Open Left - Republicans

There is a lot of prep going on to defeat Health Care in the Senate...

btchakir — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:58:54 GMT

"Danger! Danger!"

It's like we're in a Saturday morning kids scifi show... the goodguy robot (in this case MSNBC) is telling us that the Repubs are getting ready to attack the Senate's vote on a Health Care Plan any way they can.

To start with, more than one of the Repub Senators (led by Lamar Alexander - R, TN) have called for new "Town Hall" meetings, like the ones the House members had in August - and it looks like the groups of lobbyists are ready to bus the same people in.
We've heard phrases like "dead on arrival" referring any consideration of the House passed bill by the Senate, and that we have to take it slow... not try to do too much. "Too much" apparently refers to doing anything at all.

We know that Lieberman is out there waiting to jump on a filibuster if there is any government based, non-profit choice option... and a good dozen Democratic Senators who will note vote for it if such an option is missing.

We won't even get into bringing the Stupak Amendment which makes property out of insured women into the Senate Bill.

But this Health Care brouhaha won't be the only problem coming up in the Senate. Chris Dodd's Banking Bill, which is a distinct pull of control away from the Treasury Department and a return to the kind of regulations we lost starting with the Reagan Devastation (oops) Administration.

Repubs are coming out of the walls already, making early attacks on Dodd for allegedly taking money from a housing funder and other unrelated things. Dodd is a tough politician, though, and has been through worse than this.

Then there is Afghanistan... and this could be used, if the Repubs have their way, to completely destroy the entire Obama Administration. Now there hasn't been a final decision on how many troops will be sent to Afghanistan yet... they are hinting at Thanksgiving week as an announcement date... but we're already hearing from the Right that Obama is not capable of making a decision here. Then there are the far left folks ( and frankly, some of us moderates who really remember Viet Nam) who want us to just get out. That doesn't look like it's in the cards. Remember, in the words of Paul Hipp's song "We're Number 37":

Were #1 one in tanks
Were #1 in planes
Were #1 in war with #2 for brains

And I'm afraid our whole government DOES have #2 for brains. (When I was playing the Paul Hipp tune it made me think of playing Country Joe and the Fish's "Feelin' Like I'm Fixin' to Die Rag" and wondering why in Hell we were in Viet Nam killing off our best young men. The difference now is we kill off our best young women, too.)

So tune into C-Span 2 and watch the Senate debates. Keep checking the blogs to get the information the TV news won't give you. And hope that Health Care, Finances, and War get resolved to the satisfaction of THINKING people.

Under The LobsterScope

Olympia Snowe will join Democratic Senate caucus in, at the most, 945 days

Chris Bowers — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:45:00 GMT

At the absolute latest, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe will join the Senate Democratic caucus by Tuesday, June 12, 2012. She may not actually register as a Democrat, but she will start caucusing with Democrats by that date--or even earlier. Here is why:

Snowe is up for re-election in 2012.
The Maine primary is held on the second Tuesday in June. So, in 2012, this means June 12th.
Snowe is losing to a generic conservative primary challenger 59%-31%, among likely Republican voters.
Maine has a closed primary system, meaning that only registered Republicans can vote in Maine Republican primaries. Same day registration is allowed, but that won't change the outcome in such a lopsided campaign.
It is a rock-solid guarantee that conservatives will primary Snowe from the right in 2012. Not only is she pro-choice, but her lifetime Progressive Punch score on critical votes is identical to Arlen Specter's (27%). If they are not going to primary challenge Snowe, they are not going to primary challenge anyone. And we all know they will keep running primary challenges.
In 2012, all major Republican Presidential candidates will endorse Snowe's inevitable primary challenger. This is both because that challenger will comfortably lead Snowe in the primary, but also based on the pattern we just witnessed in NY-23. It didn't take long for all leading Republicans to fall into Hoffman's camp once he proved more viable, and more popular among the Republican base, than the moderate Scozzafava.

Republican Presidential candidates looking to appease the base will make sure that he entire Republican establishment lines up behind Snowe's primary challenger.
In the past, Harry Reid has approached Olympia Snowe about joining the Senate Democratic caucus. He confirmed this to me over the phone more than three years ago, right after the 2006 elections.
Without establishment support in her own party, trailing badly in the polls, and with an offer to join the Democratic caucus, Snowe will bolt the Republican Party and join the Democratic Senate caucus by June 12th, 2012, at the very latest.

So, sometime in the next 945 days, Senate Democrats will pick up another seat.

Might be a time to start preparing a primary challenger to Olympia Snowe of our own in 2012.

Discerning the Meaning of the 2009 Elections

Steven J. Gulitti — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:48:45 GMT

It will be weeks, if not months, before the analysis of 2009's off year election results fade from the forefront of political commentary, particularly among conservatives. While the White House spin machine is content with downplaying the results as purely a function of local issues, conservatives have attempted to paint these contests as a referendum on the Obama Administration, or more bizarrely, the next step in "the American people taking back their country". Most seasoned political observers know that off year, special and mid-term elections are characterized by low voter turnout and that party activists play a much greater role in determining the outcome. Viewed through that prism, the 2009 contests fall clearly into the pattern of typical off year elections. Thus, the primary question is this: If the 2009 elections exhibit all of the characteristics of other off year elections, how can they logically be seen as a referendum on the Obama presidency or the opening volley in some great populist uprising. After all, if the American people are so disgusted with the Obama Administration, would the rising chorus of conservative opposition not propel them to action and would we not observe a significant up tick in voter turnout?

Analyzing the Gubernatorial races first, it is impossible to deny that local issues dominated. Democratic strategist Steve McMahon pointed out that property taxes and the increase in insurance rates, both of which are state level issues, are a big part of why Jon Corzine was not re-elected. While not directly involved, scandals played a role in Corzine's demise as well, culminating in last summer's roundup of a cast of characters from politicians to rabbis. Corzine's affiliation with the investment firm Goldman Sachs and his aloof political style did nothing to endear him to the people of New Jersey. As one NPR reporter put it: "Corzine never mastered the art of retail politics." Political columnist A.P. Stoddard pointed on November the 3rd that if Corzine lost it would not be Barack Obama's fault as in New Jersey; Obama had an approval rating in the vicinity of sixty percent in contrast to Corzine's thirty nine percent. In the end, Corzine wound up losing by four percentage points to Chris Christie.

In Virginia, the issues that Republican Bob McDonnell focused on were improving the state's economy, job creation and solving longstanding statewide transportation problems. Of these, only job creation could conceivably be linked back to the Obama Administration. While many voters are skeptical as to just how many jobs the Administration's stimulus has created, most people still believe that Obama inherited a difficult situation, the blame for which cannot be laid at the door of his White House. In contrast to McDonnell, the Democratic challenger, Creigh Deeds was a relative unknown who struggled with name recognition till the very end.

What is notable about both races is that the Republican winners eschewed the currently fashionable conservative think tank groupthink, which prescribes a political philosophy that hews to the hard right. As you will recall, following the defeat in the 2008 election cycle, most of the outspoken conservative commentators and theorists claimed that when the G.O.P. moved to the center it lost elections and that future electoral victory could only come by moving further to the right, the further, the better. Neither of the winners in New Jersey or Virginia dwelled on aspects of the "Culture Wars" nor did they resort to the now hackneyed rant about "a slide toward European Socialism." Moreover, both Christie and McDonnell ran upbeat, politically moderate campaigns, devoid of the shrill histrionics that have come to dominate rightwing talk radio or the "political commentators" currently practicing their craft on Fox News. In contrast both Corzine and Deeds ran very negative campaigns to which the voting public now turns an increasingly deaf ear.

