May 3, 2010

To Hawthorn Friends & Family -- 

            Below is latest – and, as always, insightful – analysis from Steve Lombardo.  As we survey the increasingly ugly political scene and reflect on Steve’s comments, we would note:

• May brings three interesting elections.

On May 18 there will be a special election in Pennsylvania’s 12^th US House district to replace the scandal-plagued late John Murtha and on May 22 there will be a special election in Hawaii’s 1^st congressional district to select a successor to Rep. Neil Abercrombie who resigned to run for governor.

Both of the seats were long held by the Democrats.  Murtha had been in office 36 years, since a special election in 1974.  Abercrombie won re-election in 2008 with 71% of the vote.

Yet BOTH seats COULD go Republican this month . . . breaking the Democrats’ string of 10 victories in House special elections since May, 2008.

In Murtha’s district, a DailyKos/Research poll shows the Republican leading Murtha’s former chief of staff 46% - 40%.

In Hawaii, there are two Democrats on the ballot who may well split the vote and give the GOP a victory . . . a victory the GOP will almost certainly follow with defeat in November when their candidate has to go one-on-one against ONE Democrat . . . but a short-term GOP victory nonetheless.

Expect the GOP to make BIG news out of sweeping these seats, if they win them both.  It is less clear a GOP sweep really means anything nationally.

That’s only two elections . . .

• The MOST interesting May election is in the United Kingdom.

This Thursday, May 6^th, the UK will elect a new parliament . . . and may see the end of two-party politics and single-party majority government for the first time in nearly 40 years.

Labour has held power for 13 years, first under Tony Blair, then under the singularly lackluster and gaffe-prone Gordon Brown.  Labour could run third in the vote results, but because of districting reminiscent of Briton’s once “rotten boroughs,” could still have the most seats in parliament . . . but not the majority necessary to form a government.

All this is the result of a surge of support for the always distant third party, the Liberal-Democrats, and their colorful, young leader, Nick Clegg.  He has “stolen the spotlight” from the new Conservative leader David Cameron, in what was supposed to be the Tories’ return to power.

Assuming Clegg won’t form a coalition government with Labour . . .  and if the Tories will promise him the election reform that historically disenfranchises the Lib-Dems and boosts Labour . . .  then we could see a Tory/Lib-Dem coalition government.

Of course, that is only ONE possible outcome of an election whose results are uncertain, even three days out.  Brown could limp back into power as a minority, non-coalition government, surviving vote-to-vote until he’s ousted and a new election forced.  Or, the Conservatives could win a majority outright.

With the UK teetering on a financial crisis little worse than Greece’s and threatening the US economy, with its troops fighting alongside US forces in the Middle East, with its premier energy company facing an unprecedented environmental crisis in the US Gulf of Mexico, the outcome of this election has enormous policy and political consequences for the US as it grapples with its own policy and political crises this year.

• In terms of this year’s US elections . . .

To Steve’s comments, we would add:

• Another measure of “too many Democrats sitting in GOP-leaning districts” is that there are 49 Democrat House members representing districts that McCain carried.  Each of those won their last election as a Democrat even though their district – despite Obama’s national win – was going for McCain.  Maybe that makes each a survivor.  I’d bet, given lower Democrat turnout this year, it makes them more likely to lose.

• Increasing the chance for a Republican take-over of the House, is the view currently held by informed observers that no incumbent House Republican will lose re-election, with the possible exception of Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, who won the inner-city New Orleans district after “Dollar Bill” Jefferson’s conviction.  That district is likely to shift back to Democrat.  No other one is.  It’s a lot easier to take the House from the other guys if you start with no losses (o.k., one) among your own members.

• Internecine warfare may hurt the GOP . . . tho’ the Dems have internal fights of their own, too.

• Overwhelmed by a surge of GOP support for his once-irrelevant primary opponent from the right, former Speaker Marco Rubio, Florida Governor Charlie Crist has withdrawn from the GOP U.S. Senate primary and is going to run as an Independent.  The last three-way race we all watched was the special election house last November in New York’s 23^rd district, which led to the first Democrat victory in that district in many years.

• In Utah, U.S. Senator Robert Bennett may be ousted from the ballot through the GOP’s convention process, losing his party’s support because he is “too liberal” (despite one of the more conservative voting records in the Senate). Being denied re-nomination is nearly unheard of for an incumbent U.S. Senator (Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, not withstanding).

