Partisanship, Polarization, and the New Normal in Midterm Elections

In America, the era of elections as affirmation has ended, we are living in the era of elections as repudiation.

At this point, there is little doubt that the 2010 midterm elections are going to produce a political sea change in Washington and in State Houses across the United States. Just two years ago, pundits, politicians, and political analysts were writing the GOP’s epitaph. The party had become too conservative, too regional, too focused on social issues. Meanwhile the Democrats were enjoying a resurgence that would last a generation thanks to a reinvigorated public desire for governmental intervention in the economy and demographic changes that would further support a growing Democratic majority. Virginia and Indiana had broken their long ties to the GOP and the states of the Mountain West had become new Democratic leaning swing states.

It’s amazing how much can change in 18 months. Indiana and Virginia are no longer so friendly to the Democrats and those states in the Mountain West appear to be trending Republican again. Those predictions of a new Democratic majority in America; they seem as quaint and outdated as the predictions of a new Republican majority following the 1994 and 2002 midterms. Some commentators and even elected officials have suggested that the American electorate is simply too fickle, expects too much too soon, or in the recent words of Eugene Robinson are simply "spoiled brats." They're all wrong.

The truth is America is sailing through largely uncharted waters, down a river that has its source in the tumult and change of the 1960s. For either Democrats or Republicans to emerge as a new majority party in America, Americans would first need to gravitate to one of the parties and in a permanent way. This is what happened in the 1890s, when Americans overwhelmingly endorsed the Republican Party. In 1894, Democrats appeared to be recovering from the Age of Lincoln. Democrat Grover Cleveland was in his second term and the part controlled the House of Representatives by a margin of 218 to 124. But an economic crisis in 1893 and sectional and policy divisions within the Democratic Party raised serious public doubts about the party of Jackson. In the election of 1894, Republicans won 130 seats in the House and capture a 254 to 93 seat majority. In 1896 the Republican coup would be complete with the election of Republican William McKinley as president. It marked a 30 year period of clear Republican dominance that would not end until the economic collapse of 1929 and the midterm election of 1930 when Democrats came within a seat of reclaiming the House and the Senate. Over the next three elections Democrats would net a total of 37 Senate seats and 170 House seats. This Democratic realignment was made complete with the overwhelming election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. Democrats remained the majority party until the late 1960s.

Since 1968, neither party has been able to claim the allegiance of a majority of Americans. In fact, party attachment has been on the decline and the share of voters identifying as Independent or only “weakly” attached to either party has increased sharply. According to data from the American National election Study, in 1964 approximately 76% of the country identified as a “Partisan” (either week or strong) in contrast only 24% identified as Independent or Leaning Independent. By 1984 it was 65% to 35% and in 2008 it was 60% to 40%. Across that 42 year span the share identifying as “Strong Partisans” decreased from 38% in 1964 to 32% in 2008 and “Weak Partisans” declined from 38% to 28%. The share identifying as “Leaning Independent” doubled from 15% to 29%. Americans began a forty year trek away from the political parties – but especially the Democrats. In 1964, 52% of Americans identified as either “Weak” or “Strong” Democrats and 35% as “Weak” or “Strong” Republicans, 23% were Independents (some committed and others with “leanings” toward Republicans or Democrats). By 1984 that breakdown was 37% Democrat, 27% Republican, and 35% Independent. In 2008 it was 34%, 26%, and 40% respectively. Americans have become less attached to either party.

But as Americans have moved away from party, the parties have responded by becoming ever more partisan and polarized. Since the 1960s and the decline of the Democrat party's advantage American politics has become far more competitive. The Democrats lost their hold on the South, the Republicans lost their hold on the North East. According to data from State Politics and Policy Quarterly only 7 states had divided government in 1954, in 2007 that number stood at 23 states. With few exceptions, either party has fair shot at winning statewide elections in most states (remember, we vote for offices other than President). A recent study by political scientist Daniel Coffey determined that there is a direct and positive correlation between party competition and party ideology. As a state becomes more competitive between Republicans and Democrats the respective parties become ever more conservative and liberal. V.O. Key hinted at this in 1956 when he argued that competition would force parties to offer more distinct policies to voters in an effort to influence their choice. Additionally, as competition increases the parties come to rely more heavily, not on the mean, median, or moderate voter, but rather on the more committed and active voter. For Democrats this means liberal activists and for Republicans conservative activists. This has the effect of pushing the parties ever farther to the extreme. Multiple studies have confirmed that Congress is a polarized body devoid of a political center.

Though some scholars have advanced the theory that this growing polarization among elected officials is in fact reflective of a polarized public (see Pietro Nivola and David Brady’s “Red and Blue Nation?” volumes or more recently Alan Abramowitz’s “The Disappearing Center”), there is in fact little evidence that the mass public has become polarized. Rather the polarization has occurred among committed political activists and the interest groups they support – a relatively small share of the electorate. Morris Fiorina’s “Disconnect argues this quite effectively.

A new study by Joseph Bafumi and Michael Herron (in the latest volume of the journal American Political Science Review) lends further credence to the argument that parties are more polarized and the electorate is not. I think that their study also helps us to better understand the dynamics of the 1994, 2002, 2006, and 2010 midterms.