Another big issue that can't be ignored is voter turnout. Political writer Paul Loeb summarizes voter turnout as follows: "In exit polls, Virginia voters under 30 dropped from 21% of the 2008 electorate to 10% this year and from 17% to 9% in New Jersey. Minority voting saw a similar decline. In both states, over half the Obama voters of a year ago simply stayed home, more than a million people in both Virginia and New Jersey. With this collapse of the Democratic base, even relatively modest Republican turnout could carry the day, and did." That said if this off year election is characterized by such low turn out levels, how could conservatives make an argument that there is such a dramatic rejection of the Obama agenda? Were the races in New Jersey and Virginia truly a referendum on Obama? If exit polls are any indication, they apparently were not. Edison Research provided a view as to whether or not Obama was a factor in people's decision to vote by way of these exit poll results:

New Jersey:
Support for Obama - 19%
Oppose Obama - 20%
Obama not a factor - 60%

Virginia:
Support for Obama - 18%
Oppose Obama - 24%
Obama not a factor - 55%

Thus in both races over 70% of those who answered exit polls said that Barack Obama did not play a role in their getting out to vote in what were essentially local elections. So much for the idea that the results of this past election constitute a rejection of Barack Obama, whose approval ratings have only moved up since the August Town Hall Follies. Meanwhile, the G.O.P. is polling its lowest approval rating since polling began and only twenty percent of Americans identify with the Republican Party.

Let's now turn to New York's 23rd Election District, where a Republican has held the Congressional seat since 1871. It is in the 23rd, a district that has all of the demographics that favor Republicans, that the newly energized national Conservative movement chose to show just how effective it can be in both defeating a Democrat, upending a moderate Republican and turning the tide on Barack Obama. Prior to the election the district was besieged with conservatives from all over the country including volunteers from prominent conservative grass roots organizations like, The National Organization for Marriage, FreedomWorks, of Tea Party fame, and the Club For Growth, which spent one million dollars backing the conservative candidate Doug Hoffman. Such conservative luminaries like Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Dick Armey, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who predicted a conservative victory, tried in vain to nationalize the election. The cause of Mr. Hoffman was championed by both the Wall Street Journal's editorial board and by the NeoConservative organ, the Weekly Standard. In the face of this unprecedented conservative effort, Bill Owens won by endorsing the Obama Agenda, in an economically depressed region where unemployment has been north of ten percent for some time. This is the second time since the election of Barack Obama, that a Democrat endorsing Obama's agenda has beaten a Republican with national conservative support in a district that demographically favored the G.O.P. The other instance is the special election for Kirsten Gillibrand's vacated Congressional seat earlier this year.

What the outcome of the election in New York's 23rd Congressional District shows is that beyond the world of right wing talk shows, the blogosphere, tea parties and grass roots activism, the appeal of the radical right may be much more limited than had been previously assumed. Could it be that the "August Town Hall Follies" with their tenor of rejection, vitriol and political dramatics have convinced few that conservatives have anything meaningful to offer an electorate that is essentially moderate, but that has been trending to the left over the previous two election cycles? It certainly leaves one to wonder just how effective Sarah Palin can be as a national political figure, seeing as she has yet to have any significant outcome on any race in which she has been involved. After all, isn't she the darling of the base, the one individual that can really turn out a crowd?

Don't get me wrong; there is a wake up call for the Democrats in the results of the 2009 elections and in 2010 there is no guarantee that they won't lose more seats, the incumbent party usually does. If it happened to Ronald Reagan, it can certainly happen to Barack Obama. Obama has clearly lost support among independents and people are rightly concerned about the upward growth in federal spending. At the same time, Americans know that this is no ordinary time and that the situation we currently find ourselves in is not the work of the Obama Administration. But those jumping to the conclusion that 2009 is all that meaningful should heed the words of Purdue University Professor of Political Science, Bert Rockman: "I see no particular harbingers for 2010. While people are deeply unhappy about current conditions, they are also keenly suspicious of Republicans." But the bigger takeaway from all of this is that as far as 2009 is concerned, rumors of Barack Obama's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Based on the facts cited above, claims that a great anti-Obama populist revolution is underway cannot be substantiated. More to the point, the great citizen's revolt to "take back their country" seems only to be alive and well in the delusional fantasyland of tea parties, birthers and far right conservatives who can't seem to abide a climate of much needed political change.

Steven J. Gulitti
New York City
11/6/2009

Karzai named winner in Afghanistan by Karzai appointed election officials after Abdullah pulls out.

btchakir — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:23:10 GMT

...so where does that leave us?

We've been waiting for Obama to make his decision on what to do with troops going into Afghanistan to attack Al Qaida (who aren't in Afghanistan any more) after the rerun of the election which was proven to be fraudulent and allowed Karzai to win.

Whew.

I'm really sick of our playing games in the world. With Karzai's brother accused of being a top Heroin Chief, with General McChrystal calling for more troops (while being criticized for his dealings with the Pat Tillman controversy), with a Civil War going on amid the Afghans that WE CANNOT CORRECT (just ask the Russians)... we are perceived as Occupiers and we should get out.
We won't.

The world is turning into an increasingly bad place where the interests of the United States are not served, security or otherwise, and where we continue to get in up to our necks. And Republicans and Democrats will fight with each other to see who can get us ending up in a worse position.

And speaking of Civil Wars... thinking this morning of our insertion into Afghanistan which is in the midst of what can be seen as a Civil War, I started to ponder the "Intellectual Civil War" we are currently experiencing right here at home. While it is not the bombing, kidnapping, house-to-house shooting kind of Civil War, ours has elements which spell out an equally destabilized future for those of us who grew up in the Post WWII Middle-Class environment.

Starting about thirty years ago, the Conservative Right set out to weaken and then, most recently, to destroy or at the least enslave the Middle-Class to be the exclusive tax-supplying funding source of an Upper-Class dominated economy. The fact that it was stretched out over three decades (a slow, slow war) made it almost invisible to the majority of Americans who were convinced that there was something called a "trickle-down" advantage to stopping the taxation of the top 2% or so of the economic population. Then, when it was too late to really make a change without unattached politicians who were not paid off by the corporate creations of that top 2%, we discovered ourselves in a world where a ratio of one Dennis Kucinich was put up against 50 or so "identified-as-liberals"... or, as I would like to call it, the "false democracy."

This "Intellectual Civil War" has battles, too, only they have taken on names like "Tea Parties" and have been controlled by outside players acting as puppeteers, and we have done little to cut the strings. Those of us in the American 98% that are being economically destroyed, robbed of affordable health care, impoverished by bankruptcies of government supported financial institutions and forced to see possibilities of our world turning around for the better dashed against the whining wrinkles of Joe Lieberman... we are left not knowing who to turn to, who we can actually believe is acting in our interests.

Look... I want to believe that Nancy Pelosi is going to do something to really get the Insurance Companies disabled when it comes to health care. I want to believe that Obama will see what's going on in the Middle East and issue the order for everyone to come home... now... and forget the crap about how many years it will take to get our weapons and ships and other facilities dismantled... bring the armies home NOW, have them pull out in the middle of the night on Wednesday (and if Karzai's government complains, tell them you'll be back IF they really have a fair election and IF they handle their own military and police actions... frankly, we'll never have to go back.) I want to believe that Republican leaders like John Boehner will actually call up Pelosi this morning and say "we're ready to help and compromise for the good of the country... what do you want us to do?" I want to believe that the sun will shine and the sky will be blue and everything will get better (and employment opportunities will turn up so I can be at work instead of sitting here at the computer bitching about everything)... I want to believe it. I'm just not able to given current conditions.

I want to see an end to our Intellectual Civil War. I want to see the opposing generals like Dick Armey and Sarah Paln and Michael Steele decide that they have enough and can ride off into the sunset.

Fat chance.

Under The LobsterScope

Talk Me Down from Contributing to Rand Paul's Campaign

Chris Bowers — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:30:00 GMT

Rand Paul is in a reasonably close primary for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Kentucky. According to the two polls on the campaign, he trails Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson by an average of 13%. With the money bombs that the Paulites will send his way, with the teabaggers looking to become a force in Republican primaries, and with the general anti-establishment mood in the air right now, he could really win that nomination.

Given this, as a progressive, I have to wonder if there is a good reason why I shouldn't be contributing to Rand Paul's campaign for Kentucky Senate. My quick analysis suggests that such a contribution would be for the good of the cause.

