End the Endless Election Season

Writing for the Daily Beast, PPI Senior Fellow Raymond A. Smith lays out policies to improve our presidential elections.

President Obama’s second inauguration last week capped a long electoral cycle that began almost two years ago, in early 2011. The stupendous length and cost of America’s presidential elections is a wonder to the world – and not in a good way.

In scarcely 24 months, the whole spectacle will start anew. Then it’s two years of straw polls, fundraising reports, and breathless horserace coverage of non-events. This will be followed by a gauntlet of caucuses and primaries whose arcane rules are understood only by a small priesthood of campaign consultants. And it in the end will yield a general election campaign smothered in attack ads paid for by shadowy “independent” groups accountable to no one.

Does democracy really have to be this way? No, and for proof we need only look to our closest democratic allies, whose national elections are notably brief, efficient and orderly. How do they manage this? Four sets of policies and practices stand out.

Read the complete piece at the Daily Beast.

Make the Cabinet More Effective

Writing for the New York Times, PPI Senior Fellow Raymond A. Smith argues for strengthening the role of the president’s cabinet.

EVERY four years the cabinet briefly becomes the focus of national attention in December and January — only to fade from view again after Inauguration Day. True, individual cabinet secretaries will be in the news from time to time, but the cabinet as an institution will be all but forgotten. Yet the United States could benefit greatly by strengthening its scope and role.

Although the cabinet is not established in the Constitution, presidents since George Washington have convened a collective body of the heads of the executive departments. Washington used these meetings to tap into the wisdom of Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. Abraham Lincoln assembled a strong “team of rivals” in his cabinet to gird the nation at its time of greatest peril. Franklin D. Roosevelt convened his cabinet the day after the Pearl Harbor attacks, while John F. Kennedy relied on a subset of his cabinet during the Cuban missile crisis.

Over the past half-century, however, the expansion of the White House staff has centralized deliberation and decision making increasingly within the confines of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. This reliance on professional staffers, political advisers and media spinmeisters within a constrictive White House “security bubble” deprives presidents not only of the deep substantive policy expertise of top civil servants but also of the political judgment of cabinet members who are often successful politicians.

Read the complete piece at the New York Times.

Fiscal Cliff Deal Could Show the Way Toward a Grand Bargain

Writing for the Daily Beast, Will Marshall argues that Obama is in a strong position to challenge the new Congress to pass a fiscal grand bargain early in 2013:

The fiscal cliff deal finally passed by the House Tuesday night isn’t likely to lift the public’s rock-bottom esteem for the nation’s elected leaders. It took too long and delivered too little, and the spectacle of a Congress that can’t conduct the nation’s business except under extreme duress from self-imposed deadlines and penalties is infuriating.

Still the outcome wasn’t terrible—and it shows that a grand fiscal bargain is still in reach, as our deeply polarized political class seems to be relearning the art of compromise.

The deal is best understood as ratifying the 2012 election result. President Obama campaigned and won on explicit promises to raise tax rates on the rich. That mandate, plus the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts, left Republicans with no choice but to negotiate with the White House over narrowing the scope of the coming tax hike.

Read the entire piece at the Daily Beast.

Democrats Must Step Up on Entitlement Reform for Fiscal Cliff Deal

PPI President Will Marshall speaks to The Daily Beast regarding the compromises needed from the left to avoid the fiscal cliff:

‘It appears President Obama is serious about slowing the growth of public health and retirement costs, which is the key to bending down the curve of federal spending,’ says Will Marshall, president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute. ‘The big question now is whether leading Democrats in Congress will stand up to the Norquists of the left and put real entitlement reform on the table.’

That is the big question. Labor unions rightly believe that they were essential to the president’s winning coalition and ground-game effort in the November election. They and many liberal partisans will insist that now is not the time to make any concessions, especially on core philosophic policies like Social Security and Medicaid. They will find comfort in the arguments of some party activists and pundits who say there is no problem, that the fiscal cliff is a myth, and that current levels of deficits and debt are perfectly sustainable, especially if we just soak the rich. They are, like their conservative corollaries, embracing a feel-good reality distortion field.