Bafumi and Herron compared roll call votes of members of the 109th (the last under Republican control) and 110th (the first under Democratic control post 2006 midterm) Congresses with voter responses drawn from a survey of over 33,000 Americans. Through this process, the authors were able to plot the ideology of members of Congress as well as the median ideology of Democratic, Republican, and all voters in a state. What they found is fascinating. In nearly every state studied Democratic members of Congress were well to the left of the median voter and even to the left of the median Democratic voter. Likewise, Republicans were well to the right. Further, they determined that the median member of the 109th Congress was well to the right of the median American voter. This may help to explain the Republican’s loss of the House and the Senate in 2006. But the authors determined that the 2006 election did not bring a sense of balance to Congress, in fact the median member of the newly elected Democratic Congress was well to the left of the median American voter. In short, the median voter had been “leapfrogged” in the 2006 election as Congress moved from one extreme to the other.

Which brings us to 2010. Republicans are poised to make significant gains in the House and Senate. Most analysts agree now that they are likely to reclaim the House and may come within 1 or 2 seats of reclaiming the Senate (a takeover is not impossible). Democrats stand to lose all of the ground that they won in 2006 and 2008. Why? Because the American public is not polarized, neither the Democratic nor Republican parties can lay claim to a majority or perhaps even a plurality of Americans. But ours is a two party system and Americans must choose between Republicans or Democrats. So in 2006, a moderate electorate rejected the extremes of the Republican Congress in the only way they could, by voting for Democrats. In 2010, a moderate electorate is set to go to the polls and reject the extremes of the Democratic Congress in a similar fashion. The lesson for Republicans should be clear, voters are no more endorsing a conservative agenda in 2010 than were they endorsing liberalism in 2006. For Republicans, failure to adhere to that lesson will likely lead to a repeat of 2006 and 2010 in 2014.

So long as America’s dominant political parties continue their ideological drift away from the median voter the American electorate will continue to drift away from the parties. A recent study by Pew speaks to the potential for this, in a September 2006 survey Pew found that Independent voters favored a Democrat for Congress by an 18 point margin, a similar survey last month showed Independents now favoring a Republican by a 15 point margin – a 33 point swing. Pew also found that Independents were the largest voting bloc claiming 37% of the electorate, and increase of 3 percentage points in two years. If such dramatic swings occur among 37% of the electorate, then so-called wave elections like 1994, 2006, and perhaps 2010 may become the new normal in America. Meaning no party can take its control of Congress for granted. The question is whether this Congressional competitiveness will force one or both parties to moderate or simply make them more extreme.

For Republicans, has the Senate Moved out of Reach?

The unexpected loss by moderate Republican Mike Castle in Delaware to the conservative newcomer Christine O'Donnell has just made it less likely that Republicans can retake the Senate in 2010.  Heading into November the GOP holds 41 seats and none appear to be at risk. The GOP is expected to pickup AR, ND, and IN as well as CO and PA for 5 new seats. Delaware was expected to be number 6 with the GOP reaching 57 seats and need only 4 more - IL, CA, NV, WA, and WI are all possibilities with CT and WV as long shots. The GOP would have needed 4 of those 7 a tall but possible order. Now, the GOP needs to win 5 of the 7. I can still happen, but it will tougher after tonight.

So Much Bad Advice... (but not from me)

Greg Sargent at the Washington Post repeats an oft made argument among Liberals that Barack Obama's woes are not the result of Democratic overreach and the pursuit of a left of center political agenda outside of the American mainstream. Sargent writes:

Dem losses this fall will be largely due to the economy and unemployment, which would have been far worse today without the stimulus. What's more, Obama didn't govern from the far left: Health care reform and even Wall Street reform were arguably moderate solutions to serious crises that demanded urgent attention. And regardless of the politics, Dems campaigned on a promise to do these things -- and they were substantively the right things to do.

Sargent, like others, argues that the President has not pursued a far left agenda, so any suggestions that he should move to the center, scale back his agenda, or view the upcoming midterm elections as a repudiation of his policies are based on a faulty premise.

The faulty premise, of course, is that offered by Sargent and others - that President Obama's troubles are not the result of the public's rejection of his liberal agenda. That is exactly the source of the President's troubles. The crucial error that Sargent and other defenders of the faith have made is to measure liberalism by their standards as opposed to those of most Americans. The fact that far left Liberals do not believe that the president has pursued a far left agenda tells us precious little about anything other than the policy preferences of far left Liberals.

According to nearly every survey, including the most recent from Democracy Corps, roughly 20% of Americans identify themselves as Liberal, 30% as Moderate, and 45% as Conservative. Given that only 20% of the electorate is Liberal it matters far more what the other 80% of voters think about the President's policies. According to Gallup, the President enjoys a 77% approval rating among Liberals (so though folks like Sargent may contend that the President's policies have been "moderate solutions" Liberals have been quite satisfied with those solutions). Among Moderates, President Obama's approval rating stands at 53% and Among Conservatives (the largest ideological group in America) the President's approval rating rests at a dismal 22%.

With regard to perceptions of the President's politics and ideology an ABC News/Washington Post survey found that 45% of registered voters consider the President to be "Too Liberal." An equal share consider his views to be "About Right." It may seem ok for those two numbers to be equal, but the trend is telling - in January of 2009 only 29% described the President as "Too Liberal" and 65% described him as "About Right." Since his inauguration, there has been a 50% increase in the perception that the President is "Too Liberal."

Obama and the Democrats have not lost the support of Democratic voters. Obama's approval rating among Democrats is 79% - nearly the same as it was one year ago. The problem for Democrats is the loss of Independent voters; 50% approved of Obama's job last November, but today that number stands at 39%. With regard to Congress, 90% of Democrats intend to vote for a Democrat in 2010, but Independents prefer the GOP by a margin of 45% to 33%. In November of 2006, Independents favored Democrats 51% to 26%. Democrats have lost the middle.

