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.

Top Stories: 8/18/09

Two economic minds tell the Huffington Post why they don't see recovery happening before the end of the year.

If you think the video of Rod Blagojevich singing an Elvis tune is embarrassing to the fallen politician, get this: disgraced former Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) will be on Dancing with the Stars!

Continuing the dicussion about State Legislatures, Tom Schaller at FiveThirtyEight.com explains why Democrats aren't reaching a national majority.

John Burns, the New York Times chief foreign correspondent, is taking questions from readers about Thursday's elections in Afghanistan.

And Fox News does it again! This time they call Senate candidate Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) "Rep. Joke Sestak" on the scrollbar.

Political Shake-Up in Wisconsin

Today WALYA reports on local politics from Wisconsin.

Today Gov. Jim Doyle (D-WI) announced he will not be seeking a third term for the state’s highest office. When news broke of his decision over the weekend it caught many in the media by surprise.

Last month, we commented on how state Democratic incumbents across the country were at risk in 2010. Doyle’s own approval rating at the time was 43%, and not long after we finished the post, another poll revealed his approval had dropped to about 34% - with 60% of voters disapproving of his performance.

Of course, Doyle has had a fairly successful second term and he made a point of it in his announcement today, listing a wide range of successes over the past year and a half. But with the impossible predicament of this year’s budget crisis - a result of revenue shortfalls attributable to the recession - no decisions he made were going to be popular.

Now, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports on the scramble for the governor’s seat:

With his decision - 15 months before the 2010 general election and lacking an heir apparent - Doyle has left potential successors on both sides enough time to run a competitive race and an open field for Democratic candidates.

Much will depend on who decides to jump in to the race for governor.

"There's no clear (Democratic) front-runner, certainly," said Joe Heim, a University of Wisconsin-La Crosse political scientist.

The obvious speculations for the Democratic ticket have been on Lt. Governor Barbara Lawton, U.S. Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

The liberal Badger State blog, BloggingBlue.com, gives their thoughts on such candidacies:

Lieutenant Governor Barb Lawton – There’s absolutely no doubt Lt. Gov. Lawton will run to succeed Gov. Doyle. According to campaign finance documents, Lt. Gov. Lawton ended the last reporting period with $50,904.18 case on hand, and once Gov. Doyle formally announces he’s not running, you can expect to see Lt. Gov. Lawton’s fundraising kick into overdrive. Lawton’s weaknesses – as I see them – are the fact that she can be tied to the Doyle administration, and as such she’ll likely face criticism for some of Gov. Doyle’s more unpopular moves as Governor. What’s more, Lawton hasn’t proven she can shine running a campaign of her own, so it will be interesting to see how she does when her campaign isn’t tied to Gov. Doyle’s.

Representative Ron Kind – Though not a full-fledged “Blue Dog” Democrat, Rep. Kind is definitely a centrist Democrat, a fact that could aid him in the parts of Wisconsin that aren’t Milwaukee or Madison. However, I’m not sure how well known Rep. Kind is in the parts of the state that don’t include his Congressional district, and so he’d have to overcome that lack of name recognition in comparison to the other Democratic challengers.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett – Mayor Barrett ran for governor in 2002, finishing second to then-Attorney General Jim Doyle in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, and I wouldn’t be at all shocked to see Barrett throw his name into the ring for 2010. Barrett was reelected Mayor of Milwaukee in 2008 by the largest margin in 40+ years, and during his time as Milwaukee’s Mayor he’s shown he’s a capable administrator/”chief executive.”

Another potential candidate that has gotten a good deal of attention since Doyle’s intentions were leaked is Dane County (Madison) Executive Kathleen Falk, who ran against Doyle in that 2002 primary and was the unsuccessful Democratic nominee for Attorney General in 2006.

Blogger “Zack W” says he wouldn’t be surprised if Falk ran again, but her loss in the “very winnable” AG race didn’t inspire confidence.

A few other names we’ve heard thrown out there are State Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Waunakee) and even Assembly Majority Leader Tom Nelson (D-Kaukauna).

Of course, none of these politicians have said whether or not they will run, but chances are there will be a very competitive Democratic primary.

And on the GOP side, there was already a very competitive primary. Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker - while probably in the lead - faces a challenge from former U.S. Rep. Mark Neumann (R-WI) and the politically unknown Appleton businessman Mark Todd.

But this will be the first time a sitting Wisconsin governor wasn’t up for re-election in 28 years, and three Republican challengers for the seat will probably not be all we see come September 2010.

Now three more Republican names have been thrown into the mix. Two of them have confirmed that they’re considering: lobbyist Bill McCoshen and former 4-term Governor Tommy Thompson, who left in 2001 to become Bush’s Secretary of Health and Human Services and later a presidential candidate in 2008. Thompson has also been speculated as a possible challenger to U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) who is up for re-election next year.

And depending on who does run, it will create a ripple effect (like the one we’ve seen in Illinois) for other Wisconsin races.

If Kind runs, for example, his rural Wisconsin seat will become extremely competitive. He was already being challenged by State Sen. Dan Kapanke (R-La Crosse) for a seat that could easily go red in 2010 without an incumbent in the race. Depending on what candidates the Democrats can produce out there (no names have yet been mentioned) it could turn into Wisconsin’s ugliest battle next year.

Similar things could happen if or when Lawton, Erpenbach, Barrett, or any other Republicans get into the race for governor. Several replacement candidates have - no doubt - already considered the ripple effect possibilities.

It will also be interesting to watch what kind of message the Democratic candidates use to try to hold on to the seat. The Journal Sentinel seems to think that Lawton will try to engage her supporters in the progressive wing of the party while distancing herself from Doyle, and that Kind will use his moderate legislative history to bring in votes from rural areas (presumably). In other words, they will try to run on a “change” basis despite the fact that their party has been in charge.

