October 29, 2009

Hawthorn Friends & Family -- 

            Next Tuesday, November 3, a handful of elections – some quite interesting, as noted below – mark the day a year out from the 2010 mid-term elections.  A year from now, Americans will be choosing 38 United States Senators, 435 U.S. House members, 37 governors, and more than 5,000 state senators and state representatives.

            Of course, what happens next Tuesday will be wildly trumpeted by the “talking heads” and “instant expert” bloggers as a “report card” on Obama and as sure predictors of what will happen in 12 months . . . just as many have been trumpeting how Obama’s precipitous drop in popularity assures a mid-term disaster for Democrats . . . while others argue a reviving economy and passage of health care and climate change bills will reinvigorate the Democrats.  In truth, no one knows this far out . . . either what (like a disaster in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, as each increasingly becomes “Obama’s War”) will happen . . . or when . . . or how it will affect public opinion/voter turnout.

The 2009 Elections

            Among the most interesting races on the ballot next Tuesday are two governors races, a hotly contested three-way congressional special election in New York, and several major-city mayors races.

Virginia Governor – Based on a massive presidential turnout, Obama carried the Old Dominion state last year (first Democratic win since LBJ in ’64) . . . but it appears his party will lose the governor’s office to the GOP next week.  The Democrat, Creigh Deeds is running 11 points behind in the latest polls, after running a lackluster campaign and failing to win the key endorsement of former Gov. Douglas Wilder (despite a plea from the White House).  Republican Attorney General (barely elected over Deeds four years ago by 323 votes) Bob McDonnell (despite a graduate school paper at Pat Robinson’s fundamentalist university positioning him to the right of Ethelred the Unready) is headed for victory.

Does this mean a rejection of Obama, especially in a state with a huge concentration of voters in the DC media/policy/politics-focused suburbs?  Perhaps.  It is probably more certain to predict a lower turnout, reflecting a disaffection/loss of intensity (among Obama supporters, NOT among his intensely driven critics).

But it’s easy to read too much into a “vote against Obama.”  Since 1977, in every single election for governor for 32 years, eight elections, Virginia has unfailingly voted against the party just elected to the White House 12 months earlier.

We do, however, see this as a nearly certain loss for the Democrats . . . probably losing all the statewide offices, and making it harder for them to pick up the six seats they need to re-take control of the House of Delegates.

New Jersey Governor -- After a disastrous first term of rising taxes, falling revenue, dismal economy, failure to “monetize the assets” of the state’s toll roads (the governor’s choice of less than popular appealing nomenclature), it appeared John Corzine was headed to a very expensive defeat.  However, in this state where Obama beat McCain 57% - 42%, it now appears Corzine is pulling ahead in the polls by nearly 10 points.  The latest from Suffolk University puts Corzine at 42%, former federal prosecutor Chris Christie (R) at 33% and third-party “spoiler” Chris Daggett with seven points.

If Corzine wins it will be an amazing comeback.  But, given Corzine’s spending and the peculiarities of the two (or three) candidates, it’s hard to read much about Obama, or the 2010 mid-terms, in either a Corzine win or defeat.

New York Congressional – When President Obama named Republican Congressman John McHugh as Secretary of the Army, that set up a special election in New York that has captured the attention of political junkies everywhere.  From Sarah Palin, to Tim Pawlenty, to the Club for Growth, to the “tea party-ers,” the right wing of the GOP has massively mobilized to support Conservative third-party candidate Doug Hoffman, arguing that GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava is “too liberal” (abortion, gay marriage, taxes, etc.) to carry the Republican banner.  The fight among Republicans reflect the larger struggle in the Grand Old Party.

The latest poll – granted from the Club for Growth (which is supporting Hoffman), shows Hoffman with 31%, Bill Owens (D) with 27%, and Scozzafava with 20%.  Given the district (it went for Obama over McCain 52% to 47%), “smart money” is probably on Owens, but the conservatives are doing all they know to do – and they know a lot – to win this for “their” candidate and cause.

There is also a special California Congressional Election, with former Lt. Gov. John Garamendi expected to keep the seat in the Democratic column, although in a tighter race than expected in that district.

And there are some interesting mayoral races, including:

New York City, where Bloomberg has spent close to $100 million of his own money to buy a third term.

