Editorial: The Difficulty in Facing November

Summary: Dave speaks to the fears that Democrats have moving forward.

Taking a look at this blog, comparing this year’s posts to last year’s posts, you can see a burgeoning trend.

Whereas last year I commented much more on Tea Parties, day-to-day embarrassments for the GOP, and Obama’s job approval ratings, I’ve now started talking more about things like the effectiveness of campaign ads and the British elections from earlier this year.

It’s because I’m finding it harder and harder to speak of good news for the Democrats going into November’s midterm elections.

It’s not difficult for Democrats to feel a bit frightened right now. Even those who (unlike me) can’t ignore the topic altogether -- those who work on Democratic congressional campaigns at the moment -- are still doing their best to practice cognitive dissidence. It’s the only way to proceed and do their jobs without falling apart emotionally.

But like all Democrats, I have to confront this fear for the moment, and speak to the reality of the political environment.

November 2, 2010, is going to be a bad day.

I’m not going to say we’ll definitely lose the House of Representatives, and I actually doubt we’ll lose control of the Senate. But I will say this much: don’t expect a terrific Congress or terrific state governments next year.

I look toward my own state, Wisconsin, as a golden example of this reasonable pessimism.

Here in the Badger State we have a governor’s race, U.S. Senate race, and two Congressional races that could easily flip their respective offices from Democratic to Republican.

We cheeseheads have proudly gone blue in the past five presidential races, two gubernatorial races, and eight U.S. Senate races. Our Congressional Delegation, State Senate, and State Assembly all have Democratic majorities.

Yet the model statesman we have always been most proud of -- Senator Russ Feingold -- is currently trailing a millionaire GOP insider named Ron Johnson by a 52%-41% margin.

The Congressional seat held by retiring Appropriations Committee Chair Dave Obey is leaning Republican. Another seat -- held by Democratic Dr. Steve Kagen -- is considered a “toss up” in the midst of a race against a Republican businessman who moved to the district (only a matter of months ago) specifically to run for Congress.

Our Governor’s mansion is also at risk of going to Tea Partying Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker -- a man notorious for flip-flopping and lacking in anything that resembles an intellectual capacity.

Why? One simple reason: the economy is bad right now.

It doesn’t matter what party screwed the economy up, nor does the fact that the same party has no real ideas to solve the problems they complain about.

As political scientists (Niemi and Weisberg, Nadeau and Lewis-Beck, Miller and Shanks, Lodge and Steenbergen) have pointed out for decades, people blindly vote against incumbents when the economy is bad. And for the past few years now, the economy has been really, really bad.

That is the nature of the problem: voters will treat 2010 like a referendum and not as a choice between leaders and their ideas.

Democrats have tried to explain to voters how they should not treat this election as a referendum. But this argument can, in practice, only limit the inevitable damage.

When this election is over, there will certainly be things the Democrats did wrong that we can point to, trying to explain our failures (after the election, I plan on writing an extensive piece on the abysmal failure that was OFA). But most of the problem really boils down to factors that are out of our control as Democratic campaigners.

So until then, let’s do all we can ever do in these scenarios, a plan of action I have come to learn well as a political operative…

…brace for the worst and hope for the best.

A Bad Week for Democrats

When healthcare reform passed, Democrats were convinced their troubles were over. No more worrying about the midterms - Republicans won’t be able to win on a message of repeal. No more worrying about a disaffected base - we’ve accomplished something that generations of politicians have strived to accomplish.

Except you wouldn’t know it last week.

New Gallup polls find the image of the Democratic Party at a record low, the GOP tying on the generic ballot, and President Obama’s approval rating was down considerably.

The outlook for incumbents is especially bad right now. Only 49% of Americans said they believe their member of Congress deserves to be re-elected - that’s lower than when the question was asked in both 1994 and 2006.

Then there are the retirements. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) announced he would be stepping down, leaving his conservative northern Michigan seat open in a Republican year.

Then Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced his intention to retire, leaving the President with the task of choosing a replacement - a task that will no doubt give Republicans a great political opportunity to characterize Democrats as “judicial activists” trampling on the Constitution.

Overall, things look about as bad as they can look for Democrats in the House. The new 2010 model by political scientist Alan Abramowitz projects a 37-seat swing for the GOP.


On the Senate side, things don’t look much better . CQ Politics is predicting eight seats will be toss-ups this year - four of which are Democratic - most of which with polling that suggests GOP take-overs. Arkansas - currently represented by Democrat Blanche Lincoln - is now in the “leaning Republican” column, while North Dakota - currently represented by Democrat Byron Dorgan - is considered a “solid” Republican seat now.

Even in Wisconsin - considered a “solid” Democratic seat - incumbent Democrat Russ Feingold is facing a competitive challenge by Real Estate developer Terrance Wall, with former (and popular) Governor Tommy Thompson and former Wisconsin Secretary of Commerce (and well-known beer family heirloom) Dick Leinenkugel considering their own bids.

Despite all of these setbacks, it’s important to remember that one week is only one week.

There is still another 204 days until Election Day this year, and a lot can change over these next several months.

The economy hasn’t been great, but it’s getting better. Hopefully economic confidence is back to pre-2008 levels by Labor Day.

Many of the good things in the recent healthcare overhaul won’t actually be noticed by consumers for at least another two months. Hopefully support for this legislation increases when Americans can actually start to reap the benefits of it.

The average onlooker would say Democrats are in for a bloodbath this year. It certainly won’t be an easy year for us, but remember that politics is a difficult spectator sport, and it’s still to early to say anything for sure.

How Healthcare Reform Can Still Hurt Senate Democrats

Summary: Democrats in the upper chamber will have to defend some indefensible votes this November.

As you may have heard by now, the healthcare reconciliation bill will have to go back to the House of Representatives. The fear among proponents of the bill was that Senate Republicans would offer amendments that Democrats could not pass up, which would automatically mean it would need to go back to the House for approval.

What actually happened: the Republicans won on a point of order at 3:00 AM this morning using a parliamentary rule that by necessity changes the bill in question. Democrats have thus far been resilient to resist tempting amendments.

This means that little in the bill changes, it will likely be passed about an hour from now, and be approved by the House later tonight. President Obama will then likely sign this last piece of healthcare legislation in to law by next week.

And as we mentioned Monday, healthcare reform success should help Democrats in the midterm elections this November.

At least in the House - the Senate may be a different story.

So far the Senate GOP has introduced no less than 146 amendments to the reconciliation bill that Democrats have had to vote against to guarantee swift passage. They’ve been steadfast, but it comes at a price.

Among some of the amendments:

• S.AMDT.3556 - Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) introduced an amendment “prohibiting coverage of Viagra for child molesters and rapists” under the government’s health insurance exchange.

• S.AMDT.3639 - Senator John Thune (R-SD) introduced an amendment to “ensure that no State experiences a net job loss as a result of” healthcare reform.

• S.AMDT.3564 - Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced an amendment that guarantees “the President, Cabinet Members, all White House Senior staff and Congressional Committee and Leadership Staff are purchasing health insurance through the health insurance exchanges” established in the overhaul.

Now who would disagree with these measures?

Most people wouldn’t. And that’s exactly the point. Republicans are making sure that Democrats have to choose between a rock and a hard place.

The rock: the healthcare bill faces a tougher time getting passed.

The hard place: Democratic Senators at risk in 2010 have to face attack ads that say “Senator So-and-So voted to give rapists Viagra at the taxpayer’s expense.”

The hard place is a lot more important.

According to Nate Silver’s most recent Senate Forecast, there’s more than a 50% chance that the Democrats will lose at least 5 Senate seats this year. There’s even some chance - albeit, a small one - that they could lose the majority.


Protecting our at-risk incumbents would be a lot easier if they didn’t have to make some of these votes.

How the New Healthcare Law Changes the Dynamics of 2010

Summary: the Democrats’ legislative success means an electoral challenge for Republicans.

President Obama finally signed healthcare reform into law this morning. Soon, millions of uninsured Americans will have access to healthcare, sick Americans will be at lesser risk of losing coverage, and insurance prices will stop skyrocketing.


