CPAC All Over the Place

Summary: Just when it appeared conservatives were coming to a cohesive message, their annual conference produces a strange and wide array of views.

Following the political blogs today, one can’t help but see a lot of coverage of the Conservative Political Action Conference. One thing I couldn’t help but notice is the lack of collective discipline in message.

Politico reported today that “less than an hour before Tiger Woods was set to explain himself in a press conference, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty urged conservative activists to follow the golfer’s wife and ‘take a nine iron and smash the windows out of big government.’”

Then Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) apparently embraced the “Party of No” image…

“…after a year that saw every single House Republican vote against the stimulus bill ... Republicans in Congress are back in the fight, and they are back in the fight on the right…

When it comes to more borrowing, the answer is no. When it comes to more spending, the answer is no. When it comes to some health care summit that is nothing more than a photo-op to pave the way for Obamacare 2.0, the answer is no.”

And Rep. Michele Bachmann accused President Obama of “choosing decline” for America.

Additionally, there was some infighting among the different factions of conservative activists. A Log Cabin Republicans type group, GOProud, got into something of a shouting match with the National Organization for Marriage - an anti-gay marriage group.

Then a lawyer from the Bush Administration who assisted lawmakers in drafting the USA PATRIOT Act made the interesting argument that Obama is killing too many terrorists. His speech received both applause and hissing.

Yet perhaps the strangest thing about the entire event was the warm embrace of the moderate Republican - at least in his history governing Massachusetts - Mitt Romney. Even his likely presidential primary rival, Sarah Palin, appeared to be backing him today.

There are a lot of rules about message in politics - one of them is clarity. For months the GOP had done a very good job explaining themselves with one clear idea: Obama equals massive deficits.

At CPAC, they’ve been all over the place. To the average onlooker, it would be difficult to say what exactly conservatives and Republicans stand for after today.

Obviously, this is meant to be more of a conservative pep rally than an appeal to the less-political voter, but I still was surprised to see such a lack of message discipline from prominent politicians and political groups.

Being the Home Country Increases Your Olympic Medals

Summary: A data analysis of the past nine Olympics finds one reason teams want the games in their home countries.

I know this isn’t strictly political, but hopefully it discourages the sort of partisanship over sports we saw when Republicans cheered Chicago’s bid-loss for the 2016 Summer Olympics.

While watching curling, I noticed that the vast majority of cheering from the crowd was for Canada. This really shouldn’t be a surprise, as the games are hosted there, but it got me thinking: “does being the hosting country give you a ‘home-field advantage?’”

So I spent some time overlooking and processing data on the past nine Olympics – five Summer Olympics, four Winter Olympics.

I decided not to go back before the 1992 games in Barcelona because of the disparities there would undoubtedly be between the Cold War era and post-Cold War Olympics, which would almost certainly throw-off the results.

Taking into account the fact that some countries do better in different Olympics (for example, Spain and Greece – while they have hosted Summer games recently – have not won Winter medals yet) and the fact that more events have been added over the years, we find the following results.


(Click Image to Expand)

With the exception of Italy during the 2006 Torino games, every year the home country takes a larger percentage of the medals than they would on average. Additionally, there is often an even sharper increase in the percentage of gold medals (indicated by the numbers in parentheses) taken by the country hosting the Olympics.

See the full data set here:


So one would expect Canada to win six or seven medals more than they would otherwise – including about one or two additional golds (assuming the 11.48% gold increase Japan had in 1998 was an outlier which can be ignored) – this year. We’ll have to wait until the games are over to be sure.

In the meantime, hopefully we Americans can cheer for our athletes – rather than against the politicians we oppose – when it comes to the Olympics.

Could This Be the Worst Campaign Ad Ever?

Some of you have probably seen this by now, but if not, it’s time you did. Carly Fiorina’s senate campaign in California recently released this ad attacking her GOP primary opponent, Rep. Tom Campbell, via FCINO.com.

It’s hilariously bad. So bad that you may want to stop watching it half-way through. But I guarantee you’ll want to watch it through the end.



Now, in fairness, this was a web-ad rather than a television spot. But even so, if I was the consultant who produced it, I would be pretty embarrassed by my work.

You may be asking “why sheep?” “Why devil sheep?” “Why the pigs?” “Why so long?” I only wish I could answer these questions. Referring to the strange Reagan campaign commercial from 1984, our old friend Prof. Arnold Shober said today “this is the ‘There’s a Bear’ Ad gone wrong.”

And since it was released earlier this month, Fiorina has been getting a lot of (probably well-deserved) flack for the piece. I honestly cannot understand why they haven’t abandoned this strategy yet.

Plus (just in case this alone isn’t enough for you) there have been a lot of spoofs of it posted on YouTube.

Why the Barrett Campaign Can Win in November

Summary: Tom Barrett’s gubernatorial campaign in Wisconsin applies new and traditional techniques alike to defy the odds in 2010.

I can’t really count how many times now I’ve said on this blog that Democrats will have a rough year in 2010. Across the country, the GOP looks poised to retake offices up and down the ticket.

In Wisconsin, two Republican candidates – Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and former U.S. Rep. Mark Neumann – have been campaigning for several months (years, arguably) in a gubernatorial race that should theoretically be a pretty easy GOP pick-up.

Democrats, luckily, have managed to secure the bid of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett who made national headlines last summer when he put himself in harm’s way to protect a grandmother outside the Wisconsin State Fair. The “Hero Mayor” status he received will go a long way towards securing the hearts of Wisconsin voters in a year that should bolster conservatives.

But the Mayor’s campaign has been doing more than relying on this status. They’ve been applying both new and traditional tactics that will go a long way come November.

For starters, they’ve been focusing hard on fundraising. Entering the race later than his Republican counterparts – in part because of Governor Jim Doyle’s late retirement announcement and in part because of the incident at the State Fair – he has had to do call-time and fundraisers at a much faster pace.

From Wispolitics.com:

Walker's campaign said the Republican county exec raised almost $1.8 million during the reporting period and ended the year with more than $2 million on hand.

GOP guv rival Mark Neumann filed his report earlier this year. It showed he raised just more than $1.3 million during the reporting period after putting almost $1.1 million of his own money into his campaign.

Dem frontrunner Tom Barrett raised more than $750,000 over 47 days after getting into the race in mid-November and had more than $1.5 million cash on hand. His war-chest got a boost from the more than $800,000 he already had in his mayoral account when he got into the race.

Sure, the Walker campaign might have more cash-on-hand at this point, but when you break it down this is approximately what each campaign was raising per day by the end of the filing period:

Walker: $9,890/day

Neumann: $7,142/day

Barrett: $15,957/day

That’s pretty impressive.