First, if Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination for Kentucky Senate, current polling indicates that it would improve the chances of the Democratic nominee to win the campaign. In every poll, Paul performs worse than Grayson against both potential Democratic candidates.

Second, if Rand is anything like his father--and he certainly seems to be--then even if he were to win the general election, he would defect and vote with Democrats more often than any Republican Senator outside the state of Maine. On the votes that matter, Rand Paul's father, Ron, votes with progressives more often than any other Republican in Congress-- except for Rodney Alexander who was a Democrat until mid-2004 (Ralph Hall, third among Republicans who vote with progressives, was a Democrat until 1995). With a lifetime progressive crucial votes ranking of 23.50%, Paul even leaves supposed Republican moderates like Mike Castle (15.40%) and Mark Kirk (10.30%) in the dust. Paul towers over life-long Republicans when it comes to voting with Democrats.

Grayson, by contrast, would just be another drone in the Republican Borg collective, who we could count on for exactly zero votes of any importance. Paul would legitimately be much, much better than Grayson.

Hell, even the Democrats who might win would probably only be reliable on 50-70% of the most important votes, which is only about twice as many as we would get from Rand Paul. Further, we wouldn't have spend massive amounts of DSCC money, or water down legislation even before it reached the floor, to appeal to / defend Rand Paul's seat. We would get his 25% progressive voting record for free.

Not that I am saying I would work for Rand Paul in the general election. Just that I am saying I don't see why I shouldn't become a Rand Paul activist in the Republican primary. This is a Republican primary where the two main potential outcomes have a clear difference in quality for progressives. Whether or not he goes on to win the general election, Rand Paul securing the Republican nomination for Senate in Kentucky is a win-win for progressives. Why shouldn't I be working to make that happen?

Nobel Committee: We Really Hate Republicans

Chris Bowers — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:00:58 GMT

I will have a post up a little later looking at the merits of the Nobel Committee's decision to award President Obama with the Peace Prize. For now, however, I want to focus on the messaging of the award. It is pretty great:

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.(...)

Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.(...)

His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

Shorter Nobel Committee: we really hated unilateral Republican foreign policy. In fact, we hated it so much, we are going to give President Obama the award pretty much for just not being a Republican. Just having the United States talk to other countries is good enough for us.

Seriously--it is hard to read this award as anything but the Nobel Committee giving the middle finger to American exceptionalism as the driving force behind American international relations.

The messaging from the DNC in response to Republican outcries is pretty exceptional, too:

The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim.

Wow! That is just about the most aggressive, hard-hitting rhetoric I have ever read from a Democratic Party committee. It is like Alan Grayson wrote this response.

So, say what you will about the merits of the award--which I will discuss a bit later on--but the messaging is phenomenal. The world gives the finger to Republicans, Republicans can once again cheer against America, and Democrats actually get aggressive in their response messaging. That's not nothin'.

Update: Just to be clear, I like that the DNC is willing to be so aggressive, not that they are calling everyone who disagrees with the award Taliban sympathizers.

Why must we always surrender?

Michael Kwiatkowski — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:00:12 GMT

As Ian Welsh points out, what passes for a public option in the bills now being considered (a "public option" that isn't even guaranteed to pass, nor should it in its current state) is not scaring Big Insurance or Big Pharmaceutical companies. Why is this? In an earlier blog entry, Welsh describes the reasons why (I've boldfaced the most relevant points):

Because it has no built in customer base, which increases its upfront expenses for advertising and a sales-force significantly. People who have company healthcare plans can't join.
Doctors, hospitals and so on are not required to accept it, and providers will not accept it if it provides below market rates unless it also provides large numbers of patients, which it can do because it isn't pre-populated and isn't a good buy for insureds unless it can provide a low premium, which requires it to pay low rates.
It must make a profit in order to return the money up-fronted to it, and it has only 10 years to do that, but it has to start from scratch, as noted above.

The most that can be said in favor of the weak "public option" is that it MIGHT be used as the dumping ground for the poorest patients, who for various reasons aren't qualified to receive Medicaid - and even then, it's unlikely that such patients will be granted access to adequate health care under the program.

But instead of fighting to kill this pretense of reform, which will undoubtedly be used as an excuse to kill any and all attempts to bring genuine reform to the table for at least another decade and perhaps even a generation, it's not anything that would actually work that continues to be promoted, but rather, it's the weak "public option" still being talked about as though it's somehow the only thing worth fighting for.
This is unacceptable. The same things the owner(s) of Open Left have done to foist the pretense of health care reform on us all could and should have been done to relentlessly push for single-payer - so far the only piece of legislation actually drafted that would bring Americans the reform we so desperately need. Certain persons know this, yet they dishonestly act as though we ask the impossible of them by demanding that they use the voice they have to push for something they know is better. The mantra from the gatekeepers and other party apologists is, "don't complain. Accept what you're being given. Don't ask us to fight for something better, because we don't think we can get anything better - never mind that we never even try."

But let me ask you something: when is the last time you heard the leaders of the far right telling their followers that they shouldn't try to fight health care reform, that the Democrats have too big a majority and the best they can hope for is that in thirty years' time they can find a way to privatize it once they've built up their movement? The answer to that question, of course, is NEVER. Not once have you heard any such talk of giving up on the fight to kill health care reform. The GOP's strategy has been to stop any health care reform from passing at all, or failing that, to ensure that whatever does pass is so weak and ineffective that it won't help anyone. So far, the Republicans have enjoyed tremendous success. It's unthinkable, even among self-proclaimed progressives, to even think about going to single-payer as a starting point and bargaining down to something close to it and still workable.

We lost health care reform, just as we lost every other battle in this ideological war, because while our enemies go for 100% of what they want and absolutely refuse to accept "no" for an answer, we on the left insist on meekly asking for crumbs and accepting nothing but "no" as the response. Indeed, we'll even offer up more of what little we have remaining in an attempt to apologize for asking for even the tiny bit we have asked for. It's stupid and it hurts Americans.

Why is it that the far right gets virtually everything it demands, even when its favored political party is nominally out of power, never being made to accept "no" for an answer, but we on the left always have to be the ones "compromising" (read: surrendering)? Why is it that we're the ones who have to ask for anything less than one hundred percent of what we want, but no one ever asks or expects the far right to do likewise? Why must we always give while the other side always takes? Haven't we seen this week that when a Democrat actually stands up for what he believes in, takes the fight to Republicans and makes them fight on his terms instead of fighting on theirs, it's the Democrat who wins? Why aren't we all doing that?

I asked this of Mr. Bowers in a comment, and he never replied, either because he didn't see it or he didn't want to expose himself by publicly refusing, so I'll ask it here and now: Mr. Bowers, will you cease pushing this weak and ineffective "public option" and use the same methods you've been using for that to promote and push for single-payer? You know very well that the same things you've done to promote and push for this sham that plays at being reform can easily be applied to single-payer. No, the end result may not and probably won't be single-payer, but at least you'll have tried - and at least you'll have demonstrated that you really are serious about being a progressive. Will you do this?

Why bipartisanship can't work right now: the other axis

Darcy Burner — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:56:57 GMT

There has been a lot of talk lately about bipartisanship, particularly with respect to the healthcare bill. Paul Krugman in the New York Times recently described how bipartisanship is impossible because moderate Republicans have been driven out of the Republican party. I'd like to take the analysis a step further.

When we talk about the political spectrum, we usually talk about it as though it is a line with a left and a right, like this:
But that's inadequate to describe a lot of the political dynamics that are playing out. There's another axis perpendicular to the first that's become very important recently, which I have been referring to in conversations as the cause-effect axis:
Bipartisanship at the federal level is impossible in any meaningful way right now because there are almost no elected Republicans in the upper right quadrant.

(More below the fold.)
To use this analysis, rather than placing people along the left-right axis we place them somewhere in one of the four quadrants of the diagram. For instance:
Now, we can argue about the specifics of where people are, but the gist is there.

