2014: Turbulence ahead for the Democrats

By Richard K. Barry

Well, here's some bad news for Democrats, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll conducted between March 20-24:

Thirty-seven percent in the poll last month chose Republicans, compared to 36 percent who said they would rather see Democrats in charge, with the November general elections seven months away.

[...]

[R]egistered voters, who are most strongly interested in politics, favored the Republicans by 14 percentage points -- 51 percent to 37 percent. In January, they were about evenly split, with 42 percent preferring Democrats and 45 percent the Republicans.

Just to help us unpack the obvious, former senior Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod tweeted this:

Every bit of evidence points to stronger GOP turnout in a low turnout elections this fall. Major hurdle for Ds. http://t.co/FTLk7eG3Sb.
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) April 5, 2014

I do wish progressives would figure out that all elections matter, not just the ones with a rock star at the top of the ticket.  

David Axelrod doesn't call us fucking retarded

By Frank Moraes

On the other night's Rachel Maddow Show, David Axelrod explained that everything Obama has ever done or ever will again do is just right. We actual liberals just don't get it. We don't understand the bigger issues that Serious Democrats understand. We don't understand that "free" trade agreements are great because they make rich people even more rich, even though they don't help the poor and middle class anywhere. We don't understand that the loss of manufacturing jobs is just a sign of globalization and there is nothing we can do so we ought to be happy with those minimum wage service jobs. We don't understand that what is good for GE, Exxon, and GM is good for America.

In other words: we don't understand that the Republicans are right about all the economic issues.

Axelrod patiently explained that we just have to do something about Social Security because Medicare is in trouble. He also explains that, sure, he would be for raising the payroll tax cap. That ought to be part of the mix. That was his word: part. Because, you know, we have to be reasonable about this. For every dollar that a rich man pays, we need to take a dollar away from a poor man. Not doing that might, I don't know, hurt the feelings of the Republicans. Of course, Axelrod was quick to note that a payroll tax increase will never happen. Rachel Maddow pushed back on him pretty hard; it was nice to see. And it even made Axelrod backpedal a bit.

And maybe that's why he never got around to saying that liberals are fucking retarded. Maybe that's why he's not mayor of Chicago.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

David Axelrod talks about the campaign

By Richard K. Barry

David Axelrod, senior strategist for the Obama campaign, was at the University of Chicago talking to an audience about the election, particularly those things that surprised him about the Romney campaign.

Among those surprises was that Republican super PACs didn't attack Obama far earlier; Mitt Romney didn't  invest more in his ground game; and, Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate. 

Axelrod said that he was a bit surprised conservative Super PACs, which spent massive amounts of money, "didn't hit television and radio with anti-Obama ads until May." He added that "our air defenses weren't ready," meaning they didn't yet have the money to respond. As it put it, "they gave us a pass for some reason."

Another point he made was that the Romney campaign took too long to fashion a positive message about their candidate as a successful businessman, waiting until late fall to get there. The Obama campaign assumed that once Romney secured the nomination he would craft a more positive message about where he would take the country, generally considered an important aspect of any winning campaign.

As for Ryan, Axelrod personally figured former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty would be the choice, possibly Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. His doubts about Ryan were a function of tough-minded views on privatizing Social Security and making significant changes in Medicare.

And as for the Republicans' field operation, their comparatively small investment played into the Democrats' hands and was not forecast by Axelrod, either.

Read more »

What's up with Romney focusing on Pennsylvania?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Desperation. It's that simple.

Axelrod:

Senior Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod said Mitt Romney's visit to Pennsylvania shows the GOP nominee's campaign is in "deep trouble" and losing in the traditional battlegrounds.

Axelrod told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" that the Romney campaign's move into Pennsylvania is a sign of desperation because they are trailing in polls in Ohio, a state no Republican has won the election without.

"The battleground states on which we have been focusing on are not working out for them," Axelrod said. "We're ahead in all of them and now are looking for somewhere, desperately looking for somewhere to try and dislodge some electoral votes to win this election. And I can tell you that's not going to happen."

Silver:

Pennsylvania — where the forecast model puts Mr. Obama's chances at better than 95 percent.

One poll of Pennsylvania on Saturday, from Susquehanna Polling and Research, showed a different result, with the two candidates tied at 47 percent. But in context, this is not such a great poll for Mr. Romney.