Atlanta, where a city councilwoman from Buckhead, Mary Norwood, could win over two African-American candidates in a city whose mayors have been African-American since the late Maynard Jackson.

Charlotte, where for the first time in some 15 years, Mayor Pat McCrory won’t be on the ballot, a Republican in a Democratic city, but one that has elected Republican mayors for 21 years.

Detroit, where former NBA player David Bing is seeking a full term, having beaten interim mayor Kenneth Cockrel who stepped in when Kwame Kilpatrick pleaded guilty to two counts of obstruction of justice.

Seattle, where Mayor Greg Nickels lost his primary and it’s now a neck-and-neck race.

Boston, where Mayor Thomas Menino is in the toughest fight of his 16-year tenure as mayor . . . tho’ the latest poll shows him up 20 points and likely to become Boston’s longest-serving mayor.

Ballot Issues – The two hottest are attempts in Maine and Washington (state, although the same issue is contentiously before the D.C. City Council) to repeal same-sex marriage laws passed by their legislatures and signed by their governors.

We will report on all these next week . . . and, even, try to figure out what they mean.

The 2010 Mid-Term Elections

            The 2010 mid-terms are shaping up to be fascinating elections, with the Democrats likely to keep the senate, with the house in play, with lots of governors (nearly the entire South) retiring (and some retired governors making come-back bids, seen as promises of the pre-recession “good ole days”) and state legislatures (especially in states with terms limits) unusually volatile.

            Historically, their first mid-term elections are bad news for recently elected presidents.  Since Jimmy Carter in 1978, every president has lost seats, except for George W. Bush in 2002 (and that exception coming only after 9/11).  We remember Bill Clinton lost the house AND senate, the house for the first time since 1954.  We tend to forget Ronald Reagan also lost seats – 27 house and one senate – in 1982.

            Based on next week’s election results, as well as developments over the coming months, we’ll be periodically looking in detail at the emerging dynamics of the 2010 mid-term elections.

            Right now, it appears the election will be all about the economy:  jobs (of which we’ve lost seven million in this recession, unemployment sure to top 10%, 15+% in some states, underemployment), foreclosures (940,000 in September, 60% of them in just six states), the collapsing commercial real estate market, some signs of slightly increased consumer confidence, etc.  Right now, it’s been, as the NEW YORK TIMES characterized it, “a recovery only an economist could love.”

            Next year’s mid-terms will be a clear referendum on how American’s view President Obama’s success in restoring the economy . . . along with their critical assessment of his leadership on healthcare, climate change, financial regulatory reform and, increasingly, two wars.

            And America’s view of his success is the single most important dynamic affecting the outcome of the mid-term elections.

Perceptions of Obama’s Performance

            Below is Steve Lombardo’s assessment, sent out last week.  As always, it’s a good analysis.

            There is no escaping:  President Obama has suffered a great fall in approval since his election day than any of his five predecessors . . . but, in part, that drop is because he started much higher on Election Day than any of those predecessors.

            On Election Day, Obama’s favorability was at 70%.  On August 31 it was at 49%, a 21-point drop.

• George W. Bush started at only 49% on Election Day, and actually went up to 55% by August 31 of his first year.

• Clinton started at 50% and went up to 56%.

• George H.W. Bush started at 52% and rose to 64%.

• Reagan started at 58% and moved marginally to 60%.

• Carter also started at 58% on Election Day and was basically unchanged on August 31 at 59%.

            Additionally, recent polls suggest Obama’s favorability has stabilized and is starting to improve.  Support for his healthcare plan, specifically the “public option,” is inching up and the Democrats are doing better on the “generic” congressional election question (tho’ aren’t enjoying the lead they had going into last November’s election).

            Headlines today on the WALL STREET JOURNAL poll seem to accurately reflect the public mood:  Gloom Spreads on Economy, but GOP Doesn’t Gain.  Poll Reflects Increasing Pessimism, With Majority Saying U.S. Is on the ‘Wrong Track’ for First Time in Obama Presidency.

            The electorate, clearly, remains volatile.  The vicious reaction in congressional town meetings this summer offered clear evidence of people hurting, in pain, frightened, frustrated, fed-up, and very, very angry.

