by Matt Sarge
The Obama Administration recently proposed new IRS rules that could begin to reign in campaign spending by tax-exempt outside groups that expanded significantly since the Citizens United case in 2010. The current rules allow for non-profits to engage in political activity and lobbying so long as they are also “improving social welfare.” The new IRS rules would place a limit on the political spending of these non-profit groups, which would either lead to reduced political activity or registering as an explicitly political organization (such as a PAC).
Non-profits are currently exploited as vehicles for political spending because of the anonymity they offer to donors. Political non-profits are not required to disclose donors identities, unlike Super PACs and political parties. The new rules are controversial given both the vested interest that many prominent voices have in allowing for robust campaign expenditures. Additionally, given the recent scandal surrounding IRS treatment of Tea Party affiliated groups, any IRS rule changes that can be seen as limiting political speech are likely to ignite opposition amongst conservatives. Karl Rove’s Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies is a tax-exempt group that would be highly affected by the rule changes and is currently a major financing source for Republican candidates and causes, while the League of Conservation Voters would be the largest group impacted on the Democratic side. However, the rule change to the allowed political behavior of non-profits would have a disproportionate impact of conservative groups, as nine of the ten largest political non-profits in the 2012 cycle were Republican-leaning.
Outside Spending by Type - Center for Responsive Politics
Spending by tax-exempt social welfare groups has been a major source of campaign expenditure growth, more so than unions and trade associations. Because finance rules often affect Democratic-leaning unions differently than the political non-profits that Republicans rely on, campaign finance issues can become politically charged. However, given the recent proliferation in spending by political non-profits, curbing the political activities of the 501c (4) tax exempt groups that flourished in the wake of Citizens United is an obvious attempt to limit the influence of anonymous money in politics.
If the rules are approved, corporate spending on elections is not necessarily going to be curtailed. Given the vast array of options that corporations and mega-donors have for getting their money into an election, the only effect that the proposed rule changes may have is forcing more of that money to go through channels that require disclosure. The SEC recently dropped a proposal that would have required public companies to disclose all political donations to their shareholders. So while corporations may not be required to disclose, more may choose to donate their money through political groups that require disclosure due to the proposed new rules governing political activity of non-profits. In a post-Citizens United world, limiting the influence of money in elections is unlikely – but that influence may have to be a little more transparent.
by Matt Sarge
The 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, one of history’s finest and most succinct pieces of oratory, has brought the character of Abraham Lincoln to the forefront of public discourse. With time having eroded most of the controversies of his presidency, Lincoln is now viewed nearly unanimously in a positive light for having guided the nation through one of its most trying moments, and for ending one of America’s greatest enduring sins – slavery. As such a powerful and well-regarded figure, Lincoln has been claimed by both the Republicans and Democrats as being representative of their ideology.
As the first Republican President, the GOP has a partisan identity to cling to. Additionally, given the general historical trend toward more liberal (in the modern sense) ideology, most of Lincoln’s policy positions would be viewed by today’s standards as conservative or even reactionary, though at the time they may have been quite liberal or revolutionary. Lincoln’s rejection of the status quo provides Democrats a basis for the claim that Lincoln, if alive today, would be a liberal Democrat.
A recent YouGov poll found that only twenty-three percent of Americans thought that if Lincoln were alive today he would remain a Republican, whereas thirty-two percent said he would be a Democrat. The YouGov results echo the findings of Votifi’s poll which had only eighteen percent of respondents answering that Lincoln would be a member of the Republican Party or Tea Party movement. As might be expected, a majority of both Republicans and Democrats claimed Lincoln would be a member of their party in the YouGov poll. Similarly, the political profiles of the Votifi respondents show significantly more conservative political leanings for those that claimed Lincoln as a Republican than those who argued he would be a Democrat.