The polling firm has had a very strong Republican lean this cycle — about five percentage points relative to the consensus, a much larger lean than firms like Rasmussen Reports and Public Policy Polling that are often criticized for having partisan results. Susquehanna is the only pollster to have shown Mr. Romney ahead in Pennsylvania at any point in the race, as they did on one occasion in February and another in October (Mr. Romney led by four points in their previous poll of the state). Perhaps they will be proven right, but it is usually a bad bet to bank on the one poll rather than the many.

Still, Mr. Romney's campaign is making a late play for Pennsylvania with advertising dollars and a visit there on Sunday.

That is probably a reasonable strategy, even though Mr. Romney's chances of pulling out a victory in Pennsylvania are slim. What makes it reasonable is that Mr. Romney's alternative paths to an Electoral College victory are not looking all that much stronger.

I suppose you can't blame Romney for trying. Just don't buy his campaign's spin that his presence in Pennsylvania is a sign of strength.

It's anything but.

Mitt Romney as ideological purist

By Richard K. Barry

Was a bigger political lie ever told than that Mitt Romney and the Republicans wanted President Obama to succeed when he became president? Although there are many examples of what others have called "post truth politics," this one has to take the cake.

The way Romney parsed this was to say that though he wanted President Obama to succeed, he didn't want liberal policies to succeed. Here's his comment on the matter in an interview with Larry King on March 19, 2009:

I want liberal policies to fail. I want him to fail in trying to put in place a health care plan that takes away the private sector from health care. I want him to fail in this cap and trade program as long as China and Brazil and Indonesia are not going to play in it. But I want him to succeed as a president, meaning, I want him to succeed in strengthening our economy, keeping us free, bringing our troops home in success from Iraq and Afghanistan. But I don't want his liberal policies to succeed.

Isn't this a strange thing to say? Let's say for the moment that Obama's "liberal policies" did achieve much that Republicans claim to value. Would they think that to be a good or a bad thing for America?

Take health care as an example. If it can be shown in a few years that enhanced government involvement in the delivery of health care not only extends coverage but lower costs, will Romney say that this is a good thing? Or would he say that the principles on which it is based are wrong so the outcome is wrong?

This is where the debate between ideology and pragmatism takes place, and this is where Romney has decided to position himself, with the ideologues, though little in his political career prior to his run for the White House would have suggested this turn. This is, by the way, why neither conservatives nor liberals trust him.

This is what has become of the right-wing in America. Not only the outcomes have to be good, but also the philosophy that drive them.

Romney says he wanted Obama to succeed. Obama senior advisor David Axelrod responds in a recent interview with the Washington Post.

We met an implacable opponent in the Republican leadership. They made a decision, and they've been very open about it, that from Day One they weren't going to cooperate on any major issue.

For Republicans, since they all went crazy, it's not been about outcomes, it's been about ideology. And that's the truth.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The always "objective" Bob Schieffer rushes to Romney's defence and blames Obama for going negative

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Appearing on CBS's Face the Nation yesterday, David Axelrod said that while Romney is qualified to be president, he isn't qualified to be called a "job creator":

Obama campaign senior strategist David Axelrod continued the campaign's assault on Mitt Romney's record on Sunday's "Face the Nation," defending attacks on Bain Capital and challenging whether the president's Republican challenger is qualified to be called a "job creator."

"No one's arguing whether Mitt Romney is qualified to be president," Axelrod said of the former governor and private equity firm founder. "What we're arguing is whether he's qualified to call himself a job creator. That's not what he did in his business. That's not the purpose of his business, and it's certainly not what he did in Massachusetts where they had one of the worst economic records in the country." 

I'm not sure Romney's qualified to be president, actually, but whatever. Let's leave that aside. What's abundantly clear is that Romney is not now and has never been a job creator (as the Republicans like to call the super-wealthy). An avid vulture capitalist, his record, particularly at Bain Capital, has been all about destroying jobs and ruining lives while making off with massive profits for himself.

Host Bob Schieffer, an establishment journalist with a long record of leaning Republican (particularly when his pal Dubya was in the White House), predictably rushed to Romney's defence, accusing the Obama campaign of going negative (see clip below).

Apparently, according to Schieffer, it's okay for Romney to smear Obama at every turn, even for his campaign to spew blatant lies, but it's not okay for Obama to suggest that Romney's time at Bain was something other than glorious capitalism at work.

As C&L's Nicole Belle writes:

Why is it that President Obama has to be positive and we see no pearl clutching over Romney outright lying about Obama's record, grading his presidency an "F" and doing cheap stunts like the Solyndra presser?

The truth, though Schieffer will not see it, is that the media has been far more negative in its coverage of Obama than it has been towards Romney.