Next, the Barrett campaign has been keeping the political community in Wisconsin confident in his chances. Just look at this email they sent regarding his fundraising numbers and a disappointing Rasmussen Poll:

The impressive outpouring of support was raised in just 47 days, making it the best fundraising start to a gubernatorial campaign in Wisconsin history. The total brought Barrett’s cash-on-hand to more than $1.5 million…

…[Scott Walker] raised just $1.79M in 6 months. For the GOP frontrunner, for a guy who's been in race for 5 yrs, in the best GOP electoral climate in 15 yrs, this is a pretty weak showing.

He has to have spent $800K-$900K this period, a staggeringly high burn rate. His administrative incompetence has wreaked havoc with the County, now it’s hurting his campaign. Can Wisconsin afford this awful mismanagement in the governor’s office?...

…

Rasmussen Poll Numbers

- Their methodology is unreliable

"Other pollsters and political observers have long complained that Rasmussen polls are conducted through automated phone calls that reflect only the views of the most fervent likely voters because others are likely to hang up on a computerized caller."

--Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/29/09


- Rasmussen oversamples conservative voters. In the recent Wisconsin gubernatorial poll, for example, nearly 60% of respondents oppose Obama, including most strongly, a high number given 2008 election results

Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist, said there was “huge concern right now” that Rasmussen was polling a universe of largely conservative-minded voters. “How is Rasmussen selecting likely voters almost a year before the election? And why would you even screen for likely voters in measuring presidential approval?” said Abramowitz. “My guess is that it's heavily skewed toward older, white, Republican voters.”

--Poltico.com 1/2/10

Emails like this are exactly the kind of thing that kept Obama supporters confident during the 2008 presidential primaries, when people were convinced Hillary Clinton would be the inevitable Democratic nominee. Obama’s primary upset over Clinton would not have been possible otherwise. In 2010, it will be tactics like this that will send Barrett to Madison.

For those who have signed up for the Barrett email list, they’ve also been receiving important updates about the race that keep them engaged and give them a sense for who the man is. This is especially important when voters cannot see speeches day-in and day-out like they did in 2007 before the Iowa Caucuses.

Take this email for example:

Dear Friend,

Tom visited a worker training facility in Kaukuana today and he sent me this note on how he thinks we can get Wisconsin's economy moving again…

Phil Walzak
Senior Advisor
Tom Barrett for Wisconsin

Begin forwarded message...

From: Tom Barrett
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2010 1:37 p.m.
To: Phil Walzak
Subject: What I saw in Kaukuana today

Phil-

I had a great time today visiting the worker training facility in Kaukauna, WI. What I saw was incredible, and represents the kind of vision and commitment to partnership that I will bring to the governor's office to create jobs, expand opportunity, and get Wisconsin's economy working again.

The training center is a 41,000 sq. ft. facility that provides apprenticeship training programs to workers in a broad range of fields. It is operated by the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 400, which is comprised of 2,000 people working in 18 counties throughout Northeast Wisconsin.

Local 400 works in partnership with 125 businesses across the region to train and supply the skilled workforce these companies need to get the job done. Basset Mechanical is one of these firms, and a representative of the company joined us for today's tour.

What I saw is a great example of the collaboration we need to get our economy working again -- organized labor and business management coming together to make sure people have jobs, and workers have the skills they need.

These are exactly the types of partnerships that I will fight to build and expand as governor, so let's be sure we are doing all we can to highlight them during this campaign.

See you back in the office,

Tom

Supporters love to see things like this because they are not fabricated. When Barrett sent the email, he clearly didn’t think it would be forwarded to supporters like it was. But by sending out an internal email like that, Walzak knew that he would make supporters feel like part of the team by giving them unmitigated access to the candidate’s informal update.

It also spoke to Barrett’s broader vision of what politics is about: not left v.s. right or Democrat v.s. Republican, but rather “let’s get the job done” – also, it's always a winning message.

And of course, the campaign was sure to let supporters know when they did well in a poll. Here is the breakdown of the latest poll taken regarding a Barrett-Walker match-up:

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker are locked in a dead heat in the race for Governor, with Barrett leading by a 1-point margin (40% Barrett, 39% Walker). This is virtually unchanged from a survey we conducted in September 2009, where Barrett led by a 2-point margin (39% Barrett, 37% Walker).

Both candidates show strength in their partisan bases, with Barrett leading among Democrats by a 79% to 4% margin, and Walker leading among Republicans by 82% to 5%. Barrett holds a slight 2-point lead among independents (32% Barrett, 30% Walker).

Barrett and Walker are each known to just over half of the Wisconsin electorate, though Barrett is slightly better liked among those who know each. As illustrated in the chart to the left, Barrett’s favorables are 1 point higher than Walker’s, while his unfavorables are 2 points lower. The same is true among independents, with Barrett (35% favorable, 15% unfavorable) garnering somewhat stronger favorability ratings than Walker (36% favorable, 21% unfavorable).

How will it all turn out in the end? It’s impossible to know who will win at this point, obviously. Despite Barrett’s many strengths, Walker is a formidable opponent and he is proven to be politically-savvy.

But in a year where Democrats are expected to do poorly, Barrett has been leading a remarkable campaign thus far. It really is the best chance Democrats could have of keeping the Governor’s Mansion in 2010.

How Do Volunteers Help a Campaign?

Summary: Exploring how, exactly, volunteers help win elections.

The answer to this question may seem all-too obvious for most readers, but according to a new post by our friends at Activate, it shouldn’t be.

The old-school way of viewing that question, according to them, is that “the volunteer influence merely displaces some of the phoning or canvassing that the campaign plans to outsource at the end of the campaign leading up to Election Day.”

But as many of us know, that impact is marginal. It is important in a close race, sure, but that doesn’t seem to be important enough to make it such an essential part of a campaign’s operations.

The real impact is via the “Three Degrees of Seperation.”

From the post:

“I recall my first presidential campaign in 1988 and my boss explaining to me the first tenet of my three degrees of separation theory: Every volunteer on a campaign will influence the vote of 50 voters by virtue of who they talk to in their own lives…friends, neighbors, family, co-workers. It isn’t about how many people they reached on the phone bank or at the doors. It’s all about who they come into contact with in their daily lives.

Remember, the new paradigm: Voters are primarily influenced by people around them, people they trust.

Okay, so let’s do the math. If a campaign has 1000 active volunteers and they each influence 50 voters, the first degree of separation is 50,000 votes.

So let’s say that the second degree of separation is calculated at 20% of that, so those 50,000 voters each influence 10 voters. The second degree of separation adds 500,000 voters. So now we’re at 551,000 voters.

Okay, now we’re cooking. The third degree of separation is calculated again at 20%, so those 500,000 voters will each influence 2 voters. The third degree of separation adds 1,000,000 voters.