• Congressman and darling of the libertarian right Ron Paul from Texas has a son, Rand Paul, leading – from equally far right – in the U.S. Senate GOP primary in Kentucky against traditional GOP Secretary of State Trey Grayson in another battle for the “heart and soul of the GOP.”

• Running strongly to the right, Texas GOP Governor Rick Perry swamped U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson in his bid for nomination for a third term, leaving both of them worse for the fight . . . tho’ it’s hard to see Texas electing a Democrat.

• Republicans in California have hotly – and expensively – contested primary battles for both U.S. Senate and Governor . . . and the winner for Governor faces the prospect of opposing former Governor, former Oakland Mayor and current Attorney General, the Hon. Jerry Brown, a.k.a., “Governor Moonbeam” in November.

• In Arkansas, Democrat U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln is under primary attack from the left, from the Lieutenant Governor, which allows her to highlight her centrist positions, but drains precious resources she needs for the general.

• In Colorado, appointed Democrat U.S. Senator Michael Bennet is under primary attack from former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, who wanted the job and has never gotten over being passed over for it by the Governor.

• And in Pennsylvania, the aged but newly Democrat U.S. Senator Arlen Spector faces both tough primary (from Congressman and Retired Admiral Joe Sestak) and general election fights, the general from the “Club For Growth” “poster boy” of fiscal restraint, former Congressman Pat Toomey.

• Most immediate, are tomorrow’s U.S. Senate primaries.  In addition to primaries in North Carolina and Indiana tomorrow, the most interesting is in Ohio, where two Democrats are vying for the chance to face former GOP Congressman Rob Portman in November.

Who wins – and why they’re perceived to have won – these primaries will help predict the November outcome.

• Between now and November, the challenge the Obama administration – and congressional Democrats – face is convincing voters (1) they HAVE done a great deal; and (2) what they’ve done is GOOD.  Neither will be easy.  They’ve got the facts on (1).  Despite a lackluster start in which the White House ceded leadership to the dynamic duo of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, they have moved a lot through Congress – although with highly partisan victories, reflecting minimal to zero Republican votes – including:

• the stimulus package
• wage discrimination
• “cash for clunkers”
• new home purchase tax credits
• credit card practices
• student loan overhaul
• Associate Justice Sotomayor’s confirmation, and
• the massively controversial healthcare reform.

Some form of financial service reform seems a sure bet.  And assuming the President nominates a confirmable successor to Justice Stevens, they ought to win that confirmation.  There is still a possibility they’ll move some form of an energy bill, though less comprehensive than the Democrats once promised.

Even without immigration, education or labor reform, that’s an impressive record.

The problem is, that record is both unknown and the accomplishments unwelcome by large segments of the voters.  Although support to repeal healthcare in toto, is waning, most Americans do not support most of what Congress has done.  That makes it hard to run on a record of “change accomplished.”

• A current prediction:  Dems lose seats but keep control of the Senate

For the Republicans to add the 10 seats they need to their current 41 to take control in the Senate, they would have to:

• KEEP ALL FIVE of their current GOP-held seats in Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio, New Hampshire and Florida . . . all five of which they should win, but all five of which are being hotly contested.

• PLUS WIN BOTH of two now-Democrat seats in North Dakota and Delaware . . . both of which they are almost certain to do.

• ALSO WIN ALL SIX of the now-Democrat seats in Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Arkansas and Pennsylvania . . . some of which they will certainly win, but hard to see them winning them all, even in Nevada where Harry Reid has dismal poll numbers – and his son is also on the ballot for governor – but even more dismal opponents.

• AND WIN TWO OUT OF THREE now-Democrat seats in California, Wisconsin and New York . . . where two former governors chose NOT to enter the races.  Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson walked away from the chance to be the GOP’s hero, leaving Russ Feingold a lot more likely to be re-elected and former New York Gov. George Pataki also took a pass, leaving the seat to likely stay Democrat.

Can the GOP win a lot of these?  Without question!  Can they win most of these?  Maybe.  Can they win ALL of these (o.k., two out of three in the last group)?  Certainly not.  That’s a “bridge too far” for any party.

But they WILL add seats and further diminish the Democrats’ control.

More as the year’s events unfold.