Trying to objectively view which modern party Lincoln would fit in is a difficult task that requires removing oneself from the modern framing of issues. Dick Morris argues that Lincoln was not really a liberal despite the abolition of slavery that is viewed as the hallmark of his presidency. Morris claims that Lincoln’s real commitment was to entrepreneurial capitalism and the wage system. As someone who “pulled himself up by his bootstraps,” Lincoln recognized the importance of a wage system for upward mobility, and viewed slavery as a barrier to an effective wage system.
Morris argues that Lincoln’s seemingly liberal views on slavery were not rooted in views of equality but rather economic efficacy, and in fact Lincoln continued to harbor racist views. Morris’ argument is somewhat supported by the additional fact that Lincoln did not initially intend to abolish slavery but rather simply contain its westward spread until the conditions of the Civil War made abolition necessary. If Lincoln should indeed be viewed as a free-market capitalist rather than a liberal committed to equality, then perhaps the twenty-three percent are correct that Lincoln would be at home in today’s GOP.
Many have made coherent arguments that Abraham Lincoln would instead be a modern day Democrat. Greg Bailey centers his argument on the grounds that Lincoln supported using government power to invest in the public good and fighting against states’ rights arguments and xenophobic rhetoric.
“A reincarnated Lincoln would relive part of his past life listening to the states’ rights arguments contemporary Republican use against any proposal to help working families. The president who levied an income tax on the wealthy would have been shocked at George W. Bush’s disproportionate tax cut to the wealthiest one percent.”
In the intervening 150 years, major realignment within the two major parties has occurred resulting in a nearly exclusively liberal and exclusively conservative Democratic and Republican Party respectively. However, given the impossibility of fully understanding the motivations behind, and complexities of, Lincoln’s political ideology, it is not necessarily clear which modern party he would fall into. However, so long removed from the controversies of his presidency which left the South to single-party Democratic rule until the 1960s,
Lincoln is now viewed in such a positive light that both parties lay claim to being descendant of his ideology.
by Gene Giannotta
A couple weeks ago, the Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act by a large margin. Sixty-four senators voted for it, including a number of Republicans. But it’s unlikely to make it through the House - Speaker Boehner has said he won’t bring it to the floor, and even if he did, the GOP majority would seem to be a large stumbling block.
But recent research by the Williams Institute finds that majorities in every House district support the legislation, saying this “confirms that ENDA would pass if all members followed their constituents.”
Over at the Monkey Cage blog, Andrew Gelman points to this as evidence that, if brought to a vote, the bill should pass in the House. He also cites an earlier piece showing that support was very strong in every state, which meant that passage in the Senate should be a sure thing, too. If senators all voted based on the overwhelming levels of public support in their states. After all, the lowest level of support was in Mississippi, and that was 63%!
Alas, Mississippi’s two senators voted “nay,” as did a few dozen others. So popular support among constituents, even very high levels of support, is no guarantee of votes in Congress.
Gelman, however, seems to think that high levels of public support in every district means that representatives will be hard-pressed to vote in any way other than for the bill.
Regarding primary elections: Yes, Republican Congress members have to worry about the attitudes of conservative Republican primary election voters. But that’s not the whole story, as they also try not to go counter to vast majorities of the people in their districts. To put it another way, general attitudes in the district are relevant, and with 70-80 percent support overall, I don’t think primary voters can be as opposed as all that.
Regarding the issue of intensity of support: The suggestion is that voters who oppose gay rights feel more strongly about the issue than voters who support gay rights. It is possible, but I have no particular reason to believe it—if anything, given the nature of the issue, I’d be inclined to believe the opposite, that supporters of gay rights feel more strongly about the issue than do opponents. And you’d need a huge huge difference in intensity to overcome the huge disparities in support that we see from the polls.
I especially want to highlight this: “they also try not to go counter to vast majorities of the people in their districts.” That sounds reasonable, but is not the reality. After all, many senators did just that apparently. And, as the Williams Institute itself points out, “When a similar bill was considered in 2007, 183 members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted against it, even though a majority of their constituents supported the policy.”
There are other examples, too. Say, gun control. Large majorities - around 90% - back universal background checks, but that has not helped legislation pass, not even in the wake of a seemingly endless string of mass shootings.
