January 14, 2010

To Hawthorn Friends and Family –

                      Below is Steve Lombardo’s latest analysis  . . . a more measured – and, in our view, more balanced and accurate – assessment than those offered by pundits predicting wholesale rejection of Democrats at the polls.  But the Democrats ignore recent developments at their great peril.

Our Comments on Steve’s Observations:

1.      All the ink wasted on Reid’s comments IS but a brief distraction and the Democrats ARE losing support on key issues, especially among Independents (subject of an upcoming Friends & Family analysis).  However, the significance of the slippage may be overstated by looking at the numbers 12 months ago when the President was about to be inaugurated.  He took office with the highest poll numbers – perhaps reflecting wildly over-optimistic expectations – of any president in the modern era . . . so it’s easy to overstate the magnitude of subsequent slippage.

That said, absent an event like 9/11, presidents ALWAYS lose seats in their first mid-term election (who remembers that even Reagan lost 26 House seats and Nixon 12?), and this one will be no different.  Democrats WILL lose House and Senate seats in November.  They will NOT lose control of the Senate and, as of now, they will probably not lose control of the House . . . that House prediction subject to change, particularly if House Democratic retirements pick back up.

Indeed, we heard from a lot of you with a LOT of feedback (“push-back,” even) from our last F&F comments.  Quite a few serious, well-informed observers think I’m nuts – and didn’t hesitate to tell me so -- not to see a major disaster shaping up for Democrats.  It is certainly possible, but I don’t see it yet . . . at least not supported by data, voter nor financial.

Special elections last week for two state senate seats in Virginia (which broke historic trends to vote for Obama in ’08, then ousted the Democrats from the governor’s office in ’09) produced mixed results.  The GOP held on to a seat in conservative Virginia Beach.  However, in the critical “swing” Fairfax County in the DC suburbs, Democrats narrowly took the seat of newly elected GOP Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli that had been Republican.  Last week the D’s scored a 327-vote margin out of 23,602 votes cast.  In 2007, the Cuccinelli won the seat for the GOP in an even closer race, by 92 votes out of 37,185 cast.  Clearly, it is a “swing” district, but last week Democrats prevailed.  (FYI:  In his statewide victorious Attorney General’s bid in November, Cuccinelli actually LOST his home county of Fairfax by 12,185 votes while his GOP ballot-mate for Governor, Robert McDonnell was carrying Fairfax by 4,446 votes.)

But that is a single silver lining in an otherwise dark and cloudy sky for Democrats.  Unemployment hovers at 10%, and underemployment still has to be nearly 20%.  Final retail sales numbers for December – after a strong start to the holiday season – were a big disappointment.  If the Democrats pass healthcare reform, it could be a very hollow victory with voters who increasingly oppose it.  And it could hurt Democrats with one of their key constituency (and source of election funding), organized labor, which strongly opposes the tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans.

In an analysis shared this morning, Wilson Research Strategies points out that not only is the Democrats partisan advantage slipping in the Gallup poll, more critical is the 2010 generic congressional ballot question, where, among Independents, Democrats now TRAIL Republicans 44% - 40% (although that is considerably better for Democrats than their November score, trailing 52% - 30%).

Of course, the Republicans have problems of their own, too . . . mostly within their own party.  Insurgents are bucking the “establishment” GOP candidates in a number of states, most notably in Kentucky where Rand Paul (Ron’s son) is polling well ahead of Trey Grayson in the GOP Senate primary, as well as in Florida, where former GOP Speaker is dead even in the polls with Governor Charlie Crist.  As in last November’s special congressional election in New York, we’re seeing fights for the “heart and soul” of the Republican Party, with conservatives determined to prevail over moderates.  It’s not clear how damaging the races – or the outcomes – will be for the GOP in November.

2.      As Steve says, Obama’s message/agenda HAS been spread too thin . . . but he had no choice, given “the hand he was dealt” coming in to office.  He managed to drop some sure losers (labor union “card check” reform), but his communications people have been unable to weave all the things he has HAD to do (two wars, economic revival, healthcare reform, new financial regulations, global warming response, etc.), into to a single compelling, unified story, with one theme. It is rapidly becoming a “yes, but” presidency.

