Editorial: The Difficulty in Facing November

Summary: Dave speaks to the fears that Democrats have moving forward.

Taking a look at this blog, comparing this year’s posts to last year’s posts, you can see a burgeoning trend.

Whereas last year I commented much more on Tea Parties, day-to-day embarrassments for the GOP, and Obama’s job approval ratings, I’ve now started talking more about things like the effectiveness of campaign ads and the British elections from earlier this year.

It’s because I’m finding it harder and harder to speak of good news for the Democrats going into November’s midterm elections.

It’s not difficult for Democrats to feel a bit frightened right now. Even those who (unlike me) can’t ignore the topic altogether -- those who work on Democratic congressional campaigns at the moment -- are still doing their best to practice cognitive dissidence. It’s the only way to proceed and do their jobs without falling apart emotionally.

But like all Democrats, I have to confront this fear for the moment, and speak to the reality of the political environment.

November 2, 2010, is going to be a bad day.

I’m not going to say we’ll definitely lose the House of Representatives, and I actually doubt we’ll lose control of the Senate. But I will say this much: don’t expect a terrific Congress or terrific state governments next year.

I look toward my own state, Wisconsin, as a golden example of this reasonable pessimism.

Here in the Badger State we have a governor’s race, U.S. Senate race, and two Congressional races that could easily flip their respective offices from Democratic to Republican.

We cheeseheads have proudly gone blue in the past five presidential races, two gubernatorial races, and eight U.S. Senate races. Our Congressional Delegation, State Senate, and State Assembly all have Democratic majorities.

Yet the model statesman we have always been most proud of -- Senator Russ Feingold -- is currently trailing a millionaire GOP insider named Ron Johnson by a 52%-41% margin.

The Congressional seat held by retiring Appropriations Committee Chair Dave Obey is leaning Republican. Another seat -- held by Democratic Dr. Steve Kagen -- is considered a “toss up” in the midst of a race against a Republican businessman who moved to the district (only a matter of months ago) specifically to run for Congress.

Our Governor’s mansion is also at risk of going to Tea Partying Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker -- a man notorious for flip-flopping and lacking in anything that resembles an intellectual capacity.

Why? One simple reason: the economy is bad right now.

It doesn’t matter what party screwed the economy up, nor does the fact that the same party has no real ideas to solve the problems they complain about.

As political scientists (Niemi and Weisberg, Nadeau and Lewis-Beck, Miller and Shanks, Lodge and Steenbergen) have pointed out for decades, people blindly vote against incumbents when the economy is bad. And for the past few years now, the economy has been really, really bad.

That is the nature of the problem: voters will treat 2010 like a referendum and not as a choice between leaders and their ideas.

Democrats have tried to explain to voters how they should not treat this election as a referendum. But this argument can, in practice, only limit the inevitable damage.

When this election is over, there will certainly be things the Democrats did wrong that we can point to, trying to explain our failures (after the election, I plan on writing an extensive piece on the abysmal failure that was OFA). But most of the problem really boils down to factors that are out of our control as Democratic campaigners.

So until then, let’s do all we can ever do in these scenarios, a plan of action I have come to learn well as a political operative…

…brace for the worst and hope for the best.

Illinois Senate Race Shows Democratic Divisions

Summary: The matchup between Kirk and Giannoulias is looking better for Republicans.

For months, Republicans have seen Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) as the best chance possible for winning a Senate seat in a liberal state. For them, the news just gets better and better.


Recently, Democratic State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has been under fire, as his family business - Broadway Bank - was seized and closed by the FDIC last month. His own polls show him neck-and-neck with Kirk, and independent polls find him further behind.

Now he’s having trouble earning support from key Illinois Democrats.

In an interview with Politico, Chicago Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) said “I like Alexi Giannoulias, but I have great respect for Mark Kirk and his service to the people of Illinois.” Apparently, he’s been considering a Kirk endorsement.

None of Chicago’s three black Congressmen - Jackson Jr., Bobby Rush, and Danny Davis - endorsed Giannoulias in the primary, and none of them seem to have warmed up to their party’s nominee.

From the story:

“Like all statewide Democratic candidates, Giannoulias will need strong turnout in Chicago to overcome the Republican tendencies of downstate Illinois. As of the most recent census, more than one-third of Chicagoans — and 15 percent of the state’s residents — are black. It would help on the ground level to have the backing of Chicago’s black lawmakers, including Jackson, who served as a co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s campaign and whose wife, Sandi, is a powerful city alderman.

By all measures, it’s a competitive race, and Giannoulias can ill afford to have any cracks in the traditional Democratic coalition.”

Not only would the failure to receive a Jackson endorsement (even if he doesn’t endorse Kirk) hurt Giannoulias symbolically, but mechanically as well. In order to drive turnout on Chicago’s South Side, the current State Treasurer will need help from Jackson’s important political operations there.

There is a lot that goes in to waging a campaign. Details are tricky and time is a valuable resource. But given the political landscape this year, the Giannoulias campaign will want to devote some time and manpower towards courting Chicago’s congressmen.

Were Yesterday’s Voters Anti-Incumbents or Anti-Centrists?

Summary: Why all the “anti-establishment” rhetoric is only half of the story.

Last night, the May 18th Democratic primaries in Pennsylvania and Arkansas were characterized as anti-incumbency elections while the GOP primary in Kentucky was noted - at the very least - for being an anti-establishment contest.



In Pennsylvania, five-term Senator Arlen Specter was defeated in a Democratic primary against Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA). In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln was forced into a run-off against Lt. Governor Bill Halter in their Democratic primary. Meanwhile in Kentucky, the Tea Party candidate Rand Paul crushed Washington-backed candidate Trey Grayson in a Republican primary.

Politico had this to say:

The anti-establishment, anti-incumbent fevers on display Tuesday are not new…[but] what’s now clear, in a way that wasn’t before, is that these results reflect a genuine national phenomenon, not simply isolated spasms in response to single issues or local circumstances.

This is a stark and potentially durable change in politics. The old structures that protected incumbent power are weakening. New structures, from partisan news outlets to online social networks, are giving anti-establishment politicians access to two essential elements of effective campaigns: publicity and financial support.

In effect, the anti-institutional forces that coalesced in recent years now look like an institutional force of their own.

There certainly was an anti-incumbency and anti-establishment mood among voters yesterday - there’s no denying that.

Last month we pointed to a Gallup poll that found voters more upset with incumbents than ever. For the first time in 20 years, less than a majority of Americans (49%) said that their member of Congress deserved re-election while an incredible 40% said they did not.


But this is only half of the story.

If you look at all the incumbents who lost in primaries in recent elections, there is one thing that makes them all similar - they were centrists.

In 2006, Senator Joe Lieberman was upset by the viscerally liberal Ned Lamont in a Democratic primary because of the incumbent’s support for the Iraq War. Lieberman was forced to become an independent in order to keep his Senate seat.

Similarly, Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL) has been forced out of the GOP in the Florida Senate race. Although he had not yet faced the more conservative Marco Rubio in a primary, Crist dropped out from his party and is now running as an independent.

Specter made a similar move last year to avoid a risky Republican primary with the more conservative Pat Toomey. He hoped that by becoming a Democrat he could hang on to his seat. In the end he was forced out of office in a Democratic primary by a more liberal opponent.

Even in Arkansas - a state that is by no means liberal - Blanche Lincoln is still fighting off a challenge from a more liberal primary contender. The Paul-Grayson matchup in Kentucky also characterizes a loss for the middle-of-the-road.

