Democrats have reason to be encouraged by this morning's report that that the economy added 243,000 jobs in January and the overall unemployment rate has dropped to 8.3 percent. Of course the Administration should vigorously exercise its bragging rights concerning the monthly report, and especially the overall favorable employment trend of recent months.

For those who want a more nuanced understanding of what the latest employment numbers may mean for the 2012 elections, however, Nate Silver's "Obama's Magic Number? 150,000 Jobs Per Month" at his FiveThirtyEight NYT blog may be the most incisive data-driven analysis yet published on the relationship of employment to presidential politics. Silver takes a sobering look at the connection, and explains:

No economic indicator is the holy grail...And there are a number of non-economic variables pertinent to predicting presidential elections -- wars, candidate quality and ideology, turnout, scandals and so forth...But if you want to focus a single economic indicator, job growth during the presidential election year -- especially as measured by the series called nonfarm payrolls -- has a lot going for it.

...Data related to the change in the level of employment have had among the highest correlations with electoral performance in the past. The correlations aren't perfect by any means. But if you perform a true apples-to-apples comparison (that is, looking at the economic indicators alone rather than muddying them with other sorts of extraneous variables), they do at least as well as anything else in predicting elections, and slightly better than some other commonly used metrics.

Just as important, there are a lot of qualitative reasons to focus on the jobs numbers. They measure something tangible and important. They receive much attention from economists, investors, political campaigns and the news media, and therefore inform the public discussion. They are released every month after only a minimal lag. They are subject to revision, and the revisions can be significant, but they aren't quite as bad as those for other economic series like G.D.P. or personal income growth. The jobs numbers are calculated in a comparatively straightforward way, and are usually in pretty good alignment with other economic measures. They don't need to be adjusted for inflation.

Silver then taps some creative methodology to correlate the nonfarm payroll growth rate with the popular vote margin of defeat or victory for the incumbent party in 16 post WWII presidential elections, and he comes to some interesting conclusions, including:

Overall, the relationship between job growth and electoral performance is good but not great...Roughly speaking, there were 10 election years in which you could make a pretty good prediction about the election outcome from knowing the jobs numbers alone: 1948, 1960, and then the eight elections from 1980 onward...In six other elections, you would have needed to look beyond the jobs numbers to come to a good prediction about the outcome.

Citing some of the complicating factors that can cloud his data-driven analysis, such as Eisenhower's charisma, the Watergate scandal and foreign policy debacles. Regarding a possible Obama-Romney race, Silver argues,

...If we knew nothing else about the election but how many jobs were created between January and October 2012, we would deem Mr. Obama to be a favorite if the economy created more than 107,000 jobs per month and an underdog otherwise. Basically, this would represent job creation at about the rate of population growth.

That's good news for Obama. The "what have you done for me lately?" factor may signal even better news:

...The public has tended to give greater weight to recent job growth, discounting earlier performance when the trajectory seems positive...If you break it down in more detail, you'll find that job growth during the third year of a president's term has a positive effect on his re-election odds, while the coefficients attached to the first two years are negative.

But none of these results are statistically significant or particularly close to it; only job growth during the fourth year of a president's term has a clear effect.

Silver then factors in presidential approval ratings into his calculations, which indicate:

Mr. Obama's approval rating is now 46.5 percent, according to the Real Clear Politics average...That isn't terrible -- it's in the range where Mr. Obama might be able to eke out a victory in the Electoral College -- but it's somewhat below average. From 1948 through 2008, the average president had an approval rating of 52 percent as of Feb. 1 of the election year, according to the Roper Center archives.

If Mr. Obama has an approval rating of 52 percent by November, he will almost certainly win re-election. He'd also be a favorite if he's at 50 percent. And 48 percent or 49 percent might also do the trick, since at that point Mr. Obama's approval rating would likely exceed his disapproval rating.

But Mr. Obama is not quite there yet. The surest way for him to improve his approval rating will be to create jobs at a rate that exceeds the rate of population growth.

We can come up with an estimate of just how many jobs this might be if we put a president's approval rating as of Feb. 1 and the payrolls numbers into a regression equation...I'll spare you the math (although it is straightforward), but this works out to a break-even number of 166,000 jobs per month -- not a huge number, but more than the 107,000 that we had estimated before accounting for Mr. Obama's middling approval rating.

...If you run another version of the analysis that considers a president's net approval rating, along with the rate of payroll growth net of population growth, you come up with a break-even number of 151,000 jobs per month.

The Wall St. Journal is predicting an average of 155K jobs being added per month in 2012, notes Silver. But he adds that forecasting track records are "frankly pretty mediocre." Taking all of the factors into consideration, Silver ventures, " If payrolls growth averages 175,000 per month, Mr. Obama will probably be a favorite, but not a prohibitive one. If it averages 125,000 per month, he will be a modest underdog."

Silver's numbers appear to be sound enough, and 150K jobs per month seems like a good guidepost. Rachel Weiner cautions at WaPo's The Fix, however, that "No president in recent history has been reelected with unemployment above 8 percent, and analysts suggest it would take growth of between 167,000 and 260,000 jobs a month to get there by November."

It would be interesting to see what Silver's analysis could do scaled down to the state level, taking into consideration Geoffrey Skelley's point at Sabato's Crystal Ball that "after all, presidents are elected in 51 individual battles (50 states plus Washington, D.C.)." It might be worthwhile to look at needed job growth and margins of victory in the half-dozen most volatile swing states. That could be helpful to Dems in terms of laser-targeting resources.

