July Jobs Numbers: For Dems, the Most Important (and Worst) Political News of the Day

That latest job numbers are bad news for the country, and, as a result, bad news for the incumbent political party, which will inevitably feel the brunt of voter anger over the economy. The country lost 131,000 jobs in July, and there is no indication the jobs market will improve in the three months leading up to the November election. Congressional Democrats have done nothing recently that should noticeably increase employment and nothing new is expected to become law in the next month. This is a recipe for a bad midterm election for Democrats.

The correlation between economic performance leading up to an election and the success of the incumbent party is very close. Bad economic conditions heading into an election have historically meant electoral losses for the party in power, and this year looks no different

The November election is fast approaching. People's opinions about how the economy is doing will soon jell, if they haven't already. Even if things begin to improve in late September, that could easily be too late to actually change minds and votes. There is now almost no time left for Democrats to do anything to significantly help employment before the election. That is why this jobs report is so important

Unlike tracking polls or horserace polls, this jobs report is probably the most important piece of political news in a long time. Democrats have failed to take the action needed to reduce unemployment before the election and will pay at the polls for this failure. Pathetic and fabulous excuses about weird Senate rules and a mean Republican minority are not going to change voters' minds or save Democrats this November.

Don’t Know Much About History: Chris Dodd Defends Filibuster with Fiction

It is intolerable to hear senators go on about the importance and traditions of their chamber when they seem to not understand or to willfully ignore both. The latest example is Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) defending the 60-vote threshold for cloture (put in place roughly 40 years ago) by essentially citing made-up history about Congress. From Huffington Post:

"I made a case last night to about ten freshman senators, you know, you want to turn this into a unicameral body? What's the point of having a Senate? If the vote margins are the same as in the House, you might as well close the doors," Dodd told reporters in the Capitol.

Dodd is either ignorant of our country's entire political history, or he is calling the founders idiots. We know the framers of the Constitution intended for both the House and the Senate to pass laws with the same simple majority vote and wrote that into the document. The first Senate even had a rule that would have prevented a filibuster, ensuring all laws needed only a simple majority to pass.

There is zero evidence that the founders set up the bicameral legislature with the purpose of having one require super-majorities to pass basic laws—in fact, there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Anyone who took high school US history would know the reason the founders created two chambers was a grand compromise--one house dividing representation by population, the House of Representatives, and one house providing equal representation for all states, regardless of population—that would be the Senate. At the time the Constitution was drafted, individual states were far more autonomous, and most citizens saw themselves as loyal to their state, and not the federal government. Small-population states feared delegations from large-population states could easily dominate the House—a bicameral legislature was a concession to small states. Dodd seems wildly unaware of this history.

For Dodd to claim that there would be no purpose to having the Senate if it wasn't a chamber requiring super majorities is especially absurd given that it wasn't until roughly one hundred years after the Senate's founding that they created the two-thirds vote requirement for cloture. By that logic, Dodd thinks the founders fools--creating a Senate with absolutely no purpose until some senator exploited a sloppy rules change decades later. It was that first filibuster that eventually led to the creation of super majority cloture votes several more decades after that. According to Dodd, it was only then that the Senate had any reason for being.

The great irony of Dodd claiming that elimination of the filibuster would make Congress a “unicameral body” is that the filibuster has already done that. The House is all but meaningless at this point because a bill now must be crafted expressly to garner 60 votes in the Senate. The Senate has stolen almost all power from the other chamber. Eliminating the filibuster would actually restore Congress to a true bicameral body by putting the two chambers on equal footing when it comes to crafting legislation.

If freshmen and sophomore Democratic senators find Dodd’s ridiculous argument compelling, my already low opinion of the Democratic party will take another hit. This nonsense from Dodd just reaffirms my joy at his impending retirement. I would like to suggest he uses his golden years to actually take some classes in basic US history.

What If People Actually Vote for Hard-Right, Tea Party Republicans?