So why is this the trend?

An important rule for political success is “keep your base happy” - once they’re less than thrilled with your performance they’ll either stay home in a general election or vote you out in a primary. The base is the source of support that is constantly motivated politically.

Moderate voters don’t pay all that much attention to politics and they don’t vote as regularly - and they certainly don’t vote as often in primaries. They don’t tend to knock on doors or make phone calls. They’re not dependable for political success.

In recent years these facts have become all the more important - when raising small amounts of money online from your base is easier than getting a few large contributions from richer non-political donors, appealing more to the base is critical.

Ultimately this is very characteristic of why the American political landscape is as polarized as it is at the moment.

So as much as it’s true that Washington is unpopular and the incumbency effect seems like a less positive trait than usual, keep this in mind: incumbents and establishment candidates will do fine this year.

So long as they steer clear of the middle.

Midterm Money: What the Fundraising Figures Are Telling Us

Summary: Mixed results for Democrats and Republicans should make for an interesting year.

Two weeks ago we noted how the campaign finance reports for the first quarter of 2010 would be something to watch when thinking about how this year’s midterm elections will shape up.

Well, the numbers are coming in. What do they tell us?

Democrats Are Falling Behind

Republican challengers in ten of the most competitive Democratic seats have outraised the incumbents. A few of them weren’t just edged out by the GOP candidates, they were crushed.

From Politico:

Democratic Reps. Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio, Frank Kratovil of Maryland, Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, Ron Klein of Florida, Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire, Harry Teague of New Mexico, Jerry McNerney of California, Larry Kissell of North Carolina and John Hall and Michael Arcuri of New York were all outraised by GOP candidates running against them.

For some of the incumbents, the financial disparity was stark. Arcuri raised just $208,000 in the first three months of the year – about $150,000 less than challenger Richard Hanna brought in over the same period. Teague, who has the capacity to put some personal resources into the race, brought in $134,000 to former GOP Rep. Steve Pearce's $278,000.

Still, others were only edged out, and for the most part the Democratic incumbents still retain the advantage in cash-on-hand. Besides, I personally have worked on campaigns in which an incumbent lost the first quarter fundraising contest and still won in November.

Democrats Are Ahead of the Game

Despite the dire forecast for Democrats made by Politico, other targeted Democrats did particularly well last quarter. Reps. Tom Perriello (D-VA), Betsy Markey (D-CO), and Alan Grayson (D-FL) all raised over $500,000 from early January to late March, bringing each of the war chests to over a million dollars.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) raised nearly $2 million, bringing his cash-on-hand to an incredible $9.4 million - something unheard of in a state with such a small population.

Raising money is always easier for incumbents - it’s one of the so called “powers of incumbency.” And it’s a lot easier when the President of the United States is on your side.

From the Los Angeles Times:

With midterm elections looming, President Obama is raising campaign money at a ferocious pace, tapping into an energized corps of Democratic donors.

Obama trailed his predecessor, George W. Bush, in the amount of money raised 13 months into their tenures ($32 million to $53 million), but had more than twice the number of fundraising appearances (33 to 13) compared with Bush…

… Polls show Obama enjoys less popular support than he had when he took office 15 months ago. Yet his fundraising prowess shows that he remains a powerful political force who can stockpile chits from grateful Democratic candidates eager for his help.

Meanwhile, Democratic challengers have outraised at-risk GOP Representatives Joseph Cao (R-LA) and Dan Lungren (R-CA).

However, it’s important to remember that despite the good news, it’s still going to be a tough year for Democrats.

According to Reuters:

The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks money in politics, says Democrats received about 57 percent of all campaign donations in the current election cycle as of December 31. By contrast, Republicans claimed about 62 percent of campaign donations just before they lost control of Congress in 2006.

Questions That Need Answers

In our last post on fundraising, we also posed three questions to keep in mind when reviewing the campaign finance figures.

Who is winning and losing on health care reform? Will the RNC’s woes be another Republican’s gain? And how will the Citizens United case play a role?

First, it would appear Democrats are winning on health care reform. Even if it hurts some particular Democratic campaigns, the DNC saw a huge spike in fundraising once the overhaul passed - and that money can filter down to the at-risk incumbents.

Second, it is not yet obvious that the RNC’s frequent PR problems have shifted money to individual Republican campaigns, although the RNC did fall behind yet again in fundraising.

Third, the impact of the Citizens United decision has not yet been seen at all. However, it is likely that we’ll see more on that front in the coming months.

A Bad Week for Democrats

When healthcare reform passed, Democrats were convinced their troubles were over. No more worrying about the midterms - Republicans won’t be able to win on a message of repeal. No more worrying about a disaffected base - we’ve accomplished something that generations of politicians have strived to accomplish.

Except you wouldn’t know it last week.

New Gallup polls find the image of the Democratic Party at a record low, the GOP tying on the generic ballot, and President Obama’s approval rating was down considerably.

The outlook for incumbents is especially bad right now. Only 49% of Americans said they believe their member of Congress deserves to be re-elected - that’s lower than when the question was asked in both 1994 and 2006.

Then there are the retirements. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) announced he would be stepping down, leaving his conservative northern Michigan seat open in a Republican year.

Then Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced his intention to retire, leaving the President with the task of choosing a replacement - a task that will no doubt give Republicans a great political opportunity to characterize Democrats as “judicial activists” trampling on the Constitution.

Overall, things look about as bad as they can look for Democrats in the House. The new 2010 model by political scientist Alan Abramowitz projects a 37-seat swing for the GOP.


On the Senate side, things don’t look much better . CQ Politics is predicting eight seats will be toss-ups this year - four of which are Democratic - most of which with polling that suggests GOP take-overs. Arkansas - currently represented by Democrat Blanche Lincoln - is now in the “leaning Republican” column, while North Dakota - currently represented by Democrat Byron Dorgan - is considered a “solid” Republican seat now.

Even in Wisconsin - considered a “solid” Democratic seat - incumbent Democrat Russ Feingold is facing a competitive challenge by Real Estate developer Terrance Wall, with former (and popular) Governor Tommy Thompson and former Wisconsin Secretary of Commerce (and well-known beer family heirloom) Dick Leinenkugel considering their own bids.

Despite all of these setbacks, it’s important to remember that one week is only one week.

There is still another 204 days until Election Day this year, and a lot can change over these next several months.

The economy hasn’t been great, but it’s getting better. Hopefully economic confidence is back to pre-2008 levels by Labor Day.

Many of the good things in the recent healthcare overhaul won’t actually be noticed by consumers for at least another two months. Hopefully support for this legislation increases when Americans can actually start to reap the benefits of it.

The average onlooker would say Democrats are in for a bloodbath this year. It certainly won’t be an easy year for us, but remember that politics is a difficult spectator sport, and it’s still to early to say anything for sure.

Show Me the Money: First Glimpse into the Midterms

Summary: With the first quarter over, campaigns prepare for a competitive year.

A lot of people have enjoyed speculating the outcomes of this year’s midterm elections. I’ve done it. You’ve probably done it. We’ve all done it.

This morning I read an interesting post by a liberal blogger who claimed we’re in a “new progressive era” in which Republicans simply won’t win this November. He claims Democrats are in good position with the base now that the healthcare bill is law and we don’t really need to worry anymore.