Link | Comments ()

Editor's Note: As part of an ongoing effort to encourage broad discussion of 2012 election strategy, this item by Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall is crossposted from The Progressive Fix.

As the 2012 election gets underway, President Obama is still waiting to see who his opponent will be. Candidates and campaigns matter hugely, of course, but we should also pay attention to the field on which the match will be played--and at first glance, the lay of the political land doesn't look so favorable to Obama and his party.

The lingering economic slump has demoralized voters and tilted the electorate rightward. With idle workers, underwater homeowners, exploding deficits and debts, growing inequality, and a bitter, broken political system, objective reality isn't exactly working in incumbents' favor. Upon closer inspection, however, the electoral landscape may not be as forbidding for progressives as it first appears.

For one thing, the recovery finally seems to be gaining momentum, complicating Republican attempts to cast Obama as a "failed president" who doesn't have a clue about how the economy works. For another, Republicans are incumbents too, and their intransigence and obstructionism throughout 2011 will make many swing voters reluctant to entrust them with undivided control of the federal government. Finally, the fractious battle for the GOP nomination reveals a party at war with itself, while conservatives' venomous attacks on Obama push Democrats toward unity.

But no matter whom the Republicans pick as their standard bearer, the tricky political terrain confronts Obama with three strategic imperatives: 1) roll up a big majority of moderate voters; 2) win back a good chunk of the independents who deserted his party in 2010; and 3) fashion a stronger economic message that combines jobs and fiscal responsibility.

Moderates Matter More Than Ever

Obama today faces an electorate that's more conservative than the one that elected him in 2008. According to new polls by Gallup, 40 percent of the public identifies as conservative, while just 21 percent fess up to being liberals.

That's up three points from 2008, and up significantly from the one-third share of the electorate that conservatives have averaged in polls going back three decades.

The recent uptick is most likely a reaction to an unusually severe economic downturn. The fact remains, however, that whereas there used to be 1.5 conservatives for every liberal in America, in 2012 the ratio is nearly 2-1. The new arithmetic doesn't mean Democrats are doomed; it does mean they have to do exceptionally well among moderates to win.

That in fact is what Obama did in 2008, when he carried 60 percent of the moderate vote. But he'll probably have to do even better this time to compensate both for the rise in self-identified conservatives and a likely falloff in support among his core 2008 constituencies: minorities, young voters, single women and highly educated professionals. Liberals consider themselves the Democratic "base," but there just aren't enough of them to deliver victory. In 2008, half of Obama's vote came from moderates, while liberals accounted for 37 percent. Conversely, Republicans will need fewer moderates to build majorities because more voters now describe themselves as conservatives.

Of course, voters don't define themselves exclusively by their political outlook, and things get more complicated for Republicans when we look at trends in partisan affiliation. Last year, according to Gallup, a record-high 40 percent of Americans described themselves as independents. In addition, more identified as Democrats (31 percent) than as Republicans (27 percent).

Does the much ballyhooed fact that independents are now the biggest "party" in America bode well for third-party challengers? Not necessarily. There may be more of them, but most independents continue to lean to one party or the other. As a group, they've grown more conservative in the last several years, and Gallup says more leaners incline today toward the Republicans than Democrats, resulting in an even, 45-45 partisan split. Genuinely unaffiliated voters make only about 10-15 percent of the electorate.

Continue reading "Marshall: Obstacle Course--Obama and the 2012 Electoral Landscape" »

Link | Comments ()

Romney's gloatfest about his big Florida win has been gished by his latest gaffe. But the most interesting statistic of the election --- the 14 percent decline in GOP primary turnout from '08 -- does not bode well for Republicans in the general election. Granted, there was a big property tax initiative on the ballot in '08. But Janet Hook's Wall St. Journal report, "Florida Turnout Falls Short of Hopes" notes that leading voter turnout experts believed it to be lower than expected nonetheless, all the more disappointing to the GOP because Florida is hosting the Republican national convention this summer.

Gov. Mitch Daniels, Indiana's shameless corporate toady, signs the 'right-to-work' bill into law -- the first rust belt state to do so. The great Hoosier, Eugene V. Debs, turns in his grave as workers begin protests.

But it looks like a 'Stop the Insanity' movement may be afoot among some other GOP governors, according to Michael Cooper's New York Times article "Second Year In, Republican Governors Moderate Tone." Well, maybe just a 'Reduce the Cluelessness' trend.

Jamie Stiehm's "What's a Republican Feminist To Do?" at the NYT 'Campaign Stops' blog explains the dilemma facing Republican women who don't think women who have abortions should be criminalized. Stiehm doesn't directly address whether some pro-choice Republican women will vote Democratic, but it's clearly a possibility for those who strongly believe that women ought to have dominion over their own bodies. Her post also illuminates Romney's flip-flops on the issue, in stark contrast to both of his parents. Stiehm's best quote comes from Ted Kennedy in his victory over Romney in the '94 Senate race: "I am pro-choice. My opponent is multiple choice."

