Category: Elections

Wave Prediction

I think David Dayen is spot-on with his prediction here.

We are coming out of three straight wave elections and I predict we’ll see a fourth in 2012. People don’t know which side to blame but they sure know that this group of elites has failed completely. This episode over the debt limit only confirms that.

We could see something along the lines of 469 incumbents – every member of the House, Senate, and the President – voted out of office next year. Obviously that’s hyperbole, but I would guess the 2012 election will have the largest percentage change of newly elected officials since World War II.

Stoller on Warren & Obama

Matt Stoller has a piece that’s really worth reading up at Naked Capitalism. In it he looks at the comparative leadership styles of Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama. What’s particular important in this piece is the elevation of Warren as an individual who not only has strong beliefs, but believes her ideas are worth fighting for and if she leads on the issues she cares about, other people will agree with her and go along with this. She pretty much out-organized the entire power structure in Washington DC during the course of the Dodd-Frank debate and the inclusion of the CFPB as part of the legislation. This despite the fact that the banks were opposed, credit card agencies and pay day lenders were opposed, in different ways Dodd, Frank, and Obama were unsupportive. But Warren out organized them and won.

Stoller writes:

Obama has constructed a Presidency around the glory of radicalism through inaction, and has dominated our politics so thoroughly it’s hard to recall any other mechanisms of governance. Still, It is important to remember what real leadership can look like, which is why Elizabeth Warren can be a pivotal figure. After all, we may need real leaders one day.

Yes, we will. And the pessimism which one feels about the performance by Obama or any other Democratic elected official shouldn’t diminish ones ability to still believe in leadership. For me, if I didn’t still believe that it was possible for individuals to take strong positions and move people to not only support them but take action to ensure they are realized, I wouldn’t be able to still work the politics and activism. Elizabeth Warren is a reminder that there are people who will lead towards good things.

Whatever Warren decides to do next, I’m sure she will continue to be a fierce advocate for what she believes in.

Mitt Romney & the economy


While Kombiz is right to point out Romney’s repeated failure in claiming credit for job creation as Governor of Massachusetts, the Romney campaign sent out a fundraising email that drives donors to a landing page with the above web video embedded. Beyond the silliness of a campaign sending out a fundraiser to a video that starts “Today the unemployment rate rose to 9.2%” when that happened this past Friday, we get to see the silliness of a campaign stealing a poster from a British politician two and a half decades ago. I have no clue how many independent voters (1) know who Margaret Thatcher is, (2) know a lot about the British Labour Party and (3) can contextualize the iconic Thatcher anti-Labour poster and campaign slogan from 1979 in a way that resonates with Romney’s edited version of it. See, “Labour isn’t working” makes sense because Labour should work – it is work! “Obama isn’t working” is just a hit on Obama. It doesn’t raise larger questions about his party nor is it normative about what Obama should be doing in a self-evident way.

Anyway, pardon my digression. The larger point is that despite the good objections Kombiz (and many other liberal bloggers) have made about how awful Mitt Romney’s record of job creation is, the Romney campaign still thinks that they are best served by attacking the President’s economic record. And while they’ve taken Plouffe’s comment horribly out of context in the video, the larger crime is that Mitt Romney is actively in favor of policies which would guarantee that unemployment would rise and the social safety net would be cut in order to benefit the richest Americans. There is something so deeply cynical about Romney’s willingness to pursue this line of attack that it’s quite revolting. Of course at the same time, this is an attack that could be made against the President by someone of either political party and the larger problem for the President is that regardless of how the unemployment number affects individual voters’ decision-making process, a high unemployment percentage is indicative of an economy that isn’t working for a large number of Americans.

Romney isn’t going to just stop hitting the President on the economy. He is going to keep making these web videos and hammering on the fact that the economy stinks. Sadly I don’t think there’s a lot of disagreement outside of Washington that the economy stinks. But for Mitt Romney to pursue this, it’s largely like him having a campaign saying, “The Wire is a really great show.” Of course it’s true, but it doesn’t tell us anything about Mitt Romney…other than the fact that he’s willing to state the obvious about the economy.

