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.

CBS News: Will white men sink Obama?

Will Marshall spoke to CBS News on why white men are frustrated with President Obama and the Democratic Party:

The movement of white men away from Democrats over the past four decades, argued Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall, is tied to both the culture war and the perception of “a change in the focal point of Democratic economic policymaking.”

“Many white men, and many, in particular, non-college white men, have not seen that the Democratic economic agenda is in their interest,” said Marshall. “There’s an account from the left that says these voters have been estranged from Democrats on social issues. And there’s some truth to that. But I also think these voters believe the economic policies of Democrats have benefitted somebody else – not them. Women, minorities, interest groups. They don’t feel that Democrats have championed the interests of white male voters in modern times as they did in the days of Roosevelt/Truman.”

Read the article at CBS News.

Slippery Mitt Evades KO

PPI President Will Marshall questions whether Romney’s rope-a-dope strategy on foreign policy may actually work despite Obama’s superior performance in the debate in Foreign Policy:

Mitt Romney is a candidate of protean principles. When his positions on issues become inconvenient, he simply throws them overboard, sometimes even denying he took them in the first place. So it was in Monday night’s foreign policy debate, when the ferocious Rottweiler of the previous two debates unexpectedly morphed into “Me-Too Mitt.”

It was a tactically shrewd performance that made a virtue of necessity. Romney clearly hasn’t mastered the complexities of defense and security policy, and at several points last night seemed uncomfortably out of his depth. Rather than mount a vigorous challenge to Barack Obama’s conduct of U.S. foreign policy, Romney dropped previous lines of attack and wound up agreeing with the president’s handling of conflicts in Afghanistan, Syria, and even Iran.

By stressing continuity rather than radical change in U.S. foreign policy, Romney sought to reassure voters that he is ready to take over as commander in chief. Although post-debate insta-polls showed that he “lost” the debate, he probably achieved this crucial goal. And the appearance of a kinder, gentler Romney blunted Obama’s aggressive attempts to portray him as a “reckless” throwback to the bellicose policies of George W. Bush.

Read the entire article at Foreign Policy.

Election Watch: 18 Days to Election Day and Strong Uncertainty Remains

With just 18 days left until Election Day, and with early voting picking up all over the country, it can be said that the state of the presidential race is as hard to figure as it ever was. A paucity of big national polls with data drawn after the vice presidential and the second presidential debate has made it difficult to determine if the president got the boost (at least in Democratic enthusiasm, if not swing-voter allegiance) many analysts expected. The tracking polls have shown varying results, and the most influential, from Gallup, has shown a steady rise in support for Mitt Romney—an astonishing seven-point lead among likely voters as of yesterday—that has perhaps been complicated by the firm’s implementation of new sampling practices and a likely voter screen. Battleground-state polls are also varying significantly, but many have shown Romney gaining pretty steadily, and perhaps even taking the lead in Virginia and Florida (even as almost everyone concedes NC to him) while drawing near even in Wisconsin. Just this morning NBC/WSJ/Marist surveys from Iowa and Wisconsin (including some post-second-debate data) were released indicating that Obama had regained robust leads in those two states, but this particular polling combine has regularly given Obama better-than-average numbers.

In terms of the dynamics of the race, the second presidential debate showed an invigorated incumbent attacking Romney’s moderate credentials, while the challenger refined his “failed economy” rap and repeated it very often. Both candidates exhibited swing-state obsessions, particularly in an extended argument over energy policies that seemed to become a battle over which of them was the best bet for the fossil-fuel industries. Foreign policy made its first appearance as a major issue, though it’s unclear who got the better of the exchange over Libya; it’s difficult to imagine quite how an entire debate over foreign policy will play out next Tuesday in the final debate.  Both candidates appealed overtly to women, though again, it’s hard to determine who did better (unless Romney’s “binders of women” line migrates from the Twitterverse, where it’s everywhere, to broader venues). It’s important to remember, of course, that the final debate, strictly on foreign policy topics, is being held in just three days, so it may be very difficult to isolate reactions to individual debates.

Early voting estimates seem to indicate an Obama advantage in Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin and perhaps Ohio, with a Romney advantage in Florida and North Carolina. A Supreme Court decision rebuffing Republican efforts to shut down Ohio voting the weekend before Election Day was very good news for Democrats, but Republican officials are managing to keep early voting hours limited.

It appears the campaigns will be roughly even in stretch-run paid advertising, despite earlier reports of a big pro-Romney advantage. But where the money is deployed is another subject, particularly with the standing of candidates in the battleground states so much in flux. And as always, assessment of GOTV efforts will be difficult to make before the November 6, though it’s assumed that Team Obama will have an advantage in most key states, but not as large as the one it enjoyed in 2008.

Down-ballot assessments haven’t changed a great deal in the last couple of weeks, though there is some Republican optimism that Romney’s improved performance could lift the entire ticket, particularly in battleground states. The one place that sort of effect could be measurably happening is in Wisconsin, where GOP Senate candidate Tommy Thompson, despite multiple major mistakes, seems to be again closing the gap with Democrat Tammy Baldwin. Observers will now be closely watching polls to see if Romney’s stronger numbers in Virginia and Florida will help George Allen break a long deadlock with Tim Kaine in the former and/or make Connie Mack competitive with Bill Nelson in the latter. Republicans desperately need a positive surprise to keep hopes of a Senate takeover alive.