For instance, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky is reasonably far to the left, but very very focused on outcomes and cause-effect relationships. She's a pragmatist.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich is about as far left as you can go, and very focused on ideals and principles - not so much on outcomes.

Our current President seems to be a bit left of middle on the left-to-right axis, but pretty focused on outcomes and cause-effect. That's a distinct contrast with former President Bush, who apparently didn't care about outcomes in the slightest.

You get the idea.

So why is this relevant?

First, it's important to realize that traditional bipartisanship can only happen above the line. With almost nobody in the upper right hand quadrant, that makes bipartisanship impossible - not because the Democrats aren't trying, but because there's nobody to partner with.

Second, on the left we need to recognize that there's value in the folks both above and below the line. Below the line is where we speak truth to power; above the line is where we move policy. It would be distinctly helpful if people in each of those two quadrants stopped taking potshots at their fellow travellers. (Or, at the very least, understand why they're approaching the problem differently than you are, and why that might be useful, before you start taking potshots.)

Open Left Beats the RNC!

Chris Bowers — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:49:11 GMT

On Wednesday, Open Left launched a petition (the petition link is now inactive) urging Harry Reid to keep the public option in the health care bill that goes to the Senate floor. As I reported yesterday, we gathered 15,688 signatures in 24 hours. On Monday, CREDO Action will deliver the signatures to Harry Reid.

Yesterday morning, just after midnight, the Republican National Committee launched their "Stop The Side Show" petition. More than 24 hours later, they only have 11,776 signatures-barely two-thirds of what you guys did. You single-handedly bested the RNC!

That's pretty cool, although I have heard a rumor that some of the people signing the RNC petition have actually claimed 2,000,000 signatures. They even have photos of those two million people to prove it.

Starting a Third Party - First Steps

Michael Kwiatkowski — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:13:30 GMT

Cross-posted from Docudharma

This entry builds on what Something the Dog Said and rossl wrote in their own entries. Before I get to the meat of my own text, I just want to summarize what each of the previous entries state. Starting any political party, or building an existing one, is going to be a lot of hard work and progressives are going to face an uphill battle regardless of what we do. If we're going to break away from the Democrats, however, it's worth the effort; there are parties such as the Progressives (currently in Vermont and Washington) and the Greens, among others, that have made substantial progress at local and state levels.

That's the short version of what Something's and rossl's entries have to say. I highly recommend reading them both in full. Now, on to my own contribution to this subject. Because I want to provide a real-world context to the topic at hand, I'm going to pick an existing political party (The Progressives), though feel free to substitute your own. I'm going to lay out some first steps that can be taken to get the ball rolling.

One more thing before I begin: know WHY you are forming a new political party, know what your goals are, and have realistic expectations about what you hope to accomplish. Don't hold any illusions. Unless either the Democrats or the Republicans implode, chances are you're not going to replace one of them on the national stage. At most, and if you do things right, you'll force the Democrats to shift back to the left. That's it. If a new political party does rise to prominence, great, but that is only icing on the proverbial cake. All you'll want to do is force one of the major parties to experience an ideological shift to the political left. Expect at least a generation to pass before you get this result. It was twenty years between the 1912 election, when Theodore Roosevelt led the Progressive Party and split the presidential election three ways (thus handing it to Democrat Woodrow Wilson) and that of 1932 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt led the New Dealers to power. It was another generation before the Republicans built their party back up to the point where they could begin taking back political power in government. Finally, don't let the progressive movement become subservient to your party - make the party subservient to the progressive movement. David Sirota explains why far better than I can, so I'll let his words do it.

And now, without further adieu...
STEP ONE - FINDING PEOPLE

If you're a disaffected progressive feeling burned by too many Democratic Party betrayals and capitulations, chances are you're not alone. Talk to progressives you know who are sick of the Democrats to the point they're ready to walk away. They're more likely to be receptive to forming or joining a new organization than those unwilling to give up the familiar and semi-comfortable. Once you've located and identified such people, talk to them. Don't be afraid to mention that there are other organizations out there that have gotten results. Refer them to the Vermont Progressive Party's web site so they can get more information, if they have questions about it you can't answer. Schedule a time when you're all able to meet up to discuss forming a local chapter, or if you've managed to get in touch with the folk in Vermont, find out if there's an existing chapter in your area that you can all join. Either way, you'll want to meet in numbers first to decide if this is something you're all set on doing. If it is, you're on your way.

STEP TWO - CREATING A PLATFORM

Assuming you've all agreed to form Progressive Party chapter in your area*, it's time to come up with a platform. No political party with any intention of running candidates for public office is organized without one. Since you're all progressives, you all have a good idea what you stand for, so it's more a matter of getting it all down on paper. I've made my own effort to come up with a starter platform. It's not complete, nor is it necessarily perfect, but it's a start - something upon which you can build a foundation. Most of us know why this is important, but for those who don't, it's like this: if you plan on running for any public office, no matter how great or small, voters want to know what you stand for. They want your unequivocal answers to questions about issues that matter to them, and you must be able to define yourself. If you don't, someone else is going to define you, and if that happens, you're toast (politically speaking). Never allow yourself or your organization to go undefined by you.

*: If you join an existing one, this step may or may not be necessary. For the sake of discussion, we'll assume you're starting from scratch.

STEP THREE - RULES AND BYLAWS

These you'll need to come up with sooner or later, preferably sooner, but at the very beginning and with so few members, they aren't as necessary or vital as they will be once you begin growing your political party beyond a handful of members. You'll want to obtain a copy of Robert's Rules of Order, so you can get in the habit of using them once you begin writing up party bylaws. Always be ready for projects well before actually beginning them. It'll make things much easier.

STEP FOUR - RUNNING A CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE

Now that you've gotten off to a good start forming your new political party, it's time to start thinking about running candidates for public office. Obviously not just anyone can do this. Not everyone capable of running is inclined, and not everyone inclined is capable. If you think any of the previous steps are difficult (and don't kid yourselves - they're a lot tougher to put into action than you probably realize), you are about to learn just how hard things are. It's not enough to run someone for public office. You have to run the right kind of person for public office. It takes a progressive of excellent moral character, integrity, and commitment to do so. If you don't vet your candidates, that is, if you don't ensure that they represent you instead of someone else and that they remain on your side, you're in trouble. Here are a few guidelines for picking a candidate:

1.) He or she can't want to run for public office. This may seem silly, but think about it: why would you vote for someone who wants to be whatever he or she is running to become? No one who wants power is to be trusted. This is a fundamental truth of politics, one I've witnessed every time some candidate has come to my ward club meeting looking for an endorsement. Listen to the reasons people give for running. Most of them are simply looking to advance their careers, which means their minds are on themselves and their own aspirations of power, not on your interests. So anyone you put up for election must be someone you trust to have your interests at heart - first and foremost. Candidates must run because they see it as their duty, because a need is unmet and no one else who is capable is filling it.
2.) He or she has got to be clean, politically speaking. I guarantee you that anyone you put up for public office is going to be put through the sifter by his or her political rivals, simply because they want any excuse they can dig up to discredit your candidate. So if your guy or gal has a subscription to Hustler.com or if there's a loan default or some other skeleton hidden away, chances are it's going to be made public before long. That being the case, it usually helps to have answers ready for any questions about a personal issue that might come up. If it's bad credit, explain that times have been tough for your candidate and that if nothing else it helps him or her relate to thousands of constituents in similar situations. If it's a visit or three to the local strip club, explain that it's no one else's business and move on. Whatever it is, just make sure your candidate's past is vetted.
3.) Raise money, and a lot of it. This does not mean take money from whoever offers it. This means going door to door asking for campaign contributions, setting up an office and telephone number, having a PAC or other committee to elect your candidate, and so on. It means bake sales, garage sales, fundraisers at the local party center or other venue, maybe even a loan or two. Votes may determine electoral outcomes, but it takes money to get your candidate's face and name known. Be mindful, however, of where your money is coming from. Vet your donors if they come from businesses, always. You don't want to run on a progressive platform only to be caught taking campaign contributions from the CEO of Exxon Mobile.
4.) Make sure your candidate's record matches his or her rhetoric. No one likes a hypocrite, and everyone despises a liar. If your candidate supports single-payer health insurance but always votes against it, or refuses to help it move forward "because it's not politically feasible," tell the clown to take a hike and go with someone else. You want people willing to do exactly what they say they're going to do. Otherwise, what's the point? For that, you could just run a Democrat.
4.) Be prepared to lose the first time out, maybe even the first dozen times out, before you get someone elected to public office. Therefore, it's a good idea to start out small: city council, precinct committee member, school board, even dog catcher if it's an elected position. If you find a small open office to run a candidate in, that's a good beginning. It'll gain your candidate experience in office if he or she wins.

