NBC: Battle for Congress tightens. PPP: Why things could get better for Dems [Undecideds]
Don't break out the champaign just yet, but the past week has seen a definite shift in the polling narrative for the mid-term elections. Instead of a steady drum-beat of GOP wave election triumphalism, we're now hearing about how individual Dems are proving resilient, how the enthusiasm gap is closing, how the GOP doesn't have things locked up, how the GOP may fall short, and how Dems may be better positioned than expected in the last month.
In addition to the underlying relative good news these polls & narratives reflect, it's good news as well that looking forward there may be a less automatic pro-GOP background to campaign reporting. That alone might be worth a couple of points in what looks to be a very close race in many places. Given that factual details favor the Dems, while broad not-necessarily-true narratives favor the GOP, a less uniform over-arching narrative environment could allow for a much more Dem-friendly environment in the closing weeks than we've seen all year to date.
I want to run through four different pieces from four different polling outfits or news sources. Only one--from the NY Times is not directly poll-based, but that story is describing changes in Republicans perception of the overall campaigns, reflecting polling over the past month.
Newseek: Angry Voters? Not so much.
In a poll reported Oct 1,Newsweek gave the most comprehensive look at why the dominant cluster of campaign narratives of this election cycle just doesn't hold up to scrutiny, particularly the notion of a wave of populist anger sweeping out the Dems because of their unpopular positions, and an unpopular President.
It's not that there aren't any angry voters out there. There certainly are. But they're not nearly as likely to be so decisive as we've been repeatedly told. At just 23% of the electorate, they are no more likely to vote than other voters. What's more, Democrats have a lot of things going for them in helping to limit the GOP tide--such as being favored on almost all the issues, and holding a slim edge in generic ballot preference. Finally, Obama's popularity, though not great, has held steady at 48% since early this year, helping Dems look pretty good in comparison to the last two mid-term waves--1994 and 2006.
Here are some relevant excerpts from the Newsweek story. First, the "angry voter" demographic is relatively specific, not general:
Self-described "angry" voters fit a rather predictable political and demographic profile. The survey found that only 14 percent are Democrats. The rest are either Republicans (52 percent) or independents (29 percent), with 42 percent of the angry voters declaring themselves Tea Party supporters. For the midterms, angry voters favor Republican candidates over their Democratic rivals, 73 percent to 19 percent. Three quarters want the GOP to win control of Congress. More than seven in 10 specifically describe themselves as angry with Obama and congressional Democrats, and a full 60 percent see their vote in November as a vote against the president. Compared with voters in general, angry voters are 21 percent more likely to say they're worried about their economic future. They are 10 percent whiter than voters in general and 7 percent less likely to be under 30.
That demographic doesn't describe the majority of voters, however. In fact, it's just a small minority--less than 1 in 4:
Inside the Tea Party
But the NEWSWEEK Poll's most revealing finding is that despite months of media coverage insisting that voters are "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore," anger is unlikely to decide this year's elections. For starters, self-described angry voters constitute only 23 percent of the electorate, and there's no reason to believe that they're more likely to cast ballots in November than their calmer peers. Why? Because the percentage of angry voters who say they will definitely vote in the midterms is statistically indistinguishable from the overall percentage of voters who say the same thing (84 percent vs. 81 percent). In fact, majorities of voters say they would not be more likely to vote for candidates who express anger at Washington incumbents (60 percent), Wall Street bankers (52 percent), the illegal-immigration problem (53 percent), the Gulf of Mexico oil spill (65 percent), or health-care reform (55 percent). Fifty-three percent of voters see Obama's unemotional approach to politics--his "coolness"--as a positive, versus only 39 percent who don't.
Speaking of Obama, he appears to be a neutral, rather than a negative influence, in sharp contrast to Bush in 2006 and Clinton in 1994:
Anger isn't the only factor that's been overhyped in the run-up to Election Day. The president, for example, appears to be a neutral force rather than a negative one. His approval rating stands at 48 percent, roughly where it has remained since January of this year, and far better than where George W. Bush stood before the 2006 midterms (33 percent) or where Bill Clinton stood in 1994 (36 percent). Meanwhile, the percentage of voters who say they will be voting "for Obama" in November's congressional elections (32 percent) is statistically identical to the percentage who say they will be voting "against" him (30 percent). Voters dissatisfied with the country's current course are more likely to place "a lot" of blame on Bush (39 percent) than on his successor (32 percent).
