“It is hard to understate the intensity of the response to the role of big money.”
Mike Lux, writing at The Huffington Post in “Four Weeks Out: What Will Be the Narrative of Election 2014?,” echoes something that we have been pounding on here at OurFuture.org: Democrats who campaign with a populist message will do better than Democrats who support the “centrist” – big corporate, Wall Street – positions.
In his post, Lux writes:
In a fascinating memo from Stan Greenberg and James Carville’s Democracy Corps and Page Gardner at Women’s Voices Women’s Vote Action Fund, they suggest that there is a modest but nonetheless quite significant trend toward Democratic candidates in the battleground Senate races. … They argue that a populist message especially focused on women voters’ top economic concerns and attacking the big money corporate interests that want to “make sure CEOs paid no higher taxes and that their loopholes are protected, while working men and women struggle” moves these razor-tight races an average of 4 crucial points, from -2 to +2.
… Democrats should be driving the story of the corrupting influence of big money in politics. As the DCorps memo states: “It is hard to understate the intensity of the response to the role of big money.”
I’m going to repeat that. Focusing “on women voters’ top economic concerns and attacking the big money corporate interests that want to “make sure CEOs paid no higher taxes and that their loopholes are protected, while working men and women struggle” moves these razor-tight races an average of 4 crucial points, from -2 to +2.”
How can Democrats say this? Lux suggests this:
The real-world narrative Democrats should tell is about the spending of the Koch brothers and their agenda, which they laid out at their secret meeting in June: no minimum wage, no Social Security, no public education or student loans, lower taxes for the wealthy, and less regulations. “Because we can make more in profit,” said their so-called “grand-strategist” Richard Fink.
Not a bad idea, considering that the Koch brothers network is driving much of the Republican party at this point, and certainly their money is driving much of the election.
Democrats, there is still time.
Here are a few posts to check out (Many of these, plus some other useful posts, are on our “Winning Issues for 2014″ page):
- Campaign 2014: Will Democrats Get the Message?
- The Way to Win: Election Talk with Celinda Lake
- The Five Worst Things Republicans Have Promised To Do To Americans
- Republicans for What?
- Democrats Can Win on Social Security – by Fighting to Increase It
- Republican Campaign Is All Fear All The Time
- Senate Republicans Filibuster Equal Pay For Women (Again)
- Democrats in D.C. Must Fight For More Jobs – Or Risk Losing Their Own
- Poll Shows How Democrats Can Win With A Public Education Agenda
- To Win This November, Democrats Need the Minimum-Wage Movement
- Midterm Ad Watch: Republicans Literally Running On Nothing
- There’s No Republican Wave Because Nobody Likes Republicans
- Why Republicans May Not Win The Senate After All
- Voters Will Oppose Politicians Who Support “NAFTA-Style” Trade Deals
- Beyond Ferguson: If You Want Our Vote, Mind The Black Wealth Gap
- Senate Republicans Vote to Silence Working Americans
In this election has anyone heard a Republican candidate describe something they are for?
If you live in Texas, watch this video – and register and vote!!!!!
The Republican majority on the US Supreme Court by the usual 5-4 today overturned a lower court and blocked a week of early voting in Ohio.
A US Supreme Court just made it much harder for many people to vote — even impossible for some.
Ohio is one of the states that provides plenty of voting machines in affluent, mostly-white precincts while providing few in poorer, minority districts. The result is long, long, long, long lines at the polls in these district, discouraging or making it impossible for people to vote.
I’d call this one of the most blatant uses of raw power for partisan purposes since Bush v Gore, when the Court ruled 5-4 that counting the votes in Florida would “threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election.”
Other blatant abuses include letting corporations put money into elections, letting billionaires put as much as they want into elections and getting rid of the Voting Rights Act.
We have an election where Democrats are in trouble and could lose the Senate, and we have a “pre-candidate” with the supposedly highest polling numbers for any pre-candidate in history.
I smell a disconnect. Why isn’t the highly popular Hillary Clinton going from state to state campaigning for Senate Democrats, tirelessly doing everything she can to help Democrats keep the Senate?
I feel like Hillary is sitting on sidelines while we are fighting in the streets. As far as I can tell she is not even asking her extensive list of followers to do something, never mind showing up herself.
It better not be something like this. NY Times: Loss for Democrats in Midterm Elections Could Be Boon for Clinton.
Think of the damage Republicans will do for two years.