There has been much hope--or dread, depending on which party you support--that the embrace of arch-conservative and Tea Party-backed candidates in contest primaries could seriously cost the Republican Party several Senate seats this November. By my count, the GOP could lose at least five Senate race as a result of embracing a more conservative challenger against the establishment choice: Nevada, Kentucky, Colorado, Florida and Pennsylvania. If the Republican Party fails to make significant gains this year because of the close outcome in these races, that would be a strategic failure by the conservative base. But currently, polls don't indicate that championing right-wing nominees will cause the GOP to lose these races.

While the more conservative or Tea Party candidates in those primaries may not be as electable as the establishment choices, the polling data indicate they could still easily win. A recent SurveyUSA poll found Republican Rand Paul leading Democrat Jack Conway in Kentucky, 51-43. While some polls have shown the race to be close, no independent poll in months has found Conway in the lead. In Colorado, Tea Party favorite Ken Buck is tied with both possible Democratic nominees, according to a recent poll. Quinnipiac’s latest poll of the Pennsylvania Senate race has the GOP’s Pat Toomey tied with Democrat Joe Sestak. While many think Sharron Angle has been a gift for Democrat Harry Reid, Mason-Dixon found Reid with a single-point lead over Angle, and PPP had him with only a two-point lead. Angle could easily overcome that deficit.

According to the polls, Florida seems to be the only state where Marco Rubio's insurgent challenge against the former establishment choice, Gov. Charlie Crist, has a real chance of costing Republicans a seat. But that requires a lot of luck on the part of Crist, now an independent, to keep his early lead and let two unpopular Democratic candidates battle each other for months. Given that it is a three-way race, the picture could still change in Rubio's favor. If the Democrat gets a large enough default Democratic vote and Republicans come home, Rubio would have a path to a small plurality victory.

Even if these more conservative candidates end up performing worse than a more moderate Republican would have, that’s unimportant as long as they win. In American politics, getting just one vote more than your opponent has the same outcome as getting a million more votes. These hard-core conservatives only need to be electable enough.

If the electoral environment continues to get worse for Democrats, Republicans who are on the cusp could conceivably win narrowly. If the economy starts to improve and with it Democrats’ chances, many of these Republicans could end up losing narrowly. Whether the conservative primary challenges leave a legacy of brilliant grassroots action or self- destruction will depend on the electorate and the economy. While it is possible that embracing Tea Party-backed candidates could cost the GOP several Senate races this November, the poll data indicate that Democrats can’t bank on this.

WA Sen: Patty Murray Holds Lead in Tight Senate Race; Rossi Likely Other "Top Two"

Recruiting Dino Rossi to challenge incumbent Sen. Patty Murray was a big pick-up for the Republican Party. He has managed to make Washington state’s Senate race competitive, according to a new PPP poll (PDF).

PPP (PDF) (7/27-8/1)
Patty Murray 49
Dino Rossi 46
Undecided 5

Washington is a very blue state, but these numbers indicate that Rossi has a legitimate chance of winning. Even if he doesn't win, forcing Democrats to spend resources in a state like Washington to defend a sitting Senator will still have value for the GOP. It also allows Republicans to claim, somewhat credibly, that they might take back the Senate. With Washington state now seriously contested, Republicans are reaching the necessary total of semi-competitive candidates.

The good news for Murray is that Rossi is pretty much a known quantity from his two previous unsuccessful statewide campaigns. While Rossi is currently only a few points behind, he likely has much less room to grow than most challengers would at this point.

For Rossi and Murray to face each other, they also need to be the top-two vote getters in the primary. In Washington’s system, all candidates of all parties appear on the same ballot, and the top two, regardless of party, are the only ones to make it to the ballot in the general. PPP polled the primary and found Rossi and Murray with huge leads.

