Latest Updates
At least in principle, some of America’s most prominent chief executives support debt-reduction measures that sounds much like what Obama has proposed.
Swing voters care about deficit reduction, and while both candidates have said they would make cutting the debt a priority, they've differed on how to go about it. So when the CEOs who signed a letter his week pledging to push for a bipartisan debt deal look at the options before them for president, they are faced with some pretty stark and perhaps unexpected choices.
The fact is, Mitt Romney simply does not have a comprehensive blend of belt-tightening and revenue-generating measures prepared to address what both parties agree is one of the nation’s most pressing problems. Sure, bipartisanship sounds good, but in this case it also just makes sense – no one is going to get the deficit down without cribbing from both parties’ agendas.
In my latest CNN column, I detail some of the problems with the Republican ticket’s proposals:
“This aspect of Romney’s plan is so politically driven and math-illiterate that Paul Ryan doesn’t even like to acknowledge it on the campaign trail. Moreover, it’s worth remembering that the politically convenient model of huge tax cuts and higher spending pursued by President George W. Bush and embraced by Republicans during his administration turned Clinton-era surpluses into deficits.”
That’s why, when the moderate-minded businessmen took a look at the two tickets, hopes for a united solution to the debt lie with the Democrats:
“It may sound counterintuitive, but according to the outlines established by the CEOs, Obama’s reelection would actually be better for achieving long-term deficit reduction – because he is the only candidate who has put forward a balanced bipartisan plan.”
Read my full column at CNN.
Hidden donors and near-total dominance by conservatives in the shadowy outside-money arena should be chilling to anyone who believes in open democracy conducted on a level playing field, writes John Avlon.
The Super-PAC October Surprise is here with unprecedented negative spending – and an overwhelming advantage for conservative shadow money groups flooding the airwaves against Democratic candidates.
J. Scott Applewhite / AP Photo
Total non-party outside spending is now estimated by the Center for Responsive Politics to exceed over $1 billion this cycle—twice what the group estimated would be spent as recently as August. And dark money spending from non-disclosing groups has just passed $200 million in this election—more than every other election cycle over the past 20 years combined.
If you think the political ads are uglier than ever before, it’s not your imagination: 88% of the ads airing now from outside groups are negative, and four-fifths of those negative ads are attacks on Democrats. Just three conservative groups—the Karl Rove-founded Crossroads GPS, the Koch Brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—account for more spending than the next 17 outside groups combined.
So much for the naïve belief that dark money wouldn’t have a distorting impact on this election.
The overwhelming advantage for conservatives is clear when the below graph developed by OpenSecrets.org is taken into account:
John Avlon runs through the overheated, often unhinged obsessively anti-Obama canon. PLUS: An interactive stroll through the hate.
Welcome to the Obama Haters Book Club—a parallel universe of fear mongering for fun and profit.
Over the past four years, no less than 89 obsessively anti-Obama books have been published, as now catalogued by The Daily Beast. I’m not talking about cool statements of policy difference, but overheated and often unhinged screeds painting a picture of the president as a dangerous radical hell-bent on undermining the Republic by any means necessary. It is hate and hyper-partisan paranoia masquerading as high-minded patriotism.
Here’s the worst part—this steady drumbeat of incitement is having an impact on this presidential election because it has poisoned the well of civic discourse for many voters and those in their radius of damage. It has helped divide the nation beyond reason, distorting the president’s real record beyond all recognition.
By their very nature, books offer the promise of education and enlightenment. These conspiracy entrepreneurs prey on the prejudices of their audience. This is high-priced hardcover bile, boasting titles like:
The Communist; The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration; Where’s the Birth Certificate?; The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and other Anti-American Extremists; The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama’s War on the Republic; Trickle Down Tyranny: Crushing Obama’s Dream of the Social States of America; Gangster Government: Barack Obama and the New Washington Thugocracy; How Obama Embraces Islam’s Sharia Agenda; The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America; To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular Socialist Machine; The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency; and what is still my personal favorite title: Whiny Little Bitch: The Excuse Filled Presidency of Barack Obama.
The titles themselves suggest palpable weirdness and un-wellness, a departure from reality commensurate with joining a cult. But the authors are not all fringe figures nervously typing up pamphlets in their basement. They include former elected officials, administration appointees, and at least one presidential candidate among with the parade of professional polarizers and right-wing shock jocks. You can check out our interactive gallery to figure out who is who, with their books helpfully divided into subject areas: Economy, Security, Media, HealthCare and, by far the most popular, Dangerous Radical.
They’ve been able to spread their message and make a lot of money in the process by hitting the hyper-partisan circuit with high-profile help. A stunning 56 of the authors in the Obama Haters Book Club have been featured on Fox News according to Lexis-Nexis searches, giving them valuable mass media exposure, the opportunity to preach to the conservative choir and sell books by the boatload.