Or, they might try to build on the successes Democrats have had in Wisconsin lately - with the Great Lakes Compact, BadgerCare expansion, etc. - and hope that they can take credit for improvements in the local economy.

The Republicans will also have to rethink their message (although Walker is telling the press otherwise) because they won’t have a sitting-incumbent to attack. And depending how what kind of improvements happen locally, primary fighting could become intense on both sides.

Either way, Doyle’s decision is going to make Wisconsin a premier battleground in 2010.

Top Stories: 8/17/09

Politico examines the history of and reasons for the GOP recruiting football stars and coaches to run for office.

With all the new confusion about whether or not health care reform will include a public option, Nate Silver examines - in-depth - the chances of such a bill passing through the Senate.

Paul Krugman contrasts how healthcare reform in this country will look compared to the healthcare systems in other industrialized nations.

And the Huffington Post is starting to gather photos of the funniest town hall protest signs. So far they’re mostly coming from liberals who showed up to make fun of the anti-reform folks.

Top Stories: 8/14/09

Politico explores why the Obama town hall meetings might be a lot more calm than those for Congressional Democrats.

Adlai Stevenson III uses the Huffington Post to endorse Dan Hynes in the 2010 Illinois gubernatorial race.

Renard Sexton at FiveThirtyEight.com previews the upcoming August 20th election in Afghanistan.

And former President Bill Clinton defends his 1990s LGBT policies at the Netroots Nation conference in Pittsburg as a gay rights advocate screams at him.



Also - check out the new item under "What We're Looking At": The Redistricting Game. It's supposed to demonstrate the evils of gerrymandering, but really it's just fun to play.

New Gallup Polls on the Healthcare Debate

Despite the fact that Americans don’t seem to be happy about much of anything these days, recent trends in the Gallup polls find that Americans are becoming increasingly confident in the outlook of the U.S. economy, and increasingly satisfied with the State of the Nation. In fact, these polls are reaching all-time highs for 2009.

43% of Americans now believe the economic outlook is good (with 50% believing it’s bad) - that’s a 25% improvement since the beginning of the year.


Meanwhile, 32% of Americans say they are satisfied with the state of the nation (with 65% saying they are not) - a roughly 17% improvement since the start of 2009.


Yet the issue of healthcare has become remarkably tricky to follow in terms of public opinion. This has become even more significant since the rabid town hall protests started at the end of last month.

Gallup finds that most Americans (69%) are following the disruptions at town hall meetings closely, with Republicans being the most engaged in news of protests (at 79%).

And while a plurality of Americans (36%) say that the protests haven’t made any difference towards their opinion of the healthcare issue, an incredible 34% say that the protests have made them “more sympathetic” to the conservative view.


Those views also came down along predictably partisan lines.


So far these findings appear to suggest that the anti-reform protests are working. But there is some evidence that they might be backfiring - they are only emboldening Democrats to push for reform.

The study finds that Democrats - who ended up feeling less sympathetic of the conservative view as a result of the protests - are the only group who say that the protests have been a greater factor on their opinions than their pre-existing views on healthcare.


What effect are these developments having on the healthcare debate?

No two polls are the same, so it’s difficult to compare the recent Gallup findings with others, but - at least at first glance - it appears that Americans are becoming more thoughtful about whether they support a specific bill.

A USA Today poll last month found that only 12% of Americans had couldn’t say whether or not they would support a healthcare reform bill passing by the end of 2009.

In another recent Gallup poll, 29% of Americans said they weren’t sure if they would advise their members of Congress to support a bill when they return from August recess.

Again, these results fell upon predictably partisan lines - Democrats saying “yes” and Republicans saying “no” to supporting reform.

And while a plurality of Americans (49%) disapproves of President Obama’s handling of the healthcare issue - with 43% approving - there has been no net change in approval-disapproval since before the town hall protests started.


What’s far more remarkable is that that while Americans are becoming more and more optimistic about the economy (as seen in the graph above) they are, paradoxically, supporting the president’s handling of the economy less and less.


It’s doubtful that in the coming months and years of the current administration, Obama’s approval rating on healthcare will be static and his approval on the economy will continue to dissipate while the economy simultaneously improves (as the majority of economists believe it will).

But this does demonstrate just how tricky it is to track public opinion and - for a prospective candidate or up-for-re-election politician - develop a campaign message while the nation seems so utterly confused with what it thinks.


UPDATE: An interesting comment we received for this post asks "How does shouting down to stop the conversation of the healthcare debate at town hall meetings endear them to anyone?"

We should point out that according to one of the Gallup polls Americans have differing opinions about different tactics coming from these conservative activists - except they generally think that "shouting down" those who disagree with them is an "abuse of democracy."

Top Stories: 8/13/09

Politico takes a look at what words President Obama uses most often. Afghanistan and Iraq are not among them.

On the Huffington Post, political psychologist Drew Westen provides analysis on how centrist-minded Obama supporters are feeling about their president now.

Nate Silver ponders whether or not the anti-reform healthcare protesters are succeeding, and whether liberal push-back is working. Not all the evidence looks good for Democrats.

And the round-up of last nights political jokes:

Top Stories: 8/12/09

The Huffington Post reports on a rise of conservative militia groups across the United States. "The stress of a poor economy and a liberal administration led by a black president are among the causes for the recent rise" according to a report from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Politico blogger Ben Smith relays a story about Orly Taitz. Apparently "Obama was born in Kenya" is just the tip-of-the-iceberg among her many conspiracy theories!

Tom Schaller at FiveThirtEight.com blogs about the emerging Democratic dominance of State Legislatures.

And the latest Wall Street Journal economic survey finds that the majority of economists believe that the recession is over. They also believe that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke should be appointed to a second term by President Obama for his handling of the economic crisis.

And here is the roundup of last nights political jokes on late night comedy shows:

How is New Media Changing Politics?