            We will report next week on what we read into voters’ actions next Tuesday.

John

Friends,

Next week we will be 10 months into the Obama post-presidential political campaign and we thought it would be a good time to inventory its positives and negatives.  The administration is bringing a political campaign approach to its policy agenda; as such, it is probably best to view its strategies and tactics through the same prism.

Positives:

1. The President’s activist agenda is in strong contrast to Bush and perceptions of the last years of the Bush presidency.  Few voters are likely to say that Obama is not trying to do something.  While some pundits will argue that Obama is overexposed, we disagree.  His offensive on healthcare the last 45 days has been a plus.  There are simply too many diversions in our digital, 24/7 media world that keep people from paying attention.  His improved approval rating is a reflection of this.  One possible negative implication is the growing perception that his activity is a sign of big government intrusion.  A must-read on this topic is a piece filed yesterday by Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press.
   
   
2. Sotomayor.  The handling of the Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court was terrific and helped steady the ship in early August.  While there was some grumbling from Republicans about the choice of a “Wise Latina” the end result was that Obama was able to replace Souter with someone who is just 55 years young and certainly tilts the court further to the left.  This is not just a victory for progressive jurisprudence, however, but also from a PR standpoint: while expending minimal political capital, Obama was able to make history by naming the first Hispanic and third female to the SCOTUS.
   
   
3. Despite early PR blunders on health care, the President’s reform campaign over the last 30 days has stopped the public opinion bleeding.  Two things have happened: first, the public is more likely now to believe that health care reform is a top priority than back in July; and second, voters are less apprehensive that the plan would not harm them.  This tells you one thing: the President never should have outsourced the first phase of healthcare reform to Congress.  Team Obama said they were doing that because of lessons learned from Clinton’s healthcare push in 1993.  If so, they learned the wrong lesson.

Negatives:

1. The President and his team appear to have misinterpreted their 2008 victory as a mandate for social change.  Uncharacteristically, this appears to have been done with little regard to actual public opinion.  Voters last November were looking for change, but it was almost all about the economy/jobs (and, to a much lesser extent, Iraq).  Obama’s approval rating drop is tied to the rising unemployment rate and a belief that he is not solving the nation’s economic problems.  As long as consumer confidence lags, so will the President’s numbers.
   
   
2. The “stimulus package” was a PR bust.  In a recent WSJ poll, less than half of voters (46%) thought the stimulus prevented a greater downturn.    According to a CBS poll from last week, while a plurality (47%) see the stimulus as making the economy better in the long run, nearly as many see it as either making the economy worse (21%) or having no impact (24%).   The bottom line is that the focus should have been on jobs.  A late September survey conducted by Democratic pollster Geoff Garin for the Economic Policy Institute showed that more than 8 in 10 registered voters (81%) thought that the Obama administration needs to do more about unemployment and disappearing jobs.  Only 13% thought the president had done enough.  Again, polls showed support for a targeted jobs package with a combination of some infrastructure investment and tax cuts.  All of which would have been tough to argue against and may have even garnered bipartisan support.
   
   
3. Team Obama misplayed healthcare from the get-go.  They aimed big, which isn’t a bad thing, but they aimed so big that it has come crashing down on them.  Then, to make matters worse, they learned the wrong “lesson” from 1994 (“don’t give them an actual plan to pick apart”) and came across as indecisive and unprepared due to their lack of specificity.  Public opinion polls show that there is support for substantive change to our healthcare system, but there are a lot of items they should have and could have accomplished with bipartisan support (electronic medical records, health insurance reform vis-à-vis pre-existing conditions, etc.) that would have allowed them to claim health reform “victory” while setting them up for more substantive change down the road.  The key lesson from 1994 was “don’t bite off more than you can chew (in other words, more than the people want and are ready for)” and they whiffed on that.  The public decided that covering more people but allowing everyone who currently has coverage to keep the same coverage without spending more money was probably impossible.  We may still see bills pass the floor of both the House and Senate in the coming weeks which would cause the public’s perception of Obama’s handling to rebound; however, it is undeniable that a good measure of damage has already been done.
   
   
4. The White House miscalculated the seriousness and intensity of the Town Hall meetings and then added insult to injury by saying that the town hall participants were not legitimate, which only served to make voters angrier.  The tactic backfired in a big way.
   