Furthermore, the issues largely favor the Democrats:
Another factor that has garnered a lot of potentially unwarranted attention is "the issues." Simply put, in the NEWSWEEK Poll, voters said they trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle pretty much every problem currently facing the country: Afghanistan (by 6 points), health care (by 12), immigration (by 2, though that figure is within the margin of error), Social Security (by 14), unemployment (by 12), financial reform (by 14), energy (by 19), and education (by 19). Voters even prefer Democrats to Republicans on federal spending (by 4 points), taxes (by 5), and the economy (by 10)-the GOP's core concerns. The only area where Republicans outpoll Democrats is the issue of terrorism, where they lead by a 6-point margin.
I have gotten somewhat tired of hearing the woes of Dems this cycle from folks reading Politico and assuming the majorities will all but evaporate. There's an intentional ignorance in the traditional media to forget about open Senate seats ripe for pickup in New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio and Kentucky, and competitive seats in North Carolina and elsewhere. For a variety of reasons, there hasn't been as much attention on the House, where I'm focusing on CA-45, a district where Obama won and we have a candidate that can do the same.
CNN has a profile up about Steve Pougnet, the openly gay mayor of Palm Springs, CA who is running to take down Mary Bono Mack, the Republican incumbent. Steve, who I profiled earlier here, would be the first married, openly gay parent elected two Congress (he and his partner are raising twins, Julia and Beckham).
Photo credit: The Advocate
In the piece, Mary is portrayed as she would wish us to believe, a moderate Republican in the mold of Susan Collins:
California's 45th congressional district has never been represented by a Democrat, but the majority party is looking to give six-term Rep. Mary Bono Mack a run for her money.
The district, which includes Palm Springs and the slice of rural southern California just to the city's east, has seen a population growth of 28 percent since 2000. Hispanics now make up 41 percent of the population. As such, an electorate that overwhelmingly voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 handed President Obama a 5-point victory two years ago.
As her constituency shifted toward the middle of the political spectrum, Bono Mack shifted across party lines to vote with the Democrats on some key pieces of legislation. In 2007, she was one of 82 Republicans to vote in favor of raising the minimum wage. In 2008, she voted in favor of the financial industry bailout known as TARP. And in June, she was one of eight Republicans to support the Democrat's "cap and trade" energy bill.
To unpack a coupla things, being one of 82 Republicans in favor of raising the minimum wage in 2007 in contrast to an unpopular President's opposition isn't exactly a profile-in-courage. Nor is voting in favor of TARP along with dozens of other Republicans, including neoconservatives like Roy Blunt. The piece continues with some contrasts:
Palm Spring's large gay community has made equal rights a key issue in the race. Bono Mack has not taken a stance on Proposition 8 but has twice voted against constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Pougnet, who is openly gay, supports repealing Prop. 8, the Defense of Marriage Act, and the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
The district shares a border with Arizona and is within 50 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, which has thrust immigration reform into the spotlight as well. Pougnet opposes Arizona's controversial immigration law, the strictest parts of which have been temporarily blocked by a federal judge. Bono Mack has stopped short of endorsing Arizona's legislation, but said the state's citizens voted for the law because the Obama administration has "failed to act" on immigration.
Bono Mack also voted against repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, refuses to co-sponsor ENDA or say how she'll vote on the measure, and supported the Largent Amendment in 1999 to ban same-sex adoption in the District of Columbia. She also opposed the stimulus, a health care public option, the financial reform bill, and even voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. People tell me Bono Mack is one of the "decent" ones, and it shocks them when I point out how rank-and-file she is.
Meanwhile, Steve just released his first ad this week pointing out these contrasts:
The buy is 1000 points on Palm Springs broadcast and a large cable buy in the Los Angeles media market, which is supplement by a large English and Spanish radio buy. The campaign tells me Pougnet is the first House challenger to be up on broadcast and cable this cycle.