That's all I can think of right now. I'll probably think of other things later, but for now, this is a good start. It'll help you get the ball rolling. My next entry will provide some basic campaign tips.

On Understanding Your Market, Or, Mr. Obama, We Need To Talk

fake consultant — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:07:59 GMT

So it's the day of the big speech, Mr. President, and we got trouble with a capital "T" right here in Health Care City.

What are you gonna do? Do we follow the traditional Democratic Party legislative process of passing...something...at any cost, assuming the entire time that the Left and the Netroots will "go along with the program", or is there a risk that the calculus doesn't work as well today as it did in 1994 and 1996?

Well, lucky for you, I'm a fake consultant, and I know a few things about your "target market", so before you answer that question...we need to talk.
So the common sense approach to handling this situation is to make any deal required to get a bill passed, because otherwise your entire Presidency will be tagged as "strong on oratory but unable to govern". Since the Far Left supports Democrats today and won't be supporting the Republican Party under any circumstances, they'll have no choice but to follow the "centrist" (read: "bluedog") Democratic lead.

What you don't want to do, common sense tells us, is demand that reform contain elements that simply are too tough to get through Congress. Insisting on a public option is absolutely out of the question, the new "preexisting conditions" requirements would be too onerous on the insurance companies-and requiring everyone to purchase insurance, with no public option competition at all to moderate the prices private insurers charge, and, for that matter, no guarantee of universal coverage, somehow makes perfect sense.

To mollify those who will object, we can hold out "triggers" as a compromise: in other words, Government says "hey, let's wait a few years, and if the insurance companies still haven't changed their ways...then we'll do something."

If you decide upon this approach, then the speech you want to give is to remind the Far Left and those pesky bloggers that political progress is incremental, you take what you can get, and that we can always come back later and make this whole stew of compromise better than what we propose to cook today.

While that's a pretty good approach...most of the time...it won't be this time.

There are two major reasons why, and, ironically, they're both derived from your success in 2008.

Right off the bat, this strategy assumes the millions of new voters-and even more importantly, donors-that you attracted in 2008 are Democrats, and that, no matter what, they will continue to support Democrats. The problem is, they're not....and they won't.

Why? Because the vast majority of those new voters weren't "redirected" from another Democratic candidate. Instead, they were "political non-participants" who had previously held no political affiliation whatsoever-and other than supporting you personally, the vast majority of those new voters have no long-term political affiliation now, other than, perhaps, "Progressive".

The only reason they voted for you in the first place was because you were out promoting that whole "change you can believe in" thing. They saw you on TV telling people that universal access to care "...is a moral responsibility and a right for our country...", and saying you would:

"...set up a government plan that would allow people who otherwise don't have health insurance because of a preexisting condition, like my mother had, or at least what the insurance said was a preexisting condition, let them get health insurance".

At that same evening's event (the Democratic Presidential Debate of January 31, 2008), they also saw you say this:

"...because my view is that the reason people don't have health care... [w]hat they're struggling with is they can't afford the health care. And so I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, they will buy it.
Senator Clinton...believes that we have to force people who don't have health insurance to buy it. Otherwise, there will be a lot of people who don't get it.
...I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it's not affordable, then there's going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge people who already don't have health care fines, or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don't think, is helping those without health insurance."

The fact that you said all those things brings us to problem number two: if you don't live up to your...exceptionally public...campaign promises, you're gonna get YouTubed.

Forget about the Republicans. The Netroots will dig these quotes up in about two seconds-in multi-part harmony, I suspect-and all of a sudden, all those "new voters" who helped put you over the top last time, instead of seeing change they can believe in, are going to start seeing you as the "same old same old"...and if that happens, they won't be voting Democratic again (or for anyone else, for that matter) for years to come.

And if they won't vote for you...they most assuredly won't be giving money to Democratic causes and candidates...including you in 2012.

You have to understand, it's a question of trust. We want to believe that you'll do the right thing, but we have been lied to for eight years straight...and we now fundamentally mistrust our elected representatives...including you.

Not all the news here, however, is bad news.

There is a way to turn all this to your advantage, and it basically involves "leapfrogging" the opposition.

Here's what you do:

In the speech tonight, you look America in the eye and you tell us that you said all along that we must have a public option if we hope to control costs, you tell us that insurers can't continue to "exclude" us out of insurance, and that universal coverage is, indeed, a moral obligation for our Nation-and a smart investment to boot.

Tell America that you will fight for them and against the special interests that are trying to hustle us once again. Most importantly-and this will be The Tough Part-tell us that a bad bill is a bill you won't sign.

You have to tell America that if we don't get it this year, we'll have to come back next year and try again. And if we have to, the year after that, and the next, and the next.

You also get to remind America exactly what kind of methods Republicans were wiling to use to advance their position over this past month, and whose interests they're representing when they do it.

To put it another way, you gave 'em enough rope, and now it's time for some noose-tightenin'.

The best part: not only does this approach lay to waste Republican opposition, it reels in the wavering Democrats-and it allows them to go home and tell their constituents that "Barack Obama and I are fighting for people and businesses and jobs while Republicans fight for fat cat insurance companies".

If it's done correctly, the 2010 midterms will be y'all's to lose-but as I said earlier, if you are seen as selling a political product everyone's seen far too many times before, the cost could be brutal...maybe even "President Palin" brutal.

We all have a busy day today, especially you, Mr. President, so let's wrap it all up:

You made a lot of campaign promises about public options and universal coverage and ending exclusion abuses, and now it's come time to make good.

A lot of the people who supported you didn't do it because you're a Democrat-and not because they are, either. If you don't make good, you got a problem, and so do the Democrats, possibly for years to come.

YouTube was a fantastic tool for you and the seed of trouble for many Republicans in '06 and '08-but if you're not careful, the tables will turn, and a lot of the people doing the turning will be to your left.

Do it right and you and the Democrats have a superb opportunity to pivot on the opposition and imprint the Democratic "brand" for a new generation of voters-and donors-and an aggressive approach tonight could be the opening salvo of a message barrage that either forces Republicans to become more moderate, or turns them into a crazier political movement that loses seats and Governors in 2010 and carries even fewer states in the 2012 Presidential than they did in 2008.

Screw it up, and even Tina Fey might not be able to save us from the wrath of "Palin/Gingrich 2012".

Shilling for the Progressive Party

Michael Kwiatkowski — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:07:32 GMT

If you've read my previous entries, wherein I tried to get participants to help build a solid platform for progressives to rally around (still a work in progress in need of ideas, submissions, edits, and so on), you probably know that this entry is going to be about joining a "third" party. This shouldn't be surprising; reading my comments on the subject makes my position quite obvious. But unlike many people who talk about a "third" political party more as a vague concept than working reality, I am writing today about one that already exists in at least two states.

Join me below the fold for more.
Now, before I begin, I just want to point out that I agree with much of what Paul Rosenberg wrote in his most recent blog entry, as well as the one that spawned it. I'll have more to write about these two entries, especially the first one, in a bit. Right now I want to promote a "third" political party for Progressives to rally around, one that has been around since 1912 and has a long and commendable record of achieving tangible political results. That, of course, is the Progressive Party of the United States.

