me whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right.

32 (SPLIT A) I'm more concerned that Congress will prevent Barack Obama from making the kinds of changes he thinks are needed, by playing politics and catering too much to the special interests
OR
I'm more concerned that the Democratic Congress will be too much of a rubber stamp for Barack Obama, and will push through Obama's programs whether they are good or bad

Agree first statement: 42%
Agree second statement: 49%
33 (SPLIT B) I'm more concerned that Republicans in Congress will obstruct Barack
Obama's agenda and prevent him from making the kinds of changes he thinks are needed.
OR
I'm more concerned that Democrats in Congress will be too much of a rubber stamp for Barack Obama, and will push through Obama's programs whether they are good or bad.

Agree first statement: 43%
Agree second statement: 48%

So, last night's results and the Democracy Corps poll showed that the country isn't going to dump on Republicans forever. There is no grace period when the country will still vote for Democrats just because they hate Republicans. Democratic hopes in 2010 and 2012 rest entirely on our governing record during the next two to four years. Polling and election results show that Republican obstructionism will not be accepted as an excuse, and neither will be starting from the bottom of the deep hole Bush and Republicans dug for us. If we don't make things better, Republicans will immediately become competitive again, and the 2010-2012 political environment could be a lot more like 2000-2004 than 2005-2008.

In two years time, simply being a Democrat will no be longer good enough to be elected. We have been hired in huge numbers to solve problems without Republican interference. If we can't do that, then the country will sour on us, too. As such, the way back for Republicans is straightforward: hope that Democratic governance does not turn the country around.