The Obama campaign appears to be banking on making up its loss of white voters by drawing more Hispanics, but betting something as big as reelection on increased diversity could backfire, says John Avlon.
Demographics are destiny, but Team Obama may be taking that a bit too literally.
Play-to-the-base campaigns are particularly risky for Democrats given that only 21 percent of Americans identify as liberal, but the Obama campaign has staked its reelection on an even more elusive target—the evolution of the American electorate.
As he continues his bus tour until Election Day, John Avlon joins CNN to discuss President Obama's recent remarks to the Des Moines Register about his edge among Latino voters.
President Obama admitted as much in his now on-the-record comments to the Des Moines Register, saying “a big reason I will win a second term is because the Republican nominee and the Republican Party have so alienated the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community.”
It is true that Mitt Romney and the current incarnation of the Republican Party have unwisely alienated Hispanic voters to an unprecedented extent. But it is unclear that betting something as big as a reelection on increased diversity is a wise decision in the short run.
There is a real risk that the Obama campaign has based too much of its electoral strategy on where the country will be in 2016 or 2020 rather than where it is in 2012.
In a must-read analysis this week, Ron Brownstein pointed out the uncomfortable fact that President Obama is lagging badly among white voters, gaining less than the necessary 40 percent threshold in recent polls. There are just not enough Hispanic and African-American voters to compensate for a massive loss of white support for Obama in the U.S.A. today. That’s one reason the campaign keeps deploying Bill Clinton, to great effect—it badly needs more of the Bubba vote.
Here’s where things stand in the swing states in terms of diversity:
The day’s essential reads for independents and centrists.
Independent Nation gives you four must reads for independents and centrists for Wednesday, October 24.
1. “Donald Trump: The Frankenstein of Media,” at Salon.
Stroke the Donald’s steroidal ego, President Obama, and release your college applications and passport records so that some charity can receive $5 million. Azi Paybarah on how the world’s looniest tycoon-turned-conspiracy theorist found a new way to hit rock bottom.
2. “Larry King Presides Over Grab-Bag Third-Party Presidential Debate,” at The Daily Beast.
Paulistas, performances artists, kids who can’t vote, and Al Jazeera all showed up when Larry King moderated a debate with the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green party candidates.
3. “How Bill Clinton May Have Hurt the Obama Campaign,” in The New York Times.
Did Bill Clinton lead the Obama campaign astray by advising that they hang the hardcore conservative noose around the Republican nominee’s neck?
4. “What Obama Said About Immigration in His Off-the-Record Interview,” in The New York Times.
The day’s essential reads for independents and centrists.
Independent Nation gives you 5 must reads for independents and centrists for Tuesday, October 23
1. “Romney Says He’s Winning – It’s a Bluff,” at New York magazine.
Can he fake it ‘til he makes it? Romney’s recent swagger is all a projection, writes Jonathan Chait, a ploy to make it look like he’s doing better than he really is. From the Romney campaign's much ado in North Carolina turning out to be a whole lot of nothing to a media-op rally in Pittsburgh, is Romney’s “momentum” little more than a last-minute bluff?
Read more at NYMag.com.
2. “Mauled by Ads, Incumbents Look to Declaw Outside Groups,” in The New York Times.
Could incumbent Republicans end up being the key opponents to the spreading influence of dark money? Though they’ve long stood steadfast against restrictions on deep-pocketed Americans letting their cash speak for them, Republican legislators fighting for their political lives against upstarts with super PAC-backing may now start speaking out against post-Citizens United campaign finance. Whether or not they will be able to turn that resistance into legislation is another matter.
Read more at The New York Times.
3. “Religion, Race and Double Standards,” at The Daily Beast.
Tim Russert once asked Mitt Romney how he felt about the fact that until the age of 31 the now-presidential candidate belonged to a church that did not recognize its black male members as full participants. It’s time to ask that difficult question about Mormonism again, writes The Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan. “Look: every religion has these stains in its past,” Sullivan writes. All the more reason to talk about them.
With two weeks until the election, CNN sent John Avlon and their chief business correspondent Ali Velshi on the road to take the temperature among swing-state voters.
See it at CNN.
Are candidates nationwide digging in the knife farther than ever before? And who can reverse the trend?
See it at CNN.
Romney shifted his emphasis on key overseas issues in the third presidential debate, embracing White House positions he once disparaged, writes Matt DeLuca.
Mitt Romney hardly recanted his critique of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy record in Monday night’s debate, blaming the president for “tumult” in the Middle East and for what he called American weakness in the world. But on several key issues, the Republican—introducing his foreign policy views to low-information voters just now tuning in to the race and hearing his views—shifted his emphasis from outright condemnation of the administration into a surprising alignment with it.