3.     While the GOP WILL benefit from historic anti-incumbent sentiment (one reason many of the GOPers leaving congress are leaving to run for other offices), Steve is right that the GOP remains a “hollow brand” . . . and one without a charismatic leader.  The mid-term elections are congressional, not presidential (even if politicians and pundits try to make them that).  The GOP doesn’t have an incumbent president and seem unlikely to bring their most recent former president out of retirement and onto the campaign trail.   And when former Vice President Cheney snarls in attack, it’s not clear whom he more hurts, friends or foes.  Even worse for the GOP is their national chair, of whom it might best be said, as it was of John Foster Dulles, “he is the only bull who carries his own china shop with him.”  As we’ve noted before, there is, for the GOP, no Newt Gingrich with a “Contract With America” that crystallized the public revolt against Democrats in Congress in ’94.  John Boehner?  Mitch McConnell? The less said about – or by – them the better.

Voter Turnout – Steve’s right to focus on the trends.  Voters are mad, madder than ever.  The question is, mad enough to go to the polls, or too mad to bother?

Next Week’s Election

The special Massachusetts election to fill Ted Kennedy’s senate seat will be next Tuesday, the 19^th.  Early on, Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley was expected to win easily.  In the last 10 days, a flurry of late polls have shown it a much closer race.  Now there’s talk – lots, among the pundits with air time to fill – and headlines of a possible GOP up-set . . . mostly the result of her nearly disastrously inept post-nomination campaign (or lack thereof, believing that having won the primary, all she had to do was wait for “coronation” on election day.).

Recent polls have ranged from a 15-point Coakley lead to a two-point lead for her opponent.  We’re hearing Democratic tracking polls are, this week, showing it dead even.

While it bears close watching, we think the up-set prospects are overstated.  Massachusetts is THE most Democratic state in America, with a 3-to-1 Democrat voter registration advantage (tho’ while D’s outnumber registered Rs 37% - 11%, it’s the Independents (technically “Others”) who count for 51% of Bay State registered voters).  Obama got 61.8% of the vote there in 2008.  In 2009, last November, when veteran Boston Mayor Thomas Menino was pictured as facing a serious challenge, he was re-elected with “only” 57% of the vote.  When the GOP ran Mitt Romney against Ted Kennedy, Teddy “slipped” all the way to 58%.

However, for exactly those reasons, if the GOP pulls – or, even approaches – an up-set, it will tell a tale of “sound and fury” signifying much for the Democrats in 2010.

2010 Governor’s Races

We promised we’d take a look at the 37 gubernatorial elections this year, offices currently held by 19 Democrats and 18 Republicans.  Added to two last year (Virginia and New Jersey, where the GOP took both back from Democrats) and three (Louisiana, Mississippi and Kentucky) in the other “off” year of 2011, that brings to 42, the states whose governors run NOT in the presidential years.  It’s interesting to look at this year’s races by situation:

·        Eight Democrats are term-limited:  Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and (maybe) Wyoming.  Two of those – Oklahoma (for sure) and Tennessee – are almost certain to go Republican.  Michigan will shift to the “R” column, too, unless Congressman Stupak can win the primary and ride his pro-life, pro-gun wave to state victory.

Actually, I should say “seven OR eight” Democrats are term-limited, since the Wyoming Supreme Court recently invalidated legislative term-limits, which sets Gov. Freudenthal up to challenge the limits on his terms and, if he wins, he’ll win re-election, otherwise it goes to the GOP.

·        Three non-term-limited Democrats are retiring:  Colorado, Kansas and Wisconsin.  The GOP will absolutely pick up Kansas.  Colorado becomes a toss-up with the entry of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper’s decision to pick up the Democratic banner.

·        Eight Democrats are expected to seek re-election:  Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Ohio.  Paterson will lose the primary in New York, but Cuomo will keep the seat Dem.  There’s trouble for Culver in Iowa, Patrick in Massachusetts (in very serious trouble in late polls), and Strickland in Ohio (whose poll numbers are also grim).

·        Seven Republicans are term-limited:  Alabama, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and South Dakota.  Dems. should pick up at least California and Hawaii and, with former Gov. Roy  Barnes, having a shot at Georgia.  The GOP will also likely lose Rhode Island, although not to the Democrats but to former GOP US Senator Lincoln Chafee running as an Independent.

·        Four Republicans are NOT term-limited, but retiring/seeking other offices:  Florida, Minnesota, Vermont, and Connecticut.  Democrats could pick up at least two of those states, most likely Connecticut and Vermont, possibly a third or even fourth.