Consider as well what has happened with regard to the public's preferences - a Pew survey released last April asked in people preferred bigger government and more services or smaller government and less services - since President Obama assumed office the share opting for smaller government and fewer services has grown dramatically. Regardless of how "moderate" some may consider health reform or financial regulatory reform, or the stimulus bill - the simple fact is that each did expand the size and scope of the federal government during an time when the public was increasingly opposed to such expansion.

Sargent laments "... I really hope that Dems in positions of power will not succumb entirely to this pre-ordained Beltway interpretation..." that a midterm fiasco for Democrats means a rejection of liberal policies and a need to move to the center.

In fact, the President and Democrats need to resist the urge to give in to Sargent's meme. The President may not have pursued an agenda as far left as the Far Left would prefer (compared to most European Democracies his agenda has been anything but liberal), but he has pursued an agenda to the left of the American mainstream and his present unpopularity and the difficult election season awaiting Democrats speak to that simple truth.

America is a center right country, it was when it elected a Democratic Congress in 2006 and President Obama in 2008, and it remains one today. Walter Shapiro summed it up quite well when he wrote "the president's fatal error was that he saw the 2008 election as a mandate for far-reaching change when, in truth, it was a narrower political rejection of Bush-administration economic and military policies". Given that reality, the President's best course of action would be a course correction and a shift to the middle - only time will tell if he makes the right choice.

2010: An Historic GOP Wave?

There is general agreement that the GOP is likely to make significant gains in the coming midterm elections. All questions now focus on just how many seats the Republicans will gain in the House and Senate. In some respects that is a moot point. With only 41 seats in the U.S. Senate, Republicans have been able to block or force significant alterations to many Democratic initiatives. Health reform was only possible by way of the reconciliation process - after 60 Democrats voted for an initial bill prior to the loss of their supermajority. By most accounts Republicans will gain at least 4 and perhaps 7 seats in the Senate. With 45 or 48 seats Republicans will be able to block any and all legislation they so choose.

In the House, most analysts see Republican gains of 30-35 seats, just shy of the 39 needed to regain control. A recent release by Gallup reported that the average seat gain for the minority during a midterm when the president's approval is below 50% is 36 seats. Simply put, Republicans are within striking distance of reclaiming the House. Democrats will not be able to govern with a scant 4 seat majority in the House.

Translation: The midterm election is likely to mark the end of President Obama's current agenda - even if the Democrats retain control of Congress.

That said, I continue to think that the 2010 midterm is taking the shape of a growing GOP wave - one that will likely result in far more than 35 seats gained in the House and likely 8 or 9 seats gained in the Senate.

Why am I so convinced of this?  Consider this chart from Pollster.com averaging the so-called generic ballot question. Republicans currently hold a 6.1 percentage point lead. Democrats lost their lead as the health care battle was starting last year and have never recovered. Recent efforts to undermine faith in the GOP, to link them to the Tea Party, and to tie them to George W. Bush have clearly failed.



History is the other reason that I see the likelihood of significant GOP gains. Consider the most recent Gallup tracking poll tally for the generic ballot:

It shows Republicans leading by a 50% to 43% margin over Democrats - the trend since March shows that the parties have been near parity, with a slight advantage for Republicans. More recently, the trend has clearly favored the GOP.

Now, consider the next chart - it shows the generic ballot question from 1950 through 2006. Notice anything interesting? Since 1950, Republicans have only led the generic ballot twice - in 1994 prior to the so-called Republican Revolution and in 2002 just before George W. Bush became the first president since FDR to see his party gain seats during the first midterm of his first term.


In neither case - 1994 nor 2002 - did the GOP top 50% in the generic ballot. Rather they were the choice of a plurality. In fact, until this week the GOP had never reached 50% in Gallup's generic ballot question. At only four points since 1950 had the GOP even achieved parity with Democrats - yet they have been on a level playing field since March and are now pulling away.

We are in uncharted territory. Since the 1950s the American electorate has always had a generic preference for Democrats. That era has ended. If the generic ballot is accurately capturing public sentiment - and there is no reason to doubt that it is - the GOP is poised to score a tremendous and impressive electoral comeback in November. One that seemed all but impossible just 18 months ago.

In Maryland, Poll Finds More Bad News for O'Malley

In a recent radio interview with John Domen I was asked whether all the polling on the Maryland race was telling us anything. The reporter wondered whether it was a forgone conclusion that Democrat Martin O'Malley would win given the Democrat's registration advantage in Maryland (roughly 58% D to 27% R).  I said that the race was anything but a safe bet for O'Malley - in fact I said O'Malley needed to be worried. O'Malley has not polled at 50% or above in any reelection poll and worse yet, every new poll shows former Republican governor Robert Ehrlich in a stronger position.

A new poll from Rasmussen finds Ehrlich edging Gov. O'Malley 47% to 46%. This may not seem like much, but the trend has been clear. In February, O’Malley led 49% to 43%, After Ehrlich announced the race narrowed in April to 47% to 44%. The two were tied last month with 45% apiece. So since February O'Malley has fallen from +6 to -1. Since announcing, Ehrlich has gone from -3 to +1. Simply stated, O'Malley is losing ground and Ehrlich is gaining.

In the Rasmussen survey, Ehrlich wins 87% of the state’s GOP vote and 22% of Maryland Democrats, while O’Malley earns just 71% support in his own party. These numbers essentially mirror the results in a recent poll by Magellan Strategies that I wrote about in a prior post. The Magellan poll showed the candidates tied among Independent voters, but Rasmussen reports that Ehrlich leads by 15 points.

If Ehrlich can win 87% of Republican, roughly a quarter of Democrats, and carry Independent voters by 15% he will be very happy on Election night 2010.