In Vermont and Washington, the organization reformed and has gotten things done in a surprisingly short amount of time, relatively speaking. In the former state, the party has a small but significant presence in the state legislature and not only has a sort of representative in the U.S. Senate in the form of Bernie Sanders (an independent who caucuses with Democrats), but last year ran a candidate for the House of Representatives. Washington has enjoyed similar successes at the local level.

The point of this entry is not to make some vague talk of a "third" political party that exists now solely in the imaginations or wishes of American progressives. It is to promote one that has been around nearly a century and that, with enough time, effort, and people, can rise again to political prominence. The foundation, as it were, is already there, We need only to rebuild upon it. I highly recommend getting in touch with the Vermont and Washington chapters to inquire about starting or joining local organizations in your areas. Take all those progressive values you hold dear, good readers, and transform them into solid platforms around which you can rally and that you can use in elections.

Now I come to the part regarding Mr. Rosenberg's entry from today, and how it pertains to this one. In it, he wrote:

Party fragmentation is a very real political threat. However tantalizing it may be to dream of a party that purely represents us and only us, there is no precedent for such a party in American history--although there are brief moments when it does appear otherwise.

He goes on to state:

American political parties are not so much homes as they are arenas for conflict, or "sites of struggle" as they say in the trade.
...
But if you try to make the party--any party--the be all and end all of your political activism and political identity, then you are bound for disappointment at best, and may well find yourself lost and abandoned as the forces of history have shown themselves quite capable of tearing parties apart, and scattering their pieces to the wind.

I happen to agree, at least to a point. I do believe very strongly that we can and will eventually build a new dominant political party from the ashes of the current two. As the emergence of the Democrats and Republicans proved, this can happen and it has done so in the past. But even when it doesn't, the "fragment parties" helped to vastly reshape the political landscape. For example, when Theodore Roosevelt led progressives to form their namesake party in 1912, the resulting split not only helped him defeat GOP incumbent William Howard Taft in a three-way presidential election (although Democrat Woodrow Wilson was the actual winner in that contest); it began the shifting of the Democrats from the party of Southern bigots still sore over the Civil War to that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Dealers.

Where I part ways with Mr. Rosenberg is in my belief about the current political situation. It seems to me that he underestimates just how fed up the public is with the two major parties. It wants, no, DEMANDS representation in the halls of power. Progressives, organizing into a single cohesive and powerful political movement, can and will fill the void left when the two larger bodies finally disintegrate.

Having said that, we should be realistic about certain things - our short- and long-term goals, and what it will take to achieve them. We must recognize that tangible results will not appear overnight. We must start locally, work up to regional and state, and then progress to national-level politics. The Greens tried to do this in reverse, and the results have been less than stellar to put it mildly. Let's face it: it's going to take at least a decade, perhaps even an entire generation, before a revitalized Progressive Party is built up enough to challenge the two-party system and win. And throughout all that, we'll have to be ever vigilant to ensure that we do not, as the Democrats did, compromise our values for the sake of power.

The trick, from where I'm sitting, will be in deciding who and what we want to be, what our aims are, and how we're going to achieve those aims. At the very least, we should - as Mr. Rosenberg cautions - have as our goal the total ideological realignment of one of the two major political parties to the left and keep it there (and if that has the consequence of causing a new dominant political party to emerge, that is icing on the cake - but it should not be our first or only goal). Granted, this will be no easy task, and we must be equally as realistic about what we'll be up against as we must about what we hope to accomplish, but it is not impossible to make into reality.

We have before ourselves a choice. We can continue the failed strategy of complaining about how bad Democrats have become while doing nothing of substance to hold them accountable, or we can make the necessary break. One way guarantees the continuing weakness and disorganization of the American left. The other represents real prospects for altering the nation's political dynamic. As long as we keep a realistic vision of what it is we're trying to achieve, I am confident we'll do well.

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.

The Dearth of Republican Attacks on Individual Mandates

Daniel De Groot — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:00:00 GMT

Awhile back, Ian Welsh wrote:

Republicans understand opposition politics: when you're in the opposition, you don't smile bipartisanly, you gnaw at the ankles of the ruling party. Nothing they do is right, everything they do is wrong.

Generally Ian is spot on, and he's right in terms of the burnt earth style of Republican opposition to Obama/Democrats but I'm going to quibble on this one because I've detected a dog that is not barking, and I think the silence of this particular hound says a lot about the utter sham and fraud that is movement conservativism. Namely, where is the conservative/Republican opposition to the Democratic proposal to enforce individual mandates to purchase health insurance?
A recent synopsis of the health care debate notes:

An individual mandate is proposed in three versions of health reform, but not by Obama or Republicans in the House of Representatives. The president would require that all children be insured, and House Republicans don't propose any kind of individual mandate.
The mandate would be enforced by tax penalties on people who don't buy coverage. One version, proposed by House Democrats, would impose a 2.5 percent income-tax penalty.

Could it be conservatives are in favour of the US Federal government forcing the free citizens of the United States to purchase health insurance, whether they choose to or not? Doesn't this represent a rather large increase in Federal authority, and a significant intrusion into the lives of US citizens? Precisely the sort of thing that so-called "conservatives", suspicious of government growth should vociferously oppose? Let's take a look.

"No," "No" Everywhere, but not a Mandate to Link (to)

Let's start with that recent RNC health care strategy memo. The only mention of mandates relates to employer mandates.

Of course, that's just an internal strategy memo, what is the RNC doing publicly? How about this web ad, in the guise of one of those cloying drug ads (it is kind of clever actually), lists the many purported downsides of "Reforma" but neglects any mention of mandates.

Next, there's the Senate Republicans, who published this pamphlet to their site. Purportedly about what CBO found with the Democratic plan, and despite being concerned about the many people who might be "forced" into a public option ("Millions More Americans Will be Forced onto a Government-Run Plan") this too has no evident problem with an individual mandate.

Ok, forget offical Republicandom, what about the broader conservative movement? In the last week, I found the Washington Times upset over euthanasia, government "control", over healthcare and euthanasia again which they call the "Euthanasia Mandate" - but nothing on individual mandates.

How about this Heritage Foundation summary of the House and Senate bills? I found some criticism of employer mandates, but nothing on individuals.

I was beginning to think I had just misunderstood conservatives, and that they did in fact support Individual Mandates (despite the graf from that Richmond Times Dispatch piece quoted above), until I found this bit at Freedomworks:

FreedomWorks Analysis: Requiring each individual to have insurance by law contradicts our freedom to choose and distorts the market for health care.

It's hardly prominent, and in browsing a half dozen other Freedomworks pieces on the health care debate, there are no further mentions of individual mandates.

Conservatives Used to Oppose Mandates: When Hillary and Romney were Viable

Rivals Chide Romney on Health Care Plan
Mitt Romney's top rivals are reminding voters that Massachusetts residents have until Thursday to sign up for health insurance or face possible penalties _ a requirement that Romney signed into law when he was governor.
[...]
It's also something opponents for the Republican nomination are trying to turn it into a political liability for Romney.
Such mandates are anathema to fiscal conservatives and other bedrock GOP voters who oppose government intrusion, explaining the silence by Romney and the criticism from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and other candidates also vying for conservative votes.

McCain: No Health Insurance Mandate

Giuliani attacks Democratic health plans as 'socialist'
[...]
"We've got to do it the American way," Giuliani said during a town hall forum in Rochester, New Hampshire. "The American way is not single-payer, government-controlled anything. That's a European way of doing something; that's frankly a socialist way of doing something."
"That's why when you hear Democrats in particular talk about single-mandated health care, universal health care, what they're talking about is socialized medicine."

Giuliani Attacks Romney on Health Care Record While Campaigning in New Hampshire

It Wasn't Just Republicans Opposed to Mandates

"The way Hillary Clinton's health care plan covers everyone is to have the government force uninsured people to buy insurance, even if they can't afford it." - Obama campaign mailer

This is precisely the sort of thing that Republicans love to leap on. In fact, wasn't the entire 2004 campaign predicated on Kerry's flip flop? It's a perfect opening with which to club Obama repeatedly. I'm sure the RNC could dig up some choice debate clips of Obama opposing such mandates.