Now we’re at 1,551,000 votes! Think about it. How many campaigns are won with 1.55 million votes?

Figuring out how many volunteers you need is rather simple. Take the expected vote and divide it by 1,551 and that will give you the number of volunteers a campaign needs to win.”

Could it be so easy?

It’s certainly an interesting concept, and it certainly falls in line with our understanding of how volunteers go about their daily lives, and how people make voting decisions.

Unfortunately, like most things in campaign politics, it is difficult to accurately measure votes based on volunteer numbers. In other words, confirming this hypothesis is a challenge.

One concern is the size of the district and location. If a volunteer lives across the street from a different district, then a good number of the people he or she talks to on a daily basis is unable to vote in that election in the first place. Relying on them for these purposes is not as beneficial as it would be in a state-wide race.

The other worry is about overlap. What if Voter A is influenced by a volunteer, he goes and influences Voter B in the Second Degree of Separation, and she then influences Voter C, who happens to have also talked to the original volunteer like Voter A did? Certainly Volunteer C would be all the more likely to support the candidate, but a potential Voter D is left out of the picture.

All-in-all, this is just some food for thought. Activate is certainly doing the world of campaigners a service by re-emphasizing the importance of volunteers. As we’ve seen time and time again, of all the aspects of a campaign that can be controlled for, volunteers are really the most critical.

A Look at Silver’s Analysis of Palin-2012

Summary: FiveThirtyEight.com’s Nate Silver explores Sarah Palin’s 2012 presidential primary chances, but leaves out an important variable.

For those who haven’t seen it yet, Nate Silver’s analysis of Palin’s 2012 chances is quite interesting. While long and in-depth, he makes some good points.

From the post:

So where is Palin likely to run strongest? Obviously, it would depend on the candidates she's up against and the type of campaign she might want to run, but I think we can make some basic inferences. What I've done is to create an index of how favorable each state is to Palin based on six variables: fundraising totals to date for SarahPAC and five demographic and attitudinal variables taken from 2008 exit polls.

Fundraising: What I looked at is the ratio of contributions that Palin has received in each state so far through SarahPAC to the amount of contributions received by all Republican candidates in the 2008 cycle. The idea is to see how Palin compares vis-a-vis a typical Republican candidate -- indeed, I've found fundraising data to have quite a bit of predictive power in the past, even if the data is a little rough at this stage. Relative to other Republicans, Palin's best fundraising state is, of course, Alaska. Her fundraising has also been quite strong in the Pacific Northwest, and many of the prairie/frontier states. It has been weakest on the East Coast, as well as several other urban and industrial states located throughout the country. The fundraising data receives double weight in our index.

Variables from 2008 Exit Polls: What I looked at is not what a state's electorate looked like overall, but rather, the characteristics of the McCain (i.e. Republican) voters in each state. This is an important distinction -- for instance, although Oregon is a fairly progressive state overall, the conservatives there are quite conservative and rural, and this is what matters in the context of a Republican primary. Note that, although it would probably have been better to look at exit polling data from the 2008 Republican primaries, a lot of states either didn't have a competitive primary in 2008 or didn't have exit polling data available; thus, we look at McCain general election voters as our best proxy.

Specifically, the exit polling variables that I evaluated were as follows:

Rural and small town voters. That is, the percentage of McCain voters in each state that come from communities of less than 50,000 people. Palin spent a great deal of time campaigning in exurban and fairly rural areas in 2008, and I suspect that it's here -- not necessarily among soccer moms in the collar suburbs -- where her most enthusiastic voters lie. And Palin herself, of course, comes from a very rural area and is appealingly outdoorsy and self-reliant. This variable receives a double weight.

No college voters. Early polls of the 2012 Republican field, such as from Marist and Rasmussen, show Palin overperforming among this group (or, if you prefer, underperforming among college graduates), which certainly squares with my intuition about where her appeal lies. This variable also receives a double weight.

Conservatives. We also look at the number of McCain general election voters who described themselves as conservative in each state, although it receives only a single weight. Although clearly Palin wears the conservative label very comfortably and is liable to be harmed in states where there are a relatively large number of moderates and independents in the primary electorate, there are likely to be at least a couple other capital-C conservatives in the Republican primary field, which means we need to temper this somewhat.

White Evangelicals. Although Palin also polls well among this group, a lot of this may be because a lot of white evangelicals are also rural and lack a college degree. That is, although Palin runs well among the sorts of voters who happen to be evangelicals, it may not be because they're evangelicals. Nor, although Palin has increasingly invoked religious rhetoric in her speeches, does she have the scholarly religious credibility of someone like a Mike Huckabee or a Pat Robertson. It's conceivable that Palin could get outflanked by a Huckabee or lose votes to a Santorum among voters who are evangelicals first and working-class whites second. Thus, although we include this variable, we only give it a single weight.

Energy and Terrorism voters. Lastly, although this is a bit speculative, we look at the percentage of McCain voters in each state who said their votes were determined because of energy or terrorism policy, which appear as though they'll be Palin's core issues. These issues -- particularly terrorism -- lend themselves relatively well to the meta-narratives that Palin prefers and require less policy nuance than something like the economy or health care. This variable receives a single weight.

He then runs the data and comes up with chart showing how well Palin should theoretically do on a state-by-state basis. In the map below, the most red states is where she is strongest and the most blue is where she is weakest.


Next - taking other candidates’ strenghts and weaknesses into account - he gives his outlook for how Palin could secure the nomination. (For clarification on the colors he mentions, see the map at the bottom of this post).*

Palin's path to victory, then, would seem to consist of one of the following scenarios:

Palin Plan A. Win Iowa. Win South Carolina. Clean up in orange states. You probably have enough momentum to survive the consolidation of the GOP field which is liable to occur at this point.

Palin Plan B. Lose Iowa narrowly, especially to a Midwestern candidate. Hope that a Southerner isn't running strongly and win South Carolina. Clean up in orange states. Then you anchor in the South, winning Texas (green group), Florida/Georgia (gold group) or Indiana/North Carolina (purple group). At some point, you need to break through and win a big Midwestern battleground like Ohio or Wisconsin.

Palin Plan C. Win Iowa. Lose South Carolina narrowly to a Southern candidate. Regain momentum in orange states. Hope that green states vote next and aim in particular for a big win in Texas. If it's the gold states instead, go all-in in Ohio and Pennsylvania. If it's the purple states, you'll need some help.

Among the other possible candidates he mentions:

- Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA)
- Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA)
- Senator Scott Brown (R-MA)
- Governor Haley Barbour (R-MS)
- Senator John Thune (R-SD)
- Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN)
- Governor Rick Perry (R-TX)

This set off a huge red-flag for me. Last year, I wrote about Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) being a particularly strong candidate to win the GOP nomination in 2012.