Because a large part of the district is in Los Angeles media market and the expense of staying on the air there, and that the Pougnet campaign is at a financial disadvantage, they could use a few bucks to introduce Steve to the rest of the district. I threw in $10 myself this morning.
While national Democrats focus on protecting every seat- including anti-LGBT Blue Dogs- let's focus on building progressive, pro-equality majorities by going on offense.
This is the first part of a series of posts analyzing competitive Senate elections in blue states. The second part can be found here.
Illinois
In November 2010, Democratic State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias will face off against Republican Congressman Mark Kirk, in what looks to be a competitive Senate race. A heavily blue state, Democrats have been hurt by a bad national environment coupled with continuing fall-out from the Rod Blagojevich scandals.
Out of the three states being analyzed (the other two being California and New York), Illinois is the state in which Republicans are strongest. Out of the three, it is also the state with the most competitive forthcoming election. This post will analyze the political contours of the state, and the long and difficult path Mr. Kirk must tread for victory.
When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, and George Bush was photographed posing with a guitar and giving John McCain a birthday cake, I had one happy thought to offset all the horror that was unfolding before us: I was convinced that the Democrats would win back Congress in 2006 with a wave election, and win a second wave election in 2008, along with the White House. It would be, I believed, a classic realigning election. Howard Dean was already out there working on his 50-state strategy, which was absolutely huge. But the Katrina disaster finally punctured the bubble of Versailles ass-covering for conservative failures. My only regret, looking backward, was that I didn't write more systematically about what I felt. While I was right about the shape of elections to come, the waves were not as large as I had hoped, nor were the policy consequences--due largely to Barack Obama's manic embrace of discredited conservative ideas. This has helped enormously in extending the hegemonic continuity of Nixon-Reagan Era.
With all the talk of a GOP wave in November, it has seemed that the once-promising opportunity to shake off 30 years of failed conservative policies was about to disappear. (Obama's own infatuation with those failed policies, reflected most recently in David Kaib's quick hit, HUD is Trying to Privatize and Mortgage Off All of America's Public Housing, is another huge part of the problem--but outside the scope of this diary. Suffice it to say that if Obama triangulates like this with large Democratic majorities, one shudders to think what he'd do with the GOP holding some actual face cards.)
Now, I think I've learned my lesson, though--which is to be far more outspoken about what I think the future holds. Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as certain now as I was then. But I am as certain that the conventional wisdom is missing something big--although as Tom Schaller notes the Critz victory in PA-12 is already having some impact on the conventional wisdom about a GOP wave in the House. But the wave election narrative is just the tip of the iceberg of what I'm thinking about. The wave is a "what?" kind of question. I'm thinking about "why?"--and "what's next?".
Before going any farther in thinking about the future, I need to add one more point about the past: The change I foresaw in September 2005 did not actually materialize, due largely to Barack Obama's manic embrace of discredited conservative ideas--though of course he was not alone. This has helped enormously in extending the hegemonic continuity of Nixon-Reagan Era. And that leads directly to what I think the conventional wisdom is missing: the distinct possibility that that hegemony might actually fall apart sooner, rather than later. I say only possibility, because that's all there realistically is at this time. But Paul Krugman made a very good point last weekend with his post "Will 2010 be 1948?"
Taking note of the recent trend back toward a slight Democratic edge in Pollster.com's generic ballot poll average, Krugman wrote:
Over the next few posts I will be previewing a select few competitive Senate elections. These posts will focus less on individual personalities and more on overarching state dynamics - what parts of the state vote Democratic, swing, and vote Republican.
These states will be mainly Democratic strongholds, rather than swing states, because this election cycle is the first in many in which they have been competitive. Another opportunity for analyzing these places will probably not occur for a while.
Albuquerque, a fairly Democratic town, just elected a Republican mayor because of low Democratic voter turnout. Democrats are in danger in both of the big gubernatorial races coming up in New Jersey and Virginia. The generic congressional polling numbers are in a statistical dead heat, and Democratic base voter enthusiasm is trending down.