A Politico story being promoted by the Drudge Report, “McConnell’s plan to shut down Obama,” makes it clear that if Republicans capture the Senate this fall they will, as the Drudge Report puts it, “play chicken” and shut down the government if President Obama vetoes their legislation to dismantle the government.
From the Politico interview, a threat,
“We’re going to pass spending bills, and they’re going to have a lot of restrictions on the activities of the bureaucracy,” McConnell said in an interview aboard his campaign bus traveling through Western Kentucky coal country. “That’s something he won’t like, but that will be done. I guarantee it.”
Who does McConnell say would be to blame if the President vetoes bills and Republicans then shut down the government rather than compromise? “McConnell said it would be up to the president to decide whether to veto spending bills that would keep the government open.” (In a related story this week, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) blamed the United States for making them behead an American journalist.)
Dismantle Or Shut Down
Republicans say that if they take the Senate they will pass legislation to dismantle the government. Jim Manley, former aide to Sen. Harry Reid explained in April at the WSJ, “It is very difficult to imagine that House Republicans’ takeaway from such an election would be to search again for moderation.”
Republicans can be expected to:
Problem: Your right-wing brother-in-law is plugged into the FOX-Limbaugh lie machine, and keeps sending you emails about “Obama spending” and “Obama deficits” and how the “stimulus” just made things worse.
Solution: Here are three “reality-based” charts to send to him. These charts show what actually happened.
Government spending increased dramatically under President Bush. It has not increased much under President Obama. This is just a fact.
Note that this chart starts with Clinton’s last budget year for comparison.
Senator Elizabeth Warren took her fight against a rigged system to the Netroots Nation gathering in Detroit Friday morning, saying that she is fighting back, and if We the People “push back and fight hard, we can win.”
Outside the hall, people were passing out “Ready for Warren” hats and signs. Inside the hall, the hats and signs were everywhere.
Fighting back against a rigged system was the theme of Warren’s rousing speech to Netroots. She began by briefly telling the story of how the about Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) came to be. She had the idea for the agency, started talking about it, people told her it was a great idea and badly needed, but said to her, “Don’t do it because the biggest banks in the country will hate it and you will lose.”
She said they had that half right. “They spent more than a million dollars a day for more than a year lobbying against financial reforms. But we fought back and we won. We won because you and a zillion other people across the country got in the fight. We said we the people will have this agency and we won.”
And now we have the CFPB and it has already returned $5 billion to people that the big financial firms tried to steal, she said.
Warren’s message was that we should “never miss the central point of this story. The CFPB is proof of how democracy can work in the 21st century. It is proof that if we push back against the biggest, strongest, most ruthless lobbying effort in the country, if we push back and fight hard we can win. We can’t win every time and we are still trying to figure out how to make it all work. We don’t win every time but we’re learning to win. We will keep at it; we will fight and we will win that’s my message today.”
A Rigged System
Warren moved from there to what is happening in the country today. She said companies naturally look for profits. “But many of them have another plan – they use their money and their connections to try to capture Washington and rig the rules in their favor … That’s what we’re up against that’s what democracy is up against.”
She compared what happens to regular people with what happens to wealthy elites at the top, saying, “A kid gets caught with a few ounces of pot and goes to jail but a big bank launders drug money and no one gets arrested.”
Not Just Big Banks
Warren said, “But it’s not just the big banks.” She called on the audience to look at the choices the federal government makes, such as piling debt on students. Then she went straight after Republicans as the enablers of the rigging and corruption. “Instead of building a future, this country is bleeding tax loopholes. Billion-dollar corporations squeeze out deals with foreign countries, renounce their citizenship and pay no taxes. How does this happen? They all have lobbyists and Republican friends in Congress to protect every loophole and every privilege. The game is rigged and it isn’t right.”
Rigged Trade Deals
“Take a look at what happens with trade deals. Trade negotiations are like Christmas morning for the biggest corporations,” she said.
Warren described how corporations can bypass pollution and wage laws. “The corporations can get special gifts through trade negotiations they would never get from Congress,” she said, because trade negotiations are secret, held behind closed doors. The corporations are “all smacking their lips at the possibility of rigging the upcoming trade deals.”
“Stop and ask yourself, why are trade negotiations secret? I have had people involved in the process actually tell me, If people knew what was going on they would be opposed. My view is if people would be opposed then we shouldn’t have those trade deals.”
Warren said the tilt in the playing field is everywhere. “When conservatives talk about opportunity, they mean opportunity for the rich to get richer and the powerful to get more powerful. They don’t mean do something about student loan debt or help someone unemployed to get back on their feet.”