Romney supported Obama’s timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan, which he’d previously deemed feckless and dangerous, said the sanctions the administration has applied are the right approach to Iran, and sounded less hawkish about a trade war with China.
Here’s a rundown of Romney’s shifting rhetoric, then and now:
1. Afghanistan
Then: “What’s happening right now is an example of failed leadership. The president put out a specific time table for withdrawal of our troops, a time table for the end of combat operations. This is leading Mr. Karzai to take action that is self-preservation in nature. The president needs to be more engaged.” – March 18, 2012 on Fox News.
Debate: “Well, we’re going to be finished by 2014. And when I’m president, we’ll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014. The commanders and the generals are on track to do so. We’ve seen progress over the past several years. The surge has been successful, and the training program is proceeding apace.”
2. Iran
Then: “America and the world face a strikingly similar situation today; only even more is at stake. The same Islamic fanatics who took our diplomats hostage are racing to build a nuclear bomb. Barack Obama, America’s most feckless president since Carter, has declared such an outcome unacceptable, but his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy.” – March 5, 2012 in a Washington Post op-ed.
The day’s essential reads for independents and centrists.
Independent Nation gives you five must reads for independents and centrists for Monday, October 22.
1. “The Final Push,” in The New Yorker.
From a luxe headquarters in Chicago to a room with folding chairs in Nevada, the Obama campaign’s drive to the finish is all about ground game, and the foundation was laid in December of 2008. Ryan Lizza visits the president’s 2012 reelection campaign in some of the states where every vote will matter.
Read more in The New Yorker.
2. “Why Partisans Can’t Explain Their Views,” in The New York Times.
Call it the Paul Ryan Effect. Wonkish politicians, and even those who simply assert something without rattling off a ledger full of numbers, give the “illusion of explanatory depth” to people who are already going to vote for them anyway, write two researchers. It’s why partisans think they know what they think, but often have so much trouble supporting their beliefs with arguments. It’s also why party politics rots the brain.
Read more in The New York Times.
3. “The Digital Campaign,” at FRONTLINE.
Outspent 10 to 1 in a tight race in Minnesota’s most conservative congressional district, businessman Jim Graves is polling well with independent voters, writes John Avlon.
Meet the man who could defeat Michele Bachmann.
Jim Graves is a 58-year-old self-made Minnesota businessman and grandfather of seven, still married to his high-school sweetheart, running against a symbol of unhinged hyperpartisanship in the halls of Congress. Bachmann’s bizarre presidential run only highlighted what an awkward fit she is for the common sense civility that characterizes “Minnesota Nice.”
But she’s never faced a truly competitive opponent, despite a string of narrow wins—and that’s changed this time around.
“I started my first company in a basement with $2,000 in the bank, and I’ve been able to create thousands of jobs,” says Graves, who started the mid-scale AmericInn hotel chain. “I’m a person who understands the economy and has built real businesses on Main Street. Now I want to give something back. I’ll be a good ambassador for the district. And you can juxtapose that against Michele Bachmann—someone who’s divisive and antagonistic, ridicules our president, and spreads fear and division.”
“My policy approach transcends political lines,” Graves says. “I’m a centrist, a libertarian when it comes to social issues—I don’t think government should be involved with personal lives. I really believe in separation of church and state. Bachmann wants to blur those lines—she would [replace] our democracy with a theocracy … She epitomizes everything that’s wrong with Congress and this country—a lack of civility, a lack of bipartisan or nonpartisan approach to problem solving.”
Polls show the race is now neck and neck—with 48 percent for Bachmann and 46 percent for Graves and the remaining still undecided, according to a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll (outside polling also shows Graves close behind, within single digits). Crucially, independent voters now lean toward Graves by a 15-point margin. Now the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is backing Graves in his campaign, showing it is very much in play.
But this is the most conservative district in Minnesota, compounded by redistricting. Moreover, Bachmann has been a successful conspiracy entrepreneur—raising millions of dollars in campaign donation by throwing out extreme statements—such as questioning how many fellow congressmen have “anti-American” views (to use one mild example)—and then fundraising off it by playing the victim.
In swing states, the Obama camp has opened twice as many offices, but the RNC might help Romney compete on Election Day, report John Avlon and Michael Keller.
Beyond the presidential debates, one final factor matters more than all the rest in a close race: ground game.
It’s the ability to get your voters to the polls—a way of moving soft support into actual votes.
Field operatives have been undervalued in recent years, as the focus of campaigns has shifted to big-money ad-bombs, compounded by the super-PAC economy. But this presidential campaign is going to come down to a few percentage points in a half dozen states, and suddenly ground game is about to get a lot of respect.
