June 3, 2010

To Hawthorn Friends and Family –

            Below is Steve Lombardo’s latest analysis, this one providing an in-depth look at the political consequences of the Gulf oil spill.  Since Hawthorn is currently engaged for a client with an interest in this issue, I now “have a dog in this fight” and don’t feel I ought to comment on Steve’s views.  So, for once, they come without chatter from me (and, loathe as I am to admit it, Steve's comments never really need it).

            Instead, let me comment on this week’s primary elections on Tuesday, especially in Alabama, where:

• Congressman Artur Davis – who would have been the first African-American nominee for governor (in a state where Barack Obama got 9% of the white vote) – lost the Democratic nomination by a whopping 62%- 38% . . . a loss too one-sided to have been a racist vote . . .  losing nearly every county in the state . . . even losing in African-American strongholds like Greene County.  He lost to Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks. 

• Congressman Parker Griffith, recently switched from Democrat to Republican, suffered a worse-than-turncoat-Arlen-Specter loss, losing re-nomination with only 33% of the vote in a three-way race in which the winner took 51% (avoiding a run-off). 

• Incumbent Republican Attorney General Troy King lost re-nomination, swamped 60% - 40% by lobbyist Luther Strange. 

• The best-known name in Alabama politics, George Wallace, Jr., lost another race, this time the GOP nomination for State Treasurer which went to the uniquely named Young Boozer, with Wallace getting only 35% to 65%. 

• In the Republican gubernatorial primary, another well known Alabama political namesake, Tim James, son of former Gov. Fob James, failed to make the run-off, finishing third, 208 votes (out of nearly 500,000 cast) behind a relatively unknown and under-financed state representative and physician, Robert Bentley, and 14,000 votes behind the chancellor of the junior college system, Bradley Byrne.  James was hurt by splitting the far-right vote with Ten Commandments champion former judge Roy Moore and by the state teachers’ association’s leaders determined opposition to Byrne. 

• Even a veteran State Senator, Charles Bishop, who was “stepping down” to run for the state House of Representatives, got beat by an unknown, little-spending delivery man, getting only 47% to 53%. 

What has been true this year in:  

• Utah, where Senator Robert Bennett was defeated for re-nomination,
• West Virginia, where Congressman Alan Mollohan lost re-nomination (and both Bennett and Mollohan were Washington veterans AND sons of long-serving members),
• Pennsylvania where Republican-turned-Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter lost, ending a long Senate career, to a challenger whom it appears the White House tried to keep out of the race using former President Bill Clinton
• Tennessee, where House Science Chair Bart Gordon retired,
• Wisconsin, where House Appropriations Chair David Obey retired,
• Kentucky, where anti-GOP-establishment Tea Party candidate Rand Paul’s won the GOP Senate nomination, to the embarrassment of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,
• Hawaii, where the Democrats lost the U.S. House seat in a special election, thanks to a Democratic establishment grudge match,
• Rhode Island, where scandal-plagued Congressman Patrick Kennedy (Teddy’s son) announced his retirement from public life,
• Florida, where GOP Governor Charlie Crist has been forced out of the GOP Senate Primary to run as an Independent, and
• Connecticut, where former Congressman Rob Simon gave up his fight for the GOP U. S. Senate nomination, after losing his state Republican convention’s endorsement to World Wrestling Federation CEO Linda McMahon . . . a seat open after Chris Dodd’s (another son of a former, if disgraced, senator) retirement . . . not to mention
• Massachusetts, where Democrats lost Teddy Kennedy’s senate seat (after Bobby’s son, former Congressman Joe Kennedy declined to run) . . . following earlier Democratic losses of governor’s offices in Virginia and New Jersey . . . as well as GOP disappointment in Wisconsin, where Republicans couldn’t get former governor and Bush cabinet member Tommy Thompson to go after the U.S. Senate seat . . . along with
• New York where Democrat Gov. David Paterson, rising to the job after Elliott Spitzer resigned in disgrace, proved so inept he had to abandon his re-election bid, and where former Gov. George Pataki disappointed Republicans by deciding not to seek the U. S. Senate seat, and
• Arizona where former GOP Presidential nominee John McCain faces a tough enough re-election challenge that he has had to replace top campaign staffers 

. . . appears to have held true in Alabama this week.  Indeed, where in America isn’t it true?  Incumbency is no more an advantage than a well-known political name.  Voters in both parties are on the warpath, reflecting the public’s deep anger at politicians.

