September 30, 2010

To Hawthorn Friends and Family –

                      Below is the latest from The Great Lombardo . . . including the unveiling (albeit it was hard to hear the trumpets) of the “LCG Voter Anger Index.”  I’m not sure – and Lord knows, it’s been too many years since I took (and only barely passed, thanks to a very kind professor) statistics – that measures like this can, especially without weighting, simply be added up (Congress almost always has a disapproval rating no matter which party is in control) . . . but that does not invalidate the points Steve makes.

            The trends of all the metrics I read are bad for the Democrats.  And while I see Democrats recovering/Republicans stumbling in a handful of races, the trend is grim for the Democrats, though there are glimmers of hope.

            In recent days, I have focused on three factors:

1. reports of a massive and growing gap in fundraising by Republicans over Democrats and spending by third parties on the GOP’s behalf . . . from the $52 million Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie’s organizations plan to spend . . . to the huge gap the WALL STREET JOURNAL reports in dollars at the state level for governor and legislative candidates . . . to the $75 million the US Chamber promises to spend, double what it spent in 2008 . . . all reversing the advantage the Democrats had two short years ago.

1. an analysis of the WALL STREET JOURNAL/NBC NEWS poll that shows Democrats are in even greater trouble in rural areas, on every measure from right/wrong direction to Obama job performance . . . putting veteran Democrats in rural districts – like House Armed Services Chair Ike Skelton in Missouri – at risk, along with his colleagues in the rural districts of Ohio, Iowa, Illinois and the Dakotas.

1. realizing that, once again, the Democrats’ strategy is a vain and futile hope they will be saved by young and women voters . . . despite the fact that history tells us 16 million women who voted (overwhelmingly Democrat) in 1992 when Clinton won, failed to go to the polls in 1994, when Clinton lost his congressional majority . . . and young voters (as well as African-Americans) have not been expressing nearly the enthusiasm this year that brought 15 million young voters to the polls two years ago. 

In the case of women voters, the question of WHETHER they will vote is all-important to the Democrats, especially in congressional races where MEN say they’re voting Republican 52%-40% while WOMEN say they’re voting exactly the opposite, 52% Democrat and 40% Republican . . . which is useful to the Democrats ONLY if they actually go vote.  And it could be a huge difference in some races.  As Dan Balz points out in the WASHINGTON POST, in the Colorado Senate race, GOP right-winger Ken Buck leads appointed Democrat Michael Bennett 49% - 44% among likely voters, but among men Buck leads 56% - 36% and among women Bennett leads 52% - 42%.

Notable, too, are the continuing dreadful numbers on the country’s right/wrong direction, favorability of congress, and willingness to vote out one’s own member of congress.  According to NEW YORK TIMES/CBS NEWS polling, a majority of voters, by 21 points, would prefer a new representative in congress from THEIR district.  And there is the consistent gap in enthusiasm with Democrats trailing Republicans, 16% in a recent McCLATCHY/MARIST poll and 19% in a recent GALLUP poll . . . as well as the shift in the generic congressional ballot from Democrats to Republicans, presumably amongst Independents. 

There ARE signs of life among the Democrats.  Democrats are holding steady in the generic ballot from where they were two years ago at 43%, compared to the GOP which has picked up 8 points to reach their two-year zenith of 46%.  However, while Republicans have held steady for the last month and a half, Democrats are starting to close the gap, having gained 2-3 points in just the last 3 weeks alone.  This has been fueled by African American voters who saw a six-point gain in high interest and by Hispanics who saw an 11-point gain.  With the White House now fully engaged and voter attention beginning to focus, watch for this gap to narrow even further. 

Democrats are poised to spend $50 million (three times what they spent on the ’06 mid-terms), with $30 million targeted to the 70 most critical House districts, and the AFL-CIO and Service Employees International Union plan to spend at least $84 million in a coordinated effort on Democrats. 

And there are promising poll numbers in California in the Senate race, and even for former Gov. Moonbeam in his bid for yet another term as governor (how long his numbers can sustain will be more clear after today’s press conference by Whitman’s housekeeper leveling “explosive allegations” against the candidate, the same candidate who previously settled out of court for $200,000 for an alleged physical altercation with an eBay employee when Whitman was CEO); though there are equally troubling poll numbers showing West Virginia Democrat Gov. Joe Manchin losing ground in his Senate bid and Connecticut Republican hopeful Linda McMahon closing the gap with Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, and growing assurances the GOP will keep the Florida and Alaska seats in the U.S. Senate, despite three-way races with two Republicans in each state.

I agree with Steve that the O’Donnell factor in Delaware is irrelevant nationally, but the same types of things dooming her candidacy are having similar effects on other untested/unknown Republican candidates across the country, e.g., Sharon Angle in Nevada, Dan Maes in Colorado, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Carl Paladino in New York.  I disagree with him, however, that the GOP “Pledge” even rises to irrelevant, let alone “a winner if it does no harm.”  Jon Stewart of THE DAILY SHOW fame, very effectively, if not entertainingly, demonstrated the lack of vision or new ideas in the “Pledge.”  To borrow a phrase from the ultimate Republican immortal, it will be “little noted nor long remembered.”  Steve’s right, though, it won’t do any damage . . . but there are few effective “second acts” in American politics.  John Boehner is not Newt Gingrich and the “Pledge” of ’10 is not the “Contract” of ’94.

            We’ll keep watching and opining on this, surely the most interesting mid-term election any of us have ever seen.