Over the past year, the healthcare debate has changed the political landscape entirely. It has led to the growth of the Tea Party movement, made members of Congress like Bart Stupak and Joe Wilson household names, and seriously depleted Obama’s approval ratings.

By the end of 2009, we warned that a failure to pass healthcare would mean more trouble than security for the Democratic caucuses in Congress.

Now that it’s passed, the tables have turned. Republicans warn that a “yes” vote on healthcare will mean trouble for Democrats come November, but it is the GOP that needs to start worrying.

They’ve been pursuing a strategy of “no” for the past year. Even now, they’re only suggestion is to repeal the law.

Except most of the legislation is quite popular. Measures that most voters would generally approve will be in place before July, including the end of pre-existing conditions. Young Americans could stay on their parents’ plans until they’re 26, and insurance companies would be unable to drop someone from coverage when they get sick.

One of the demographics most afraid of the overhaul - the elderly - will see huge benefits very soon, such as free preventive care and the closing of the Medicare Part D donut hole.

Republicans won’t actually want to repeal all that, will they?

Democrats, meanwhile, saved themselves a lot of trouble by proving to their base they could accomplish something. Things were looking pretty dismal here and there throughout the debate, and Democrats around the country were becoming less and less confident in Congressional leaders.

They won’t be feeling quite so disaffected come November, knowing that near-universal healthcare was achieved as promised.

Watch the President's remarks here:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Can David Plouffe Save Democrats Come November?

Summary: With this year's midterm elections scaring Democrats, David Plouffe takes the wheel and offers some advice.

Over the weekend it was reported that President Obama is taking a centralizing role in the 2010 elections for the Democratic Party. In order for his party to hold on to seats in the midterms he is reassembling the team that pushed him through the primaries and sent him to the oval office.

At the head of this effort will be his former campaign manager, David Plouffe.

Yesterday, Plouffe explained why November doesn’t need to be a nightmare for Democrats, and what Democratic candidates need to do in 2010.

From his op-ed piece in the Washington Post:

With few exceptions, the first off-year election in a new president's term has led to big gains for the minority party -- this was true for Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. After two election cycles in which Democrats won most of the close races and almost all of the big ones, Democrats have much more fragile turf to defend this year than usual. Add to that a historic economic crisis, stubborn unemployment and the pain that both have inflicted on millions of Americans, and you have a recipe for a white-knuckled ride for many of our candidates.

But not if Democrats do what the American people sent them to Washington to do…

… Many of last year's accomplishments are down payments on those principles.
We still have much to do before November, and time is running short. Every race has unique characteristics, but there are a few general things that Democrats can do to strengthen our hand.

-- Pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay. Americans' health and our nation's long-term fiscal health depend on it. I know that the short-term politics are bad. It's a good plan that's become a demonized caricature. But politically speaking, if we do not pass it, the GOP will continue attacking the plan as if we did anyway, and voters will have no ability to measure its upside. If we do pass it, dozens of protections and benefits take effect this year. Parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition. Workers won't have to worry that their coverage will be dropped because they get sick. Seniors will feel relief from prescription costs. Only if the plan becomes law will the American people see that all the scary things Sarah Palin and others have predicted -- such as the so-called death panels -- were baseless. We own the bill and the health-care votes. We need to get some of the upside. (P.S.: Health care is a jobs creator.)

-- We need to show that we not just are focused on jobs but also create them. Even without a difficult fiscal situation, the government can have only so much direct impact on job creation, on top of the millions of jobs created by the president's early efforts to restart the economy. There are some terrific ideas that we can implement, from tax credits for small businesses to more incentives for green jobs, but full recovery will happen only when the private sector begins hiring in earnest. That's why Democrats must create a strong foundation for long-term growth by addressing health care, energy and education reform. We must also show real leadership by passing some politically difficult measures to help stabilize the economy in the short term. Voters are always smarter than they are given credit for. We need to make our case on the economy and jobs -- and yes, we can remind voters where Republican policies led us -- and if we do, without apology and with force, it will have impact.

-- Make sure voters understand what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did for the economy. Rarely does a congressional vote or issue lend itself to this kind of powerful localization. If GOP challengers want to run ads criticizing the recovery act as wasteful, Democratic candidates should lift up the police officers, teachers and construction workers in their state or district, those who are protecting our communities, teaching our children and repairing our roads thanks to the Democrats' leadership. Highlight the small-business owners who have kept their doors open through projects funded by the act.

The recovery act has been stigmatized. We need to paint the real picture, in human terms, of what it meant in 2010. In future elections, it will be clear to all that instead of another Great Depression, Democrats broke the back of the recession with not a single Republican vote in the House. In the long run, this will haunt Republicans, especially since they made the mess.

-- Don't accept any lectures on spending. The GOP took us from a $236 billion surplus when President Bush took office to a $1.3 trillion deficit, with unpaid-for tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars and the Medicare prescription drug program. Republicans' fiscal irresponsibility has never been matched in our country's history. We have potent talking points on health care, honest budgeting and cuts in previously sacrosanct programs. Republicans will try to win disingenuously by running as outsiders. We must make them own their record of disastrous economic policies, exploding deficits, and a failure to even attempt to solve our health care and energy challenges.

During the campaign, who will be whispering in Republican ears? Watching GOP leaders talking about health care the past few days, it was easy to imagine lobbyists and big health insurance executives leaning over their shoulders, urging death to health insurance reform. When it comes to cracking down on the banks and passing tough financial regulatory reform, GOP leaders will be dancing to the tune of Wall Street lobbyists and opposing tougher oversight, as if the financial crisis never happened. We need to lay it out plainly: If you put the GOP back in charge, lobbyists and huge corporate special interests will be back in the driver's seat. Workers and families will get run over, just like they did in the past decade.

-- "Change" is not just about policies. In 2006, Democrats promised to drain the swamp and won back Congress largely because the American people soured on corrupt Republican leadership. Many ethics reforms were put in place by the Democrats. But a recent Gallup poll showed that a record 55 percent of Americans think members of Congress have low ethics, up from only 21 percent in 2000. In particular, we have to make sure the freshman and sophomore members of the House who won in part on transparency and reform issues can show they are delivering. The Republicans will suggest they have changed their spots, but the GOP cannot hold a candle to us on reform issues. Let's make sure we own this space.

-- Run great campaigns. Many Democrats won congressional and statewide races in 2006 and 2008 with ideal conditions. Some races could have been won with mediocre campaigns. Not this year. Our campaigns can leave no stone unturned, from believing in the power of grass-roots volunteers and voter registration, to using technology and data innovatively, to raising money -- especially with big corporate interests now freed up to dump hundreds of millions of dollars to elect those who will do their bidding. Democratic candidates must do everything well. Each one must make sure that the first-time voters from 2008 living in your state or district -- more than 15 million nationwide -- are in their sights. Build a relationship with those voters, organize them and educate them. On Nov. 3, many races are sure to be decided by just a few thousand if not a few hundred votes. These voters can make the difference. We have to show them that their 2008 votes mattered, and passing health insurance reform is one way to start.

-- No bed-wetting. This will be a tough election for our party and for many Republican incumbents as well. Instead of fearing what may happen, let's prove that we have more than just the brains to govern -- that we have the guts to govern. Let's fight like hell, not because we want to preserve our status, but because we sincerely believe too many everyday Americans will continue to lose if Republicans and special interests win.

This country is at a crossroads. We are trying to boost the economy in the short term while also doing the long-term work on health care, energy, education and financial reform that will lay a strong foundation for decades to come. Let's remember why we won in 2008 and deliver on what we promised. If Democrats will show the country we can lead when it's hard, we may not have perfect election results, but November will be nothing like the nightmare that talking heads have forecast.

Plouffe certainly proved himself to be worthy of political-campaign-person praise after his remarkable leadership with the Obama campaign in 2008. In my opinion, his grasp on the situation this year should be taken seriously, and Democrats should be grateful to have him in the driver’s seat.