Richard Cohen's WaPo column "Republicans Have Only Themselves to Blame" provides a condensed catalog of GOP folly from the primary trail, along with some sharp zingers, among them "Yahoos stride the stage" and "The GOP is brain-dead." As for the cause, Cohen explains: "The Republican establishment acts as if this season's goon squad of presidential candidates has come out of nowhere, an act of God -- a tsunami that hit the party and receded, leaving nothing but nitwits standing...For too long it has been mute in the face of a belligerent anti-intellectualism, pretending that knowledge and experience do not matter and that Washington is a condition and not a mere city."

This should be Thursdays' most unappealing event.

TDS's James Vega did a worthy takedown of the recent WaPo article in the Fix, "Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever." Now Jim Manley, a longtime aide to Democratic Sens. Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid has a rebuttal, also in the Fix, featuring quotes placing the blame for polarization where it more plausibly belongs, including this gem by Thomas Mann, of the Brookings Institution, and Norman Ornstein, of the American Enterprise Institute: "One of our two major parties, the Republicans, has become an insurgent outlier--ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

Josh Dzieza has a rogues' gallery, "Who Gave $1 Million or More to Super PACs? A Daily Beast Roundup".

Mindful that "after all, presidents are elected in 51 individual battles," Geoffrey Skelley reviews the latest unemployment rates of the 50 states at Sabato's Crystal Ball, and discusses the possible implications. For example, "Nevada is a toss up state that...However, the terrible state of the Silver State's economy -- it has the highest unemployment rate in the nation at 12.6% -- might be a drag on Obama...Then there are toss ups such as Virginia (6.2%) and Iowa (5.6%), which have jobless rates considerably lower than the national average. That could make these states more likely to support the status quo and vote for the incumbent. For the same reason, recent good news regarding the economies of many Rust Belt states could improve Obama's reelection chances...Obama barely won North Carolina in 2008, and the state's 9.9% unemployment rate helps explain why we believe, at the moment, the Republicans are slightly favored to take back the Tar Heel State in November. Conversely, New Mexico, a state with a large Hispanic population that has been trending more Democratic, has a fairly low unemployment rate, making it more likely to remain in the president's column."

At FiveThirtyEight.com John Sides sorts out the available data to address the question, "Did Romney's Ad Advantage Help in Florida?" Lots of significant caveats here, but Sides concludes that "I would say there is suggestive evidence that Mr. Romney's advantages in advertising helped him win in Florida - but it qualifies as circumstantial."

Nate Berg reports at the Atlantic that "Increasing Density and Diversity Likely to Make Western States More Blue." Berg notes that "much of this shift to the blue side of the spectrum is due to the heavy concentration of new growth in the urban areas of these six states and, not unrelated, their increasing minority populations...The Las Vegas metro area, for example, is now home to three out of four Nevadans. The state's minority population also increased by about 11 percent between censuses, bringing the non-white population to nearly 45 percent. Two-thirds of Arizonans live in the Phoenix metro area. Arizona's minority population also increased from 36.2 percent in 2000 to 42.2 percent in 2010. The Albuquerque metro area now houses about 44 percent of New Mexicans. Nearly 40 percent of all Idahoans live in the Boise metro area."

Don't miss this moving photo tribute to Obama's leadership

Link | Comments ()

The Republican primary campaign has provided a foretaste of the bitter and divisive super-PAC driven media tactics that will be used against Obama in the fall. The fundamental and inescapable fact is that Democrats will be on the receiving end of a propaganda campaign of a scope and ferocity unparalleled in American history. Democrats must begin planning now how they will respond.

The attack will be three pronged:

First, there will be a "high road" attack directly sponsored by the Republican presidential candidate - now almost certainly Romney - and the RNC. It will be based on sanctimoniously accusing Obama of having "failed" -- that he has not fulfilled his campaign promises and that his policies have proved ineffective. The media has already reported on this planned campaign and how it will reduce the need for Romney to attack Obama personally by using Obama's own words against him.

This part of the three-pronged approach does not represent any major departure from the practices of past campaigns. Where it will significantly differ is in the use of bogus "facts" and statistics on a scale that would have been previously unacceptable. Years ago statements such as "the stimulus did not create any jobs" and "unemployment has risen under Obama" would have been dismissed as simply false by the media as soon as "mainstream" economists objected. In the modern "post-truth" Fox News world, on the other hand, even the most unambiguously false charges will be described as "debatable" rather than nonsense.

The second prong of the strategy will be a feverish invocation of the culture war narrative -- one that will far excel Sarah Palin's sneering and divisive "we're the real, the good America; they are the degenerate coastal elites" framework that she used in the 2008 campaign.

The ads - which will come from Super-PAC's more than official sources -- will be ugly and distasteful: they will portray Obama as deeply "un-American" - foreign and alien to the heartland values and daily life of the "real" America. Romney and the Republicans have already made this the centerpiece of their "hardball" attack. Obama "goes around the world apologizing for America." "He wants to turn America into France." "He is a socialist who hates free enterprise." The third-party ads will repeat these same accusations but with an overt appeal to prejudices that will be more accurately described as xenophobic rather than racial. The ads will identify Obama not with ghetto hoodlums or Black Panthers but rather with foreign ideas and ethnicities -- "commies", "America-hating Muslims" and "illegal aliens and foreigners," all of whom support his goal of undermining America.

The most important and destructive change in 2012, however, will be in the vastly expanded dissemination of a third, flagrantly dishonest and utterly propagandistic "low road" attack - one that will be conducted both above and below the radar.