·        Seven Republicans are expected to seek re-election:  Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, Texas, and Utah.   Jim Gibbons WILL lose his office in Nevada, but most likely in the primary.  Whether it will stay GOP or switch will depend on the fortunes of Rory Reid (D), Brian Sandoval (R), and possibly Oscar Goodman (I).  Brewer is in trouble in Arizona.  And, Rick Perry faces US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in a GOP primary.  Both will be well-funded (already more than $11 million each) but we expect him to win.  If he wins the primary, he will have to face former Houston Mayor Bill White, a tougher statewide contender than Democrats usually field in Texas, but we expect for Perry to win that, too.

            Our best guess, today:  a net Republican gain of one to three governors’ offices.

Rants & Raves

I’ve long tried to resist commenting on things I observe – particularly those things outside the political sphere – and especially those things on which I have no insight, only opinions

. . . but sometimes the temptation is too great, so to our “Friends & Family” mailings we – with your indulgence (or with notice to hit the “delete” button) – add a new “Rants & Raves” section:

Ø       RANT about former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford’s massive rush-to-the-left in order to position himself for a US Senate run in his newly adopted state of New York, having lost a Senate bid in Tennessee barely two years ago.  So far – while just floating “trial balloons” – he’s already shifted positions 180 degrees on same-sex marriage, abortion and immigration.  We may have finally found a politician who believes in absolutely nothing (except pandering to the voters, a commonly held belief among politicians).  Yes, Bobby and Hillary were carpetbag senators from New York, but “Harold, we knew Bobby Kennedy and Hillary Clinton . . . and you’re no Bobby Kennedy or Hillary Clinton.”

Ø       RAVE about Chris Dodd’s decision to retire.  In the long history of the US Senate, there have been few Senators who could face reality and avoid forced retirement by rejection at the polls.  The great Stuart Symington of Missouri did in 1976.  A few others have.  It couldn’t have been easy for Dodd, a man so out of touch with reality he moved his family to Iowa thinking he was – and that the move would help – a serious candidate for President of the United States.  His retirement may have been his “finest hour.”  It certainly was for Connecticut Democrats who now have great hopes Attorney General Richard Blumenthal will keep the seat.

Ø       rant about TSA.  They really thought travelers were well-screened in third-world airports?  They really think American airports are secure?  And the administration actually thought intelligence agencies cooperate with each other?

There’s a Silver Diner (favorite haunt of noted young connoisseur James Ashford) inside security at BWI.  I’ll bet the chef has large, sharp knives.  I’ll bet he gets liquids delivered in large containers.  Come on! 

I went hunting in Argentina last month.  About 10 days after I returned home – and after my usual flurry of flights – I dumped out my carry-on bag of reading materials.  Out fell a “live” .28-gauge shotgun shell from the hunting trip!  It had gone through carry-on security in five airports:  two, admittedly in Argentina (Cordoba and Buenos Aires) . . .  but that shotgun shell had gone through three airports in the US:  Washington National, Atlanta, and Birmingham.  I repeat, come on!

Ø       and a final rant:  The only thing less confidence-inspiring than TSA is the airlines they seek to protect.  I am utterly appalled to read about the current intense competition between two US airlines’ only barely surviving financially – American and Delta – now fiercely battling to see which can give the Japanese nearly $2 billion dollars as an investment in Japan Air Lines, which is about to declare bankruptcy.  What is this idiocy?  Of course, it comes in part from Delta . . . which lost $6 billion the year it bought Northwest, which had lost $4 billion the same year, thereby combining into a single carrier with a loss of $10 billion.

           Enough for now.  More – including on the Massachusetts Senate race and Independent voters – next week.

John

Friends,

While we hate to interrupt the feeding frenzy over Harry Reid and Game Change, we thought the time was right for a quick, unvarnished snapshot of the current political environment and look at where we think voter turnout might be heading this fall.

Current Political Environment:

1.       The GOP is finally winning on the issues and Reid is a distraction.  While Republicans must be salivating over the Harry Reid comments and backlash, we think that some consideration should be given to letting this go.  Yes, it further tarnishes Congress and may further suppress Democrat turnout in November, but the rise of the GOP over the last several months has been largely due to the condition of the economy and opposition to some of the administration’s policies.  Take, for example, the erosion POTUS has had in his perceived handling of these three issue areas:

·         Handling of Economy: 42% approve, down 14 points from a year ago.

·         Foreign Policy: 47% approve, down 8 points from a year ago.

