Often biased, always thoughtful.

12 days out, another narrative problem for McCain

With a couple of months left to go in the campaign, I wrote that the only reason the election was even close was that the media had a vested interest in keeping us focused on the horse race. Clearly, that’s gone out the window. The Obama lead just seems to be expanding, and the only remaining question seems to be the size of the mandate Obama and the Democrats will be left with. One of the reasons for this shift is that the media has stumbled upon another, just as interesting narrative: the collapse of the McCain campaign.

In a fantastic article to be published in this weekend’s Time Magazine, Robert Draper is already analyzing the McCain campaign’s failures. Negative coverage of McCain’s campaign has soared, according to a new study. And Politico is reporting on Republicans’ frustration with the pathetic McCain campaign.

For McCain, the growing amount of media about his campaign’s failure could cement that failure. There are still some polls out there that show this could be a tight race, but McCain risks being buried under a snowballing news story that is driven by its own momentum. With the election almost over, Americans are tuned into news programs regardless of the status of the horse race, and the campaign is offering up totally new narratives:

• How the McCain campaign fell apart
• Is Sarah Palin to blame?
  
• Barack Obama poised to make history
• …and so on.

If this narrative catches on — which it certainly could, particularly because McCain makes such a great tragic figure for the story — the landslide could grow exponentially worse. But the Republicans, whose collapse is picking up speed by the day, seem unable or unwilling to stop it. McCain staffers are defecting in droves to complain about the campaign. Disaffected Republicans are distancing themselves from the campaign. In fact the National Republical Senatorial Committee is even running an ad in North Carolina predicting an Obama victory.

McCain needs to dig into his bag of tricks and change the narrative of this campaign yet again, or he’ll see Obama surpass 375 electoral votes.

Kersten: Those uppity gays should be happy with domestic partnerships

Those greedy, greedy gays should have been happy with domestic partnerships. I mean, how many more rights do they really need? At least, that’s what Star Tribune right-wing lunatic columnist Katherine Kersten thinks:

it’s clear that these legislative attempts at fairness [domestic partnerships and civil unions] have backfired. In the past few months, the Supreme Courts in both California and Connecticut have struck down their state’s domestic partnership or civil unions law as unconstitutional under their state constitutions, and have required that marriage be redefined to include same-sex couples.

Outrageous! These two states were nice enough to the besotted, backwards gays to give them something almost as good as marriage, but the damned gays just weren’t happy. Now, the only thing that we can do to protect “traditional family values” is retaliate and do as much harm as we possibly can to gays in committed long-term relationships.

States that want to protect their traditional marriage laws can draw two lessons:

First, if they have a domestic partnership or civil union law, they should repeal it. A court might find it unconstitutional.

Second, these states should not pass laws that give gay couples benefits similar to those of marriage. If they do, a court may find that they have created an unequal, two-tiered system of partnership, and may impose same-sex marriage as a result.

You gays brought it on yourself. See what happens when you screw with the Christian Right?

…

In all seriousness, this is a sign that the Christian Right is just getting angrier and angrier. The tide seems to be turning in the culture war, and the only thing they can think to do is lob even more hateful attacks. The social conservatives are running into the same losing battle as all other Republicans: as they’ve lost support from independents, they have retreated to trying to energize their base. But energizing this particular base requires so much hatred and anger that it causes them to lose even more support from independents. I really think that conservative of all stripes are heading into a downward spiral. The only question, in my mind, is can they pull out of it by 2012?

David Brooks on the problems with the conservative class war

David Brooks, in one of his frequent moments of introspection, decries the anti-intellectualism that has come to define the Republican party of late:

What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect.

Republicans developed their own leadership style. If Democratic leaders prized deliberation and self-examination, then Republicans would govern from the gut.

…

The political effects of this trend have been obvious. Republicans have alienated the highly educated regions — Silicon Valley, northern Virginia, the suburbs outside of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Raleigh-Durham. The West Coast and the Northeast are mostly gone.

Conservatives would be wise to heed Brooks. Starting in defense of George W. Bush, and continuing in defense of Sarah Palin, conservatives have taken to mocking anybody with a college education as elitist and un-American. I never would have thought I would experience such a demonization of intelligence and academic success. The very thing we Americans have prized the most throughout our history, that has helped us achieve success and helped every generation to do better than their parents, has now come under attack. This is not only bad for our country, it’s bad for conservatives in the long run. As Brooks explains elsewhere in his column, conservatives in the 1980s and 1990s made tremendous efforts to develop an intellectual infrastructure of their own. With the party’s newfound disdain for education, will there be any conservative intellectuals in 20 years?