In fact, the remaining PUMAs have seized on this, yet Republicans have not?

Maybe Mandates Are Just too Damn Popular?

Well, I won't run down all the polling, but as an example, a USA Today/Gallup poll from mid-July says:

"Do you think all Americans should be required to have health insurance, or not?" N=1,518 (Form A), MoE ± 3
Should - 56%
Should Not - 42%
Unsure - 3%

That's popular, but not overwhelmingly so. The Public option was far more popular and Republicans did not hesitate to oppose it. In general, conservatives have proven very effective at beating down support for some very popular policies. Putting on my liberal ideologue hat, this sort of thing is essential to the survival of conservative politics: If they can't convince the public to oppose popular policies that would likely benefit them, there wouldn't be a conservative movement. There are other polls which show mandates more popular than 56%, but again, given the record of Obama, McCain and Giuliani attacking Clinton and Romney over mandates, it certainly didn't stop anyone before.

Wrapping Up

Ok, I'll drop my feigned surprise at this. Of course I, like many of you would generally conclude the obvious, that conservatives aren't opposing individual mandates because this would be a major bonanza for the insurance companies. My shock at the gambling going on in the casino is really to drive home the empty cynicism that is the vast right wing conspiracy. Where is the conservative outrage over the "Dimmycrats" making them buy insurance? While I'm not a giant fan of the idea, if you're going to try and make private insurers behave themselves via regulation (or have them at all), it is sensible to then discourage free riding in some manner.

Let's recap the situation:

A major policy proposed by Democrats, which has actually passed several Congressional committees
It's easy to misrepresent and demagogue
The most popular Democratic leader is open to charges of flip-flopping on it
You can use it to paint the Democrats as being in bed with big insurance
You can use it to seem like the GOP is defending the interests of the poor
It is definitely against stated conservative ideological principles

If Ian's dictum was in full effect, one would expect the conservative movement to leap on this. That they don't, shows they have sold out their stated principles (small government etc) in favour of their true principle: empower the powerful, enrich the rich. They don't mind if a broken version of health care reform passes a Democratic congress and President that requires the nation to purchase health care. They'll gut everything else about it that might infringe on the Murder-by-Spreadsheet industry, but authoritarian capitalism by government dictate is evidently ok by them.

Question for GOP Leaders: What Would It Take for You to Condemn the Hatefulness?

Mike Lux — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:30:00 GMT

Glenn Beck has said Barack Obama hates white people, and jokes about assassinating the Speaker of the House. Rush Limbaugh makes repeated and extended comparisons between Obama and Hitler. Mobs hang a congressman in effigy and physically attack people at a town hall meeting.

Members of Congress have death threats issued against them, while other Members make jokes about lynching their colleagues.

With all of this hateful and violent rhetoric going on, I haven't seen one Republican leader asking for people to cool their rhetoric, or heard them condemn any of these tactics. My question for Republican party, and their allies at conservative media companies that employ the kind of people making these remarks: what exactly would have to be said for you to distance yourself from these people? How far would someone have to go before you got uncomfortable with it? What would have to said before Fox News considered firing someone?

If Glenn Beck actually directly called for the assassination of someone, would it bother you guys? If Rush Limbaugh just screamed a racial insult referring to the President of the United States into his microphone, would it make you pause at all? If Lou Dobbs went so far as to call for the murder of random Hispanics in the street, would CNN consider firing him? If Michael Savage actually encouraged a caller to his show to go blow up a federal building like Timothy McVeigh did, would any republicans suggest he pull his rhetoric back a bit?

The scary thing to me about what's going on right now in this country is not the violence, because this country has always had violent extremists, and we've survived as a country and democracy. What concerns me, though, is that the Republicans seem to have crossed some kind of line to where they actually tolerate and even defend all this violence. They have stopped doing that now, and are even egging the violence on now in some cases. I fear the answer to my question- what would it take for you to condemn the hatefulness- because the answer seems to be that there is nothing that could happen that would make them say "Stop!" And that's a very scary thing for a democracy.

Republicans who Voted for Sotomayor and Lessons for Health Care, etc.

tremayne — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:56:16 GMT

Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate with all Democrats (minus the ailing Ted Kennedy) supporting her as well as nine Republicans. There has been on ongoing assumption that Republicans are united on everything as demonstrated by the House's unanimous anti-stimulus vote earlier this year. So why did Sotomayor pick up nine Republican votes? Several reasons.

1. Four Republicans who are not seeking reelection voted to confirm her: Judd Gregg, Kit Bond, Mel Martinez and George Voinovich. If you don't have to worry about the crazy right fringe and fundraising you might actually cast a vote based on what you think is right.

2. The Maine Senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, voted for her. They represent a very blue state (Obama +17) and would have a hard time explaining the vote, especially to women and, perhaps, minorities (although not a large Hispanic population there).

3. Dick Lugar voted for her. He has always been more moderate and is close with Obama.

4. That leaves two Senators which may seem surprising: Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Surprising until you consider this news item: South Carolina has the fastest growing Hispanic population in the nation followed by the number two state, Tennessee. Strength in numbers.

Similar dynamics will come into play for health care reform, climate change legislation, etc. The retiring Senators, even without compromises, may be less influenced by campaign contributions and right-wing pressure. The Maine Senators probably want to be reelected and that could be difficult in an Obama+17 state if one or the other cast the deciding vote against a major bill. And local considerations could also lead to a Senator or representative to break from the pack.

The point is, once again, write the best health care bill possible (and the other issues) and put it up for a vote. Don't assume unanimity on the GOP side: make them cast the difficult vote.

UPDATE: And good luck to Republican Senator John Kyl on getting reelected in 2012. More than a third of the state of Arizona will be Hispanic then, Obama will be running for reelection and Kyl only took 53% in 2006 when the Hispanic population was still in the 20s percentage-wise. He voted against Sotomayor and basically called her a liar who's answers lacked substance.

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.

Republican White Voter Strategy?

Chris Bowers — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:18:41 GMT

Tom Edsall discusses how whites are the primary demographic target of conservative attacks on President Obama:

With Republican party leaders so constrained by ideological blinders that none of their positions is likely to produce gains among non-white minorities, especially Hispanics, the GOP is finding it has no real alternative but to revert to a "white voter" strategy.

To some extent, it's working. The party's opposition to President Obama's agenda -- particularly his cap-and-trade energy proposal and health care reform plan -- is resonating strongly with disaffected white Democratic voters. Republican grievances about Obama, combined with race-baiting commentary from the far-right ideologues who have become some of the most dominant voices of the modern GOP, have led to a precipitous drop in the president's approval ratings among whites.

There is much to agree with here. This is especially the case if one narrows Edsall's formulation of "white voters" to "white Christian voters," given that white non-Christians vote for Democrats by 3-1 margins that are nearly identical to non-whites.

Republicans have suffered such severe electoral losses in recent years, and become so dominated by right-wing leaders and institutions, there are few moderating voices left to suggest a less hard-line message. Further, while the electorate has become significantly more ethnically diverse (26% non-white in 2008, compared to 15% non-white in 1988), and more religiously diverse (76% of Americans self-identified as Christian in 2008, down from 86% in 1990), according to Pew the Republican Party is composed of the same percentage of white Christians as it was at the start of the decade. Republicans are thus becoming relatively less diverse compared to the rest of the country, and therefore lacks a critical mass of voices that could make them appealing to a wider range of demographic groups.

Perhaps even more basically, the ideology that dominates the Republican Party is drenched in a language of cultural supremacy (anti-immigrant, "Christian Nation," anti-Islam, Birthers, etc.) that is fundamentally at odds with even the presence of more diverse groups in the United States. Intuitively, the conservative movement isn't trying to broaden its demographic base, despite population trends indicating it would be a wise move. Their ideology is largely predicated on fighting against those very trends, not in accepting them and moving on.