On the other hand, a new Gallup poll finds that 37% (a significant number) of independents views the Tea Party movement favorably. Meanwhile, Friday’s jobs report found that unemployment is still hovering around 10%.

So how can we know we’re speculating the right way? We can’t, of course.

But there is one important, relevant, and tangible way to get a glimpse into this year’s midterm elections: campaign finance figures.

At this point, we still don’t know exactly how it’s going for everybody - the filing isn’t due until later next week. Until then we’ll just be getting periodic and voluntary fundraising updates from individual campaigns. For now, here are three interesting things to watch for when looking at fundraising headlines…


1) Who is Winning and Losing on Healthcare?

After the healthcare bill passed, CQ Politics reported that it led to a big influx in contributions to candidates of almost all stripes. The exception was moderate Democrats, especially the ones who switched their votes one way or another. Both GOP and primary challengers saw big gains in their war chests as a result.


2) Will the RNC’s Woes Be Another Republican’s Gain?

We all know the RNC has had money problems lately. A lot of donors are now discontinuing their relationship with the organization. The question is whether or not this loss will be offset by more money going to individual campaigns.


3) How Will Citizens United play a role?

A big concern about campaign finance this year has been surrounding the Citizens United v. FEC case from last year, as well as a lesser known case the RNC took to the Supreme Court over soft money contributions. Can Democrats use it to raise more money? Will Republicans bring in less because resources will shift to corporate IEs? We’ll have to see.

Do YOU have any good tips, suggestions, or questions for watching the first quarter fundraising results? Let us know!

How the New Healthcare Law Changes the Dynamics of 2010

Summary: the Democrats’ legislative success means an electoral challenge for Republicans.

President Obama finally signed healthcare reform into law this morning. Soon, millions of uninsured Americans will have access to healthcare, sick Americans will be at lesser risk of losing coverage, and insurance prices will stop skyrocketing.


Over the past year, the healthcare debate has changed the political landscape entirely. It has led to the growth of the Tea Party movement, made members of Congress like Bart Stupak and Joe Wilson household names, and seriously depleted Obama’s approval ratings.

By the end of 2009, we warned that a failure to pass healthcare would mean more trouble than security for the Democratic caucuses in Congress.

Now that it’s passed, the tables have turned. Republicans warn that a “yes” vote on healthcare will mean trouble for Democrats come November, but it is the GOP that needs to start worrying.

They’ve been pursuing a strategy of “no” for the past year. Even now, they’re only suggestion is to repeal the law.

Except most of the legislation is quite popular. Measures that most voters would generally approve will be in place before July, including the end of pre-existing conditions. Young Americans could stay on their parents’ plans until they’re 26, and insurance companies would be unable to drop someone from coverage when they get sick.

One of the demographics most afraid of the overhaul - the elderly - will see huge benefits very soon, such as free preventive care and the closing of the Medicare Part D donut hole.

Republicans won’t actually want to repeal all that, will they?

Democrats, meanwhile, saved themselves a lot of trouble by proving to their base they could accomplish something. Things were looking pretty dismal here and there throughout the debate, and Democrats around the country were becoming less and less confident in Congressional leaders.

They won’t be feeling quite so disaffected come November, knowing that near-universal healthcare was achieved as promised.

Watch the President's remarks here:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Troubling Indicators for Democrats in 2010

Gallup has started listing “Election 2010 Key Indicators” on their politics page. Two of these indicators might be troubling for Democrats.


First, they find a 12-point enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats. We’ve mentioned this general trend before, but it is nice to have measured figures on it for once. I happen to think we can close that gap, but it won’t be easy.

Second, they find independents are supporting GOP candidates over Democrats 47%-31% for the generic congressional ballot. I usually don’t put much faith in the merits of the generic ballot, as people typically don’t vote for the party as much as they do for the individual candidate, but the size of the gap is something to watch.

Which States Are Most Blue? Which States Are Most Red?

Gallup and Politico have some cool new maps to browse over for those of us watching the political landscape this year.

First, Gallup has a new “State of the States” page in which you can see what states most identify as Republican, Democratic, conservative, moderate, and liberal.


Overall, the Democrats are still more popular in the minds of the voters than Republicans. 49% of those polled identify with the party of Jefferson, while less than 41% identify with the GOP. Conservative is still the most popular ideology at 40%, followed by moderate at about 36%, with liberals in last place with under 21%.

The Top 5 GOP States:

1) Wyoming
2) Utah
3) Idaho
4) Alaska
5) Alabama

The Top 5 Democratic States:

1) Maryland
2) Massachusetts
3) Rhode Island
4) Vermont
5) Illinois

There were only 8 states that identified more with Republicans than Democrats.

Politico also has an interesting page worth checking out in their new 2010 section. In it you can find a map with election results for gubernatorial, senatorial, and House races going back ten years. Additionally, they provide dates for primaries across the country.

Why a Strong Volunteer Base is Critical in 2010

Another Democratic consulting firm has started blogging! This time it’s Activate, a direct voter contact firm in Washington, DC.

Recently, Founder and CEO Mark Sump wrote about the importance of volunteer outreach and direct voter contact.

From The New Paradigm in Poltics:

The media is of course singularly focused on recent Democratic Party failures in Virginia, New Jersey and, of course, Massachusetts. They were colossal failures, and each of them was a reflection of the old paradigm in political campaigns. It is no longer true that the successful campaign is the one that has the most and best television advertisements. It is no longer true that campaigns can be won without engaging the public.

Coakley is the definition of this old paradigm. The fact that she was up by 30 points after her primary is not the relevant issue. The fact that she did not see the need to run a campaign after the primary is relevant. The fact that she did not see the need to engage the public and rally her supporters is relevant. Relying on a blitz of paid media at the end of the campaign no longer wins campaigns for Democrats even in the most liberal of states. Coakley is proof of that.

The new paradigm in winning elections is that public opinion is important, but paid media no longer carries the sway to change public opinion it once did. The new paradigm is that you have to earn public opinion through direct interaction with the public.

While the media is focused on in a few high profile campaigns, there is a quiet undercurrent that has so far gone unnoticed. The latest is Oregon, but just last month, the city of Houston…not known for its liberalism…elected Annise Parker the first big city mayor who happens to be a lesbian. A month before that, the state of Washington rejected proposition 71 ensuring the most sweeping gay rights legislation ever up for a public vote in the nation’s history.

Each of these campaigns had two things in common. Each of them embraced this paradigm shift toward engaging an army of volunteers, and each of them won.

We’ve mentioned the importance of volunteers and voter contact many times before, but this should provide more evidence towards their importance in 2010.

Can David Plouffe Save Democrats Come November?

Summary: With this year's midterm elections scaring Democrats, David Plouffe takes the wheel and offers some advice.

Over the weekend it was reported that President Obama is taking a centralizing role in the 2010 elections for the Democratic Party. In order for his party to hold on to seats in the midterms he is reassembling the team that pushed him through the primaries and sent him to the oval office.

At the head of this effort will be his former campaign manager, David Plouffe.

Yesterday, Plouffe explained why November doesn’t need to be a nightmare for Democrats, and what Democratic candidates need to do in 2010.

From his op-ed piece in the Washington Post:

With few exceptions, the first off-year election in a new president's term has led to big gains for the minority party -- this was true for Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. After two election cycles in which Democrats won most of the close races and almost all of the big ones, Democrats have much more fragile turf to defend this year than usual. Add to that a historic economic crisis, stubborn unemployment and the pain that both have inflicted on millions of Americans, and you have a recipe for a white-knuckled ride for many of our candidates.

But not if Democrats do what the American people sent them to Washington to do…

… Many of last year's accomplishments are down payments on those principles.
We still have much to do before November, and time is running short. Every race has unique characteristics, but there are a few general things that Democrats can do to strengthen our hand.

-- Pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay. Americans' health and our nation's long-term fiscal health depend on it. I know that the short-term politics are bad. It's a good plan that's become a demonized caricature. But politically speaking, if we do not pass it, the GOP will continue attacking the plan as if we did anyway, and voters will have no ability to measure its upside. If we do pass it, dozens of protections and benefits take effect this year. Parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition. Workers won't have to worry that their coverage will be dropped because they get sick. Seniors will feel relief from prescription costs. Only if the plan becomes law will the American people see that all the scary things Sarah Palin and others have predicted -- such as the so-called death panels -- were baseless. We own the bill and the health-care votes. We need to get some of the upside. (P.S.: Health care is a jobs creator.)

-- We need to show that we not just are focused on jobs but also create them. Even without a difficult fiscal situation, the government can have only so much direct impact on job creation, on top of the millions of jobs created by the president's early efforts to restart the economy. There are some terrific ideas that we can implement, from tax credits for small businesses to more incentives for green jobs, but full recovery will happen only when the private sector begins hiring in earnest. That's why Democrats must create a strong foundation for long-term growth by addressing health care, energy and education reform. We must also show real leadership by passing some politically difficult measures to help stabilize the economy in the short term. Voters are always smarter than they are given credit for. We need to make our case on the economy and jobs -- and yes, we can remind voters where Republican policies led us -- and if we do, without apology and with force, it will have impact.

-- Make sure voters understand what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did for the economy. Rarely does a congressional vote or issue lend itself to this kind of powerful localization. If GOP challengers want to run ads criticizing the recovery act as wasteful, Democratic candidates should lift up the police officers, teachers and construction workers in their state or district, those who are protecting our communities, teaching our children and repairing our roads thanks to the Democrats' leadership. Highlight the small-business owners who have kept their doors open through projects funded by the act.

The recovery act has been stigmatized. We need to paint the real picture, in human terms, of what it meant in 2010. In future elections, it will be clear to all that instead of another Great Depression, Democrats broke the back of the recession with not a single Republican vote in the House. In the long run, this will haunt Republicans, especially since they made the mess.

-- Don't accept any lectures on spending. The GOP took us from a $236 billion surplus when President Bush took office to a $1.3 trillion deficit, with unpaid-for tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars and the Medicare prescription drug program. Republicans' fiscal irresponsibility has never been matched in our country's history. We have potent talking points on health care, honest budgeting and cuts in previously sacrosanct programs. Republicans will try to win disingenuously by running as outsiders. We must make them own their record of disastrous economic policies, exploding deficits, and a failure to even attempt to solve our health care and energy challenges.

During the campaign, who will be whispering in Republican ears? Watching GOP leaders talking about health care the past few days, it was easy to imagine lobbyists and big health insurance executives leaning over their shoulders, urging death to health insurance reform. When it comes to cracking down on the banks and passing tough financial regulatory reform, GOP leaders will be dancing to the tune of Wall Street lobbyists and opposing tougher oversight, as if the financial crisis never happened. We need to lay it out plainly: If you put the GOP back in charge, lobbyists and huge corporate special interests will be back in the driver's seat. Workers and families will get run over, just like they did in the past decade.

-- "Change" is not just about policies. In 2006, Democrats promised to drain the swamp and won back Congress largely because the American people soured on corrupt Republican leadership. Many ethics reforms were put in place by the Democrats. But a recent Gallup poll showed that a record 55 percent of Americans think members of Congress have low ethics, up from only 21 percent in 2000. In particular, we have to make sure the freshman and sophomore members of the House who won in part on transparency and reform issues can show they are delivering. The Republicans will suggest they have changed their spots, but the GOP cannot hold a candle to us on reform issues. Let's make sure we own this space.

-- Run great campaigns. Many Democrats won congressional and statewide races in 2006 and 2008 with ideal conditions. Some races could have been won with mediocre campaigns. Not this year. Our campaigns can leave no stone unturned, from believing in the power of grass-roots volunteers and voter registration, to using technology and data innovatively, to raising money -- especially with big corporate interests now freed up to dump hundreds of millions of dollars to elect those who will do their bidding. Democratic candidates must do everything well. Each one must make sure that the first-time voters from 2008 living in your state or district -- more than 15 million nationwide -- are in their sights. Build a relationship with those voters, organize them and educate them. On Nov. 3, many races are sure to be decided by just a few thousand if not a few hundred votes. These voters can make the difference. We have to show them that their 2008 votes mattered, and passing health insurance reform is one way to start.

-- No bed-wetting. This will be a tough election for our party and for many Republican incumbents as well. Instead of fearing what may happen, let's prove that we have more than just the brains to govern -- that we have the guts to govern. Let's fight like hell, not because we want to preserve our status, but because we sincerely believe too many everyday Americans will continue to lose if Republicans and special interests win.

This country is at a crossroads. We are trying to boost the economy in the short term while also doing the long-term work on health care, energy, education and financial reform that will lay a strong foundation for decades to come. Let's remember why we won in 2008 and deliver on what we promised. If Democrats will show the country we can lead when it's hard, we may not have perfect election results, but November will be nothing like the nightmare that talking heads have forecast.

Plouffe certainly proved himself to be worthy of political-campaign-person praise after his remarkable leadership with the Obama campaign in 2008. In my opinion, his grasp on the situation this year should be taken seriously, and Democrats should be grateful to have him in the driver’s seat.

GOP and Democrats Lay Out 2010 Plans to Control the House

Summary: As the Democrats and Republicans lay out their 2010 strategy, who will need a miracle to reach their goal?


Following a strategy session in Annapolis this week, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) laid out the GOP’s plans to retake the lower chamber.

First and foremost they will use what they call the “80-20 strategy” which basically calls for attacking Democrats on the stimulus, healthcare, and cap-and-trade 80% of the time, and offering their own ideas the remaining 20% of the time this year.

Knowing that they’re even less popular than the Democrats in the minds of the voters, Republican candidates have to focus the majority of their time on attacks.

From Politico:

Republicans aren’t as delusional as some think: They know they aren’t going to win a popularity contest with the public right now. But Republicans don’t think they have to, as long as the public remains down on Democratic rule.

“It is in the mind-set of the public right now: Washington’s out of control,” Cantor said. “They do not have the economic security in their life yet. The 10 months’ time [until the election] is not enough for people to regain their sense of security, no matter where this unemployment rate goes.”

A newly released CNN/Opinion Research poll shows a majority of Americans disapprove of the president’s handing of every domestic issue surveyed — health care policy, the economy, taxes, unemployment and the budget deficit, some by double-digit margins…

…Cantor’s chief deputy whip, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), said the administration’s suggestion that the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent is “going to be the equivalent of [former President] George [W.] Bush landing on the [USS Abraham] Lincoln and saying, ‘Mission accomplished.’”

They will also try to capitalize on the anti-incumbency trends of the moment, offer “a check and a balance to unfettered power”, and try to support more minority candidates.

Republican leaders recognize that their party is embarrassingly white, but they estimate that one-quarter of its top 100 candidates will be minorities. Cantor concedes the lack of diversity in his party today is a big concern. Van Tran, a California State Assembly member who left Vietnam at age 10 in a C-130 military cargo plane, is among the minority recruits they think can win. He is running against Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez.