Obama already taking steps to build Democratic party, shrink GOP

I wrote recently that, despite having an advantage in the 2006 and 2008 election, the Democrats ultimately have a lot of work to do to gain the upper-hand over the Republicans when it comes to political strategy. I also suggested that, with Barack Obama as president, he could help move the Democrats toward that goal. Well, he’s not even president yet, and he’s already started whipping the party into shape. From the American Prospect (via Political Wire):

For all the talk of post-partisan “unity,” Barack Obama has been proving himself the most party-focused presidential candidate in recent history–possibly ever. Paradoxically, although Obama’s success has been more dependent on personal charisma than any recent nominee’s has, he’s been leveraging that charisma to build a broader Democratic infrastructure less dependent on the presidential nominee.

…

Historically, the Democratic Party has operated less as a strong party than as an uncertain coalition. It has been regionally fractured, racially divided, ideologically torn, and economically disparate… Rather than acting as a single institution united around a common agenda, the party was all too often a nominal nation-state in which sets of warring fiefdoms protected their properties and sought expansion.

…

If Bill Clinton’s project for the Democratic Party was mostly ideological, Obama’s is mostly organizational. Clinton sought to change the party’s ideas; Obama is more interested in building its infrastructure.

That’s exactly what we need right now. When it comes down to it, Obama’s policies are good but nothing special. It’s unlikely that he will truly be able to change the entrenched culture in Washington, D.C. all by his lonesome. However, he’ll have one long-lasting impact: he will remake the Democratic party into one that is competitive for the coming decades.

Read more »

The Shrinking GOP: Will Mark Olson’s endorsement fracture the MNGOP?

They’ve been falling apart nationally, and now the Republicans are starting to fall apart in Minnesota, too. MNGOP leaders who were hoping for a quick and painless resolution to the SD-16 endorsement of Mark Olson, who was convicted of domestic assault, are going to be disappointed.

Political Muse at Liberal in the Land of Conservative reports that, despite MNGOP leadership’s best efforts, Olson will not be going down quietly. This is particularly bad news for them because the fact is that denouncing Olson was a great move for the Republicans. In fact, it was the only move that would allow them to continue their attacks on Franken, in a race that’s a much bigger deal than the SD-16 state senate race.

But now comes the dissension in the ranks. Jason Lewis, noted talk-radio lunatic, supports Olson (via Dump Mark Olson and MnPublius):

I can’t tell you how shocked I was to see the letter from the Senate State Caucus basically insulting all the state delegates that came to our convention and made their decision. Saying “No, you people are too stupid. You’re just country hicks. You don’t know what you’re doing.”

More from Lewis:

This is the pinnacle of elitism. A bunch of elitist, Republican party hacks have gotten together and decided to override your choice. That’s what rubs me the wrong way. [ed. note: see the Conservative-to-English dictionary; "elitist" is a catch-all term for anyone disagreeing with whatever you deem public opinion.]

There’s one simple reason why this is a huge deal: It represents a major breakdown in Republican message discipline and party unity. That’s always been one of their largest strengths, and one I have argued the Democrats need to improve on. With Republican message discipline starting to fall apart in Minnesota, it’s going to cause serious consequences up and down the line in state elections. The more Mark Olson fights for his survival, the further he’ll pull the whole MNGOP down with him.

What the Democrats need to do to shrink the GOP

In June, I would have been the first to say that the GOP’s problems this year were just a temporary phenomenon. But suddenly we’ve been deluged with news that indicated serious long-term problems for the GOP. Can the Democrats stay in power for the next decade?

Honestly, I believe the GOP’s current position is due entirely to Republican mistakes, and not Democratic successes. The Democrats saw electoral success in 2006 solely because of Republican scandals and their mismanagement of the government. When it comes to playing politics, the Dems just can’t hold a candle to the Republicans. They need to learn from the Republicans’ successes and adapt them to our own party.

On the bright side, even if the Democrats aren’t in power due to their own political prowess, there is a very good chance they will control the government for at least the next four years. As the party in power, they will have many more opportunities to make their case to the American people, build up the party infrastructure, and start making themselves more competitive for the long term. Here are three things they need to do to continue their electoral success and force the GOP to remain a regional party.

1. Improve communication

The Democrats have never had a unified message, and their individual messages also rarely sound convincing. It seems that, no matter what position the Democrats and Republicans are in, the Republicans are able to win the communications battle. For instance, when the Republicans controlled Congress, they successfully branded the Democrats as obstructionists. Now that the Democrats control it, the Republicans are effectively casting them as ineffective, while they themselves filibuster everything.

A Barack Obama presidency could really help this. Obama himself is an excellent communicator, and an excellent leader who may be able to impose at least some level of message discipline on the party. Furthermore, controlling the presidency will provide the Democrats with the bully pulpit for the first time in 8 years, from where it’s a lot easier to control the conversation.

