Liberal Oaisis

Looking at the same data I did when diagnosing the conservative "secular problem," Karl Rove concludes: Then there were those who didn't show up. There were 4.1 million fewer Republicans voting this year than in 2004. Some missing Republicans had turned independent or Democratic for this election. But most simply stayed home. Ironically for a campaign that featured probably the last Vietnam veteran to run for president, 2.7 million fewer veterans voted. There were also 4.1 million fewer voters who attend religious services more than once a week. Americans aren't suddenly going to church less; something was missing from the campaign to draw out the more religiously observant. Rove's recommendation is for Republicans to do more "to draw out the more religiously observant" -- in other words, suck up more to Christian conservatives. But that is a very narrow, politically foolish reading of the data. I had also noted that the secular vote had become larger than the weekly churchgoing vote. But Rove ignores two other key pieces of data. 1) Obama earned more support from weekly churchgoers than past Democratic candidates. 2) McCain earned less support from secular voters than George W. Bush. Obama built a stronger religious-secular coalition by offering ideas that appeal to both camps, not by crude pandering on religious matters. Bending over backwards to pander to conservative Christians will only further worry secular voters that conservatives don't properly prioritize issues that are most important to good governing. But trying to come up with conservative ideas that can appeal across religious lines is a much harder task than staying in the conservative comfort zone of telling their base what they want to hear. UPDATE: One final thought: Obama got 8.5 million more votes than McCain in beating him 53% to 46%. Squeezing 4.1 million more votes out of your base doesn't solve your problem. To put a fine point on it, if you only count the states where Obama received 53% or more, he still gets enough electoral votes to win -- 290, 20 more than needed. Goosing the base won't get those states back.

On Fox News Sunday, leading House conservative Mike Pence looked at the success of ballot initiatives that deny equal marriage rights as evidence that conservatism remains healthy in America. Discussing how the Republican Party should move forward, Pence told host Chris Wallace: ...you build those conservative solutions, Chris, on the same time-honored principles of limited government, a belief in free markets, a belief in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage. You look at those social issues, Chris -- you know, there were three state referendums on marriage. All three of them carried -- I think in Florida, California and Arizona. You know, the vitality of the conservative movement around the country is very real. Which told me, conservatives still don't accept the depth of their "secular problem" -- a problem that just got worse. Before the 2006 midterm elections, I wrote in Wait! Don't Move To Canada! that "...there are an equal amount of voters who attend services at least weekly as there are voters who seldom or never go. It is true that regular churchgoers trend Republican and the 'seldom of never' group trends Democratic, but that means you could just as easily say Republicans have a 'secular problem.'" At that time, to the extent that both problems existed for both parties, they were roughly equivalent problems based on the presidential exit polls in 2004 and 2000. But after the 2006 elections, the conservative "secular problem" became the bigger problem. Based on Pew Research Center exit poll data, I then wrote: Democrats crushed Republicans among secular voters, broadly defined as those who attend church seldom (favoring Democrats 60% to 38%) or never (67% to 30%). Republicans retained strong support among those who attend church more than weekly. But among those who only go weekly -- the larger portion of the religious vote -- the Republican lead shrunk from 15 points to 7. In short, Republicans failed to be competitive among secular voters, while Democrats were at least competitive among regular churchgoers. And since the secular vote is roughly equal to the regular churchgoing vote, according to the last several national election exit polls, that means Republicans and their conservative base have a far bigger secular problem than their rivals have a religion problem. Now, after the 2008 presidential election, the conservative "secular problem" looms even larger. Why? 1. The secular vote Is bigger. Unlike the previous two presidential election, the secular vote -- defined as voters attending religious services seldom or never -- is bigger than the weekly churchgoing vote. Secular voters were 44% of the electorate in 2008, a touch higher than the 43% from 2004. Meanwhile weekly churchgoers composed 39% of the electorate, down from 42% in 2004, and now trailing the collective secular vote by 5 points. 2. The secular vote has moved even farther away from conservatives. In 2008, Sen. John McCain received 39% support of voters who seldom attend religious services, and 30% from those who never go. Both numbers represent a 6-point drop from what Bush received in 2004. 3. Liberals have a stronger religious-secular coalition. President-Elect Barack Obama, whom more than 60% of voters consider to be "liberal," ran stronger among weekly churchgoers than Vice-President Al Gore or Sen. John Kerry. Obama received 43% of the vote from voters who attend religious services weekly or more than weekly. For Kerry, those numbers were 41% and 35%. For Gore, it was 40% and 36%. Obama's positions on hot-button social issues are no different than what Gore and Kerry ran on. In fact, he talked about ending division between "gay and straight" more regularly than his predecessors. But Obama's outreach to religious voters was more consistent. And Bush's failed conservative policies hurt religious voters just as much as secular voters, providing an opening for Obama's message of active government, and proving that you can forge common ground between religious and secular voters without sacrificing liberal progressive principles. For conservatives to cling to the slim victory of California's Prop 8 as evidence that America is a "center-right" nation is more self-delusion. Yes, gay marriage remains a bridge too far for most Americans as of today. But the basic principle of equal rights for gays is embraced by the majority -- in the 2004 exit poll a broad majority supported either gay marriage or civil unions. Further, if conservatives want to prevent young voters -- two-thirds of whom support Obama -- from remaining liberal Democrats for their rest of their lives, hating on gays is not exactly the best way to do it. Most importantly, for conservatives to cling to opposition of gay marriage exposes their strange prioritization of issues. The economy is reeling, we face a myriad of foreign policy threats -- problems created or exacerbated by conservative policies -- and instead of owning up to your failures and coming with new ideas to fix the problem, top of your list is stopping somebody else from getting married? That sends exactly wrong signal to secular voters, as did the comical attempt by conservative congressional leaders in 2005 to meddle in the affairs of Terri Schiavo -- that conservatives consider writing their specific religious views into law as more important than doing something to improve the quality of life for all Americans. The first step always is admitting you have a problem. Conservatives clearly have not gotten there yet.