Another bright recruit is Hispanic state Rep. Jaime Herrera, running to fill the seat of retiring Democratic Rep. Brian Baird in Washington. Cantor is taking steps to ensure more diversity: This week, he endorsed Ryan Frazier, an African-American city councilman running against Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), even though he’s facing a competitive primary against a former aide to McCain’s presidential campaign.

The 20% of the year they’ll devote to propagating their own ideas will come after Labor Day, at which point they will lay out what Cantor calls “a 21st-century blueprint” that will echo the successful “Contract with America” of 1994.

Cantor says it would start with jobs, then go on to promising a level playing field for investments. Aides say it would be more general than the bill-by-bill roster of the “Contract,” instead focusing on vaguer principles. Tax cuts will be included, too.

Are the numbers there? Well, almost, they hope.

Republicans admit they will need some breaks — a lot of them. They hope Democratic retirements — now at 10 seats — inch up to at least 15. Republicans hope they can win 70 percent of those seats, then defeat 10 percent to 15 percent of incumbents. The spin that the party gives to its prospects: 48 Democrats now sit in districts won by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008. Nearly every one of these races has at least one credible Republican or will soon get one. In addition, according to National Republican Campaign Committee data, 32 Democrats won with less than 55 percent of the vote in 2008. Of 10 Democratic open seats, Republicans will be on offense in at least eight. In 13 Republican open seats, Democrats have fielded strong challengers in only two. Remember: This is the Cantor-GOP spin, but it’s not that far from reality.

Meanwhile, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is arguing that Republicans simply won’t be able to achieve such an ambitious goal.

As Democratic leaders see things, the economic situation is going to look a lot more promising in the fall than it does right now. And once you factor in the deeply tainted Republican brand and drill down and look at the 435-seat map on a district-by-district basis, the chances of waking up Nov. 3 to a Republican majority in the House are virtually nil.

“We’ve been saying this would be a tough election year, but it’s a hallucination for Republican leaders to think they’ll take back the House — this is not 1994 déjà vu,” [DCCC] Chairman Chris Van Hollen told POLITICO. “They have to persuade the American people to hand them over the keys, to the same folks who drove the economy into the ditch and now run away from the scene of the accident. All the proposals, the same proposals that got us into the economic mess we’re in.”

While party strategists are, at least privately, steeling for moderate-to-heavy losses in 2010, the range is nowhere near the 40 seats necessary for the GOP to return to power in the House. And that’s an assessment that many nonpartisan analysts seem to share — not to mention Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who recently conceded the same.

First there is the issue of trust, and not many Americans trust the GOP brand.

Given the disrepair of the Republican brand, it’s not entirely clear that the party will be able to capture the anger and frustration that exists in the electorate. Consider this data point from a recent Rasmussen Reports poll: the “Tea Party” outpolls the Republican Party on the generic congressional ballot, 23 percent to 18 percent. Democrats, meanwhile, outpaced them both with 36 percent.

Second, there’s the issue of money. The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) currently has $11 million less cash-on-hand than the DCCC - about a quarter of the DCCC’s funds for helping candidates.

Usually the NRCC is able to rely on the Republican National Committee for money - but as we mentioned earlier, the RNC managed to burn through about $95 million in 2009, and now is struggling to come up with additional funds for a more important year.

“If you take the Republican numbers on how many recruits they have ... and divide it with the amount of cash on hand, they don’t have the funds to compete in these districts,” said Van Hollen. “It’s going to be a wake-up call to some of these candidates when they see the people urging them on don’t have the resources.”…

…All of this means the NRCC will probably have to rely on outside conservative third-party groups to lend a hand. And, well, sometimes they can be a little off-message, which won’t be helpful with independent voters.

Third, there’s a civil war within the Republican Party.

Remember the New York 23 special election? That didn’t turn out so well for the GOP. There’s lots more where that came from. According to Democratic estimates, there are anywhere from a dozen to as many as 50 GOP primaries where a conservative grass-roots/tea party candidate is vying with a Republican incumbent or candidate.

Not much good can come of that. It will force candidates to the right — jeopardizing their general election chances in many districts — and raises the prospect of numerous bloodied Republican nominees limping out of the primary season.

Van Hollen also argues that Democrats will win on the economy - a bit of a dice-roll, but something that could pay-off some big dividends.

In the end, the state of the economy will play an enormous role in determining the outcome of the midterm House elections. While a rough economy will obviously hurt Democratic candidates, the economic recovery plan has taken the country out of free-fall and started to stabilize the economy — Democrats will get the credit for it, as well as for cleaning up the mess left by the previous administration and the Republican Congress.

“Republicans have been rooting for failure, and that’s not the way to win elections,” Van Hollen said. “I think that the big issue will be the state of the economy and whether or not voters have confident things will turn around. We’ve got a long way to go in political time, and as we begin to turn the corner on the economy, I believe people’s confidence will be restored.”

As for the government’s fiscal matters associated with the economy, Democrats may be getting a leg up from the Obama Administration. President Obama blasted Wall Street in a statement today, saying “we want our money back.”

From the AP:

It was an emphatic and populist tone for a president keenly aware of public antipathy toward Wall Street. With the sharp words, he also tried to deflect some of the growing skepticism aimed at his own economic policies as unemployment stubbornly hovers around 10 percent.

Obama said big banks had acted irresponsibility, taken reckless risk for short-term profits and plunged into a crisis of their own making. He cast the struggle ahead as one between the financial industry and average people.

"We are already hearing a hue and cry from Wall Street, suggesting that this proposed fee is not only unwelcome but unfair, that by some twisted logic, it is more appropriate for the American people to bear the cost of the bailout rather than the industry that benefited from it, even though these executives are out there giving themselves huge bonuses," Obama said.

And with the anti-establishment nature of public opinion right now, the way Obama called out Wall Street today is something Democratic strategists have been waiting for.

Are the numbers there for the Democrats though?

Republicans simply cannot hit the magic number of 40 seats without a surge in

Democratic retirements. And so far, the number of retirements is not at alarming levels.

In total, 31 House Democrats announced their retirement in 1994. This year? So far, only 10 Democrats, which is not only below the historic norm, but also below the overall number of Republicans — 13, to be exact — who aren’t seeking reelection. And there probably aren’t that many more Democratic retirements to come. Van Hollen has been aggressive in reaching out to possible retirees and has received commitments from most of those who represent the seats most at risk that they’re running for another term.

Back in November, I estimated that Democrats would lose roughly 10-15 House seats this year. An optimistic estimate for the Democrats? Yes. But consider the CQ Map, which still finds a net gain for Democrats in non-toss-up seats. Even if the GOP were to win every toss-up seat, it would only be a net gain of 12 seats over the Democrats.


Hitting 40 will take a miracle for the Republicans.

Recent Developments Confirming 2010 Political Trends…

Three articles - all from Politico - today seem to give weight to important trends we’ve been discussing looking forward to the 2010 midterm elections.

Irritated Arkansas Liberals

We’ve been talking quite a lot about the unsatisfied liberal base of the Democratic Party, and how it may be the greatest threat to Democratic candidates this year. Nowhere is this more evident - apparently - than in Arkansas, where Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln is under pressure from both right and left.

From the article:

Even before Lincoln announced her opposition to the public health insurance option, she had frustrated Arkansas progressives with her opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act. Some in the African-American community, meanwhile, have complained that the senator hasn’t been aggressive enough in promoting black judges to the federal courts.

While, according to some state political observers’ estimates, liberal voters account for only 15 percent to 25 percent of the voting public in Arkansas, their unrest has further imperiled her political standing as the sole Southern Democratic senator up for reelection in 2010.

Polling shows Lincoln’s support from liberals in the state has fallen precipitously in recent months. A survey in late August by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling showed Lincoln with 66 percent approval among voters who identified themselves as liberal. By November, another PPP survey found her approval among that group dropping to 50 percent.

The disaffection from the party base comes as a slew of public polls show Lincoln badly trailing several prospective GOP opponents. A Rasmussen Reports poll out last week showed Lincoln receiving less than 40 percent against four separate Republican contenders — an ominous sign for an incumbent.

“I think that anger on the left — as small a group as it may be — is a serious problem for her,” said John Brummett, an Arkansas News columnist who is a longtime observer of the state’s political scene. “In a close race — which this is going to be — an invigorated base is vital.”

Apparently, labor leaders and others are waiting to see if Lt. Gov. Bill Halter will challenge Lincoln in a primary. Halter is expected to be more appealing to the liberal base of Arkansas’s Democrats.

Open Seat in Michigan for GOP?

Politico is also reporting that moderate Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) is considering a bid for Michigan’s open gubernatorial race. Knowing he’d do better in a general election than a primary, Stupak says he’s waiting to see how the rest of the field looks before entering the race.

But by leaving the house, it could easily mean a GOP pickup in what’s likely to be a GOP year.

From the article:

Democrats would have trouble holding on to his first district seat, which includes a conservative northern swath of the Wolverine state and the Upper Peninsula. DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) has called Stupak about running for reelection to the House, Stupak said.

As we’ve mentioned before, Democratic retirements for political advancement could mean trouble holding on to the lower seats. Just across Lake Michigan, Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) decided to sacrifice a gubernatorial run in part - no doubt - because it could have been a possible Republican win in his current district.

A Conservative Base with No Reservations

Meanwhile, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) will be holding their annual convention with Glenn Beck as their keynote speaker.

It should almost sound strange that the premier Washington beltway group of the right would be addressed by a conspiracy-theory-holding, populist-inspiring mouthpiece. Yet Washington conservatives are becoming increasingly warm to the Tea Party movement, hoping it can deliver them votes in November.

By listening to a Tea Party conservative like Beck, they hope to be able to tap into this movement.

How the Recent Retirements Will Shake Things Up

Summary: As Dorgan, Dodd, and Ritter announce their plans to retire, the Democratic Party may stand to lose more races up and down the ticket


Last night it was reported that Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) will retire this year, leaving an open seat in the Roughrider State.

This was unquestionably bad news for Democrats. Dorgan was able to hold on to the seat solely based on the incumbency effect - the national Democratic Party is not very popular in North Dakota. At least it won’t be in 2010.

Two candidates have emerged to possibly run as Democrats for Dorgan’s seat: at-large Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) and MSNBC talk show host Ed Shultz. Shultz is way too liberal to be elected in North Dakota, and we’ve mentioned before how TV personalities would have a lot of difficulty running for office.

But for Democrats, the best case scenario would be a Shultz campaign and Pomeroy keeping his House seat, because that would likely turn red if he ran for Senate - and there’s no guarantee he’d win the higher office. Obviously, some Democrats disagree.

There was some light at the end of the tunnel for the Dems, though, when it was reported Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) will retire as well. Dodd was in really bad shape for a 2010 re-election and a GOP pick-up would not have been shocking. Now it will be.

Democrats have already lined-up their candidate for the Constitution State: the popular State Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal. And Blumenthal has already told the press he’s all-in, leaving little doubt that this was all planned out ahead of time.

Regardless, a Dodd loss was not inevitable, and now a Democratic loss in North Dakota may quite possibly be.

Also recently announced, Governor Bill Ritter (D-CO) may be stepping down after his term is complete. That leaves a big open-seat race in the Centennial State. However, Republicans have been campaigning in full swing already to take down the incumbent Democrat, and they have a long head start over any Democrats who would now have to step in to replace Ritter. While it could have easily been a GOP pick-up anyway, this retirement probably hurts Colorado Democrats a lot more than it helps.

Back in November, I took a look at Senate and Gubernatorial projections for this year and estimated net losses of less than 6 Senate races and less than 5 gubernatorial races for Democrats.

While these retirements don’t significantly change those figures, I think it makes the prospects for how many less a bit worse. It’s simply a bleaker picture than it was yesterday.

Nate Silver has a much more conservative estimate of Democratic losses. In a post today, he had this to say:

"If I aggregate my estimates from the individual races, I show Republicans picking up an average of 4.60 Democratic seats, but also, Democrats picking up an average of 2.65 Republican seats, for a net Republican gain of 1.95 seats…

… It also bears remembering that, although I remain quite pessimistic about what will happen to Democrats in the House, the Senate playing field is intrinsically more favorable to them. The Senators who are up for re-election this year are those who were elected in 2004 -- a good cycle for Republicans. And while Democrats were hurt by their retirements in North Dakota, Delaware, New York, Illinois and probably Colorado (they were helped by Chris Dodd's retirement in Connecticut), the Republicans have created opportunities for them with the retirements in Missouri, Ohio, New Hampshire and perhaps Florida (they were helped by Jim Bunning's retirement in Kentucky). If the 2006 senate class were up for re-election this year, Democrats would potentially face very substantial losses, but fortunately for Democrats they aren't."

Of course, 2010 is not only important because it is a likely backlash-year for the majority party, it’s also a critical election year at the state level. The State Legislatures will be redistricting their states after this year’s census, and Democrats were already at risk in those races.

With these retirements on the federal level, state Democrats may be feeling ambitious enough to run for higher office, leaving their seats open for competitive races (the Political Ripple Effect). Obviously, this isn’t a big deal per se in North Dakota (which isn’t big enough for 2 congressional districts) but it could be in Colorado and even possibly in Connecticut.

That could be very beneficial to the GOP for the new decade.

10 Things to Watch for in 2010

With 2009 over and a midterm election just 11 months away, pundits will be commenting on every imaginable issue over the year. Most of this you can probably ignore, but there are 10 things to keep your eye on in '10.

1) Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs. With only a few small dips here and there, unemployment steadily went up in 2009. The majority of Americans said at the beginning of Obama's term that they'd give him 18 months to revive the economy before blaming him for economic woes. As many predicted, that leash was a lot shorter. The stock market may be doing better, the GDP is up, and the recession is technically over - now jobs must be created. The success of the Democratic Party this year primarily hinges on this issue.

2) Who is "Nationalizing" the Midterms? Frankly, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans should want to nationalize these elections, as neither party is particularly popular at the federal level. And despite the fact that you can tweet a message across the world, all politics is still local. Republicans will want to take the route of Chris Christie and target state and local Democratic failures (particularly on state and local budget issues) rather than the President. This is not what they appear to be planning. His approval rating may be low, but many state and local Democrats are even less popular right now. Democrats should focus on themselves as individual candidates - and what they've personally done for the local community - rather than point to their larger party.

