Current polling from NYTimes, Democracy Corps, and several other public and private sources show a really strange paradox in this year's election cycle. On the one hand as the media is broadcasting endlessly, it is clear that people are unhappy with Congress, wanting to throw incumbents out on their ear, wanting to change course- all of which leads the punditry to declare that the Democrats are dead meat. And of course, it is impossible to forget the scary poll numbers in a lot of individual races.
On the other hand, there is a lot of other data seeming quite favorable to Democrats, and the internals in the polling make it clear there are real opportunities for gains on where we are today. Our approval numbers are better than the Republicans, although neither party is exactly thrilling people. We lead on the tax cut fight, which is the big pre-election issue; people think Democrats are more likely than Republicans to create jobs, which is the most important issue in the election; by a big margin, people think Democrats will do more to help the middle class; people even say Democrats are more likely to help small business. Apparently, even the Democratic message tying George W. Bush to current Republicans also seems to be sinking in, frankly better than I thought it would.
If it weren't for the polls showing Democrats in deep trouble, these other polls would make you think we're going to have to have a great year. What is going on?
I have two theories on this confusing mixture of polling data, neither of which is new to my writing, so please forgive the repetition if you recognize the themes from earlier posts:
1. Much of the confusion and seeming contradiction in these various data points is explained by the simple idea that I have been suggesting for about 18 months now: neither party is liked or trusted right now. You can also throw in all the tea party Republican primary victories into this explanation: voters, whether left, right, or uncertain middle don't feel like the establishment of either party is doing well by them. Voters keep sending the same message over and over again, and the Village establishment keeps missing, or ignoring, the point:
Voters didn't like the Republican establishment in 2006, so they voted in a new Congress
Democratic primary voters didn't like the establishment, so they rejected the Clintons for someone brand new
Voters didn't like the Bush team, so in 2008, they voted for someone as different from George W. Bush as you could imagine
Voters didn't feel the new guy was that much different from the old guy, and sent a message in the big New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts races so far this cycle
Republican primary voters don't like what the Republican establishment has been serving up, so they started to vote for whoever was the most anti-establishment.
This is not ideological. This is not party identity driven. This is all about the middle class seeing the American dream slip away from them, being as squeezed economically as they have been in three generations, and desperately trying to tell all politicians from every party and ideology that they want change: big change, right now.
2. The populist/reformist message that progressives have been pushing now for several months is starting to get some traction. The reason some of these poll numbers are showing signs of life and potential opportunities for Democrats in this tough as nails political environment is because Democrats are starting to finally focus in on a message that sells the idea that Democrats are on the same side as the beleaguered middle class. MoveOn's The Other 98% campaign, ads and speeches by candidates and the White House, Elizabeth Warren's appointment: the Democrats are finally starting to seem like they get it. Check out Obama's radio address and a clip of a recent speech. Check out these ads from Barbara Boxer and Robin Carnahan. Check out Elizabeth Warren's interview with Rachel Maddow. Check out this clip from Kendrick Meek. Democrats are finally- finally, finally, finally- starting to sound like the kind of progressive populists who might actually be capable of appealing to voters outside the DC Village.
Maybe it's not in time, and maybe it's not enough. Maybe voters just won't believe it at the end of the day: the skepticism is deep and wide. The President has spent far too much time sounding like Tim Geithner and not nearly enough sounding like Elizabeth Warren. But at least it is finally starting to feel like we are putting up a fight.
Breaking news in the Show Me state: Robin Carnahan has decided to go toe to toe with Fox News in a legal case with major political ramifications going forward. The ad, which you can see here, and which the Carnahan campaign has chosen to leave on the air in spite of Fox News legal threats, is of an interview on Fox News with Chris Wallace where Wallace destroys Blunt for his ties to Abramoff and Blunt's own lobbyist girlfriend. Fox is using a law firm to go after the Carnahan campaign which has close ties to Blunt over the last several years, and is hilariously claiming that "The value of [Fox News] reporting is based in part upon the public's faith in the accuracy and integrity of those reports".
Robin Carnahan is taking on the beast here, bravely standing up to their legal threats, and should be supported by the progressive community in doing so. Show her some love for standing up to Fox News.
While some establishment pundits and think tanks don't think populism is a good idea, check out what some candidates out in the field are doing:
1. This Andrew Romanoff ad kicks ass. People tell me he wasn't exactly a raving populist as a legislator, but he sure is a candidate.
2. Senate candidates like Roxanne Conlin and Robin Carnahan are banging away at their corporate backed opponents on the TARP issue.
3. Alexi Giannoulias just came out with this great campaign document which echoes the Moveon campaign's themes and message.
