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%.
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.
Summary: The State of the Union Address did help President Obama - but by how much, and will it last?
A week ago today President Obama delivered his first State of the Union Address. Earlier that day we asked “could it bump his approval rating?”
We looked at Gallup data from previous SOTU speeches and determined it was unlikely. Presidents rarely get a significant bump following their annual address. But after seeing the speech, we determined that if any address could help his approval rating, it was that one.
Well, the new Gallup data is in, and - though it was small - there was a notable increase.
In just a day or two, the gap between his approval and disapproval ratings increased from 2% to 6%. As of this morning it is currently at 9% (note: the approval rating data will be updated later today).
As Gallup notes though, most of that increase came because Obama was able to re-inspire confidence in the Democratic base - not among Independents and Republicans.
Support for Obama among Democrats on a week-by-week basis has held steady in the mid-80s during January, although with some minor shifts among segments of the Democratic Party. His approval rating dipped mid-month among liberal Democrats before rebounding a bit last week. His support increased slightly in mid-January among conservative Democrats and has held at the higher level.
Support for Obama is now a bit lower among moderate/liberal Republicans than it was at the start of the month (27% vs. 33%). It is also slightly lower among conservative Republicans and pure independents (those who don't lean to either party), but neither of those changes is statistically significant.
Of course, the impact of single political events - even as high-profile as a State of the Union Address - fade quickly. A small bump in his approval rating this week means virtually nothing when looking forward to the 2010 elections. President Obama needs to continue what he started during that speech.
And he appears to be doing so. His tone has become more populist, more inspiring, and more reasonable. His recent address and Q&A with House Republicans was a very good event for him. If he manages to keep this up he could easily recapture a lot of the ground he lost over 2009 in terms of popularity.
Obviously he is not up for election this year - members of Congress are. But as a Democratic president during a year Democrats are expected to see big losses, he certainly has his role to play. And for now, he appears to be playing it well.
Summary: Having the facts on your side is never enough - what Democrats need to know for 2010.
Democrats will be tempted this year to explain the healthcare debate - or eventually the healthcare bill - in terms of economic efficiencies and aggregate improvements.
These will, of course, be the results of such a bill - but the argument may still cost these Democrats their elections.
Dr. David Runciman - a political scientist at Cambridge University - explains why in a piece for the BBC.
Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?
Why are they manning the barricades to defend insurance companies that routinely deny claims and cancel policies?
It might be tempting to put the whole thing down to what the historian Richard Hofstadter back in the 1960s called "the paranoid style" of American politics, in which God, guns and race get mixed into a toxic stew of resentment at anything coming out of Washington.
But that would be a mistake.
If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.
They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.
There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.
As the saying goes, in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell.
In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat, tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side.
He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:
Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."
Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers.
"I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."
Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off.
For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win: "One of the fallacies that politicians often have on the Left is that things are obvious, when they are not obvious.
"Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him."
Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas, is an even more exasperated Democrat and he goes further than Mr Westen.
He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests. The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.
Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.
Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:
"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining."…
…As Mr Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex.
Now, there are a lot of Democratic candidates out there who are able to connect to voters on the basis of these emotional values rather than objective policy-centered politics. For the most part, they will be fine.
Then there are a lot of Democrats who like to focus on policy specifics. Like Adlai Stevenson, they will hope the voters to understand these ideas if put to them correctly. But that’s not how voters make their decisions, and these Democrats will learn this the hard way come November.
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.
On Wednesday, President Barack Obama gave his first State of the Union Address. To put it mildly, he delivered one of his best speeches to date.
Watch the full speech here:
It was folksy, compassionate, and at times humorous. Most importantly, it was moving.
Some in the blogosphere - from both left and right - have been quick to criticize the feeling of the speech, if not the substance. Arianna Huffington yesterday described it as the “State of the Focus Group Address”.
“while most State of the Union speeches have a bit of a kitchen-sink feel to them, this one seemed particularly so with its blink-and-you-missed-it mentions of "earmark reform" and cracking "down on violations of equal pay laws -- so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work." It felt less like an overriding vision for the country, and more like an attempt to deliver at least one applause line for every constituency in the country.
That's not political leadership. Obama clearly understands this. It's why he ended his speech by mocking politicians who "do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation." And he just as clearly has the ability to articulate a bold vision for the nation and lead it where it desperately needs to go.