Really, though, what else do you expect from Schieffer? (For a good critique, see Greenwald's post from last year.) Even Fox News's Chris Wallace was tougher yesterday, pressing (with numbers to back him up) Romney advisor Ed Gillespie about Romney's poor record on jobs while governor of Massachusetts.

Schieffer should be embarrassed -- again. But, then, he's just another "objective" journalist quick to regurgitate Republican spin and pin the partisan blame on Democrats.

Proving radical right-wing bona fides will be the undoing of the GOP presidential nominee

By Richard K. Barry

Many months ago, I made a point about how the Tea Party would drag GOP presidential candidates to the far right as these hopefuls battled it out to curry favour with this activist hard-core right-wing of the party. Conventional wisdom is that in nomination races you have to prove you are worthy of the party faithful who can have some pretty rigid views about what it means, in this case, to be a conservative. This is even more the case with the Tea Party, as we know.

In the general election, you typically have to moderate these ideological views to appeal to independent or swing voters who are more pragmatic and less impressed with your supposed purity as a standard-bearer for your party. 

It wasn't clear how this would all work out back then for the GOP, but now we know and so does the Obama campaign.

As Talking Points Memo pointed out recently:

The rise of Gingrich has forced Romney to take stands that Democrats are quite thrilled with, such as his new embrace of the Ryan Budget, which polled poorly back when the Republican House approved it. Months more of trying to win over conservative voters away from Gingrich could force Romney into more less-than-general-election-ideal stances. 

David Axelrod

That's assuming Romney wins. If the long primary results in a Gingrich nomination, well, the Obama campaign thinks more exposure for Gingrich is a good thing for them, too. 

Now, those with four year memories will recall that the epically long primary that resulted in Obama's nomination was widely seen as strengthening Obama and turning him in to a general election force to be reckoned with. Obama strategist David Axelrod said there's no danger of something similar happening to the GOP nominee that emerges from a long Gingrich-Romney slog. 

"The difference here is that we weren't being tugged to a pole in our party, we weren't being tugged to the left," Axelrod said. "They're being tugged to the right every day."

It seems likely that this Romney vs. Gingrich dust-up is going to take several months to resolve itself, which, if nothing else, assures less time for the eventual Republican nominee to focus his attention on Obama. But at least as important is all of the radical right-wing positions the GOP nominee will have blathered all over the country, which it will be really hard to walk back.  

As Axelrod says:

The agenda that the Republicans are embracing in order to win the nomination, I think they're mortgaging themselves for the general by tacking as far as they are now. I think the longer the race goes the more they're going to do that and the harder it is to scramble back.

Yes, that's the point and it wasn't hard to see coming. The Tea Party may not be the force it once was, but it set all of this in motion and now will reap what it sowed. Democrats everywhere are grateful.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The great cave: How Obama and the Democrats are losing the battle over the Bush tax cuts

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It was being reported yesterday that the White House was prepared to cave to Republicans and renew Bush's (highly unpopular) tax cuts for the wealthy. (See Carl's post here.)

Well, not so fast.

If we are to believe noted anti-progressive David Axelrod, Obama's top advisor, what he actually said ("We have to deal with the world as we find it," etc.) was, well, misinterpreted. As he wrote in an e-mail to WaPo's Greg Sargent:

There is not one bit of news here. I simply re-stated what POTUS and [Press Secretary] Robert [Gibbs] have been saying. Our two strong principles are that we need to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, but we can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Please note -- the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will be extended, if not renewed or made permanent. Even there, on the extension, Obama has caved. Sargent writes:

The question remains, though, whether the White House will hold fast to Obama's demand last week that the extension of the tax cuts for the middle class remain permanent while extending the high end ones temporarily. The main sticking point is that Republicans won't allow the two categories to be extended for different durations, because that would force them to push for just an extension of the cuts for the rich later.

But why should the Republicans get what they want? This is an issue that many of us (notably TNR's Jonathan Chait) were writing about in great frustration before last week's elections. Why not separate the two and force Republicans to defend publicly their support for making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent?

Obviously, the Democrats aren't in the position they were before the elections. There's only so much they can do without control of the House. But Obama should stand firm and make sure that Republicans are identified, first and foremost, with what is deeply unpopular. Axelrod may talk up reality, but reality also means securing political wins even where policy wins may not be possible.

This is still a great issue for Democrats. Which means we can count on them to fuck it up. (And fucking it up they are.)

And you should forgive us if we don't entirely trust anything that comes out of the White House. While I hope that Axelrod is serious, the caving is already well underway.