Looking at the map, who is better positioned to win both Iowa and New Hampshire than Pawlenty? Nobody. Romney can win New Hampshire, but probably not Iowa. Palin and Huckabee could both win Iowa but probably not New Hampshire. (This is still according to Silver’s analysis).

Pawlenty, on the other hand, has contacts within the Iowa GOP and is better positioned to use the party infrastructure early on. Because of his work in Minnesota, he is a very strong candidate in the agricultural Midwest. In fact, I know the Wisconsin GOP already gave his Freedom First PAC access to their donor list.

Additionally, Pawlenty doesn’t have the same “uneducated” style of politics about him (for lack of a better term, I swear) that candidates like Palin or Huckabee do. This will give him strength in a state like New Hampshire, which otherwise seems to be a given for Romney.

Sure, he probably can’t win Nevada or South Carolina as easily, but he’d be in great position for the next few states (a few of which boarder his own) and the momentum he builds could easily deliver him a victory.

Obviously, we’ll have to wait and see, but I think it was a mistake on Silver’s part to ignore Pawlenty’s presence come 2012.



*Silver:

The first states to vote are the traditional early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. These states are shown in light blue. Note that this list does not include Florida and Michigan, which jumped in the queue to try to vote early in 2008 -- although who knows whether they'll be in a more cooperative mood this time around when push comes to shove.

Next to vote are the orange states, which are grouped together by virtue of their small populations. This includes 14 states and several territories, the largest grouping of which is on the prairies and the Western frontier, although there are also several New England states. Notably, no Southern states vote in this group -- the Republican calender definitely de-emphasizes the South.

Finally, there are gold, purple and green groupings of some of the larger states. These groups have some geographical integrity -- for instance, most of the traditional Midwestern Rust Belt states are in the gold group, whereas the purple states tend to be more coastal and the green more in flyover country -- although there are some exceptions. The order in which the gold, purple and green states vote will rotate every cycle and, to my knowledge, has not yet been determined for 2012.

How Democrats Can Claim Fiscal Responsibility for Themselves

Summary: Democrats have an opportunity to turn a core Republican message back on them.

Over the past year or so, Republicans in Washington have been quick to criticize the spending coming out of Congress with the blessing of the Obama Administration.

Knowing full well that most Americans are adverse to deficits (which are now higher than ever before) the GOP is calling Democrats “out of touch” with the average American.

It’s had an impact – Republican Scott Brown won his Senate race in the liberal Mecca of Massachusetts in part by criticizing Washington’s spending habits. Defeats like this, in turn, have made Democrats dispirited.

In many places, it’s already primary season for 2010. So if you’re a Democratic candidate, and you need to motivate the base, what do you say?

For starters, the Republican National Committee has demonstrated itself to be anything but fiscally responsible lately.

Last year, the RNC managed to burn through a whopping $95 million despite the fact that they were only supporting about four competitive races. They ended 2009 with just under $9 million cash-on-hand. These spending habits have caused their donors some concern – especially because of how much better the DNC has been doing – and RNC operatives have been frantically trying to reassure their contributers.

Knowing that they were having money troubles, where did the RNC decide to have its Winter strategy meeting? A beachside resort in Hawaii, with the best food, entertainment, and recreation that money can buy. Literally.

From a segment on last night’s episode of the Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
RNC Meeting in Hawaii
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

With weeks – and in most cases months – before the primaries, it’s not really worth anyone’s time to make this point a panicle one for your campaign message.

But as Democratic candidates are locating activists and donors, this message is a great way to engage them. An email blast to supporters criticizing the Republicans for trying to make fiscal responsibility their issue – when they’ve proven to be so fiscally irresponsible – is a great way to bring in some small contributions right now.

This is a good message for this part of the campaign because it gives the base a reason to fight.

Who Will Replace John Murtha?

Summary: Following the death of Congressman Murtha (D-PA), candidates prepare for a competitive special election.

Last night, the powerful Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania’s 12th district – John Murtha – died of complications during gallbladder surgery. He was 77.

Murtha was first elected in 1974 during a special election in the midst of the Watergate scandal. One of the first Vietnam War veterans elected to Congress, he would see his own share of scandal over the years, but ultimately survive them. A confidant of Tip O’Neil and Nancy Pelosi, he directed virtually all defense spending as Chair of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.

Using the power of incumbency, he always managed to bring in more than 55% of the vote for him during his re-elections.

But now his seat is vacant, and it’s likely to be an especially competitive special election this Spring.

From Politico:

His passing means there will be a special election held during the spring to fill the remainder of his term. Once the congressman’s vacancy is declared, Gov. Ed Rendell (D-Pa.) has 10 days to call the special election date, which can be held 60 days or less from his declaration.

The most likely special election date, according to Democratic sources, is May 18, the same date as the regularly-scheduled Pennsylvania primary election. Holding the special election along with the primaries would save Pennsylvania, already struggling to balance its budget, a significant amount of money.

There will be no special primary to nominate candidates. Instead, county party leaders from Murtha’s western Pennsylvania-based 12th District will each select the nominees at a convention, and the winners will then square off in the special election.

The Cook Political Report changed its rating of the now-vacant seat to “toss-up” status Monday evening, making it the 50th Democratic-held House seat rated in its most competitive groupings.

In 2008, while Murtha won over 57% in PA-12, John McCain was able to edge out Barack Obama in the presidential contest there by less than 1%.


Murtha’s former challenger – William Russell – was already set to run again and has raised almost $3 million. Unfortunately for him, his direct mail consultants are particularly expensive and he spends almost everything he brings in as soon as it’s deposited. As of the end of 2009, he had about $211,000 cash-on-hand. His primary opponent, however, has raised even less than what Russell currently has.

These are certainly things that local party leaders are going to take into account when choosing a candidate for the May election.

On the Democratic side, Murtha had an unusual primary challenge from ex-Naval officer Ryan Bucchianeri. While his background seems good – in terms of electability in this district – I can definitely see him being passed over by the 12CD Democratic Party because he had the gall to challenge Murtha. This is especially so in the short aftermath of the Congressman’s passing.

If things go the way they have been going for Democrats in moderate areas over the past few months, this is bad news for them. Recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts are giving Republicans a feeling of momentum, and they’re as fired-up as ever.

That’s not to say it’s impossible for the Democratic nominee, but it won’t be easy.

What Was the Point of the Tim Tebow Superbowl Ad?

Summary: Dave analyzes the effectiveness of what was supposed to be a controversial ad-buy.

For weeks the news and sports media in the U.S. hyped up the Superbowl ad featuring Tim Tebow and sponsored by Focus on the Family – a conservative pro-life organization.