But he didn't do it tonight.”
Huffington is right insofar as the message-testing reality of the speech. Obama is changing his tone to what the American people want to hear.
But to say its not political leadership is flat-out wrong. Americans have a deep mistrust in government right now, not because they disagree with any particular policy agenda, but because they haven’t been feeling a connection to the man they believe is responsible for the direction of such legislation. As a result, healthcare, energy, and financial reform bills have been slow to pass through Congress, and vital work is not being done.
Now, it’s not clear yet if Obama achieved that trust with the SOTU Address. We’ll be watching his approval rating in the days to come as pollsters report their data. But if any speech could rouse broader public support for his presidency, it was the one Wednesday night.
Other thoughts…
• Luckily for Obama, few liberals seem to have picked up on certain number of inferred policy objectives he mentioned, including corn-based ethanol, “clean” coal, offshore drilling, and No Child Left Behind. If they had, the skepticism of the current Democratic government among progressives would have been jolted, a concern given the prospects they may stay home come election time. Yet Obama’s rousing message of America seemed to trump the minor details.
• If Congress was a class room and Obama was the teacher, the Republicans were the brats who don’t pay attention and get bad grades. They’ve been obstructive to the legislative process over the past year the way some kids are disruptive to the rest of class. Last night I saw a few of them tweeting and generally not paying attention. Sure, this isn’t new, but it’s certainly concerning. When the President of the United State is addressing your body, you should really listen up.
Summary: Laura Craft Hogensen explains her frustration with Tim Tebow's pro-life ad that will air during the Superbowl.
For many Americans, Sunday is a day of worship, a day to attend church services, a day of prayer and reflection. For the past decade, the Gallup Poll has shown that about 40% of people in this country attend some sort of church service during the weekend. Though this number has dropped siginificantly from the level that it was in the late 80's and early 90's, worship and the act of worship is still a significant part of many Americans' lives. And the religion that most citizens in the US practice is still Christianity. As of 2008, 76% of Americans polled identified themselves as Christian. Though this number used to be much greater (86% in 1990), still, over three quarters of people in this country consider themselves to be Christian.
We've all heard these statistics, or something like them before. All citizens in the United States, whether politically active or not, are aware, on some level, of the religious divisions that exist in this country. And frankly, I hate talking about them. I hated even looking up the statistics on faith for this blog post. The argument for or against different types of faiths and ideologies bores me. I feel that it's impossible to sway people on issues of faith or ideology because these issues are so personal, and so close to the self. Why waste time and energy trying to convince "the other side," that you are right and they are wrong? No ground is ever gained in battles of religion, ideology, and politics. There's a reason why these three topics have been banned as polite dinner table conversation.
But, if three of the largest issues are eliminated because of impropriety, what can there be to talk about? How can Americans fill the void of conversation that occurs during business lunches, happy hours, dinners and first dates? The answer is simple and all-encompassing: Sports.
Sports is the great uniter. When watching a game or discussing a team, no attention is paid to one's politcal or religious beliefs. The questions and answers are equally complex and nuanced - one need only recall the furious speculation that occurs before the Major League Baseball trading deadline - but anyone can participate in the discussion. People of all religions and political persuasions come together to pull for the same team. In many ways, spending time on Sunday afternoon watching a game with friends and strangers, rooting for a team together, and celebrating a victory, is a communion just as powerful as the one found during a church service.
That's what I've always liked about sports. Its universality, the passion it inspires - and the values it promotes. Sports has taught me that the actions of one can affect the outcome of all. It's taught me to be strong, to persevere in the face of adversity. I've learned that all people on a team can and do contribute to a team's success and failure - that we each have a role to play, and that the best kind of success is earned through hard work. These lessons, these values, do not appear on stone tablets, but they have shaped me and others to be just as decent and moral as those who were molded by faith.
In a way, sports has been a kind of refuge for me. A way to avoid arguments of politics or religion. A way to connect to others without worrying about who I might offend. No matter what was happening with the health care bill, or what Pat Robertson said about Haiti, or how Prop 8 was voted on, the world of sports was a neutral territory where ideologies were left off the field, and for that, I was grateful.
