PCCC: 300,000+ GOTV calls made in Wisconsin

Progressive Change Campaign Committee, via email:

With less than 48 hours until the Wisconsin recall elections, we wanted to send a Special Report about what Progressive Change Campaign Committee members contributed to this historic effort so far:

  • 316,165 calls to voters made by thousands of national volunteers 
  • 116,755 grassroots donations toward our ads and activism
  • 1,721 local volunteer shifts by Wisconsin PCCC members
  • 5 powerful TV ads airing 17,333 times -- praised as some of the best ads in politics
  • Over $2 million spent in the Wisconsin fight by PCCC and our partners at Democracy for America

If we win Tuesday, this victory will belong to you -- and to all working families who are fighting back against the corporate, Republican machine.

One of the strongests ads running now (PCCC, DFA Wisconsin) features a WI Republican voter declaring we need someone on our side, and internal polling looks promising.  But Kevin Drum stresses this one will be a fight to the final vote:

One of the few available indicators of how the turnout will look [this] week was the re-election victory of Democrat Dave Hansen in mid-July, the first general recall election of the summer. Hansen cruised to victory, and the turnout neared 31,000—a figure suggesting an energized electorate in Hansen's Green Bay-area district. So the big question is: Can Democrats replicate that energy in six districts scattered throughout the state? Their hopes of snatching back the majority in the Wisconsin senate depend on it.

PCCC has launched a final call out the vote campaignActBlue page here.  While national politics have been a disappointment, the fight for families, workers, and the middle class in Wisconsin against Scott Walker and his masters is an opportunity to make history.

The outcome will ripple, setting the stage in every state heading into the 2012 campaigns.

NM-1: PCCC Endorses Eric Griego

In their first endorsement for 2012, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee is backing state Senator Eric Griego in New Mexico's first district.  Watch Griego's announcement.

PCCC:

"The last thing we need to send to Washington is a Democrat who is a kinder, gentler version of the Republicans."

New Mexico state senator Eric Griego said these words when announcing his candidacy for Congress.

And today, Eric Griego is the first House challenger of 2012 that we're officially endorsing! 

Click here to see Eric Greigo's announcement -- and chip in $3 to his campaign before the closely-watched June 30 fundraising deadline.

Eric is one of the most progressive members of the New Mexico Senate. He won his seat after running a grassroots primary against an incumbent conservative Democrat.

He passed green jobs legislation and campaign finance reform into law. In Congress, Eric wants to create jobs through massive investment in our nation's infrastructure.

NM-1 opens up as Rep. Martin Henreich launchs a bid for retiring Senator Jeff Bingaham's seat.  It's expected a few conservative Democrats are eyeing this one up, and all but confirmed that Terry Brunner, Obama USDA appointee, is in. Griego, though, sounds ready for a fight:

We need whoever goes to Washington to represent this district to be willing to roll up their sleeves and take on this conservative right wing that wants to gut everything that we hold dear... We need someone who can stand their ground!

June 30 is a key fundraising deadline and everyone will be watching the numbers.  Give Griego a boost. 

 

The mandate is a poison pill

No matter how its worded.

Jon Walker closes this post with a sound idea:

At the very least, remove the individual mandate so it can be held as a bargaining chip by progressives to extract greater reforms between now and 2015, when the mandate would go into effect. Passing the individual mandate now (just so it can sit on the books for years) would be a political and negotiating disaster for Democrats. As it looks now, the next reform battle will be fought on the terms of the insurance companies even more. That is not what I think is a step forward.It's painfully obvious that there are no talking points available to Democrats to attempting to defend the mandate. Its maddening to attempt to figure out why Democrats are intent on imposing a mandate now, enforceable by IRS penalties, that doesn't go into effect for 5 years, only to get clubbed with it for the next three cycles.

A recent national poll done by DFA/PCCC found very the majority of voters opposed to the mandate in its current form by a 56 - 33 margin.

When Jane Hamsher posted about the DFA/PCCC findings as fairly conclusive, Nate Silver objected. He questioned the political negativity of the mandate by stating that the DFA/PCCC question was worded uncharitably toward the mandate, and that a Kaiser poll with charitable wording showed just the opposite of numbers (implying inconclusive findings).

Here's the "uncharitable" wording of the DFA/PCCC poll in question:

Would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to buy health insurance -- the so-called mandate -- even if they find insurance too expensive or do not want it? Favor 38 Oppose 51

Here's the "charitable wording in a poll done by Kaiser:

Would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to have health insurance, either from their employer or from another source, with financial help for those who can't afford it? Favor 66 Oppose 31

Well, that's quite a contrast, but there's an important component of the Kasier poll that Silver left out. The next question of the Kaiser poll, asked only to those who said they favor the mandate, was worded:

"What if you heard that this could mean that some people would be required to buy health insurance that they find too expensive or did not want?" Still Favor 21 Now Oppose 73

Support drops dramatically. But something else becomes clear when comparing the wording of the single PCCC/DFA question with the two Kaiser polling questions:

PCCC/DFA question:
"Would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to buy health insurance -- the so-called mandate -- even if they find insurance too expensive or do not want it?"

Kaiser questions:
"Would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to have health insurance, either from their employer or from another source, with financial help for those who can't afford it?"

"What if you heard that this could mean that some people would be required to buy health insurance that they find too expensive or did not want?"