Editorial: Why Brown’s Victory is Not the End of the World

Summary: Dave and Eric at WAYLA ponder the impact of the special election in Massachusetts.

Tuesday’s election in the Bay State sent a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy’s former seat. Needless to say, it’s been considered a devastating blow to President Obama and the Democratic Party.

To be sure, things would certainly be easier for the Democrats if they had a filibuster-proof Senate, capable of passing critical legislation in spite of an obstructionist minority party. But even with the GOP holding 41 seats, it does not mean the end of the world for Democrats.

In fact, it might prove beneficial for them, and for Obama’s legacy.

Following Scott Brown’s victory, Obama signaled that he would not move on healthcare legislation - a key factor in the Massachusetts race and the primary issue behind the slow pace of Congress - until the senator-elect was seated. The president also said he would meet with Brown to discuss the bill before it reappears in the Senate.

Can such meaningful legislation be passed when Democrats have to work with Republicans?

Skeptics readily say “no” to that question. In a Washington Post op-ed today, columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. claims the election demonstrated an inherent contradiction in what he calls “Obamaism”:

"As a candidate, Obama pledged to change the tone in Washington and restore amicable relations between the parties. But he also promised to accomplish large things, including a substantial reform of the health-care system, major action to ease global warming, and a reshaped and more responsible financial system.

At some point, Obama's ambitions were destined to collide with the views of a Republican Party fundamentally opposed to almost everything he wants to do. Obama could try to get big things done or he could work easily with Republicans, but he could not do both."

During his campaign, Obama often spoke about skeptics, critics, and nay-sayers as well.

In 1982, President Reagan was confronted with big losses in Congress to the Democratic Party. In 1994, President Clinton saw Republicans take control of the House for the first time in a generation. These presidents regrouped, shook it off, and worked with the opposition.

Under Reagan, the country saw a defense build-up that scared the Soviet Union, all the while not neglecting domestic priorities. Under Clinton the country pulled out of record deficits and created record surpluses, all the while keeping the economy strong. Plus they both got re-elected the very next cycle.

These were their legacies, and it could be Obama’s too.

There is no shortage of study on why Americans prefer divided government. They do not like the idea of one party being drunk on power.

Well, 2008 was one hell of a wild party, and on Tuesday Democrats began to sober up.

This is important if the Democrats want to hold on to power. For six years the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House, passing remarkably poor policy with their dominance. The way they saw it, if voters approved of what you said, they’ll automatically approve of what you’ll do. Karl Rove added the fuel to the fire, claiming the Republican Party would have an unmitigated era of electoral dominance.

Democrats need to steer clear of this sort of arrogance.

Now, we’ll never cheer for a Republican to win. Nor can we be certain that Scott Brown’s place in the Senate will make anything better for anyone. But Brown’s victory is not the worst thing that could happen to the Democratic Party. We should be grateful it happened now, giving us time to learn our lessons before November.

Don’t think of his upset as the end, think of it as a new beginning.

GOP and Democrats Lay Out 2010 Plans to Control the House

Summary: As the Democrats and Republicans lay out their 2010 strategy, who will need a miracle to reach their goal?


Following a strategy session in Annapolis this week, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) laid out the GOP’s plans to retake the lower chamber.

First and foremost they will use what they call the “80-20 strategy” which basically calls for attacking Democrats on the stimulus, healthcare, and cap-and-trade 80% of the time, and offering their own ideas the remaining 20% of the time this year.

Knowing that they’re even less popular than the Democrats in the minds of the voters, Republican candidates have to focus the majority of their time on attacks.

From Politico:

Republicans aren’t as delusional as some think: They know they aren’t going to win a popularity contest with the public right now. But Republicans don’t think they have to, as long as the public remains down on Democratic rule.

“It is in the mind-set of the public right now: Washington’s out of control,” Cantor said. “They do not have the economic security in their life yet. The 10 months’ time [until the election] is not enough for people to regain their sense of security, no matter where this unemployment rate goes.”

A newly released CNN/Opinion Research poll shows a majority of Americans disapprove of the president’s handing of every domestic issue surveyed — health care policy, the economy, taxes, unemployment and the budget deficit, some by double-digit margins…

…Cantor’s chief deputy whip, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), said the administration’s suggestion that the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent is “going to be the equivalent of [former President] George [W.] Bush landing on the [USS Abraham] Lincoln and saying, ‘Mission accomplished.’”

They will also try to capitalize on the anti-incumbency trends of the moment, offer “a check and a balance to unfettered power”, and try to support more minority candidates.

Republican leaders recognize that their party is embarrassingly white, but they estimate that one-quarter of its top 100 candidates will be minorities. Cantor concedes the lack of diversity in his party today is a big concern. Van Tran, a California State Assembly member who left Vietnam at age 10 in a C-130 military cargo plane, is among the minority recruits they think can win. He is running against Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez.

Another bright recruit is Hispanic state Rep. Jaime Herrera, running to fill the seat of retiring Democratic Rep. Brian Baird in Washington. Cantor is taking steps to ensure more diversity: This week, he endorsed Ryan Frazier, an African-American city councilman running against Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), even though he’s facing a competitive primary against a former aide to McCain’s presidential campaign.

The 20% of the year they’ll devote to propagating their own ideas will come after Labor Day, at which point they will lay out what Cantor calls “a 21st-century blueprint” that will echo the successful “Contract with America” of 1994.

Cantor says it would start with jobs, then go on to promising a level playing field for investments. Aides say it would be more general than the bill-by-bill roster of the “Contract,” instead focusing on vaguer principles. Tax cuts will be included, too.

Are the numbers there? Well, almost, they hope.

Republicans admit they will need some breaks — a lot of them. They hope Democratic retirements — now at 10 seats — inch up to at least 15. Republicans hope they can win 70 percent of those seats, then defeat 10 percent to 15 percent of incumbents. The spin that the party gives to its prospects: 48 Democrats now sit in districts won by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008. Nearly every one of these races has at least one credible Republican or will soon get one. In addition, according to National Republican Campaign Committee data, 32 Democrats won with less than 55 percent of the vote in 2008. Of 10 Democratic open seats, Republicans will be on offense in at least eight. In 13 Republican open seats, Democrats have fielded strong challengers in only two. Remember: This is the Cantor-GOP spin, but it’s not that far from reality.

Meanwhile, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is arguing that Republicans simply won’t be able to achieve such an ambitious goal.

As Democratic leaders see things, the economic situation is going to look a lot more promising in the fall than it does right now. And once you factor in the deeply tainted Republican brand and drill down and look at the 435-seat map on a district-by-district basis, the chances of waking up Nov. 3 to a Republican majority in the House are virtually nil.

“We’ve been saying this would be a tough election year, but it’s a hallucination for Republican leaders to think they’ll take back the House — this is not 1994 déjà vu,” [DCCC] Chairman Chris Van Hollen told POLITICO. “They have to persuade the American people to hand them over the keys, to the same folks who drove the economy into the ditch and now run away from the scene of the accident. All the proposals, the same proposals that got us into the economic mess we’re in.”

While party strategists are, at least privately, steeling for moderate-to-heavy losses in 2010, the range is nowhere near the 40 seats necessary for the GOP to return to power in the House. And that’s an assessment that many nonpartisan analysts seem to share — not to mention Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who recently conceded the same.

First there is the issue of trust, and not many Americans trust the GOP brand.

Given the disrepair of the Republican brand, it’s not entirely clear that the party will be able to capture the anger and frustration that exists in the electorate. Consider this data point from a recent Rasmussen Reports poll: the “Tea Party” outpolls the Republican Party on the generic congressional ballot, 23 percent to 18 percent. Democrats, meanwhile, outpaced them both with 36 percent.

Second, there’s the issue of money. The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) currently has $11 million less cash-on-hand than the DCCC - about a quarter of the DCCC’s funds for helping candidates.

Usually the NRCC is able to rely on the Republican National Committee for money - but as we mentioned earlier, the RNC managed to burn through about $95 million in 2009, and now is struggling to come up with additional funds for a more important year.

