Ghosts of Joe Slovo

Lots of people make predictions about the outcomes of primaries, some of whom have actually done things like poll prospective voters, others who have crunched demographics, and still others who have crunched lots of polling data.

And then there's me. Going on nothing but gut instinct and cursory blog-entry-reading.

So I'm breaking my weeks-long silence to regale ya'll with my primary predictions:

NC: Obama by 8-10 points, say 54 or 55 to Clinton's 46 or 45.
IN: Clinton by 5 points, say 52.5 to Obama's 47.5.

Until the Rev. Wright decided to do his Buffoonery 2008 Tour I thought maybe Indiana could break for Obama, but not now. And in all fairness to Rev. Wright, if Obama had used the opportunity of his "bitter" comment to actually hammer home a populist economic theme that spoke directly to working class anxiety over the economy and the future, it wouldn't have mattered what the good Reverend was on about.

But that is the pitfall of leaving your economic messaging to University of Chicago economists.

Kick ass and get out the vote.

From the "No duh" department, Alternet division:

The Audacity of Populism

By Mark Weisbrot, AlterNet. Posted April 7, 2008.

If Obama convinces white working-class voters that he cares about their economic plight, he will become the 44th President of the United States.

Kick ass and take names.

Okay, first off, I'd be happy if the Dems picked either of the two people currently kicking the shit out of each other. I'd prefer Obama, not necessarily from a policy perspective, since his articulated policies are clearly the less progressive, but because of the way he's running for President. He's investing huge amounts of money and effort in training his staff and volunteers in the basics of organizing and he's running his campaign as if it were a giant community organizing effort. This will have ramifications for the next generation of progressive work and substantially builds progressive infrastructure, which can then be used to kick a little right-wing ass.

My bias is front and center in this. So take that into consideration when I say that I'm fairly disappointed with Clinton's campaign right now. Choosing to go with the red phone ad, which plays into people's fears and insecurities, in effect scaring them into voting for her, is, to my mind, unethical in this particular primary race. It's not dirty, it's not harsh, but it is unethical.

Why? Because it accepts the GOP frame on this election: that is is the 3rd security election (2002, 2004, 2008 - 2006 was clearly about the direction of the country and the meltdown of the Republicans) and the decision should be made on who the next Commander In Chief should be.

Well, first of all, thanks for appealing to the most primitive and base part of a person's emotional make-up as you try to make your case. Second, do you seriously think that the Dems can compete on CIC issues running against a former GOP prisoner of war who was tortured? Third, there is a golden opportunity to make this election about economic issues, effectively reframing "security" to include economic security. Do that and you win. Do this red phone business and you lose.

The winning contrast for the Democrats in November will not be between relative competancies in dealing with military threats, it will be between those who speak for people who are hurting and for people who are energized by the idea of a new direction for the country and those who want a 3rd Bush Presidency run by a guy who went to high school with Methusalah. 

That's why I'm disappointed in Clinton right now and find myself actually dreading a drawn-out primary contest. It only gets bloodier from here and, not to only blame Clinton in all this, Obama needs to add some economic populism to his message of hope and post-partisanship (and he can start that by giving the heave-ho to all those U of Chicago economic advisors) because he's not going to win as a Democrat appleaing only to the well-educated, the young, and the economically well off. (See also, Latino Vote, Winning the.) Seriously, dude, use that soaring rhetoric to channel your inner Paul Wellstone.

That's all.

Kick ass and watch the primary season of a thouand cuts grind on.

I mentioned the other day that the ACORN PAC might be making an endorsement this week. Well, they did.

On Wednesday night, ACORN Votes, the ACORN PAC, endorsed Barack Obama for President.

ACORN President Maude Hurd had this to say,

“Last night, Sen. Obama received more than the two-thirds majority needed from our elected national leadership to secure the endorsement. Over the past months, we have worked with all leading candidates. ACORN’s members have deep appreciation and respect for Senators Clinton and Edwards and their work on behalf of our communities. What it came down to was that Senator Obama is the candidate who best understands and can effect change on the issues ACORN cares about like stopping foreclosures, enacting fair and comprehensive immigration reform, and building stronger and safer communities across America.”