All the DFA/PCCC poll question did it seems, is combine the two questions asked by Kaiser. The only difference is that the DFA/PCCC question in the poll includes "the so called mandate" wording. Whatever. If someone wants to argue on behalf of the mandate having a PR headache for Democrats, that fine, but stop with the insinuations that calling it what we have all called it, a mandate, or an individual mandate, involves bias.

And besides, Jane Hamsher's obvious point wasn't that the poll could be no less neutrally worded, but that the political framing of the mandate would be much more toxic than this poll's question, ie., "When it appears in the ads of a Republican challenger who notes that the IRS will act as Aetna’s collection agency, I bet those numbers get dramatically worse."

And that it will. The simple follow-up question on the Kaiser poll turned the favorable numbers above, into a rout of opposition, with 80% opposed and just 18% in favor of the individual mandate to buy insurance.

This is really the point. Who really cares what is the most neutral wording of the poll? Are voters ever going to be presented with a neutral take by either party in ads and message from the candidates? No way now how.

So what we really want, is a further follow-up question that asks the inevitable '10/'12/'14 rightwing framing of the mandate to those 18% still in favor:


'What if you heard the individual mandate to buy private insurance is enforced by fines from the IRS acting as a collection agency on behalf of Aetna?'

'What if you heard the individual mandate to buy insurance is a bailout/giveaway/gift to private insurance companies?'

'What if you heard the individual mandate to buy private insurance is a disproportionately impacts lower-income families?'


And who can imagine what more are available. And yet there was Nate Silver in another recent post titled: "Why Progressives Are Batshit Crazy to Oppose the Senate Bill" where he argued: ... frankly, the individual mandate penalty is not very harsh ...if you adopted the House bill's subsidies for families at under 250% of poverty, and the Senate's (which actually become more generous) for people at greater than 250% of poverty -- perhaps in exchange for a harsher (not weaker!) individual mandate penalty -- you'd have a pretty reasonable compromise.Wow, that turns compromise into suicide-- and he's calling others crazy?

How are proponents of the mandate going to deliver the effective rebuttal to the attack on the mandate? Maybe its the the Kaiser follow-up guilt-question to those who opposed it is the answer (... deny coverage to the sick)? Whatever it is, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, Ezra Klein, and a whole Senate of Democrats that just voted for the mandate, could sure use it. And it won't be reality-based either, but instead a response to fear-mongering tactics for the next 5 years.

At the least, Democrats should get rid of the few-hundred dollar fines of the IRS associated with the mandate. If $1.2 Billion was available in the Manager's amendment to get the votes of Nelson and the others, then surely, can't the feeble amount collected by the IRS can be taken off the bill in an effort of toxic clean-up? And assign some sort of trigger to the mandate, that only becomes binding upon actual reform. Without some overhaul of the mandate in HRC, its a poison pill.

Nate Silver's latest claim is that removing the mandate would increase the CBO score, which is taken on by Jon Walker who points out just the opposite, Removing The Individual Mandate Would Reduce The CBO Score.

I doubt the deal changes much. But, it'll be interesting to see further breakdowns of the poll numbers regarding the mandate. I think it will only become more toxic overall, and the bulk of the response will be damage-control and on the defensive (you don't have to pay the IRS fine, OK!). But specifically, I'd like to see some numbers on voters and non-voters, and whether a person who has insurance or not (the ones effected by the mandate) is a voter, and what sort of breakdowns happen (this is one of those issues where libertarian impulses cross all sorts of barriers). That would begin to give the outlook some perspective of political fall-out.

There's more...

MN-Sen: NormDollar.com Approaches $100,000 and Coleman Gets the Message

NormDollar.com, the effort to provide Republicans funding Norm Coleman's endless legal appeals with disincentive from continuing that funding, is about to reach the $100,000 threshold!

For those unfamiliar with NormDollar.com, basically, anybody who wants to see Coleman finally admit defeat and allow Minnesota to once again have two U.S. Senators can pledge $1 for every day that Coleman prolongs his legal challenges.  To show appreciation for helping progressives raise tens of thousands of dollars that will be used to defeat Republicans in 2010, representatives of the effort caught up with Coleman to personally thank him and to get his signature on the check representing the tens of thousands of dollars that Coleman's own obstinance has raised for progressives.  You can help the effort cross the $100,000 mark by visiting NormDollar.com and chipping in.  Just one dollar a day to make Norm Coleman go away!

For daily news and updates on the U.S. Senate races around the country, regularly read Senate Guru.

There's more...

MN-Sen: NormDollar.com Approaches $100,000 and Coleman Gets the Message

NormDollar.com, the effort to provide Republicans funding Norm Coleman's endless legal appeals with disincentive from continuing that funding, is about to reach the $100,000 threshold!  For those unfamiliar with NormDollar.com, basically, anybody who wants to see Coleman finally admit defeat and allow Minnesota to once again have two U.S. Senators can pledge $1 for every day that Coleman prolongs his legal challenges.

To show appreciation for helping progressives raise tens of thousands of dollars that will be used to defeat Republicans in 2010, representatives of the effort caught up with Coleman to personally thank him and to get his signature on the check representing the tens of thousands of dollars that Coleman's own obstinance has raised for progressives.  You can help the effort cross the $100,000 mark by visiting NormDollar.com and chipping in.  Just one dollar a day to make Norm Coleman go away!

For daily news and updates on the U.S. Senate races around the country, regularly read Senate Guru.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads