Right wing’s worst nightmare: The master stroke that turns red states blue

Our divisions are phony: There's broad agreement on more issues. Here's how we convert the Tea Party.

Elizabeth Warren’s rock star reception at Netroots Nation came as a surprise to absolutely no one, but not so her popularity as a draw for red state Democrats running for Senate, like West Virginia’s Natalie Tennant or Kentucky’s Alison Lundergan Grimes.

Yet, there shouldn’t be anything surprising about Warren’s broad economic populist appeal. It was, after all, the foundation of Democratic Party power from 1932 through 1968, a period in which Democrats won seven of nine presidential elections and controlled both houses of Congress continuously with only two brief blips in 1946 and 1952. It was a period of single-party dominance unmatched by any other in U.S. history, except for the First Party System, which the Democratic Republicans dominated so thoroughly from 1800 on that the opposition Federalist Party eventually just disappeared. The New Deal era may have been a long time ago, but its political basics remain as popular as ever — as seen in programs like Social Security and Medicare, which even conservative Republicans think we’re spending too little on. What’s been lacking in recent years is the political leadership and infrastructure to tap into that popular sentiment, which is just where Elizabeth Warren comes in.

Indeed, while 2016 is still a long way off, there’s good reason to believe that having Warren on the ticket could be the key to a Democratic victory that would finally break through the logjam of Republican obstructionism — despite a mountain of conventional wisdom to the contrary, which claims that it simply can’t be done, that what is now must forever be. In a recent piece for the National Journal, “Half of America,” Ronald Brownstein did a particularly adept job at laying out the conventional wisdom case for inevitable structural gridlock. Whichever president from whichever party, he argued, the pattern remains the same:

In one key respect, each president’s tenure has followed a similar arc. Each initially sought the White House promising to bridge the nation’s widening partisan divide. Clinton pledged to transcend “brain-dead policies in both parties” with his “New Democrat” agenda. Bush declared himself a “compassionate conservative” who would govern as “a uniter, not a divider.” Obama emerged with his stirring 2004 Democratic convention speech, evoking the shared aspirations of red and blue America, and took office embodying convergence and reconciliation.

But by this point in their respective second terms, each man faced the stark reality that the country was more divided than it was when he took office.

Of course there are obvious differences that Brownstein ignores, beyond the fact that Clinton and Obama both won their elections, while Bush won a lawsuit instead. Most notably, both Clinton and Obama really did try to reach out to Republicans — and were both soundly rebuffed for their troubles. Neither enjoyed the traditional presidential honeymoon period. Bush, on the other hand, was more moderate in style than in substance, as shown by his out-of-the-gate insistence on massive tax cuts, passed at the cost of losing the Republicans their majority control of the Senate, as it helped precipitate Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords’ departure from the party — a fitting testament to Bush’s alleged moderation. But blindness to such differences is par for the course, the entry fee for punditocracy membership.

Brownstein goes on to describe the problem as “persistent polarization” due to “structural forces” creating “an environment in which presidents now find it almost impossible to sustain public or legislative support beyond their core coalition.” And in turn, he argues that this goes back to “institutional changes” turning Congress into “a quasi-parliamentary institution” and an underlying “deeper divide in the public itself” between rival non-overlapping voter coalitions, “younger, racially diverse, more secular, and heavily urbanized” on the Democratic side, and “older, more religiously devout, largely nonurban, and preponderantly white” on the Republican side. All this is quite familiar, and much of it is even true — as far as it goes. But its evenhanded treatment consistently glosses over at least two fundamental asymmetries, beyond the differences already noted.

First, the Democratic coalition is larger than the GOP coalition — Republicans have won just one presidential election since 1988 with more than 50 percent, Bush’s reelection in 2004 … the closest reelection since Woodrow Wilson’s in 1916. Their current House majority is built on pure gerrymandering — House Democrats got half a million more votes than Republicans did in the last election. Republicans can keep up only by keeping Democratic voters down. They cannot compete on a level playing field. Voter suppression, political intimidation, mud-slinging that turns people off to politics completely, these are overwhelmingly Republican weapons of choice, because the two coalitions are not equally balanced. Smaller, off-year electorates favor Republicans. If everyone votes, Democrats win consistently. That’s not a sign of two equally large political coalitions.

Second, the Republicans are more ideologically extreme, dogmatic and uncompromising, as well as being far more reliant on long-range deep-pocket funding to shape the political landscape/battlefield. This combination makes them tactically strong, at the cost of being strategically vulnerable, but only if Democrats are willing to challenge and change the way that politics is played. The Democrats’ numerically dominant big-tent, loose coalition, on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand approach makes it child’s play for the Republicans to engage in tactical divide-and-conquer games, primarily because Democrats have taken their eyes off the ball, the underlying populist economic vision that appeals to virtually all elements in their coalition—and many Republicans as well.