Part 10 of our 10-part series: “21st Century Campaigning”

Those who are highly engaged in the political realm hear a lot about the prospects of “New Media” everyday. But what role does New Media really have in politics? More importantly, how can New Media be used effectively by campaigns and politicians?


When people think of New Media, they often associate it with social networking - Facebook, Twitter, etc. - but in fact it encompasses much more than that. Resources such as YouTube, social bookmarking sites (Digg, Reddit, etc.) and the blogosphere are some of the other important tools in the New Media hype. And all of these tools are becoming more and more important in politics.

For example, as newspapers fall by the wayside, campaigns are increasing their outreach to bloggers. As we noted in Part 6 of this series, campaigns can engage these citizen journalists by sending them interesting YouTube videos, news clips, and other online materials regarding the race. It helps build a relationship with friendly bloggers and that can help get your name and message out there the way you want it to.

Yet, much of the New Media world requires navigation on the part of the user. In other words, if a voter is not interested in the campaign, they’re not going to subscribe to an email list, become a fan on Facebook, or a follower on Twitter.

So why are these tools still important?

There is one important group of voters that are still going to follow the campaign with these tools - supporters. Keeping supporters engaged is a highly important function of any campaign. Without engaged supporters, a campaign is unable to raise money or find volunteers to knock on doors and make phone calls.

That means campaigns have to keep supporters interested and active in the daily developments of the race.

Let’s use Twitter as an example. As we mentioned in our own Twitter study last month, the effectiveness of such outreach comes down to what we call the “Twitter talent.” A major part of it is passing the “‘Who Cares?’ Test” - you have to post something relevant that your followers will be interested in.

So we decided to do an analysis of the New Media strategies of the two main campaigns of the Virginia Gubernatorial race going on right now between Democrat Criegh Deeds and Republican Bob McDonnell.

Deeds has some Tweets and Facebook updates that supporters can use. He mostly uses the social networking tools to update supporters on where he’ll be speaking each day. Occasionally, he also throws in less useful updates.

Take these three Tweets (in chronological order) on August 1st:

“Today is Jerry Garcia's birthday. We turn to Workingman's Dead”

“At FedEx in hot anticipation of Sir Paul. Surrounded by good friends”

“Still waiting. @jbtaylor I like it all but I'm partial to the Revolver-Rubber Soul period for the Fab Four”

And in the past two weeks, he has only posted one link outside of Twitter. On Facebook, his posts have been more relevant - he regularly posts videos, events, and news bits that will encourage supporters. Yet his outreach to them on Facebook is still a little weak - he has less than 10,000 supporters while McDonnell has over 16,000. He also has just more than half as many followers on Twitter as McDonnell.

In fact, McDonnell uses Facebook just as well - constantly linking to his website on updates, informing supporters about upcoming events, and posting even more videos and positive news stories as Deeds. On Twitter, McDonnell constantly links to videos, pictures, news stories, and other websites that will be of use to supporters - engaging them so they will be encouraged to help his campaign.

Obviously, it would be irresponsible to credit McDonnell’s lead on Deeds solely with his dominant social networking strategy, but it certainly helps.

Another favorite New Media tool has been YouTube. Although we were quick to criticize this video for its inaccuracies, it certainly served its purpose well - it engaged and encouraged like-minded Recovery Act opponents.



Of course, using New Media as effectively as it can be used takes a lot of work. Campaigns that actually have a New Media coordinator - whose sole responsibility is social networking, engaging bloggers, posting on sites such as YouTube and Flickr, social bookmarking, etc. - can have a tremendous advantage in fundraising, volunteer support, and even message delivery.

Yet there is still a danger to such a strategy.

Back in June we mentioned how a few GOP operatives and activists were stepping over the line with some of their Tweets. For example, Mike Green of the GOP firm Starboard Communications tweeted “JUST HEARD THAT OBAMA IS GOING TO IMPOSE A 40% TAX ON ASPIRIN BECAUSE IT’S WHITE AND IT WORKS.”

He later apologized - using two tweets to do so.

And nobody has been scrutinized for their use of New Media by the traditional media sources than Sarah Palin. Just last week she talked about an Obama “death panel” euthanizing her baby with Down Syndrome on a Facebook status update.

The point is that politicians wouldn’t (in most cases) say those sorts of things to rally supporters in a speech - because that too would be picked up by the mainstream media - so they shouldn’t try to engage supporters with such rhetoric in the social networking realm either.

And that’s another reason to have a special New Media coordinator rather than a candidate updating their New Media tools themselves - message discipline.

Like so many other advancements in campaign politics, just because the technology is changing doesn’t mean the basic principles are.

Well, we hope you’ve enjoyed “21st Century Campaigning” - it was certainly a pleasure to give our predictions and analysis of the changes happening in the political campaign world. Soon we’ll be starting a new series that should be fun: “Politics in the Movies”

Top Stories: 8/11/09

Something new we're doing at WAYLA is a morning post that brings you the top headlines from around the best political blogs so you aren't lost and confused trying to find the best news everyday.

The Huffington Post reports on the Town Hall meeting Obama will hold himself, and preparing for possible disruptions.

At FiveThirtyEight.com, Nate Silver makes a late-night post (after 2am - which explains why it was more goofy than usual) explaining the difference between single-payer health care and socialized medicine.

Politico's Scorecard blog reports on Gov. Corzine's (D-NJ) improving, but still poor, poll numbers, as well as a new ad released by the RGA.

And if you missed it last night, you have to see the Jon Stewarts take on the new turns in the healthcare debate:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Healther Skelter - Obama Death Panel Debate
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

How Can the Democrats Still Win On Healthcare?

Since we first posted on the disruptive town hall meetings back on Tuesday, the healthcare debate has only become more surreal - with arguments becoming more absurd and dialogue actually exploding into fist fights.