It shocked a lot of people to think that CBS would allow a politically and religiously-charged issue like abortion to interfere with the American love of sports. Laura Craft Hogensen explained her discomfort with the ad last week on WAYLA.

But when the ad played during the first quarter of the game, what really shocked everyone was that it was relatively noncontroversial. The word abortion was never used, there was no persuasion made regarding anything really – it only asked that people visit the Focus on the Family website.

Watch the ad here:



So with such little information about anything, one has to ask “what was the point of this ad?” The answers only lead to more questions.

First, let’s make an easy assumption and say Focus on the Family assumed that people would see this ad, be curious, and visit the website and watch the extended video.

So visiting the Focus on the Family website, and clicking on the appropriate link we find a fairly long interview with Tebow’s parents. (Sorry, there’s no way to embed it here).

As you can see by watching the interview, that’s where all the controversy will begin. It plays heavily on religion (so much so that you really need to be an Evangelical in order for it to be effective) and suggests that doctors who recommend abortion as an option are untrustworthy.

Here are the immediate flaws with this way of advancing a pro-life position:

1) You can’t assume that people are going to be interested in watching this video. There will likely be two sorts of people watching the online video: strong supporters of the pro-life position and strong opponents of it. The few undecideds out there are probably not too interested in visiting the website because they are more likely to be apathetic about the issue.

2) Even if they were trying to convert strong opponents of their position (which is a waste of time and resources by itself) I can guarantee they didn’t succeed. It played so much towards religion and family that it simply could not have resonated with many (if any) liberals.

So again we’re left asking “what was the point of the ad?” Why on Earth would Focus on the Family pay $2.5 million for winning no converts?

There are three ways we might try to answer this…

1) The decision to run this ad was not a rational one. I suppose it’s very possible that someone at Focus on the Family decided that – since the Tebows were supporters – they should run a Superbowl commercial. After all, a lot of companies do it, so why shouldn’t they? Then their media consultants – knowing they’d get a huge commission on the ad – shied away from explaining to them that it wouldn’t actually do anything.

But at over $2.5 million, it’s hard to believe that.

2) The ad was meant to inspire the pro-life base. If the ad, and subsequent interview, was good for anything it was inspiring the Evangelical supporters Focus on the Family already has. In fact, many companies that advertise during the Superbowl are doing it for brand-loyalty purposes. The average consumer who sees a funny ad with Brett Favre mocking himself isn’t going to immediately go out and buy a Hyundai.



But there are Hyundai owners who – after seeing that ad – probably subconsciously say to themselves “that’s funny, I’m glad I bought my car from that company.” Next time that consumer needs a car, guess which company has the advantage of a sale?

But politics doesn’t really work that way. On an issue like abortion, you don’t get more or less support – even from your base – by trying to instill that sort of loyalty. You either have it or you don’t. Perhaps Focus on the Family was trying to convince moderate pro-lifers (such as those who believe in exceptions if it affects the mother’s health) to be more conservative in their position. Considering moderation is typically a means to a sweeping policy change like they hope for with abortion – however – I don’t know if that was really the reason.

3) This wasn’t an issue-advocacy commercial. There are those out there who will tell you they personally would never get an abortion, but they don’t feel comfortable taking that choice away from someone else. There is a possibility that the goal of this ad was to encourage women to not seek abortion for themselves, regardless about how they view current abortion policy.

Obviously this does not make sense to a lot of people – I did just say (after all) that the only people who would follow up with the ad are hardcore pro-lifers and pro-choicers, and that only the pro-lifers would agree with the message anyway.

The thing is, Evangelicals are actually the most likely single-women to have abortions. They do not believe in using contraception because it may increase their likeliness to have pre-marital sex. When they do have pre-marital sex – resulting in an unexpected pregnancy – they have two options: 1) be seen in church pregnant out-of-wedlock, or 2) have an abortion. Fearing they’ll be judged, they often choose the latter.

Is it possible that it was this sort of person the ad was targeting? Well, that’s my best guess up to this point. Do I think it will actually work? Maybe a little. Do I think it was a cost-effective way of doing it? No idea.

My best guess is Focus on the Family probably took a lot of these ideas into account, but probably not the ineffectiveness of the strategy.

For their purposes, however, there was something they could have – and should have – done in conjunction with this ad: a fundraising program. They should have had a “contribute” button somewhere near the online video of his parents for those pro-lifers who went to see it on the Focus on the Family website.

In the end, though, I have to say this was probably a waste of their money.

Which States Are Most Blue? Which States Are Most Red?

Gallup and Politico have some cool new maps to browse over for those of us watching the political landscape this year.

First, Gallup has a new “State of the States” page in which you can see what states most identify as Republican, Democratic, conservative, moderate, and liberal.


Overall, the Democrats are still more popular in the minds of the voters than Republicans. 49% of those polled identify with the party of Jefferson, while less than 41% identify with the GOP. Conservative is still the most popular ideology at 40%, followed by moderate at about 36%, with liberals in last place with under 21%.

The Top 5 GOP States:

1) Wyoming
2) Utah
3) Idaho
4) Alaska
5) Alabama

The Top 5 Democratic States:

1) Maryland
2) Massachusetts
3) Rhode Island
4) Vermont
5) Illinois

There were only 8 states that identified more with Republicans than Democrats.

Politico also has an interesting page worth checking out in their new 2010 section. In it you can find a map with election results for gubernatorial, senatorial, and House races going back ten years. Additionally, they provide dates for primaries across the country.

Did the SOTU Address Bump Obama’s Approval Rating?

Summary: The State of the Union Address did help President Obama - but by how much, and will it last?

A week ago today President Obama delivered his first State of the Union Address. Earlier that day we asked “could it bump his approval rating?”

We looked at Gallup data from previous SOTU speeches and determined it was unlikely. Presidents rarely get a significant bump following their annual address. But after seeing the speech, we determined that if any address could help his approval rating, it was that one.

Well, the new Gallup data is in, and - though it was small - there was a notable increase.


In just a day or two, the gap between his approval and disapproval ratings increased from 2% to 6%. As of this morning it is currently at 9% (note: the approval rating data will be updated later today).

As Gallup notes though, most of that increase came because Obama was able to re-inspire confidence in the Democratic base - not among Independents and Republicans.

Support for Obama among Democrats on a week-by-week basis has held steady in the mid-80s during January, although with some minor shifts among segments of the Democratic Party. His approval rating dipped mid-month among liberal Democrats before rebounding a bit last week. His support increased slightly in mid-January among conservative Democrats and has held at the higher level.

Support for Obama is now a bit lower among moderate/liberal Republicans than it was at the start of the month (27% vs. 33%). It is also slightly lower among conservative Republicans and pure independents (those who don't lean to either party), but neither of those changes is statistically significant.