Math isn’t partisan. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that because of our aging population, cumulative spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt could gobble all federal revenues by the end of the next decade. The status quo is unsustainable. We cannot simply tax or spend or borrow our way out of this problem. Striking the right decisive balance is critical to our long-term economic strength as a nation.

Read the entire article at The Daily Beast.

Challenge to Stop the Never-ending Campaign

PPI Senior Fellow Jim Arkedis calls for members of Congress to take six-month timeout from raising money in Politico.

The 2012 election is over, but don’t tell Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.). No sooner were the votes counted that they were back on the campaign money chase within a week, raising cash for the November 2014 contest.

Even though the culture of unlimited political money was cemented by the Citizens United decision, it’s time we ask our elected representatives a crucial question: Will members of Congress ever stop campaigning?

Congress has a major task ahead of it in the coming session. Members must compromise to strike a delicate balance on spending cuts and revenue increases that begins to control the country’s debt, while consolidating fragile economic momentum and continuing to make necessary investments in the education, infrastructure, and energy sectors among others. Isn’t there something wrong when elected officials are already asking for reelection funds before attempting to achieve results the voters are clearly demanding?

Efforts to reform money in politics have gained traction of late. Many ideas are in the mold of McCain-Feingold bill of 2002: legislative or constitutional fixes that restrict the amount of donations or increase transparency.

In theory, these initiatives are sound. In practice, they’re less viable. In the current climate, it’s doubtful that Congress would vote to handcuff its fundraising prowess, and constitutional amendments are complex endeavors facing long odds. And as McCain-Feingold has proven, megadonors will always find legal loopholes, like super PACs.

Read the entire piece at Politico.

Election Watch: 2012 Is in the Books!

I won’t bore readers with much about what they already know: Obama won; Democrats increased their margins in the Senate; Republicans lost House seats but easily hung onto control. Many of the scenarios we all spent a lot of time discussing during the General Election cycle are now moot: there was no “disputed election;” no electoral vote/popular vote “split;” no Republican Senate that would have allowed the GOP (in conjunction with a Romney win) to enact its agenda on a party-line vote; no Romney presidency without a Republican Senate that might (in theory, anyway) have enabled him to abandon his many promises to conservatives and pursue a bipartisan fiscal agreement.

As the final votes trickle in, it’s increasingly clear total voting will be down a relatively small amount from 2008, though not in most of the battleground states. And the composition of the electorate was very similar to that of 2008, despite widespread predictions that under-30 voters and Latinos would not turn out at anything like 2008 levels. In the end, the main difference between 2008 and 2012 from a demographic point of view is that Obama’s percentage among white voters dropped from 43% to 39%, which was partially offset by an increase in his percentage among Latinos from 67% to 71%. Yes, Obama’s percentage of under-30 voters dropped, but it was partially offset by a small gain among voters aged 30-44 (probably reflecting late-twenties voters from 2008 who moved into the next category). The only two states Romney “swung” to the GOP were the two closest Obama states in 2008, Indiana and North Carolina. Obama’s final popular-vote percentage will be very similar to George W. Bush’s in 2004. It does, as you may have heard, make him the first Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote in two consecutive elections since FDR.

Democratic gains of two net seats in the Senate were the most remarkable result, given the vastly pro-Republican landscape. A lot of the post-election talk was about the unforced errors of Tea Party candidates in Missouri and Indiana, but Republicans would have still fallen four seats short of a majority had both those states fallen into the GOP column. In the House, although there is some controversy over how to measure the national popular vote (some states don’t collect or report votes for unopposed candidates), it’s reasonably clear Democrats won a small plurality even though they only picked up ten net seats, leaving Republicans with a 232-203 majority. Continue reading “Election Watch: 2012 Is in the Books!”

The 4 Issues Dragging Down the Economic Recovery

PPI Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel was featured in the National Journal on regulatory reform:

Mitchell suggests creating a commission, modeled on the process that Congress has used to determine which military bases to realign or close, to weed out and eliminate federal spending that benefits certain businesses at the expense of others. Economist Michael Mandel of the Progressive Policy Institute suggests a similar body to reduce the government’s impact on business growth by identifying federal regulations to repeal or modify.

Read the entire National Journal article here.