There is no reason for Democrats to panic, as demographics are still trending in our favor and the Republican brand is still in tatters, but the warning signs for my party are out there and should not be ignored. What Democrats need to be extremely well focused on is short term deliverables for real people. On health care, on jobs, on banking legislation, on immigration reform, on climate legislation - on all of these major initiatives and more, they of course should be thinking about what's best in the long term, but better damn well be focused on delivering real and tangible benefits to voters before the next election, or Democrats will suffer a bruising defeat in November 2010.
Let's start with health care. When you are working to re-structure 17% of the American economy - and probably the most byzantinely-structured 17% there is - there are a lot of complications, and it is obviously going to take some time. Some of the features of the plan will need time to phase in, which is understandable. But some of the benefits need to be apparent to Americans right away too. If we spend a year and a trillion dollars passing health care reform, and no one sees any benefits to them by November 2010, we Democrats have a really big problem in the next election.
Another key point on this issue: if a public option doesn't go into effect for a while, say until 2013, insurance companies better not be free to raise their rates at will until they finally have competition, when the public option enters the scene. There is nothing that will guarantee voters turning away quickly from health reform, and the politicians who voted for it, more than letting insurance companies hike up their insurance costs over the next four years, and we know they would have because they already promised to do it.
Health care reform needs to have immediate benefits - no pre-existing conditions, no lifetime caps, all of those insurance regulations we've been hearing about need to kick in immediately. But even more importantly, if a public option gets delayed, there has to be a short term way to keep insurance company greed and power in check. To leave the public utterly at the mercy of the arrogant insurers who have already promised they would raise their rates after this is passed - like consumers were left at the mercy of credit card companies for many months after the consumer protection bill passed - is not only unfair to people but is truly terrible politics. If you think these insurers won't jack rates through the roof, and then blame the rate increases on reform, you are truly naïve. Don't make voters feel like it was a bad idea to pass health reform because they are seeing only the downside in the short term.
On the economy, the macro-economists in the administration like Larry Summers love to say that, "jobs are a lagging indicator", that eventually in the long run, that jobs will start getting created. Even if they are right (and I tend to be skeptical when economists tell me that in the long run, things will eventually trickle down to working people), neither the economy nor the Democratic Party can afford for there to be another year where no jobs are being produced. To have that many people in trouble exacerbates the foreclosure crisis, weakens the housing market, forces more cuts in the state and local budgets, and a higher federal deficit: and it is a complete political disaster for Democrats. Jobs need to be created ASAP, lots of jobs, not a few here and there, and should not be seen as the lagging indicator that will take care of itself someday. In the long run, as John Maynard Keynes liked to say, we are all dead, but the Democrats will be dead in the short term unless we start producing lots of jobs quickly. The stimulus is certainly helping, and Obama deserves credit for that, but it is not enough. Democrats need to think bigger on creating jobs.
On financial reform, as with health care, much of what needs to be reformed will take a long time to kick in, and in fact much of the goal will be to keep disaster from happening in the future - a harder thing to get credit for. (Which by the way, is the main thing the Obama White House is claiming about the economy - that we would have had a disaster if not for the US. It's a hard thing to win votes on.) But a strong policy of consumer safety in financial products will be noticed by people who went through the outrages of being ripped off over the last few years, and there are other things that could be done that voters would notice and cheer. How about a tax on financial transactions, structure to cost the most for the biggest traders, where the proceeds would go to new job creation? Based on private polling I was shown recently, that would get about 85% support. How about anti-trust actions against the biggest banks? How about throwing some of the worst violators of the financial system in jail, and returning their ill-gotten gains to the people they ripped off? There are plenty of things to do in the financial sector that would get voter attention and would be seen as an immediate benefit.
On climate change, the first item of business should be dramatically expanding green jobs. On immigration, families ought to be reunited right away. On issue after issue, we need to get things done, and make sure that what we get done has immediate benefits to regular people.
George W. Bush was a disastrous President, rated by many historians as the worst President of all time, and he handed Democrats a terrible mess that we will be digging our way out of for years. But blaming the other guys for bad times doesn't cut it in American politics, and it shouldn't: we need to deliver real things to real people. Trying to convince voters that it would have been so much worse if it wasn't for us, and that our policies will help them someday in the long run, is not a winning strategy. We need to deliver things that make a difference in voters' lives now.
STATE BLOGS