“If you take the Republican numbers on how many recruits they have ... and divide it with the amount of cash on hand, they don’t have the funds to compete in these districts,” said Van Hollen. “It’s going to be a wake-up call to some of these candidates when they see the people urging them on don’t have the resources.”…

…All of this means the NRCC will probably have to rely on outside conservative third-party groups to lend a hand. And, well, sometimes they can be a little off-message, which won’t be helpful with independent voters.

Third, there’s a civil war within the Republican Party.

Remember the New York 23 special election? That didn’t turn out so well for the GOP. There’s lots more where that came from. According to Democratic estimates, there are anywhere from a dozen to as many as 50 GOP primaries where a conservative grass-roots/tea party candidate is vying with a Republican incumbent or candidate.

Not much good can come of that. It will force candidates to the right — jeopardizing their general election chances in many districts — and raises the prospect of numerous bloodied Republican nominees limping out of the primary season.

Van Hollen also argues that Democrats will win on the economy - a bit of a dice-roll, but something that could pay-off some big dividends.

In the end, the state of the economy will play an enormous role in determining the outcome of the midterm House elections. While a rough economy will obviously hurt Democratic candidates, the economic recovery plan has taken the country out of free-fall and started to stabilize the economy — Democrats will get the credit for it, as well as for cleaning up the mess left by the previous administration and the Republican Congress.

“Republicans have been rooting for failure, and that’s not the way to win elections,” Van Hollen said. “I think that the big issue will be the state of the economy and whether or not voters have confident things will turn around. We’ve got a long way to go in political time, and as we begin to turn the corner on the economy, I believe people’s confidence will be restored.”

As for the government’s fiscal matters associated with the economy, Democrats may be getting a leg up from the Obama Administration. President Obama blasted Wall Street in a statement today, saying “we want our money back.”

From the AP:

It was an emphatic and populist tone for a president keenly aware of public antipathy toward Wall Street. With the sharp words, he also tried to deflect some of the growing skepticism aimed at his own economic policies as unemployment stubbornly hovers around 10 percent.

Obama said big banks had acted irresponsibility, taken reckless risk for short-term profits and plunged into a crisis of their own making. He cast the struggle ahead as one between the financial industry and average people.

"We are already hearing a hue and cry from Wall Street, suggesting that this proposed fee is not only unwelcome but unfair, that by some twisted logic, it is more appropriate for the American people to bear the cost of the bailout rather than the industry that benefited from it, even though these executives are out there giving themselves huge bonuses," Obama said.

And with the anti-establishment nature of public opinion right now, the way Obama called out Wall Street today is something Democratic strategists have been waiting for.

Are the numbers there for the Democrats though?

Republicans simply cannot hit the magic number of 40 seats without a surge in

Democratic retirements. And so far, the number of retirements is not at alarming levels.

In total, 31 House Democrats announced their retirement in 1994. This year? So far, only 10 Democrats, which is not only below the historic norm, but also below the overall number of Republicans — 13, to be exact — who aren’t seeking reelection. And there probably aren’t that many more Democratic retirements to come. Van Hollen has been aggressive in reaching out to possible retirees and has received commitments from most of those who represent the seats most at risk that they’re running for another term.

Back in November, I estimated that Democrats would lose roughly 10-15 House seats this year. An optimistic estimate for the Democrats? Yes. But consider the CQ Map, which still finds a net gain for Democrats in non-toss-up seats. Even if the GOP were to win every toss-up seat, it would only be a net gain of 12 seats over the Democrats.


Hitting 40 will take a miracle for the Republicans.

Recent Developments Confirming 2010 Political Trends…

Three articles - all from Politico - today seem to give weight to important trends we’ve been discussing looking forward to the 2010 midterm elections.

Irritated Arkansas Liberals

We’ve been talking quite a lot about the unsatisfied liberal base of the Democratic Party, and how it may be the greatest threat to Democratic candidates this year. Nowhere is this more evident - apparently - than in Arkansas, where Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln is under pressure from both right and left.

From the article:

Even before Lincoln announced her opposition to the public health insurance option, she had frustrated Arkansas progressives with her opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act. Some in the African-American community, meanwhile, have complained that the senator hasn’t been aggressive enough in promoting black judges to the federal courts.

While, according to some state political observers’ estimates, liberal voters account for only 15 percent to 25 percent of the voting public in Arkansas, their unrest has further imperiled her political standing as the sole Southern Democratic senator up for reelection in 2010.

Polling shows Lincoln’s support from liberals in the state has fallen precipitously in recent months. A survey in late August by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling showed Lincoln with 66 percent approval among voters who identified themselves as liberal. By November, another PPP survey found her approval among that group dropping to 50 percent.

The disaffection from the party base comes as a slew of public polls show Lincoln badly trailing several prospective GOP opponents. A Rasmussen Reports poll out last week showed Lincoln receiving less than 40 percent against four separate Republican contenders — an ominous sign for an incumbent.

“I think that anger on the left — as small a group as it may be — is a serious problem for her,” said John Brummett, an Arkansas News columnist who is a longtime observer of the state’s political scene. “In a close race — which this is going to be — an invigorated base is vital.”

Apparently, labor leaders and others are waiting to see if Lt. Gov. Bill Halter will challenge Lincoln in a primary. Halter is expected to be more appealing to the liberal base of Arkansas’s Democrats.

Open Seat in Michigan for GOP?

Politico is also reporting that moderate Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) is considering a bid for Michigan’s open gubernatorial race. Knowing he’d do better in a general election than a primary, Stupak says he’s waiting to see how the rest of the field looks before entering the race.

But by leaving the house, it could easily mean a GOP pickup in what’s likely to be a GOP year.

From the article:

Democrats would have trouble holding on to his first district seat, which includes a conservative northern swath of the Wolverine state and the Upper Peninsula. DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) has called Stupak about running for reelection to the House, Stupak said.

As we’ve mentioned before, Democratic retirements for political advancement could mean trouble holding on to the lower seats. Just across Lake Michigan, Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) decided to sacrifice a gubernatorial run in part - no doubt - because it could have been a possible Republican win in his current district.

A Conservative Base with No Reservations

Meanwhile, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) will be holding their annual convention with Glenn Beck as their keynote speaker.

It should almost sound strange that the premier Washington beltway group of the right would be addressed by a conspiracy-theory-holding, populist-inspiring mouthpiece. Yet Washington conservatives are becoming increasingly warm to the Tea Party movement, hoping it can deliver them votes in November.

By listening to a Tea Party conservative like Beck, they hope to be able to tap into this movement.

More on the Democratic Base Discontent

There was a good discussion on “Morning Joe” today that provides some food-for-thought regarding our recent post on the unrest in the Democratic base.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Don’t forget, tomorrow is our final segment of “Hollywood Does Politics!” We’ll be bringing you our Top 5 Political Campaign Movies, but we want to hear from you too.

Email us some of you favorite movies about political campaigns at Dave@HogensenStrategies.com and we’ll mention them in our post!

Will Progressives Backlash Over Healthcare Reform?

Summary: With Lieberman holding up the Senate healthcare bill, Democrats need to explore their options looking forward to 2010.

Every liberal in the country following the ongoing healthcare debate is furious. Much of this anger is directed at one man in particular: Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT).

After Senate Democrats met to reach a compromise bill that could pass the 60-vote threshold for cloture, they cut the public option and replaced it with a plan to allow 55-64-year-olds to opt-in to Medicare, and give the government power to negotiate non-profit plans with private insurance companies.

For Lieberman, that was not good enough. He continued to threaten a “no” vote on cloture, preventing a final up-or-down vote on the bill. The White House pushed Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to accommodate Lieberman’s concerns and cut the Medicare expansion provision.

Progressives, who have argued that reform without a public option is hardly reform at all, seemed to wake up to the threat Lieberman poses for passage of a bill. Headlines from the Huffington Post this week read along the lines of the Connecticut Senator holding healthcare hostage.

