Monday, January 31, 2011

Americans See China as Threat, Fear Decline

The China summit appeared to conclude with little change; hence, advantage China.  They are on the rise, and recent polls confirm Americans’ anxiety about it.


Although Americans have a slightly unfavorable opinion of China (42% favorable vs. 49% unfavorable), they believe overall relations are more friendly (47%) than unfriendly (33%). But, Americans believe China is more of a threat to jobs (61%) than an opportunity for new markets (29%), and this view would not have been altered by the latest summit.

Avoiding a new Cold War will require a strong and sophisticated effort by America’s and China’s leadership. President Obama’s challenge during the summit was to be as firm as possible with China while defending engagement and trade. But American politics is increasingly anxious about our putative decline and its impact on the American economy. And, it is being reflected in congressional and some business interest calls for punitive trade policies and stepped-up military and alliance activities.

Similarly, China’s leadership must also contend with leadership factions that believe American policy is aimed at suppressing China’s rise. Ironically, China may become a motivation for “Sputnik movement” – that is, America’s effort to address a host of issues that could improve the country’s competitive position.

See articles:
Real Clear Politics: Decline haunting Obama, America

Friday, January 28, 2011

Republican Presidential Race Wide Open

As President Obama launches his re-election with his State of the Union speech, a reorganized White House staff and new Chicago campaign headquarters, Republicans are just beginning their nomination process with no clear frontrunner – a first in recent history. As the wide-open Republican race begins, it’s not clear what will be the best type of candidate to oppose a revived Obama – someone from the populist or more establishment wing of the party.

Two recent polls show that the four candidates with best name identification are Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. Fox News is well represented with regular commentators: Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich. Mike Huckabee has high name recognition and the highest favorability whereas Sarah Palin is the best-known, but with a more negative image. But none of them, including Mitt Romney, get more than a fifth of the Republican vote.

In the same January poll, Obama is beating the top candidates by more than 10 points, so the national battle will be for the center, and the Republican challenge is to find a candidate after a national primary battle that will still be seen favorably by an independent voter.

A half a dozen other candidates have a point or two in early support, such as governors Perry, Daniels, Barbour and Pawlenty (former), Congressman Paul and Senator Thune.

A surprise name making the top rank is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who records 8 percent in the Washington Post/ABC poll. Christie has received a lot of early attention (especially on the Internet and non-traditional media) taking on the teachers union and being aggressive on cutting the New Jersey state budget. Republican voters may be looking for some fiery populism, but packaged in governing credentials.

The key to the race will be bringing together the party’s establishment wing and its very strong populist wing while avoiding a candidate with the inexperience or vulnerabilities of some of the November Tea Party candidates.

See Gallup poll:  Within GOP, Huckabee Liked, Palin Best-Known

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

State of Union and Obama Approval

After taking a shellacking in the midterm elections, President Obama’s approval rating has risen from the mid-40 percent range in November, to 50 percent in early January, and now to a high of 54 percent in the Washington Post/ABC News poll and 51 percent in the Gallup poll on the eve of the State of the Union.

This improvement is the result of the December compromise on the extension of Bush’s tax cuts (signed Dec. 17) and Obama’s handling of the Tucson shooting tragedy (speech Jan. 12).


Because of the success of the themes of compromise and civility, you can expect to hear this repeatedly in the speech tonight. Obama and his allies recognize that the aggressive liberal legislative agenda was the major contributor to their loss of the House and his low ratings.

Now, he will move back with a vengeance to the message of the 2008 campaign, which was labeled post-partisanship then and has been translated to civility today.

It generally works to the advantage of all incumbents, but Democrats are especially prone to use it as a club against their irritating foes on talk radio, Fox News and the Internet.

See latest polls:
Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval
Wall Street Journal: President’s Ratings Climb and NBC News/WSJ poll (Jan. 13-17, 2011)
Washington Post/ABC News poll (Jan. 13-16, 2011)

Monday, January 24, 2011

Colorado: The Democrats’ Model for 2012 Campaign

Colorado portends to become the most closely contested state in the 2012 presidential election. And, our state also serves as the model for how races in other swing states, such as Nevada, Ohio and North Carolina, will be fought.