ACORN's membership is probably about 35% Latino and 65% African-American. I don't think this will have much effect in Texas, since Texas ACORN's presence is concentrated in a few areas. But this could have a major impact on African-American turnout in Ohio, where ACORN has a major presence and a demonstrated track record in moving state-wide issues and conducting statewide voter contact programs. ACORN ran the field for the 2006 Ohio Minimum Wage ballot measure and reached between 250K and 350K largely African-American voters.

I would expect that this means that ACORN members will hit the streets for Obama immediately in Ohio (and Texas, but more in Ohio). Down the line this could mean more boots on the ground in places like Pennsylvania as well.

Interesting.

Kick ass and take names.

Here's a recent IM exchange regarding some fundraising for a program to get states to comply with teh National Voter Registration Act of 1994. This was the "motor voter" bill. It also has a provision that requires public assitance agencies to offer voter reg to people coming in for assistance. So basically in addition to people getting driver's liscenses, you are supposed to be reaching the really poor people too.

Guess what part of the law goes unenforced? If you said the part that targets poor people exclusively (and also disproportionate numbers of poeple of color), then you win the prize!

So we're running a program to get the states to comply with this aspect of the law. Here's an exchange based on raising money for that and the relative cost savings of registering people this way versus large-scale voter registration drives.

Kevin: Mike (redacted) was comfortable estimating that 100,000 voters were left out per year. a back of the envelope % of citizens in CA who are latinos would be a fine way to make a very conservative esimate

Nathan: Oh, must have missed that estimate in the drill down in these proposals. I'll get a "conservative estimate" based on that.

Kevin: it was back of the envelope in a way that i won't even tell you research gurus -- you would have a stroke

Nathan: Believe me, I'm familiar with a lot of "quick and dirty" techniques here. That Doug (redacted) response was more of an example of someone ready for an anyeurism. I asked a very simple question and even told him I'd be will to do something very dodgy just to get any kind of number, and got that paragraph back.

Kevin: then don't tell doug this, but 120,000K is what Oregon does and we know CA must be able to do at least that. Again, a very conservative estimate, if not very precise.

Nathan: And since they only did 20K in 2006... bingo on the 100K. (Which puts 2006 CA at the same level as 2006 OR).

 

Nathan: 36,000 (35.9% Latino)

Nathan: Cost per latino registrant via enforcement = $2.78, via voter registration program = $15. Assumes $100K budget, which is overstated by quite a bit.

Kevin: what a deal! PLUS there is a match, so it is really half price--now how much would you pay--don't answer yet, because you get a free press hit on the Governater at the same time!

Nathan: All this AND [organization] will throw in African-Americans AT NO EXTRA CHARGE! That's right, you get the Latinos, the African-Americans, AND THE Guvernator ALL FOR ONE LOW PRICE! Now how much would you pay? WAIT DON'T ANSWER YET! Because you ALSO GET ALL POOR PEOPLE GENERALLY! All at a gigantic cost savings to YOU the feel-good liberal philanthropy community. Operators are standing by, please have your credit card numbers ready and GIVE GENEROUSLY!

.

Kick ass and take names

Word on the street is that ACORN, which has massive field capacity amongst low and moderate income voters and communities of color in Ohio and Pennsylvania, might be making a Presidential endorsement this week, Wednesday at the earliest. 

The organization's membership has been divided amongst the Big Three on the Democratic side, reflecting how voters voting in Democratic primaries have broken down nationally. But with Edwards out and the fight down to two, with only a few big states remaining, it looks like there is mounting support to pick a candidate. The winning candidate needs two-thirds support of the voting membership and no one's willing to go on record as to who the membership is supporting.

My own guess is Obama, but Clinton has always played well with ACORN's membership and NY ACORN members are especially fierce in their support. They could move the rest of the voting leadership or gather enough votes to block any endorsement at all.

This is particularly important for the endorsee in Ohio because of ACORN's demostrated ability to reach voters in majority minority districts, last seen in 2006's election when they ran the field for the minimum wage ballot initiative and reached well over 250,000 voters with multiple contacts over a 6 week period.

We'll see what happens...

Kick ass and take names.

See how I title these posts so the uninterested can keep on truckin'?

See how that leaves me with the same two loyal readers? (Thanks, ya'll.)

