I'm a big believer in the "two-electorates" theory which leads to the conclusion that for 2014 reduced Dem base (notably minority status and younger) midterm voting habits relative to increased Republican base (notably white seniors) midterm voting habits are a real problem. Put that with this being a 6 year midterm election which favors the out-of-presidency party, in particular in the Senate, where the Obama 08 wave-elected-red-state Senators are running, and you've got a recipe for disaster. For this reason most election modelers have Republicans modestly favored to get the 6 seats needed for control of the Senate, and also predict modest House gains.
There are reasons for optimism though. Because of the big 2010 midterm blowout, Democrats aren't as exposed as they might be in the House. In addition, some of the at risk Senate seats have pretty good Dem campaigners, and most Republican candidates have some amount of extremist baggage to exploit. To "reshape the electorate" Democrats are looking to engage the base on issues like minimum wage, student loans, and women's health. In addition to engaging on these issues, GOTV efforts such as the Bannock street project and the DCCC's African American outreach program. Some groups and campaigns have used Medicaid expansion as a weapon for turnout, and 7/10 red state battlegrounds (AK,GA,LA,KS,MT,NC,SD) have not expanded Medicaid. In addition to loudly supporting expansion in states that haven't, Dems could also be doing more pinning down Republicans in battlegrounds where Medicaid has been expanded (such as CO, IA, AR, KY, and WV). Do that, sprinkle in some impeachment/lawsuit motivation, and maybe some Big Dog and you've made a decent case that Democrats may turn out the base more than a usual midterm year. If not quite the "kitchen sink" strategy, as Greg Sargent puts it, it's pretty close. In addition, I continue to hope that somehow this whole Citizens United crap will backfire and tilt things in the direction of "presidentializing" the electorate due to all the increased spending (kind of like what may have happened with Koch advertising and ACA signups). In theory, if our base turned out as well proportional to their base we'd maybe lose on net only 2-3 seats in the Senate (given the 6 year curse which can't be fixed) and maybe break even in the House.
But how about doing more than "hanging on til 2016" (when all these structural factors will be reversed, including a very favorable Senate map)? It seems like there's a decent opening this year for that. The generic house vote is about even (in 2010 Republicans were up by 6 at this point and won the House vote by almost 7), with as yet no sign of a Republican wave. And most importantly, Republicans are so increasingly in the service of Tea Party ideology that they are vulnerable on almost every issue. To capitalize, we need to drink their milkbase-shake. And seniors/near-seniors are the shake. More on that after the jump.
The midterm falloff problem
And there is the problem (graph from
Cook Political Report). The biggest part of the solution of course is to shrink the open gaps to look more like presidential years by turning out the base. But you
don't even need to shrink those gaps if more older Americans vote for Democrats.
I distinctly remember my parents coming to town for a visit not long after the Affordable Care Act was passed. They seemed a bit out of sorts and I learned that they had just been "informed" (via an email) that under Obamacare they'd be denied cancer treatment after the age of 72, and had even a page number of the bill to reference (one of many myths my tea party uncle had emailed around). The GOP has been winning seniors with fear and lies (or in many cases self-deluded inaccuracies). Before the midterms in 2002 it was WMD in Iraq, before the 2010 midterms it was death panels and how Obamacare "gutted medicare." Seniors voted for the GOP by 61-39 in the 2010 midterms, but it's not like Democrats can't win Seniors in the "whiter" midterm electorate. Just look at 2006, where 52% of seniors voted for Democrats, when we benefitted from the 6 year curse, the Iraq war, and significantly I think, Bush's attempted privatization of social security.
No, I don't think we need to make up stuff about GOP candidates' positions and votes on Medicare and Social Security to win seniors. The truth is scary enough. To paraphrase Truman, we just need to show seniors the truth about the GOP, and they'll realize the GOP is Hell,…or something like that.
With some further ado, here are 10 key Senate races, with legislative scores from the Alliance for Retired Americans (ARA), and key statements or votes taken highlighting the impacts on seniors. Take THAT NRA scorecard! This score should be every bit as talked about as that one. The National Committee for the Preservation of Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) voting guide, if they every get around to sending it out, should be similar. It's also worth continuing to point out that those who advocate/vote for repeal of the ACA advocate/voting for reopening the medicare donut hole (I'm a physician, and whether a senior is in the "donut hole" is a daily discussion), and is also to advocate/vote for for charging seniors for preventative health care such as vaccinations, bone density, heart, and cancer screenings. Please note that I have a link summary at the bottom for key votes/budget descriptions.
Alaska:
Begich has a 94% lifetime ARA score. He voted for the ACA, to provide free preventative health care such as vaccinations and cancer screenings for seniors, and voted to close the medicare prescription "donut hole" by 2020. He has introduced the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act, which would extend Social Security solvency indefinitely while increasing Social Security benefits through better inflation adjustment. Cosponsored the Medicare Protection Act (see Pryor info).