**********

By the way, Senate Minority Leader (and hyper-partisan Republican) Mitch McConnell said yesterday that he was "willing to listen to what the President has in mind for protecting Americans from tax increases," that is, that he might be open to compromise on the Bush tax cuts (including possibly only a temporary extension for the tax cuts for the wealthy). 

Don't believe a thing he says. For Republicans, compromise is not on the table.

Whoever shall replace Axelrod and Emanuel?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Obama White House will look a lot different in 2011 than it does today -- hopefully for the better. Larry Summers, director of the National Economic Council, is taking his smug arrogance and conflicted Wall Street ties back to Harvard. Obama Senior Advisor David Axelrod, will be doing some "hippie punching" out on the campaign trail, and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, expected to be the next major player out the door, will likely be heading back home to Chicago, where it is expected he'll run for mayor.

So who will the new faces be? Who knows? (Who cares?) Howard Kurtz tweeted that, according to CBS, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs could replace Axelrod. But, honestly, does it matter?

Given what we've come to expect from Obama so far in his presidency, which is disappointment after maddening disappointment, I wouldn't be surprised if he re-populated his inner circle with a bunch of pro-DADT, pro-Bush-Cheney national security state, pro-Wall Street neocon-lite Republicrat Blue Dogs just to stick it to his liberal-progressive base and ensure that his policy agenda is solidly moderate Republican and uncompromisingly untransformative.

Pardon my mood, but that whole "change we can believe in" rhetoric now seems like a steaming pile of horse manure.

Quote of the Day: David Axelrod on Republicans

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"Obama Prepared to Move Agenda Forward With or Without GOP," headlines ABC News.

The odds for "with" are probably so high that a responsible bookie wouldn't even take a "without" bet.

Anyway, here's Axelrod:

I haven't given up on Republicans. I do believe that there are Republicans of good conscience who want to work together on issues.

Really? Name five of them. Seriously. Start with five "of good conscience." Then "who want to work together on issues."

Snowe or Collins? Nope. Brown? Not likely, though maybe here and there. Graham? Maybe on climate change, sort of. Cao? Only because he wants to win re-election a Democratic district. Who else is there? Once upon a time, maybe McCain, but no more, not with him veering ever further to the right to ward off a right-wing primary challenge back home.

But that's about it. Look what they did, unanimously, on health-care reform.

I'd say that Axelrod is full of shit, but of course he's not. He knows full well that bipartisanship isn't possible with the Republicans the way they are.

But I suppose he has to say the right things, what with the media's love-in with bipartisanship, and he certainly doesn't want the White House, and his boss (who's certainly smart enough to know what's going on and who plays up bipartisanship because he knows it plays well with the American people -- and if it works, it works, but if it doesn't, the Republicans look bad), to come across as intransigently partisan.

In the end, Democrats will have to go it alone, as they did on health-care reform. You have to be ignorant of political and ideological reality to think otherwise.

Encore, Sen. Franken, encore!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Politico:

Sen. Al Franken ripped into White House senior adviser David Axelrod this week during a tense, closed-door session with Senate Democrats.

Five sources who were in the room tell POLITICO that Franken criticized Axelrod for the administration's failure to provide clarity or direction on health care and the other big bills it wants Congress to enact.

It's possible that "ripped into" is an exaggeration. Still, we need much more of this. Democrats shouldn't take shit from anyone, including from the president, who needs to show a hell of a lot more leadership if he wants to keep his agenda from ending up in the dustbin of history.

Quote of the Day: Axelrod on Cheney

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Obama advisor David Axelrod doesn't think Cheney has been behaving like a statesman:

[President Bush] has behaved like a statesman,

he said on CNN yesterday.

And as I've said before, here and elsewhere, I just don't think the memo got passed down to the vice president."

Well, the ex-vice president -- let's not forget that. And the ex-veep has been fearmongering recklessly, arguing that Obama's decisions on Gitmo and torture, among others, have made America "less safe."

But when was the last time Cheney actually behaved like a statesman? No, consolidating power in the Executive Branch, enabling torture, and ripping the Constititions to shreds don't count.

I applaud Axelrod for speaking out on this, but it's not like we ever should have expected anything else from the former dark lord of the Bush presidency.

(For more, see Benen, Drum, and Yglesias.)

**********

Here's the clip (from Think Progress):

Quote of the Day

By Creature

"I will reply to this by registered mail." -- David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist and instant message whore, replying to a reporter's email regarding the impending technological downgrade at the White House.