Perhaps this is why I'm more upset than usual over the pro-life ad starring Tim Tebow and his mother that is scheduled to air on CBS during the Superbowl. By making the decision to air this ad (produced by Focus on the Family), CBS has not only chosen to align itself politically and ideologically, but it has tarnished the neutrality that sports provided. It has taken away my refuge.
This is not the first time that a network has been asked to air a political or ideological commercial during the Super Bowl - the biggest night for television viewership during the year. In 2009, NBC made the decision to reject a similar pro-life ad that alluded to newly elected president Barack Obama. Like the Tebow ad, the Obama pro life ad, which was produced by CatholicVote, asks the question, "What if this child had not been born?" and then urges the viewer to "imagine the potential of life." At the time, many pro life groups protested NBC's decision, while NBC countered that it had also rejected the issue-based PETA ad as well. In 2008, presidential candidates also made the decision to avoid political ads during the Super Bowl. While Obama chose to buy local advertising in certain states, both he and the other front-runners of both parties decided to leave political talk out of the big game.
CBS has maintained that its decision to air the ad is part of a change in the network's approach towards "advocacy ads" which has occurred in recent years. Spokesperson Dana McClintock states that "most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time," and that "CBS will continue to consider responsibly produced ads from all groups for spots in Super Bowl XLIV."
I should probably divulge that I am pro choice - pretty vehemently so. And, when I first read this story, my main concern was that CBS would be unwilling to give equal time to a pro choice organization, should they want to (and should they have the money to) air an ad. But McClintock's vague statement about equal "consideration" does little to assuage my anger over this. I'm not angry at Focus on the Family or other pro life organizations that support this ad. I'm not angry at Tim Tebow or his mother - their Christianity and their commitment to their faith is deep and real. I'm angry that CBS has chosen to bring politics and religion into one of the few places where it had not yet divided this country. They've chosen a side, and by choosing sides, they have alienated others who do not, who can not, who will never agree. The Super Bowl, for all of its needless pageantry, for all of its encouragement of consumption and overindulgence is a truly American experience. Unlike other holidays like Christmas, it was a celebration that all Americans had in common regardless of faith, politics, or ideology. Yet, it seems on this day, too, we'll be a people divided.
Laura Craft Hogensen is an athlete and an avid political observer. She is married to Eric Hogensen, Principal of Hogensen Strategies Group.
Summary: Tonight's address will set the stage for 2010 -- but how will if affect Obama's ratings?
Tonight President Obama will deliver his first State of the Union Address, although he has already addressed Congress twice before. According to pundit Howard Fineman, Obama’s test tonight will be whether or not he can win back America’s confidence.
His approval ratings could be worse, but they do suggest he is a polarizing president who has already spent the entirety of his political capital. According to Gallup, his approval rating is about 48% while his disapproval rating is about 47%.
Fineman also notes that there are “volumes of analysis written about the president are rife with the cliché that the guy’s career is made up of career-making or career-saving speeches.”
So can Obama give such a speech tonight?
If you pay attention to Gallup reports, you’ll agree the answer is “unlikely.” Hardly any presidents have managed to get significant bumps in the polls following their SOTU Address.
The only exception - really - was Bill Clinton’s 1998 SOTU Address, in which he announced one of the nation’s first surpluses in years just days after news broke about his affair with Monica Lewinski. The speech bumped his approval 10 points - up from 59% to 69%.
Most SOTU Addresses, however, don’t do that. In fact, the majority of presidents lose support after the speech, if anything.
Part of the reason approval is not expected to go up is because of who watches a SOTU Address - it’s almost always composed of more Americans who already support the president giving it.
In the two addresses Obama has made before Congress, his approval rating saw some upturn. The first - about a year ago - bumped him up 8%. But that was early in his presidency, before many Americans could get a firm opinion about him as a Commander-in-Chief. A lot has changed since then. His second - a healthcare focused speech - only gave him a 2% bump.
One interesting thing to watch will be how viewers react to the way he plans to take responsibility for the government’s shortcomings tonight. According to the New York Times (and probably other news outlets) the president is prepared to admit that his administration has made missteps.
Perhaps Americans will find it refreshing - the Bush Administration was usually reluctant to own up to mistakes - or perhaps it will confirm their skepticism about the new president.