Ron Brownstein, in a much cited National Journal piece on white flight from the Democratic Party, quotes David Axelrod’s view that Colorado Senator Michael Bennet’s race is a model for the entire 2012 strategy of putting together a revived Democratic base, especially the missing young voters, along with higher educated, higher income, suburban and new urban women voters, including Republican women.

Brownstein’s article highlights the Democrats’ 2012 election challenge. As the chart shows, Democrats lost substantial numbers of white voters in 2010 in many states that will be in play in 2012. Democrats’ share of white votes declined 30 percent in Florida, 17 percent in Ohio and 6 percent in Colorado.


For Axelrod, Colorado is the solution to the Democrats receiving less than 60 percent of white voters in 2010. The white working class in mid-western states turned away from Obama and Democrats to Republican governors, senators and congresspersons in 2010. Brownstein’s list of swing states includes Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada, Florida and Arizona. And in each of them, Democrats need to make up for a loss in working class voters by orchestrating a surge in the Democratic base and with a disproportionate share of white women.

Axelrod believes Obama can win a close re-election, much like Bennet’s two-point win in Colorado, but the race must be shifted from a referendum to a contest. Unfortunately for the Democrats, a vote for Obama is a referendum on his performance, but they are hoping for a Republican candidate made vulnerable by a contentious primary. As happened in the 2010 midterm in Colorado (and Nevada, Delaware, etc.), Axelrod hopes Republicans nominate a super social conservative who is not attractive to moderate women.

Also, like the midterm, the Democratic Party intends to have hundreds of millions to spend, along with independent committees, and hope to focus intensely on targeted voters with traditional and new media, much of it negative. But, Axelrod admits Obama must be “reset” (a favorite Obama team geek term). Obama is looking to recapture the unifying themes of the 2008 campaign (i.e., getting past partisanship, now translated as “civility”) and move sufficiently to the center – largely by reframing Democrats’ big government image to government having an “important, but limited role.” In this effort, of course, they benefit by having Nancy Pelosi and the California Democratic delegation out of control of the House.

Writes Brownstein:
“Axelrod…also made it clear that he sees as a ‘particularly instructive’ model for 2012 the case of Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado, who won his contest last fall by mobilizing enough minorities, young people, and socially liberal, well-educated white women to overcome a sharp turn toward the GOP among most of the other white voters in his state.”
“More specifically – and perhaps more revealingly – Axelrod also has his eye on the Colorado example, where the exit poll found that Bennet lost blue-collar white women by double digits and blue-collar white men by more than 2-to-1. Yet he prevailed by amassing strong support from young people, Hispanics, and other minorities; holding his deficit among college-educated white men to single digits; and routing Buck among college-educated white women. A similar formula, Axelrod suggests, could be available to Obama in 2012, especially if the Republican presidential primary process, as he expects, tugs the eventual GOP nominee toward the right. ‘The Bennet thing was particularly instructive,’ Axelrod said. ‘They made a big effort there not only among Hispanics but women. The contrast he drew with Buck was very meaningful. That’s why I say the gravitational pull of those Republican primaries is going to be very significant.’”
Dick Wadhams, the Colorado GOP chairman, gets considerable coverage in Brownstein’s piece representing the other side of the Colorado story. Needless to say, he’s skeptical of Obama’s ability to change his policies or image. Wadhams says, “I think a large majority of those voters are gone for good; I don’t know what he can do to change their impression of his view of government.”

But, Wadhams admits his party is vulnerable, and a state like Colorado could be lost if the Republican nominee is seen as extreme on social issues.