PPP (PDF) (7/27-8/1)
Paul Akers (R) 4
Clint Didier (R) 10
Patty Murray (D) 47
Dino Rossi (R) 33
Other candidates 1
Not sure 6

CO Sen: Challenger Romanoff Surges Ahead of Incumbent Dem Bennet

A new poll shows challenger Andrew Romanoff pulling ahead for the first time over appointed Democratic Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, who has held the lead for most of the campaign. Romanoff has been significantly outspent by Bennet, who has also drawn on support from the President and the DSCC. Yet a recent poll for “The Denver Post”/9News by SurveyUSA has Romanoff taking the lead over the incumbent.

SurveyUSA
Andrew Romanoff 48
Michael Bennet 45
Undecided 8

This is a significant improvement for Romanoff. With the primary roughly a week away on August 10, having momentum and a small lead is about as good as it gets for an underfunded challenger.

In response to this poll, the Bennet campaign quickly released an internal poll that had him beating Romanoff by just four points. If this is, presumably, the best recent internal poll the Bennet campaign has, releasing it does little to change the idea that Bennet has a real chance of losing the party's nomination.

On the Republican side, Buck holds lead

SurveyUSA also polled the Republican Senate primary. Establishment choice, former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, is still trailing Tea Party favorite Ken Buck. While Norton had an early lead for weeks, now Buck is holding onto a solid margin.

SurveyUSA
Ken Buck 50
Jane Norton 41
Undecided 10

If Buck wins next Tuesday as expected, this year will mark an incredible string of failures for establishment GOP candidates in Senate primaries. In Florida and Pennsylvania, the establishment Republicans were driven out of the party by their primary challengers. In both Nevada and Kentucky, the establishment choice lost big. Finally, in Connecticut, establishment pick Rob Simmons is expected to lose his strangely suspended (but not really suspended) campaign against Linda McMahon.

Majority of Nevada Voters Still Oppose Marijuana Legalization

A majority, 52 percent, of likely midterm voters in Nevada oppose marijuana legalization while only 42 percent support it, according to a new Mason-Dixon poll for the “Las Vegas Review-Journal”.

Mason-Dixon (7/26-28)
Would you support or oppose legalizing and taxing marijuana in Nevada?
Support 42
Oppose 52
Undecided 6

This implies that in Nevada, there has been effectively zero increase in support for legalizing marijuana since 2006, when Question 7, a ballot measure to legalize and tax marijuana, failed by a 56-44 margin. It is hard to believe, given that pollsters like Gallup and Rasmussen have shown significant increase in support nationally for legalizing cannabis. There is no legalization initiative is on Nevada’s November ballot.

Probably more important than comparing this recent poll with the official results for Question 7 is to compare it against the last Mason-Dixon poll on marijuana legalization, taken right before the 2006 election. That poll found 35 percent for Question 7, 53 percent against and 12 percent undecided. So, comparing only polls by the same pollster, we are seeing a 7 point increase in support for marijuana legalization since 2006. That’s a decent improvement in only four years, and in line with what we have seen nationwide.

In 2012, the next time marijuana legalization will likely be on the ballot in Nevada, the voter demographics should be different because it is a presidential year. Also, if Proposition 19 passes in neighboring California and is successfully implemented for two years--or if it fails to pass--that could significantly move opinion in Nevada. I would be surprised if support levels don’t clearly change by 2012.

FL Sen: Crist Remains Strong, Meek Remains… Meek

When governor Charlie Crist dropped out of the Republican primary, left his party and decided to run as an independent most people thought he did not stand much of a chance of winning. Yet since that time Crist has not only been able to consistently maintain a small lead and actually increase it slightly according to a new Quinnipiac poll.

Quinnipiac (7/22-27)
Kendrick Meek D 13
Marco Rubio R 33
Charlie Crist I 39
Someone else 1
Wouldn't vote 1
DK/NA 14

Jeff Greene 17
Marco Rubio R 32
Charlie Crist I 37
Someone else -
Wouldn't vote 1
DK/NA 12

While this is not a huge lead for Crist, one shouldn't really expect a huge leads in three way contests, in both possible match ups Crist lead of Rubio is well outside the polls margin of error. While the poll says it would be best for Crist if Kendrik Meek wins the Democratic primary I'm not sure that is the case. Billionaire Jeff Greene definitely has a lot of his own money to spend on campaign advertising but will get very little institutional backing and has tons of baggage. Markos Moulitsas is calling on all Democrats to back Crist if Greene wins the August 10th primary.

