Key 2008

I'm not referring to tomorrow's final contest - although we can safely estimate that this could be a landslide win for Obama.  What I'm referring to is that regardless of the outcome of the election, Barack Obama has caused a major shift in the electoral map, and the shift means a fundamental change in the politics of this country.

Barack Obama has changed the culture of politics.  He's changed the culture of politics because he's formed an entirely new "base" of supporters (millenials, Hispanics, and many independents), he's recruited record numbers of organizers and an unprecedented grass-roots structure, and he's been able to get people to participate in the democratic process at record levels, as evidenced by the results of early voting this year.  We're seeing an electoral map that could change politics for 20-30 years, with Iowa going for a Democrat, and former Republican strongholds like Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, and Florida flipping, or at least becoming battleground states. 

Barack's new political movement raised about $600 million total, and drew from 3.2 million individual donors - a record level. This campaign has transformed thousands of communities-and revolutionized the way organizing itself will be understood and practiced for at least the next generation.  Regardless who governs, Obama has created an organization at the community level that, instead of being based on X leadership roles to fill, it has created leadership roles for as many leaders as there are.  Thus creating a solid, durable, series of existing networks.  And these networks will remain, so that they can become mobilized once again, for any cause.  A note on college organizers put it best:

So we have people in charge of whatever they ARE. We are saying, ‘What's your social network?' We say, ‘OK, you're The Balcony Coordinator-your job is to go party at Balcony [a local bar] every weekend-like you do anyways-but now wear a Barack Obama button-and bring voter reg forms.

Millenials and the largest minority - Hispanics - comprise a large portion of this new coalition.  To me, that means that Latinos and Latinas are not only participating civically, but they are now volunteering and organizing for a campaign in record numbers. 

Another great success story of the 2008 campaign and a reflection of this "new culture" of politics, is the overall success of early voting.  In spite of the glitches and long lines, throughout the country, Americans have cast early votes at a pace that far eclipses past performance.

This is owed in part to the important push on the part of the Obama campaign to encourage early voting.  Barack Obama has invested far more heavily in turning out early votes than past Democratic nominees and that effort has provided results.  Nationally, Barack Obama is ahead 59%-40% among early voters.  Analysts say that 1 in 3 of all voters have voted early, up from 22.5 percent in 2004 and just 7 percent in 1992.

Democrats and Republicans voted in roughly equal numbers. That, however, represents a departure from 2004, when many more Republicans than Democrats cast ballots before election day.  Republicans won the battle for absentee votes, but Democrats won among those voting in person.

Florida is a striking example of this. Republicans were voting at a heavier pace in the absentee ballots, but the number of in-person votes cast exceeded the number of absentees.  38% of all Florida voters have cast ballots - 4.2-million votes - and 331,274 more Democrats voted early than Republicans.  Another 710,066 independents have voted.

In Colorado, the number of early votes cast equals slightly more than half of the total number of votes cast -- early and on Election Day - in 2004.

In Nevada, Democrats have cast 225,670 of the 438,129 ballots (51.5%) in the two most populous counties, Las Vegas's Clark County and Reno's Washoe.  Republicans cast 31.3% with the remainder cast by Independents.  Those two counties account for about 90% of the state's turnout.  Early voting is expected to make up 60% of the Silver State's 2008 ballots. Andres was quoted in the Wall Street Journal, pointing out:

John McCain will need to nab between 75% to 80% of the Independent vote, a tall order given that Nevada polling shows nothing like that level of support. He also would need about 12% to 15% of the Democratic vote, perhaps an easier prospect.

In North Carolina, 2,573,206, or about 41% of the state's 6,232,230 registered voters have voted early, and the vote breaks down as a little over 51% Democrats and about 30% Republicans.  The rest were unaffiliated or libertarian.

In Georgia, more than one million people have voted, a big jump from the less than 500,000 people who voted early four years ago. 

Early voting actually makes it harder for attempts to disenfranchise voters to stop eligible voters from casting ballots.  Dirty tricks are also harder to pull off.  If political operatives want to jam get-out-the-vote telephone lines, as they did on Election Day in New Hampshire in 2002, it would be harder to do if people voted over two weeks.  Early voting also reduces the burden on election systems that are often stretched near to the breaking point.  In 2004, voters waited in lines as long as 10 hours. And there is every indication that lines on Tuesday, in some places and at some times, will again be extraordinarily long.  The more people who vote early, the fewer who will be lined up at the polls on Election Day.