Brownstein writes:
“But Wadhams quickly adds that Obama might be able to persuade some of those voters to support him anyway in 2012 if Republicans select a nominee they find unacceptable, particularly on social issues. Wadhams has painful recent experience with that phenomenon: Despite widespread dissatisfaction with Washington, Bennet won reelection to the Senate last fall partly because so many white-collar Colorado suburbanites (especially women) found Ken Buck, his tea party-infused Republican opponent, too conservative on abortion and other issues. ‘If our presidential nominee in 2012…appears too extreme on abortion or gay marriage or some other social issue, there’s a slice of the electorate that clearly could go back to Obama,’ Wadhams worries.”
“Axelrod is thinking in similar terms…‘The hardest thing in politics is to be measured against yourself,’ he said. But in 2012, ‘these voters, and all voters, will be faced with a choice. And I view that as an opportunity.’”
Colorado will not only be a presidential frontline state, but provides a blueprint for the Democratic campaign to come. And, this strategy will begin to unfold at Tuesday’s State of the Union.

Udall Scores Points

After a mostly backbench existence for two years (elected in Nov. 2008), Colorado Senator Mark Udall finally reaches national exposure with a symbolic, but well-timed, gesture of the new bi-partisanship and civility that is characterizing the start of this 2011 Congress.

His proposal to have senators sit together without partisan distinction has captured the imaginations of politicians, commentators and people. It also will be a great visual metaphor at the top political spectral of the new Congress. Crowd panning TV coverage is made for discussion of the seating choices of members by news anchors and pundits. We will know Tuesday night the state of civility among the political class and woe to those who chose to maintain their old partisan ways. Their base may like it, and there may be some notoriety, but the theme de jure is “why can’t we just get along.”

The president tends to dominate the night, and Obama plans to launch his 2012 re-election on the themes of compromise (i.e., don’t mess with my agenda and first two years of legislation), civility (i.e., quiet down Rush, Shawn and Sarah) and jobs.

The night should produce good television and political theater.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Clinton Boosts Careers in Diplomacy and Development

Good news for DU’s Korbel School of International Studies.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s article in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs makes a comprehensive case for strengthening our nation’s civilian power to better balance and amplify U.S. objectives that are now mostly supported by U.S. military power.

She has added 1,100 Foreign Service and Civil Service officers. Also, USAID has added 1,200 new officers with skills in development. The University of Denver’s Korbel School of International Studies should be a major beneficiary of this new direction. The School’s strong background in diplomacy and development aligns well with careers in the government’s foreign policy institutions.

The State Department now describes its mission as twofold – diplomacy and development. Embassies are now multidimensional organizations that coordinate, facilitate and leverage a myriad of public and private groups and programs alongside their traditional diplomatic consultations.

Clinton advocates the use of metrics and has applied the Quadrennial Defense Review approach used by the military to create a like-purposed Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review for State and USAID departments to design and align their resources and strategies.

Her emphasis on evidence-based management and mission design, close partnership between diplomacy and development, and coordination across government agencies and with the military should create additional opportunities for careers in foreign affairs. Such opportunities are good news for DU’s Korbel School and with its programs, such as the Futures Institute and the emphasis on diplomacy and development.

Clinton is very cognizant of the importance of public opinion vs. leadership opinion, and she mentioned the application of new technology, such as cell phones and social media to communicate with the general public in foreign countries. Popular movements in Iran, Tunisia and Ukraine owe much to cell phones, the Internet and social media than to any traditional form of communication.

All in all, Clinton’s strategies portend a very robust future for careers in diplomacy and development and for schools like Korbel.

See Foreign Affairs, Volume 89, No. 6, November/December 2010
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Leading Through Civilian Power: Redefining American Diplomacy and Development

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Pueblo Will Lose Clout

The City of Pueblo grew very little the last 10 years. The city now has 108,909 residents, up 1,870 since 2000. Only Pueblo West showed any population growth the last 10 years, adding 10,418 residents to 27,596. The St. Charles Mesa, the home of the Ciruli family, has 9,056 residents. It added 159 residents since 2000.

In 1970, after I graduated from high school, Pueblo was slipping from its historic position as the second largest city in the state. City population was about 97,000 in 1970, and is now at 108,000. So while Pueblo was growing by 11 percent during the last 40 years, the state grew from 2.2 million to 5 million, or 127 percent (the county grew 50% since 1970).

Pueblo will continue to lose political clout in congressional and state legislative redistricting.