A new poll from Public Policy Polling is expected very soon and will either confirm or confound what other polls have shown. I've written much on the Maryland race and expect to write much more. Stay tuned!

In Blue Maryland, O'Malley Threatened by Growing GOP Wave

A new poll from Magellan Strategies shows Republican Bob Ehrlich holds a 3 point lead over incumbent Governor Martin O’Malley, 46% to 43%. Another 4% of voters prefer “another candidate”, and 7% are undecided. This poll comes on the heels of a Rasmussen poll that showed the race tied at 45%. Since announcing his candidacy, Ehrlich has steadily improved his position, while O'Malley has been losing ground.

In a prior post I showed that the key for Republican candidates in Maryland is not reduced turnout among Democratic voters, but rather a poor performance among them by the Democratic candidate and increased turnout by Republican voters. In 1994, Republicans came within 6,000 votes of winning the gubernatorial race because the Democratic candidate's vote total was only 80.5% of all Democrats voting. In contrast, the Republican's vote total equaled 155.6% of all Republicans voting - the Democratic candidate lost a lot of Democrats and the Republican candidate claimed them.  The scenario was nearly identical in 2002 when Ehrlich won the race.

The new poll shows O'Malley winning 64% of Democrats to Ehrlich's 25%. Among Republicans, Ehrlich wins 90% to O'Malley's 7%. The two essentially split the Independent vote with O'Malley at 38% and Ehrlich at 34%. 

What would those numbers mean when applied to actual voter registration data? In may 2010, there were 1,929,966 Democrats and 902,222 Republicans in the state, with another 574,979 essentially Independent. If Maryland had 100% turnout and the each man received the share of the vote reported by the new poll, O'Malley would win the race by a narrow 27,000 vote margin.

Of course, 100% turnout will not happen. The average turnout for registered Democrats in gubernatorial elections since 1994 has been 61.6%, turnout for Republicans has averaged 64.4%, and Independent voters have average 43%. Add those assumptions to my prior vote estimate and O'Malley's 27,000 vote victory margin becomes a 9,000 vote margin of loss.

But I'm not done... in the strong Republican years of 1994 and 2002, Democratic turnout was close to the 4 election average at 61.95%, but GOP turnout was higher - 66.15%. Independent turnout was unchanged. Apply those turnout assumptions to the Magellan poll and Ehrlich wins by 19,000 votes.

So O'Malley by 27,000 or Ehrlich by 19,000? It all depends on how many Democrats ultimately defect to Ehrlich and how many Republicans turnout. If the 2010 election in Maryland follows the pattern of 1994 or 2002 then Ehrlich will make a return trip to Annapolis. Unfortunately for Martin O'Malley, all indications are that 2010 will look very much like 1994 and 2002. As political guru Charlie Cook wrote today - "A GOP Wave is On the Way...."

Ehrlich misses the bus on mass transit

In today's Baltimore Sun I argue that Bob Ehrlich made a critical error in his decision to oppose the proposed Purple Line expansion in favor of rapaid bus service.

Todd Eberly, a professor of political science at St. Mary's College in Southern Maryland, said Ehrlich's position gives O'Malley an opening in the swing counties where the race could be decided.


"For so many of the voters in the counties Ehrlich needs, they want the expanded mass transit," Eberly said.

Voters in Anne Arundel, Charles, Frederick and Howard counties would take a decision to cut rail projects in Montgomery and Prince George's as a sign that they could never expect such service to come their way, he said

Eberly said that while Ehrlich's opposition to light rail seems to play into his theme of fiscal responsibility, the Republican had erred in the issue he chose to highlight it because business wants infrastructure investment.

"It can really counter Ehrlich's business-friendly message," the political science professor said.

In addition to votes, Ehrlich's stand could cost him in terms of fundraising from businesses that might like his stance on taxes and regulation but oppose him on transportation issues. But he also could achieve gains by cutting into O'Malley support in heavily Democratic areas that oppose the governor's light rail plans.

I believe that Ehrlich has made a serious miscalculation here. This position may help him on the Eastern Shore or in Western Maryland - but he was already going to win those regions.  Ehrlich needs Anne Arundel, Howard, and Baltimore Counties and he needs to have a respectable finish in Montgomery County - bus rapid transit will not secure those results.

"...the big difference here and in ’94 is you’ve got me"

At the height of the health care debate nervous House Democrats met with the President to express their concern that 2010 would turn out like 1994 - when Republicans won the House and Senate. Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark reported that the response from President Obama was simple ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’

Berry was not impressed then and it turns out that he shouldn't have been.  A new poll from Public Policy Polling finds that Barack Obama is a drag on the Democratic ticket.

"PPP's most recent national survey found that while Obama had a positive approval rating at 48/47, only 33% of voters were more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by him while 48% said support from Obama would make them less likely to vote for someone."

In 1994, Republicans effectively used television ads that would morph photos of Democratic candidates into Bill Clinton. Such an ad may seem hokey today, but Obama's appearances in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Virginia certainly did the party no good. In 2010, Obama is likely going to be relegated to fundraising among the faithful not rallying the masses - certainly not what many would have predicted just a year ago.

2010 is NOT an anti-incumbent year, it's an anti left-of-center year...

Many analysts and pundits have been trying to determine the theme of the upcoming 2010 mid-terms elections. Will it be a repeat of the so-called "angry, white male election" of 1994? Will the Tea Party movement deliver an anti-establishment election? Many friends of the Democratic Party have sought to portray the coming election as anything but a referendum on President Obama and the Democratic Party. Rather, they argue that economic insecurity and frustration with Washington - the same anger and frustration that elected Barack Obama - is feeding a non-partisan anti-incumbent mood among the electorate. This narrative is crucial to Democrats as it helps them convince their vulnerable incumbents that the electorate is simply anti politics and not anti Democratic policies. 