To be sure, the fight over healthcare reform on the part of political activists is still heavy on the conservative end, but as this recent Politico video demonstrates, neither side of the debate is happy with Lieberman.



What other developments have come out of Lieberman’s stubbornness?

• Liberals are becoming as likely to oppose the Senate bill as conservatives. Former DNC Chairman - and a big advocate of healthcare reform - Howard Dean, M.D. told MSNBC last night that “you can’t vote for this bill in good conscience.” The video below includes Dean’s interview, as well as a lot of insight towards how progressives are feeling right now.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Now, not all liberals are going to necessarily agree. In a late-night post this morning, Nate Silver suggested that progressives were “[expletive] crazy to oppose the Senate bill.”

“I understand that most of the liberal skepticism over the Senate bill is well intentioned. But it has become way, way off the mark. Where do you think the $800 billion goes? It goes to low-income families just like these. Where do you think it comes from? We won't know for sure until the Senate and House produce their conference bill, but it comes substantially from corporations and high-income earners, plus some efficiency gains.”

Silver argues that come 2016 (even after inflation) a family of four earning $54,000 per year will still pay significantly less for coverage.


His only mistake might be that the public option would, in fact, help hold down costs. The data he uses is from a CBO report that took the public option into account. Without the public option, premiums may rise a lot faster than 7.5% per year.

• Politico reports that Lieberman’s Connecticut colleagues are “fed up” with him. U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) even told the news service “No individual should hold health care hostage, including Joe Lieberman, and I’ll say it flat out, I think he ought to be recalled.”

• When asked if he would run as a Republican when his term ends in 2012, Lieberman told CNN it was “a possibility” and that “all options are open.”

• The House Democrats are becoming increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of the Senate. Some went so far as to say “Sometimes I get the feeling that some of those guys [in the Senate] just like to see their names in the paper and see their faces on TV,” and “If you just take a look at the number of bills we’ve sent to the Senate and what they’ve done, I don’t know what they’re doing with their time honestly.”

• Upset that one or two Senators could uphold an entire bill years-in-the-making - like Lieberman and Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) have done with healthcare - Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) recently announced that he was considering introducing a bill that would eliminate the Senate filibuster.

From the Omaha World-Herald:

"It really is an abuse," Harkin said. "It's an abuse of a person's position as a senator to demand, because we need one more vote, just to demand everything. It's really unfair to the rest of the Senate, rest of the caucus."

He said lots of senators, himself included, have to come to terms with disappointments in the health care bill.

"To sort of lay down an ultimatum, 'Well, it's got to be this or nothing and I'm walking away from it,' well that's not the way you do legislation," Harkin said. "If you want to be a legislator, maybe it's not the right place for a person to be that takes a position like that."

Harkin said he's not sure about the level of support among other senators for eliminating the filibuster. He noted that he proposed legislation to do so years ago.

But perhaps Joe Scarborough made the best point this morning on his MSNBC program, “Morning Joe”, where he said that passing a healthcare bill progressives were unhappy with would be worse for the party’s 2010 prospects than they realize. It would keep the base at home come election time in November.

We made a similar assertion a few weeks ago when we listed the Top 5 things Democrats needed to do in 2010:

“Make sure the base believes in you. Many moderate Democrats in Congress seem to think that the only way they can win a re-election is by opposing the current healthcare reform bills. But the surest way to be defeated is to fail on healthcare reform. The base believed in you in 2006 and 2008 because you said you would bring change - if you fail them with big margins in Congress and control of the White house they will not help your re-election campaign and they may stay home on Election Day. That would be the surest way for a Democrat to lose. If the base doesn’t show up, you’re finished. If you’re running for re-election, you must fulfill at least some of your basic promises to your supporters.”

Democrats do have some leverage over Lieberman that they still seem reluctant to use: his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Threatening to strip him of that role if he filibusters a favorable healthcare bill is the only way Senate Democrats can expect to pass a bill and keep the base happy.

In fact, most Americans agree with this course of action. A recent Research 2000 poll found that a plurality of Americans (by a 47%-32% margin) support this punishment. More importantly, 81% of the Democratic base agrees.

The healthcare debate is sure to shape the outcomes of the 2010 midterm elections. The Tea Parties have been strong and they may drive some key GOP victories. But Democrats need to be equally concerned about alienating their own supporters. 2010 will be a backlash year for Democrats, but fail on healthcare reform and the hardest backlash will come from the progressive base.

Where Will the GOP Make Gains in 2010?

Summary: Should Republicans target conservative rural districts or moderate suburban districts?

Assuming the Republicans pick up a few seats in Congress next year, what kind of districts can we expect them to pick up?

Based on recent ad buys from the NRCC, it seems that Republicans believe the seats they pick up will be from more rural areas in traditionally red states. Recently they released this basic ad attacking veteran Congressmen Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Vic Snyder (D-AR), and John Spratt Jr. (D-SC) for their support of the House healthcare bill:



Now, CQPolitics.com has each of these districts as either likely Democratic or safe Democratic going into next year - but all three went for McCain in 2008, which was a good year for Democrats. Republicans now hope that enough discontent with the Democrats has built up in these districts so that the incumbency effect won’t play out in 2010.

At the same time, other Democrats are beginning to feel threatened about losing their blue-leaning suburban districts next year, which they see as the obvious point for Republican attack.

From a recent article in Politico:

Suburban Democrats are bracing to defend their recent gains amid unmistakable signs of volatility among an electorate that is impatient with the pace of economic recovery.

Their concerns are coming into sharp focus amid ongoing developments in Nassau County, N.Y., where County Executive Tom Suozzi, a rising star in New York politics and a prominent suburban Democratic politician, might lose his seat in a recount.

Suozzi’s predicament comes on the heels of other troubling developments in some of the nation’s largest suburban counties, including nearby Democratic Westchester County, where voters tossed out County Executive Andrew Spano in a startling upset Nov. 3…

…That sentiment applied up and down the East Coast in the 2009 off-year elections, as suburbanites registered their discontent by rejecting Democratic incumbents, even in typically blue-tinted counties.

Across the Hudson River, in New Jersey, Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine lost his reelection bid, and his Republican opponent came within striking distance of victory in suburban Bergen County, a Democratic area and the largest county in the state. Gov.-elect Chris Christie also bested Corzine in Middlesex County, a suburban bellwether that President Barack Obama won by 22 points in 2008.

In the Virginia governor’s race, the news for Democrats was hardly better: Republican Bob McDonnell trounced Democrat Creigh Deeds in nearly every suburban Northern Virginia county that supported Obama last year. The only holdouts, Arlington County and the city of Alexandria, were the closest municipalities to Washington.

…“Suburban voters tend to be independent, intelligent, and they listen and they make up their minds,” [says Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA)] “They would take a chance on Chris Christie rather than electing Jon Corzine. McDonnell ran a much better campaign than Deeds did.”

Of course, there still haven’t been any races that suggest Democrats will do poorly in the suburbs in federal races, in which local issues do not play as large of a roll. In fact, Democrats actually picked up a rural red-leaning district in 2009 on the federal side.

Top 5 Things Republicans and Democrats Must Do in 2010

Summary: Both parties will be facing tough battles for their seats in 2010. Here are the top five things for each party to pay attention to going into election season.

Yesterday I went through the data and analysis of the new Gallup poll which found the GOP to be leading the Democrats on the generic ballot, and the most recent Cook Political Report ratings.

As promised, I’m using our analysis to bring you the top five things the GOP and Democrats will want to do to maximize their vote potentials in next year’s midterm elections.


Top 5 Thing Republicans Must Do:

1) Don’t get caught up in primaries. If there is any lesson Republicans should have learned from their recent gubernatorial victory in Virginia, it’s that they ought to speak to the middle as quickly as possible. Primaries can be a good thing - particularly for raising name recognition of the eventual nominee, and giving a slew of candidates the chance to bash the other side together - but they also require a pandering to a base that, for Republicans, is a bit outside the political mainstream. Of course, it will be difficult to avoid primaries - Republicans see 2010 as a good year for them, and as such, they all want to take advantage of an opportunity to advance themselves personally - but the state parties, the RNSC and RNCC should all do what they can to avoid such battles for the base.

