2012 – A Two-Point Election

The latest Gallup polls confirm that, in spite of President Obama’s improved approval rating, the 2012 election will most likely be very close and depend on the strengths and vulnerabilities of the Republican candidate and the quality of the two campaigns.

One factor driving a likely close race is polarization. It is exceedingly difficult for a president to win any significant opposing party supporters. As the two parties have become more ideologically homogenous in the modern, post-Reagan era, polarization has increased. Obama begins with little approval from Republicans, but has support from four-fifths of Democrats. G.W. Bush had some residual post 9/11 Democratic support as he began his campaign in 2003 (it was also before he launched war in Iraq), but he finished office with a record high approval gap.

While Republican candidates begin early jockeying for position, the Democrats are engaged in an internal debate between Chicago and D.C. staffs and consultants. Did the 2010 midterm show that the re-election will be a closely fought battle in swing states with large numbers of independent voters and weak partisans or is the fight through the heartland based on turn out among traditional Democratic core constituents?

David Axelrod cites the former as his model and labels it the Colorado Plan. The Michael Bennet two-point senate win last November is his vision of the most likely 2012 scenario. Although many of the party’s old hands and especially its traditional labor, big city and coastal constituencies agree that the battle will be close, especially if a sluggish economy doesn’t motivate the party base, they disagree victory is in weak partisan swing states. They feel a full partisan battle aimed at the heartland – Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania – is the best strategy. They believe states that performed especially poorly for Democrats in the midterm must be turned around.

The latest re-election figures offer support for each view. As of February 5, 2011, Obama was in a dead heat with a generic Republican (45% to 45%).

As the campaign begins, there is very little gender gap, an area Democrats will change if they use the Colorado model.

Democrats continue to lose the White vote and carry substantial minorities. They also have a small advantage with Americans under 35 years old. It is not clear young voters and minorities will turn out above average in 2012 to provide the extra need to balance out older voters and Anglos.

Axelrod would point to the 41 percent to 41 percent tie between Obama and a generic Republican among independent voters to show that the race is in the middle, not the partisan edges. Labor and liberals would argue more Democrats, young and minorities are the key. Keep the message on the left.

Although the two strategies are not mutually exclusive, the resolution of the debate will direct resources, and it will greatly affect Obama’s overall positioning, his message selection, tone and legislative strategy starting now.

See Gallup polls:
Nameless Republican Ties Obama in 2012 Election Preferences
Obama’s Approval Ratings More Polarized in Year 2 Than Year 1

Census Data is Out

The 2010 census data for congressional districts has been released.  Republican Front Range seats tend to have a surplus of residents, which need to be distributed.  Coffman, Lamborn and Gardner have extra votes and DeGette, Perlmutter and Tipton need population.  Polis is in the only Democratic seat that has a surplus.

The Sixth CD has sufficient population to add a State House seat, which will mostly be centered in Douglas County.

Google Revolution

“Now our nightmare is over. Now is the time to dream.”

A hero of the Egyptian revolution, Wael Ghonim, a 31-year-old Egyptian Google executive, whose Facebook helped propel the Internet-linked activist by social media and modern branding said, “Eighty-five million people live in Egypt, and less than 1,000 people died in this revolution. It shows how civilized the Egyptian people are.” He was threatened and held prisoner for two weeks to stop his blog. But, Mr. Ghonim is optimistic – “Now our nightmare is over. Now it is time to dream.”

Now, we all wait to see the result.

• The Egyptian revolution began January 25, on a day set aside to remember an Arab police revolt against British colonial rule, and ended on February 11, the day after Hosni Mubarak’s disastrous February 10 speech. The Tunisian government fell 11 days earlier on January 14. So, in less than thirty days, two regimes fell. Egypt’s only took 18 days.

• The Egyptian and Tunisian activists who most fueled the revolutions were part of a pan-Arab youth movement mostly born after 1990 and the wars and regime changes that shaped the current Middle East politics. In Egypt, the last major confrontation was a general strike in April 2008. The antecedents of the young organizers had been working on the effort for six years, but much of their work was hidden on the blogosphere.

• The younger children of old dictators appear more out of touch than their fathers. Gamal Mubarak encouraged his father’s slow and unresponsive hard line, including his fatal final speech. Saif al-Islam Gadhafi’s defense of his father’s regime is as bizarre as most of Moammar al-Gadhafi’s speeches. He took the lead in declaring women and children would die if Libyans didn’t bend to the will of his father.

• Ideas related to nonviolent, youth organizations, use of social networks and modern marketing techniques were imported, shared and infused into the youth organizations. From Serbian youth activists’ success stories to reclusive American political scientist Gene Sharp’s nonviolent theories, Arab youth borrowed, studied and argued best practices. Their nonviolent resistance undermined the legitimacy of the War on Terror techniques that old regimes were using to suppress their own oppositions. Another effective display of the asymmetry of warfare.

• The revolution brought many grievances and groups in Egyptian society together. Mr. Ghonim was most motivated by police brutality, and featured it on his website, “We are all Khalid Said” – the victim of a police beating. Some working and lower class participants were motivated by the poverty and lack of opportunity and others in the educated classes by the class conscience from a socialist perspective.

The dislike and primitiveness of state-run media was a factor as was the general resentment of the corruption and privilege of the ruling class. And, of course, the Muslim Brotherhood was a late player looking for its place.

• Mubarak was gone as soon as he became the one thing all the protests and protestors could agree on – from corruption, to no jobs, to anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment, to police brutality – all complaints converged on wanting Mubarak out. Of course, it helped that he played his limited hand so poorly and that there was one institution available to fill the void without stifling the promise of reform – the army.