Purveyors of this narrative point to the May defeat of Republican Senator Bob Bennett at the party's nominating convention in Utah as proof. As added insurance for their argument they point to the special election in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District where Democrat Mark Critz easily defeated Republican Tim Burns in a district that had voted for John McCain in 2008. If this were simply an anti-Democrat year, the argument goes, then why the defeat of Bennett and the election of Critz?

At first blush, it is a reasonable argument, but dig a bit deeper and the narrative unravels. 2010 is not shaping up to be a simple anti-incumbent year, nor is it simply an anti-Democrat year. All indications are that 2010 is shaping up to be an anti left of center year and that hurts Democrats. Republican Bob Bennett lost because he was perceived as being too moderate and too willing to compromise with the Democratic party - though to many this may be an admirable trait it was not among GOP faithful this year. Democrat Marc Critz won a special election in a Congressional district that has been held by Democrats for over 3 decades and he won by running as a very conservative Democrat. Critz openly opposed the Obama health reform bill, declared himself to be firmly pro-life, and was unabashedly pro-gun rights. Critz won by running as a Republican.

There are a few other races of note as well. West Virginia Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan was defeated in his state's primary by a wide margin. His 14 term career ended at the hands of a conservative Democrat who campaigned against Mollohan's support of health reform. The case of Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas is also worthy of mention. Lincoln failed to break 50% in her state's primary as she faced a challenge from the left from Arkansas Lt. Governor Bill Halter. In the subsequent run-off contest many considered Lincoln to be a goner. Lincoln withstood the challenge - largely with the help of the consummate centrist, Bill Clinton. So the more liberal incumbent loses in W. VA and the moderate incumbent wins in AR. It's not just an anti-incumbent year.

New polls from Gallup and NPR offer further evidence that 2010 is an anti-left of center year. The Gallup poll found that a record high share of Americans consider the Democratic party to be "too liberal."  According to Gallup "Americans have become increasingly likely to describe the Democratic Party's views as "too liberal" (49%), and less likely to say its views are "about right" (38%). Americans' views of the Republican Party, on the other hand, have moderated slightly..."

Gallup further shows Republicans with a 5 point lead over Democrats on the generic ballot question - historically, Republicans rarely lead the generic ballot.

The NPR poll offers worse news for Democrats. "Democrat Stan Greenberg and Republican Glen Bolger conducted the first public battleground poll of this election cycle. They chose the 70 House districts experts regard as most likely to oust incumbents this fall. What they found was grim news for Democrats." Of the 70 districts, 60 are held by Democrats. In those Democratic districts voters indicated that they WILL NOT vote for the incumbent by an overwhelming 56% to 36% margin. In the Republican districts, Voters said they WOULD support the incumbent by a 52% to 39% margin.

Overall, Republicans enjoy an 8 point advantage in the 70 battleground districts - including a 5 point advantage in the 60 Democratic districts. The NPR poll also found that President Obama is quite unpopular in those 70 districts with 54 percent of likely battleground voters disapproving of Obama's performance and 40 percent approving. Republican voters are also far more energized.

Taken together, all of this suggests that any attempt to define 2010 as an anti-incumbent year is simply wrong. 2010 will be an anti-Democrat year, but largely it would seem that is a manifestation of what is an anti-liberal year. News that will no doubt frustrate many liberals who have lamented that the President and his party have not been aggressive enough in pursuing progressive policies. If this trend continues, expect Republicans to win the 40 seats needed to retake the House and to win at least 7 Senate seats.

New Poll Offers Hope to O'Malley and Ehrlich

A new poll from the Washington Post offers a little something for Governor Martin O'Malley and former Governor Bob Ehrlich.  The topline numbers are likely those that the O'Malley campaign will hope that everyone notices. According to the Post poll O'Malley leads Ehrlich among registered voters by a 49% to 41% margin - a nice 8 point lead.  O'Malley is likely to direct attention to the finding that his approval rating has reached a record high of 58% and registered voters believe that O'Malley better understands their problems by a margin of 41% to 31%.

But Bob Ehrlich need not fret - Ehrlich can argue that in a state where Democrats enjoy a 30 point voter registration advantage the Democratic incumbent governor should be ahead among registered voters. What truly matters is where the race stands among actual voters. The Post poll finds that O'Malley and Ehrlich are deadlocked at 47% each among those voters who are certain to vote. Additionally, voters were asked to rank the issues most important to them - The Economy, Education, Maryland's Budget Deficit, and Taxes were the top four issues. O'Malley and Ehrlich are tied among voters most concerned with the economy, O'Malley leads among those concerned about education, and Ehrlich wins among voters concerned about the budget and taxes.

Ehrlich's advantage on the budget issue should worry O'Malley.  Maryland's general fund budget has actually shrunk under O'Malley, whereas  it increased by nearly 40% under Ehrlich. Certainly the economic climate was different, but if O'Malley isn't trusted to manage a budget that he has decreased then he has a serious message problem. There is little doubt that the economy, the budget, and taxes will be significant issues come November - O'Malley needs to blunt Ehrlich's early advantage on those issues.

Ehrlich and O'Malley should both be worried by the finding that 45% of registered voters are not satisfied with their current slate of candidates and wish that there were other options.  Full poll results can be found here.