And while Gelman notes that supporters of gay rights are probably quite enthusiastic about achieving policy changes like ENDA, that’s not the real question here. I doubt that even if three-quarters of a particular district supports passing ENDA, three-quarters of that district is ready to mobilize politically to encourage their representatives to vote for it. Perhaps in some cases, but all? No, one can support - even “strongly” support - a particular policy without necessarily being ready to act. And when it comes to effecting political change, what matters is not responses to surveys, but action.
These findings, while interesting and useful in helping us understand attitude trends, don’t really help us understand why particular representatives might act a certain way. There is no conceivable universe in which all 435 representatives vote “aye” for passage of ENDA. The simplest explanation for why is that for many, especially Republicans, there just isn’t any incentive that translates passive support (attitudes reported as favorable) into the possibility of electoral punishment should a given congressperson vote against it.
Hypothetically, a very liberal district and a very conservative district could both see levels of support for passing ENDA in the 70% range, let’s say. But elections don’t occur in policy vacuums. This might place higher in terms of a liberal constituencies’ priorities when judging candidates on Election Day, but even if they support ENDA, it’s doubtful that conservative voters would punish a candidate who otherwise aligns with their preferences on most, if not all, other policy areas just because of this issue.
by Gene Giannotta
On November 22, 1963, Dallas was “roiling with racism and McCarthyism,” not exactly a welcoming environment for a young Democratic president who had been trying to negotiate nuclear arms treaties with the Soviets and staking progressively more liberal positions on civil rights.
There’s been some controversy over whether Dallas was really a “city of hate” responsible for Kennedy’s death fifty years ago today. Whether or not the city itself fostered an environment conducive to murdering a president, the Dallas of November 1963 certainly wasn’t a place very friendly to JFK and that was no secret to anyone at that time.
For example, here’s one poster that made the rounds as the president flew to Dallas:
When I visited the Newseum earlier this year to check out their JFK exhibit, I was struck seeing both that and this full-page ad that ran in the Dallas Morning News:
We tend to nostalgize the early 1960s in terms far more optimistic than today, but some things have not changed. The anti-government ideology of the tea party may seem to be out of sync with a country that has long relied on Social Security, Medicare, the interstate highway system, and many other examples of federal initiative. But even in Kennedy’s time and the aftermath of his assassination, there was a sizable portion of the population who saw big government as a threat.
I recently came across some Gallup trend lines for the second half of the twentieth century, and, given how we tend to generalize the era as one of pro-government opinion, I was surprised to see that even back in 1965, the high point of the Great Society and post-war liberalism, a plurality of respondents cited “big government” as “the biggest threat to the country in the future.”
Interestingly, “big business” has never really been a strong challenger for the title of “biggest threat,” save in 1965 and 1969. The spike in the mid-sixties seems to correlate with the reaction to Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society - this was a time when many social policies where passed and/or put forward by the administration in the wake of JFK’s death (civil rights legislation, Medicare and Medicaid, the War on Poverty), but which also led to a strong electoral rebuke in the 1966 midterms and, eventually, LBJ’s decision to decline a run for reelection in 1968.
So in general, rather than an aberration unique to Obama’s presidency, there’s been an increasingly prevalent view that “big government” is the “biggest threat” facing America over the past fifty years. And while today’s media environment can sometimes make it feel like the crazies are uniquely crazy today, it’s clear in the images above that this isn’t quite true either. Kennedy was as much the target of paranoid animosity as any of the men who followed him in the White House.
Political life in the United States has always been defined by a tension between social responsibility and individual liberty. That’s true today and it was true fifty years ago.
by Gene Giannotta
From Gallup, presidential approval for the past seven two-term presidents at comparable points in their second term:
Overall approval, according to Gallup for presidents in the 20th quarter of their administrations, stands at 46%. Obama is on par with George W. Bush and Harry Truman, slightly outpacing them. Nixon had plenty of problems to contend with after his landslide reelection, and in 1974, he would resign because of Watergate.
Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton all had approval ratings around 60% at this point in their presidencies, but none of those men had to contend with the same kind of polarized information environment that we have today.
Here’s a comparison of average approval ratings for each of the presidents since Gallup started tracking in the 1940s:
But as Gallup notes, approval often dips in the second term. They compare the averages:
Two exceptions to the rule:
Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are the only two out of seven previously re-elected post-World War II presidents who augmented their popularity over the course of their second stretch in office. Reagan and Clinton — who had identical 50% first-term approval averages — each entered office during a down economy and presided over muscular economic growth during their second term. As a result, their approval ratings moved upward; Reagan’s average rose to 55%, while Clinton’s soared to 61%.
That’s interesting given that both presidents faced serious scandals in their second terms - Iran-contra for Reagan and impeachment for Clinton.
(As an aside, I just want to note a big caveat for the Johnson numbers - LBJ’s first term lasted about fourteen months and those consisted of the immediate aftermath of John F. Kennedy’s assassination and the election that he would have been running for reelection in, so that 74% average is probably skewed by that.)
One wrinkle in all this is personal popularity. Those numbers above are for job approval. But the public could cut a president some slack if they think he’s done a mediocre job but like the guy personally. This is a story that’s been common for Obama’s presidency - his approval numbers have largely floated right around the middle but his personal popularity has been quite high.
That, however, seems to be changing.
But is it really? Here’s a chart from the Washington Post last month that compares the likability + approval trends:
Except for the spike in job approval with the death of Osama bin Laden, the trend lines largely correlate, albeit with his favorability ratings slightly higher. That difference is pretty small throughout his presidency but seems to be getting even smaller, to the point of dipping into net negative territory.
Here are some numbers from a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, showing a similar trend:
Rather than just include the headline number for the current polling period, I thought it’d be instructive to look at what their results have shown dating back to 2011. Over 28 polls since January of that year, Obama’s average “very positive” rating was at about 29% of respondents, while the average “very negative” rating was at 27% of respondents. The latest results show him at five percentage points worse than the average in both categories. The margin of error of the current poll is +/- 3.46%, so it’s possible the true values (the actual percent of the population that feels that way) are closer to the averages than the numbers we see here (which are estimates of that actual percent).
In other words, while these numbers certainly aren’t great for Obama and the context in which the most recent polling has been done provides some cause for concern (left a mess, the Affordable Care Act rollout has the potential to undermine his popularity by any measure), they aren’t really shocking. They seem to fit both the broader trends of presidential history and Obama’s own experience.
Another point to make about these poll trends is the role of media coverage. When attention is focused on a particular person, people obviously become more aware of them, more knowledgeable about them, and more able to make judgments. Presidents get a good deal of visibility, period, and when a major policy has come to bear your name it’s no surprise that can make a difference. If the ACA had never been known as “Obamacare” would Obama be saddled with as much of the blame as he has? Or would his response be seen as a popularly-accepted rebuke of government contracting run amok?
It’s impossible to answer those questions, but I can show how attention can help shift opinion. I’ll use two examples of potential presidential candidates and their own favorability ratings from that same NBC News/WSJ poll.
Here’s Hillary Clinton, with data back to 2011:
Like Obama above, she isn’t an unknown quantity - the “don’t know name/not sure” column at the far right has a range of 0-2%. She’s been in the public consciousness for two decades, so people know who she is and can make judgments accordingly. Interestingly, she’s also underperforming her averages despite having been out of the secretary of state job for most of this year. Let’s dig deeper and look at her numbers dating back to her taking office as a senator from New York in 2001:
Just from eyeballing it, what becomes obvious is that her best-performing poll trend was her tenure as secretary of state. Now that she’s mostly a topic of political discussion these days rather than a relatively quiet public servant, maybe opinion of her is defaulting to where it was before 2009. The type of coverage could matter here, and it would be interesting to look at that data to see if there’s a correlation. But for now, I just want to point out the general trends. Like Obama, she’s a well-known public figure. Movement in opinion about her, like that about the president, can be as much a function of factors that are highly-visible (i.e., “salient”) bringing more attention to her and thus “activating” existing biases, as it could be due to actual shifts.