Putting Warren on the ticket in 2016 — either in the top spot or as vice president — would help Democrats take maximum advantage of the first asymmetry, and overcome the disadvantage of the second one. And that’s not just my own pet theory. We have a solid set of polling data from 2008 to support this view (presented and analyzed here), polling data showing John Edwards — the most populist candidate in the field — giving candidate Obama a substantial boost from the V.P. slot against any of the GOP tickets he was tested against, a boost unmatched by any other V.P. candidate tested. Indeed, the boost was so significant that based on polling data in early July, an Obama/Edwards ticket put Georgia, Texas, both Carolinas and Mississippi into the toss-up category, while putting Montana and North Dakota into “lean Obama.” You want a “map-changer”? Edwards was the very definition of one — and Warren could be one, too. Perhaps most dramatically, Edwards expanded Obama’s lead in safe state electoral votes from just over 2-1 (207-90) to over 5-1 (286-52) , an electoral map change so profound it could not help having profound implications for House and Senate races as well.

The data I’m referring to derives from a series of polls conducted by Survey USA after both party primaries were over, in which they paired Obama and McCain with a wide range of potential V.P. nominees. Sarah Palin was not included, but Michael Bloomberg was, on both sides of the contest. SUSA did its polling in two main rounds, with a different mix of V.P. candidate in each. Edwards was part of the first round, featuring stronger candidates on both sides. It’s particularly instructive to compare how he did with “popular son” candidates — like Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, Jim Webb of Virginia and Bill Richardson of New Mexico — as well as looking at his performance in bellwether states like Iowa and Ohio.

In Iowa, John Edwards gave Obama almost a 10 percent average advantage over all the McCain-headed tickets (Huckabee, Lieberman, Pawlenty, Romney) he was polled against. The only other Democrat to help Obama at all was James Webb, who added about 1 percent. Bloomberg lost Obama less than 1 percent, while McCaskill lost him more than 4 percent, Hagel lost him almost 7 percent, and Sebelius and Ed Rendell lost him 10 percent.

In Ohio, Edwards helped Obama by an average of just under 5 percent — the only V.P. candidate to do so. Ed Rendell — former governor of the neighboring state of Pennsylvania, lost almost 7 percent on average.

Speaking of Pennsylvania, in that state Obama was beating McCain by 8 points, while Edwards helped him add an average of 5.5 percent. Favorite son Ed Rendell only added 1.25 percent.

In Missouri, Obama’s lead in one round became a deficit in the next. Looking only within rounds, Edwards helped Obama by an average of 4.5 points, while favorite daughter Claire McCaskill only helped him by .66 points against a much weaker V.P. field.

In New Mexico, Richardson had by far the strongest favorite son showing. He helped Obama by adding a very respectable average of 4 points. Edwards did 50 percent better — he added an average 6 points, against a much stronger V.P. field.

In New York, Edwards added 6 points, Bloomberg added nothing (against a weaker V.P. field), and everyone else lost ground — anywhere from 5 to 9 points.

In Virginia, Edwards added 6 points to Obama’s margin, while Virginia Sen. Jim Webb added just over 2 points, and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine added nothing.

I selected these states for obvious reasons. But Edwards was even more impressive in some other states. In Minnesota, for example, Edwards was the only V.P. candidate to help Obama, rather than harm him, even helping Obama by 2 percent facing McCain paired with favorite son Tim Pawlenty.

In the end, of course, Edwards turned out to be a deeply flawed individual, much less a deeply flawed candidate. But that’s not what these poll figures were about. They were about the resonance of his populist “Two Americas” campaign theme — a resonance that only grew more intense after the Wall Street crash that September.

In one broad measure of how much impact Edwards had, I looked at all the variance in the different poll matchups as providing a measure of the potential swing in each state. I then looked at how well Obama did with Edwards in each state. Looking at a 15-state average, Edwards reduced the swing by 14 percent — and he cut Obama’s worst performance in each state by the same 14 percent average, raising the floor, as it were. That figure never fell into single digits for any of the states, a strong indication of how consistent and broad-based his populist impact was.