4. Look at what Tom Perriello is doing in a conservative district in Virginia.
5. More and more candidates are signing up for Moveon's anti-Washington corruption campaign, including Chris Murphy, Donna Edwards, Romanoff, Conlin, Perriello, Gian..., Mac D'allesandro, Raul Grijalva, and many more.
I could actually go on and on, but you get the idea. Progressive populism is spreading like wild fire because candidates are figuring out that it is the only message that can save them.
Between health care reform, financial reform, and analyzing the fascinating and disturbing trends in right wing ideology over the last 15 months, I haven't written that much about the 2010 elections lately, but that will be changing in the months to come. This election season will be intriguing.
Back in March of last year, I started warning my fellow Washington, DC Democrats that we could be headed for a 1994 style train wreck if we didn't watch out. By following the Geithner/Summers plan to coddle the big banks and accept the classical trickle-down economic idea that "jobs would be a logging indicator," I feared we were both discouraging base voters and ticking off working class swing voters. My worst fears proved in the New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts elections, as working class swing votes turned against us with a vengeance and Democratic base voters - young people, unmarried women, and people of color - did not turn out to vote in very high numbers.
It is way too early to tell what will happen in November. There are signs that Democrats are starting to understand what they need to do to improve their chances. The passage of health care reform shows that Democrats have the guts and ability to get big things done. Pushing back harder and picking a fight with the big bankers and their Republican allies (thank you, Mitch McConell!) is incredibly important, and the Obama administration has been willing to do that. Going to the mat for immigration reform will help turn out Hispanic and young voters. And if the real economy - meaning jobs and wages, not the stock market or bankers' profits - starts to see real improvement, Democratic performance in 2010 might surprise some people. However, it's still too early to tell how all this is going to play out.
One thing that is clear to me, though, is that the mood of voters is more anti-establishment and anti-incumbent than it is purely anti-Democrat. When a formerly popular Republican Governor Charlie Crist is being trounced by 30 points in the polls to a previously unknown far right-winger like Rubio, when a republican icon like McCain is struggling with a primary challenge, and when a longtime, well-liked Republican Senator like Chuck Grassley sees his approval rating go from the mid 70s to the low 40s in a year, you know that voters' ire is at least as much about incumbency as it is about party.
In that context, I want to raise a big red flag about one of the most traditional strategies political parties fall back on in a challenging election cycle, which is what I call the "defend the flag" strategy. The assumption is that they have to defend all incumbents at all costs, and give up on challengers breaking through. I think that is a major mistake in an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment year like this one. Usually, party committees and the numbers prove that in an average election cycle, saving incumbents is easier than electing challengers. In a year like this one, I think it's a huge mistake for Democrats to make. It's the outsiders, the anti-establishment, anti-status quo candidates who have more traction in this election.
In Florida, Kendrick Meek has a very solid chance at taking out far right extremist Rubio after he wins his ugly primary fight with Crist. In Ohio, both Lee Fisher and Jennifer Bruning are strong candidates to take out a Bush administration hack in Rob Portman. In NH, Paul Hodes is strongly positioned to win the Gregg's Senate seat given the nasty primary on the Republican side. In Missouri, Robin Carnahan is a very appealing alternative to Tom DeLay's closest ally in Roy Blunt. In Kentucky, if Jack Conway wins that primary, his reformer credentials give him a solid shot at beating extremist libertarian Rand Paul. And in Iowa, crusading anti-corporate lawyer Roxanne Conlin might have the stuff to beat ancient insider Grassley. These would all be pick-up seats for the Democrats. That's 6 races where Democratic challengers have a decent shot at taking a Republican seat.
My strong advice to my friends at the party committees and in the donor community: don't forget about races like these. Pulling back and playing only defense to save incumbents and seats we currently hold is a formula for bigger losses this year. We have a chance at holding our own this cycle if we play some offense well.
As we await the historic vote on health care reform, it's important to remember that we're just ten days away from the end of the first fundraising quarter of 2010. The fundraising totals reported in this quarter will be pivotal to determining the tenor of many races for the rest of the year. If there is any time to contribute, now is the time!
Please head over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and contribute whatever you are able to these terrific Democratic candidates for Senate.
Democrat
Currently At
End-of-Quarter Goal
Distance to Goal
Kendrick Meek
$25
$300
$275
Bill Halter
$445
$750
$305
Joe Sestak
$1,320
$1,600
$280
Paul Hodes
$1,447
$1,700
$253
Robin Carnahan
$1,163
$1,400
$237
Remember, the contribution you can make isn't just a donation to a single candidate or political campaign. It's an investment against Republican obstruction (and conservaDem enabling) and an investment toward achieving that more perfect union.