Quick questions:

Does John Edwards endorse? If he does endorse, does he do it before March 4? If he endorses before the delegate count for either candidate is insurmountable, who does he endorse?


My take:

Unless someone either makes the pitch of the century or makes the gaffe of the century, I think there is not a compelling enough reason to endorse before March 4. Endorsing Obama could be seen as a bandwagon move and endorsing Clinton could be seen as both toeing the party line and saying Obama has fatal weaknesses.

The whole reason to get an Edwards endorsement at this point would be to win Ohio and possibly Pennsylvania. So if the endorsement were to mean anything outside of the Convention, then it would have to come in the next 10-12 days.

I'm not sure that, on the whole, Edwards is served by making an endorsement here. If the thing is still as close as it is now after North Carolina in May, the last decent sized state to vote, then he's better off leveraging his power in Denver. He won't implicitly criticize either candidate and he won't have to deal with the backlash from the other person's supporters. He'll have enough pledged delegates to be a prize in Denver and he can play up his role as the conscience of the process by calling repeatedly for economic populism to be a centerpiece of both candidates' campaigns.

But that's just me.

What do ya'll think?

Kick ass and think endorsements.

So I finally made the Globe and Mail, the Canadian "paper of record". (Welcome to Ontario, eh!)

Well, not me precisely, but my analysis of the Super Tuesday turnout in 5 Democratic primaries.

Here's the key paragraph. Note, me here is "Project Vote", one of the groups I work with through the management contract my employer of record has with them.

The non-partisan group Project Vote said yesterday that attendance records were broken in the five states they had monitored: Arizona, California, Georgia, Missouri and Tennessee.

In those states, Project Vote noted a marked increase in participation among traditionally underrepresented communities, including those younger than 30, blacks and Latinos.

You can find the whole analysis by following the link. It's actually kinda interesting if you are interested in what's happening with young people, Blacks, and Latinos. Or you can gostraight to the PDF memo that got sent around.

Kick and and count the vote.

I'm going to shout this:

IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE TO VOTE, THEN GO TO VOTE411.ORG.


THAT'S VOTE411.ORG!


If you live in CA you are required to be given 2 hours off to vote. You have to give your boss notice and they can tell you whether to take them in the morning or the evening, but you can't be fired for taking them. I think you also get paid for those hours, but don't quote me.


Kick ass and go vote.

Okay Hillary and Barack.

Make me want you.


Kick ass and take names.

John Edwards. Dude. Not cool.

Just one more week, baby, just one. more. week.

That's all we were asking for, a chance to actually vote for you on Tsunami Tuesday.

Just one more week. You could have lasted one more week.

You would have had delegates and a place at the Convention and the possibility of a senior Cabinet-level postion.

Damn.

Kick ass and ...

It is now officially time for Clinton and Obama to knock it off.

Bill Clinton looks less and less Ex-Presidential with every attack on Obama.

Obama is loosing his focus on his core messages and any issues he is supposed to be running on.

I expect the Democratic nomiee to be willing to get into a street fight and cut the other guy. I understand a little sparring. Good. You want to win.

But you've got to win without spilling the blood of the potential nominee. Whoever they are, they need to go in tough but not injured. Bloodied like a veteran, but ready for the campaign ahead. And various other militaristic terms in which to see the acquisition of the Presidency.

But knock it off now and compete based on your ideas and your vision for America.

I know that sounds really really amazingly non-cynical and non-disillusioned, but, well, there you go. My dirty little secret is out.

Kick ass and remind of us FDR not Nixon.

As you faithful readers may know, the work I do in my day job supports voter participation programs in low and moderate income communities across the country. This year we're going to do the biggest non-partisan voter registration drive in the history of the United States. That's right. The biggest. Ever. In the history of the US. And it is going to be done largely among blacks and Latinos with some working class whites thrown in for good measure. Then we're going to follow that up with a voter mobilization (also called Get Out The Vote) effort that, while it won't be the biggest ever in the history of the US, will be the biggest ever in the history of my organization.

To put all this in perspective, let me give you some numbers.

(There is an internal debate about whether or not we should be explicit about how big the program is in communication that goes beyond our doors. Some argue that we don't want to tip off the bad guys as to where we're doing the work and by how much, because it will help their targeting. I understand that. But I argue that the bad guys look at the same math we do and understand exactly where the most important turf is and, further, that if they really are going to target us like they did in 2004 and 2006 - that Attorneygate thing was for real, yo - all they have to do is call a County Clerk and ask if we've been turning in cards yet. Once they know that, they will understand the scope of our work.) 