With evident success of early-voting, the states that have not adopted it - including New York - should do so.  Congress should also mandate early voting for federal elections - ideally as part of a larger federal bill that would fix the wide array of problems with the electoral system. Today, the idea that all voting must occur in a 15-hour window, or less, on a single day is as outdated as the punch-card voting machine.

Great piece in The Hill today.  Simon explains an important part of the "21st Century Coalition" Barack Obama has formed to win this race - Hispanics - and the GOP's most important miscalculation:

Democrats may not get to 60 in the Senate, but they will have a huge night on Tuesday, according to Simon Rosenberg.  Rosenberg heads the NDN, which is a progressive think tank and advocacy organization.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will beat Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) 53 to 46 percent nationally and win 353 electoral votes, Rosenberg said. Democrats will pick up 20 seats in the House and eight in the upper chamber, he predicted.

The big story coming out of the election, according to Rosenberg, will be that "Democrats have figured out how to win a presidential race."

The 2008 election will be the first in which a Democrat wins a majority vote without winning the South, he added.

"This is a new electoral map. This is a game-changer," Rosenberg stated, explaining that the Hispanic vote and Southwest voters going for Democrats will put the GOP in an electoral bind in the future.

"The way Republicans handled immigration is one of the greatest political mistakes in the last 50 years," he said.

Both candidates are fighting to make their closing arguments to Hispanics over the less than three days until the Presidential election as they appear tonight on Univision's internationally known variety show, "Sábado Gigante."  Even non-Spanish speaking Americans throughout the U.S. have heard of the famous host, "Don Francisco" and his beautiful female co-hosts.  The show takes a more serious turn tonight, as it airs Don Francisco's interviews with Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain during which they discussed the most pressing issues in the Hispanic community.  Sen. McCain gave his interview in Sedona, AZ, Sen. Barack Obama taped his during a campaign visit to Miami, FL.

These interviews began in 2000 during George W. Bush and Al Gore's presidential campaigns, and followed with Bush and Kerry in 2004.  You can watch tonight's interviews with Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain when they air during the show's second hour, at 9 p.m. EST on Univision (check local listings).  

Las Vegas -- NDN, a Washington, DC-based progressive think tank, yesterday held a news conference with U.S. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and several Hispanic community leaders -- Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated individuals -- to denounce deceptive practices targeted toward Hispanic citizens in an effort to prevent them from voting.

According to news reports and anecdotal evidence, some Hispanic voters have received calls asking for personal information and telling them they can vote over the phone, which is not a legal practice. Reid, NDN and others urged Hispanic citizens to make their voices heard by voting on Election Day.

Said Senator Reid: "Any effort to silence voters' voices is despicable and runs counter to the principles of our democracy. I commend Univision and others for taking this matter seriously and for taking action. I call on the people who are behind these tactics to stop immediately so we can have a fair election that allows every voter to be heard."

Said Andres Ramirez, Vice President of NDN's Hispanic Programs: "Any voter who has encountered disturbing suppression tactics should call the Nevada Secretary of State. We are increasingly concerned about the smear campaigns and deceptive tactics targeted at the Latino community, and we want to educate voters about their rights."

Citizens who feel they have been victims of such a scam should call the Nevada Secretary of State at 775-684-5705.

At yesterday's news conference, Reid, Ramirez and the public officials and community leaders unveiled a new PSA airing on Univision in Reno and Las Vegas taped in response to the disturbing phone calls. Univision-affiliated radio stations in Nevada also are airing this PSA on radio. Click here for Fox News video of the conference.

Reid and NDN were joined at the news conference by several Hispanic leaders, including State Assemblyman Ruben Kihuen, State Assemblyman Moises Denis and Geoconda Arguello Kline, President of the Las Vegas Culinary Union Local 226.

Following this effort in Nevada to safeguard the Hispanic vote, Fundacion Azteca America encouraged the Hispanic community to get out and vote with a "No Te Espantes Ve y Vota" ("Don't be Scared, Go Vote") voter turnout rally today in front of the L.A. City Hall, aiming to dispel any misconceptions, fears or doubts that first-time voters may have leading up to the November 4 elections.

Participants included: Luis J. Echarte, Chairman of Fundación Azteca America and Azteca America Network; Nora Vargas, Executive Director Latinos Issues Forum; Eric Garcetti, President of the Los Angeles City Council; Gilbert Cedillo, California State Senator; Rocky Delgadillo, Los Angeles City Attorney; John Trasviña, President and General Counsel of MALDEF and Los Angeles City Council members Richard Alarcon, Jose Huizar, Janice Hahn, Jan Perry and Tom LaBonge.