2) Use the Tea Party folks wisely. These right-wing protesters are fired up and ready to go, and such conservative activists could be a valuable resource to a Republican’s campaign - knocking on doors, making phone calls, and donating small amounts of money. However, they could be a burden. If you, as a GOP candidate, hold a rally with such activists bringing in signs depicting President Obama as Hitler or the Joker, your campaign will end up being sidetracked by your opponents and the media over the actions of your supporters. That would put you in the difficult position of maintaining the base support while looking appealing to the middle. Your campaign should actively pursue the Tea Party folks, but they should also make sure these activists don’t bring offensive signs to rallies, blog, or - worst of all - talk to the press.

3) Steer clear of “special interests” for 2010. PACs bring in a lot of money, which is always valuable, but if there’s one thing that could lose confidence in the Tea Partiers, it’s special interest money. Simply put, the Tea Parties are part of a larger populist backlash to the bailouts and lobbyists who secure grants under the stimulus bill. If your war chest is found to be connected to a banking firm or any other Wall Street group, it could hinder the confidence the base has in you.

4) Work had to find a balanced message. Using Tea Party activists will not always be easy. Democrats are going to want to tie you to Glenn Beck and the rest of the crazy right - but you can’t let them if you want to win. Republicans must appeal to the middle while still firing up the conservative base. The easiest thing to stress, of course, will be deficit spending. This will embolden the base and still sound perfectly reasonable to mainstream voters. There are all sorts of ways to carefully craft a message that achieves both goals, but it’s of the utmost importance to get it right, especially for Republicans and especially for 2010.

5) Don’t hold back on attacks. Relentless criticism of the Democrats is what’s going to win this election. Never miss an opportunity to attack an incumbent Democrat, even if he or she is not in your district. Criticize Obama’s “out-of-control” spending, Pelosi’s no-holds-barred style in the House, and Charlie Rangel’s tax issues as much as possible - and tie your opponent to that culture of spending, corruption, etc. Democrats will want to tout all the good things they’ve done, but you have to constantly remind voters that their governance has not been perfect - and suggest you can do better.


Top 5 Things Democrats Must Do:

1) Make sure the base believes in you. Many moderate Democrats in Congress seem to think that the only way they can win a re-election is by opposing the current healthcare reform bills. But the surest way to be defeated is to fail on healthcare reform. The base believed in you in 2006 and 2008 because you said you would bring change - if you fail them with big margins in Congress and control of the White house they will not help your re-election campaign and they may stay home on Election Day. That would be the surest way for a Democrat to lose. If the base doesn’t show up, you’re finished. If you’re running for re-election, you must fulfill at least some of your basic promises to your supporters.

2) Know your district. No campaign is the same - each one must tailor specifically to the appropriate constituency. If you’re running to replace another Democrat, ask yourself “was he popular?” If not, distance yourself from him, if he was, then win his support publicly. Is your district home to a lot of healthcare provider employees? Then figure out how to frame an argument for reform in a way that proves it will be beneficial to them. Is the district urban, suburban, or rural? Each will have it’s own implications for how you should explain your positions on energy, spending, etc.

3) Make it about you, not your party. 2010 is a backlash year. The Democrats in Washington and in the state capitals have not achieved everything they set out for simply because changing laws and improving government takes time. If you’re an incumbent, make sure to tout all the good things you’ve already done for the district specifically, such as Harry Reid is doing in Nevada. If you’re running for a new office, explain why your experience (doing whatever) makes you a particularly good candidate to help bring change. Don’t let your message get caught up in supporting the president and the ideals of the Democratic Party - show how you personally will be an effective leader with an independent streak.

4) Watch the unemployment rate closely. If your district has high unemployment right now, you need to be concerned - but if the stimulus has not successfully provided more jobs by October of next year you’ll be in a panic. If you’re an incumbent you need to get to work next year helping the unemployed. If you’re not an incumbent you will really need to tout that independent streak, explaining why the stimulus and the bailout hasn’t helped your constituency, and how you will make it better for them. Jobs are the biggest issue for the voter who has lost one - you must give them reason not to blame you for that.

5) Campaign like your job depends on it - because it does. If there’s one thing Democrats should have learned from the Virginia race, it’s that campaigns matter - and lackluster campaigning just won’t do. Democrats everywhere are worried, and rightfully so. Sure, I don’t expect too many Democratic seats to be lost next year, but that doesn’t mean you can sit back and relax. It will take a clever campaign staff, experienced consultants, and hard work to win in 2010. Make sure you keep track of how well you’re doing - with internal polls, message testing, Voter ID operations, etc. - and learn where you need to improve. Get out early and get out often to meet voters, raise money, and get positive press coverage. Anything short of everything will put you at risk.

Will Young Voters Continue to Help Democrats?

Summary: The progressive Millennial generation appears to be less engaged since 2008 - is there any way for the Democrats to turn that around?

Politico today has a potentially troubling article for Democrats looking forward to next year’s midterm elections.

From the article:

In New Jersey, about 377,000 of the 560,000 young voters who showed up at the polls supported Obama. In Virginia, about 373,000 out of 621,000 young voters backed Obama.

But some young Democrats say that energy surge has begun to dissipate and student political involvement for the 2009 races has returned to normal — before the Obama phenomenon seemed to transfix young voters.

At the University of Virginia last October, political signs plastered dorm room walls, and campaign volunteers saturated the campus.

Now, volunteers canvassing first-year dorms report that many students have no idea who [Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh] Deeds is.

The article points out, however, that this is not exactly a phenomenon.

Historically, gubernatorial races suffer from low voter turnout across all age groups. Experts already expect less than half of last year’s electorate will cast a vote in either state. And young voters are often one of the first age groups politicians lose in an off-year election, making it vital for Democrats to round up a solid showing, according to Peter Levine, director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement…

…New voters haven’t entirely dropped from the political process. A number of college Democrats say their membership numbers are steadily climbing and that more students are likely to become interested in the races during the final weeks. Those who are tuned in to the campaigns say they’ve been impressed by the extensive outreach both campaigns are making on social media forums including Facebook and Twitter, and by the campaigns’ grass-roots efforts on campuses…

…The [Deeds] campaign is also relying for additional outreach on a television ad aimed at college students.

In the ad Priority, Deeds tries to relate to the financial struggles of college students.
“Growing up, we didn’t have much. But education was always a priority,” Deeds says in the ad. “My mom sent me off to college with just four twenty-dollar bills, so I know good schools are the best investment we can make in our children’s future.”

In New Jersey, Corzine recently tailgated with hundreds of Rutgers University alumni and students before the school’s homecoming game. Despite last-minute advertising, only 30 of the campus Democrats’ nearly 300 members showed up, according to Rutgers University Democrats President Alex Holodak.

“To be honest, it’s been a rough year. Even though the race is getting more interesting minute by minute, it’s more difficult to get people engaged this year,” said Holodak. “I feel like the overall morale of people is like, ‘We already elected the president,’ and that’s it.”

We’ve mentioned before how young voters are dramatically shifting overall public opinion, but without a strong effort to turnout the youth vote, they probably won’t help shift public policy.

One reason that young voters are less likely to be engaged during midterm elections - which the article only briefly mentions - is that college students often do not attend a school in their home state. As a result, they feel less invested in the outcome of a statewide election than they do in a national one.

In a presidential race, most everyone on campus knows the outcome of the election could likely affect them personally. Even foreign exchange students understand it is important who the president of the United State is. That cannot really be said of a gubernatorial race.

The Deeds and Corzine campaigns are right to invest in targeting young voters through new media and grassroots outreach. As Lauren Gilbert - President of the James Madison University Young Democrats - said, “there’s still a lot of potential here.”

Depending on the outcomes of those efforts, they could serve as an important lesson for Democrats in 2010.

One 2010 Campaign Issue You Might Not Know About

Summary: Will a largely unnoticed vote come back to haunt two vulnerable Senators?