I also looked at how much Edwards helped with specific sub-groups in various states. In Ohio, for example, Obama had a 6-point lead among white males, but with Edwards on the ticket his lead ranged from 10 to 23 points. Among Virginia white females, Obama trailed by 6 points, but with Edwards on the ticket, he won by 5 to 14 points. Among New Mexico seniors, Obama trailed by 4 points, but with Edwards, he only lost by 1 point against a single V.P. pairing, and won the demographic with three other pairings, up to a high of 12 points. These are just a few samples showing how Edwards helped Obama in a range of states with groups that aren’t part of the traditional liberal core.

Finally, in early July, I looked at how Edwards would help Obama nationwide, using the average bump he provided in each state SUSA had polled, and the average of all his state averages for all other states. I used a simple poll-averaging model from my Open Left blog mate Chris Bowers as my baseline, which showed Obama leading McCain in electoral votes by almost 100, 293-194 (with 51 toss-ups), and a popular vote lead of 48,3 percent to 43.8 percent. In solid states — those with a margin of 9 points or more — Obama led McCain by more than 2-1, 207-90. But with Edwards on the ticket, Obama’s electoral vote lead expanded to over 250, 344-90 (with 104 toss-ups), and a popular vote lead of 51.5 percent to 40.0 percent. In solid states, Obama’s lead soared to over 5-1, 286-52.

In short, with Edwards on the ticket, Obama was ahead in a map-changing avalanche. And all the data supporting this conclusion comes from months before the Wall Street crash. There’s every reason to believe that Warren would have a similar, if not greater impact in 2016 — it’s just that no one has bothered to gather the relevant data, at least not yet.

There’s a strong probability that Hillary Clinton will be elected president in 2016. The GOP field is a mess, and the media’s desperate attempts to revive corpses like Chris Christie and Rick Perry only makes the picture even clearer. But the attacks on Clinton will surely escalate exponentially, putting the prospects of a landslide in doubt, no matter how inadequate the GOP candidate turns out to be. The Edwards record from 2008 strongly suggests that Warren as V.P. could help to ensure that landslide — and with it, a workable Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, even despite the intense GOP gerrymandering that currently has the House paralyzed.

What happens after that will be crucial, of course. If, like Obama and her husband before her, Clinton tries to “move to the center” and spurn her party base, then the 2018 midterms will be yet another disaster, and political gridlock and dysfunction will continue in the years ahead. The Ron Brownsteins of the world will be “vindicated.” But if Elizabeth Warren does have some influence, if Clinton does learn from past Democratic mistakes, then maybe, just maybe, we could see America break with its recent history of almost 50 years dominated by divided government and return to a more traditional, more functional political pattern, in which one party — and its vision — dominates for a period of decades, and the other party survives by adapting to the world that the dominant party has created.

The raw numbers tell us this is the direction America wants to go in. Elizabeth Warren could be the key to getting us there. Otherwise, it’s endless deadlock, as far as the eye can see.

To reprise a post from last night...

An excerpt from the President's presentation to a fundraising group in Seattle this weekend:

I am very proud that we have ended one war, and by the end of this year we will have ended both wars that I inherited before I came into office. (Applause.) But whether people see what’s happening in Ukraine, and Russia’s aggression towards its neighbors in the manner in which it’s financing and arming separatists; to what’s happened in Syria -- the devastation that Assad has wrought on his own people; to the failure in Iraq for Sunni and Shia and Kurd to compromise -- although we’re trying to see if we can put together a government that actually can function; to ongoing terrorist threats; to what’s happening in Israel and Gaza. Part of people’s concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity, that’s based on economies that work for all people.

Thus, a president who has made an absolute hash of our foreign policy presents an inarticulate assessment of his performance and outlines a world in turmoil -- chiefly due to his ineptness.

The folks at that fund-raiser paid $32,000...and were rewarded with this drivel. They have money, so they have been successful. Presumably, they are well-educated. Yet, if they were reasonably intelligent and alert people, wouldn't they be wondering why this SOB was worth the $32,000 they'd just forked over.

Is there no critical thinking amongst the Democrat base? Do they all approve of his ineptitude? Do they all have such low standards?

A New Disorder

It is people like this and the people who dominate the Comment section off the New York Times that leave me wondering if a significant minority of the populace has been fully and irreversibly indoctrinated.

Is there no critical thinking amongst the Democrat base? Do they all approve of his ineptitude? Do they all have such low standards?

This is what a lot of them are wanting to run for President...

OK. What does this tell us about their standards?

It’s because he worked for the CIA, specifically between 1976 to 1986. He quit the job they had set up for him with a CIA associated company, and being a basically a con-man and fraudster by nature, he hit the streets of Chicago.

Then the Saudis went looking for a “mole” who would work within the U.S. government for their Muslim cause and black Nationalists insisted he be black.