For the past few years, healthcare has really been a major selling-point for Democrats - it helped them retake Congress in 2006 and expand their majority - and win the White House - in 2008.

But now we’re looking forward to 2010 and suddenly healthcare seems to be a weak selling point. Polls show that Americans still want healthcare reform - including a public option - but they don’t believe Democrats can pull it off.


The big reason has been the deficit.

Recent polls find that the ideas of the Democratic healthcare bills are still popular - for example, voters support a public option. Yet they also believe that the current legislation making its way through Congress will increase the size of the deficit - and they aren’t willing to support it if it does that.

Then there is the issue of quality.

In recent weeks, we’ve heard more and more absurd claims about what would happen to the quality of healthcare under a Democratic-led reform package. Former GOP Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin posted this on Facebook last week:

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

Liberals love to point to such claims and laugh about how preposterous they are. In their defense, of course, these arguments are preposterous - the non-partisan watchdog FactCheck.org recently called such euthanasia claims flat-out “false.”

But they’re doing the job. A recent New York Times poll finds that 69% of Americans are worried that the current healthcare reform bills would result in a loss of quality for them personally if passed.

And as the New York Times pollsters put it “over all, the poll portrays a nation torn by conflicting impulses and confusion.”

"In one finding, 75 percent of respondents said they were concerned that the cost of their own health care would eventually go up if the government did not create a system of providing health care for all Americans. But in another finding, 77 percent said they were concerned that the cost of health care would go up if the government did create such a system."

And when we look at the Republican arguments closer (increased deficits, loss of quality) and the impact they’re having (fear and confusion) we see a familiar trend: these are exactly the same circumstances that brought healthcare reform to fail in 1994.

By the way, it was the 1994 elections that gave rise to 12 years of GOP power in Congress. If the Democrats fail on healthcare reform again, they seriously risk losing a high number of seats in Congress.

So how can the Democrats still win on this issue?

So far, the Democrats have done a poor job addressing the points that Republicans are raising.

First they must address the issue of deficits. President Obama has repeatedly said that the bill he signs must be budget-neutral - in other words, it cannot increase the size of the federal deficit.

In fact, many Democrats occasionally point out that healthcare costs are a huge part of the deficit as it stands - and they’re right. To bring a little Econ 101 into the discussion, a public option would create a positive shift in the supply curve for health insurance - subsequently lowering prices.


And lower prices mean lower costs for the government. Currently the government faces the major challenge of paying for Medicare and Medicaid while healthcare costs are so high. Because these are nondiscretionary entitlement programs, the government must pay for them - and the most they can do to reduce the deficit here is to pay lower costs.

While that may not be enough to balance the budget, it will be a significant start. Democrats must convey one rather important point: without such cost-cutting reform, it will be impossible to balance the federal budget.

They also need to better address the fear of a loss of quality. The Democrats should stress that their plan would foster competition, thereby increasing the prevalence of preventative care - and that would, in turn, increase quality of healthcare.

Many have been making another important point that should be stressed on this note: while Americans are paying more for healthcare than any other country, we aren’t exactly healthier. Several developed countries with government options as well as countries with strictly nationalized health plans have significantly longer life expectancy rates than the U.S.

Of course, there will always be claims about forced euthanasia and the heartless bureaucrats of “Obama’s ‘death panel’” - but by turning attention to such outrageous arguments, Democrats can actually help Republicans continue to marginalize themselves.

Just look at some of the claims Republicans have made in the past week that liberal activists can point to…

From Minnesota Family Research Council president Tom Prichard:

“Some may ask what does God have to do with our health care system. For one, He’s created the government as an institution in society to do certain things. When we reject His design for government, in a sense, we’re rejecting Him.

In Obama’s worldview, our trust is in government not in God. A denial of how God designed and created our economic and social systems to actually work in the real world. The result? The abysmal failure of government control of health care in socialist models.”

Another right-wing activist group, Americans for Truth, recently sent out an email alert asking “Will ObamaCare Turn into Taxpayer-funded ‘Tranny-Care’?” - suggesting that the public option will be used (maybe or maybe not primarily) for sexual reassignment surgery.

Or we can look to more image-based attacks from the right. Rush Limbaugh recently stirred up controversy when he compared the Obama healthcare logo - featuring a caduceus - to Nazi images.


Some are already picking up on the importance of pointing out such radical attacks. In today’s edition of USA Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer wrote a criticism of the methods used by reform opponents:

“…it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion.”

And liberal bloggers can be some of the best sources of counter-attack - citing on-the-ground accounts of conservative bullying. Wisconsin’s Blogging Blue posted this threat sent to the SEIU after some its union members got in a scuffle with conservative activists last week:

"You socialist f—s have the nerve to say stop the violence at the town hall meetings when they weren’t violent until you p—ies showed up because your n—– leader obama said to?????? When we have ours in Racine, Wi, I want you there. I want one of your little b—– to put his hands on this Marine. I want one of you to look or talk to me wrong. I’ll be the last thing your ignorant faux body guards will remember for a very long time. You can f—ing guarantee that."

As the blogger jokingly writes: “nothing says ‘honest debate’ like foul language, threats of violence, and racial epithets.”

Still others are exposing conservative “grassroots” activists as astroturfers and GOP operatives. TalkingPointsMemo.com posted this local news report from Wisconsin over the weekend:



As we said on Tuesday, only time will tell if conservative activists can build momentum towards defeating healthcare with their antics - but some suggest that it could backfire.

If Democrats begin to address the claims that are scarring and confusing Americans while keeping up the pressure on activists - exposing them as either fringe radicals or astroturfers - chances are it very well could.


UPDATE: The White House is catching on. A new page at WhiteHouse.com directly addresses conservative criticisms of the reform plans with YouTube videos of the president's policy staff debunking the myths in the debate. Below is one of the several examples posted there:

Martinez Resigns in Florida - Who Will Crist Appoint?