“Deep down, this is a fight over values. Conservatives and their powerful friends will continue to be guided by their internal motto ‘I got mine and the rest are on your own.’ ”
“My motto we all do better when we work together and invest in future. The country gets stronger when we invest in helping people succeed. … These are progressive values and these are the values we are willing to fight for.”
She then went into a refrain:
We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement.
And we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe in science and that means that we have a responsibility to protect the planet.
And we will fight for it.
We believe the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations.
And we will fight for it.
We believe no one should work full time and still live in poverty. That means raising the minimum wage.
And we will fight for it.
We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage.
That means we will fight alongside them.
We believe students are entitled to get a good education without being crushed by debt.
And we will fight for it.
We believe after a lifetime of work people are entitled to retire with dignity. That means protect Social Security and Medicare.
And we will fight for it.
We believe – I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014 – in equal pay for equal work.
And we will fight for it.
We believe equal means equal and that true in the workplace and at home and everywhere.
And we will fight for it.
We believe immigration has made country strong and vibrant.
And we will fight for it.
And we believe that corporations are not people. (The crowd was on its feet making a lot of noise so I don’t know what she said next.)
And we will fight for it.
Right here in this room this is where it happens. This is 21st-century democracy. This is the future of America. This is where we decide that We the People will fight together and do that, we will fight together and we are going to win.
And the crowd went nuts.
Last week Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated in a primary. He not only won’t be Majority Leader anymore, he won’t even be in Congress. This was an absolutely unexpected and shocking upset that has reversed the narrative that the Republican “establishment” has taken back momentum from the Tea Party.
The reason there as a fight over control between the Republican establishment and Tea Party was that the Tea Party uprising has threatened not only Republican electability nationally, but the domination of the Republican Party by Wall Street and the giant multinationals — the Chamber of Commerce types. The real grassroots-based core of the Tea Party is actually quite upset by the “crony capitalism” corruption that is rampant in Washington, DC and rampant in both political parties. (This is one thing the Tea Party types have in common with progressives.) The Tea Party types are anti-Wall Street and are very, very aware that the giant multinational corporations have been profiting from closing factories and moving jobs out of the country. This awareness threatens the Republican “establishment” because the Republican establishment is Wall Street and giant, multinational corporations. Hence the fight for control.
So there are lots of opinions talking about how the Republican Party establishment and the party’s Wall Street/corporate funders have “created a monster” with the Tea Party, and now the monster is turning on them. …
My Take: 12%
Here is my take on Cantor’s loss. Turnout was 12%. That’s what you need to understand about what happened.
You can’t tell anything about the electorate from a 12% turnout. You can’t learn about what the district wants. You can’t even learn what “the Republican base” wants. You can’t tell if immigration (or any other issue) is or is not a driving force and is or is not a candidate killer. You can’t really tell anything from this except that turnout was exceptionally low.
Here is the real reason this is bad for the Republican “establishment.” For decades the Republican Party has been engaged in efforts to drive down election turnout and this is the result.
Higher Turnout Favors Democrats
Here is a political truth: High turnout favors Democrats. So to elect Republicans they have to keep turnout low. Then Republicans use whatever it takes to get “their” voters to show up. For decades this has meant a combination of fundamentalist Christianity, racism, nativism, whatever.
The game is clear and cynical: Create apathy so people don’t vote. Make people hate government in general so they don’t vote. Make people feel like voting won’t change anything so people don’t vote. Use negative ads to turn people off from the process so they don’t vote. Create division and despair and so people don’t vote. Do what it takes to convince people not to bother to vote.
For the ones who will still bother to vote make it hard for them to vote — “suppression.” Make it hard to register to vote. Purge the voter roles. Enact restrictive ID laws hopefully requiring actual birth certificates. Only let the polls open for one day — a workday. Keep voting machines out of Democratic-oriented districts.
Then, after you have done everything possible to keep most people from voting stir up the activists and rubes — your activists and rubes — with distractions and fear to get them to the polls. This is why you see so many “Democrats secretly plan to ban the Bible” and “black mobs attack white women” and similar headlines at the right’s paid outlets.
Once Elected Pass Capital Gains And Corporate Tax Cuts
Once your people are elected they vote for capital gains tax cuts, corporate tax cuts and deregulation. Ignore the distractions that you used to get your activists and rubes to the polls. If you actually give them what they want you can’t offer it to them next time.