John

From: Steve Lombardo [mailto:steve.lombardo@lombardoconsultinggroup.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:52 AM
To: Ashford, John
Subject: LCG Election Monitor - May 3, 2010: The Rapidly-Changing Issue Environment and What It Means

Friends,

It is our hope that this statement will be met with a bit of thankfulness: we are not going to predict the number of seats the Democrats will lose in November, nor are we going to give you the magical formula for making that prediction.  We can’t because there isn’t one.  What we can say is that voters are angry and that is usually a bad sign for the party in power.

Before we examine the political situation, here’s a quick snapshot of the opinion landscape as of 6 A.M. on Monday, May 3^rd:

1.  If anyone needed more evidence that the issue environment is shifting rapidly, the last 24 hours has surely provided it.  We have seen the gulf oil spill move from a serious issue to a potentially catastrophic event.  On Saturday night, Times Square was evacuated in the face of a failed car bomb attempt.  On Sunday, Secretary Napolitano said this was a “potential terrorist attack” and would be treated very, very seriously.  The implications are clear for 2010: just when you think you have a good handle on the issue environment, you probably don’t.
1. The gulf oil spill is a potential “game changer” for this President and the White House knows it.  That is why Obama travelled to the region on Sunday.  The administration is vulnerable to charges that they underplayed the seriousness of this issue in the first few days.  The situation was nearly a week old before they began treating it as a crisis.  The Katrina comparison has been overplayed but the implication is clear: move quickly to exert leadership or the perceived lack of action will drive blame.
2. In 1979 the accident at Three Mile Island stopped the construction of new nuclear power plants for 30 years.  The question now is whether the gulf leak will do the same with respect to offshore oil drilling.  Here the WH has a problem since Obama came out in support of drilling in the state of the union.  Yet another hot-button issue for Obama.
3. At this point in time the implications of the Times Square car bomb scare are unclear.  But if it is connected to an international terror group, all bets are off as to its impact on the national issue agenda.  Two weeks ago, the fall election was going to be all about healthcare reform and the economy (oddly, GOP issues), last week it was about immigration and Wall Street reform (Democrat issues) and now the environment, drilling and  terrorism are front and center.  As we have seen before, if terrorism rises as a national issue, the President will receive at least short-term political benefit.

As for the November elections, here is what we know.  Let’s start with the good news for Republicans:

• We are in one of the longest sustained periods of voter dissatisfaction in modern history.  Except for a few weeks in the spring of 2009, perceptions of the direction of the country have been strongly “wrong track” since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.  That is seven years.  The only comparable period is 1973-1983.  This helps explain why we are in the middle of a third successive “change” election.   Moreover, trust in government to do what is right is at an all-time low.  In a Pew Research Center poll last month, less than one fourth (22%) of respondents said they could trust government most of the time.  This is one of the lowest percentages in more than 50 years.
• Republicans are dominating the generic congressional ballot.  To start, as Jay Cost observed from a regression analysis back in 2006, the final Gallup poll generic ballot explains about 89% of the variation in the final House results on Election Day.  We agree that the generic ballot is a great predictor of the House vote, but we also want to remind readers that Democrats have been “underperforming” on Election Day relative to the generic ballot.  Over the past decade, Democrats have consistently led Republicans in both the national House ballot and national party identification questions, even in cycles where they haven’t gained control of the chamber, like 2000 and 2004.  So when the generic ballot shows Democrats to be tied with Republicans or even down by a couple points, this is pretty much unprecedented territory.
• Voter enthusiasm is decidedly with Republicans.  The latest Gallup poll on voter enthusiasm was a big blow for Democrats.  Among voters who are “very enthusiastic” about the upcoming mid-term elections, the GOP was ahead by 20 points (57% to 37%) on the generic congressional ballot.
• The party identification gap has narrowed ten points in 18 months as the GOP and Democrats are now near parity among registered voters.  This is hugely problematic for Democrats.  Historically, Democrats have a 5-10 point edge in party ID among registered.  They often retain this edge even during GOP up-cycles.  Like the generic ballot, we are in uncharted territory.
• Of course, individual races do matter.  But this too has looked ominous for Democrats.  As Sean Trende notes, “Every Democratic Senate candidate, except five from very blue states (Pat Leahy (VT), Chuck Schumer (NY), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Dan Inouye (HI) and Richard Blumenthal (CT)), has had at least one poll test placing him or her below 50% this cycle.  Similarly… [House] Democrats in [blue] districts who normally receive around 60% of the vote are below 50% as well.”
• Basically, there are too many Democrats sitting in GOP-leaning districts.   Howard Dean’s efforts as DNC Chairman to “redraw the map” by contesting previously safe Republican districts have put an unusual number of freshman and sophomore Democrats in peril.  While the project certainly bore fruit in 2008 and vindicated Dean’s controversial strategy, there are now many more seats that will be difficult to defend.  Take Virginia’s 5^th district: in 2008 Tom Perriello defeated six-term incumbent Virgil Goode by a margin of less than 800 votes as part of an unprecedented success for Democrats in Virginia (this was driven by a turnout surge of new Obama voters).  However, the district has a Cook PVI of R+5, meaning that historically it has leaned toward Republicans, and in the only public poll, his approval rating is 42% approve/ 46% disapprove.  Perhaps most troubling for Perriello, who voted “yea” on healthcare: 52% of his district’s voters are against the bill and 50% disapprove of Obama.