John

Friends,

The race is on.  No, I’m not referring to the one between Republicans and Democrats; instead, I’m talking about the race between pollsters and media organizations to project this November’s GOP margin of victory.  There have been some pretty smart analyses produced over the last several weeks, including ones by Cook, Rothenberg, RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight and, most recently, the vaunted NBC political unit with its Voter Confidence Index.  However, in the quest to compare this year to other “wave” elections (see 1994, 1982 and 1974) they may have all missed the most important phenomenon of all: the growth rate of this potential electoral hurricane.  We have all been so concerned about looking at this as some fixed point in time—by, for example, trying to compare this year to elections that took place 30 and 40 years ago—that we have forgotten to look back just 90 days ago.  When one does, the only conclusion that you can have is the following: we are seeing an intensifying political storm that for Democrats is the electoral equivalent of a catastrophic hurricane.

First, here’s a quick primer on hurricanes.  According to climatologists, hurricanes can release an amount of energy in one day equal to all of the electricity generated across the globe in 200 days.  Hurricanes also keep building as long as they keep getting energy from warm water.  Hurricanes strengthen via the temperature of the water: the hotter the water, the more strength it gains.  But if a hurricane moves over land or colder water, it starts to fizzle out.  Just like climatological hurricanes, an electoral hurricane is fed by an energy source.  In politics this energy source is usually voter anger and frustration with the status quo.  The Tea Party movement is one byproduct of this energy (to further this analogy, wind and rain are by-products of regular hurricanes).  So the question is will this political hurricane continue to feed off the warm water of voter anger, or will those waters cool a bit as we get closer to shore (Election Day)?  To judge, let’s look at how this storm has intensified over the last 200 days.

We examined five key measures of voter anger: the percentage of voters who say the country is on the “wrong track,” the President’s disapproval rating, Congressional disapproval rating, the Generic Congressional ballot share for the party out of power (GOP) and the Party ID for the out-of-power party (GOP).  All of these are negative measures for Democrats; that is, the higher the number the worse for the Democratic Party.  (All data is from Pollster.com monthly averages for registered voters.)  We then simply calculated the sum of these negative measures, which we will call—trumpets please—the LCG Voter Anger Index.

As you will note from the table below, the Voter Anger Index score in February of this year was 246.  In May it rose to 250 and in August it stood at 259.  In the last 90 days it has risen 9 points.  The lesson here is not just that anger is high, it is that it is increasing with each passing day/week/month.  The water temperature is not cooling; instead, it is getting warmer and feeding the storm.  If it increases another 20 points by Election Day, the result would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party.  We are talking about a 50 - 60 seat loss in the House and loss of the Senate.

When we look at this from a historical perspective, we see that the anger level in February was already equal to 1994.  In August of this year the Voter Anger Index was a full 14 points (or 6%) higher than it was in November of 1994.  It is also important to note that this index is based on registered voters.  Our assumption is that voter anger is even higher among likely voters and the measures we’ve seen—like the generic ballot—do suggest that.

Hurricanes are named.  We all remember Katrina.  For really destructive storms, the World Meteorological Organization sometimes takes names off the list. People don’t want to see the name again.  Democrats might soon want to have this year’s election removed from the history books as well. 

Current Political Environment

There is no doubt that the White House is now fully engaged in the mid-term elections.  The question will be whether this is too little, too late.  Real world events have a way of either complementing or distorting/diminishing the President’s message as his party tries to hold Congress.  We are getting some key month’s end economic data this week and it will impact voter attitudes.  Here are some observations on the current political milieu:

1.   The “pledge” is a winner for the GOP if it does no harm.  The pledge is important for Republicans because of the signal it sends to voters, not because of any specific policy agenda item.  If voters have a neutral to slightly positive impression of the pledge it will have done its job.  The goal of the pledge was to help clarify the GOP brand and toward that end we think it generally works.  On the other hand, don’t expect any big boost for Republican candidates as a result of the unveiling.

2.   The focus on Christine O’Donnell’s controversial comments may doom her candidacy in DE but have little effect on the GOP as a whole.  This is all about her personally and there will be little residual impact on Republicans elsewhere or the Tea Party.

3.   There has been a substantive drop in Obama’s approval rating that is reflected in perceptions of his ability to handle issues.  The recent Politico/GWU/Battleground poll asked who voters thought would be better in handling certain issues: Obama or Republicans in Congress.  On turning around the economy, 49% chose The GOP (and only 41% Obama) and on creating jobs, 51% picked Republicans in Congress while only 40% chose Obama.

4.   The economy remains the number one issue but likely voters are being driven by two secondary but potent issues: 1) perceptions that the stimulus (and TARP) was a government handout and a failure and 2) that the healthcare reform law was an example of too much government intrusion and over-reach.  While some in Washington still find it difficult to believe, anger over the deficit and spending in general is what is driving the likely midterm voter and it is a powerful and emotional issue. 

5.   On the economy, the political problem continues to be one of unmet expectations.  People expected things to get better more quickly than they have.  The country lost 7.6 million jobs since the start of the recession in December of 2007, but we have only recently begun adding jobs over the last few months (and at an awfully slow rate).  It will likely take years to add back those jobs.  Similarly, household net worth has recovered only four percentage points of the 21% lost according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.  The problem was that people expected things to get better much, much faster.  That has hurt Obama and Democrats as much as anything.

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's new home at the Huffington Post and the Daily Caller.

Steve Lombardo