Of course, the impact of single political events - even as high-profile as a State of the Union Address - fade quickly. A small bump in his approval rating this week means virtually nothing when looking forward to the 2010 elections. President Obama needs to continue what he started during that speech.

And he appears to be doing so. His tone has become more populist, more inspiring, and more reasonable. His recent address and Q&A with House Republicans was a very good event for him. If he manages to keep this up he could easily recapture a lot of the ground he lost over 2009 in terms of popularity.

Obviously he is not up for election this year - members of Congress are. But as a Democratic president during a year Democrats are expected to see big losses, he certainly has his role to play. And for now, he appears to be playing it well.

Why the Smarter Candidates Aren’t Always the Better Politicians

Summary: Having the facts on your side is never enough - what Democrats need to know for 2010.

Democrats will be tempted this year to explain the healthcare debate - or eventually the healthcare bill - in terms of economic efficiencies and aggregate improvements.

These will, of course, be the results of such a bill - but the argument may still cost these Democrats their elections.

Dr. David Runciman - a political scientist at Cambridge University - explains why in a piece for the BBC.

Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?

Why are they manning the barricades to defend insurance companies that routinely deny claims and cancel policies?

It might be tempting to put the whole thing down to what the historian Richard Hofstadter back in the 1960s called "the paranoid style" of American politics, in which God, guns and race get mixed into a toxic stew of resentment at anything coming out of Washington.

But that would be a mistake.

If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.

They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.

There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.

As the saying goes, in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell.

In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat, tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side.

He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:

Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."

Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers.

"I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."

Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off.

For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win: "One of the fallacies that politicians often have on the Left is that things are obvious, when they are not obvious.

"Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him."

Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas, is an even more exasperated Democrat and he goes further than Mr Westen.

He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.
The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.

Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.

Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:

"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining."…

…As Mr Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex.

Now, there are a lot of Democratic candidates out there who are able to connect to voters on the basis of these emotional values rather than objective policy-centered politics. For the most part, they will be fine.

Then there are a lot of Democrats who like to focus on policy specifics. Like Adlai Stevenson, they will hope the voters to understand these ideas if put to them correctly. But that’s not how voters make their decisions, and these Democrats will learn this the hard way come November.

Why a Strong Volunteer Base is Critical in 2010

Another Democratic consulting firm has started blogging! This time it’s Activate, a direct voter contact firm in Washington, DC.

Recently, Founder and CEO Mark Sump wrote about the importance of volunteer outreach and direct voter contact.

From The New Paradigm in Poltics:

The media is of course singularly focused on recent Democratic Party failures in Virginia, New Jersey and, of course, Massachusetts. They were colossal failures, and each of them was a reflection of the old paradigm in political campaigns. It is no longer true that the successful campaign is the one that has the most and best television advertisements. It is no longer true that campaigns can be won without engaging the public.

Coakley is the definition of this old paradigm. The fact that she was up by 30 points after her primary is not the relevant issue. The fact that she did not see the need to run a campaign after the primary is relevant. The fact that she did not see the need to engage the public and rally her supporters is relevant. Relying on a blitz of paid media at the end of the campaign no longer wins campaigns for Democrats even in the most liberal of states. Coakley is proof of that.

The new paradigm in winning elections is that public opinion is important, but paid media no longer carries the sway to change public opinion it once did. The new paradigm is that you have to earn public opinion through direct interaction with the public.

While the media is focused on in a few high profile campaigns, there is a quiet undercurrent that has so far gone unnoticed. The latest is Oregon, but just last month, the city of Houston…not known for its liberalism…elected Annise Parker the first big city mayor who happens to be a lesbian. A month before that, the state of Washington rejected proposition 71 ensuring the most sweeping gay rights legislation ever up for a public vote in the nation’s history.

Each of these campaigns had two things in common. Each of them embraced this paradigm shift toward engaging an army of volunteers, and each of them won.

We’ve mentioned the importance of volunteers and voter contact many times before, but this should provide more evidence towards their importance in 2010.

Thoughts on Wednesday’s SOTU Address

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama gave his first State of the Union Address. To put it mildly, he delivered one of his best speeches to date.

Watch the full speech here:



It was folksy, compassionate, and at times humorous. Most importantly, it was moving.

Some in the blogosphere - from both left and right - have been quick to criticize the feeling of the speech, if not the substance. Arianna Huffington yesterday described it as the “State of the Focus Group Address”.

From her piece:

“while most State of the Union speeches have a bit of a kitchen-sink feel to them, this one seemed particularly so with its blink-and-you-missed-it mentions of "earmark reform" and cracking "down on violations of equal pay laws -- so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work." It felt less like an overriding vision for the country, and more like an attempt to deliver at least one applause line for every constituency in the country.

That's not political leadership. Obama clearly understands this. It's why he ended his speech by mocking politicians who "do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation." And he just as clearly has the ability to articulate a bold vision for the nation and lead it where it desperately needs to go.

But he didn't do it tonight.”

Huffington is right insofar as the message-testing reality of the speech. Obama is changing his tone to what the American people want to hear.

But to say its not political leadership is flat-out wrong. Americans have a deep mistrust in government right now, not because they disagree with any particular policy agenda, but because they haven’t been feeling a connection to the man they believe is responsible for the direction of such legislation. As a result, healthcare, energy, and financial reform bills have been slow to pass through Congress, and vital work is not being done.

Now, it’s not clear yet if Obama achieved that trust with the SOTU Address. We’ll be watching his approval rating in the days to come as pollsters report their data. But if any speech could rouse broader public support for his presidency, it was the one Wednesday night.


Other thoughts…

• Luckily for Obama, few liberals seem to have picked up on certain number of inferred policy objectives he mentioned, including corn-based ethanol, “clean” coal, offshore drilling, and No Child Left Behind. If they had, the skepticism of the current Democratic government among progressives would have been jolted, a concern given the prospects they may stay home come election time. Yet Obama’s rousing message of America seemed to trump the minor details.

• If Congress was a class room and Obama was the teacher, the Republicans were the brats who don’t pay attention and get bad grades. They’ve been obstructive to the legislative process over the past year the way some kids are disruptive to the rest of class. Last night I saw a few of them tweeting and generally not paying attention. Sure, this isn’t new, but it’s certainly concerning. When the President of the United State is addressing your body, you should really listen up.

Sports and Ideology - An Uneasy Intersection

Summary: Laura Craft Hogensen explains her frustration with Tim Tebow's pro-life ad that will air during the Superbowl.