Anyway, back to the numbers. Largest drive ever = 1.2 million voter registration applications. Largest GOTV program for us ever = 2 million voters.

As you can imagine, this costs money. We're talking multiple millions, more than 10, less than 20, just for the VR part.

So I've been spending large chunks of my time creating proposals to various foundations and richie rich's so we can get the moola to bring more progressive voters into the equation and, hopefully, force the candidates to fall in line with progressive policy objectives. Which we call "winning".

Now, I expect that institutions that just give away money without expecting you to pay it back can make a range of demands on their prospective grantees, chiefly around the kind, nature, and amount of paper they want from you before they give you your own paper swag, generally cut into small pieces, died green, and stamped with various numbers.

So I'm used to dealing with lots and lots of arcane requests for information and clarification and whatnot.

But there's this one foundation that just goes beyond the pale. Usually a foundation reads your initial proposal, asks some points of clarification and then does their own internal process on the sucker.

Not these guys.

I've gotten back the initial draft no fewer than three times, each time with a minimum of 25 new questions or comments to address. Each revision takes at least 25-30 hours of work to deal with. After this process is done it will go to outside readers who will then make comments, to which I will be expected to reply.

Now, I have to say that we ARE asking them for a significant chunk of change. The kind of money that if someone offered it to me on the street, I'd wonder if I was being asked to kill someone or I was secretly being taped for a reality TV show. But, this amount of money isn't even close to the largest single donation that we've gotten for the program and doesn't even make up 1% of the total program cost. Yet they are clearly taking up WAAAAAAAAY more than 1% of my fundraising time.

There have been times in this process where I have been seriously considering just laying it on the line and calling them arrogant pricks who think they have a right to ask for this level of engagement because they are giving so much money, when in reality they don't know crap about this work and should be able to tell from our track record that we know that of which we speak (seriously, it's a very good track record - we have accounted for 37% of all voter registration applications from voter registration drives in the US since 2004).

But I've learned that people who are giving you money don't respond so well to this kind of frankness. So I bite my tongue. And post to LJ.

Okay, gotta get crackin' on that 3rd revision.

Kick ass and bray like a donkey dragging a one-ton brick up a mountain.

The recent squabble over Clinton's comments about MLK and Johnson and creating change and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 has really sidestepped a central issue of how change occurs. There was a lot of hot air about the implication that a black man needed a white man to help him do the right thing.

But I think the real issue here is the importance of movments in creating the condidiotn for sweeping social change. No way would Johnson have even dealt with civil rights if the Civil Rights Movement, of which King was an important but by no means singular leader, had put the issue front and center in the life of the country. And done it in a way that was undeniably linked to a sense of morality and justice. Yes, King's dream may have "started to become a reality" when Johnson got behind the specific peices of legislation, but there would not have been any dream to move without the Civil Rights Movement.

When Clinotn and Obama talk of change, I hope they are talking about something more substantive than just reacting to the great movments of the day. I hope they are talking about fomenting the conditions that allow great leaders to act as great leaders. Judging form Clinton's comments I don't think this is true and, although Obama has actual organinzing experience, I don't know if he fully grasps this dynamic.

But Bill Moyers does and his commentary below from this past Friday is worth the 6 minutes it takes to watch it. He puts everything into perspective.



Kick ass and take names.

So Mitt Romney cleaned up in Michigan, beating McCain by 9 percentage points, which is an ass-whipping in politics.

From my progressive-populist position, this is awesome! A McCain victory would have enabled him to run the table on the early states and take most of the big prizes on Super Duper Tuesday. But a Romney victory means McCain isn't a lock and gives Huckabee more life. South Carolina voters can now choose between 3 candidates that have won a state. This relieves social conservatives from the pressure to "back a winner" who isn't Huckabee and gives Romney-leaners a reason to be hopeful.

I think this means Huckabee wins SC with McCain close behind and a real dogfight for Florida.