Chris Christie’s favorability ratings offer another example of how greater visibility can make a difference. Back in June 2011, Chris Christie was just over a year into his first term as governor of New Jersey. His “very positive” and “very negative” ratings were about the same as today - 10% and 7% then, 9% and 7% now. But now only about a quarter of respondents said they don’t know who he is, versus 44% two years ago.
The difference there is 18 points. Note that the number who say they have a “somewhat positive” view of him is now 11 percentage points greater than in 2011 and the proportion that says it has a “neutral” view is now 5 points higher. In 2011, almost fifty percent of respondents didn’t know who Christie was; today, almost half of respondents have either a “neutral” or “somewhat positive” view of him. Given the generally positive press attention he’s received over that time span, that’s probably not much of a surprise.
It’s true that Obama’s personal likability, or growing lack thereof, is a story to follow. But what isn’t clear is whether it’s a worrisome trend unique to Obama or a function of two variables he has little control over: historical tendencies of declining second-term popularity and the tone of media coverage.
He has to contend with both. And the debacle over HealthCare.gov and insurance policy cancellations has, for really the first time during his presidency, placed the questions of his managerial competence and honesty front and center in a very bipartisan way. Placed in that context, those declining numbers really aren’t all that surprising.
By Matt Sarge
The marquee races of the off-year election were Chris Christie and Terry McAuliffe’s gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia respectively, as well as Bill de Blasio’s mayoral win in New York City. Pundits compulsively spend the weeks following the election reading into the results broader conclusions about national trends and hypothesizing about voters’ rationale. In that vein, I want to take a minute to consider what the election results mean for 2014 and 2016.
De Blasio’s win in New York City, while a sharp break from Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani, should not be extended beyond the city limits. The election of a significantly more liberal mayor is actually a reversion to the mean rather than a trend in a new direction. Liberal Democrats have historically dominated the city’s elections, with the past two mayors being exceptions because of the city’s crime problem in the late 90s and an extraordinarily well-funded Bloomberg. Unlike the outcomes in New Jersey and Virginia, the New York mayoral race does not have broader implications.
Chris Christie’s landslide victory may also be less meaningful than some have argued. There is no denying that the strength of Christie’s personality has helped him win in a liberal state, but his victory came in a low turnout election and Christie had little coattails in the down-ballot races. The Republican win in the New Jersey race should be viewed as the state’s embrace of Christie, not the GOP more broadly. Christie’s deviations from the Republican Party, particularly his battles with Eric Cantor over relief funding for Hurricane Sandy, gave him further credibility with his New Jersey constituency. Maggie Haberman argues in Politico that 2016 is well suited for a Christie candidacy, especially in comparison to a similarly situated Republican contender from past cycles, Rudy Giuliani. However, despite his seeming high with a landslide victory, polls have him significantly trailing Hilary Clinton in a potential 2016 Presidential matchup. Though still years out from 2016, Christie’s popularity in New Jersey does not currently extend to the national electorate.
In opposition to the Christie, McAuliffe’s victory was not the product of his personality, but rather somewhat in spite of it. McAuliffe was not helped by his public perception as too much of a glad-handing politician, and his ideology may be too liberal for the Virginia electorate. However, McAuliffe was able to pull of an unexpectedly-close victory in a rapidly liberalizing state. The Republican, Ken Cuccinelli, was viewed by many as being far too conservative, and suffered significantly from a lack of support from minorities and moderates. The state’s demographics are quickly changing, especially in the northern part of the state which is now a liberal bastion. Virginia is a prime example of traditionally conservative states turning ‘purple’ because of demographic changes, particularly growing Hispanic populations. The Virginia election should serve as another reminder to the RNC that particular attention needs to be paid to these demographic trends to ensure continuing GOP viability. Many have argued that McAuliffe was situated to win in a landslide had it not been for his close association with ObamaCare, which took a public opinion hit prior to the election due to its rough roll-out. While some have argued for the major impacts of the government shutdown and ObamaCare rollout on the campaigns trajectory, McAuliffe’s internal polling shows differently. The campaign showed him consistently up by a small margin, rather than suffering a big hit from the ACA implementation snafus. Once again, the election in Virginia cannot be broadly interpreted as a referendum on ObamaCare or the GOP’s role in the government shutdown given that McAuliffe’s victory margin was not significantly affected by the ACA rollout and the shutdown bump was only temporary.