However, could such a strategy actually work for Republicans in national elections in either the short-term or long-term? Can they realistically increase their share of the vote among self-identified white-Christians to the point where their deficits among non-whites and non-Christians are, ala the 70's and 80's, once again irrelevant? To put it a different way, would it be possible for the Republican Party to get the entire country voting like large sections of the South, where 70% or more of self-identified white Christians choose the GOP?

As I explain in the extended entry, while a longshot, this proposition is not entirely impossible.
Here is a not entirely implausible scenario on how Republicans could win back power without becoming more diverse in ethno-religious terms:

A mid-single digit increase among white Christians would go a long way. John McCain won 62% of the white Christian vote last year (52% among white Catholics, and 65% among the far more numerous white Protestants). He would have squeaked out a narrow national victory had that number risen to 68%, only 6% higher.
Increase in religious diversity might be slowing in America. According to the Trinity ARIS Survey, Self-identified non-Christians grew at a very slow rate during the period from 2001 (23.3% of the population) to 2008 (24.0% of the population). While younger age groups tend to be less Christian than older age groups, the country may never again witness a rapid rise in non-Christians it experienced during the 1990's.
Increase in ethnic diversity might be slowing in America. As the economy slides backward, immigration has experienced a sharp decline in America. This has led to new, slower projections of minority population growth.

Overall, this means that if the economy struggles of the long-term, it is actually possible that there will be enough of a slowdown in ethno-religious diversity (through heavily decreased immigration), combined with enough of a backlash against Democrats among white Christians (who Republicans are not unsuccessfully targeting with their main messages), to put Republicans back in power during the next decade. Even beyond the 2010's, if these trends continue, they could stay competitive without becoming more diverse well into the 2020's, or even beyond.

For this to work, it would basically require a Depression lasting nearly a decade. However, given that the policies Democrats have instituted might not go nearly far enough to turn the economy around, and given what Republicans would do if they were to regain power in a Depression, even that is not an entirely far-fetched possibility.

The Generic Ballot Is Meaningful

Chris Bowers — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:30:00 GMT

Over the past nine months, Republicans have close the Democratic margin in the national generic ballot by 6.3%:

House Generic Ballot Polling, Pre-2008 Election vs. Current

	Democrats	Republicans
Pre-2008 Election*	48.6%	39.9%
Current**	42.6%	40.2%

*Simple mean of final poll from eight polling firms who conducted generic ballots from October 25th forward. Seven of those can be found here, and the eighth is the final Rasmussen generic ballot from the 2008 election.
**Current Pollster.com generic House ballot regression line.

The first thing that needs to be understood when looking at these numbers is that the generic House ballot really is an accurate snapshot of national voter opinion. For example, Democrats won the 2008 national House vote by 8.88%, extremely close to the 8.7% margin predicted by the final polls. 2008 was not a fluke, either. A quick look at final generic ballot averages and final national results show that the generic ballot is a useful indicator of national popular preference at any given time:

House Generic Ballot Vs. Final Result, 1998-2008

Year	Final Week Poll Mean	Final National Margin	Error
2008	D +8.7%	D +8.9%	0.2%
2006	D +11.6%	D +7.9%	3.7%
2004	R +1.5%	R +2.6%	1.1%
2002	R +2.7%	R +4.6%	1.9%
2000	D +2.5%	R +0.3%	2.8%
1998	R +1.4%	R +1.4%	0.0%

While six elections is a small sample size, the overall mean error rate is a low 1.8%, and the median is an even lower 1.5%. Even in the event of a large error rate of 3.7%, as experienced in 2006, a 6.3% swing toward Republicans is still quite significant.

The second thing to note about these numbers is that while the margin has narrowed significantly, Republicans have not gained any new supporters. Rather, all of the movement has come from Democratic losses. The continuing deterioration of the economy (and yes, a slower rate of decline is still a decline) is pushing voters out of the Democratic camp, but those same voters are not embracing Republicans.

The bottom line is that there are a lot of voters up for grabs right now, many more than we are used to seeing in our polarized era. Thinning pocketbooks can alter political allegiances in significant ways.

Americans Say No to Party of No

dreaminonempty — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:59:23 GMT

The Republican party's strategy seems to be to Just Say No as loud as they can.

It doesn't seem to be working, of course, as we've seen in poll after poll. But let's look at the last 20 years of favorability ratings for the parties for some perspective:

Click to enlarge. Dotted lines show elections.

These are net favorability ratings - percent favorable minus percent unfavorable. While Republicans have been bouncing off of record lows for the past three years, in 2009 they've managed to sink well below their prior record. More on the flip.
Here's another way to look at it: the net favorability difference, defined here as Democratic net favorability minus Republican net favorability.

Click to enlarge. Dotted lines show elections.

Between 1985 and 2005, negative net approval numbers were rare. The long term trends show Democrats bouncing around, typically between 0 and +20, while Republicans are in a long-term decline, from +30 in the 1980s to negative 30 now. Unlike the Republicans' previous brief dalliance with -20 during the Clinton impeachment, these recent negative values have been sustained since the end of 2005.

Here's a guided tour:

1992: Public is not enamored with either party, leaving an opening for Ross Perot. Democratic favorability increases over the course of the campaign. Republicans stuck in the mud. Clinton wins.

1994: Democratic scandals in the House and the failure of health care reform. Republicans have their biggest advantages over Democrats in favorability in November, coincident with massive Republican gains in the House.

1996: After Newt Gingrinch leads Republicans in a face-off with Clinton resulting in the shutdown of the federal government, polls starting in April show Republican net favorability has dropped to zero. This rebounds quickly, but Democratic favorability increases as well.

1998: Impeachment throws Republican favorability into a nosedive, albeit only briefly. To complete the backfire, Democratic favorability rises during impeachment proceedings.

2001: Republican net favorability rises 30 points following 9/11. They milk it for all they can for the next two election cycles.

2006: Everybody loves a winner. Democratic net favorability jumps following the election of 2006. It falls back down shortly.

2008: Everybody loves a good primary. Favorability increases for both parties during their primary seasons. The Republican Convention produces a large but short-lived spike that almost brings Republicans up to Democratic favorability levels. And again, everybody loves a winner.

2009: The Democratic bounce is returning to earth, but the Party of No is sinking even faster. Especially among non-whites.

Clearly, scandals, campaigns, and other events can have large effects on favorability, but they don't last that long - weeks to months. This is certainly enough to affect elections - I'm looking at you, Mark Foley - but the event in question seems to be forgotten a year later. The question remains, are the recent low favorability numbers of Republicans simply the result of one scandal after another following so quickly that the numbers can never fully recover? Or do we have a new 'normal' where the Republican brand is so tarnished, even in good times favorability would still languish in the negative numbers? The continued decrease to even more negative numbers, representing only the die-hard 20-percenters who still approve of Bush, suggests the latter. And the pandering to the racist birther base suggests Republicans aren't seriously looking to change things any time soon.

To show how favorability numbers are relevant, here's the change in House seats compared to net favorability differences:

Click to enlarge.

There is a clear relationship. Of course, House elections aren't that simple, and the number of seats gained or lost has to do with the number and partisan distribution of seats that are held by a party as well, but as an indicator, net favorability difference is pretty good. It's a good thing to keep an eye on.

Fine Print: I normalized all data by subtracting a House Effect for each party for each polling institute. The House Effect was calculated by comparing to the average of CBS/NYT, NCB/WSJ, and Gallup. These are the 'norm' because they are the three polls with the most data. It doesn't mean it's the 'true' number, but it allows for us to look at trends. Normalizing the data is necessary because of the difference in timing and beginning of polling on this question, and large differences in House Effects. For instance, CBS/NYT has asked the question 76 times over 23 years, while Daily Kos has asked the question 28 times in just the past seven months. Also note the lines in the graphs above show a three-point running average, except where there are large gaps in time between data points prior to 1998.

Cross posted on Daily Kos.