3) The Ire of the Bases. Everyone knows that the conservative base of the GOP is angry, as made evident by the outlandish Tea Party protests last year. But the liberal base of the Democratic Party is also uneasy. Just read Maureen Dowd's recent New York Times column. While nationalizing the election won't do any good reaching swing voters and changing voter preference, it could influence voter turnout. In 2010, the GOP's base is set to get active while the Democratic base might just stay home. Republicans would do themselves good to continue accelerating conservative angst with Obama and national Democrats, while Democrats would do themselves good to make a New Year's resolution to re-engage progressives against the national GOP.

4) The Incumbency Effect. It's usually beneficial to a politician to already hold the office he or she is running for. This might not be the case this year. Senators like Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, and Blanche Lincoln are at risk of losing their seats, along with a handful of House members. Pay close attention to elections this spring to see how local incumbents handle their races. Incumbents didn't do so well last year, but politics is by no means a consistent game.

5) Turning Activism into Campaigning. Ultimately, campaigns are the most important factors in elections. The way the base is engaged will not only affect turnout, but volunteering and contributing as well. Democrats need to inject (figurative) steroids into Organizing for America to bring back Obama volunteers for midterm races, and Republicans will want to come up with ways to redirect Tea Party activists towards assisting GOP candidates.

6) The Role of New Media. 2008 proved to be a great year for New Media operations, as the Obama campaign utilized them better than any campaign had before. Now with Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, blogging, and text-messaging becoming norms in political communication, 2010 will be a great test-year for how New Media can affect the outcomes of non-presidential races. The relative success of these operations this year will have a major impact on how campaigns use such services in the future.

7) How Long it Takes for a Healthcare Bill to be Signed. Passage of some sort of healthcare bill is becoming increasingly likely, but in order to appease enough members of both houses, it will take considerable time to sort out the details. Current goals are for a bill on President Obama's desk by mid-February, but it could take a lot longer than that. The sooner it is passed, the sooner Democrats can get past this contentious piece of legislation and focus on more appealing work that doesn't look so mucky to their constituents. Democrats will want the period between the signing and the election to be as long as possible - Republicans will want it to be as short as possible.

8) After Healthcare, What Next? Originally, it looked like President Obama would want to tackle climate change after a healthcare bill was complete. But with global warming denial as high as it is, an uncertain economic outlook, and local reservations about cap-and-trade, this might not be a good idea politically. Democrats would do themselves well to focus on improving education - Obama's other policy on the agenda - which is harder to lose votes over.

9) The War in Afghanistan. This will probably be one of those issues that sees a lot of ups and downs in public opinion. Many voters will not realize how long a surge will take, and that will produce misconceptions about the progress of the war. In the end, I don't think it will have a huge impact on the November elections, but if there does appear to be a general trend it could mean some subconscious attitudes will surface on Election Day. So pundits may want to track public opinion on the war now and again.

10) The Census. With 2010 Census forms due to hit homes around March, estimates regarding population shifts will come about periodically. That will be quite significant after this year is over. Where Congressional districts are lost and gained will have a huge impact on the make-up of Congress over the next decade, and could either confirm or disconfirm speculations of political realignment. Also be sure to watch the elections of State Legislatures, as they will be in charge of redistricting after this year.

Happy New Year!

Where Will the GOP Make Gains in 2010?

Summary: Should Republicans target conservative rural districts or moderate suburban districts?

Assuming the Republicans pick up a few seats in Congress next year, what kind of districts can we expect them to pick up?

Based on recent ad buys from the NRCC, it seems that Republicans believe the seats they pick up will be from more rural areas in traditionally red states. Recently they released this basic ad attacking veteran Congressmen Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Vic Snyder (D-AR), and John Spratt Jr. (D-SC) for their support of the House healthcare bill:



Now, CQPolitics.com has each of these districts as either likely Democratic or safe Democratic going into next year - but all three went for McCain in 2008, which was a good year for Democrats. Republicans now hope that enough discontent with the Democrats has built up in these districts so that the incumbency effect won’t play out in 2010.

At the same time, other Democrats are beginning to feel threatened about losing their blue-leaning suburban districts next year, which they see as the obvious point for Republican attack.

From a recent article in Politico:

Suburban Democrats are bracing to defend their recent gains amid unmistakable signs of volatility among an electorate that is impatient with the pace of economic recovery.

Their concerns are coming into sharp focus amid ongoing developments in Nassau County, N.Y., where County Executive Tom Suozzi, a rising star in New York politics and a prominent suburban Democratic politician, might lose his seat in a recount.

Suozzi’s predicament comes on the heels of other troubling developments in some of the nation’s largest suburban counties, including nearby Democratic Westchester County, where voters tossed out County Executive Andrew Spano in a startling upset Nov. 3…

…That sentiment applied up and down the East Coast in the 2009 off-year elections, as suburbanites registered their discontent by rejecting Democratic incumbents, even in typically blue-tinted counties.

Across the Hudson River, in New Jersey, Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine lost his reelection bid, and his Republican opponent came within striking distance of victory in suburban Bergen County, a Democratic area and the largest county in the state. Gov.-elect Chris Christie also bested Corzine in Middlesex County, a suburban bellwether that President Barack Obama won by 22 points in 2008.

In the Virginia governor’s race, the news for Democrats was hardly better: Republican Bob McDonnell trounced Democrat Creigh Deeds in nearly every suburban Northern Virginia county that supported Obama last year. The only holdouts, Arlington County and the city of Alexandria, were the closest municipalities to Washington.

…“Suburban voters tend to be independent, intelligent, and they listen and they make up their minds,” [says Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA)] “They would take a chance on Chris Christie rather than electing Jon Corzine. McDonnell ran a much better campaign than Deeds did.”

Of course, there still haven’t been any races that suggest Democrats will do poorly in the suburbs in federal races, in which local issues do not play as large of a roll. In fact, Democrats actually picked up a rural red-leaning district in 2009 on the federal side.

Top 5 Things Republicans and Democrats Must Do in 2010

Summary: Both parties will be facing tough battles for their seats in 2010. Here are the top five things for each party to pay attention to going into election season.

Yesterday I went through the data and analysis of the new Gallup poll which found the GOP to be leading the Democrats on the generic ballot, and the most recent Cook Political Report ratings.

As promised, I’m using our analysis to bring you the top five things the GOP and Democrats will want to do to maximize their vote potentials in next year’s midterm elections.


Top 5 Thing Republicans Must Do:

1) Don’t get caught up in primaries. If there is any lesson Republicans should have learned from their recent gubernatorial victory in Virginia, it’s that they ought to speak to the middle as quickly as possible. Primaries can be a good thing - particularly for raising name recognition of the eventual nominee, and giving a slew of candidates the chance to bash the other side together - but they also require a pandering to a base that, for Republicans, is a bit outside the political mainstream. Of course, it will be difficult to avoid primaries - Republicans see 2010 as a good year for them, and as such, they all want to take advantage of an opportunity to advance themselves personally - but the state parties, the RNSC and RNCC should all do what they can to avoid such battles for the base.

2) Use the Tea Party folks wisely. These right-wing protesters are fired up and ready to go, and such conservative activists could be a valuable resource to a Republican’s campaign - knocking on doors, making phone calls, and donating small amounts of money. However, they could be a burden. If you, as a GOP candidate, hold a rally with such activists bringing in signs depicting President Obama as Hitler or the Joker, your campaign will end up being sidetracked by your opponents and the media over the actions of your supporters. That would put you in the difficult position of maintaining the base support while looking appealing to the middle. Your campaign should actively pursue the Tea Party folks, but they should also make sure these activists don’t bring offensive signs to rallies, blog, or - worst of all - talk to the press.