This could be a watershed anti-establishment, anti-politician, anti-Washington election in which the voters’ anger truly achieves a “house-cleaning” of epic proportions.

Tho’, as always, California, is the exception, where the Democratic gubernatorial nod is sure to go to former Oakland Mayor, Attorney General, and Governor Jerry Brown (a.k.a. “Gov. Moonbeam”), son of the late former Gov. Pat Brown (victor over Richard Nixon in 1962, prompting Nixon’s “gentlemen, this is my last press conference” snit).

            With no big news out of Mississippi’s primary, the other interesting primary this week was in New Mexico, where voters are going to have to learn to say, “Madam Governor,” since both parties nominated women for the top office.

            Next week’s interesting primaries – among the 12 states going to the polls – are: 

• the “Battle of the Multi-Millionaires” for the GOP nomination for governor of California, with one candidate, Meg Whitman’s already having spent $71 million of her personal fortune while her opponent began, briefly to narrow the polling gap by spending more than $24 million of his personal fortune,  

• Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Blanche Lincoln’s do-or-die runoff for re-nomination to the U.S. Senate in Arkansas, where the latest polls show her trailing the lieutenant governor who almost passed her in the first round of primary voting, and 

• in Nevada, where embattled and unpopular Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will learn who his GOP opponent will be, and where outsider Sharron Angel has been rising in the polls, passing basketball coach’s son Danny Tarkanian and drawing even with GOP veteran Sue Lowden, despite polls showing Lowden far better able to beat Reid in November (Lowden currently beats Reid by seven points, Angel loses by two), along with 

• for South Carolina GOP voters, a reasonably spirited race for governor and a possible US House race up-set in the making. 

It will be interesting to see if the anti-incumbent trend – noted, above, in “only” 16 states, from Rhode Island to Hawaii – continues.

            It is certain to continue to be an interesting year!

John

From: Steve Lombardo [mailto:steve.lombardo@lombardoconsultinggroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 9:29 AM
To: Ashford, John
Subject: LCG Election Monitor - June 2, 2010: The Gulf Oil Spill Is Not Katrina and Obama Is Not Bush

Friends,

For myriad reasons, the last 72 hours in the Gulf have dealt a devastating blow to the political fortune of the Obama administration.  The impact of recent events in that region will certainly be felt in November and perhaps even in 2012.  And while the Israeli raid on ships carrying Palestinian activists is getting some attention, the spill is still the biggest story in America this morning.

Not every event or issue has an electoral effect, but our sense is that the Gulf oil spill will.  Here is our up-to-the-minute take on events in the Gulf and our assessment of the political implications.  As always, while the Gulf oil spill will have an enormously negative impact on wildlife and peoples’ livelihoods, our focus is on the political and public relations elements of the catastrophe.

1.        We’re now more than 40 days in, and the White House has finally gone into full crisis mode.  Last week the President addressed the spill in a press conference and travelled to the region.  He took responsibility for virtually everything under the sun.  That seemed like the right strategic move until, of course, “top-kill” failed.  Now it may prove to be problematic as voters begin to look for somewhere to place blame.

2.       The administration is doing what every good political campaign does: they are lowering expectations.  The front page headline above the fold in dozens of newspapers across the country is: “Oil could flow until August.”   Now you could say that they are accurately and realistically setting expectations, since the relief wells will not be ready until August.  But the statement from White House energy and climate advisor Carol Browner tells us that Team Obama does not want another expectations setback like the failed “top-kill.”  Better to lay out the worst-case scenario and if they do better, great.

3.       The President and his political team were slow to react to this crisis and it may have a lasting public opinion impact.  Let’s take a quick snapshot of the timeline of this incident:

a.       April 20^th the oil rig Deepwater Horizon explodes.

b.      April 24^th oil is found leaking from the well.

c.       April 29^th Obama speaks publicly for the first time about the spill in the Rose Garden.

d.      May 2^nd Obama visits the Gulf to inspect response operations. 

e.      May 28^th Obama holds an hour long press conference on the spill.

f.        May 29^th Obama visits the Gulf again.

It was nine days after the explosion—and five days after the world knew that the well was spewing oil—before the President spoke about the issue.  And he didn’t travel to the Gulf until 12 days after the explosion.  It was more than a month before Obama held a full news conference to answer questions on the crisis.  There is no doubt that the White House underestimated and underplayed the incident for its first few weeks. The result was the prevailing impression that Obama was disengaged.  Of course, it is possible that Obama may be able to correct this impression.