Sullivan has no legislative record, but has vowed to repeal the ACA, and reopen the "donut hole", while denying seniors free preventative health care. He is endorsed by the Club for Growth, which, of course, recommends privatizing Social Security and turning Medicare into a voucher program. Does he agree with their position? I'm sure he did when he interviewed seeking their endorsement, whether he'd admit it is another question. Someone should be asking...
Arkansas:
Pryor has a 92% lifetime ARA score, and voted to eliminate the Medicare donut hole and fund free preventative health care for Seniors. Wrote the Medicare Protection Act, to prevent the voucherizing of Medicare or the raising of the eligibility age.
Cotton: Lifetime 10% ARA score. No need to ask this candidate if he supports the Club for Growth agenda (he's also been endorsed by them). He actually voted for the FY 2014 Club for Growth Republican Study Budget. Meaning he voted to voucherize Medicare, raise the Medicare eligibility age to 70, cut Social Security benefits, and raise the Social Security retirement age to 70. He did the same in voting for the FY 2015 RSC budget (though "only" raised Medicare eligibility to 67). Also has pledged (and voted for in RSC budgets) to repeal the ACA, reopening the Medicare donut hole and raising costs on Seniors trying to get vaccines and cancer screening.
Colorado:
Udall has a 100% ARA score in 2013, and voted to eliminate the Medicare donut hole and fund free preventative health care for seniors.
Gardner sports a 10% ARA score in 2013. He voted for the 2011 Ryan Budget, meaning that he voted to raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67, and turn Medicare into a voucher program, not indexed to health inflation, and estimated by the CBO to eventually more than double the out of pocket expenditures of seniors. Then in 2013 he voted for the aforementioned FY 2014 Republican Study Committee budget, meaning he voted to voucherize Medicare, raise the Medicare eligibility age to 70, cut Social Security benefits, and raise the Social Security retirement age to 70. He did the same in voting for the FY 2015 RSC budget (though "only" raised Medicare eligibility to 67). Also has pledged (and voted for in RSC budgets) to repeal the ACA, reopening the Medicare donut hole and raising costs for current seniors trying to get vaccines and cancer screening.
Georgia:
Nunn: No voting record. This from her campaign website: "We must undertake bipartisan entitlement reform to preserve Medicare and Social Security for those currently in or near retirement, take action to strengthen these programs for the future." Sounds like she is hedging away (at best) on that one, but at least she's a D. Supports keeping ACA in place, thereby closing the donut hole for Medicare prescription plans and preserving free preventative health care. Stated "I refuse to privatize Social Security or Medicare."
Perdue: Seems more concerned with debt than Medicare or SS benefits:
"But we have another $86 to $100 trillion dollars coming at us in future federal unfunded liabilities related to Social Security, Medicare and pension and benefits for federal employees. It’s unconscionable. And it’s coming at us.”
Perdue’s solution is honoring the obligations to anyone already receiving Social Security benefits, but changing the benefits for anyone coming into the workforce.
“Their deal is going to have to be different,” he said.
Perdue would make the same changes to Medicare.
Supports the repeal of the ACA, and would therefore reopen the Medicare donut hole and cut seniors' preventative care benefits.
Iowa:
Braley has a 99% lifetime ARA score. Endorsed by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security (NCPSSM) and Medicare PAC. Worked to make sure paper printouts on benefits were still available to seniors from the Social Security Administration. Voted for the ACA, to close the prescription drug donut hole, and provide for free vaccinations and cancer screening for seniors.
Ernst supports at least some privatization of Social Security. Supports preserving current recipients access, but for the rest of us ?
Kansas:
A quick glance at Greg Orman's website doesn't mention Medicare/Social Security. Can't find any quotes about it either. Time to stake your claim Greg and draw a contrast for Kansas seniors. Also no mention of repeal or not repealing ACA which likely means not in favor of repeal. He has criticized Brownback for not expanding Medicaid.
Pat Roberts has a 6% lifetime ARA score. Voted to begin privatizing Social Security, (Senate amendment see top issue at this link). Has signed pledge to repeal the ACA, thereby widening the Medicare prescription donut hole and ending seniors' access to free vaccinations, as well as cancer and cardiovascular screening.
Kentucky:
Grimes has a decent issues section pushing against privatization, vouchers or cost shifting to Seniors. Has avoided discussing Obamacare repeal, but states that McConnel would push seniors back into the donut hole, suggesting she's against it. She could really contrast herself better here.
McConnell 6% lifetime ARA score, 0% in 2013. Has vowed to repeal Obamacare, thereby denying seniors access to free vaccinations, as well as cancer and cardiovascular screening. He would indeed push seniors back into the donut hole. He voted in the Senate to proceed on the 2011 Ryan budget, which would voucherize Medicare and raise the eligibility age to 67, and estimated by the CBO to eventually more than double the out of pocket expenditures of seniors. Grimes attacked on this issue, but her ad was fact-checked as false, mostly because it implied current seniors would be affected, and Ryan's plan only affected 55 and unders.