New Poll Confirms that Ehrlich/O'Malley Rematch will be Competitive

A new poll from Rasmussen confirms what I have argued for months - a gubernatorial rematch between former governor Bob Ehrlich and current governor Martin O'Malley would be very competitive. The poll finds that in a General Election Match up Martin O'Malley (D) would receive 47% to Bob Ehrlich's (R) 44% - that's a statistical tie. Undecideds were at 7%. Since the last Rasmussen poll in late February (before Ehrlich entered the race), Governor O'Malley's support has fallen by 2 points, Ehrlich's is up by 1 point and the share of Undecideds has increased by 2 points.

The poll continues a troubling trend for O'Malley in that he cannot seem to reach 50% support in a state where 56% of voters are registered Democrats and they outnumber Republicans by a 2-to-1 margin. Perhaps equally troubling for O'Malley, Ehrlich has a 56% favorability rating - that's a good place for a defeated Republican governor to be in a Democratic state.

There are two bright spots for O'Malley 1) his approval rating has hit 50% for the first time in three years, and 2) President Obama has a 59% approval rating in the state. Both should work to O'Malley's advantage in turning out the party faithful - provided that each holds through November.

Much more on the Ehrlich/O'Malley race can be found here, here, here, and here....

Pew Poll Points to Major Shake-Up in 2010 Midterms

Anyone who doubts the potential for a political earthquake come November needs to read the latest release from Pew.

"Rather than an activist government to deal with the nation's top problems, the public now wants government reformed and growing numbers want its power curtailed. With the exception of greater regulation of major financial institutions, there is less of an appetite for government solutions to the nation's problems -- including more government control over the economy"

The survey finds that trust and confidence in government has fallen to historic lows. A growing number of Republicans and Independents are expressing outright anger toward the federal government and those expressing anger are highly motivated to vote and intend to vote GOP.

"Overall, independent voters slightly favor the GOP candidate in their district by a 41%-to-34% margin, but those who are highly dissatisfied with government favor the Republican candidate by an overwhelming 66%-to-13% margin. "

One especially troubling sign for President Obama is the rising number of Americans who say they want the government to provide fewer, not more services. And although voters welcome the regulation of financial institutions, they reject greater regulation of the economy. That cannot be a welcome finding as Democrats continue to try and generate support for the recently passed health reform package and are preparing to unveil climate legislation.

As a final note, Republican and Republican-leaning Independents express far greater intent to vote come November than do Democrats and Democrat-leaning Independents. Republicans enjoy a 12 point advantage over Democrats in intention to vote and Republican leaning Independents have a 18 point advantage.  If these numbers hold come November, Barack Obama will be facing a Republican House and quite possibly a Republican Senate next year.

As it stands now, 2010 has the potential to be a wave election that will surpass 2006 and 2008 and rival 1958, 1974, and 1994. Even the latest forecast from the Rothenberg Political Report indicates that of the 79 House seats currently in play, 68 are held by Democrats - that number exceeds the total seats gained by Democrats in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Ehrlich's in, but can he win?

The biggest question being asked in Maryland politics has been answered - ending months (or years) of speculation, former Republican Governor Bob Ehrlich has announced that he wants his old job back. 

So now we know that he's back in, the new question is 'can he win?'

Much has changed in Maryland since 2002 when Ehrlich became the state’s first Republican governor since Spiro Agnew in 1966, defeating then Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend by a margin of 51.6% to 47.7%. Some of that change was already taking shape in 2006 when Ehrlich lost his bid for re-election to O’Malley by 52.2% to 46.2%. No doubt Ehrlich and his most trusted advisers have been surveying the Maryland political landscape and though he may not be looking for advice or insight from the halls of academia, I offer it nonetheless. He is free to accept or ignore it. In my examination of his chances, Ehrlich can find cause for concern and for encouragement. Overall, I conclude that Ehrlich’s road back to Annapolis would be steep, but not insurmountable. The success of his journey would likely rely as much on national political trends as it would on issues specific to Maryland.

The Bad News
The first thing Ehrlich must contend with is the overwhelming partisan advantage enjoyed by Democrats in the Free State. As of October 2009 the State Board of Elections reports that 56.8% of registered voters are Democrats, while only 26.6% are Republicans. Approximately 14% are unaffiliated and the rest belong to a scattering of minor parties. That two-to-one party advantage should give any potential GOP candidate pause and the trend in partisan advantage should be cause for nightmares. Since Ehrlich’s victory in 2002, Maryland Democrats have added just over 384,000 new voters to their ranks. During that same time, the Republican ranks grew by only 73,000. Since 2006 Democrats have added 204,000 voters to the party rolls while Republican ranks shrank by 3,000. In 2002, Republicans accounted for 30% of all registered voters and the Democrats 56%. So in the 7 years since Maryland last elected a Republican Democrats have padded there partisan advantage by about 0.8% while Republicans have seen their party position eroded by 3.4%. These numbers should matter to Ehrlich given that he defeated Townsend by only 67,000 votes and lost to O’Malley by nearly 117,000. Any strategist would look to the margin of loss in 2006 and question how it could be overcome when the Democrats’ ranks have been growing at a rate five times that of the Republicans’.

The Good News
Well that’s the bad news for Ehrlich – the Democratic Party has been growing its advantage among registered voters as the GOP has seen its share decline. So what’s the good news? It can be seen in the seemingly daunting statistics that I have already shared. In 2002, Democrats enjoyed a 56% to 30% advantage among Maryland’s registered voters – yet Ehrlich won nearly 52% of the vote. By 2006, Republicans had fallen to 28.9% of registered voters and Ehrlich still managed 46%. Clearly the Democrats’ registration advantage and the GOP’s disadvantage do not directly correlate to final vote totals. In fact, a review of the last four gubernatorial elections in Maryland (1994, 1998, 2002, and 2006) shows that the Democratic candidate typically and significantly under-perform in final vote totals relative to their party registration advantage and the Republican candidate typically and significantly over-performs. It is in that level of over and under performance that Ehrlich can find a path back to Annapolis.