At this point in time, voter attitudes toward the President’s handling of the Gulf oil spill are mixed.  The following chart shows voter evaluation of Bush’s handling of Katrina thirty days after the hurricane and reactions to Obama’s handling of the spill in a comparable time frame.

As you can see, the Gallup poll in particular suggests that voters are starting to view the President’s handling of the spill in a negative light.  The coming days will be critical in terms of cementing or reversing this opinion.

4.        The short-term problem for Democrats is that the Gulf crisis drives down Obama’s approval rating, the long-term issue for the President is that it diminishes one of the core reasons people voted for him: competence.  There is no shortage of blog posts and op-eds on this point.  Obama was supposed to be the “anti-Bush,” the competency guy.  He may not be emotional but he is smart and will know how to get things done.  Well, his reaction to the Gulf oil spill seems to suggest otherwise.  Now, for all we know the President had a multitude of discussions with his team about the issue and probably was monitoring and managing it from the start.  However, a large segment of the voting public does not have that impression and in the end, that is what counts.         

5.       This is not Katrina and Obama is not Bush.  Look, it is interesting to compare the two because of the geographic proximity but they are very different Presidents at very different points in their presidencies.  Bush was one year into his second term and his approval rating (in the low 40’s) had been eroding for more than a year due to Iraq War fatigue. Bush’s slow and distant reaction to the human toll in Louisiana suggested that he didn’t care, taking away the one attribute some voters still ascribed to him.  Katrina was the tipping point and Bush’s approval rating fell into the 30’s and never recovered.  Obama is 18 months into his first term and his approval rating – though not great – is in the high 40’s.  So while Katrina was a tipping point for Bush, the Gulf oil spill may be a turning point for Obama. 

6.       Team Obama has something that Bush never had with Katrina: a villain.   A large international oil company.  What better villain could you ask for?  Team Obama will maximize this to its political advantage over the coming weeks.  With Katrina, Bush was the villain.

7.       Remember, it is not usually the event that kills a President’s approval rating; it is the reaction.  Bush couldn’t prevent the hurricane but voters thought the government’s reaction was terrible.  Time will tell whether the public believes that the Obama administration handled the aftermath to the oil spill well.

8.       At this point in time, there is little evidence that Obama’s job rating has suffered substantial erosion because of the spill. While it may emerge over time, so far there is little sign of a negative effect on Obama’s overall job approval: over the past month he has been consistently around the 47%-48% mark among registered voters.    As we have said before, the economy is still far and away the number one issue for voters, and perceptions of it has far more impact on Obama’s approval rating than the Gulf spill – at this point in time.  The current unemployment rate is 9.9%.  The main economic event this week is the May payrolls report.  Most economists are forecasting 500,000 new jobs and the unemployment dropping .01 to 9.8%.  Will that be seen as enough improvement?  Doubtful. 

9.        The saturated media coverage of the oil spill is reaching historic proportions and that means all eyes will be on POTUS.  In September of 2005, 58% of the public was watching the Katrina crisis “very closely.”  According to a Gallup poll taken a week ago, the Gulf oil spill was already up to 47%.  The 3-D graphics of the “Top Kill” have dominated cable news shows and the impact on the views of Americans outside the media echo chamber is just beginning to become known.  They are certainly aware of it, with The Economist reporting that 73% of adults have heard or read “a lot.”  And we are in an environment where distrust of government and corporations are both at record highs, so this disaster will become part of the “narrative of failure” of public institutions in the same way that Fannie and Lehman have.  But right now, most of the impact appears to be on BP, not the administration.  A Pew poll found that 26% of voters feel that the Obama administration has done a “poor” job and 44% think that BP has done poorly.

10.   The spill takes the President “off message” and further diminishes Democratic efforts to forge a winning agenda for the Fall elections.   This maybe one of the most significant problems for the President and Democrats.  The spill will likely suck the oxygen out of the room for at least the next 30-60 days at a time when Democrats need the focus to be on their legislative agenda. 

11.   If nothing else, the Gulf oil spill will be a significant blow to future offshore drilling development along our coasts, much as Three Mile Island affected the domestic nuclear industry.  The effect on public opinion is already dramatic; fewer than half of all Americans now support expanded offshore drilling.

The Gulf oil spill is likely to have dramatic political effect in the weeks ahead.  And once we are swamped with videos of oil-soaked seabirds and ruined beaches, all bets are off.

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

Steve