Lousiana:
Landrieu 85% lifetime ARA, 100% 2013. Voted to expand seniors access to affordable cancer and heart screening, as well as to close the medicare donut hole, via the affordable care act.
Cassidy sports an ARA score of 6% lifetime, 0% for 2013. He voted for the 2011 Ryan Budget, meaning that he voted to raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67, and turn Medicare into a voucher program, not indexed to health inflation, and estimated by the CBO to eventually more than double the out of pocket expenditures of seniors. In 2013 he voted for the aforementioned Republican Study Committee budget, meaning he voted to voucherize Medicare, cut Social Security benefits, and raise the Social Security retirement age to 70. He did the same in voting for the FY 2015 RSC budget (though "only" raised Medicare eligibility to 67). Also has pledged (and voted for in RSC budgets) to repeal the ACA, reopening the Medicare donut hole and raising costs on Seniors trying to get vaccines and cancer screening.
North Carolina
Hagan ARA score is 90% 2013, 86% lifetime. Voted to close the donut hole and provide free preventative care screening for seniors with the ACA. Has vowed to never voucherize Medicare or privatize social security. Her page on seniors is the kind of page all Dems should have.
Tillis "eagerly embraced" the 2011 Ryan Budget which would have voucherized Medicare. When asked if he supported Medicare vouchers "he punted".
West Virginia:
Tennant: Opposes privatizing or cutting benefits to social security or voucherizing Medicare.
Capito sports a 10% 2013, 18% lifetime ARA score. Voted for the 2011 Ryan Budget, meaning that she voted to raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67, and turn Medicare into a voucher program, not indexed to health inflation, and estimated by the CBO to eventually more than double the out of pocket expenditures of seniors.
In sum
If you can see a pattern here, it's that Democrats are pretty good on seniors issues, Republicans are terrible. They're dependent on seniors, yet vulnerable - David Atkins' glass jaw analogy is apt. When Karl Rove is running ads trying to manufacture attacks from the left, you know there's something there. To be clear, some Democratic candidates and the DSCC are pushing hard on these issues, while some have taken potshots or focused on other areas, and others don't seem to be doing much at all to bring the extremists to light.
Bottom line, if you voted for one or more Ryan budgets, you've taken an extremist position that would voucherize medicare and raise the retirement age. If you voted for one or more RSC budgets (I'm looking at you Cassidy/Gardner/Cotton), you are a far out radical on these issues, and we owe it to the nation to make sure everyone over the age of 40 knows it. Don't think you can get away with the ole "doesn't apply to current seniors". For one, we're all planning for retirement. For two, current seniors oppose cuts that are for future retirees (there are even better data than this that I can't find, a little help?). For three, your planned medicare benefit cuts via ACA repeal ARE for current seniors.
So come on Democrats (and independents who may caucus with Democrats),let's drink their base-shake! There are strong contrasts that can easily be drawn, and woe to those who don't draw them. And a true "kitchen sink" strategy, is not the same as a "see what sticks" strategy. A strong campaign should have all Americans over 40 dreaming every night about reduced benefits and raised eligibility ages. Has Mark Pryor slipped in the polls a bit lately? Well, he had some great Medicare ads in the spring, and lately near crickets on seniors issues - coincidence?? (BTW Nate Cohn says Dems in AK who do well over perform on seniors relative to elsewhere -same link). Senator Pryor, how about mentioning your and his contrasting ARA scores, and not just Cotton's twice voting on raising the the eligibility age for Medicare (and voucherizing), but also how Tom Cotton voted twice to raise the Social Security retirement age, and twice to cut SS benefits? And how he would reopen the Medicare donut hole you're trying to close? And how he'd make seniors pay more out of pocket for vaccinations, cancer and heart screening? Now that's what I'm talking about.
If a Dem candidate can't figure out a way in every debate to mention how many times your opponent has voted to privatize/voucherize/cut/raise retirement ages for Medicare and Social Security, cut current senior donut hole/preventative care benefits then you don't deserve to win. Everyone over 40 in your state/district should know about just how radical the modern GOP is on seniors' issues.
While there's no way we can pull 60% of seniors given the current climate, and the RW noise machine, a bloody draw or near draw, won vote by vote, could make 2014 a solid midterm for our side.
GOTV links are below, don't forget to see where your candidates stand on Medicare/Social Security, a little info can go a long way...If anyone knows info on how to volunteer for Bannock Street GOTV, let me know, I don't see a website...
DSCC
DCCC
Here are also the links to key budgets and roll calls of relevance (nb the year of voting is 1 year prior to budget FY), as well as the ARA voting scores.
ARA vote scorecard
Ryan FY2012 Budget Medicare effects summary
House Roll Call
Senate Roll Call motion to proceed
Ryan FY2015 Budget Medicare effects summary
House Roll Call
RSC FY 2012 Budget
Roll Call
RSC FY 2013 Budget
Roll Call
RSC FY 2014 Budget
Roll Call
RSC FY 2015 Budget
Roll Call