While political junkies may want to get their fix by pouring over exit poll data from the major off-year elections, it is doubtful that much can be drawn from the results. Too much of variation in results is specific to the localities and candidates and are not part of broader national trends. The truth is, coming out of the 2013 elections, we can’t infer much about Chris Christie’s 2016 Presidential potential. All we know is that, if he runs, he will be doing so as the governor of New Jersey.
by Gene Giannotta
Much has been made in the past month over the seemingly declining fortunes of the Republican Party. Polling in light of the shutdown brought little good news in terms of national favorability. Elections last week seemed to show the limits of tea party conservatism.
But reports of the Republican demise might be greatly exaggerated. We’ve been hearing such hyperbole for much of the past seven years, when a Democratic surge in 2006 captured Congress and presaged a dominant showing in 2008. The tea party wave of 2010 saw historic turnover in the House, but seemed more like a speed bump on the way to Obama’s reelection.
And then discontent over the shutdown and the victory for moderates in last week’s elections…the GOP seems in trouble heading into the midterms and then the 2016 presidential election.
But that narrative is built largely on anecdote. The numbers, as Pew’s Andrew Kohut points out, tell a much more nuanced story.
In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kohut cites a recent Pew Research Center poll showing that while the GOP doesn’t have a high rating on its own, when compared with Democrats things look better. For example, “a plurality regard the Republicans as ‘better able to deal with the economy’ than the Democrats (44%-37%).” He also notes that
a growing number see the GOP as “better able to manage the government.” In December 2012, the Democratic Party held a 45%-36% advantage over the GOP as the party Americans viewed as better able to manage the government. By Oct. 15—in the midst of the shutdown and debt crisis—the Democratic lead on this measure disappeared: 42% said the Republican Party is better able to manage the federal government, compared with 39% who named the Democrats.
This is a really important point to keep in mind when looking at poll numbers. As I’ve said before, we don’t vote nationally. We don’t have a parliamentary system like Britain, where voters cast their ballots for a party and that party’s platform. We vote for individuals, tied to parties, but who have their own platforms and positions that often diverge from the national party’s in order to better match their target constituents.
That’s why, as Kohut says, “tea party candidates will carry a lot of [the shutdown] baggage, but they will mostly run in districts that endorse their point of view.” So it’s unlikely that the negative image many have of the GOP will translate to national electoral trouble.
But Kohut is off when he says that “Chris Christie’s sweeping victory” across various demographics in New Jersey, a “blue state,” is evidence “of the continued viability potential of the Republican brand, its problems notwithstanding.”
That’s partially true, but only because, as I said, voters vote for individuals and not parties. Christie is a unique individual who has personal appeal independent of his party. If voters cast a ballot by party and not person, it’s conceivable results would have been much different. But these personality effects likely have more impact on election outcomes as we go down the ballot and get more local. Whether Christie has the ability to translate his particular appeal in New Jersey to the other 49 states is yet to be seen.
The other thing to keep in mind is that our choices are almost always only between Democrats and Republicans. This is a consequence of the American system, in which the candidate with the most votes wins. Third parties have difficulty gaining traction, and if they ever did, it would likely just result in a new duopoly.
So even if voters are not too thrilled about Republicans in general, they make voting choices in the context of a competition with Democrats. And since we know that the number of truly independent voters is smaller than one might think, the choice for a particular voter is often between the candidate of their party or not voting at all.