The ad "war" has become more of a "conquista" in the case of Spanish-language media. The fact is that Sen. Barack Obama has at least two or three times the amount of resources available than that of Sen. McCain to spend on Spanish language media, and he's spent this week making one last big push "en Español." The big news last night was Sen. Obama's half-hour infomercial during which he made "closing arguments" to the American public, and he demonstrates his recognition of Spanish-dominant Hispanics as part of the American fabric by also airing his ad on Univision, Telefutura, and Telemundo - all major Spanish-language networks. Sen. McCain has not put out a Spanish-language ad in weeks, while Obama has had several new ads up every week. Obama's latest ad, "Por Encima" or "Rising Above," caps the most aggressive Spanish language media effort in presidential campaign history. "Por Encima" follows T.V. and radio ads on health care, taxes, immigration, college affordability, early voting and "The American Dream," which features Senator Barack Obama as the first presidential candidate to speak in Spanish for the entirety of a 30-second general election television ad. This is not only a momentous occasion for presidential politics, this is an historic reflection of the importance of the Hispanic community.

NDN's long-held analysis on the significance of the Hispanic vote is now common knowledge, as further evidenced by Chuck Todd's report, but an important challenge remains in the less than 150 hours until Election Day - the only way the potential of the Hispanic vote, and all registered voters, will translate to an electoral reality is by ensuring that all precincts have the capacity to handle a 90-98% turnout based on 2008 registration numbers. Actual turnout will depend on: 1) making sure people understand how to vote, and 2) access to the polls.

During early voting, some states have already far exceeded turnout from 2004: in Georgia, early voting is already at 180 percent of its 2004 total, Louisiana (169 percent), and North Carolina (129 percent) - all states with large minority populations. Precincts should be prepared to handle twice the number of voters from 2004. We shoud be wary when precincts report that they are prepared for 90% turnout, as opposed to 80% from 2004 - they should have enough machines and/or paper ballots to accomodate the number of all registered voters in 2008, not just enough for a fraction of registered voters based on 2004 numbers.

Florida, with an estimated 12% of Hispanic voters, has already declared an emergency and extended voting hours to 12 hours a day as a result of voter turnout - this with only about 10%, or 1.2 million of registered voters statewide having voted as of Monday. In Georgia,some people waited for eight hours at the polls. By Tuesday the lines were down to "just" four hours, so the GA Democratic Party Chair, Jane Kidd, urged the Secretary of State to keep the polls open: "today, it is clear that we are in a crisis, and it is unclear even if there is enough time for the remaining four million-plus Georgia voters to cast their votes in an efficient and timely manner." By the way, GA state law doesn't provide for weekend voting and prohibits voting on the Monday before Election Day.

In Virginia, a state that's now a "tossup," we're already seeing voting problems thanks to everything from phony fliers stating the wrong date for Election Day, to alleged "gerrymandering" of voting equipment. A lawsuit has been filed against the state of VA charging that some primarily minority neighborhoods are allotted a lesser number of voting machines per person as compared to other areas, leading to longer lines and arguing that this constitutes a "time tax" on the right to vote, as some voters might give up and go home. Voting problems would disproportionately hurt the Democratic Party and Sen. Barack Obama. According to the new ABC/Washington Post poll, during early voting Sen. Obama picked up 60 percent of the vote, to John McCain's 39 percent. According to Gallup, between Oct. 17 and Oct. 27, early voters turned out 53% for Obama over 43% for McCain.

In the meantime, candidates continue to push early voting, as seen in the Obama ad below. Luckily there is also a push for instructional videos on how to vote, in English and in Spanish:

I. Immigrants continue to head south, Prop. 202 in Arizona remains under scrutiny, and here's an interesting op-ed by Jorge Castañeda linking trade, the economy, and immigration.

II. Fear and loathing continues at McCain rallies.

III. What Constitution? Charlie Savage and the New York Times report (surprise, surprise) the Bush administration has informed Congress that it is bypassing a law intended to forbid political interference with reports to lawmakers by the Department of Homeland Security. The August 2007 law requires that the reports on activities that affect privacy be submitted directly to Congress "without any prior comment or amendment" by superiors at the department or the White House.