Trickle-Down Bribery, or, The Butch Cassidy Congress

Lindsay Lewis writes in the Daily Beast that the real corruption in Congress is facilitated by congressional staff whose main goal is to keep their boss and donors happy:

The House of Representatives in the 112th Congress has earned its single digit approval rating with aplomb. Gridlock, brinksmanship, mistrust, and meaningless partisan votes make today’s Congress the most dysfunctional I’ve seen in twenty years working on and around Capitol Hill.

Today, it pays to be an ardent partisan. Both parties now have super PACs—outside political organizations established by the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision—that accept millions in unlimited donations to support candidates. Democrats have House Majority PAC and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has established the Young Guns Action Fund for Republicans. Members may not be able to coordinate their activities with a super PAC, but they sure can raise money for them.

Though a July poll found two-thirds of Americans uncomfortable with unrestricted money in politics, the Supreme Court ruled that this influx of cash will not jeopardize our democratic process. Donors “might have influence or access to elected officials,” reads the Citizen’s United decision, but it “does not mean that those officials are corrupt.”

That interpretation may be technically correct, but it’s clear a majority of Supreme Court Justices have no idea how politics really works. I do. I’ve seen first hand how corruption infiltrates Congress. While Members’ votes are not necessarily for sale, America’s legislative process most certainly is. And the super PAC era is making the situation exponentially worse.

Congressional corruption is facilitated by Hill staff. Members of Congress are in the customer service business. Members must track down lost Social Security checks, listen to complaints in the district, and take feedback on proposed legislation.

Read the entire piece.

Obama Counts Capital Gains

The Herald Scotland quotes PPI President Will Marshall on Obama’s tax strategy for his second term:

It was a very close race and it showed a country that’s still very divided,” said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute. “But I think that the president does have a specific mandate for an end to tax breaks for the rich.”

Read the entire article here.

It’s the Ideology, Stupid

At CNN, Will Marshall argues that the GOP’s real problem is ideology:

Republicans are consoling themselves with the claim that President Barack Obama didn’t win a mandate Tuesday night, even if he did renew his White House lease for another four years. They are fooling themselves, however, if they think the 2012 election merely ratified the political status quo. More than just a personal victory for Obama, the outcome was an unmistakable defeat for GOP ideology.

Disgruntled conservatives, of course, are already dressing Mitt Romney for the part of fall guy. But this is the politics of evasion. Sooner or later, GOP realists will have to reappraise the party’s message rather than shoot its messenger.

That message was a call for rolling back government. Intoxicated by a potent brew of resurgent libertarian dogma and intense personal animus toward Obama, Republicans vowed to undo his major achievements: health care reform, new rules for financial markets, the regulation of carbon emissions, higher fuel economy standards for autos, and so on.

Read the entire piece at CNN.com.

Centrist Voters Back Obama

Despite Mitt Romney’s belated October dash toward the political center, moderates have lined up solidly behind President Obama. Centrist voters put Obama over the top in 2008, and they could very well do it again today.

Pew’s final campaign poll shows Obama moving from a dead heat to a three-point lead in the election’s last week. Specifically, he cut Romney’s margins among seniors (from +19 to +9) and padded his lead among women (+13 points) and moderates (+21).

Obama leads Romney 56-25 among moderate voters, close to the 60 percent he won in 2008. Because there are about twice as many conservatives as liberals in the electorate, Democrats have to claim big majorities among moderates to win elections. According to Pew, voters now identify themselves as 43 percent conservative, 32 percent moderate and 21 percent liberal, nearly identical to their ideological profile in 2008.

Although liberals consider themselves the Democratic “base,” there aren’t nearly enough of them to deliver victory. In 2008, half of Obama’s vote came from moderates, while liberals accounted for 37 percent. Republicans need fewer moderates to build majorities, which helps to explain why GOP centrists are a vanishing breed. Continue reading “Centrist Voters Back Obama”

Why the GOP Deserves to Lose

Will Marshall, in The Washington Monthly, argues why Republican Party extremism is undeserving of the American public’s support.

Whatever happens, it’s a safe bet the 2012 presidential election won’t go down in history as one for the ages. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have bickered ad nauseum, but neither has put before voters credible plans for reviving the economy or breaking the choke hold that political polarization has on American democracy.

The choice facing voters, however, isn’t just between the two candidates. It’s also between the parties they represent. And here the choice is easier: Based on its record of political sabotage over the past four years, the Republican Party richly deserves to lose.

America could survive four years of President Romney. But a Romney victory would reward his party’s reckless embrace of ideological extremism and obstructionism. It would vindicate the GOP’s decision to abandon the political center, put partisanship before country, and cater shamelessly to the voters’ darker impulses.

Read the entire article here.

Why Young People Overwhelmingly Support Obama (Hint: It’s in the Jobs.)

On Sunday Mitt Romney told an Ohio crowd that he couldn’t understand why a “college kid” would vote for Obama. He said Obama was spending all their money and that the only thing they would get from it was a bill with interest. Instead Romney promises to cut the deficit and simultaneously create an astounding 12 million jobs in his first term.

Despite his promises, young people overwhelmingly support Obama. President Obama enjoys a 19-point lead over Romney among likely young voters according to the latest polls.

Why? It’s all in the jobs. The number one concern of young voters is jobs and the economy. They need more jobs and more money. And while Romney talks a big game, his lack of details leave young people uninspired.

Meanwhile, Obama’s plan offers concrete ideas to address the economic struggles of young people, the 73 million people age 18-34. Since the recession they have lost over 3 million construction, production, and office jobs. Obama’s plan includes bringing back production jobs that may have been lost to unfair competition, while encouraging “innovation clusters” to form the next crop of high-skill, high-wage jobs. His plan increases public investment in infrastructure, boosting construction jobs in the short-term and providing a foundation for a strong economy in the long-term. His plan establishes more public-private partnerships to better match students with today’s business demands. Continue reading “Why Young People Overwhelmingly Support Obama (Hint: It’s in the Jobs.)”

Election Watch: Decision Time 2012

The big day is finally upon us, and while most signs are pointing to a very narrow popular-vote and perhaps more comfortable electoral-vote win for the president (along with small enough Democratic House and Republican Senate gains to maintain the congressional status quo), the polls and the intangibles are uncertain enough to maintain some sense of suspense.

After a week or so of favoring Romney, national polls have been slowly moving back towards Obama during the last few days. The RealClearPolitics “poll of polls” has Obama up by 0.5%; TPM’s average is at 0.7%. No major national poll—not even Rasmussen—has shown Romney with a lead going down the stretch, though the final Gallup Tracking poll (suspended last week because of the impact of Sandy on response-levels) today could change that. The final Pew survey showing Obama up by 3% is getting a lot of attention because it’s the polling firm that was the first to show a “Romney surge” after the Denver debate.

But it’s the electoral college estimates that are most favorable for Obama, reflecting polls consistently showing him ahead in Ohio, Iowa and Nevada, a combination that along with less competitive “blue states” would give him the presidency. It’s also less clear than it seemed to be last week that Romney has actually pulled ahead in Virginia and Florida, and despite a few outlier polls showing him within striking distance in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, the consensus is that barring some surprise turnout disparities, those states will fall to Obama as well. Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight rates the probability of an Obama electoral college win at 85%, and Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium at 98%. The conventional wisdom (though not among most Republicans!) is that Obama is in much the same position as George W. Bush was in 2004, with job approval ratings at or just above 50%, and a very small undecided vote. Continue reading “Election Watch: Decision Time 2012”

POLITICO: Foolproof victory plan for President Obama

Will Marshall explains how Obama should speak to America’s pragmatic political center in his closing argument in Politico:

The last time Barack Obama sought my political advice was, let’s see, when was it … oh yeah – never. That’s a shame, because like every D.C. pundit who never won more than a high school election, I’m sure I know exactly what he needs to do to win a second term.

So Mr. President, here it is: my foolproof if unsolicited plan for eking out a victory next month over hard-charging Mitt Romney. Its goal is to enable you to seize America’s pragmatic political center, and it has four parts:

First, stop belittling Romney on the stump. Certainly you should draw sharp contrasts with your opponent on political philosophy and policy, but it’s best to leave highly personal attacks to surrogates, campaign flacks and negative ads. There’s nothing wrong in pointing out Romney’s willingness to jettison issue positions when they no longer serve his purpose. But resorting to ridicule (“Romnesia”) or parroting the kind of contrived, focused-grouped attack lines beloved by political consultants (“wrong and reckless”), makes you sound less presidential and more narrowly partisan. Sure, adoring crowds eat this stuff up, but you’ve already got them in your pocket.