Originally posted at AMERICAblog Elections: The Right’s Field

Powerful economic ad from Romney

Mitt Romney has released an incredibly powerful ad hitting President Obama for high unemployment and what the ad frames as a dismissive attitude towards the human effects of the weak economy. Here’s the video transcript:

Video Text: “Millions Have Lost Their Jobs Under President Obama” Video Text: “Long Term Unemployment Is Now Worse Than The Great Depression” Video Text: “June 3, 2011 Unemployment Hit 9.1%” Video Text: “President Obama Called It A Bump In The Road” President Obama (audio): “There are always going to be bumps on the road to recovery.” Mark: “I’m an American, not a bump in the road.” Derrick: “I’m an American, not a bump in the road.” Melissa: “I’m an American, not a bump in the road.” Jessica: “I’m an American, not a bump in the road.” Jerry: “I’m an American, not a bump in the road.” Kevin: “I’m an American, not a bump in the road.” American Family: “We are Americans, not bumps in the road.” Matt: “I’m an American, not a bump in the road.” Dustin: “I’m an American, not a bump in the road.” Shirley: “I am an American, not a bump in the road.” Ryan: “I’m an American, not a bump in the road.” Jason: “I’m an American, not a bump in the road.” Group: “I’m an American, not a bump in the road.” Video Text: “BELIEVE IN AMERICA November 6, 2012.”

The text doesn’t do this video justice. The real heart strings are tugged as this surprisingly diverse group of people for a Republican campaign video hold up signs telling you who they are and what their situation is.

This would be a devastating ad coming from a challenger to the left of President Obama. Coming from Mitt Romney, well, I’m not sure if the power of the ad translates to the medium of the person who commissioned it. Romney is a pro-big business, pro-big banks corporate mercenary whose work at Bain cost thousands of Americans their jobs. But that doesn’t change that on its own, this line of attack isn’t going to be effective against President Obama. Romney doesn’t appear anywhere in the ad and this same video could be recut by any candidate and be just as effective.

Originally posted at AMERICAblog Elections: The Right’s Field

Campaign finance questions emerge around Palin’s trip

MSNBC contributor Karen Finney has a piece in The Hill questioning the propriety of Sarah Palin’s use of SarahPAC money to pay for her and her family’s “vacation” around the east coast. The trip has been treated by the press the same way it has been treated by Palin’s growing campaign machine: like a political trip, replete with meet-and-greets, on-the-road pop-ins and photo ops with key Republican politicians at iconic locations. Of course, as Finney points out, Palin’s explanations of this as a family vacation fly in the face of what political contributions to her PAC can and should be used for. Finney writes:

Given that Palin has so emphatically stated that this personal family vacation is not related to any political purpose, is it criminally fraudulent — federally punishable as mail or wire fraud — if the PAC funds, reasonably contributed for political purposes, are unlawfully converted for personal use?

This is a great question and an incredibly reasonable one for reporters to ask.

Finney thinks Palin is showing poor judgement by using PAC money for a family vacation which is masquerading as a presidential campaign testing-the-water trip which is masquerading as a family vacation. I disagree. Palin can answer as she has already – by being deliberately obtuse while performing linguistic gymnastics in response to reporters questions. She can tell her supporters on Facebook and Twitter that these questions are simply the LAMEstream media out to silence her. And she can probably assume that neither the FEC nor the Department of Justice will investigate if she is illegally using PAC money for personal gain, despite the fact that John Edwards is about to be indicted for using unreported political contributions for personal gain. In a sense, Palin has no real reason to not be coy with her purposes and her accounting because she has generally immunized herself from scrutiny from the press and from Democrats (at least to the extent that she does not accept their frame – how voters take her is a different question).

Originally posted at AMERICAblog Elections: The Right’s Field

Bankers Moving Away from Dem Giving

While it’s hardly a new story, the Wall Street Journal has a piece today showing a fairly dramatic move of campaign contributions away from Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. In 2008, Wall Street gave heavily to Obama and the Democrats. It wasn’t surprising – the Democratic Party was ascendant, Obama was an easy pick to win the White House, and Wall Street wanted to be on the right side of political momentum. 2010 saw a huge swing back to the Republicans, as their path to controlling the House was obvious. The real question now is whether Wall Street will swing its money back towards Obama, who doesn’t face a serious Republican challenger yet, or if they’ll hedge their bets andsplit the difference.