The importance of today's meeting between Barack Obama and George W. Bush cannot be understated. Let's think back eight years to the White House meeting between President Bill Clinton and President-elect George W. Bush. According to James Moore's book, Bush's War for Reelection, Bill Clinton gave George W. Bush the five priorities for his administration. First was bin Laden; second was the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; the third was North Korea; the fourth was Pakistan-India and finally Saddam Hussein. Remember, this was back in 2000. Bush said, "I think you've got your priorities wrong. I'm putting Saddam at the top of the list." (I wonder where we would be if Bush actually paid attention and went after Osama Bin Laden from day one. ) I'm not saying that President Bush is as wise or insightful as President Bill Clinton was. On the other hand, President Bush is not stupid. He is driven by ideology but he is not stupid. Therefore, whatever insights he decides to give to Barack Obama should be taken into consideration. I hope that Barack Obama takes his advice into consideration. Who knows, in a fit of sanity, President Bush may actually give nonpartisan thoughtful advice.

Getting 60 Democratic Senators would be nice, but it is no guarantee of preventing filibusters. You still need to hold 60 Senators, of any party, to overcome each cloture vote on an issue-by-issue basis. So with Dems only having at least 57 senators (with three seats still up in the air), what are the prospects of beating back conservative filibusters? Here is an admittedly crude analysis. Consider: there are 10 Republican senators representing states that Obama won. Martinez (FL) Lugar (IN) Grassley (IA) Collins (ME) Snowe (ME) Ensign (NV) Gregg (NH) Burr (NC) Voinovich (OH) Specter (PA) These senators represent states that affirmed Obama's platform and -- so long as individual agenda items are well argued -- may be reluctant to be seen as obstructing the public mandate, especially in a time of economic distress. They should receive maximum pressure from those of us in their states. At the same time, there are 12 Democratic senators representing states that Obama lost. Lincoln (AR) Pryor (AR) Landrieu (LA) McCaskill (MO) Baucus (MT) Tester (MT) Nelson (NE) Conrad (ND) Dorgan (ND) Johnson (SD) Byrd (WV) Rockefeller (WV) One one hand, these Senators generally want to see Obama's agenda succeed, so the Democratic Party's prospects in their states can further flourish. On the other, any backlash against a particular idea may prompt them to break ranks and highlight their "independence" to their constituents. The bottom line is as it was: we have to continually make our case. Nothing is assured. We cannot forget what we have learned about framing debates, distilling arguments, and honing messages that are compelling to the broader electorate. We will have to guard against distortions of policy details, and be prepared to get in the weeds without getting lost in the weeds. We will have to remain engaged at the grassroots level, and not allow the conservative movement to regain momentum. Democracy doesn't stop between elections.