In 2008 the low road attack on Obama was conducted largely outside the official candidate and Republican party media or the major PAC'-s (one clumsy ad by the McCain campaign that attempted to make a "dog-whistle" suggestion that Obama was the anti-Christ was a notable exception). Most of the 2008 low road attacks circulated under the radar - through distribution to informal e-mail lists and comment threads, through micro-targeted direct mail, through robo-calls and through phone banks run by shadowy outside firms. Within these closed communication channels the claims were widely circulated that Obama was a secret Muslim, a radical/communist, a sympathizer with domestic terrorist bombers, and that he was behind a range of "Birtherist" and other conspiracies. Media Matters for America made pioneering attempt to map these "below the radar" attacks during the 2008 campaign and to outline how they were circulated and amplified within the various conservative communication networks, but the study was discontinued after the elections.

Observers were at first uncertain how important these sub-rosa attacks would be in the 2008 election but the absolutely pivotal role they played became very clear as the passion and enthusiasm of the Republican base became largely driven by these "disreputable" views rather than the more policy-based attack made by McCain himself. The real energy of the Republican base in 2008 was reflected in the almost fanatical Sarah Palin supporters whose enthusiasm vastly exceeded any support for McCain himself and whose signs and shouted slogans reflected the "disreputable" rumor-based views rather than opposition to Obama's actual platform or priorities.

(The influence of the rumor-based attacks reached a dramatic climax when McCain - in the most honorable single action of his campaign - explicitly rejected the claim of a woman who asked why he didn't tell voters "the truth" - that Obama was a Muslim terrorist and a traitor during one rally in September. McCain tried to reason with the woman, arguing that Obama was not a terrorist but simply an American with whom he disagreed but the crowd howled its fierce disapproval of his conciliatory remarks.)

Democrats should not assume that Romney will behave as honorably in 2012 as did McCain in 2008. While Romney will hold himself personally aloof, there is little or no chance that he will explicitly disavow the massive low road campaign that will be launched on his behalf.

In 2012 this low road attack - which will once again circulate in large part "under the radar" by e-mail, phone, mail and social media --will have three key characteristics:

Continue reading "TDS Strategy Memo: After the primaries Democrats will be on receiving end of a propaganda campaign of a scope and ferocity unparalleled in American history. Dems must anticipate this onslaught and begin now to plan how best to respond." »

Link | Comments ()

The GOP presidential primary season's surprises notwithstanding, Romney's Florida win makes a compelling case that Newt is basically done. Ed Kilgore's persuasive analysis below leaves little room for Gingrich's resurgence and makes it clear that he has two shots, long and none.

It would take a spectacular Romney gaffe to put Gingrich back in serious play, and yes, he's had a couple of dillies. Romney is a twitchy candidate, prone to excessive jabber. No doubt his smarter handlers will cut back on live interviews as much as possible going forward. But for gaffe potential, he will never match Gingrich. Santorum has to be thinking they could both tank in a mutual gaffe frenzy.

In addition to Kilgore's points, I would add that Newt's gender gap vs. Romney -- 24 points in the largest of swing states, ices Romney's cake. Has there ever been a larger gender gap in a mega-state presidential primary? And it's not like Romney has anything to offer women in terms of policy. It's about how many women perceive Newt's character, or rather lack of it.

Under normal circumstances, a candidate with Gingrich's vote totals in SC and FL would be considered a leading contender in the veepstakes, at least. But team Romney could not be blamed for thinking that would be a little like putting Caligula on the ticket, or a very loose canon on deck. Certainly it would be doubling down on gaffe potential. File that one under 'not gonna happen.'

Democrats can't be blamed for cherishing the lurid fantasy of a Gingrich nomination, with it's potential for lengthening Obama's coattails far beyond what Romney's nomination could do. In terms of planning the Obama campaign ahead, however, it looks like time to bet all resources on a contest with Romney, who will be hard enough to beat without distractions, as William Galston has argued.

Yes, Dems should keep rooting for Newt's success in the primaries and caucuses ahead on grounds that he will further divide the GOP and taint the entire party with escalating nastiness. But Democratic time, energy and money should now be invested in preparing to beat Romney, Dems' central challenge for 2012.

Link | Comments ()

This item is crossposted from The New Republic.

After last night's bitter defeat, Newt Gingrich is vowing to stay in the presidential race for a long, long time ("six to eight months" he said in Florida yesterday). Of course, that's what candidates usually say just before and immediately after bitter defeats (see Jon Huntsman's "Ticket to Ride" sound bite after finishing a poor third in New Hampshire), even if they have every intention of cutting a deal with a better-positioned candidate and getting off the campaign trail. But Newt may actually mean it, particularly if his sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson, who is largely financing his largely Super-PAC-based campaign, continues to write checks. Gingrich is reportedly very angry about the negative ads Team Romney used to bury him once in Iowa and bury him again in Florida, and he is unpredictable. Newt may well choose to hang around for a while yet as a zombie candidate. But his vows to take his campaign "all the way to the convention" are nothing more than bluster. Newt has no realistic chance of winning the nomination, and he almost certainly knows it.