What’s worrisome about this story is that it’s old news, but is timed around a major debate on the debt ceiling, the budget deficit, and the fiscal outlook of the US government. It’s laced with the implication that Obama needs to be nice to Wall Street for political reasons, regardless of the actual dynamics of bankers front-running to grease political friendships. With the mantra of “Obama has to be nice to business” being repeated by elites in Washington for two-plus years already, I have to see this story as simply something which adds fuel to that fire.

The reality is that Wall Street financiers will give money to the people they think will win a given election. Contributions are, for the most part, not about actual ideological agreement. It’s about staying on the winning team. Hopefully Democrats don’t take this WSJ piece at face value and start seeking out new and innovative ways to coddle Wall Street donors.

We really need publicly financed elections

If there’s ever been a clearer demonstration of the need for the complete public financing of all federal, state and municipal elections, I don’t know what it is. Matt Taibbi:

A hilarious report has come out courtesy of the National Institute of Money in State Politics, showing that Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller – who is coordinating the investigation into the banks’ improper mortgage dealings – increased his campaign contributions from the finance sector this year by a factor of 88! He has raised $261,445 from finance, insurance and real estate contributors since he announced that he was going to be coordinating the investigation into improper foreclosure practices. That is 88 times as much as they gave him not over last year, but over the previous decade.

This is about as perfect an example of how American politics works as you’ll ever see. This foreclosure issue is a monstrous story that is somehow escaping national headlines; essentially, all of the largest banks in the country have been engaged in an ongoing fraud and tax evasion scheme that among other things has resulted in many hundreds of billions in investor losses, and hundreds of thousands of improper foreclosures. Last week, the 14 largest mortgage lenders a group that includes bailout all-stars like Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, managed to negotiate a settlement with the federal government that will mandate some financial relief to homeowners who have been victims of improper foreclosure practices. It’s unclear yet exactly what damages and fines will be involved in the federal settlement, or how many homeowners will be affected. But certainly there are some who believe the federal settlement was a political end-run around the states’ efforts to extract their own deal from the banks.

Put it this way. If the banks had to pay what they actually owed – from the registration taxes/fees they avoided by using the electronic registry system MERS to the money taken from investors in toxic mortgage-backed securities to the fees and payments stolen from homeowners via predatory loan practices and illegal foreclosures – they would probably all go out of business. That’s how much money is at stake here: the very future of financial giants like Bank of America and Citi and JP Morgan Chase is hanging to a very significant degree on the decisions of politicians like Miller.

This isn’t to presume that Miller has backed off his strong stance of fall 2010 because he’s received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations. But a system which allows the banking industry to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Attorney General who is leading a national investigation into foreclosure fraud is a system which is ripe for the corrupting influence of money.

Nate Silver on the strength of the GOP field

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight at the Times has a very interesting and typically numbers-rich post looking at the comparative strength of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates, as compared to the strength of past primary fields.

So it does look like Republicans have some legitimate reason to worry. In the previous five competitive primaries — excluding 2004 for the Republicans, when Mr. Bush won re-nomination uncontested — each party had at least two candidates whose net favorability ratings were in the positive double digits, meaning that their favorables bettered their unfavorables by at least 10 points. All five times, also, the nominee came from among one of the candidates in this group. Republicans have no such candidates at this point in time.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have two candidates in Ms. Palin and Mr. Gingirch whose net favorability ratings are actually in the double-digit negatives, something which since 2000 had only been true of Pat Buchanan and Al Sharpton.

Mike Huckabee is +8 and Mitt Romney is +4 with their favorability ratings. Thune, Daniels, DeMint, Pawlenty, and Barbour all have 0 to -3 ratings, but none have raw favorable nor unfavorable ratings above 20%, so there’s clearly room for them to grow in either direction.