2. Play politics

The Republicans have effectively used political maneuvering against the Democrats for years. The Democrats would like to think they’re above this sort of politics, but they can’t be if they want to maintain their majorities in Congress. They need to use tactics like wedge votes and publicity stunts to their advantage. For instance, the Democrats can slowly advance the cause of GLBT rights by forcing votes on innocuous bills such as making it easier for domestic partners to have a say over their partners’ medical care. As far as tactics are concerned, Democrats should force the Republicans to stand up and engage in every single filibuster they threaten. After a few weeks of Republican filibustering, it should be pretty difficult to pretend they are not obstructing the Senate’s work.

3. Build party infrastructure

I think Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy has been excellent for the party, and Obama’s unprecedented staffing efforts will also be fantastic for building the party all over the country. However, having a strong ground campaign isn’t enough for the Democrats. They need to build up other institutions, such as think tanks, issue-advocacy organizations, and communication tools like blogs and talk radio.

One of the reasons Republicans are more effective at communications and playing politics is that they have a ton of backup from their institutions. They have organizations to provide them with a ready stream of research to support their policy ideas, as well as test out talking points until they find some that stick. The Democrats have tried to start building this infrastructure, but it’s still weak, and organizations like the Rockridge Institute didn’t last too long. Hopefully once the Democrats are the party in power in Washington, that will make sustaining these organizations easier.

One final note

Let me be clear:by saying we need to learn from the Republicans, I’m not saying we need to follow their ethically-challenged campaign style. We can learn from their excellent execution, while still maintaining the moral high ground and sticking to the issues.

Shrinking GOP: Is the GOP becoming a regional party?

In June, I would have been the first to say that the GOP’s problems this year were just a temporary phenomenon. But suddenly we’ve been deluged with news that indicated serious long-term problems for the GOP. They have become the Incredible Shrinking GOP.

---

I’m not the only one who has claimed that the GOP may lose their grasp on power for the next ten years. The National Committee for an Effective Congress claims that the GOP has been “reduced to a regional party.” NCEC suggests that two reasons for Democrats’ recent election success are that Democratic incumbents have proven stronger than Republican incumbents, and that open seats strongly favor Democratic pickups (open seats are mostly from Republican retirements, and Democrats are winning more open seats than Republicans).

But NCEC’s argument with the farthest-reaching consequences is the argument that the GOP is relying more and more on its regional strength in the South.

When the Republicans gained control of the House in 1994, they held a majority of seats in the Midwest, South and West and 33 of 66 House districts in the Mid-Atlantic states . Clearly, the Republicans were a national party. Moreover, Republicans gained 10 House seats in southern and border states two years later, in 1996. Still, Democrats retained 43% of all southern and border congressional districts after the ‘96 election.

The outcome of elections since 1996 has exposed a far larger problem for Republicans, than Democrats faced in the South. More than 46% of Republican House seats emanate from southern and border states, possessing only 28% of House seats nationally.

[NCEC has a great graph of Republican House seats by region. Click here to check it out.]

If the Republicans are isolated as a regional party, dominant in the South, competitive in the Midwest but hopelessly outnumbered on both coasts, their chances of regaining a majority of the House in the near future are remote (emphasis added).

I’m not totally on board with this argument yet, but it represents a potential worst-case scenario for the GOP. I believe that the Republicans could be in major trouble, but I don’t believe the Democrats are ready to take advantage. Next week, I’ll talk about what the Democrats need to do to lay the groundwork for marginalizing the Republican party.

The Shrinking GOP: Iowa edition

In June, I would have been the first to say that the GOP’s problems this year were just a temporary phenomenon. But suddenly we’ve been deluged with news that indicated serious long-term problems for the GOP. They have become the Incredible Shrinking GOP.

---

On Monday (sorry it’s taken so long to post), the New York Times’s political blog, The Caucus, ran a short article explaining that Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) will not be given a vote at the Republican National Convention. Why? Because the state party, at the behest of increasingly powerful social conservatives, took it away from him.

This shows that social conservatives are really shoving the party to the extreme right. To not allow a sitting Republican Senator to vote at his own party’s convention is a bold statement. Essentially, they are penalizing him for any time he worked across the aisle to get things done. In this session of Congress, Grassley voted with his own party 85 percent of the time–the fact that it’s not enough for the conservatives shows just how far right they’re pushing their party.

In 2000 and 2004, social conservatives turned out in droves to help elect George W. Bush. But now that’s not enough for them. They need to control the party, even if it’s clear that having them in control isn’t good for the party. With the extremist social conservatives in control, the GOP will be competitive in fewer states, and it will attract fewer voters in those states. If the Democrats’ 50-state strategy pays off and Democrats learn to communicate better (something I’ll address more in future weeks), they could seriously marginalize the GOP for the next decade.