So The Daily Beast decided to map out the Obama and Romney local headquarters across the country as one way of gauging the strength of each campaign’s ground game. And what we found was an overwhelming advantage—755 to 283—by the Obama campaign on at least this one metric.
In the key swing states of this election the numbers are stark:
In Ohio, 122 Obama local HQs compared to 40 for Romney.
In Florida, the Obama campaign has 102 local HQs versus 48 for Romney.
The day’s essential reads for independents and centrists.
Independent Nation gives you nine must reads for independents and centrists for Thursday, October 18.
1. “Bloomberg Starts ‘Super PAC,’ Seeking National Influence,” in The New York Times
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to use a new super PAC to take his pro-same-sex marriage, pro-gun control message national, pouring between ten to fifteen million dollars into efforts in the final weeks of the 2012 campaign cycle to get candidates of either or no party who support those policies elected.
Read more in The New York Times.
2. “Officials: Obama Ready to Veto a Bill Blocking ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Without a Tax Hike For Rich,” in The Washington Post
The 1 percent is going to have to pony up, or President Obama will veto any bill that blocks the fiscal cliff, according to administration officials. It’s a bold move from Obama, but a carefully calculated one – if he wins in November, he may have secured the upper hand in new debt-reduction talks, and if he loses, a veto could ensure higher tax rates before a newly elected Romney takes office.
Read more in The Washington Post.
3. “Demographic Dead End? Barack Obama’s Single Nation,” in The Daily Beast
The day’s essential reads for independents and centrists.
Independent Nation gives you 7 must reads (and one extra) for independents and centrists for Wednesday, October 17.
1. “Manufacturing Jobs Aren’t Coming Back, No Matter Who’s President,” at NPR
The decline in manufacturing jobs has continued on a bipartisan basis, moving downward under Presidents Obama, Bush fils, Clinton, Bush père, and Reagan alike, reports NPR’s Planet Money. Technology and globalization, neither of which will appear on November ballots, are to blame for the decline in American manufacturing jobs, and those trends will continue no matter who holds the reins of government.
Read more at NPR.
2. “Romney Ad Casts Candidate as Moderate on Abortion,” at CNN
A new ad casting Mitt Romney as an abortion moderate appeared on Washington, D.C. televisions the morning after the second presidential debate. The ad depicts a woman who does online searches on Mitt Romney’s abortion stance and finds out that the Republican candidate “doesn’t oppose contraception at all.” The only people more surprised to learn about Mitt the prophylactic moderate were likely the folks at Planned Parenthood and Cardinal Timothy Dolan.
Read more at CNN.
3. “A Brief History of ‘Trickle-Down Government,’” at The New Republic
Among key swing voters in Ohio, the difference an energy boom has made in their local economy may be the final factor at the polls.
I spent the weekend in Ohio, and filed this report for CNN on how a natural gas energy boom in the bellwether northeastern region of the state is the final factor for many swing voters in the area.
Their votes may break down to simple but changing realities about dollars and acres:
“For decades, the economic news here has been grim. Once the breadbasket and manufacturing backbone of the nation, Ohio has been hit hard by outsourcing while family farms have been under constant pressure.
“But a bright spot has suddenly emerged after decades of struggle, an energy boom brought on by natural gas and oil wells. Suddenly, local farmland that had been worth $15 per acre six years ago was valued at $5,800 per acre and leases allow farmers to keep a portion of the royalties if oil and gas are found.”
Among the swing voter farmers of Carroll County, this energy boom – and the struggles residents faced before it brought life back to their local economy – is the final factor when they look at the two presidential candidates.
“I don’t think they know what the real world lives like,” Paul Naylor, a retired power company worker, told me. “You can’t ever know if you have an elevator in your garage and know what the real world lives like. Really? Can you? I would like to see either one of ‘em try to make it on a salary of people around here. They couldn’t do it.”
Read the full report at CNN.
About the Author
John Avlon
John Avlon is senior columnist for Newsweek and The Daily Beast, and the host of Beast TV. He is a CNN contributor regularly appearing on the show Erin Burnett Out Front at 7 p.m. EST. He won the National Society of Newspaper Columnists’ award for best online column in 2012.
Avlon: Government Has 'Proper' Regulation Role
Last week's tragic fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas, has brought the issue of government regulation back to the forefront. On Friday night's Real Time with Bill Maher, The Daily Beast's Political Director John Avlon denounces deregulation rhetoric.
Unlimited Funds
Probing the Super-PAC Economy
The Dark Money Shuffle
The strange, opaque world of politically minded nonprofits. By John Avlon and Michael Keller.
See More Politics
From The Daily Beast
Heritage Widens Immigration Split
Jim DeMint’s new hard-right outfit is threatening any Republican considering a ‘yes.’ By Eleanor Clift.