Summary: Fellow political consultants provide critical, but reassuring insight following the Senatorial special election in the Bay State.
Recently, our colleagues at Zata3 - a Democratic consulting firm in Washington, DC - sent us an email titled “Sorting Through the Wreckage Massachusetts.”
The email contained some important lessons from last week’s special election that we thought would be good to share with you today.
From the email:
We’ve talked to several of our friends who were involved in the MA Senate race (we did not work there). We’ve read dozens of news articles, blog exchanges and statistical analyses and listened to more than our share of the talking heads from both sides of the aisle. Here’s our one minute summary of the lessons to be learned.
• Don’t let the other side define you. Coakley was not on the airwaves until after the IE’s had defined her as the establishment candidate.
• Take the pulse of voters frequently, especially in these volatile times. GOP polls had Brown within 3 points of definite voters a month out. By January 9, he was ahead and by all accounts, it was too late to reverse the momentum.
• Expect a pragmatic, nimble, aggressive Hard Right. Brown was not the Tea Party’s ideal candidate but when they smelled opportunity, the zealots poured it on.
• Get your field program in order. Accounts vary about the shape of the MA voter file going into the special election, but all agree that Democrat turnout was anemic in key areas.
• In special elections, retail politics matter. The online Far Right was increasingly energized by Brown’s public appearances during the week around Christmas when Coakley made no public appearances.
• Don’t expect help from the White House. The President is personally popular, but the Bush hangover (two wars, Wall Street excesses, deficit, etc.) and Obama’s own ambitious agenda negate any positive coattails.
The good news is, nearly all of these lessons are from the Politics 101 text book. A solid, hardworking candidate and a capable campaign team who execute the fundamentals will win.
Soon we plan to bring you an analysis from a Democrat on the ground during the Massachusetts race, to learn further lessons as we look forward to the November midterms.
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.
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.
Summary: Show me the money! 2010 and the Supreme Court.
As you probably know by now, the Supreme Court yesterday overturned decades of precedent by ruling that a century-old law forbidding corporate (and possibly labor union) funding of political campaigns was unconstitutional. The issue, they claimed, was that the law infringed on free speech as protected by the First Amendment.
We first explained the case, Citizens United v. FEC, in a post last year.
The concept that campaign finance is an issue of free speech dates back to the case Buckley v. Valeo of the mid-1970s, and the concept that corporations are similar to individuals dates back to the mid-to-late 1800s.
Yet, in a 1990 case - Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce - the Court found there was a “compelling government interest in preventing corporations, in particular, from having an inordinate influence in the political process.”
And even if you don’t believe the ruling itself was a sign of judicial activism, the way the Court went about the ruling was totally out of character. The justices actually called for a second round of oral arguments so the two sides could debate the broader constitutional issues surrounding their particular case. In other words, the justices needed more to be said in order to make a more sweeping change to precedent.
Anyone who has studied constitutional law or the Supreme Court knows that such a move would generally be considered within the Court’s limitations, but highly irregular and a sign of improper conduct.
Constitutional issues aside, the practical implications of the decision are not yet certain.
First: do corporations actually want to risk alienating customers by running political ads close to an election? My guess is “no” for the most part. Yet there are definitely exceptions to that, especially with financial regulatory reform now on President Obama’s legislative agenda.
Now firms like JP Morgan, Chase, and other lenders - who are at risk of being broken up under the president’s plan - can target at-risk members of Congress who support Obama’s reform agenda.
Second: do campaigns really want corporations to help them? The SCOTUS decision didn’t say that a corporation could contribute an unlimited amount of money to a campaign - it would be limited, like an individual, to $4,600 per candidate this cycle - but only that corporations could make unlimited independent expenditures running ads supporting or attacking a candidate.
In other words, the 527 ads that liberals came to fear so much would be child’s play compared to the ads that corporations can spend money on.
But that could come with its own set of problems. It is unclear at this point how much coordination a campaign could have with a corporation producing and supporting a political ad. If their coordination is limited - like it is between a campaign, a party, and PACs at the moment - then campaigns would actually fear the ads throwing them off-message.