Breaking news this morning: Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) is due to resign by the end of August according to several Republican sources in Washington.

The reason why has not yet been revealed. One comment under the Politico post on the resignation says "Where there's smoke there's fire?" But Martinez has been rumored to be interested in the presidential opening at Florida State University. However, he has denied the rumor in the past.

Either way, it came as a shock to many in the Republican community. One senior GOP operative in Florida says “This was a closely-held and guarded secret and came as a surprise to all of us.” Martinez apparently made the announcement to his legislative staff earlier this morning.

Of course, he already had announced he would be stepping down from the post last year. That prompted Governor Charlie Crist and former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio to run for the GOP nomination for Martinez's seat.

When we broke the news on Twitter (about 45 minutes ago) one of our followers asked "Hello interm Senator Crist?"

As governor, Crist has the power to appoint the replacement Senator who will fill in for the duration of Martinez's term - and he very much has the power to appoint himself.

But according to the Scorecard blog:

"National and Florida Republican sources say it's near-certain that Crist will not appoint himself, and instead is expected to appoint a placeholder to fill the seat through the 2010 election.

Taking the seat now and leaving Tallahassee early would risk hurting his solid political standing, Crist allies say, and is unnecessary given his strong positioning to claim the seat next year."

Nonetheless, if he doesn't appoint himself, Crist would have to fill in the seat with someone he is sure would not gain any ambitions to hold the seat in 2010. Luckily for him, he has the rest of the month to make such a decision.


UPDATE #1: Apparently he cited "personal reasons" when he told his staff he was resigning.


UPDATE #2: Martinez had sent a letter to friends that thanks his supporters and touts his work on helping "families struggling to keep their homes" and his opposition to oppression in Cuba.

From the letter:

"My priorities have always been my faith, my family and my country and at this stage in my life, and after nearly twelve years of public service in Florida and Washington, it's time I return to Florida and my family. I look forward to continuing to be an active and constructive voice on issues vital to Florida and our nation, and being an active member of Florida's Republican Party."

He will also be holding a press conference at 3:00pm EST from Orlando.


UPDATE #3: Some are suggesting Crist could appoint his primary opponent - Marco Rubio - to fill the spot and then compete with the interim senator for the 2010 election.

In a statement, Rubio said Crist needs to take "great care" in his decision:

"Florida deserves an interim senator who will go to Washington and serve as a true check on President Obama's push for more wasteful government spending, government-run health care and cap-and-trade," Rubio said. "The last thing Florida needs is a U.S. senator that will stand with President Obama instead of challenging the wrong direction he is leading our country and offering constructive conservative solutions moving forward."

But Florida's GOP operatives are saying that Crist is likely to appoint one of three top Republicans: former FL Secretary of State Jim Smith, FL GOP Chair Jim Greer, or - the most named individual - former U.S. Senator Connie Mack (R-FL). They also say none of these individuals would try to compete with Crist come 2010.


UPDATE #4: Gov. Crist will NOT appoint himself. He told reporters that much as he was boarding a plane to Tampa this morning.


UPDATE #5: Much thanks to our Twitter friend, @NJDemocrat, for finding this bit of information:

Gov. Charlie Crist to appoint former Secretary of State Jim Smith to the spot through 2010.

"It's a done deal," said former House Speaker John Thrasher, an Orange Park Republican close to Martinez.

Smith had supported Tom Gallagher in the 2006 governor's race over Crist. But he's been a jack-of-all trades as a Florida public official, serving as a Democratic attorney general, a Democratic candidate for governor, and Republican secretary of state -- twice.

Crist, who is expected to appoint Smith today, and former House Speaker Marco Rubio are vying for the GOP nomination for the Senate seat.

"He'll be a caretaker," Thrasher said of Smith. "But he's got a great record of public service in this state."

UPDATE #6: Still no verification on who Crist will appoint, and still no word on why Martinez is stepping down. It could very well be another scandal. We'll find out in about an hour and a half from Martinez.

Still nothing found on when exactly we'll see a Crist press conference.


UPDATE #7: Remember when Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) was pressured to pick an African American candidate because President-elect Obama was the only black Senator? Well, it seems that a similar pressure may begin in Florida.

From the AP:

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., said she hoped Crist would appoint a Hispanic to follow in Martinez's footsteps, "possibly new blood, maybe not somebody who's been in office but maybe someone who is from the private sector."

Martinez's resignation leaves just one Hispanic in the Senate, Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey.

UPDATE #8: On that last note, another name has been added to Crist's short list - former Gov. Bob Martinez (R-FL). Not related to the outgoing senator, Bob Martinez has not been in office since 1991. He went on to serve in the first Bush Administration as Drug Czar, and since then has been consulting law firms. He is 74-years-old.


UPDATE #9: Cristian Camera of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has an interesting take on the resignation, as reported by the National Review:

"Governor Crist and Senator Martinez are strong political allies. I have no doubt in my mind this early resignation is a move that was agreed to by Crist and Martinez to somehow benefit Crist’s candidacy. Expect Crist’s choice of a replacement to be a carefully calculated move to benefit him. Possibly a Hispanic and/or a strong conservative to shore up his conservative credentials to the base."

Martinez has that Hispanic credential and Connie Mack and Jim Greer certainly fit the conservative credentials. No sign when we'll find out.

But Martinez is expected to speak to the press any moment now.


UPDATE #10: Martinez has just wrapped up a rather short press conference announcing his intention to resign. He read straght from the letter that was leaked to the press this morning (see Update 2) and - when asked - said he was leaving for no other reason than to "move on with the rest of my life."

He said he has no specific plans as far as what he'll do next, but it will be in the private sector.

There's no reason not to expect that there's something else going on here. No one simply leaves such a high public office for no reason but to "move on" in life. We'll see where this goes in the days to come.