IV. DHS Can't Sit Still: Not happy with the results of their brilliant "Deport Yourself" initiative or the outrage caused by USCIS detainee conditions and the mistaken detention of U.S. citizens during ICE raids, on October 23, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a final administrative rule that sets new procedures for employers who receive "no-match" letters from the Social Security Administration (SSA). Each year, SSA sends businesses ''no-match'' letters with the names of workers whose Social Security number on W-2 forms don't match SSA records. The DHS rule would require employers to correct the discrepancy or fire the worker within 90 days. Failure to comply could bring prosecution and heavy fines.

Setting aside the flawed policy behind this rule for a moment, could Secretary Chertoff have picked a worse time to issue this rule? Definitely not. This rule, made public 11 days before a Presidential election during which minorities and naturalized citizens have the power to swing numerous battleground states, and during which the incumbent Administration's candidate is far behind in the polls, could be interpreted by Hispanics (native and foreign-born) and immigrants of all races and ethnicities as another expression of the Republican party's anti-immigrant stance. Additionally, this "enforcement-only" approach places greater financial and legal burdens on employers, while simultaneously putting workers at risk of losing their jobs during a time of severe economic crisis - the federal government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to rescue the nation's banking, credit and housing markets, yet Secretary Chertoff is pushing ahead with a potentially job-crippling program that, at the end of the day, is ineffective in curtailing undocumented immigration.

Luckily, a court injunction will remain in place against the rule until the Court issues its final decision. The next hearing in this litigation is set for November 21, 2008 to set a schedule to present arguments, so this case won't be resolved anytime soon. Accordingly, SSA will not send any no-match letters to employers until the matter is resolved. Therefore, notify the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the AFL-CIO, or the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) if you know of any employer trying to implement this rule.

This final rule is basically unchanged from its original version, issued in August 2007, despite a court ruling in June of this year that: a) Questioned whether DHS had a reasoned analysis to change its position in regards to employer liability, b) Found DHS had exceeded its authority by interpreting anti-discrimination provisions in immigration law (IRCA), and c) Violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) by not conducting the analysis of the rule's impact, as required by law (doh!, that pesky analysis thing).

This rule is misguided, too costly, and ineffective:
1. Originally SSA no-match letters were an attempt by SSA to correct discrepancies in their records that can prevent workers from getting credit for their earnings. These letters were never intended to be used as an immigration enforcement tool--no-match letters are not evidence of an immigration violation. As stated in a judicial opinion, no-match "does not automatically mean that an employee is undocumented or lacks proper work authorization. In fact, the SSA tells employers that the information it provides them ‘does not make any statement about . . . immigration status.'"

2. The implementation of this rule is far from a solution - it will only increase unemployment at a time of severe economic crisis.
a. According to DHS, it would cost $36,624 a year for the largest small businesses to comply, not including the costs of termination and replacement of workers. It could have a staggering impact on businesses caught between the financial and legal liability they would face if they fail to comply, and the financial and legal liability they would face for wrongly firing a worker whose name was listed in error. If implemented, the rule also could have a chilling effect on millions of immigrant workers in construction, agriculture and service industries at a time when the U.S. economy can ill afford it. Many businesses, too, fearing government prosecution will decide to dismiss or not hire workers that they suspect may have an immigration problem.

b. An economic analysis by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated that under the new rule, 165,000 lawful U.S. workers could lose their jobs, at a cost to employers of approximately $1 billion per year. In her testimony before the Immigration Subcommittee, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords discussed the effects of mandatory use of E-verify at the state level in Arizona, and reported that between October 2006 and March 2007, 3,000 foreign-born U.S. citizens were initially flagged as not authorized to work.

c. Under a mandatory E-Verify program, USCIS has estimated that annual employer queries of newly hired employees would be an average of 63 million. A GAO study from June 2008 found that about 7% of the queries initially appear as a "no-match" to SSA, and about 1 percent cannot be immediately confirmed as work authorized by USCIS, and:

The majority of SSA erroneous tentative nonconfirmations occur because employees' citizenship or other information, such as name changes, is not up to date in the SSA database, generally because individuals do not request that SSA make these updates.

Taking the modest estimate of 63 million queries per year, at the 7% initial error rate found by GAO, that translates to 4.41 million potential no-matches, i.e. persons who could be pushed to unemployment, again, at a time when the national unemployment rate is above 6%. If we extrapolate 7% unconfirmed queries to the existing civilian workforce - over 154 million people - the number jumps to 10.7 million people in danger of losing their jobs.