Republicans and Democrats alike are already framing their messages on a recent Senate vote that could hurt a few GOP politicians next year.

From The Scorecard:

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) offered an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts to companies who prevent victims from filing lawsuits against sexual assault and harassment.

Franken proposed the amendment after hearing the story of Jamie Leigh Jones, who alleges that she was brutally raped while working a contractor for Halliburton/KBR in Iraq.

But Jones was unable to press charges in court because her defense contract stipulated that any such allegations can only be heard in private arbitration.

Franken’s amendment, which passed 68-30, received the support of 10 Republican senators. However, most Republicans opposed the amendment because it went against the wishes of the Defense Department, and argued it gave Congress too much influence in altering defense contracts.

Those concerns, however, are immaterial to Democratic strategists, who believe the vote will be politically costly to the two Republican senators facing competitive races – Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.).


The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pounced after the vote, putting out a statement attacking Vitter “for choosing special interests over justice and the interests of the American taxpayers.”

And a senior Democratic strategist working on defeating Vitter told POLITICO that the vote will “very likely” come up in a campaign ad next year.

Republicans point out that the amendment was opposed by a host of business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and applies to a wide range of companies, including IBM and Boeing.

“This misleading, partisan attack makes clear yet again just how out of touch Democrats in Washington are with the serious issues facing average Americans," said National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Brian Walsh.

"Our country is facing rising unemployment, a record federal debt and and more government spending than at any point in history. Yet, the Democrats are talking about Halliburton."

It’s not exactly easy to defend a “no” vote on that amendment. It might not be a nail in the coffin for Vitter and Burr, but it sure won’t help them with the female demographic. Even conservative women will have an adverse response to these Republicans when they see the attack ads that will come from that vote.

Who’s Smarter - Democrats or Republicans?

Summary: Results that break along partisan lines beg the question: Who's smarter - Democrats or Republicans? You must read to find out!

Okay, that’s a loaded question. Back in March we asked “Who Leads Healthier Lives - Democrats or Republicans?” but with that we could actually back up our claims with statistics.

Ultimately, we said:

“the most realistic conclusion to make is that political ideology has little-to-no bearing on the well-being of an individual. A more obvious trend is healthiness by region - those living in the Western states tend to be particularly healthy while those living in the Rust Belt and Appalachia are among the unhealthiest of Americans.”

When it comes to brain health - however - we see some very obvious partisan lines.

A new study on brain health by state finds that “blue states” were healthier than the “red states.” Although the study did not focus on politics at all, it was not difficult to put two-and-two together.

According to this “Index of Brain Health” the top ten “brainiest” states in the country (including the District of Columbia) are as follows:

1) Washington, D.C.
2) Maryland
3) Washington state
4) Vermont
5) Connecticut
6) Colorado
7) Massachusetts
8) New Jersey
9) Maine
10) New Hampshire

With the exception of Colorado - a swing state - all of the top ten are solid Democratic-supporting states.

Conversely, these are the bottom ten “brainiest” states:

42) Indiana
43) North Dakota
44) South Carolina
45) Arkansas
46) Kentucky
47) Tennessee
48) Mississippi
49) Alabama
50) Oklahoma
51) Louisiana

With the exception of Indiana, all of these states went for Sen. John McCain in last year’s presidential election, and all ten are considered fairly reliable for Republicans.

For those Republicans who are undoubtedly upset with this so far, let me reassure you that this isn’t all about “intelligence.” U.S. News & World Report explains the study:

Diet represented 36 percent of each state's score. Of several factors used to calculate the brain-healthfulness of the foods each state eats, sales of fish and DHA-fortified foods were weighed most heavily; they made up 10 percent and 12 percent, respectively, of the diet score. Measures of the population's physical health accounted for 25 percent of each state's overall score; mental health accounted for 24 percent; and social well-being 15 percent. In all, 21 measures went into calculating each score. The creators of the index examined existing data on these metrics for all the states and the District of Columbia. The data came from agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

You don't have to be a genius to understand why the index, dubbed the "life's DHA Index of Brain Health," was based partly on DHA consumption. Its developer and sponsor, Martek Biosciences Corp., produces dietary supplements and products rich in DHA omega-3 fatty acids, including the life's DHA brand. Studies suggest omega-3s can be important to healthy brain development.

"Our goal was to draw attention to the fact that your brain health isn't solely genetic—that you get to modify it," says Michael Roizen, a doctor of internal medicine and anesthesiology, author and adviser for the index.

The District of Columbia was at the top of the pack, thanks to the high amounts of fish and DHA omega-3-fortified foods and supplements consumed there, the quantity of fruits and vegetables its residents eat and the fact that many of the capital's residents are bookworms. (Interestingly, Alaska tied with D.C. in the rate at which residents read for personal interest.)

Also receiving high marks were Connecticut (ranked fifth brainiest overall), thanks in part to the quality of its education system; Massachusetts (ranked seventh), for its high rates of health insurance coverage; and New Jersey (ranked eighth), for having one of the lowest rates of psychological distress in the nation…

…"The results show that the majority of the top-10-ranked states border or are near the Atlantic or Pacific oceans," says Michael Roizen, author and adviser to the Martek index. "One hypothesis is the accessibility of fish with its healthy fats and protein."

Louisiana, the "least brainy" state, tied with Mississippi and Utah for the highest rate of involvement in religious and spiritual activities—something Martek considers a positive indicator for brain health. That measure determined 5 percent of each state's total brain health score. In addition to its low sales of fish and DHA-fortified foods, and moderately low fruit and vegetable consumption rates, the Bayou State, along with Kentucky, has the lowest breast-feeding rate in the nation. Breast-feeding naturally provides DHA omega-3, which Martek's report on the index cites as "important for brain development of infants."

At the time we simulated a possible correlation between a state’s politics and the health of its residents, we found that it wasn’t too likely that one had much to do with the other. Somehow, I doubt that this study was much more than an outlier to that conclusion. As we said at the time, though, “finding correlations between party-affiliation and things like healthiness are very interesting, and we hope to see more studies and discussions like this in the future.”

Despite the fact that these correlations still seem a bit dubious, it was indeed very interesting and we’re glad we found it.

Could 2010 Be the Year of the Independents?

Summary: Democrats aren’t expected to do as well in 2010 as in recent years. But could that actually help independent candidates?

Back in July, we asked “how bad will 2010 be for Democrats?” The answer we found was essentially a mixed review.

Basically, Democrats are in trouble on the state level across the country. Budget problems that came to each state with the recession have led most incumbent Democratic governors and lawmakers down a road of dangerous re-election prospects.

But on the federal level, things don’t look quite so bad. Despite their recent growth in popularity, the GOP still isn’t trusted by the majority of Americans on some of the nation’s most pressing issues. It’s been the conservative base that’s become more comfortable with their own party again, not swing voters.

In other words, a strict two-party system would probably lead to a successful year for Democrats on Capitol Hill, but probably not a successful 2010 in state governments.

Of course, the United States only has a loose two-party system in which independents and third party candidates are completely free to run for office.

So could that make a difference?

According to an article on Politico today, it could. Independent candidates are set to run serious campaigns for governor in at least six states that typically swing Democratic between 2009 and 2010.

In New Jersey, where Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine is seeking a second term in November, polls suggest an independent candidate is carving a sizable portion of voters out of his hide…voters will go to the polls to choose among Corzine, Republican Chris Christie, andindependent Chris Daggett, a moderate former Republican who once worked as deputy chief of staff to Gov. Tom Kean.

According to a Public Policy Polling survey released last week, Daggett is trailing in third place with 13 percent of the vote — well behind the two major party nominees but a significant portion for a non-major party candidate.

More important, the survey found that Daggett is capturing 15 percent of the Democratic vote, compared with just 7 percent of the GOP vote, in a race where the embattled Corzine can’t afford to lose much Democratic support.

“It’s Democrats who are disgusted with Corzine but who can’t quite bring themselves to vote for Christie,” noted Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling.