Today at 10 AM ET, The LiberalOasis Radio Show was broadcast on WHMP-AM in Western MA. My special guest was Campaign for America's Future Senior Fellow Bernie Horn, who discussed his new report "Congressional Elections Deliver A Progressive Mandate." The audio podcast for the show is here: (iTunes / XML feed / MP3). Video of the opening monologue, also about the mandate, is below.

The latest edition of The Week In Blog is up at Bloggingheads.tv, featuring myself and William Beutler of Blog P.I., discussing Obama's mandate and conservative soul-searching. Watch it below.

...my election predictions were pretty good.

Here's a little news that probably won't dominate the post-election punditry. More than 60% of voters considered Sen. Barack Obama a "liberal." And he won. Politico interviewed Sen. John McCain's long-time close aide Mark Salter, who revealed the result from the McCain campaign's own polling. Our polling showed that more than 60 percent of voters identified Obama as a liberal. Typically, a candidate is not going to win the presidency with those figures. But I think the country just disregarded it. People didn’t care. They just wanted the biggest change they could get. Some conservatives are trying to rationalize their defeat by claiming Obama duped the nation into thinking he wasn't liberal. For example, the conservative blog Power Line said: "Despite his thoroughgoing liberalism, Obama did not run as a liberal. LIberals can run successfully for president under camouflage donned for the occasion." And as David Sirota has been chronicling, many in the punditocracy are clinging to the fiction that the election somehow proves America is a "center-right" nation. Sorry folks, but McCain's own polling completely refutes that claim. America read the label, saw all the plans for active government, and knew what they were buying. We at Campaign for America's Future have always held that the American majority was already a progressive majority when it came to the big issues: role of government, public investment, taxation, clean energy, environment, health care, wages and worker rights. But there was no getting around that conservatives have been able to deploy "liberal" as an all-purpose damning slur for a long while. Self-described moderates may be supporting progressive positions, but could be made wary people tarred with liberal stereotypes: soft, weak and irresponsible. Not today. The liberal boogeyman card could not be played, no matter how hard they tried. Perceived fear of liberals is far outweighed by the disgust of the actual damage conservatives have wrought. Despite this hugely positive change in American politics, it does not mean we should assume the American public will embrace every liberal progressive policy proposal that comes down the pike without question. Conservatives may no longer be able to quickly dismiss ideas with the "liberal" slur. But a poorly conceived plan can still be beat on the merits, and a poorly argued plan can still have its details distorted to appear poorly conceived. A big policy failure (such as 1994 Clinton health care plan) can rapidly resurrect debilitating stereotypes. But conservatives will not be able to stop us just by screaming "liberal" over and over again. And the longer conservatives delude themselves about the choice America has made for the direction of our country, the easier it is going to be for us to turn the progressive mandate into progressive policy. Originally posted at OurFuture.org

It's not the style. It's the substance that dictated the outcome of the election, which gave Sen. Barack Obama a larger share of the popular vote than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton ever received. The backdrop of this election has long been the comprehensive failure of conservative policies during the last eight years, and what "change" for those policies should mean. Sen. Barack Obama responded not with an empty call for "change" but with a concrete vision for that change. He spoke of "government" in a positive context more than any presidential candidate has in at least 20 years. He embraced a "FDR-style infrastructure building program." He consistently placed energy independence as his top domestic priority, backing up the rhetoric with a plan of public investment to get it done. He said health care "should be a right for every American" during the town hall debate. He explicitly backed diplomatic engagement with Iran, support for democratic reform in Pakistan and beyond, along with a renewed military focus on Al Qaeda. In doing so, Obama was taking positions supported by the liberal progressive base of the Democratic Party, but also held considerable support among self-described moderates. Following the Democratic primary, Obama never needed to "pivot" significantly towards a mythical center. His core positions already represented the common ground shared by America's progressive majority. In yesterday's exit poll, voters expressed the desire for government to "do more" by an eight-point margin. Much will be made of McCain's "mistakes" in his campaign, as conservatives will surely seek to blame his (and Obama's) performance for their shrinking minority status, to shift blame away from the failure of their own policies. But almost every mistake McCain made was not a personal failing, but was part of a futile but necessary effort to bridge what had become a gulf between conservative base voters and moderate swing voters. After the utter failure of conservatism in every domestic and foreign policy area, there simply was no overlap left between the moderate and conservative camps, no overriding issue that could be the glue to hold together a center-right coalition. McCain kept saying the "fundamentals of the economy are strong" to appeal to delusional conservatives, then awkwardly acknowledged we're in "difficult times" to convince moderates he wasn't delusional too. McCain hastily picked a woefully unqualified and uninformed person to be his running mate because he lacked options for people who resonated with both base and swing, and Gov. Sarah Palin seemed to offer hope of energizing the base while reaching out to undecided women. McCain delighted conservatives by attacking Obama as a "socialist," which undermined his attempt to attract moderates by backing away from his record as a deregulator and proposing huge government involvement in the mortgage industry. McCain's erratic style may have made these flops seem particularly spectacular, but the deep rift created during the last eight years between conservatism and the rest of America was probably too big for even a polished candidate to overcome. Obama's tremendous skills helped navigate the difficult waters of racial politics and fend off an avalanche of smears. But all that did was return the race to its substantive fundamentals, made all the starker as the financial crisis put an exclamation point on the damage already wrought on our economy. Figuring out how to repair the breach between conservatives and moderates is a problem for the conservative movement, not for us. Our challenge is to turn the progressive mandate the public has given President-elect Barack Obama and the new Congress into bold action. And that work starts ... now. Cross-posted at OurFuture.org