Explaining why the Obama for America campaign did not take federal funding - largely ceding advertisement expenditures to the DNC - campaign manager David Plouffe writes about this issue in his new book, The Audacity to Win:
“All the decisions would be made without our input. They would invariably be running a negative health care ad in a market where we would have preferred a tax cut comparative. And since tone was so important to our campaign - we did not want traditional low-blow negative ads run on our behalf - this factor took on added weight.”
So it is possible that corporate spending on behalf of a candidate could hurt a campaign more than help it.
Third: will Congress take action to limit the impact of the ruling? Within hours of the decision being released, liberal activists and grassroots organizations started a firestorm of angry criticism. When I emailed the story to co-workers yesterday, the subject line I gave it was “holy sh**, the levees just broke…”. And online petitions have already popped up from Organizing for America - who blasted an email about it - Public Citizen, and others.
What kind of action could they take? One of the comments I read on the post from the blog Campaign Diaries included a good idea.
“…perhaps Congress could address this without violating the Court’s new ruling on censorship. Could Congress require stock holders and union member to explicitly approve of political expenditures before they are made by those individual entities? I know that in a few states, union members must given written permission for their union dues to go political activity. Similar approval rights could be given to stock holders regarding corporate profits, or something even more specific for both groups, such as written permission for political spending per issue or per candidate. That would likely reduce the spending from those entities without the need for government censorship. The people that make up those entities would in effect be censoring themselves.”
In fact, one of my arguments against opening campaign finance to corporations was that executives wouldn’t just be making political speech decisions with their own personal money, but their investors’ money as well. This would be a good way to counter corporate spending that investors might not agree with.
At the end of the day, laws must be passed to counter the implications of more than just Citizens United v. FEC. In an op-ed yesterday, Michael Waldman - executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law - noted more campaign finance cases to come.
Another big campaign finance case soon likely to reach the high court would test the ban on large "soft money" contributions to political parties, last upheld by the court in 2003. Just days after John McCain's presidential campaign ended, the Republican National Committee sued to overturn the provision that was his proudest legislative accomplishment. That would mark a true plunge into partisan wars. Explaining the case, the RNC's political director was blunt: To have a chance of matching Obama's small donations, "we need to be on an equal footing, and we think that law [McCain-Feingold] keeps us from doing that."
While it is reasonable to fear that the floodgates have been opened, it is still not entirely clear what impact the Court’s decision will have on this year’s elections - especially given the fact that no one has ever seen a corporate-funded political ad. The only way to know the implications for sure will be to live through it in 2010.
In the meantime, however, you can petition Congress through OFA to take action to counter the decision by clicking here.
Summary: Dave and Eric at WAYLA ponder the impact of the special election in Massachusetts.
Tuesday’s election in the Bay State sent a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy’s former seat. Needless to say, it’s been considered a devastating blow to President Obama and the Democratic Party.
To be sure, things would certainly be easier for the Democrats if they had a filibuster-proof Senate, capable of passing critical legislation in spite of an obstructionist minority party. But even with the GOP holding 41 seats, it does not mean the end of the world for Democrats.
In fact, it might prove beneficial for them, and for Obama’s legacy.
Following Scott Brown’s victory, Obama signaled that he would not move on healthcare legislation - a key factor in the Massachusetts race and the primary issue behind the slow pace of Congress - until the senator-elect was seated. The president also said he would meet with Brown to discuss the bill before it reappears in the Senate.
Can such meaningful legislation be passed when Democrats have to work with Republicans?
Skeptics readily say “no” to that question. In a Washington Postop-ed today, columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. claims the election demonstrated an inherent contradiction in what he calls “Obamaism”:
"As a candidate, Obama pledged to change the tone in Washington and restore amicable relations between the parties. But he also promised to accomplish large things, including a substantial reform of the health-care system, major action to ease global warming, and a reshaped and more responsible financial system.
At some point, Obama's ambitions were destined to collide with the views of a Republican Party fundamentally opposed to almost everything he wants to do. Obama could try to get big things done or he could work easily with Republicans, but he could not do both."
During his campaign, Obama often spoke about skeptics, critics, and nay-sayers as well.
In 1982, President Reagan was confronted with big losses in Congress to the Democratic Party. In 1994, President Clinton saw Republicans take control of the House for the first time in a generation. These presidents regrouped, shook it off, and worked with the opposition.
Under Reagan, the country saw a defense build-up that scared the Soviet Union, all the while not neglecting domestic priorities. Under Clinton the country pulled out of record deficits and created record surpluses, all the while keeping the economy strong. Plus they both got re-elected the very next cycle.
These were their legacies, and it could be Obama’s too.
There is no shortage of study on why Americans prefer divided government. They do not like the idea of one party being drunk on power.
Well, 2008 was one hell of a wild party, and on Tuesday Democrats began to sober up.
This is important if the Democrats want to hold on to power. For six years the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House, passing remarkably poor policy with their dominance. The way they saw it, if voters approved of what you said, they’ll automatically approve of what you’ll do. Karl Rove added the fuel to the fire, claiming the Republican Party would have an unmitigated era of electoral dominance.
Democrats need to steer clear of this sort of arrogance.
Now, we’ll never cheer for a Republican to win. Nor can we be certain that Scott Brown’s place in the Senate will make anything better for anyone. But Brown’s victory is not the worst thing that could happen to the Democratic Party. We should be grateful it happened now, giving us time to learn our lessons before November.
Don’t think of his upset as the end, think of it as a new beginning.
Summary: A lesson for Democrats in 2010 - 3 Reasons Coakley lost in Massachusetts.
As promised, we’ll spend today analyzing some key reasons why a Republican won Ted Kennedy’s seat in the U.S. Senate yesterday. Essentially, there are a variety of things to look at despite the lack of exit polls.
Campaigning Matters
There’s been a lot of back-and-forth bickering among Democrats over who is to blame for the Coakley loss. Yesterday the Coakley campaign released a memo blaming the DNC and DSCC for not putting enough resources into the race despite receiving polling information that showed she was at risk. A top Democrat then told Politico that Coakley also shared some of the blame.
It’s probably true. Coakley took off time from campaigning during December, giving Brown an opportunity to swing in and secure votes. Her campaign also failed to meet the necessary goals with voter contact in key areas of the state.
The Swing State Project released this map demonstrating how well the Coakley campaign needed to do on a city-by-city (or town-by-town) basis in order to win on Tuesday. They based their benchmarks on the relatively close Senate race in 1996 and the relatively close gubernatorial race in 2002.
As we saw last night, Coakley severely underperformed in reaching these benchmarks. Here’s how the commonwealth went yesterday.
Take the town of Upton for example. According to the Swing State Project, she essentially needed to match Brown 50-50 there to reach her goal in that municipality. She lost 64% - 35% there yesterday. That was the situation across much of middle Massachusetts.
Brown, on the other hand, met his goals. His campaign vigorously contacted voters in this critical part of the state and never assumed victory - even when the polls had him ahead. Democrats in Washington and Massachusetts alike (including the Coakley campaign) expected her to be a shoe-in before the start of the New Year.
Like Hillary Clinton in 2008, Coakley learned the hard way that there’s no such thing as a shoe-in in politics. If you don’t put in the work you won’t get the prize.
All Politics is Local
This was not a local referendum on Barack Obama, on healthcare, or on any other national issue. This was about Massachusetts, and Brown understood that far more than Coakley. Just listen to the way he described his opposition to the healthcare bill in Congress this morning.
See what he did? He agreed that everyone needs universal healthcare, but said that because Massachusetts practically has it already, a federal bill can only hurt the Bay State residents he now represents.
The majority of voters cast their ballots in their own self-interest - they don’t tend to be altruistic in their electoral decisions. Coakley needed to frame her argument for a national health bill better than she did.
Additionally, many state Democrats in Massachusetts - including Governor Devall Patrick - are not popular at the moment.
Enthusiasm is in the GOP’s Court
Turnout was high yesterday - approximately 55% of the electorate (around 2.2 million voters) is estimated to have cast a ballot. Normally this would be good for a Democrat in Massachusetts, where Democrats outnumber Republicans almost 3-to-1.
It was not. Between the unpopularity of local Democratic officials, the slow-pace of the Democrat-controlled Congress, and a lackluster Coakley campaign, a large part of the Democratic base was not moved enough to go to the polls yesterday.
But Republicans and Independents sure were. A huge number of GOP voters showed up to the polls on Tuesday, and Independents supported Brown by almost a 2-to-1 margin.