Those looking for more optimistic historical precedents won't have a lot to go on. Since 1972 (when the current nomination system came into place), there has been exactly one occasion when the delegate selection season ended with no clear nominee--the GOP contest in 1976, which pitted an unelected incumbent president against the universally acknowledged leader of the conservative movement. There has been one other occasion when the nomination was in some doubt going into the final stages of the primary season: the Democratic contest of 2008, when two historic campaigns slugged it out on relatively even terms for months, with a raft of uncommitted superdelegates having the theoretical opportunity to decide the contest. There have also been two instances--the Democratic contests of 1980 and 1984--when a late run of victories by a candidate on the brink of elimination has created some suspense. And there has been one other--the odd pincers campaign by Frank Church and Jerry Brown against Jimmy Carter in 1976--where "late entry" candidates made a splash.

But if Newt Gingrich were to stay in the race, he'd be following a different sort of precedent: candidates with no real shot at the nomination who have hung around anyway, because they represented distinct party constituencies (like Jesse Jackson in 1988) or because they hoped to benefit from a consolidation of "buyer's remorse" voters after it was all decided (such as Jerry Brown in 1992, and, for a while, George H.W. Bush in 1980) to boost their status as Big Dogs. As was amply demonstrated by the attacks on Gingrich from conservative opinion-leaders after his win in South Carolina, he is not the universally acknowledged leader of an important ideological faction like Reagan in 1976 or Ted Kennedy in 1980. He also has none of the vast financial resources of a Reagan or a Kennedy, and given his consistently poor general election poll standings (especially as compared to Romney) he cannot make the kind of electability argument that supported Bush in 1980 or Hart in 1984.

And when you look at the actual timetable of this year's nominating contest, it doesn't give Newt a lot of natural advantages. In the February contests, he faces Romney in his home state of Michigan and Mormon-heavy Nevada, along with resource-intensive caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota--contests where Ron Paul is sure to split the anti-Romney protest vote. He's not even on the ballot in Missouri. His best shot is the Arizona primary, and that's an uphill battle. It's also not clear when (or if) Rick Santorum, who will take most of his votes from the pool otherwise available to Newt, will drop out.

His odds on March 6, Super Tuesday, are no better. Gingrich must win Georgia (particularly after his endorsement by fellow-Georgian Herman Cain), is not on the ballot in Virginia, can't win in Massachusetts, and again has to deal with an assortment of expensive caucuses scattered around the country. If he survives all that, he must then navigate another series of probably-hostile caucuses before arriving at the cash-sucking oasis of Texas on April 3. Then comes April 24, when a battery of northeastern primaries (including delegate-rich New York and Pennsylvania) looks impossible. Remember, too, that the ban on winner-take-all primaries ends on April 1, which will help the front-runner bank big delegate totals.

Throughout this horrible gauntlet, Gingrich will be exposed to increasingly intense pressure from party leaders to get out of the race--or at a minimum, to play nice--even as Romney does what he likes. Mitt will probably begin skipping the candidate debates that have been the main source of oxygen for Newt's campaign. And in general, the media coverage--even hostile media coverage--Gingrich craves would largely dry up.

Gingrich has very few reasons to stay in, and lot of reasons not to. He has always been the kind of political showman who is capable of expressing anger strategically, and then cheerfully talking with the objects of his bile. And he has already executed two miraculous returns-from-the-grave this cycle, so it's not as though a departure at this stage would label him a hopeless loser. The strongest obstacle to a marathon might have to do with his personal bottom line: The more Gingrich's chance at victory approaches a mathematical impossibility, the more he will sacrifice the future affection of rank-and-file Republicans--the same people he expects to buy the books and videos, and attend the lectures, on which he depends to afford Mediterranean cruises and Tiffany's.

So yes, Newt can stay in for a good long while, and burnish his reputation as an unconquerable pain in the ass. But barring yet another strange twist, persistence is likely to earn him little other than enduring opprobrium from party elites. Sure, he'd have the pleasure of competing pointlessly with Ron Paul to trade last-ditch delegates for some early evening convention speaking slot where no one other than hard-core CSPAN viewers will even know he was there. But that's about all. Newt may have a "ticket to ride" to the convention, but it definitely won't be in first-class. Even Sheldon Adelson can't afford to buy him that.

Link | Comments ()

This item by TDS Co-Editor William Galston is cross-posted from The New Republic.

Mitt Romney's strong performance in the second Florida debate deprived Newt Gingrich of his last chance to maintain the boost he got from his South Carolina victory. Unless something significant happens before January 31, Romney will beat Gingrich in the Sunshine State by a double-digit margin and regain his standing as the front-runner for the Republican nomination. After a quiet February, he'll deploy his edge in money, organization, and preparation to defeat Gingrich the way Grant defeated Lee--by inexorably grinding him down. And when he does, the Republican Party will have dodged a bullet, because the evidence indicates that Romney would be a much stronger general election candidate. It also suggests that President Obama faces a tougher reelection campaign than many now think.

Consider a January 26 Quinnipiac survey of the Florida electorate, beginning with President Obama's standing in a state he carried by 3 points (51-48) in 2008. Forty-six percent of registered Florida voters approve of the way Obama is handling his job, while 52 percent disapprove. Forty-seven percent believe that he deserves to be reelected, while 49 percent do not.