I was just thinking - It was an amazing night. The fears of 2000/2004 returned. How were states really going to go? Was Georgia really in play? Where's Florida? Were those machines fixed? It has been hours and Virginia seems to be using a crayon and stone tablet to add up their vote totals. Pennsylvania was the first big swing state that clearly went for Obama. For weeks, the talking heads were trying to make this close (this state and really this whole race) but it wasn't. It never was. This race hadn't been close for over a month yet the talking heads were just talking and talking about John McCain's surge. NOT! There wasn't any significant surge. For reasons that were unclear to me, McCain threw time and money into Pennsylvania in the last 3 - 4 weeks. Why? None of the poll numbers hinted that Pennsylvania was close. Some polls had McCain down by 10 point yet he and Sarah Palin was out there (and don't forget Joe the Plumber). The final vote total revealed that there were no surprises in Pa. Obama won by 11. About an hour later, Ohio went for Obama. I found it interesting that there was so little talk about Ohio. The talking heads didn't go on and on over Ohio, why? Ohio was really interesting with 2004 as a back drop. The conservative Cincinnati vs. the liberal Cleveland. There was so much to talk about that would have been interesting and informative but we got almost nothing. Then the real waiting had begun. My question for all of you is - When did John McCain know that this race was over? When did he know that he lost to Bush for the 3rd time? We all know that John McCain lost to Bush in 2000. I think that you can say that McCain wanted to run in 2004 but it wasn't politically possible. So, he lost again in 2004. Now with Bush being so unpopular, President Bush drug McCain and other Republicans down in this election. Elizabeth Dole is a great example. She really didn't do anything wrong. Incumbents usually lose for screwing up not for being worthless. If Bush could have gotten his approval numbers into the low 40's he would have helped McCain. In the end, John McCain lost not only to Barack Obama but also to George W. Bush, again. As I mentioned in an earlier post, just before 10 pm EST that Barack Obama had passed the magic number. He was sitting at just over 200 electoral votes and California, Oregon, Washington State and Hawaii were clearly his but not counted yet because those polls hadn't closed. The writing was on the wall. The game was over. The fat lady was singing. Elvis had left the building. It didn't matter how Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri and Montana went. Barack Obama didn't need them for victory but he did need them for a mandate. Tonight, Barack Obama received a mandate from the American people. There are still a few races which are too close to call (Al Franken) and a couple of states that remain too close to call (Indiana, Missouri and North Carolina). America with your young and old, rich and poor, black, white, and brown party tonight because we need to wake up and figure out how to change this country that we love.

Today is not just about Obama, or McCain or Bush. Because this race has not been about a cult of personality (no matter how much the McCain campaign tried to make it one, and accuse the Obama campaign of trying to make it one.) After the financial crisis, voters kept the focus on issues, no matter what anyone else tried to do. The result tonight will be a verdict on anti-government conservatism, and a question whether America wants active government again. It will be a verdict on unilateralist neocon foreign policy, and a question whether America wants to engage the world again. A big victory for Obama will mean a big mandate for change. But a mandate is just a beginning, not a glide path. Obstructionist forces will remain, and delivering change will not be a spectator sport after today. But electing a president powered by the largest grassroots base in history is a good way to begin. Vote. Get Out The Vote. Protect Everyone's Vote. Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683) if you have or see any problems.