Daggett attributes his showing at least in part to frustration with both the Democratic and Republican parties.

“The level of distrust of both parties is very high,” Daggett told POLITICO. “You’ve got an opportunity for an independent candidate to run a different kind of campaign.”

The volatile political environment, some strategists say, is fertile ground for nontraditional candidacies.

“My guess is when there is a pox on all of your houses, people in some states are more willing to vote for an independent,” said one top Democratic strategist who is a veteran of governors’ races. “It’s a piss-poor environment, and a number of people are looking for someone new.”

Other states with strong independent campaigns already shaping up include Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Other states that could see credible third-party or independent candidates still to come include Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Maine.

My guess is that we won’t actually see any independent candidates win. Simply put, independents don’t have the party infrastructure and network of base donors and activists that the two major parties do. Like it or not, it is a major factor to consider.

However, independents do have reasonable organization in some states - Minnesota comes most to mind - and independent candidacies do appear to be the best option for a new slew of swing voters who are disappointed in the heavily-burdened Democratic Party, but are still reminded of the Bush years too much to put their faith in the Republican Party yet.


PS - be sure to check out HSG's new website: www.HogensenStrategies.com!

Top Stories: 8/25/09

Conservatives now want to protect government-run healthcare, according to a new GOP manifesto aimed to "protect Medicare and not cut it in the name of health-care reform."

Despite that flip-flop, Lincoln Mitchell tells the Huffington Post in an interesting editorial that "if the Democrats do not pass a meaningful health care bill, with a public option it will be hard to answer the question of what the purpose of the Democratic Party is."

Nate Silver from FiveThirtyEight.com tells pollsters how they should be surveying public opinion on healthcare reform.

Meanwhile, progressive groups are striking back on the GOP in defense of cap-and-trade. They are targeting five Republican members of Congress with TV ads arguing that their votes prevented green job growth.

Editorial: Why Aren’t We Winning On Healthcare Reform?

Dave at WAYLA ponders why Democrats have been losing the healthcare debate. Please note that these views do not necessarily represent the opinions of others at WAYLA. Possible rebuttals to this post to come.

As it was mentioned last week, healthcare has long been a winning issue for Democrats. Americans are rightfully dissatisfied with their healthcare system and they’ve long (and still) trusted Democrats to come up with solutions.

A recent Gallup poll indicates that as the economy is improving - or at least falling among the issues Americans are concerned about - the healthcare issue is rapidly rising among the public’s concerns.


I think it’s prudent to say most Americans aren’t falling for the claims coming from conservative pundits that the United States has the best healthcare system in the world.

Except over the past month support for reform seems to have declined. Confusion over whether or not to support a reform bill has risen 17% since July - most of that coming from people that once supported reform - and now the firm pro-reformers and anti-reformers are neck-and-neck in the polls.

How is that possible?

Political consultant Peter Daou wrote for the Huffington Post yesterday, and has some interesting insight as to why the conservative view is building momentum:

“Setting aside strategic errors by the Democrats (and there have been several in this fight), just look at how reform opponents have outgunned the White House using town halls, cable news, newspaper editorials, Freepers, Drudge, talk radio and chain emails. If I close my eyes, I'm transported back to my days on the Kerry campaign and the summer of Swift Boats, Purple Heart Band-Aids and rightwing attack machine antics. It's as though a half decade of technological advances disappeared in the blink of an eye. Forget Facebook and Twitter, it's all about Fox and MSNBC and CNN replaying images of angry protesters at town hall meetings railing against 'government takeovers.' It's about Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh spreading fear and fury. It's about anonymous emails zipping across the country, distorting the facts and sowing confusion…

Paradoxically, the attempts by Democrats to counter all this by sending emails to Obama's list and creating campaign-style fact-checking websites seem almost quaint by comparison. When a woman at a town hall spoke about ‘awakening a sleeping giant,’ she may as well have been alluding to the old media tools and techniques that have been dismissed by pundits and tech evangelists as anachronistic in the Internet age. Simply put, despite volumes of cyber-ink about the left's online prowess, and despite Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, the right can apparently dominate the national conversation using the same outlets they relied on five and ten years ago.”

But we beat all that in 2008! Barack Obama managed to overcome email rumors, conservative pundit fear-mongering, and all the other right-wing old-media tactics! What’s so different now?

The difference is there isn’t an electoral campaign, and because of that, all the progressive activism that put Obama over the top has come to a stand-still.

Sure, Obama may be using all sorts of New Media techniques just like he did during the campaign, but it wasn’t New Media that won him that election - it was the energized volunteers who knocked on doors and made phone calls. These are the most effective ways to communicate with voters, and - as WAYLA has said time and time again - Obama’s campaign was able to contact a whopping 37% more voters than the McCain campaign.

So why aren’t Democrats going door-to-door to talk to their neighbors about the benefits of healthcare reform? After all, wouldn’t that be the best way to solidify public approval of such legislative action?

This is where I can’t help but wish that Howard Dean was still Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Not only did he give the party’s activists energy, but he developed some of the most clever strategy imaginable.

While the GOP stayed vested in their 50%-plus-one (no exceptions) mindset, Dean pushed a 50-state strategy for his own party. In the short term it probably wasted resources on races where Democrats couldn’t win, but there was a long term goal behind it. By setting up races in every state, the Democratic Party could lay down the foundation for future success with campaign infrastructure and a network of donors and volunteers for future races. It was often criticized, but there’s evidence that it worked.

Yet the Dean brainchild that comes to mind most right now - however - is something that was called the Neighborhood Leadership Program. Neighborhood Leaders would go out into their community and identify Democrats who might want to get involved with the party. One of the benefits was it would give the Democrats a heads up in getting to know their neighbors and becoming friendly with them. It wasn’t just a campaign-year thing - it was a long-term program.

At the time I first learned about it, I must admit, it seemed fairly unnecessary. Why put volunteers through a year-round task of talking to neighbors about political issues? Now, I’m beginning to see the purpose.

When I looked at the DNC’s website today I couldn’t find anything about the Neighborhood Leadership Program. Then I visited my state party’s website, and could only find this page explaining that activists could call their members of Congress and go to town hall meetings. Just a year ago, I would have been able to sign up on either site as a Neighborhood Leader in a matter of seconds.

Evidently, that’s all changed. And now it appears that astroturf organizations are ready to not just kill healthcare reform, but climate change legislation as well. So far they’ve been getting away with it because there’s been an absence of progressive organizing.

So what happened?

Could it somehow be influenced by that old rivalry (driven by differences of opinion on strategy) between Dean and now-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel? Could it be that the current Chairman - Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA) - is too busy governing his state to successfully fill the shoes of his predecessor?

Could it be a lack of initiative on the part of Organizing for America? Many Democratic activists say that OFA - the remnants of the Obama campaign - isn’t actually organizing.

I keep hearing that Democrats are just too “burned-out” to make the sort of effort that conservatives are making right now. To some extent it makes sense: now that we’re in control, we’re not fighting the power like we used to - the Republicans are. But the more I think about it, the more I can’t help but believe that’s just a bad excuse.

We pointed out earlier this month that the GOP is proportionally more motivated than the Democratic Party. But guess what? There are more Democrats out there! In fact, there are about just as many energized Democrats in this country as there are energized Republicans at the moment.


In the end I just think it comes down to leadership. Ever since Dean left, there seems to be a real vacuum in the Democratic Party.

Barack Obama told us in his victory speech that the election itself was not the change everybody was seeking, just the opportunity for change. Yes, he won, but he told supporters to continue the work they were doing as volunteers for the campaign - to continue to organize for change.

I believe that progressives are ready to do so. They’ve wanted healthcare reform for so long, and they don’t want astroturfers to kill it. But it’s going to take a little organization on top before we can organize on the bottom. Otherwise the prospects for healthcare reform look pretty dismal.


UPDATE: OFA is having an online "strategy meeting" with President Obama Thursday, according to an email sent out today by former campaign manager David Plouffe. You can RSVP, submit a question, and maybe just find out what the strategy is for winning the healthcare debate.