The last day of the third fundraising quarter of 2009 (whoa, time really flies!) is this Wednesday, September 30. Our Democratic candidates for Senate need to make as big a fundraising splash as possible in the third quarter to help refute the growing conventional wisdom among the traditional media pundits that 2010 could be a Republican year.
Please, please, please consider making a contribution today to our Democratic candidates for Senate via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page. I've set some lofty, pie-in-the-sky goals that, if we were able to meet them, I'd be wonderfully surprised and gratified and blown away by your generosity.
Democrat
Currently At
Goal
Distance to Goal
Robin Carnahan
$681
$1,000
$319
Paul Hodes
$780
$1,000
$220
Joe Sestak
$758
$1,000
$242
Charlie Melancon
$193
$400
$207
Please click on over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and make a contribution to help stop ongoing Republican obstruction in the Senate. Every contribution makes a real impact whether it's $100 or $25 or $10 or, well, any amount. Want to rebel against multiples of five and contribute $63 or $39 or $27, knock yourself out!
Remember, the fundraising quarter ends this Wednesday, so please contribute today if you can. Thank you SO much!
Last cycle, I started an ActBlue page specifically for Democratic Senate candidates working to pick up seats held by Republicans. I named it the Expand the Map! ActBlue page because the goal was to expand the map of competitive Senate seats. The effort was a big success, achieving over 300 contributions and $40,000 for the Democratic Senate candidates included on the page.
Today, I kicked off the 2010 edition of the Expand the Map! ActBlue page with three Democratic candidates for Senate: Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes, and Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak.
In New Hampshire and Missouri, we have the strongest candidates available, candidates who will also make terrific Democratic Senators. In both races, however, fundraising will always be a top priority. Missouri Republican Roy Blunt will be able to tap his lobbyist buddies and corrupt cronies for cash ad nauseum. No doubt the NRSC will also make holding New Hampshire a top priority; and the D.C. GOP establishment has already begun fawning over Palin-esque quitter Kelly Ayotte. Carnahan and Hodes need our support! A few years back, all four of New Hampshire's and Missouri's combined Senate seats were held by Republicans. Wouldn't it feel great to have flipped all four?
In Pennsylvania, y'all know the deal. Arlen Specter was a Republican Senator for decades. Even though he changed his Party affiliation, he's still not a Democrat as far as I'm concerned. Joe Sestak is a real Democrat, and he - not Specter - should win the Democratic primary. But Specter has a significant edge when it comes to campaign cash; and, Ed Rendell will do all he can to shut off Sestak's fundraising. Let Specter, Rendell, etc. know that they can't shut down the netroots by supporting Sestak!
Please, please, please help kick off the 2010 cycle's Expand the Map! effort by sending these highly deserving Democrats a few bucks. $100 makes a huge difference, $20 makes a huge difference, $10 makes a huge difference! Hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and make your voice heard.
This is not just a contribution to these Democrats' campaigns. This is a contribution toward slowing and eventually stopping Republican obstruction in the U.S. Senate. Thank you SO much!
Partisan efforts to keep up to 300,000 eligible Missouri citizens, mostly progressive-leaning voters from elderly and low-income demographics but also including such large blocks as married women, permanently off the voting rolls are coming to a head in the Missouri Senate today as the Legislature prepares to adjourn. Measures not passed by that time will die, pending the Governor calling a special session.
Voting rights and progressive activists, led by Missourians for Fair Elections are fighting back and report an extremely tough but increasingly winnable fight against what the Kansas City Star is calling a "real deception...being perpetrated by legislators, whose claims of fraud are driving what appears to be a political agenda".
Robin Carnahan, Missouri's Secretary of State, and an opponent of the measure, HJR 48 - which would amend Missouri's constitution to require proof of citizenship to register and vote, will be holding a press conference today in Kansas City to point out the partisan agenda behind this measure.
(More poisoned fruit of that terrible SC decision - promoted by Daniel De Groot)
Missouri lawmakers this week are working to rush legislation that would prevent up to 240,000 Missourians from voting. The proposed legislation would make Missouri one of the toughest states in the country for eligible citizens who want to vote by requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polls. If passed, these changes could be in place by the November general election.
Joint Resolution 48 passed the Missouri House yesterday on a party-line 88-69 vote and now awaits action in the Senate. If passed, it would place a referendum before the voters in August which, if approved, would go into effect for the November 2008 election.
This resolution is superfluous for Missouri, where proponents have yet to show a single case of voter impersonation from recent elections, yet imposes high burdens on eligible voters to comply, as noted by Denise Lieberman, a lawyer and voter protection advocate with Advancement Project in Missouri.
STATE BLOGS