As shown in Table One, in all but one of the last four gubernatorial elections the Democratic candidate received a total statewide vote that was less than their party’s partisan registration advantage among those who voted. In 1994 879,842 Democrats cast ballots, but the Democratic candidate received only 708,094 total votes – the Democrat under-performed relative to partisan advantage receiving a total statewide vote equaling only 80.5% of the total Democrats voting. On the Republican side, GOP candidate always over-perform. Looking again to 1994 only 451,256 Republicans cast votes, but the Republican candidate received 702,101 votes. The Republican candidate over-performed by 155.6%. In all but one election, 1998, the Democratic candidate underperformed and in every election the Republican candidate over-performed. This means that in most of the recent gubernatorial elections many registered Democrats voted Republican as did many of the unaffiliated and third party voters. There is no other way to explain the under and over performance by the parties.

Table One tells us more than just levels of party performance. The grey boxes indicate the winning candidate in each election. As shown, the Democratic Candidate won in 1994, 1998, and 2006. The Republican candidate won in 2002 – the election in which Ehrlich defeated Townsend. So Democrats won 3 of the last 4 gubernatorial elections, but look closely at 1994- the margin of victory is very small. In 1994 Democratic candidate Parris Glenndening defeated Republican Candidate Ellen Sauerbrey by a scant 5,993 votes. In 1998 and 2006 the Democrat victory margins were more significant. The 1994 and 2002 results show that Republicans can win in Maryland so long as the GOP candidate significantly over performs and the Democratic candidate underperforms. In 1994 and 2002 the Democrat under-performed by 80.5% and 83% respectively and GOP candidate over-performed by 155.6% and 156.5%. Conversely, Democrats won decisively in 1998 and 2006 when their candidate performed on par with their partisan share of the electorate and the GOP candidate’s level of over-performance declined.

This is important because of the two election cycles when the Republicans performed best and the Democrats worst – 1994 and 2002. 1994 was the year of the Republican revolution that resulted in the GOP recapturing the House of Representatives and the Senate for the first time in more than a generation. 1994 was the first mid-term election after Bill Clinton’s 1993 election and the election was largely viewed as a referendum on his very uneven first 18 months in office. Likewise, 2002 was a very strong year for Republicans. Since Reconstruction, only three presidents have enjoyed mid-term electoral victories in Congress: FDR in 1934, Bill Clinton in 1998, and George W. Bush in 2002. So the 1994 and 2002 mid-terms were very good for Republicans nationally and the strong Republican showing in the Maryland gubernatorial elections were a reflection of that national trend.

In contrast, 1998 and 2006 were good years for Democrats. In 1998 a rebounding and re-elected Bill Clinton saw his party gain seats in the House of Representatives as an impeachment wary public expressed disapproval of Congressional Republicans. Much as in 2006 when a war weary nation stripped Republicans of there majorities in the House and Senate and delivered control to the Democrats. So 1998 and 2006 were good years for Democrats nationally and that translated into the strong showing by Democrats in the Maryland gubernatorial elections.

Implications for Ehrlich
So what does all of this mean for Ehrlich and 2010? It means that Ehrlich has to decide whether he thinks that the 2010 mid-term election will be like 1994 and 2002 – in which case he has a decent chance at reclaiming his old job – or will 2010 be closer to 1998 and 2006 – in which case he should let the Maryland GOP designate some other sacrificial lamb. Once that decision has been made, he must consider whether the Democratic Party’s current registration advantage, or rather the Republican Party’s disadvantage, can be overcome.

Will 2010 be a GOP Year?
If current indicators are to be trusted then the 2010 election is shaping up to be a mid-term in the 1994/2002 mold. Consider the evidence:

• According to most polls, registered voters would prefer a Republican over a Democratic candidate in November. Gallup reports that Republicans have rarely held an advantage on the generic ballot dating back to 1950. Two exceptions occurred in 1994 and 2002.
• Independent and moderate voters are expressing a clear preference for the Republican candidate.
• In 1994, the Republican wave that swept the Democrats out of power in the House and Senate was presaged by Republican gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey in 1993. Republicans scored clear victories in both states in 2009, largely a result strong support from Independents.
• The surprise victory by Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts is also a bad omen for Democrats and offers some hints to how Ehrlich could win in Maryland.
• Add to this the latest edition of the Cook Political Report which has identified 50 competitive House seats heading into 2010. Of the 50, 39 (or 78%) are held by Democrats.

Overcoming the Party Advantage
Even if 2010 mimics 1994 and 2002, Ehrlich must decide whether or not a strong GOP wave would be sufficient to overcome the tremendous registration advantage enjoyed by the Democrats. To try and answer I examined statewide registration and turnout data to estimate how a 1994 or 2002 election would translate with 2009 registration numbers.

Table Two shows Democratic and Republican Party turnout in each of the four elections discussed. Republican turn-out is consistently higher than Democratic, but Republican turnout was highest in the years that Republicans did well and Democratic Turn-out in 1994 and 2002 and was similar to the strong Democratic year in 1998. Democratic turnout was high the years when the party underperformed (Table One), suggesting that higher Democratic turnout may have represented registered Democrats voting Republican.