   
5. Obama ran as the “anti-politician” but his job now is inherently political, which diminishes his biggest attribute.  This partially explains Obama’s rapid approval rating drop.  It is not necessarily because of his policies (although some of it assuredly is); it is because of the fact that he is doing anything at all.  Before he was above the fray, now he is in it.
   

Neutral:

1. The Nobel Peace Prize.  It is obvious how the prize feeds the negative perception that Obama is overly lauded despite having a thin record of actual accomplishments.  However, it was completely beyond the White House’s control that a group of six inscrutable Norwegians decided to bestow the Nobel Peace Prize on Obama.  Furthermore, by donating away the monetary prize and treating the honor as a “Call to Action” Obama largely was able to defuse the blowback.

An Up-to-the-Minute Review of the Public Opinion Landscape as of Noon Today:

• The fact that the storyline this morning is about the insurance industry launching a multi-state ad campaign attacking the health care plan – is a positive for the President. A CBS News poll in August had the insurance industry’s unfavorable rating at 46%.  Although we must say that the attack line -- warning that seniors in private Medicare plans could lose benefits under the legislation – is a pretty good one.
  
  
• Obama’s approval rating is slowly trending back up. The latest Gallup tracking poll result (released yesterday) now shows Obama at 56% approval and 36% disapproval.  Our synthesis of the most recent public and private polls has his approval rating at 53% and disapproval at 41%.  This is a marked improvement over 30 days ago.  At that time his disapproval rating was at 45% according to our average of all polls at that time).  Remember that his approval rating drop from the mid-60’s was with all major demographic and political groups.  It fell 11 points among women and nine points among men; and by 12 points among Republicans, 10 points among Democrats and nine points among independents from April to September.  Look for polls to show improvement among these groups in the coming days and weeks.

• The New Jersey Governor’s race will go to the wire but Virginia is almost certainly over. A new Quinnipiac poll has NJ in a statistical tie with the Democrat incumbent Corzine at 40%, Republican Christie at 41% and Independent Chris Daggett at 14%. McDonnell has been up between 8-15% for almost two months.  While there was some tightening in VA in mid-September due to the “Thesis” story (especially in northern Virginia), McDonnell appears to have regained his solid lead—due in large part with ads aimed at Independents and women.  Enthusiasm for McDonnell is twice that for Deeds according to the Washington Post.  In an off year election this is critical.  Barring some sort of surprise, Virginia will elect a Republican Governor in 3 weeks.
  
  
• While stocks are surging this morning, unemployment is still the key driver of public opinion and it remains abysmal.  The unemployment rate when Barrack Obama took office was 7.6% and 11.6 million Americans were unemployed.  The current rate of unemployment (as of September) is 9.8% and the number of jobless Americans is 15.1 million.  Below are the number of payroll jobs the country has lost month-by-month since January.  (August and September data is still “provisional.”)

• The 2010 elections will be almost exclusively about the economy and jobs.  While it is speculation at best to estimate the magnitude of losses Democrats might endure it is instructive to look at what happened during the 1981-1982 recession.  In January of 1981 when Reagan took office unemployment was at 7.5%.  In November of 1982 unemployment had risen to 10.8%.  Reagan’s approval rating at the time of the election had dropped to 43% (47% disapproval).  Democrats picked up 26 seats in the House and one in the Senate.  Of course this election will have its own set of variables (including retirements, candidate recruitment, generic ballot, partisan identification) but we do tend to think that two numbers will be hugely important a year from now: the President’s approval rating and unemployment.  Even if the recession “ends” tomorrow, unemployment is a lagging indicator and that number will almost definitely be higher on Election Day 2010 than it was when Obama took office—representing a substantial drag on Democrats in 2010.

Thanks to John Zirinsky and Peter Ventimiglia for their thoughts and insights.  Please visit us and other great contributors at www.pollster.com and follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/LCGpolling.

Steve

Steve Lombardo

President & CEO

Lombardo Consulting Group, LLC

Canal Square

1054 31st Street , Suite 330

Washington, DC  20007

Office   202.223.3460

Mobile 202.413.2141

steve.lombardo@lombardoconsultinggroup.com

www.lombardoconsultinggroup.com