What about Guliani and Thompson? I can't see Rudy surging in FL. The more people see him the less they like him. But if he does, that's even better because it just puts the whole thing up-fo-grabs. I don't see Rudy getting much of a bounce from Florida because he hasn't got the infrastructure to take advantage of it on 2/5.

Thompson is a flat-out joke. Finishing third in any state will be a major accomplishment and he's catching fire with all the vigor of wet pine.

All of which makes for a serious GOP civil war as the establishment tries to pick between Romney and McCain and the social conservatives push Huckabee. Fantastic!

Kick ass and take names.

Apologies up front to people who read this more for my scintillating wit than my knowledge on electoral politics. Because this post is about electoral politcs and observers agree that my wit has been on hiatus lately (I think it went on strike with the WGA).

I was just thinking over the weekend how I think the GOP nomination race comes down to a contest between John McCain and Mike Huckabee. I am personally thinking that McCain wins the namination, if trends stay the same as they do now. This ultimate outcome is good for the GOP in terms of electability because McCain is probably the only candidate that can make the race competitive. In fact, with him as the nominee, I think the GOP could pull it out in November.

But my initial thoughts are that this race is the coming crack-up of the GOP coalition and that this match-up really strains the faultlines because it gives the GOP Establishment no home to go to. They eventually line-up behind McCain because if you look at his voting record he's pretty much a hard-core conservative on fiscal and social issues. But in the meantime Huckabee plays havoc with the GOP base, drawing "values voters" his way and sending the Wall Streets into fits of apoplexy with his populism.

As a person with no great love of the GOP, I think this is fantastic and forces them to spend beaucoup duckets just to get a nominee and potentially fractures the base for the November election. McCain is the guy who can bring some unity post-Convention, but if the attacks on Huckabee are nasty enough, lots of evangelicals stay home or vote for Obama.

I, for one, welcome the coming GOP crack-up and think that this is one of the most exciting primary elections I've lived through.

Kick ass and take name.

After hearing all the end-of-the-night speaches from the Democratic candidates, it really sounded like I was listening to John Edwards, Barack Edwards, and Hillary Edwards. Even if he doesn't win, John Edwards has set the agenda for the Democratic race and forced all the rst of the campaigns to try to out-progressive-populist him. This is nothing but good for the Democratic Party, even if I'm skeptical of being able to hold Clinton's feet to the fire if she actually gets back into the White House.

On the Republican side, I don't know what the hell they are talking about, since it seems like they aren't talking about anything. John McCain is the "Truth Teller". Huckabee is "Happy to 3rd". Romney has "Two Silvers and a Gold". But issues? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller....

If the current trend continues and if the domestic issues contiune to crowd out fears about Iraq from the top two places in people's list of concerns, then I don't think the Republicans can win the White House, no matter who the nominee is. In both NH and IA, the GOP saw record turnouts. But so did the Democrats. In fact, in IA, the Democratic turnout was almost three times higher than the Republican turnout. And in NH, which saw over 50% of their registered voters show up for a primary(!), the vote totals of the top two Democratic finshers was greater that the vote totals of the top four GOP finishers.

As the economy worsens and Iraq drags on, there seems like there is nothing the GOP can do to get anyone other than hardcore registered Republicans to vote for them.

Of course I say all this 11 months before the national election, which is a looooooong time in electoral politics, but from where I'm sitting, I'm seeing an historical drubbing of the GOP that will also affect downballot races and the only thing that will keep the GOP from being shoved into irrelevancy is the fact that most Congressional Districts are gerrymandered within an inch of their lives and will therefore keep a sizable minority of Republicans in Congress.

Kick ass and take names.

Talking to various people on staff with ACORN's Political Operations on Friday yeilded a sense that the current Democratic Primaries were still Clinton's to lose, but Barack was surging and that Edwards would stick around. Most were laying even money on Clinton and slightly longer odds on Barack.

I was the only one to say that if Barack wins NH, then he's the odds-on favorite to win the Dem nomination. But you have to remember this was five days before today's election.

Thought people might be interested in what some professionals thought, bearing in mind that most of us don't do candidate campaign work - its mostly all voter participation and some ballot initiative stuff.

Kick ass and take names.

Been gone for a while. This is going to be very stream of consciousness.

*Los Angeles smells GREAT after it rains. Seriously. But, we're in a drought, so this is something I've experienced, like, twice.