Independents have a long and decisive history of voting against the party in power - especially in off-year elections. There seems to be an aggregate psyche among them to create checks and balances in the federal government. So to some extent, this was not a big surprise. Republican turnout shouldn’t have been either, as they are fighting the power, and thus more enthusiastic to vote out Democrats.
The extent of these trends, however, was surprising.
This should be the biggest red flag for Democrats in 2010. There is no getting around the fact that high GOP enthusiasm and low Democratic enthusiasm is going to hinder a lot of Democratic campaigns this year. If there is anything to be concerned about, this is it.
That’s not to say that defeat is inevitable. Strong and smart campaigning can limit the losses Democrats will face this year. Hopefully for Democrats, our candidates can learn the important lessons from last night’s results in Massachusetts.
Welcome back to WAYLA for our coverage of today’s special election in Massachusetts. Polls have closed and our eye is glued to the results as they slowly come.
The Bay State saw huge turnout today - which may be of greater benefit to Republican Scott Brown than Democrat Martha Coakley.
Early returns show Brown ahead 53% to 46%, according to CNN - but that’s only with 13% of the vote in. Obviously many precincts, especially those in central and south Boston (which should be a little more supportive of Coakley) will be coming later in the night.
CNN is also reporting that Democrats are as upset with their party’s slow progress on healthcare as Republicans are upset with how far the bill has come. These are certainly signs that are no surprise to us.
Many pundits across the networks are predicting a Brown win tonight.
One interesting point is how Massachusetts independents have swung for Brown. Public Policy Polling finds that while independents voted 45% - 44% for Obama in 2008, they voted 64% - 32% for Brown today.
They also found that the enthusiasm gap for Brown over Coakley was high.
More to come…
UPDATE 1: It's difficult to say anything for sure at this point, but a notable trend has appeared in the reporting precincts. In the majority of towns and cities that are currently going for Coakley, she leads by less than 3%. Meanwhile, the majority of the towns and cities going for Brown show him ahead by 10% to 20%.
More to come around 8:30pm (CST).
UPDATE 2: It appears to be over, as Coakley conceded to Brown about a half hour ago. With 88% of precincts reporting, Brown holds a steady 52% - 47% lead over Coakley. While she won solid victories in places like Boston, Cambridge, and the surrounding area - as well as western towns like Northhampton and North Adams - she lost by 20 to 30 point margins in about half the state.
Apparently the Coakley campaign is blaming DC Democrats, saying the DNC and DSCC failed to provide sufficient funds (despite the polling information they were provided) until it was too late.
Still, Democrats on the ground in Massachusetts are saying that Coakley had simply expected victory and didn't take her Republican opponent seriously. As a result, she abstained from campaigning during a long period in December and never really tapped in to the populist, anti-incumbent feelings of voters.
Once again, Democratic candidates must remember that campaigning still matters.
With that we'll leave it there and give you our final thoughts tomorrow.
With hours left before polls close in the Bay State, political junkies, insiders, and the press are looking forward to what are expected to be close results.
We’ll be blogging during the returns tonight, but for the meantime, here are some good articles on the race…
• “Five Things to Watch for in Massachusetts” (Politico): To make some sense of the early returns, POLITICO put together a guide of five things to watch as the results come in, after polls close at 8 p.m. (EST).
• “538 Model Posits Brown as 3:1 Favorite” (FiveThirtyEight): The FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecasting Model, which correctly predicted the outcome of all 35 Senate races in 2008, now regards Republican Scott Brown as a 74 percent favorite to win the Senate seat in Massachusetts on the basis of new polling…which show worsening numbers for Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley.
• “Martha Choakley?” (FiveThirtyEight): It's still not entirely clear to [author Tom Schaller] that Martha Coakley will lose today… Still…Even though a short, six-week race in February of an off-year cycle is more than the normally disadvantaged, minority Republicans could hope for, that argument could be turned inside out, too: how much damage can a majority-party standard bearer like Coakley do to herself in such a short time? Quite a bit, apparently.
As of right now, I would agree that this race is not over. Coakley still has a reasonable shot of pulling off a victory. But this will be close, and the odds are surprisingly against her.
We’ll see you back here when polls close tonight.
UPDATE: Here are some more stories coming out of Boston...