Given this terrain, whose contours are perilous for the president, the difference between the two main Republican contenders is dramatic. Obama holds an 11-point edge (50-39) over Gingrich but musters only a tie (45-45) against Romney. The crucial different comes among Independents, where Obama leads Gingrich 50-33 but trails Romney 41-42. Forty-three percent of Florida voters rate Romney favorably overall, versus 37 percent unfavorable; for Gingrich it's 32-50. On the issue voters regard as the most important--the economy--Romney has a 50-41 advantage over Obama (51-40 among Independents) while the president leads Gingrich 47-45 (52-39 among Independents). On what historically has been a key presidential trait--strong leadership--Obama leads Gingrich 51-41 but musters only a statistical tie (46-45) against Romney. And the president's modest 5-point edge (47-42) over Romney on trustworthiness swells to an astonishing but hardly inexplicable 22 points (57-35) over Gingrich. I could go on, but you get the point: in the largest swing state, Obama is the odds-on favorite to demolish Gingrich but could well lose to Romney.

And Florida is no outlier. An average of major national surveys conducted in January gives Obama a modest 2.3 point edge (47.2 to 44.9) over Romney. Against Gingrich, the president's margin swells to an average of 11.7 points (51.3 to 39.6). Bottom line: while Romney may be able to take advantage of the incumbent's vulnerabilities, Gingrich almost certainly can't.

The conventional wisdom is that the Republican nominating contest has already damaged Romney severely. There's some evidence to support that view. According to the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, Romney's unfavorable ratings among Independents have increased by 20 points over the past two months, and Obama now leads him by 8 points in this crucial group. But it's hard to find much evidence of that trend in Florida, a state whose voters have much more information about Romney, negative as well as positive, than they did two weeks ago, and far more than do voters nationally. Romney's support among Floridians is identical now to what it was three months ago. Voters interviewed after his defeat in South Carolina viewed him just as favorably as did those interviewed before that contest. And even nationally, adults interviewed in the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal survey give Romney exactly the same share of the vote as they did last November (or last June, for that matter). As of now, anyway, Romney may be bruised, but the primary fight has not administered anything like a knockout blow to his general election prospects.

The other side of the conventional wisdom is that Obama enters 2012 in a strengthened position. There's something to this: Many key indicators have risen measurably from the lows they reached last fall. For example, the NBC/WSJ poll found that 30 percent of Americans think the country is on the right track, up from only 17 percent in October. But that increase just takes us back to the split that prevailed in June of 2011. This is something of a pattern for Obama. His job approval is up 4 points since October but only stands where it was last June. The same is true for his personal favorability ratings. Approval of his handling of the economy stands at 45 percent--exactly where it was last April. And so on.

Continue reading "TDS Co-Editor William Galston: Warning To Democrats: Romney Is a Stronger Candidate Than You Think" »

Link | Comments ()

The GOP's Social Security and Medicare privatization policies are not the only thing Florida seniors are angry about. Writing in the AFL-CIO Now Blog, Laura Markwardt, senior communications associate at the Alliance for Retired Americans notes that "Hundreds of Florida seniors and others turned out for a rally in Tampa Friday against voter suppression....Recent changes in Florida's election rules will have a dramatic impact on Florida's seniors and other voters. The new law passed in the Florida legislature cuts early voting from 14 days to seven days before the election, which hurts many seniors who vote early because they are physically unable to stand in a long line or make it to the polls on Election Day."

Nate Silver's "Polls Diverge, but All Point to a Romney Win" crunches the polling numbers and estimates that "Odds are, instead, that Mr. Romney will win by somewhere in the range of 10 points to 20 points, meaning that many networks are likely to declare him the winner shortly after polls close."

Milking the 'liberal media' meme for the very little that it's worth outside of his right flank, The petulant bomb-thrower chucks a heat-seeking grenade into the discussion about debate formats in the fall campaign: "As your nominee, I will not accept debates in the fall in which the reporters are the moderators," Gingrich bellowed at a Pensacola rally. "We don't need to have a second Obama person at the debate." Millions yawn.

Most pundits are skeptical about Democrats' chances of re-taking the House. But a couple of opinion polls suggest otherwise, reports Deirdre Walsh at cnn.com's Election Center. "Two polls released last week bear that out: An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 47% of voters preferred a Democratic-controlled Congress, compared to 41% who supported a Republican-controlled one; and a National Journal poll indicated a wider margin -- 48% said they supported a Democratic Congress and 37% said they wanted Republicans to keep control."

Steve Roth's "Social Security: The Elevator Pitch" at Angry Bear spotlights a few stats Dems should master for shredding GOP arguments, among them: "The extra revenue needed to make SS solid far beyond the foreseeable future (75 years) is tiny: 0.6% of GDP...Coincidentally, Scrapping the Cap on SS contributions -- so high earners paid payroll tax above $110K -- would deliver ... 0.6% of GDP." Roth adds, "Worried about our fiscal future? It's the health care costs, stupid...U.S. providers charge two to five times what they charge in other countries, and it's rising faster -- and faster than wages, GDP, inflation...If you're not talking about that, you have nothing useful to say about our fiscal future."

Eric Boehlert has an interesting take at Alternet , "How Fox News Is Destroying The Republican Party." Says Boehlert: "For Ailes and company, that slash-and-burn formula works wonders in terms of super-serving its hardcore, hard-right audience of three million viewers. But in terms of supporting a serious, national campaign and a serious, national conversation? It's not working. At all."