For many Americans, Sunday is a day of worship, a day to attend church services, a day of prayer and reflection. For the past decade, the Gallup Poll has shown that about 40% of people in this country attend some sort of church service during the weekend. Though this number has dropped siginificantly from the level that it was in the late 80's and early 90's, worship and the act of worship is still a significant part of many Americans' lives. And the religion that most citizens in the US practice is still Christianity. As of 2008, 76% of Americans polled identified themselves as Christian. Though this number used to be much greater (86% in 1990), still, over three quarters of people in this country consider themselves to be Christian.

We've all heard these statistics, or something like them before. All citizens in the United States, whether politically active or not, are aware, on some level, of the religious divisions that exist in this country. And frankly, I hate talking about them. I hated even looking up the statistics on faith for this blog post. The argument for or against different types of faiths and ideologies bores me. I feel that it's impossible to sway people on issues of faith or ideology because these issues are so personal, and so close to the self. Why waste time and energy trying to convince "the other side," that you are right and they are wrong? No ground is ever gained in battles of religion, ideology, and politics. There's a reason why these three topics have been banned as polite dinner table conversation.

But, if three of the largest issues are eliminated because of impropriety, what can there be to talk about? How can Americans fill the void of conversation that occurs during business lunches, happy hours, dinners and first dates? The answer is simple and all-encompassing: Sports.

Sports is the great uniter. When watching a game or discussing a team, no attention is paid to one's politcal or religious beliefs. The questions and answers are equally complex and nuanced - one need only recall the furious speculation that occurs before the Major League Baseball trading deadline - but anyone can participate in the discussion. People of all religions and political persuasions come together to pull for the same team. In many ways, spending time on Sunday afternoon watching a game with friends and strangers, rooting for a team together, and celebrating a victory, is a communion just as powerful as the one found during a church service.

That's what I've always liked about sports. Its universality, the passion it inspires - and the values it promotes. Sports has taught me that the actions of one can affect the outcome of all. It's taught me to be strong, to persevere in the face of adversity. I've learned that all people on a team can and do contribute to a team's success and failure - that we each have a role to play, and that the best kind of success is earned through hard work. These lessons, these values, do not appear on stone tablets, but they have shaped me and others to be just as decent and moral as those who were molded by faith.

In a way, sports has been a kind of refuge for me. A way to avoid arguments of politics or religion. A way to connect to others without worrying about who I might offend. No matter what was happening with the health care bill, or what Pat Robertson said about Haiti, or how Prop 8 was voted on, the world of sports was a neutral territory where ideologies were left off the field, and for that, I was grateful.

Perhaps this is why I'm more upset than usual over the pro-life ad starring Tim Tebow and his mother that is scheduled to air on CBS during the Superbowl. By making the decision to air this ad (produced by Focus on the Family), CBS has not only chosen to align itself politically and ideologically, but it has tarnished the neutrality that sports provided. It has taken away my refuge.

This is not the first time that a network has been asked to air a political or ideological commercial during the Super Bowl - the biggest night for television viewership during the year. In 2009, NBC made the decision to reject a similar pro-life ad that alluded to newly elected president Barack Obama. Like the Tebow ad, the Obama pro life ad, which was produced by CatholicVote, asks the question, "What if this child had not been born?" and then urges the viewer to "imagine the potential of life." At the time, many pro life groups protested NBC's decision, while NBC countered that it had also rejected the issue-based PETA ad as well. In 2008, presidential candidates also made the decision to avoid political ads during the Super Bowl. While Obama chose to buy local advertising in certain states, both he and the other front-runners of both parties decided to leave political talk out of the big game.

CBS has maintained that its decision to air the ad is part of a change in the network's approach towards "advocacy ads" which has occurred in recent years. Spokesperson Dana McClintock states that "most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time," and that "CBS will continue to consider responsibly produced ads from all groups for spots in Super Bowl XLIV."

I should probably divulge that I am pro choice - pretty vehemently so. And, when I first read this story, my main concern was that CBS would be unwilling to give equal time to a pro choice organization, should they want to (and should they have the money to) air an ad. But McClintock's vague statement about equal "consideration" does little to assuage my anger over this. I'm not angry at Focus on the Family or other pro life organizations that support this ad. I'm not angry at Tim Tebow or his mother - their Christianity and their commitment to their faith is deep and real. I'm angry that CBS has chosen to bring politics and religion into one of the few places where it had not yet divided this country. They've chosen a side, and by choosing sides, they have alienated others who do not, who can not, who will never agree. The Super Bowl, for all of its needless pageantry, for all of its encouragement of consumption and overindulgence is a truly American experience. Unlike other holidays like Christmas, it was a celebration that all Americans had in common regardless of faith, politics, or ideology. Yet, it seems on this day, too, we'll be a people divided.

Laura Craft Hogensen is an athlete and an avid political observer. She is married to Eric Hogensen, Principal of Hogensen Strategies Group.

Can SOTU Address Bump Obama’s Approval Ratings?

Summary: Tonight's address will set the stage for 2010 -- but how will if affect Obama's ratings?

Tonight President Obama will deliver his first State of the Union Address, although he has already addressed Congress twice before. According to pundit Howard Fineman, Obama’s test tonight will be whether or not he can win back America’s confidence.

His approval ratings could be worse, but they do suggest he is a polarizing president who has already spent the entirety of his political capital. According to Gallup, his approval rating is about 48% while his disapproval rating is about 47%.


Fineman also notes that there are “volumes of analysis written about the president are rife with the cliché that the guy’s career is made up of career-making or career-saving speeches.”

So can Obama give such a speech tonight?

If you pay attention to Gallup reports, you’ll agree the answer is “unlikely.” Hardly any presidents have managed to get significant bumps in the polls following their SOTU Address.


The only exception - really - was Bill Clinton’s 1998 SOTU Address, in which he announced one of the nation’s first surpluses in years just days after news broke about his affair with Monica Lewinski. The speech bumped his approval 10 points - up from 59% to 69%.

Most SOTU Addresses, however, don’t do that. In fact, the majority of presidents lose support after the speech, if anything.

Part of the reason approval is not expected to go up is because of who watches a SOTU Address - it’s almost always composed of more Americans who already support the president giving it.


In the two addresses Obama has made before Congress, his approval rating saw some upturn. The first - about a year ago - bumped him up 8%. But that was early in his presidency, before many Americans could get a firm opinion about him as a Commander-in-Chief. A lot has changed since then. His second - a healthcare focused speech - only gave him a 2% bump.

One interesting thing to watch will be how viewers react to the way he plans to take responsibility for the government’s shortcomings tonight. According to the New York Times (and probably other news outlets) the president is prepared to admit that his administration has made missteps.

Perhaps Americans will find it refreshing - the Bush Administration was usually reluctant to own up to mistakes - or perhaps it will confirm their skepticism about the new president.

We’ll have to wait and see.

What Was Learned in Massachusetts?