After decades of driving down turnout this is the result. Only the farthest-right talk show listeners are turning out now and the Republican establishment can’t control them. And they actually remember that they were promised something last time. Maybe it was abortion, maybe it was immigration … they remember and want it, not capital gains tax cuts and lower corporate taxes.
This bit Eric Cantor in the ass and it is finally biting the Republican Party establishment in the ass. And there is nothing Republicans can do about it, because higher turnout always favors Democrats. To keep turnout low Republicans have driven the morale of the voters down and down and down. They have driven the economy down and down and down. They have driven the process down and down and down. They have driven everything we value down and down and down.
Now they have literally hit bottom.
It has become a “truth” on the right that the IRS “targets” conservative “political” groups. Here is what is going on.
Sea Of Smear Ads From Anonymous Donors
Who is providing the sea of anonymous money behind the nasty smear-campaign ads in local, state and national elections? You might (not) be surprised to find out that these ads are from “social welfare” organizations! These organizations don’t have to disclose their donors because they are tax-exempt nonprofits that, according to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), “must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare.”
That’s right, your community, state and nation elections are being flooded with nasty, political, smear-campaign ads from organizations that claim to “further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community” and have no involvement with political campaigns.
Social Welfare Organizations
Here are the technical details. A 501(c)(4) charity is a group that does not have to disclose its donors to the public. The law says these groups must operate “exclusively” as “social welfare” organizations and not political organizations. They “must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.” (Disclosure: The Campaign for America’s Future operates as a 501(c)(4) organization; its sister organization, the Institute for America’s Future, is a 501(c)(3) organization.)
But government agencies have to “interpret” laws when it comes to their own day-to-day operating rules, and there are grey areas between activities that could be seen as “social welfare” and activities that could be seen as electoral politics. Is voter-registration a general social welfare activity or a political activity? Is issuing a well-researched policy paper on the effect of a higher minimum wage on poverty a social welfare activity or a political lobbying activity?
So years ago the IRS decided that these social welfare groups could spend “up to 49%” of their efforts in politically related activity.
“Congressman Bob Bobson Eats Babies” Is Not A Political Ad?
Obviously these groups are not supposed to be running campaign ads. But a smear ad appearing a week before an election that says “your member of Congress Bob Bobson eats babies” but not “vote against Bob Bobson for eating babies” has been “interpreted” to be a social welfare activity and not a political ad.
Because of this huge, vast, gaping loophole a number of (mostly Republican) political election campaign-related organizations that wanted to hide their donors figured out they could become “social welfare” organizations to run these campaign ads. Then “the Republican majority” on the Supreme Court as E.J. Dionne calls them, allowed billionaires and corporations (even foreign-owned corporations) to put unlimited sums of money into politics. This opened the floodgates of influence-buying – the more money you put into politics, the more tax breaks, contracts, subsidies, monopoly protection, etc. you get back – and a race was on.
Keeping Campaign Donors Secret
Corporations and billionaires that wanted to keep their influence-buying secret could put money into these “social welfare” organizations (and the people running these organizations could make themselves a fortune), so there was a flood of applications to the IRS to start conservative, tax-exempt, “social welfare” nonprofit organizations.
At the same time, Senate Republicans also filibustered the DISCLOSE Act that would let the public know who was funding all of these smear ads.
The Phony IRS “Scandal”
Republicans charge that the IRS is “targeting” conservative “political” groups when they look to see if “social welfare” groups are actually illegally engaging in election-related politics. It has become a “truth” on the right that “the government” is “harassing” conservatives for their politics. They say the IRS is “intimidating” them by looking into “their political activities.”
This all feeds into the Republican/Fox News/Wall Street Journal/talk radio/blog “scandal machine.” For example, the Wall Street Journal today has this “story” today, “GOP Report on IRS: Only Tea Party Groups Received ‘Systematic Scrutiny’.” The party issues a “report” and the conservative media machine blasts the “findings” around the wingnutosphere, and the “outrage” ensues.