Okay, let's talk about money... again. A couple weeks ago I had several posts that discussed our financial crisis and how we could refocus our efforts to bring prosperity to every one. The one thing that I knew little or nothing about was something called Credit Default Swaps. This is a $45 trillion market (that is trillion with a capital "T.") Now, everyone knows how insurance basically works. I take out an auto insurance policy. I pay an insurance company and they assess the risk of me driving a car and getting into an automobile crash. If my risk is low, I don't pay all that much. If my risk is high, I pay a lot more or I become uninsurable. Suppose, on the other hand, you want to take an auto insurance policy out on me. You don't know me. You have no financial ties to me but to think that I am a safe "bet" and therefore you really would like to take insurance out on my driving. You would need to be able to find a third-party like AIG to give you such an insurance policy or a Credit Default Swap. This is basically what happened on Wall Street. In 2000, a lame-duck Congress passed legislation which allowed these Credit Default Swaps to become legal. What was that old saying, "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." (Edmund Burke). In 1907, many states and Congress moved to outlaw the practice. (This is why I totally reject the idea that someone like Joe the Plumber or Sarah Palin should be in charge of anything. We need smart people who understand where we are in history. It's nearly impossible to know where we're going if you don't know where we've been. Palin and Joe have no clue.) Why did Congress outlaw this practice? A run on banks in 1907 caused a near collapse of Wall Street. People had these betting parlors and they were betting on stocks without owning stocks. (watch the 60 minutes video below) We had multiple opportunities to intervene in this legalized gambling. Yet, we have this or had this ridiculous notion that the markets will correct themselves. This is just one piece of the puzzle. It is a $45 trillion unregulated piece of the puzzle. Do we really need Credit Default Swaps? Some great articles on this: NPR, Time Magazine and NY Times Watch CBS Videos Online

...which will be meaningless unless you GET OUT THE VOTE. Popular vote: Obama 53%, McCain 46%, other 1% Obama is in the low 50s in nearly every national poll, while McCain's number fluctuates more between high 30s and mid-40s. Obama has picked up a lot of swing voters already. The undecided ones remaining appear to be more right-leaning, off/on McCain voters. I'm presuming Obama doesn't get too much more from the remaining undecided pool. If his win is even bigger than my prediction, probably credit a combination of truly superior ground game, unenthusiastic Republican-leaning voters staying home and a "right-side-of-history" bandwagon effect. Electoral College: Obama 353, McCain 185 This presumes Obama holds all 2004 blue states (including PA and NH, the last ones McCain is seriously contesting); fails to pick up IN, MO, MT, ND, GA, AZ and Nebraska's 2nd congressional district; and takes IA, NM, CO, VA, NC, FL, NV and OH. I am least confident about NC and FL, but even without those Obama would win. I'm not terribly confident about putting MO and IN in McCain's column, but those seem to be states where Obama losing the undecideds would be the difference. (You could say the same about NC and FL, but those are states where I'm putting faith in Obama's ground game based on nothing but anecdotes.) UPDATE: After seeing OH polls this morning with Obama at 50% or above and with decent leads, I gave in to optimism and put OH in Obama's column. It also fits in with my prior assessment, partly based on McCain's early surrender in Michigan, that older voters with racial biases are confronting them and voting for Obama out of concern for the economy. Senate: +8 pickup for Dems, for 59 seats total (inc. Sanders and Lieberman) Not a daring prediction. Most assume Dems will pick up AK, NM, CO, NC, NH, VA and OR. MN is the closest Senate race out there, but I have to assume Al Franken can win a 3-way race with at least 45% in a state that Obama is going to win in a blowout. GA, KY and MS seem a bridge too far to me. But as anyone will tell you, if Dems pick up any of these, you know the wave of change is big. (KY and GA polls close on the early side, but GA's race is likely to go a Dec. runoff with no one getting 50%.) Now go prove me wrong, get out the vote and make this an even bigger landslide and bigger mandate for change. Corrected to include the egregious omissions of Alaska and Virginia.

Today at 10 AM ET, The LiberalOasis Radio Show was broadcast on WHMP-AM in Western MA. My special guests were Lisa Baskin, Co-Coordinator of Hamsphire County (MA) for Obama, who discussed ground efforts in New Hampshire, and Errington Thompson of The Errington Thompson Show (880 AM in Asheville, NC) and the blog Where's The Outrage?, who offered his insights on the Obama campaign in North Carolina as well as the hotly contested Dole-Hagan senate race. The audio podcast for the show is here: (iTunes / XML feed / MP3). No videocast this week.