• In what should be good news for Coakley, the Globe reports that voter turnout has been pretty high so far today. However, it appears that the enthusiasm gap is much higher for Brown, which may be why David Axelrod is saying Brown ran an impressive campaign.
• The Boston Globe also broke with protocol earlier today and briefly posted the results of the exit polls taken so far. The Boston Phoenix made sure to post the results on their website. They have Coakley winning over Brown 50% to 49%. Usually, however, releasing exit polls early is a burden to the one in the lead.
We’re taking a day off from the blog to spend some time giving back to the community today. We hope you get a chance to do some service too. MLK Day is a great day to help our country in the most basic of ways.
Even if you can’t today, you will have an opportunity to help the victims of the earthquake in Haiti - so long as you’re in the Milwaukee area tomorrow.
Or if you won’t be in Milwaukee tomorrow, you can always text “HAITI” to 90999 to give $10 to the Red Cross’s relief efforts there.
Summary: Will party unity be able to bring another win for the GOP in a traditionally Democratic State, or can Coakley secure Ted Kennedy's seat on Tuesday?
So far this blog has not really given any insight to the unexpectedly close special election for Senator in Massachusetts. It would be irresponsible if we let that continue. So here’s a little breakdown of what to watch for in the race.
First and foremost, this is a toss-up. Polling - both internal and independent - shows that this race has been getting tighter in the past two weeks. Nate Silver, the polling guru of FiveThirtyEight.com, agreed on this in a post last night.
Democratic State Attorney General Martha Coakley should by all means be a safe candidate in a liberal state like Massachusetts. But her approval rating (about 49%) is only about 8 points higher than her disapproval rating. Meanwhile her opponent - Republican State Sentator Scott Brown - has a firm approval rating at 57% with disapproval in the mid 30s.
Already fearing a Republican win, many Democrats are speculating that the Coakley campaign just isn’t doing it’s job well enough.
…some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor's race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.
The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."
Boy, does that sound familiar.
With the election coming up on Tuesday the campaigns are now heading into GOTV weekend. Polls will now be largely unreliable, and who will win is anyone’s guess. But from what we’ve seen, things aren’t looking much better for Coakley.
They should. With so many Democrats in Massachusetts it should be easy for the campaign to get enough of them to the polls on Election Day. It may mean a lot of stressful hours this weekend for her staff (and I’m sure they will be) but it shouldn’t theoretically be too difficult.
Of course, that’s what we said about the gubernatorial race in New Jersey last year.
And Brown’s GOTV efforts will be a lot easier with significant supplementation from other GOP campaigns across the country. Politico reports today that Republican congressional campaigns from Connecticut to Texas, Pennsylvania to Florida, and just about everywhere else are transferring their time and energy to the Massachusetts race.
Some campaigns are blasting e-mails to supporters, prodding them to cut checks. Others are temporarily turning their headquarters into phone banks. A few are even encouraging volunteers to head to Massachusetts…
Now that’s some party unity. The direct benefit to these other campaigns is not obvious. But apparently there is a morale effect. These other GOP campaigns believe that if a Republican can win Ted Kennedy’s old seat, then anything is possible - and that will really encourage their supporters.
There are definitely some undecided voters at this point - probably 4%-5% of the electorate. Voters who haven’t made up their minds by GOTV weekend typically split about 50-50 when they enter the polls. That might not be what Coakley wants to hear.
Yet, I have to imagine this race could be different. Many of these last minute voters who will make their decision on Election Day (even as late as when they head into the booth) will no doubt be thinking about Ted Kennedy’s legacy. It hasn’t really been a big enough issue in the campaign, but it helps - no doubt - that Kennedy’s widow recently cut this ad for Coakley:
Hopefully for Coakley, this message will resonate with last minute voters.
But hope is not enough. Inevitably, the Coakley campaign will need to get-out-the-vote this weekend like none other if they want to send her to Washington.
Note: because this is a critical 60th seat for Senate Democrats, we hope you can spare some time to make calls on behalf of the Coakley campaign. You can help them out this weekend by signing up to volunteer at www.MarthaCoakley.com, or through OFA.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Ever mindful of the fact that we often take ourselves too serious in politics, I thought it would be good to show you this insightful and hilarious segment from last night's Daily Show today...