Summary: Fellow political consultants provide critical, but reassuring insight following the Senatorial special election in the Bay State.

Recently, our colleagues at Zata3 - a Democratic consulting firm in Washington, DC - sent us an email titled “Sorting Through the Wreckage Massachusetts.”

The email contained some important lessons from last week’s special election that we thought would be good to share with you today.

From the email:

We’ve talked to several of our friends who were involved in the MA Senate race (we did not work there). We’ve read dozens of news articles, blog exchanges and statistical analyses and listened to more than our share of the talking heads from both sides of the aisle. Here’s our one minute summary of the lessons to be learned.

• Don’t let the other side define you. Coakley was not on the airwaves until after the IE’s had defined her as the establishment candidate.

• Take the pulse of voters frequently, especially in these volatile times. GOP polls had Brown within 3 points of definite voters a month out. By January 9, he was ahead and by all accounts, it was too late to reverse the momentum.

• Expect a pragmatic, nimble, aggressive Hard Right. Brown was not the Tea Party’s ideal candidate but when they smelled opportunity, the zealots poured it on.

• Get your field program in order. Accounts vary about the shape of the MA voter file going into the special election, but all agree that Democrat turnout was anemic in key areas.

• In special elections, retail politics matter. The online Far Right was increasingly energized by Brown’s public appearances during the week around Christmas when Coakley made no public appearances.

• Don’t expect help from the White House. The President is personally popular, but the Bush hangover (two wars, Wall Street excesses, deficit, etc.) and Obama’s own ambitious agenda negate any positive coattails.

The good news is, nearly all of these lessons are from the Politics 101 text book. A solid, hardworking candidate and a capable campaign team who execute the fundamentals will win.

Soon we plan to bring you an analysis from a Democrat on the ground during the Massachusetts race, to learn further lessons as we look forward to the November midterms.

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.

How Will Yesterday’s Supreme Court Decision Affect 2010 Elections?

Summary: Show me the money! 2010 and the Supreme Court.

As you probably know by now, the Supreme Court yesterday overturned decades of precedent by ruling that a century-old law forbidding corporate (and possibly labor union) funding of political campaigns was unconstitutional. The issue, they claimed, was that the law infringed on free speech as protected by the First Amendment.

We first explained the case, Citizens United v. FEC, in a post last year.

The concept that campaign finance is an issue of free speech dates back to the case Buckley v. Valeo of the mid-1970s, and the concept that corporations are similar to individuals dates back to the mid-to-late 1800s.

Yet, in a 1990 case - Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce - the Court found there was a “compelling government interest in preventing corporations, in particular, from having an inordinate influence in the political process.”

And even if you don’t believe the ruling itself was a sign of judicial activism, the way the Court went about the ruling was totally out of character. The justices actually called for a second round of oral arguments so the two sides could debate the broader constitutional issues surrounding their particular case. In other words, the justices needed more to be said in order to make a more sweeping change to precedent.

Anyone who has studied constitutional law or the Supreme Court knows that such a move would generally be considered within the Court’s limitations, but highly irregular and a sign of improper conduct.

Constitutional issues aside, the practical implications of the decision are not yet certain.

First: do corporations actually want to risk alienating customers by running political ads close to an election? My guess is “no” for the most part. Yet there are definitely exceptions to that, especially with financial regulatory reform now on President Obama’s legislative agenda.

Now firms like JP Morgan, Chase, and other lenders - who are at risk of being broken up under the president’s plan - can target at-risk members of Congress who support Obama’s reform agenda.

Second: do campaigns really want corporations to help them? The SCOTUS decision didn’t say that a corporation could contribute an unlimited amount of money to a campaign - it would be limited, like an individual, to $4,600 per candidate this cycle - but only that corporations could make unlimited independent expenditures running ads supporting or attacking a candidate.

In other words, the 527 ads that liberals came to fear so much would be child’s play compared to the ads that corporations can spend money on.

But that could come with its own set of problems. It is unclear at this point how much coordination a campaign could have with a corporation producing and supporting a political ad. If their coordination is limited - like it is between a campaign, a party, and PACs at the moment - then campaigns would actually fear the ads throwing them off-message.

Explaining why the Obama for America campaign did not take federal funding - largely ceding advertisement expenditures to the DNC - campaign manager David Plouffe writes about this issue in his new book, The Audacity to Win:

“All the decisions would be made without our input. They would invariably be running a negative health care ad in a market where we would have preferred a tax cut comparative. And since tone was so important to our campaign - we did not want traditional low-blow negative ads run on our behalf - this factor took on added weight.”

So it is possible that corporate spending on behalf of a candidate could hurt a campaign more than help it.

Third: will Congress take action to limit the impact of the ruling? Within hours of the decision being released, liberal activists and grassroots organizations started a firestorm of angry criticism. When I emailed the story to co-workers yesterday, the subject line I gave it was “holy sh**, the levees just broke…”. And online petitions have already popped up from Organizing for America - who blasted an email about it - Public Citizen, and others.

What kind of action could they take? One of the comments I read on the post from the blog Campaign Diaries included a good idea.

“…perhaps Congress could address this without violating the Court’s new ruling on censorship. Could Congress require stock holders and union member to explicitly approve of political expenditures before they are made by those individual entities? I know that in a few states, union members must given written permission for their union dues to go political activity. Similar approval rights could be given to stock holders regarding corporate profits, or something even more specific for both groups, such as written permission for political spending per issue or per candidate. That would likely reduce the spending from those entities without the need for government censorship. The people that make up those entities would in effect be censoring themselves.”

In fact, one of my arguments against opening campaign finance to corporations was that executives wouldn’t just be making political speech decisions with their own personal money, but their investors’ money as well. This would be a good way to counter corporate spending that investors might not agree with.

At the end of the day, laws must be passed to counter the implications of more than just Citizens United v. FEC. In an op-ed yesterday, Michael Waldman - executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law - noted more campaign finance cases to come.

Another big campaign finance case soon likely to reach the high court would test the ban on large "soft money" contributions to political parties, last upheld by the court in 2003. Just days after John McCain's presidential campaign ended, the Republican National Committee sued to overturn the provision that was his proudest legislative accomplishment. That would mark a true plunge into partisan wars. Explaining the case, the RNC's political director was blunt: To have a chance of matching Obama's small donations, "we need to be on an equal footing, and we think that law [McCain-Feingold] keeps us from doing that."

While it is reasonable to fear that the floodgates have been opened, it is still not entirely clear what impact the Court’s decision will have on this year’s elections - especially given the fact that no one has ever seen a corporate-funded political ad. The only way to know the implications for sure will be to live through it in 2010.

In the meantime, however, you can petition Congress through OFA to take action to counter the decision by clicking here.