·         Health Care: 41% approve, down 15 points from a year ago.

Voters are very issue-centric these days. The Obama team and Democrats in Congress would much rather be talking about race than jobs, spending and national security. 

2.       The Obama agenda and message has been spread so thin, it is almost meaningless.  There is a fine line between demonstrating an aggressive, action-oriented agenda and trying to do so much that people really don’t know what you’ve done or what you’re doing.  The administration appears to have tipped into the latter.  Team Obama wanted to be the “anti-Bush” administration, but in doing so they may have lost a lot of momentum and meaning to any change they have generated.  We will know more about public reaction in the coming months, but for the time being it appears that Obama would have been better off picking one or two signature initiatives in year one. 

3.       The GOP is benefiting from the anti-incumbent sentiment, but it remains a largely hollow brand.  Until the Republican party can paint a picture of its new brand image in a clear and compelling way – it remains a default party rather than a movement.  Voters are being repelled from the Democrats and are only moving over to the GOP column by default.  The only way to lock them in is to present a clear and compelling agenda—and that has not happened to date. 

Observations on Voter Turnout for 2010:

The overall trend to the national voter turnout rate has been upward since 1980.  However, there is a very obvious, consistent up-down pattern to voter turnout in presidential versus midterm elections.  For example, when we separate the two types of elections and look at the trend, we see that the increase in turnout has been driven entirely by increases in turnout for Presidential-year elections.  In off-years, turnout is actually down very slightly over the past 30 years.  So the gap between Presidential and midterm turnout is also increasing.  This is not unexpected, given the increased exposure and attention received by Presidential races over this period.

·         From 1980 – 2006, there were four Presidential elections where turnout exceeded the expected rate.  In three of the four following midterm elections, turnout was again higher than expected.  There were also three Presidential elections where turnout fell below the trend line.  In all three of those cases, turnout was lower than the expected rate given the overall trend.  Accordingly, it appears that higher turnout in a Presidential race generally leads to higher turnout in the following midterm, and vice-versa.

o   In the famous Gingrich-led “wave” election of 1994, overall turnout was indeed higher than both the predicted value and either the 1990 or 1998 midterms.  However, this famous increase in turnout might have been predicted just by the turnout surge for Clinton’s victory in 1992.

·         What does this tell us for 2010?  Looking just at the trend line, the data would predict a 39.4% national turnout rate.  However, knowing that turnout did exceed expectations in 2008, we’d wager that in 2010 turnout will exceed the trend and fall somewhere in 41.5%-42.5% range.

·         Of course, in looking all elections, it’s not just about how many people vote but who they vote for.  And while this data says nothing about the composition of the electorate in the lower-turnout midterm years, an examination of the less-than-reliable exit polls can provide some color to these results.

·         The first thing that jumps out is that there is a strong relationship between midterm turnout and the composition of the electorate.  When midterm turnout is high, it is generally because of an increase in the turnout of the base of the party that does not hold the White House.

o   This relationship was especially strong in 2002 and 2006, where Democrats turned out in unprecedented numbers for the midterm elections.  Of course, the outcomes in those years could not be more different, with the Republicans actually picking up 8 House seats in 2002 but losing 31 in 2006.  And in 1994, when Republicans picked up 54 seats, they were only 36% of voters.  Other factors such as the geographic distribution of a party’s turnout and the independent vote—which swung strongly against Democrats in 1994 and Republicans in 2006—are also significant factors in election outcomes.

Our conclusion is that after one party rides a higher-turnout election into the White House, they can usually expect a corresponding wave—this time, in favor of their opponents—at the polls the following year.  And the size of the midterm turnout “wave” is generally proportionate to the increase in the previous cycle’s overall turnout.  However, just getting the national boost to turnout in the base is not enough by itself for gains and losses in Congress: the geographic distribution of the turnout and the split among independents is also vital.

So we shouldn’t be surprised when a major story after the 2010 election is the surge in Republican turnout.  And as we’ve noted before, perhaps Obama and the Democrat’s turnout spike last year was not the precursor to a sustained Democratic shift in the electorate, but rather part of the same back-and-forth pattern that caught Clinton in 1994 and Bush in 2006.  The current electoral environment certainly feels similarly anti-incumbent as well—not to mention recent horserace polls.

Thanks to John Zirinsky and Pete Ventimiglia for their analysis and insight on turnout.

Steve