It's all caucuses and no primaries for the GOP field during the the next month, according to "What's Next After Florida: Entering the Dead Zone" by Chris Good of ABC's the Note. Then the primary action picks back up on Feb 28 in Arizona and Michigan, with 'Super Tuesday' a week later (March 6), when 35+ percent of the GOP delegates will be selected in ten states in one day. Good believes "...it's unlikely any candidate will be able to win the delegate race before May" and California's 169 delegates (June 5) should clinch the Republican nomination if it isn't a done deal by then.

February could be Ron Paul's big month, with all the caucuses slated. But recent revelations about Paul's hands-on involvement in producing his racist newsletters could be damaging. As WaPo's Jerry Markon and Alice Crite point out "...People close to Paul's operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day...."It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product...He would proof it,'' said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul's company and a supporter of the Texas congressman."

Meredith Shiner and Steven T. Dennis have a Roll Call report on "Rust Belt Democrats Trying to Manufacture a Win," explaining that "Democrats believe manufacturing job growth, especially in the auto industry, has been one of the bright spots of their résumé and that it's about time the administration touts that success...Senate Democrats, in particular, have the opportunity to make the manufacturing message their own, or at least use it on the floor with symbolic votes designed to put Republicans in a tough spot."

Expect an uptick in howls of 'Class Warfare' from the GOP as Dems increasingly hitch their 2012 campaign to the growing popular demand for fair taxes. Senate Majrity Leader Harry Reid is planning votes on tax reform throughout spring and summer, according to Lisa Mascaro of the L. A. Times D.C. Bureau's "Democrats in Congress step up tax-the-rich efforts: They see it not only as a way to reduce the deficit, but also to lay down a populist line in the election battle for Congress and the White House."

Link | Comments ()

The following article by Democratic strategist Robert Creamer, is cross-posted from HuffPo:

More than most elections, the contest for President this fall is likely to be decided less on "wedge issues" -- or even candidate positions that are symbolic of who is on whose side -- and more on the character and core values of the candidates -- and for that matter on the question of the core values of the society we hope to leave to our children.

Last Friday, speaking to the Democratic Caucus Policy Conference, Vice-President Joe Biden told a story that speaks volumes about the character of Barack Obama.

According to Biden, the day before he ordered the raid that finally stopped Osama Bin Laden, President Obama met with his top national security advisers in the Situation Room. At the close of the meeting, he went around the room asking each person for his or her recommendation on whether to launch the risky nighttime mission.

As it went around the table, Leon Panetta recommended that the President proceed. Most of the others expressed reservations and handicapped the odds of success as only fair. Finally, the President got to Biden who said he recommended not proceeding until two additional steps were taken to enhance the odds.

Then the President stood and told his advisers he would let them know of his decision in the morning.

The next day, as Obama stepped onto his helicopter to leave on a day trip, he turned to his National Security Adviser, Tom Donilan, and issued a simple order: "let's go."

Much more was at stake in the Bin Laden mission than success or failure killing or capturing the most wanted fugitive of modern times. In some respects Obama's Presidency itself was at stake.

To quote Biden, "The President has a backbone like a ramrod."

Whether or not you like all of his policies -- or all of his decisions -- it's hard to argue that Barack Obama is not a tough, decisive guy -- a guy who is guided by solid core principles and has a disciplined, laser-focused will. This is not a President that flip-flops in the political wind or is swayed by the last person who talks to him. Above all, Barack Obama is centered. He has a solid core built around strong core values.

America -- and the rest of the world -- have seen those character traits over and over again during the last four years.

They saw them when he announced his candidacy to become the first African American president of the United States -- and then organized the highly disciplined, leave-no-stone-unturned campaign that elected him 2008.

They saw that same inner toughness in his -- at the time unpopular -- decision that saved the American auto industry.

In early 2009, Obama simply refused to throw in the towel on health care reform, when the election of Senator Scott Brown made it appear impossible to succeed -- and he won.

Later that year, Obama's force of will guaranteed the passage of Wall Street reform and the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And his willingness to just say no to Republican obstructionism last month by making a recess appointment of Richard Cordray, guaranteed that American financial institutions -- for the first time -- have a regulator dedicated solely to looking out for the interests of everyday consumers.

Obama has remained determined and unflappable in the face of the toughest economic and political environment in sixty years and has emerged from three years of battle ready to wage a highly organized, focused campaign this fall that will center on most fundamental question facing our society: whether we will have a nation where we look out for each other, and have each other's back -- or a society where we are all in this alone.

Obama intends to make this campaign a battle over core values -- a choice between a society where we are all responsible for our future, and for each other -- or a society where selfishness is our highest value -- where "greed is good." His campaign will frame the choice before America as whether we have a government dedicated to defending privilege -- or one whose mission is giving everyone a fair shot, a fair share, and a guarantee that we all have to play by the same set of rules. His campaign will be about reigniting the values that underlie the American Dream and the hopes of the middle class and all of those who aspire to it. It will be about restoring fairness and opportunity and hope.

Contrast that kind of President -- and that kind of campaign -- with Obama's likely opponent, Mitt Romney.

Right after the 2004 election I was riding in a New Jersey taxicab. The driver was a typical male New Jersey cabbie. "So what do you think of Corzine?" I asked." "Oh, Corzine, tough guy. Like him," he replied about the then-Senator.

"What do you think of Bush?" I said. "Like him too. Tough guy. Stands up for what he believes," came the answer.

"How about Hillary Clinton?" I asked. "Tough gal. Like her," he said.