• The events, which produced the most drama and best visuals – the five-hour battle for the Kasr-el-Nil Bridge on January 28 and the Mubarak supporters’ counterattacks on January 29 in Tahrir Square – helped the protesters and hurt the regime. The thugs helped de-legitimize the regime as the protestors remained undefeated, but mostly nonviolent. The thugs also finally activated youth elements of the very disciplined Muslim Brotherhood to weigh in.

• In the fast moving national crisis nearby regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran, and great powers, such as the U.S. and Britain, were mostly observers. Saudi Arabia and Israel preferred stability and current arrangements. The U.S. wanted a peaceful and measured transition. At various times, the U.S. appeared to be on the side of both the revolution and the establishment. In the end, events took over and the transition was abrupt, but at least for now, stable with some known players (the army), but not a clear process.

See articles:
New York Times: A Tunisian-Egyptian Link that Shook Arab History
Newsweek: Wanted: A Grand Strategy for America

Georgetown Law Alumni Meet

Go Hoyas! More than 30 Georgetown Law Alumni heard a presentation by and asked questions of John Walsh, Colorado’s new U.S. Attorney. Walsh discussed terrorism, immigration, Native Americans and drug enforcement issues with the Colorado bar members. The alumni association is a newly formed project of the national law alumni board, of which I’m a local representative.

Anyone interested in having their child or other students or friends they know attend Georgetown Law should contact me. If you are a law graduate and want to become more involved, let me know.

Democratic Leadership Council Shuts Down

After more than a quarter century of operation, including a Colorado affiliate, the organization representing moderate Democratic politicians has closed down, out of money and out of purpose.

Born after the massive Walter Mondale defeat in 1984, the organization’s greatest victory was the Bill Clinton election in 1992. But, the organization became the target of the growing power of the left in the Democratic Party during the Bush term represented by liberal bloggers and former Democratic Chairman Howard Dean. The final blow was the candidacy of Barack Obama defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries. Clinton represented the moderate forces in the party and Obama the left.

The policy think tank associated with the organization continues to function, but the politicians are gone. Many won office and have since retired, some found government positions, including in the Obama administration, and others simply moved on.

The Colorado DLC functioned after high-profile politicians, such as Tim Worth and Roy Romer retired, as a small group of business-oriented Democratic activists. Approximately a third of registered Democrats in Colorado identify themselves as moderates as opposed to 50 percent who say they are liberals. Democratic politicians, like John Hickenlooper, claim to represent moderates, but independently of a specific organization, like the DLC.

Few will miss the low-key organization, but business-oriented Democrats will have to find their own access points to Democratic politics most likely through other organizations, such as the bi-partisan Colorado Concerned and Denver Chamber.

See additional articles:
New Republic: Requiem for the DLC
Colorado DLC: January 2011 update
Washington Post: The Fix: The myth of the dying moderate

DAC and DPC Host Mayoral Forum

On March 2, the second phase of the Denver mayor’s campaign will begin with a candidates’ forum on “How to keep Denver’s economy strong,” co-sponsored by the Denver Athletic Club and the Denver Petroleum Club. As moderator, I will try to generate some excitement in what, thus far, has been a boring and low-key race.

After their early organizing and fundraising efforts, it’s clear that none of the top candidates for mayor has established a dominant position. Although Chris Romer has the money lead, it’s not insurmountable and there is still resistance to his rise. To some extent, the Bill Vidal boomlet is a reflection that many powerful stakeholders in Denver’s local politics want another choice.

March starts the next phase of the campaign where candidates begin to distinguish themselves and try to break out of the pack. Big endorsements, surges in fundraising, new proposals and attacks on competitors, particularly frontrunners, start in earnest.

Denver Petroleum Club members are especially concerned about the city’s business climate on taxes, regulation and quality of infrastructure. They estimate more than 5,000 people work in the industry in Denver, including executives, landmen, accountants, lawyers and support staff, many of them downtown Denver.

The Denver Athletic Club has a 125-year history of supporting civic causes, being a forum for city discussion and the club for community leaders.

As the president on the club’s 125th anniversary, I can say the commitment has never been stronger among members to keep Denver the preeminent city in the Rocky Mountain region. Maintaining a vibrant economy is essential to that goal.

Attendees are invited to submit questions by e-mail, fciruli@aol.com.

See flyer for mayor’s forum here

Denver Holds Position as Colorado’s Top County

Denver began a significant population decline in the 1970s, which continued into the 1990s, dropping to 468,000 residents (recorded in the 1990 census), and nearly falling behind a surging Jefferson County. Denver, like most older American core cities, was led by a tired, big city machine, and watched an exodus of residents to the suburbs, acerbated by school busing.

But new political leadership, joined by willing a business community, began a renewal in the mid-1980s that invested in major infrastructure projects and a series of policies to jump start the city’s economy and growth. By 2000, the city was back with the population above a half a million residents.

The 2010 census shows Denver broke 600,000 for the first time in its history and is again the largest county in the state.

While Denver lost population for about 20 years and is now 22 percent of the total metro population, down from 42 percent in 1970, it managed to maintain its economic position over the last 20 years.

In 1989, Denver collected 31 percent of the region’s sales taxes and today collects 29 percent. Denver’s investments in the Convention Center, sports facilities, airport, cultural facilities and a host of quality of life improvements in parks and transportation, among other items, have reinvigorated the city.

Even with two recessions, as of today, one-cent of sales tax collects three times what it did in 1989 for the municipalities and public agencies in the Denver metro area.  The final 2010 figures show $400 million raised.