Indeed, one of the more interesting subplots right now is the increased possibility that Romney could win without his party gaining control of the Senate. Most scenarios until recently, based on the early assumption that the Senate was an easy reach for the GOP, have figured otherwise. There was some debate back and forth as to whether Romney’s recent talk about “reaching out to Democrats” after the election disguised an implicit agreement with congressional Republicans to enact the Ryan Budget on a straight party-line vote using reconciliation procedures. That would become very difficult with a Democratic Senate, particularly one that will lose some of its most notable party heretics (e.g., Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson). Expect a lot more speculation in the next few days about the extent to which Republicans might actually allow a President Romney to depart from the many very specific promises he made during the primaries.

Election Watch: Muddy Political Landscape after Romney’s Debate Performance and New Jobs Report

Wednesday night’s first presidential debate has thrown calculations about the presidential contest into some disarray, though it probably won’t be until after the weekend that sufficient public opinion surveys will have appeared to get a sense of whether Mitt Romney’s undisputed (if perhaps disputed in its extent or implications) win over the president will have any impact on the actual race, which has been remarkably stable for a very long time.

Political Scientist John Sides is one of the few to make a specific prediction: that Romney would likely enjoy a 1.25% “bump” in national polls, at least temporarily.  Some observers who had earlier thought Romney’s prospects for victory were evaporating viewed his debate performance as crucial in keeping donors from cutting their losses and focusing on downballot races.

In terms of the strategic impact of the first debate, the general view is that Romney sought and to some extent succeeded in repositioning himself to “the political center,” via his hedging on his earlier tax cut proposal, his passionate declaration of interest in public education and the protection of Medicare, his claims of possessing a viable alternative to Obamacare that would protect those with pre-existing conditions, and his assertion that he’d been more open to bipartisan cooperation than Obama.  It appears this tack by Romney threw the Obama campaign off-balance, contributing to a low-key and not terribly responsive performance by the president (who had allegedly decided against too many sharp attacks on his struggling opponent). Interestingly, after months and months of demands by conservatives that Romney run a sharply ideological “choice” campaign based on his running-mate’s budget, his very different tack in the debate drew virtually no criticism, presumably because conservatives were so delighted by Obama’s discomfiture and “defeat.”  The framing of the debate by moderator Jim Lehrer made it very difficult for Obama to bring up Romney’s vulnerabilities on cultural issues, though it’s surprising he didn’t find a way to bring up Mitt’s recently revealed remarks about “the 47%.” Continue reading “Election Watch: Muddy Political Landscape after Romney’s Debate Performance and New Jobs Report”

Moderate Mitt Returns

No one should be surprised that Mitt Romney turned in a strong debate performance last night. After a string of missed opportunities and self-inflicted wounds stretching back to the Republican National Convention, his campaign had stalled and was losing altitude. Whereas President Obama merely had to avoid mistakes, Romney needed to pull himself out of a political tailspin.

Did he succeed? The commentariat says yes, but it has a vested interest in keeping the presidential race close. It will take a few days to gauge the debate’s impact on actual voters, but it’s probably safe to say Romney was won himself a fresh hearing.

Most important, Romney used the first presidential debate to reposition himself closer to the political center. This was just the opposite of what he had done during the GOP primary debates. Then, Romney worked hard to ingratiate himself with the ultra-conservative Republican base by attacking his rivals from the right — for example, by lambasting Texas Gov. Rick Perry as a softie on immigration.

Last night, in a bravura act of self-revisionism, Romney recast himself as the Massachusetts moderate he vehemently denied being during the primaries.

In the primaries, Romney had railed against regulation as a mortal threat to America’s “job creators.” Last night’s moderate Mitt sounded more reasonable, embracing the general need for regulation while singling out a few provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law he regards as going too far. Continue reading “Moderate Mitt Returns”

Election Watch: Obama Keeps Edge With Swing State Voters

The President’s modest but wide-ranging lead in most national and battleground state polls is no longer dismissible as a post-convention “bounce,” and is beginning to engender some serious concern in Republican circles. NBC’s First Read has a useful summary of that network’s own polling:

We’ve now released nine battleground state NBC/WSJ/Marist polls in the last three weeks, and what have we learned? President Obama is ahead of Mitt Romney in all nine, with his biggest leads being 7 and 8 points (in Ohio, New Hampshire, and Iowa) and his smallest edge at 2 points (in Nevada and North Carolina). Obama’s average percentage in these polls is 49.5% and Romney’s is 44% — which is consistent with the national polls (see below). Our state surveys also show a slight improvement in voters who believe that the nation is headed in the right direction. And they find Obama and Romney essentially tied on who would better handle the economy, while Obama mostly enjoys double-digit leads on foreign policy.

Republican reactions to these numbers have fallen into three categories. Some express no particular concerns, suggesting it remains a close race where some combination of heavy pro-Romney, anti-Obama advertising, better-than-expected debate performances, and a general realization of the incumbent’s “failure” could easily turn things around. Others are more concerned, and are offering various ideas for a Romney “comeback,” ranging from a harshly conservative comparative assault on the president (with loud-and-proud association of the ticket with the Ryan Budget and other provocative policies) to highly targeted voter appeals. And still others are attacking with considerable ferocity the accuracy of polls (other than those from the reliably pro-GOP Rasmussen firm), arguing either deliberate bias or skewed 2008-based samples, or both. Continue reading “Election Watch: Obama Keeps Edge With Swing State Voters”