UPDATE #11: In a press statement, Crist did not say who he would be appointing - only that it would be a placeholder. He said his selection will be made in coming weeks.

And evidently former Senator Connie Mack is NOT on the shortlist. According to the updated article on Politico:

"In an interview with the Miami Herald, Mack said that Crist had previously approached him about filling a vacanacy if Martinez resigned, and he said he was not interested."

So unless some breaking news about a Martinez scandal comes up in the next few hours - which may be a little unlikely for a summer Friday afternoon - this should probably be the last update of the day.

What Will GOTV Look Like Ten Years From Now?

Part 9 of our 10-part series: 21st "Century Campaigning"

Get-Out-the-Vote (or GOTV) operations have changed dramatically in the last ten years, and – chances are – they’ll change even more in the next ten.

GOTV has always existed in some form or another throughout American electoral history. But modern GOTV methods really began to take shape across the pond. In the United Kingdom’s 1945 general election, Labour Party MP Ian Mikardo and his campaign developed a system in which the Reading constituency he represented was canvassed for Voter ID. The campaign then generated lists of supporters called “Reading sheets” for volunteers to remind to vote on Election Day.

The Reading System also began a GOTV tactic known in the U.S. as “poll watching” – in which campaign workers watch to make sure that voters identified as supporters have made it to the polls already and can be crossed off the list. If not, they get reminded to vote again.

In the United States, national GOTV operations really started to be noticed by the media following the 2000 general election. It was a year where the vote between Al Gore and George W. Bush was so close that getting supporters to the polls could make all the difference in many states.

That fact prompted the GOP to make important strides in the way GOTV was to be done in the future. They developed a new system they labeled “the 72-Hour Program” for the 2002 midterm elections.

From a 2003 Washington Post article on the new program’s implementation:

The 72-Hour Project was born of necessity after the 2000 election, when Republicans discovered that Democrats had done a better job of getting their voters to the polls in one of the tightest presidential races in history.

With prodding from White House senior adviser Karl C. Rove, White House political director Ken Mehlman and RNC Deputy Chairman Jack Oliver, the party undertook a top-to-bottom review of its get-out-the-vote operation, poured more than $1 million into more than 50 experiments to test how best to reach out to voters and then methodically set about implementing their findings in the midterm campaigns.

It paid off. In the subsequent 2002 and 2004 elections the GOP significantly drove up turnout among the Republican-friendly Evangelical community and scored some important victories for their party.

Still, the efficacy of such extensive GOTV programs is of considerable debate. Yale University has devoted an entire website to research done on the effectiveness of GOTV operations.

And Democratic strategist Mark Mellman argues that putting such weight on GOTV really only makes a difference when a race comes down to a couple thousand votes or so.

From a 2006 piece he wrote for The Hill:

“Experiments on turnout by [famed political scientists] Alan Gerber and Donald Green suggest that the most effective means of increasing turnout raise it by less than 10 percent — and that’s for people who get canvassed in person. None of this is to suggest that GOTV efforts are not valuable. When 2000 or 200 votes decide an election there is no question that GOTV efforts can make all the difference in the world. But again, that is simply not the case that is being argued by GOP operatives.

Can’t micro-targeting help them achieve spectacular successes? Anyone who has ever modeled data knows there is much more salesmanship than science in Republican claims about these efforts. Our firm and others on the Democratic side have been using these models for half a dozen years or more and we know they can make our efforts much more efficient; expand our GOTV and persuasion universes; and provide message guidance. So when races are otherwise marginal, the lift models provide can make all the difference between winning and losing. But no model is going to turn what would otherwise be a 5-point loss into a victory.”

With this idea in mind, how will campaigns adjust their GOTV strategy so it only counts if a race is going to be close? How will they plan such an important operation ahead of time if they don’t even know if it will be worth it?

And if these questions don’t make campaigns rethink how they do GOTV, maybe some recent trends will.

As we mentioned in our post on Monday, early voting might change a lot of campaign strategy in the next few elections. In fact, when polls showed then-Senator Barack Obama with a substantial edge among early voters, we commented on the importance behind the Obama campaign’s efforts.

“The real advantage of having supporters vote early is that the campaign can focus more time and energy on supporters that vote less frequently (because they are less politically engaged) in the final 72 hours.

So have early voting laws made October a month long GOTV period? It would certainly appear so, as this tactic is sure to be used in presidential campaigns to come.”

But if campaigns are going to devote time and energy to such a “Get-Out-the-Early-Vote” operation, what will that look like? Will they rely on more time-effective methods to convince folks who were already going to vote for them to do it early – methods such as email, robo-calls, text-messages, and direct mail? Or will they actually redirect volunteers from important Voter ID operations to make calls and canvass these supporters?

Ultimately, these aren’t questions that can be answered yet with any certainty – but they are questions that campaigns will have to answer for themselves in the next ten years.

The only thing that is certain is that GOTV will continue to evolve and is likely to look much different in 2020 from what it looked like in 2008.

The Sad and Strange History of the John Ensign Scandal

When it was first revealed that Senator John Ensign (R-NV) had had an affair with a former campaign staffer, many in the political realm thought his legislative career might survive the scandal. Politico even suggested that with a quick apology and ending the conversation about the affair - much like Senator David Vitter (R-LA) did - he could continue in the Senate without needing much further damage control.

But over the past month, more and more revelations about the affair have come to light - and it all looks worse and worse for Ensign.

To really understand just how tangled and twisted the entire ordeal was - or, perhaps, is - one needs to see the entire history of the scandal. Luckily for us, the Las Vegas Sun has done a very good job chronicling the story.


The Affair Itself

Ensign began his extramarital affair with Cindy Hampton - the treasurer for his campaign committee and Battle Born PAC, as well as his wife’s good friend - in December 2007 after months of “having feelings” for her. She was receiving about $1,900 a month for those two positions until her salary doubled as the affair began.