3) Steer clear of “special interests” for 2010. PACs bring in a lot of money, which is always valuable, but if there’s one thing that could lose confidence in the Tea Partiers, it’s special interest money. Simply put, the Tea Parties are part of a larger populist backlash to the bailouts and lobbyists who secure grants under the stimulus bill. If your war chest is found to be connected to a banking firm or any other Wall Street group, it could hinder the confidence the base has in you.

4) Work had to find a balanced message. Using Tea Party activists will not always be easy. Democrats are going to want to tie you to Glenn Beck and the rest of the crazy right - but you can’t let them if you want to win. Republicans must appeal to the middle while still firing up the conservative base. The easiest thing to stress, of course, will be deficit spending. This will embolden the base and still sound perfectly reasonable to mainstream voters. There are all sorts of ways to carefully craft a message that achieves both goals, but it’s of the utmost importance to get it right, especially for Republicans and especially for 2010.

5) Don’t hold back on attacks. Relentless criticism of the Democrats is what’s going to win this election. Never miss an opportunity to attack an incumbent Democrat, even if he or she is not in your district. Criticize Obama’s “out-of-control” spending, Pelosi’s no-holds-barred style in the House, and Charlie Rangel’s tax issues as much as possible - and tie your opponent to that culture of spending, corruption, etc. Democrats will want to tout all the good things they’ve done, but you have to constantly remind voters that their governance has not been perfect - and suggest you can do better.


Top 5 Things Democrats Must Do:

1) Make sure the base believes in you. Many moderate Democrats in Congress seem to think that the only way they can win a re-election is by opposing the current healthcare reform bills. But the surest way to be defeated is to fail on healthcare reform. The base believed in you in 2006 and 2008 because you said you would bring change - if you fail them with big margins in Congress and control of the White house they will not help your re-election campaign and they may stay home on Election Day. That would be the surest way for a Democrat to lose. If the base doesn’t show up, you’re finished. If you’re running for re-election, you must fulfill at least some of your basic promises to your supporters.

2) Know your district. No campaign is the same - each one must tailor specifically to the appropriate constituency. If you’re running to replace another Democrat, ask yourself “was he popular?” If not, distance yourself from him, if he was, then win his support publicly. Is your district home to a lot of healthcare provider employees? Then figure out how to frame an argument for reform in a way that proves it will be beneficial to them. Is the district urban, suburban, or rural? Each will have it’s own implications for how you should explain your positions on energy, spending, etc.

3) Make it about you, not your party. 2010 is a backlash year. The Democrats in Washington and in the state capitals have not achieved everything they set out for simply because changing laws and improving government takes time. If you’re an incumbent, make sure to tout all the good things you’ve already done for the district specifically, such as Harry Reid is doing in Nevada. If you’re running for a new office, explain why your experience (doing whatever) makes you a particularly good candidate to help bring change. Don’t let your message get caught up in supporting the president and the ideals of the Democratic Party - show how you personally will be an effective leader with an independent streak.

4) Watch the unemployment rate closely. If your district has high unemployment right now, you need to be concerned - but if the stimulus has not successfully provided more jobs by October of next year you’ll be in a panic. If you’re an incumbent you need to get to work next year helping the unemployed. If you’re not an incumbent you will really need to tout that independent streak, explaining why the stimulus and the bailout hasn’t helped your constituency, and how you will make it better for them. Jobs are the biggest issue for the voter who has lost one - you must give them reason not to blame you for that.

5) Campaign like your job depends on it - because it does. If there’s one thing Democrats should have learned from the Virginia race, it’s that campaigns matter - and lackluster campaigning just won’t do. Democrats everywhere are worried, and rightfully so. Sure, I don’t expect too many Democratic seats to be lost next year, but that doesn’t mean you can sit back and relax. It will take a clever campaign staff, experienced consultants, and hard work to win in 2010. Make sure you keep track of how well you’re doing - with internal polls, message testing, Voter ID operations, etc. - and learn where you need to improve. Get out early and get out often to meet voters, raise money, and get positive press coverage. Anything short of everything will put you at risk.

New Data and Analysis for the 2010 Elections

Summary: WAYLA looks through the recent trends and makes a few 2010 predictions.

Like everyone else has been doing, I thought I’d use today to review the updates from the Cook Political Report and the recent Gallup poll that find Republicans gaining popularity.

First, the Gallup findings…



And it shouldn’t be any real surprise that much of the GOP gains are due to increasing support among independents.


Still, Gallup seems to suggest that a generic ballot is more telling than it really is. Voters don’t select the party they want to see in power, they choose individual candidates. So let’s take a look at the Cook Political Report.

As far as House seats go, I don’t think the Democrats have much to worry about at this point. CPR indicates that 15 seats are toss-ups, 12 of which are held by Democrats. Furthermore, 21 seats are labeled “leaning Democratic” - usually because they’re currently held by a Democrat, but nonetheless it’s a moderately conservative seat. Still, even if the Democratic candidate was to lose all of these seats, the party would still control the House during the 112th Congress.

Even that’s unlikely. In fact, Democrats will probably pick up a few seats, particularly from Democratic-leaning districts currently held by Republicans that plan to move up the political ladder - such as the seats held by Congressmen Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mike Castle (R-DE) and Jim Gerlach (R-PA).

Some Democrats - such as Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) - have already decided not to pursue higher office, in part no doubt, because the district would likely turn red otherwise. All in all, there are only 3 competitive open-seat races in districts held by Democrats.

For more analysis on this, check out the two posts by FiveThirtyEight.com’s Tom Schaller here and here.

At this point, I think it’s doubtful that Democrats will lose more than 10 to 15 net seats in the House next year.

The Senate is another story.

While only 10 are open seats and - of those - only 6 are toss-ups, there are a lot of states where incumbent senators are vulnerable.

We all know that Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Michael Bennett (D-CO) are at risk - but two names we haven’t mentioned are Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) who are both in the “lean Dem” category.


Seeing as next year will be a better year for Republicans, I can’t see the GOP candidate losing in a few open seat races like those in Missouri, Texas, and Kentucky - but I do think the Democrats have a shot at picking up the seats in Louisiana (thanks to many missteps from Sen. Vitter), Ohio, and New Hampshire.

It’s tough to say what will happen in Delaware and Florida will probably come down to who wins the GOP primary. Pennsylvania will be another interesting race to watch, which is something we’ve known since Sen. Specter switched parties earlier this year.

All in all, I doubt that the Democrats will lose more than 6 net seats in the Senate - leaving them enough to still control the chamber.

For more analysis, see Politico’s 10 Senate Districts Most Likely to Flip.

Finally, gubernatorial races will be another area to watch, in part because there are 21 open seats (see the map below).


Currently Democrats control 19 of the 37 gubernatorial seats on the ballot next year - the other 18 held by the GOP. A few of those Democratic seats - Massachusetts, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Colorado - are likely to be extremely competitive, and could go red.


However, the same is true for a handful of GOP seats - including Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, California, and Hawaii - which could easily go blue.

It’s impossible to make any solid conclusions at this point, but I would doubt the Democrats lose more than 5 net Governor Mansions.

If you do want to know what to watch for going into next year, check out this video from Politico:


For more analysis on all of these 2010 elections, make sure to check out the articles and op-eds on Politico’s new 2010 page.

I’ll continue more on some of these ideas tomorrow as I explain what both Democrats and Republicans will want to do in order to win the most support.