From now to Election Day, you need to speak over their heads to your real target audience — the independents, moderates and weak partisans in eight or nine swing states who will decide this election. Ignore liberals who claim that by bashing Romney you’ll excite the base and spark a big turnout. Persuasion is the name of the game now, and the voters still in play are defined by their aversion to partisan stridency.

Read the entire piece at Politico.

Election Watch: Obama and Romney Campaigns in the Final Stretch

With eleven days left before November 6, the general perception is that the presidential contest is even, though most formal prediction models continue to give Obama a slight edge and some of the more hackish Republicans continue to insist Mitt Romney is riding an endless wave of “momentum” to a landslide.

It’s unclear whether the Romney Surge in the polls that followed the first presidential debate subsided on its own, or was smothered by the vice presidential and the second and third presidential debates, all of which were generally rated as Democratic wins. And for that matter, it’s unclear if the Romney Surge was purely produced by the first debate, or was partially attributable to a natural decline in Obama’s post-convention Surge.

But it does appear that a razor-thin margin divides the two candidates in national polls of likely voters (Obama pretty much leads them all among registered voters), and that while Romney has made gains almost everywhere, he’s still trailing in Ohio, Nevada, Wisconsin and Iowa, and has probably taken the lead in North Carolina and Florida. Virginia and Colorado are too close to call. Post-first-debate measurements of “enthusiasm” that showed Republicans picking up a big advantage were as likely as catching lightning bugs in a jar; both “bases” seem very motivated, particularly in the battleground states. As for undecided voters, some polls (though not others) show Romney making impressive gains among women—presumably charmed by Moderate Mitt—and virtually all show him doing very well—perhaps over 60 percent—among white voters. The new ABC/WaPo poll that came out today, giving Romney a 50/47 lead among LVs, had Obama at 37 percent among white voters, a level lower than any Democratic presidential candidate has received since 1984. But polling in Ohio has universally shown Obama performing better there among white voters than nationally, helping explain his persistent lead in the state most observers think will decide it all (aside from his reported two-to-one lead in early voting). Indeed, the increasing possibility of a Popular Vote/Electoral Vote split in the final results, with Romney winning the former and Obama the latter, is becoming a big preoccupation of the punditry.

So the contest, it appears, will go down to late paid media, GOTV efforts, and external news events. Republicans have a significant but not overwhelming advantage in paid media; Democrats are still perceived to have an advantage in GOTV; and nobody knows how the news will cut, although presidents tend to have more leverage over the news than do former governors. Certainly no one factored Hurricane Sandy into their presidential election forecast models, representing all sorts of challenges and opportunities for Obama, and quite likely disrupting campaign activities in several states in the most crucial days before the election.

Republican hopes of taking back the Senate took yet enough hit this week as Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock—already locked in a closer-than-expected race with Democratic congressman Joe Donnelly—followed the path of Missouri’s Todd Akin in making offensive remarks in a public setting about rape and abortion. Mourdock has not been repudiated by national Republicans the way Akin was—indeed, Mitt Romney’s ad endorsing Mourdock is still running despite Romney’s disavowal of the hard-core-conservative Hoosier’s comments calling pregnancies resulting from rape “God’s Will.” But with polls showing significant gains by Democratic candidates in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and no signs of a GOP breakthrough elsewhere, the odds of the GOP making a net gain of three seats are not good. So even if Romney and Ryan win, they may be dealing with a Democratic Senate. This could be very discomfiting to conservatives who don’t trust Romney and assumed he would be effectively controlled by a Republican Congress. But in the heat of the final stretch of the presidential campaign, no Republican is going to breath a word about it.

All in all, between hurricanes, conflicted polling, the possibility of “split decisions” (between the popular and electoral vote, and between the presidential and Senate results), and the even stronger possibility of contested results in key states (both sides have been lawyering up heavily for election day disputes), this could be one of the wildest end-games since—well, 2000. The 2004 scenario of a very close race being decided by Ohio almost seems like a nice, placid fantasy.