*We did the Bay Area for part of the Holidays. I love the Bay and I totally appreciate getting to jog in the redwoods. Totally did not appreciate the 5-day sore throat this gave me. Also, if you get a chance to go to a party in the Berkeley hills at a house with a panoramic view from Mt. Tam to the San Mateo Bridge during a winter sunset then you should go, even if it is just for the sunset. If the party is full of family members, good wine, and great food, then so much the better.

*Tyche and her family are good together for about 2.5 days, after that I suggest shin guards and one of those weird looking soft helmet things that soccer players use to prevent concussions. On a related note, there are few things as surpsingly disappointing as a banal "Jesus Loves You" Christmas Day homily. And I say that as an a person with no particular religious affiliation.

*New Orleans continues to be a mix of devestation and slow return. Comparing this time last year to this year, the amount of rebuilding and population growth is palpable. There are still massive problems - infrastructure, political, justice system, health care system, housing - but the change is hopeful. The culture that makes New Orleans New Orleans still shines through, though it will take awhile before it becomes as robust as it was.

*Case in point: New Year's at Tipitina's, a NOLA institution. Featuring Galactic, a NOLA funk band that is one of the few contemporary bands that can kick ass the way The Meters and JB and Parliament/Funkadelic did. Which is where Tyche and I along with my brother and his fiance ended up. Got there at about 9:45 and stayed until about 3AM. Galactic was even better live than on their CD's. But it was the entire scene, an alchemical mixture of drunken frat boys/sorority sisters in town for the various bowl games, recent "brain gain" young people there to rebuild, old school NOLA burnouts, southern fried hippies (think Asheville and Athens), and the usual number of funk-stoners that made it an utterly NOLA gathering. Well, that and the music. New Or-Lee-Annes knows how to party. Seriously.

*And as I stood there, about halfway back in the room, taking in the entire scene, the people, the music, the mixed scents of sweat, mixed drinks, spilled beer, tobacco, and marijuana all at New Year's on the cusp of 2008, I thought, "This is history in the making. People in this town are going to remember the years after the storm as something. It will be an era, a time spoken of as "a time when". And my brother is right in the middle of it and here I am right in the middle of this. This is going to be a thing."

*2008 is going to be a thing, too.

*The general election is going to be close, unless Bloomberg launches a 3rd party bid. Then it's the Democrats in a blow-out. Having said that, this year it is the Democrats' race to lose.

*About two years ago I wrote a few essays/longwinded blog comments about the coming crack-up of the GOP coalition between the Main Streeters and the Wall Streeters. Main Streeters were your Christianists and aspects of the small business community, Wall Streeters were your corporate owning class types. The latter use the former as foot soldiers to elect people like W who speak about values and proceed to rape the country and embark on pre-emptive wars. But this year, the Main Streeters finally have their own genuine candidate in Mike Huckabee. I think the crack-up is upon us. This is one of the reasons why I think this election is the Democrats to lose.

*Of course that means that who the Democratic nominee is becomes even more important than it was in 2004. There is an opportunity to get a functioning progressive into the White House and we need to take that opportunity. My choice is Edwards, clearly the most progressive and most populist of the Democratic contenders.

*Obama is good too, but it worries me that he chooses to make it difficult for citizen's organizations like ACORN and labor unions to get his campaign's attention and that he uses rhetoric and literature that calls groups like us "special interests" as if we played in the same sandbox with energy companies and Big Pharma. I wonder how open he would be to groups like us once he's in the White House. And believe me, we are going to be a big reason that core progressive voters show up at the polls this year.

That's all for now.

Kick ass and take names.

I was thinking about US politics for a minute recently. Shocking I know.

And it was not pleasant.

In short: Unless the Wimpocrats develop a spine and force some kind of real plan for getting the hell out of Iraq, the 2009-2012 Democratic Presidency will be unable to have the funds to deliver a domestic agenda that deals with ANY of the pressing needs facing the country and the planet AND will be blamed for everything that goes wrong in Iraq (and NOTHING will go right) AND will end up in enough of a shambles that the GOP will win the 2012 elections in Congress and the White House and we will be back to being a country run by PaleoCons.

Weee, I'm a real ray of sunshine.

Kick ass and dither and dilly-dally and cluck and whine and cave-in.