The fact that Greene is polling as technically the strong Democrat in the general election speaks very poorly of Meek's Campaign. With Meek currently trailing Greene in the Democratic primary and unable to make the case that he is actually electable in the general election, it is hard to see how he really rallies supporters for upcoming primary.

Arizonans, Stung by Unelected Gov, Will Vote to Change System

The state of Arizona doesn't currently have the position of lieutenant governor in its government, but that could change if voters approve a ballot measure this November. Right now, if the Governor prematurely vacates the office, the Secretary of State is the replacement. That is how Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer ended up becoming Governor, by replacing Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano when she left to become Secretary of Homeland Security. From the “Arizona Republic” via Ballot Access News:

Lawmakers this year approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 1013, which asks voters to consider changing the secretary of state's title to lieutenant governor.

Arizona is one of only a handful of states that do not have a lieutenant governor. The question goes to the voters Nov. 2.

The move would require a party's nominee for lieutenant governor to run on a joint ticket with that party's nominee for governor. The goal, supporters say, is "truth in advertising" --to make clear to voters that the lieutenant governor would become the state's top executive should the governor leave office before the end of his or her term.

Arizona is experiencing firsthand the importance of a line of succession for Governor. They’ll get the chance this November to change the state's constitution if they don't like the current process. This reform would create a single joint general-election ticket for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, so they are always of the same political party, creating consistency in government. It does mean the party in the Governor's mansion will also always have control of the traditional functions of the Secretary of State. In addition, it will slightly shorten the general ballot by eliminating the separate statewide vote for Arizona’s second in command.

CA Gov, Sen: Republicans Whitman, Fiorina Leading

Both top Republican candidates in California--gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman and Senate nominee Carly Fiorina--are leading in their respective races, according to a new SurveyUSA poll of likely voters.

SurveyUSA (7/8-11)
Governor
Meg Whitman 46
Jerry Brown 39
Others 7
Undecided 8

Senate
Carly Fiorina 47
Barbara Boxer 45
Other 3
Undecided 5

The poll is bad news for Brown, who has been struggling to generate excitement for his campaign. Whitman's lead is well above the poll’s four percent margin of error. Having spent roughly $80 million so far on a very sophisticated campaign, she has been able to flood the zone. Looking at the internals, Brown appears to have yet to rally his base. Democratic voters support him only by 64 percent to 20. As the November election nears, most Democrats will likely come home to Brown and improve his numbers.

This is just the latest poll to show the California Senate race effectively dead even. This poll has Fiorina beating incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer, but her two-point lead is within the margin of error. The GOP has a very narrow path to gaining control of the US Senate. It requires Republicans to sweep all the contests, including Fiorina winning in California.

President Obama's job-approval numbers are dragging down both Democrats. Among likely voters, 41 percent have a favorable view of his job performance, 43 percent have an unfavorable view and 14 percent have a neutral view.

FL Sen: Rubio Raises Millions; Crist Strikes Back with Anti-Drilling Ballot Measure

The competitive three-way race for the open Florida Senate seat has some interesting new developments. Republican Marco Rubio is boasting impressive fund-raising numbers, pulling in more than $4.5 million in the second quarter, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is pushing to place an offshore-drilling ban on the ballot.

While still leading in the polls, Crist needs to thread the needle carefully to win in November. It seems the best strategy is to paint Rubio as an extremist. This has two goals. First, it helps Crist, running as an independent, win votes from moderate Republicans and right-leaning independents. It also helps Crist to shore up the left-of- center vote. If Crist can keep the future Democratic nominee's poll numbers in the teens, he can peel off left-leaning voters by depicting the actual Democrat as a spoiler. Voting for the Dem will only throw the election to the right-wing boogeyman, Rubio.