At bottom Silver’s analysis suggests that this is not a strong field of candidates at this point in time. Much of the field would presumably benefit from voters getting to know them better, though that won’t necessarily help unless they’re actually decent candidates. Just ask Sarah Palin how people getting to know her has worked out.

The Right’s Field

In 2006 I started a site called The Right’s Field (now offline) with my friends Kombiz Lavasany and Matt Ortega. We wanted to have a place that was dedicated solely to covering the 2008 Republican presidential primary. While many liberal blogs covered the 2008 Democratic primary in full or had the occasional post about Republicans, no one was working exclusively on blogging the GOP race. We filled that role and along the way had other great writers contribute to it, including David Dayen, Todd Beeton, Michael Roston and others.

Kombiz, Matt and I recently decided that we should start up The Right’s Field again. We approached John Amato and Joe Sudbay of AMERICAblog and they offered to give us our own space on their site. It’s been in soft launch for the last week or so, but is now public today. You can check out AMERICAblog Elections: The Right’s Field at elections.AMERICAblog.com. My first post is here.

I’ll likely cross-post some content from The Right’s Field here, but probably won’t do everything, so stay tuned over at <a href="http://elections.americablog.com/&quot;.

Bai on an Obama Primary

The New York Times’ Matt Bai has long displayed an intense dislike of the American Left, particularly the online progressive movement. His column at the Times, “Political Times,” is an opinion column masked to look like straight news analysis. Almost everything he writes is filtered through his own normative prism. As such it’s no surprise that today’s piece, “Murmurs of Primary Challenger to Obama,” is laden with distortions. The most obvious is the notion that there are serious talks to run a primary challenger against President Obama. While there is discontent on the left and a small number of progressive writers have floated the idea, it’s hard to describe this as something that is moving towards reality, at least worthy of reporting by one of the Times top political, ahem, reporters.

Things get more interesting when Bai mentions the key issues which he sees liberals as raising when it comes to primarying Obama. He writes:

All of this would have seemed unthinkable in 2008, when Mr. Obama’s red-white-and-blue visage seemed omnipresent on campuses and along city streets, a symbol to many of liberalism reborn. That, of course, was before the abandonment of “card-check” legislation for unions and of the so-called public option in health care, the escalation in Afghanistan and the formation of the deficit-reduction commission.

Note Bai’s issue choice and tone. First, there hasn’t been a single labor union which has cited the lack of movement on the Employee Free Choice Act – or any other issue – as grounds for challenging the President. Yet Bai leads with labor reform, couched in scare quotes, as the first issue liberals are citing as grounds for a primary. Of the three published pieces Bai cites calling for a primary, neither Michael Lerner, nor Robert Kuttner, nor Clarence Jones mention labor reform broadly or Employee Free Choice specifically as reasons to primary the President.

Second, note the “so-called” part of his reference to the public option. It wasn’t so-called. That’s what it was. Again, though, while there is disappointment widely and outright anger in some places, I don’t see the particular presence or absence of the public option from health care reform legislation as a driving force in discussions on the left of a primary challenge.

No doubt the zeitgeist in liberal spheres is one of disappointment and anger. It’s also evident that the President is angry with the progressive left for raising their criticisms, as yesterday’s White House press conference clearly demonstrated. There’s been more tension between the administration and the base than I would hope for, but Bai doesn’t do anyone a service by elevating what are at best tangential policy differences in the quiet conversations about a Democratic primary. Of course, that’s Bai’s point. He’s seeking to exaggerate the volume of these conversations and frame them in such a way as to make it really simple for Village elites to punch the left.

I don’t doubt that more progressives will float the idea of primarying the President. It’s a natural part of the conversation when a sitting President is headed to a re-election campaign. But there isn’t a single organization who has moved towards a primary. There isn’t a single Democratic politician who has expressed interest or willingness in running, let alone a draft movement directed at any individual to run against Obama from the left. Maybe these things will change in the future. For now, there is obviously dissatisfaction but nothing near the level of formative campaigning that Bai implies, making me think the sole purpose of Bai’s piece is to be a vehicle for his intense dislike of the left.