3. Mandatory e-verify would require an increase in capacity at USCIS and SSA to accommodate the estimated 7.4 million employers in the U.S. The GAO study found that e-verify would cost a total of about $765 million for fiscal years 2009 through 2012 if only newly hired employees are queried through the program and about $838 million over the same 4-year period if both newly hired and current employees are queried.

A study performed by Dr. Richard Belzer, former official of Office of Management and Budget, concluded that this program would cause an estimated increase of 610,000-2.7 million visits per year to SSA. He also pointed out that DHS made no estimate of the authorized worker unemployment that would result from erroneous no-match letters.

4. The rule is ineffective because it ignores unintended consequences:
a. Instead of discouraging undocumented immigration, the rule will only increase identity theft by making it more valuable for unauthorized workers to have genuine social security numbers.
b. The rule will have to be followed by more rounds of rulemaking, for example, how to deal with duplicate instances of SSA numbers, in addition to "no-match."
c. The rule will shift unauthorized workers into independent contracting and the "underground" economy, which will only risk pushing wages down during a time of economic crisis.

5. E-Verify is vulnerable to acts of employer fraud and misuse. GAO found:

- The current E-Verify program cannot help employers detect forms of identity fraud, such as cases in which an individual presents genuine documents that are borrowed or stolen.
- As USCIS works to address fraud through data sharing with other agencies, privacy issues may pose a challenge. In its 2007 evaluation of E-Verify, Westat reported that some employers joining the Web Basic Pilot were not appropriately handling their employees' personal information...and anyone wanting access to the system could pose as an employer and obtain access by signing a MOU with the E-Verify program.
- Westat reported that some employers used E-Verify to screen job applicants before they were hired, an activity that is prohibited. Additionally, some employers took prohibited adverse actions against employees-such as restricting work assignments, reducing pay, or requiring employees to work longer hours or in poor conditions-while they were contesting tentative nonconfirmations.

We've tried the enforcement-only approach for decades, and it has not curtailed undocumented immigration. Rep. Zoe Lofgren said it best during our latest forum on Immigration, as DHS has focused its resources on raids, there's been a 38% decline in prosecution of organized crime at the border, so "we've ended up with an expensive, stupid system that has not solved" the issue of a broken immigration system.

A verification program without comprehensive reform is ineffective. NDN has long advocated for the importance of matching legal immigration visas with the economic need for immigrants as a way to curtail undocumented immigration. Only by moving immigrant workers through legal channels, providing immigrants already here with an earned path to citizenship, reducing the backlog in family visas, and developing a sensible system for future flow will immigration will become manageable, and enforcement at the border and at the workplace will become more effective.

Even the Chief of the Border Patrol, David Aguilar agrees, "We cannot protect against the entry of terrorists and the instruments of terror without also reducing the clutter....To most effectively secure our border, we must reform our immigration system to relieve this pressure. We need comprehensive immigration reform."

Barack Obama's latest ad is not only in Spanish, but it has Barack Obama speaking in Spanish through the entire ad - not an easy feat.  He has a good accent, better than George W. Bush's.  And as we saw in the case of then Gov. Bush, the Hispanic community doesn't care so much about a candidate being able to speak perfect Spanish, they care that they try - and I must say, Sen. Obama pulls it off seamlessly here.  By contrast, Sen. McCain hasn't so much as tried to learn the "I'm John McCain and I approve this message" tagline in Spanish.  This ad is part of something historic.  Barack Obama has now spent more than any other presidential candidate in history on Spanish language media.  And he is only the third or fourth candidate that I can count that has cared to speak to this demographic in their language of origin.  As reported in the documentary, "Latinos 08", Jackie Kennedy filmed a message in Spanish on behalf of her husband when he ran for office, George W. Bush spoke some Spanish here and there, and Howard Dean tried his hand at it as well, but the Obama campaign has spent a record amount of resources on a record amount of Spanish language ads.  And it seems to be paying off.  According to the latest polls, Barack Obama now holds a 40-50 point lead among Hispanics.  This is his second Spanish-language address, the first having been an ad in Puerto Rico during the primaries. Here, he is trying to bond with the Hispanic community by speaking of the "American Dream" that motivated so many of them to come to this country, thus trying to add an emotional connection to the support among Hispanics that seems largely driven by issues and party identification. 

And a translation of the ad:
BO: We share a dream,  That through hard work your family can succeed.
That if you're sick, you can have access to medical insurance.
That our children can have a quality education, regardless of whether you are rich or poor.
That is the American Dream.
I ask you for your vote, not just for me and the Democrats, but so that you can keep that dream alive for yourself and for your children.
I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.