On the other hand, there is some good news for Democrats (though not nearly as much):

• The current issue frame is decidedly negative for Republican candidates.  So long as the dialogue in Washington is focused on financial regulation and immigration reform, Republicans will be on the defensive.  Add to that a potential terrorist attack and things are aligned for the President to demonstrate leadership.  Ultimately, this may only be a short-term situation but, for the time being, the Democrats will benefit.
• The economy is slowly improving.  The economy grew by 3.2% during the first quarter of 2010. That makes three straight positive growth quarters.  This pretty much signals that the recession ended in the spring of 2009.  However, voter perception has not caught up with reality and until there is meaningful job growth the economy will continue to be a huge problem for Democrats.   
• The WH and the Democrats had an early warning bell this year – unlike 1994 – and they are mounting a counterattack.  Just because they have been alerted to the approaching iceberg doesn’t mean the current won’t steer the Democrats right into it anyway, but the DNC’s new campaign shows that they are not going to go down without a fight.  Obama’s trip to the mid-west this week was a step in the right direction in terms of addressing voter frustrations.  We remain skeptical that new voter enlistment efforts will work in a non-Presidential year but it is worth a try. 
• Obama’s approval rating is moribund but not toxic (yet).  The President’s approval rating is somewhere around 48%, depending on whose tally you are looking at.  His disapproval is around 47-48%.  If his approval gets back to or above 50% it will be a big help to Democrats in the fall. 

There are two landmines that Republicans will need to navigate in the months ahead.

1. First is the anti-incumbent sentiment that has gripped this electorate.  Again, this helps Republicans from a big picture perspective because Democrats are in power, but it also suggests that voters aren’t happy with either party, setting up a situation where it won’t be enough for Republicans to be merely “not Democrats.”  And, to be honest, it is probably a good thing for both the country and Republicans themselves that they will be forced to articulate an alternative vision and set of policies.  Of course, history shows that anti-incumbent sentiments do tend to help the opposition party, as this chart demonstrates:

2. The second landmine is the Tea Party movement.  There has been some interesting research done on the Tea Party movement (see the Winston Group’s polling  as well as TargetPoint’s recent “exit poll” from a rally), but, to a large extent, we’re still guessing as to the true identity of this group, especially with respect to its voting behavior (because it’s never really voted as a “party” before).  This is, after all, a group of people with a disparate collection of ideologies and philosophies, though most seem to be disaffected conservatives.  So while most of them have probably never voted for a Democrat, they are clearly not just GOP base voters (and they aren’t just former Perot voters, either).  They are, in fact, a new, different subset of the electorate, and our sense is that the Tea Party label represents an option for people to either vote for write-ins or stay home.   If either of those options occurs on a large scale, Republican gains will fall far short of historic.

Thanks again to John Zirinsky and Pete Ventimiglia for their thoughts and insights.  Follow us on Twitter and read our postings and others’ on Pollster.com or the Daily Caller.

Steve

Steve Lombardo

President & CEO

Lombardo Consulting Group, LLC

1054 31st Street , Suite 330

Washington, DC  20007

Office   202.223.3460

Mobile 202.413.2141

steve@lcg-dc.com

www.lombardoconsultinggroup.com