I suspect the goal of painting Rubio as a radical played a role in Crist using his gubernatorial power to call a special legislative session to put a constitutional ban on offshore drilling on the November ballot. Due to the BP oil disaster, support for offshore drilling has collapsed in Florida, shoving Rubio’s pro-drilling stance far outside the mainstream. Sticking the measure on the ballot will keep the issue front and center until the election.

Rubio mainly needs just to run a good enough campaign to make voters think he is not crazy. Because of the three-way split, Rubio doesn't even need to appeal to the true center. He needs only to win heavily with Republicans and take the bulk of the right- leaning independents to piece together a sufficiently big plurality. Rubio will have ample resources to run an impressive statewide campaign if he can fine-tune his appeal to the voters.

Portland, Maine to Vote on Instant Runoff; New York May Follow

This November, voters in Portland, Maine will decide whether to adopt instant runoff voting, sometimes called ranked voting or alternative voting, for the mayoral race. From “The Portland Press Herald”:

Commissioner Nathan Smith, who chaired a subcommittee that researched the issue, said he has become convinced that the system is better than a primary or a runoff election because there is typically a sharp drop-off in voter turnout in a second election.

Also, holding a second election would be more costly for the city and the candidates, he said.

In a single plurality election with multiple candidates, a well-organized minority faction could elect a mayor with only narrow public support. Under ranked-choice voting, that would not happen, he said.

Portland is the largest city in Maine, making it a potential model for adopting instant runoff voting elsewhere in the state. Currently, the mayor of Portland is not an elected position, but if the ballot measure reforming the city's charter passes, the office of mayor would become a citywide elected position, selected by instant runoff voting.

Portland is not the only major city where voters may soon decide if they want to adopt instant runoff voting. New York City's Charter Revision Commission is also looking closely at adopting it. From “TheWall Street Journal” (behind paywall):

The proposal, known as instant runoff voting, would allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If a candidate fails to reach 40%, the threshold in New York City for winning a party's nomination in citywide races, the ballots would be counted again, with voters' rankings used to simulate a runoff. [...]

The Charter Revision Commission plans to release Friday a report that explores the possibility of instant runoff voting. The 15-member commission intends to solicit public input on the concept and decide by early September whether to place the proposal on the Nov. 2 ballot.

New York currently has traditional top-two runoff elections, which tend to see large dropoffs in voter participation for the second round of voting. If the city adopts instant runoff voting, it would be the largest political entity in the United States to use it. Currently, a few Americans cities like Minneapolis use the system, which the United Kingdom will possibly adopt for its House of Commons election. Australia uses it extensively at all levels of politics, include the national House of Representatives.

If New York City implements instant runoff voting, it would be a large step forward for those hoping to end the zero-sum politics produced by our first-past-the-post election system. A significant portion of New York State residents live in the city, giving instant runoffs real potential to spread to statewide elections. New York's tradition of fusion ballots and important minor parties makes it potentially more receptive to this kind of reform.

It's the Economy, Stupid Democrats

Growth in real disposable income leading up to an election is a near-perfect predictor of how the incumbent party will do, says Ezra Klein in a perceptive article. This close correlation should not be surprising. People judge the majority party based on how much their personal economic standing has improved or deteriorated, as well as their friends’ and family’s.

It is always the economy.

With this in mind, we can zero in on the true failure of the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats from a political standpoint. The data Klein points to show how modest the impact of the actual campaign is on the election. The court intrigue of the Washington bubble, arguments about procedure, CBO price tags and tallies of highly compromised legislative “wins” will have a negligible impact on voters’ decisions.

Yet, despite how unimportant these things are to electoral outcomes, somehow they have become all-consuming priorities for the Administration and Congressional Democrats. Take, for example, the health care bill, which became dominated by one feature -- the CBO price tag -- at the expense of good policy or politics.