Republicans in the House of Representatives have been holding hearings intended to drive this idea of IRS “harassment” out to their followers. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has his Oversight and Government Reform Committee holding televised (FOX) “hearings” that haul people before them to be yelled at by various Republicans. One person, threatened by Republicans with prosecution and jail, was advised by her attorney to assert her Fifth Amendment rights, so Republicans made her appear for hours, repeating again and again that she was “pleading the Fifth.” Now Republicans plan to vote to hold her in “contempt” for asserting her constitutional rights, and have even created a logo advertising the contempt vote:
Here’s The Thing
The IRS is required by law to look at all applicants to see if they are engaged in impermissible political activity. If they are engaged primarily in political activity, they are neither “charities” nor “social welfare” organizations and, by law, are not supposed to receive special tax status allowing them to keep their donors secret. That alone should tell you that something is fishy with the corporate/conservative accusation that the IRS is “targeting” conservative “political” groups. The IRS is required by law to see if groups are “political.”
This is really about Republicans trying to stop the IRS from policing the big right-wing political groups that are using special tax status to mask their donors. This is an intimidation tactic; it’s an attempt to keep the IRS from seeing if these groups are engaged in political campaign activity and shut down the ones that are, all in an effort to mask their billionaire/corporate and foreign corporate donors.
Republicans won in Florida’s 13th district special congressional election on Tuesday. What does this mean?
Here is the key point about why the Republican candidate: More Republican voters went to the polls and voted than Democrat voters. The Republican won by about 3,400 votes out of about 183,000 votes cast. Turnout was 58 percent in precincts Romney won in 2012, and 48.5 percent in precincts Obama won in 2012. There were 49,000 fewer people who voted in this election than in the 2010 general mid-term election (down 21 percent), and 158,500 fewer than in the 2012 Presidential (down 46 percent). So it was the failure to get Democratic voters to show up that lost them the election.
The obvious conclusion is that the Democratic candidate did not give Democratic voters sufficient reason and motivation to show up and vote. If just a few more Democrats – 3,400 – had decided to show up and vote the election would have gone the other way.
Factors and Non-Factors
Obamacare? Maybe not. According to David Weigel at Slate, “both rejected the national “narrative” that the race was a clear referendum on Obamacare.”
It wasn’t spending. Outside groups showed up and helped the Democrat, balancing out the usually enormous Republican spending advantage.
Medicare counted. Republicans accused Democrats of “$716 in Medicare Cuts.” This was the same theme that shifted the 2010 election to Republicans, and it helped again.
The Democrats fell short in getting their absentee voters to mail in their ballots. According to Sean Sullivan at The Washington Post, the Democratic candidate “did not build a big enough lead in absentee voting to prevail on election day.”
It’s The Base
Republican strategy is to feed red meat to “the base” to whip them up and get them to show up, (and do what they can to suppress Democratic turnout). In this race the Republican candidate ran to the right. Kartik Krishnaiyer of The Florida Squeeze, in a great analysis of the election, wrote that “this is the furthest right a GOP candidate had run in the area” in 60 years.
The Republican appeared on and was promoted by FOX News.
Apparently the Democratic candidate tried to “appeal to the middle,” thinking this would bring in “moderate” and “independent” voters who are thought to be “between” the left and the right. Her website emphasized “breaking the gridlock in Congress,” and offers, “I’ve proven again and again that Republicans and Democrats can work together to get things done.”
The website also emphasizes “cutting wasteful government spending” and “introducing performance metrics to hold government accountable for waste and abuse and creating the right fiscal environment for businesses to create jobs.”
So the Democratic candidate decided not to appeal to base Democratic voters, instead hoping to “reach across the aisle” to bring in “centrist” and “moderate” voters instead. One way or another this “appeal to the middle” failed to bring enough “moderate” voters to the polls to overcome the left-leaning voters it repelled.
Democrats Let It Happen
Thomas Frank summed up the problem in “The matter with Kansas now: The Tea Party, the 1 percent and delusional Democrats” at Salon. The subhead is “Democrats believe demographics alone will defeat the Tea Party. It’s a smug fantasy: Economic populism’s the answer.”
Even more alarming for Democrats were the stark implications of “Kansas” for their grand strategy of “centrism.” As I tried to make plain back in 2004, the big political change of the last 40 years didn’t happen solely because conservatives invented catchy conspiracy theories, but also because Democrats let it happen. Democrats essentially did nothing while their pals in organized labor were clubbed to the ground; they leaped enthusiastically into action, however, when it was time to pass NAFTA and repeal Glass-Steagall. Working-class voters had nowhere else to go, they seem to have calculated, and — whoops! — they were wrong. The Kansas story represented all their decades of moderating and capitulating and triangulating coming back to haunt them.
If Democrats don’t give regular, working people – the Democratic base – a reason to vote, then they won’t. In Florida’s 13th District, 3,400 of them decided there was not enough reason to bother.