"What about Kerry?" I asked. "Kerry? Can't stand him. Flip-flopper--a phony."

Ideology, policy positions -- none of that mattered to this cabdriver who liked Corzine, Clinton and Bush. He wanted a tough, committed leader. But the Republicans had convinced him of its central message -- "John Kerry is a flip-flopper--a phony."

Bush strategist Karl Rove had sold that version of Kerry -- a Senator who in fact has strong core values -- largely because of his tendency to "Senate-speak." He also realized that Kerry's vote for the Iraq War, and then against continued funding in 2004, could be portrayed as the symbolically powerful flip-flop. The icing on the cake was Kerry's explanation of the 2004 vote: "I voted for it before I voted against it." Rove illustrated his flip-flop message with an iconic commercial that featured pictures of Kerry windsurfing and tacking one way and then another.

Kerry's perceived lack of core values was the factor that, more than any other, led to George Bush's second term as president.

Voters want leaders who believe in something other than their own election. Quite correctly they want leaders with a strong moral center. They want leaders who make and keep commitments to their principles and to other people. And they want to know that the candidates they support are the leaders they will get after the election -- not, as John Huntsman said of Romney, "a well-oiled weathervane".

Romney has never seen a position he couldn't change if he determined it would be to his advantage to do so. He thinks of politics as a business marketing project, where you say what you think you need to in order to maximize sales. Romney doesn't think of voters as citizens to be engaged -- he thinks of them as customers to be manipulated.

As Massachusetts Governor, Romney was pro-choice -- now he is anti-choice.

Romney was the author of the Massachusetts health care plan that in many respects served as the model for Obama's own health care plan. Now he wants to repeal "Obamacare."

Romney once refused to sign the "no new tax pledge." Now he has signed the "no new tax pledge."

Romney favored extension of the assault weapons ban. Now he opposes extension of the assault weapon ban.

Once he said the TARP "was the right thing to do." Now he says he opposed it.

Right after the economy collapsed he said he favored an economic stimulus program; now he says he opposed the stimulus bill.

Once Romney said he believed that human activity contributed to global warming; now he says he doesn't think we know what causes global warming.

One day he was emphatically neutral on Ohio Governor Kasich's union-busting legislation -- that was ultimately "vetoed" by the Ohio voters. The next day he one hundred percent supported that legislation.

Romney is a guy who, when called on his flip-flops and inconsistencies, said: "I'm running for office, for Pete's sake."

The reason Romney is having such a difficult time making the sale in the Republican primary contest is that many Republicans don't think he has strong core beliefs, don't trust him and think he's a phony.

Wait until he has to convince swing voters that he's anything more than a "vulture capitalist" who will say anything and do anything to make the biggest deal of his life -- the "acquisition" of the government of the United States of America.

But, you say, maybe he will flip-flop back into a more "moderate" Mitt Romney if he becomes President. Don't bet on it. People who have no core values will sell their services to the highest bidder. Romney's Presidency has already been sold lock, stock and barrel to the big Wall Street banks, the CEO class, the multi-millionaires who are behind his super PAC and the Republican Establishment that have financed his campaign.

In fact, throughout his career, Mitt Romney has demonstrated that his only "core value" is his own financial and political success. In Romney's view, both in politics and in business, every other belief or commitment can be thrown overboard if it weighs him down in his quest for success. And that goes for the people and communities that were impacted by the "creative destruction" of his corporate takeovers and leveraged buyouts at Bain Capital. To him, they were apparently nothing more than "collateral damage."

In the end, it is likely that the ultimate irony of the Romney campaign will be that his own willingness to toss aside positions and values that might at one time or another have appeared inconvenient, will ultimately weigh him down more than anything else.

Link | Comments ()

Look at this home page headline in today's Washington Post:

"Is Obama the most polarizing president ever?"

When you click to go to the column, the question is flatly answered in the affirmative:

Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever.

But now read what the text of the column actually says:

Out of the ten most partisan years in terms of presidential job approval in Gallup data, seven -- yes, seven -- have come since 2004. Bush had a run between 2004 and 2007 in which the partisan disparity of his job approval was at 70 points or higher.

As a chart that accompanies the article makes clear, Bush had the highest partisan gap in 4 of those 7 years. Moreover, in the three years where the partisan disparity was over 70 points, It was Bush and not Obama who was president.

As the article then notes:

"Obama's ratings have been consistently among the most polarized for a president in the last 60 years," concludes Gallup's Jeffrey Jones in a memo summing up the results. "That may not be a reflection on Obama himself as much as on the current political environment in the United States, because Obama's immediate predecessor, Bush, had similarly polarized ratings, particularly in the latter stages of his presidency after the rally in support from the 9/11 terror attacks faded."

In addition, as the article also notes:

Democrats will point out that Republicans in Congress have played a significant part in the polarization; the congressional GOP has stood resolutely against almost all of Obama's top priorities. And Obama's still-high popularity among the Democratic base also exacerbates the gap.

In fact, the only way the article manages to slice the data to support the headline is by comparing presidential first year to first year, second year to second year and so on - a Bush vs. Obama comparison that just happens to include the huge national rally behind Bush after 9/11.

This is really outrageous. Some headline writer over there at the Post oughta get fired over this. It's not only blatantly and dishonestly biased against Obama but it does not even pass the standards for a tenth grade high school journalism class.

Link | Comments ()