Democrats missed a perfect opportunity to focus on health care reform as a way to inject additional stimulus. Though the Affordable Care Act waits till 2014 to start many of the benefits, it delays implementing taxes or cuts to pay for them until several years beyond that. Without changing the general policy of what is now law, through a combination of Medicaid expansion, temporary COBRA subsidies, better funding of high-risk pools, dental care rebates, voluntary money to states that set up exchanges early and more, the health care bill could have been a way to inject roughly $100 billion of spending into the economy this year, helping people and encouraging start-up businesses. Instead, the new benefits won't really kick in until 2014.

The most egregious problem for Democrats is they have allowed Senate Republicans to destroy their election hopes in November. Democrats like Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) openly acknowledge that Senate Republicans are using the filibuster to block pro-growth legislation in order to keep the economy weak. As we can see from the data, it is a brilliant political strategy and is likely to pay off for the GOP in November. Yet, with their jobs on the line, Democrats have chosen to defend arcane Senate rules instead of playing procedural hardball to advance good policy and even better politics. The vast majority of Americans don't even understand the Senate rules that Democrats are defending at the cost of their majority. By not eliminating the filibuster, or at least threatening to as the GOP did to force compromise, Democrats have effectively committed political assisted suicide and taken the economy down with them.

Inside-the-Beltway arguments and deficit self-talk have doomed Democrats in November because they fail to see how important it is to address the immediate needs of regular Americans. Democrats have given up on even trying to improve voters’ economic well being before Election Day.

It brings to mind the probably false legend of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, but even that comparison is unfair. The story claims Nero at least purposely burned the city so he could build a new palace. Democrats are instead arguing about rules, Beltway squabbles and deficits while their own majority goes up in smoke around them.

When Geithner Talks About Reducing the Deficit, He Means Steal from the Poor and Give to the Rich

I have long held the belief that when Republican deficit hypocrites talk about “reducing the deficit,” they are simply using it as secret code for “exploiting regular Americans.” They almost never have plans that would actually reduce the deficit. Their "deficit reduction" plans are mainly schemes like taking Medicare and Social Security from middle-class people, not raising taxes on the rich or implementing policies like direct drug-price negotiations, which would reduce government cost but hurt the profit of large corporations.

Sadly, it appears the Obama Administration now falls firmly in the same camp of having “deficit reduction” just mean stealing from the poor to give to the rich. While he talks about how we need to reduce the deficit, on the other hand he fights diligently to increase the deficit by making sure hedge-fund managers and wealthy Wall Street investors pay a lower tax rate than teachers and police officers. From “The Wall Street Journal”:

In a CNBC interview late Wednesday, [Treasury Secretary Tim] Geithner said the Obama administration still hopes to hold the top tax rate on both capital gains and dividends to 20% next year – the level the White House has been proposing since taking office.

Of course, a 20% rate would represent a big increase over the current 15%. But it’s a lot better than the 39.6% top rate for dividends that congressional Democrats have signaled they were planning next year for higher earners.

This shows what a complete farce Obama’s Cat Food Commission really is. It might force hard-working janitors to labor two years longer by raising the Social Security retirement age, but what it really cares about is assuring extremely low taxes for wealthy people on Wall Street. The people who helped ruin the economy have the Obama Administration fighting to protect their low taxes, while the people they hurt are losing their retirement money. So much for shared sacrifice.

Until we adopt a more cost-effective health care system like single payer (which would completely eliminate the long-term deficit), end our wars, make real cuts to our bloated Pentagon budget, end corporate welfare programs and make Wall Street millionaires pay at least as much taxes as a school principal, no one in Washington, Republican or Democrat, should dare even think about cutting Social Security or Medicare to reduce the deficit.

Obama's talk about wanting to reduce the deficit was just talk. His Administration thinks helping Wall Street is far more important. Good to know where we rank: Wall Street Millionaires > Corporate Welfare (PhRMA, for- profit hospitals, too-big-to-fail banks, military contractors and more) > Deficit Reduction > Regular People.