Meanwhile, Hampton’s husband Doug was working as an administrative assistant to the Senator on the government side (where he was - for those interested - making over $13,000 a month).

But it was sort of an on-again off-again affair. Apparently it stopped in February when Ensign admitted to Doug that he made a mistake and “vowed to change” - but Doug needed to move on.



February - April 2008

Ensign asked his political consultant - Mike Slanker - to hire Doug at his firm, November Inc. Slanker - who apparently had no knowledge of the affair yet - agreed without much thought.

But a few weeks later, Ensign’s wife, Darlene, called Slanker to let him in on everything. Slanker confronted Ensign about it at his office at the NRSC (Note: while Ensign was the Chair of the NRSC, Slanker’s wife, Lindsay, was its Finance Director). He took Doug Hampton off Ensign’s hands, knowing the two couldn’t really work together anymore.

But here’s the real kicker - the reason Ensign was so desperate to get Doug a new job was so he could go back to pursuing Cindy. The affair continued.


Severance, Gift, or Bribe?

Cindy - like her husband - also left Ensign’s employ at the end of April that year. As a severance from the campaign and PAC committees she received $25,000.

As if that wasn’t a significant amount of cash, Ensign’s parents gave Cindy another $96,000 as a “gift”. Actually, it was technically several gifts, as they wrote a series of checks to make sure they wouldn’t have to pay a gifts tax.

When the story was uncovered this year - over a year since the Hamptons stopped working for the Nevada Senator - ethics groups including Citizens for Responsibility filed complaints arguing that the gift was indeed an undocumented severance pay to the Hamptons.

But what is truly interesting is the fact that this looks so much like a pay-off. When the affair was revealed, Doug Hampton said that he was entitled to “millions” for what the Senator had done to him. Although it cannot be proved (and there’s actually evidence to the contrary) Ensign claimed Doug was blackmailing him.

Besides, who would be more inclined to bribe his way out of a sex scandal than an important Republican Senator with presidential ambitions? Even if the gift was not explicitly a bribe, it sure had the feel of one.


It All Comes Out

Sometime after the affair finally ended (around August 2008) and after Doug left November Inc. (a fascinating email exchange shows that Doug was concerned about his role there while Ensign was a client) Doug Hampton decided to bring it all out.

His course of action was a little peculiar. He sent an email to former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) - of all people - with an attached document that spelled out the nature of the scandal. He said in the email that he had met Santorum a few times, and while the former Pennsylvania Senator might not remember him, he had a great respect for his integrity.

More importantly, Santorum had become a contributor for Fox News.

Now, what Santorum was supposed to do with that information is a little confusing. This is what Hampton writes at the end of the message:

“It is my strong request we speak prior to you calling John but I realize I cannot control what you choose to do with the information…Your wisdom, counsel and insight would be greatly appreciated…as well as your help to resolve this terrible cover up.”

And no one knows exactly what happened after that, but in the end it was Ensign who called a news conference and was the first to explain the affair to the press and public.

In the end, he lost several aids (including his Chief-of-Staff) and any chance of becoming President.


Weird Religious Twists

Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the story is the involvement of a group known as “The Family” - a Christian fundamentalist organization and powerful lobby group that houses influential people - including dozens of members of Congress - at its headquarters on C Street.

Writer Jeff Sharlet - who recently published a book on The Family - explains the organization as such:

“The Family began with this idea that God does not work through churches but rather through those whom The Family calls the “New Chosen.” They believe they’re chosen by God. They can’t be expected to pray with the rest of us. They need to pray in private with people of equal status.

When you join one of these prayer groups, you give these men veto power over your life, over every aspect of your life. Wives involved with The Family have said, “In my husband’s life, his brothers come first, I come second.”

Ensign was living there in February last year during his affair. Apparently Doug went to the group to explain what was happening and they told Ensign to end it.

One member of Congress living with The Family that purportedly told Ensign to end the affair was Sen. Tom Colburn (R-OK). Colburn had denied knowing about the affair and - once this part of the story broke - refused to speak about his discussion because he was counseling Ensign “as a physician [he’s an OB-GYN] and as an ordained deacon.”

More simply put, The Family observes a “code of silence” as part of its intense secrecy (a secrecy that seems to rival that of the Freemasons).

The only public activity The Family engages in is The Fellowship’s (their broader organization’s) National Prayer Breakfasts.

In fact, Hampton cites the National Prayer Breakfasts in his email to Santorum, reminding the former Senator that they sat together at one when Santorum was a speaker for the event.

And the emails themselves are filled with religion. In Slanker’s email to Hampton, he tells his new employee that “God has put [me and Lindsay] in this place to help and love”.

Hampton’s reply expands on religion even more:

“To give you an update, the Lord has recently introduced [me and Cindy] to a new counselor…With a lot of hard work on our parts, the counselors help and guidance from the Lord I believe we are headed in the right direction.

…I want you to know that my intent was to reveal or discuss what God is teaching me about the leader he is calling me to be knowing the terrible husband and person I have been…”

Ensign’s Future

Since the news of the affair broke, Ensign’s approval rating has dropped 22% and his disapproval rating has risen 20%.


While voters seemed divided in the mid-July survey over whether or not he should run for re-election, the Nevada electorate does seem to take some of the more revealing details of the scandal “very seriously” - and of these details, the newer fact that he fired his staffer in order to pursue the man’s wife is not among them. Nor is there any mention of Ensign's involvement in the strange, egotistical, fundementalist secret society.


As of now he plans to run for re-election. But that election won’t be until November of 2012. The question we’ll have to wait and see for an answer is “will they remember?”

Will Healthcare Reform Survive the Tea-Baggers in August?

“It is proof of a bad cause when it is applauded by a mob”

- Seneca (1st Century A.D.)

As Congress prepares for the August recess, President Obama has advised his fellow Democrats to go home to their districts and defend the healthcare reform bills making their way through the legislative process.