All that is to say that while its prospects in any given election might wax and wane as a function of the tea party-moderate divide and how it plays out in a particular area, the Republican Party itself is not going anywhere.
The bottom line is that the numbers present a complex and ever-evolving picture. The key is to be able to dig down into them to understand what they mean at the state and local levels. Then we can put it all together and understand where the trends might take those elections and thus national politics.
by Matt Sarge
Political activists have long been viewed as key intermediaries between political elites and the masses. Activists and political thinkers are at the forefront of issue evolution and ideological formation, setting the direction for political parties, policy makers, and eventually, average voters. In today’s new media age, bloggers and social media pundits play much the same role as traditional political activists and have more impact than most people think.
The intuition behind underestimating the influence of blogs and social media pundits is their relatively low readership. The argument commonly made is that even popular political blogs, like Erick Erickson’s conservative Red State blog, or the liberal Daily Kos, attract an audience that is minuscule compared to the size of the electorate as a whole. However, the flaw in this argument is that the audience of these blogs in a key group of readers. The audience may be small, but it is a critical and influential demographic.
Political bloggers and the people that read them are, for clear reasons, more politically-engaged than the average citizen. They are also the people most likely to vote, volunteer, donate money, and engage others in political discourse. Historically, it has been as important for politicians to have the support of a small, vocal, activist minority as the support of the ‘silent majority.’ While smart campaigns and policymakers do not ignore broad polling data, they also understand the importance of tracking the sentiment of constituents who call the office and paying attention to the demands of protesters because these activists show a willingness to go out of their way to express their politics. In a similar way, bloggers and social media pundits deserve the attention of campaigns because of their ability to influence a politically-active readership and their critical role in forming the infrastructure and financial base of campaigns.
In addition to the direct impact that blogs can have in influencing readers, they can also exert influence through their impact on traditional media. Among the key readership of political blogs are mainstream-media journalists. Because of blogs’ low cost of publishing, they are able to more quickly respond to news than many traditional news outlets. This allows blogs to set the tone for how stories are covered as well as what events are seen as news worthy. Mass attention by the blogosphere can take minor events on the campaign trail and turn them into major gaffes by attracting coverage from traditional news outlets. Bloggers can also draw attention to already available content and bring it to prominence. The blog Mother Jones published the infamous “forty-seven percent” video of Mitt Romney, turning a video that had been online for months into mainstream news that some pundits viewed as the effective end for the Romney campaign.
Though previously alluded to, the role that blogs and social media play in financing campaigns deserves additional attention. Certain blog sites, such as the conservative Red State and liberal Daily Kos become hubs for like-minded thinkers. In addition to the importance of these blogs as hubs of opinion that lead to mob mentality and in driving party ideology, they also serve as major online fundraising sources through large bundles of small contributions. Candidates are therefore incentivized to appeal to these more ideologically extreme groups that are active online because this is the basis of support that they rely on for their campaign infrastructure. As social media and blogs become increasingly ubiquitous, including amongst the older and more politically active generation, they will become increasingly indispensable tools for inexpensively reaching a large number of voters, and perhaps more importantly, a more easily mobilized constituency and group of potential donors and activists. Regardless of how the total readership numbers stack up, the type of people that frequent these political blog sites are critical targets for campaigns.
In order to be politically competitive, campaigns and policymakers are well-advised to focus on the social media strategy and efforts to engage bloggers. In addition to refocusing on their digital operation and microtargeting efforts after 2012, the GOP has also put new emphasis on social media. They hired former Facebook engineer Andy Barkett to be the RNC Chief Technology Officer in an attempt to make inroads amongst the under-thirty electorate, clearly understanding the importance of social media.
