There's been a lot of ink spilled (what's the online equivalent of that metaphor? pixels used?) about the likely loss of the Senate to the Republicans. But those top of the ticket races might have less consequence, in some cases, than some of the down-ballot initiatives. The big winners today should have national consequences: Prop 47 in California (rolling back parts of Three Strikes) and minimum wage ballot measures.
Today there are initiatives in four deeply conservative states and are all expected to pass by large margins. In Arkansas, it shows support pushing 80 percent in one poll. There's not a politician in the country (except unopposed) who has that kind of support.
If raising the minimum wage has broad bipartisan support, can it really be considered a Democratic or a progressive issue? Well, not in terms of voters. But for lawmakers, it is. Does anyone think that it will be raised at the Federal level, whether or not Mitch McConnell takes over?
So the action is taking place in the states and cities. There, some Republicans get it, some don't. Consider Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has said he doesn't see the need for ANY minimum wage. That issue is not on the ballot in Wisconsin, but Walker's challenger, a Democrat, is strongly in favor of a living wage.
Then there's Arkansas. Both candidates are supporting the minimum wage increase on that ballot. Even the Club for Growth isn't opposing it there. Possibly not coincidentally, the Republican challenger, Tom Cotton, is favored to win that race. Could it be his support for the minimum wage ballot initiative that will push him over the top? Will other Republicans follow suit? I do recall that Mark Pryor was against the minimum wage increase before he was for it. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. But if that's true then Cotton basically stole the biggest winning issue from him.
On this week's episode of Labor Pains podcast, I talk with organizers from both Wisconsin and Arkansas about how the minimum wage might affect the rest of the ballot. Shameless plugging, but it's definitely on topic. And the point I make is, as in Wisconsin, even when the minimum wage is not on the ballot, it is a huge issue. Have Democrats taken full advantage of it? I don't think so, in many cases.
Today the Republicans will benefit from making this election about Barack Obama. I'm not sure why this will work but pundits believe it will. What have Democrats offered in response? "Obama who?" And, "I'm not as bad as the other guy." For the most part. With a few exceptions the arguments for why D's should win have been pretty thin.
I haven't heard much about the minimum wage -- or better, a living wage -- from D's in the big ticket races. Why? Did I miss it? Possibly: I haven't caught all of the state coverage from out here in CA. But if the majority of the voting public doesn't answer the question of what do the Democrats stand for, with "a living wage for all," then the Democratic party has committed electoral (and spiritual) malpractice.