But as Democrats are finding out, a mass of anti-reform conservatives are out there disrupting town hall meetings intended to defend reform measures to local constituents.

Here are just a few videos making their way around the internet…







Of course, they are trying to produce an image of overwhelming disapproval of any healthcare reform - as if all Americans were opposed to it. Obviously, this is not the case.

As Nate Silver pointed out this morning, the majority of party-identified Americans are still Democrats - but proportionally, the GOP is much more energized in the current healthcare debate.


As he writes in the post:

“…the Democrats don't have a mass movement right now. They have an electorate that's maybe 60 percent unaware of the threat that things like health care are under in Washington, 20 percent aware but burned out or ambivalent, and 10 percent both aware and engaged but busy fighting with one another. That doesn't leave very many Democrats left to stand up and shout back.”

And while the conservative movement in town hall meetings appears to be very grassroots, it is - in fact - nothing more than astroturf.

The liberal group Think Progress recently obtained (and released) a memo from a conservative group linked to FreedomWorks, which is business-funded and helped organize the April 15 tea party protests. The memo lays out a game-plan for disrupting town hall meetings.

From the memo:

“Our objective was to ‘pack the hall’ with as many people [as possible] ready to challenge [Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT)], put him on the defensive, and give him a reality check … organizing about 30 people and we spread out among the crowd of about 150 people in the hall. We used some techniques early on which immediately made Himes uncomfortable…

…Questions should be prepared … The questions should contain facts and numbers (which are embarrassing and damning to the Congressman’s record)…

…You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation. Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

The 10-page document also includes a list of prepared questions to use and ways to coordinate a mass turnout.

Will it work?

Time will only tell, but the news media has already picked up on the disruptions at these town hall meetings. Some think this strategy could backfire - only emboldening Democrats to push for reform - others think it’s a genius way to halt progress by swaying public opinion to mob mentality and scaring politicians.

As former Bush advisor Mark McKinnon says, “town halls have become town hells.”

Democratic members of Congress might want to just scrap town hall meetings this month, but as political scientist Kathleen Hall Jamieson tells Politico “The more intelligent alternative is to take the extensive network the Obama campaign developed and send all of those people to town halls.”

That could mean heated shouting matches between liberals and conservatives at town-hall meetings and one intense August recess.


UPDATE: The DNC has released a new web ad in response to the recent "mob" strategies, pinning them directly with the GOP.

Why Campaigns Ask You Who You’re Voting For

Part 8 of our 10-part series: “21st Century Campaigning”

Have you ever received a phone call from a political campaign asking you to name the man or woman you’re supporting in an upcoming election? Have you ever worked on or volunteered for a campaign and had to make such a call?

If the answer is “yes” you’ve no doubt wondered why. After all, one’s vote is traditionally thought of as a private decision - a guarantee of the blind ballot. Yet campaigns have a very good reason to ID voters. In fact, they have three very good reasons for doing so.


1) Knowing Where You Are

Ideally, a campaign will identify over half of the electorate (in a two-way race) as strongly supporting their candidate. If this can be achieved, you know you’re going to win even before Election Day. If you have no idea how many voters are supporting you, chances are that means you’re going to lose.

Watching the polls is helpful to get a rough idea of your support - but it is not 100% accurate. Additionally, you cannot track each individual voter. That means that come time for the Get-Out-the-Vote operation (or GOTV) you won’t know exactly who to remind to vote.


2) Laying a Foundation for Your Party

Politics doesn’t stop after one election - it doesn’t stop at all. When you can identify which politicians a particular voter is supporting you can get a good idea of how they will vote in the future. Only a small fraction of the electorate are truly “swing” voters - most will vote for candidates in one particular party the great majority of the time.

By identifying these voters the party can determine how likely they are to support future candidates. This helps these future campaigns plan how they allocate their resources. If a particular voter is identified as a strong Democrat or Republican there is no point in sending them a piece of mail, giving them a phone call, or sending volunteers to their house to try to persuade them. If they’re identified as a swing voter, they are certain to get more contact with the campaign.

Additionally, precincts that have over 65% of the electorate identified as strongly Democratic (in the case of Democratic campaigns) will be covered tooth-and-nail come GOTV time. Every house in such precincts will be hit before the polls close on Election Day. This tactic is designed to drive as much support to the polls as humanly possible for the party.


3) Solidifying Their Support

One of the most significant phenomena in politics is how voters will commit to supporting a particular candidate once they’ve said they support him or her. By neglecting a Voter ID program, a campaign risks losing voters that lean toward its candidate before Election Day. By calling or canvassing these voters and getting them to say out-loud that they support your candidate, they become much more likely to follow through when they head to the polls.

Where’s the evidence?

In 2008, President Obama won his bid for the White House because his campaign rigorously tracked where they were in swing states, used the Democratic Party’s existing infrastructure and information to plan the optimal use of resources, and convinced voters that leaned towards his candidacy to follow through by voting for him. In the end, the Obama campaign had contacted about 37% more voters than the McCain campaign, and Voter ID is by far the most important tactic in voter contact

But 2008 was important for another reason - namely the use of Voter ID in early voting trends. Early voting increased significantly last year, and it had a major impact on how the rest of the campaign was run. By identifying which voters had already submitted a ballot, campaigns were able to devote more time and energy to those who were waiting until the end.

That means saving time by not trying to persuade early voters to support your candidates or reminding them to head to the polls on Election Day. With the saved time, the campaigns were able to focus on voters known to be undecided going into the last few days of the race.

Early voting is becoming more and more popular, and it will be interesting to watch as it continues in the future. Needless to say, campaigns prefer early voting because early voters probably weren’t persuadable to begin with, and it allows the campaign to be more efficient in its outreach activities.

This trend certainly appears to be the most important aspect of future Voter ID operations.