Both the party organizations and individual candidates need to understand the increasingly influential role that blogs play in politics. The President recently lashed out at bloggers who had picked apart Healthcare.gov and the glitches that came with the ObamaCare rollout, knowing that what they published would have a measurable impact on the opinions of the most politically-active voters. To cultivate activists who are willing to support their campaign and convince others, political campaigns must focus on engendering the support of bloggers and monitoring the sentiment on social media.
by Matt Sarge
To follow up on Gene’s recent post about declining trust in government Putting “Trust in Government” in Context, I wanted to make a brief comment about the potentially significant implications of such a decline. In addition to making government broadly less efficient and effective, low government trust has a disproportionate impact on the ability to pass progressive policies.
Marc Hetherington’s book, Why Trust Matters, makes a strong case that the decline in government trust since its peak in the early 1960s has led to a decline in policy liberalism. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society political agenda, with its implementation of large programs to help the poor and racial minorities, has been unmatched in recent decades. The last President to pass significant ‘progressive’ policies was in fact a Republican — Richard Nixon.
Government policies in which the benefit is not immediate or tangible, or where there is perceived risk, require public trust in government. Programs like welfare that only directly benefit a minority of citizens with the presumption that helping this group will benefit the nation overall, is seen as risky — much like programs with future benefits such as climate change legislation. It is therefore no surprise that re-distributive programs like welfare and food stamps have faced declining support in recent decades, while programs like social security (where most Americans will at some point be getting tangible checks in the mail) have remained relatively impervious to declines in favorability.
Declining government trust may explain the major backlash to ObamaCare, which is actually relatively moderate in nature, as well as the failure to push through cap-and-trade legislation. Declining government trust should not just be viewed as an effect of congressional gridlock, but also as a potential obstacle to progressive government policy.
by Gene Giannotta
I wrote about some of the criticisms that have been leveled against the sputtering launch of HealthCare.gov, most of which make a problematic comparison to the private sector. Over at the Washington Post’s Wonkblog, Lydia DePillis makes a more apt analogy, showing how the insurance marketplace web site’s development is similar (and different) to that of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
That famously inept Defense Department boondoggle is a better place to look for lessons on a broken procurement system that extends far beyond building web portals. Some of the issues DePillis cites: limited competition for the contracts, a scale that defies the possibility of “starting over,” and uncertain costs. There are also too many cooks in the kitchen on these projects, and not much in the way of adequate, integrative oversight:
It’s difficult to build a house when the blueprints keep changing. And that’s exactly what happened to both the F-35 and HealthCare.gov.
The F-35, after all, not only had to satisfy three branches of the military — it also had to work for the handful of U.S. allies that would also be placing orders for the planes. Year by year, politicians in countries like Canada, Italy, Japan, Australia and Norway would question aspects of the design, and make noises about buying fewer of them. The endless design changes added tremendous complexity, turning what was supposed to be a lightweight, next-generation fighter into a compromise vehicle with problems like an engine too heavy for the Navy to carry.
The same was true of HealthCare.gov, which was built under the cloud of an election and a Supreme Court decision that would determine whether it even got implemented, not to mention a political air war that delayed specifications until just a few months before the insurance exchange was supposed to launch. Late-stage changes in the specs of a system that’s already monstrously complex make a hard job nearly impossible.
She does point out differences, including costs (the F-35 is a far more expensive product), deadlines (HealthCare.gov had a hard deadline for being ready), and the obvious differences in building a Web site versus a fighter jet. But there’s another difference. The insurance exchange acts as a portal, a place for consumers to access information that ties into the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. It’s a tool, like the F-35, but probably less prone to becoming obsolete any time soon. The Joint Strike Fighter, on the other hand?
This is not the kind of thing one likes to see happening 19 years after the creation of the Joint Strike Fighter program and 11 years after Lockheed Martin beat out Boeing for the U.S. contract. The F-35 looks a lot like the second coming of the B-2 bomber; a high-tech military megaproject on which billions are gambled, and that ends up being a half-obsolete curio by the time all the kinks are worked out. The B-2 was designed for an era of strategic bombing in wars between superpowers; when the Cold War ended and an era of asymmetric warfare began, it was left with little justification, and the fleet has flown few sorties, considering its expense.