The Shrinking GOP: Ron Paul edition

In June, I would have been the first to say that the GOP’s problems this year were just a temporary phenomeonon. But suddenly we’ve been deluged with news that indicated serious long-term problems for the GOP. They have become the Incredible Shrinking GOP.

---

I’ve already discussed how the GOP faces threats from voter apathy and extremist social conservatives. But perhaps the greatest challenge the GOP faces from within its own ranks is Ron Paul. Rep. Paul, who is more more suited to the libertarian ticket, has a legion of rabid supporters who are bent on pushing the Republican party to the right, and they’ve been far more successful than anyone would have guessed.

Paul is having a huge effect on the party, even if party leaders are trying to stop him. After GOP leaders refused to award him a speech at the national convention, Paul decided to hold his own counter-convention. Now the Minnesota Independent is reporting that Paul’s convention is going to have such high attendance that they’re changing venues:

“After measuring the excitement and enthusiasm, we decided that the Williams Arena at the University of Minnesota was just too small to hold you,” Paul said in a released statement this morning. “Therefore, we are making a significant upgrade.”

With a capacity of over 20,000 the Target Center is certainly an upgrade from the 14,000 seat Williams Arena. Target Center is not onyl the largest arena in the Twin Cities, it is also engaged in a year-round competition for concerts and events with Xcel Energy Center, site of the RNC.

Clearly, Paul has a lot of grassroots support. What’s even worse for the Republican party is that he will be holding a political training for supporters who have already proved quite effective at infiltrating the ranks of the GOP.

The bottom line: Between Ron Paul’s libertarianism and the growing influence of social conservatives (more on them Thursday or Friday), the GOP is moving hard to the right. This could spell major trouble for the party in upcoming elections. The GOP will be competitive in fewer states, and it will attract fewer voters in those states. If the Democrats’ 50-state strategy pays off and Democrats learn to communicate better (something I’ll also address in future weeks), they could seriously marginalize the GOP for the next decade.

The Shrinking GOP: Nevada edition

We all knew this was going to be a bad year for Republicans. However, I’ve just seen the first sign that indicates the GOP may be in trouble for a lot longer than just this single election. The following news came from Nevada this weekend:

Citing a lack of interest, the Nevada Republican Party has called off its state convention and will instead pick its delegates to the national convention by private conference call.

The state party broke up its original convention in April when supporters of Ron Paul hijacked the proceedings and tried to elect delegates for their candidate to the national GOP convention in September. Party officials tried to reconvene on July 26, but they needed a quorum of 675 and received only 300 RSVPs, according to local reports.

To me, this indicates two major problems for the long-term health of the Republican Party:

First, canceling their convention takes away an opportunity to train and motivate Republican activists in Nevada. This should help Democrats to make some major gains in the state over the next two years, while the Republicans are searching for activist leaders.

Second, Nevada is yet another state where Ron Paul and his backers are making a serious play for influence within the party. As the GOP is faring worse at the polls, it is veering sharply to the right, which should reduce the number of moderate voters it can win over the next few election cycles.

Overall, these trends spell major trouble. The GOP will be competitive in fewer states, and it will attract fewer voters in those states. If the Democrats’ 50-state strategy pays off and Democrats learn to communicate better (something I’ll address more in future weeks), they could seriously marginalize the GOP for the next decade.

[UPDATE: This was originally a stand-alone piece, but there's been so much news on this front that I'm starting a series about the Shrinking GOP. I am retitling this article accordingly.]

Watch the Republican party go crazy

As the Republican party continues to fall apart and alienate mainstream voters, it is retreating to a smaller and smaller base. We may be in store for even more conservative crazies like Michelle Bachmann. The latest news comes out of Utah, where the very-conservative Chris Cannon has been defeated in the Republican primary by the ultra-conservative Jason Chaffetz. AP reports:

U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon, one of the nation’s most conservative congressmen, lost his bid for a seventh term Tuesday in a Republican primary that focused on whether he was conservative enough for Utah’s 3rd District.

…

The lobbying group American Conservative Union said Cannon was nearly perfect on its issues in 2007, scoring 96 percent. But Chaffetz repeatedly pounded the incumbent, especially on immigration, and pledged to be even more conservative.

This is another losing move for Republicans, and a great opportunity for Democrats. UT-03 may not be turning Democratic, but Chaffetz will likely receive fewer votes for his extremist positions than Cannon did. All over the country, the Republican base is shrinking. The challenge for Democrats after 2008 is to keep them on the run. We can do this by using the 50-state strategy to build our own base, while showing Republican voters that their party has abandoned them by moving to the extremist right.