That is why Bill Ayres wrote the fake autobiography of Barak Hussein Obama - to create an African black man. They pushed the meme that he was born in Kenya, except there was that annoying BC stating that he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and that his name was actually Barry Soetoro. It was ignored.

Then the opportunity arose to be President of the U.S., and being born in Mombasa, Kenya (as the real BHO2 had been) became a monumental headache. He couldn’t claim his legal name of Barry Soetoro, the Indonesian student who was a naturalized citizen. After all, that would make him non-African and he couldn’t be the real BHO2 because he had been born in Africa and that made him ineligible. They came up with a “confidence game”.

It was important for the Democrats to fool tens of millions of black people and get this guy into the White House. He had to be black. The Democrats wanted complete power over the government so they could shove socialism down our throats. What they didn’t know was that this guy, a con man, wasn’t wholly on their side.

So he lied and drew a great many people, mainly Democrats and the CPUSA, into a broad-based fraud.

Lot of responses to choose from, hope you don’t mind that I chose yours.

;-)

“Convert the Tea Party” is code for “exploit then discard.” First saw this line stated by Katrina Vanden Heuvel a couple years back in a column or two she wrote about the KY Dem Party teaming up with the KY Tea Party to oust Mitch McConnell.

This isn’t to support McConnell or the GOPe, but what the Dems/Libs are selling is pure snake oil. They’ll partner with the Tea Party to knock off GOPe candidates, then win elections by portraying the Tea Party nominees as radical extremist who are taking the GOP off the far right nutcase edge.

That’s the base political mechanics of it.

Conservatives need to chart our own course here, understanding that as much as we despise the GOPe, the Dems/Progressives are just as bad, and magnitudes more sinister.

Cruz and the others, who seem to be charting out a Populist Conservative path are the answer. We need to play offense against the Dems/Libs first and always. And if we do, the GOPe will quickly find itself out of the driver’s seat as a consequence.

Speaker “Blank Check” Boehner keeps Obama in power by not controlling spending or Impeaching Obama.

Morman Reid shuts down the Muslim Obama Government, (MOG), anytime that Boehner refuses to write Obama a Blank Check.

Muslim Obama is happy enough to play hooky from his day job to raise Campaign money for Morman Reid’s Senate Candidates.

Boehner is the key man to allow Muslim Obama to continue to wreck America, and Obama knows it.

Force Boehner to resign, and Obama will be at the mercy of New Speaker Jim Jordan or Trey Gowdy - - - .

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies

“Bush declared himself a “compassionate conservative” who would govern as “a uniter, not a divider.”

Which is why he didn’t landslide Gore. If he was a Reagan prototype instead of a slightly better version of Dad, he would have gotten 57-60% of the 2000 vote. I hate that term “compassionate conservative”.

Despise it.”

You get it. The problem isn’t the Dems or a marxist president we now have, but the watered down conservatism that doesn’t inspire and convince the fence riders that there really is a better way.

Bush was the lesser evil from Gore, but he may have done more damage to conservatism than Gore would have.

I don’t think so. The great majority of American voters are not brainwashed, they’re just waiting to see what each side will give them. They voted for Obama because they saw a somewhat moderate black man that could be transformational.

That was kind of my assumption in 2012. That 2008 was, not exactly a fluke, but an oddity. People had a chance to vote as you note for a moderate-appearing black guy and that novelty/guilt/idealism together with his lack of a negative record was enough to put him over the top. Under that line of reasoning, he should have got slaughtered in 2012, because the novelty/guilt/idealism had been used once already, plus now he had baggage of well-known incompetent job performance, most notably ramming OsamaScare down everyone's throat despite widespread opposition. Like I said, even against Willard the Giant Rat Moron, I expected him to get creamed. How do you explain his reelection? I can't, other than to assume the American electorate is (perhaps permanently) been taken over by the gibmedats and the idiots.

I fear you’re right.

I was in Safeway the other day, in a small retirement community in Oregon, and I suddenly realized that I was the only guy in that store area speaking English, everyone else, maybe six families, was Hispanic and speaking Spanish.

This wasn’t L.A., Texas, NM or Arizona, it was heretofore lily-white Oregon.

Makes no difference to me what nationality they are, but what matters to me is that I don’t ever see them becoming Americans, learning our history and loving our constitutional ideals.

My girlfriend’s grandparents came over here from Sicily, went through Ellis Island, they had to learn English, pass a test on America and swear allegiance to us...I honestly cannot see recent Hispanic immigrants to America doing that, and THAT will cost us the Republic, I’m afraid...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.