Using current voter registration data (October 2009) it is possible to model the potential outcome of an Ehrlich/O’Malley rematch based on prior turnout and over/underperformance levels for the Democratic and Republican parties. As of October 2009 there were 1,940,634 registered Democrats and 906,679 registered Republicans in Maryland, a 56.8% to 26.6% advantage.

As shown in Table Three, if the 2010 gubernatorial election follows the turnout and party performance patterns of 1994 or 2002 then Martin O’Malley would still be narrowly re-elected governor. These results reflect not only the increased registration advantaged enjoyed by the Democrats, but also the declining registration among Republicans. Even in a strong Republican year – like those in 1994 and 2002 – Ehrlich would face an uphill struggle against the Maryland Democratic Party’s registration advantage.

Could Ehrlich Win?
Despite the rather dire numbers presented in Table Three, Ehrlich would still have a fighting chance in a re-match with O’Malley. If Ehrlich could match the level of over-performance that he mustered in 2002 he would stand to receive 957,162 votes, and if Democratic underperformance were to fall to 1994 levels O’Malley would receive 952,336 votes. Ehrlich would win, though barely. In the end, Ehrlich’s best hopes lie within data than cannot be incorporated into the turnout models in Table Three. When Ehrlich and O’Malley faced off in 2006 Ehrlich was the Republican incumbent in a year that was bad for Republicans. In 2010, O’Malley will be running as a Democratic incumbent in a year that is likely to be bad for Democrats and incumbents. O’Malley will be running on his record and potentially against a strong anti-incumbent tide.

The latest poll in the Maryland governor's race shows incumbent Martin O'Malley with a 6 point lead over potential rival, and former governor, Bob Ehrlich - the race stands at 49% to 43%. The survey, by Rasmussen Reports, shows that O'Malley simply cannot crack 50% and polling below 50% is a bad sign for any incumbent. A Clarus poll taken late last year showed further danger for O’Malley as it found that only 39% of Maryland voters wanted to see O’Malley re-elected.  When asked to rate O'Malley’s performance on 11 key state issues (taxes, budget, jobs) he only received majority approval on one issue – "living up to high standards of ethics."

There is no question but that Bob Ehrlich would face a steep climb back to Annapolis, he would likely need to ride a national wave similar those in 1994 and 2002. In addition, he would need to overcome the significant registration disadvantage among Republicans statewide, or work to reverse the trend over the next 7 months. He could also hope that many of the newly registered Democrats were motivated by the drama of the 2008 Democratic primary battle and subsequent presidential election and that the Democratic Party’s registration advantage is somewhat overstated. Democratic Party registration swelled in Virginia and New Jersey in 2008 as well, but this did not translate into any appreciable party advantage in the 2009 gubernatorial elections. Democratic Party registration in Maryland grew at a rate of about 2.5% between 1994 and 1998, then by 5% between 1998 and 2002, before swelling to 11% prior to the 2006 gubernatorial and 2008 presidential elections. That excess growth may overstate the Democrats’ true advantage in the state by as many as 200,000 voters. If one were to factor that into the models presented in Table Three then Ehrlich would win under either a 1994 or 2002 scenario by a margin similar to his 2002 victory over Townsend.

Even with the challenges he’ll face, 2010 will likely present his best chance at reclaiming his old job. If Ehrlich waited until 2014 he'd risk that it would be a less hospitable year than 2010. If a Republican is elected president in 2012 then history tells us that 2014 would be a bad year for Republicans. If Obama or another Democrat is elected in 2012, then 2014 may well be a good year for the GOP, but in Maryland Ehrlich would have been out of public office for 8 years and could no longer assume the position of presumptive frontrunner for the nomination. Ehrlich would face much the same challenge if he were to decide to pursue one of Maryland’s Senate seats. Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski is up for re-election in 2010, but nothing less than a GOP tsunami would defeat her. Ehrlich’s next chance would be 2012 when the seat held by Democratic Senator Ben Cardin would be on the ballot – but president Obama would be on the ballot as well in a state that he carried by a margin of 62% to 37%. Anything approaching that margin would likely have some down-ballot coattails and sink any challenge to Cardin or another Democrat.

In the end, for all the challenges and difficulties that he'll face, 2010 presents Ehrlich with his best chance for reclaiming the governorship. For Ehrlich, it's now or never. And he has decided that it's now.

More on the Ehrlich/O'Malley race can be found here and the impact of Enrlich's run on Republican efforts to gain 5 seats and reach 19 (the number needed sustain a filibuster) in the Maryland Assembly can be found here.

FreeStater Midterm 2010 Outlook

With the stunning news that Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh will not seek re-election in 2010 today seems like a good day to post the first in a monthly series of Midterm updates at the FreeStater Blog.  These assessments will be based on reviews of polling data as well and district or state trends as well as national dynamics. Democrats currently hold a 255 to 178 majority in the House and a 57 to 41 seat majority in the Senate (with two independents who caucus with Democrats). Republicans need 40 House seats and 10 Senate seats to reclaim control of each chamber.

Here's how things stand today -

In the House

I estimate that if the election were held today Republicans would pickup 36 seats in the following districts:
AL-2, AZ-5, AZ-8, CO-3, CO-4, FL-8, FL-24, MO-4, ID-1, IN-9, KS-3, MD-1, MI-7, MS-1, NV-3, NH-1, NH-2, NM-2, NY-13, NY-29, ND-AL, OH-1, OH-15, OH-16, OH-18, PA-7, PA-10, PA-12, SC-5, TN-8, TX-17, VA-2, VA-5, VA-9, WA-3, and WV-1

Democrats will pickup 2 seats:
IL-10 and LA-2

That would be a net gain of 34 seats for Republicans, 6 shy of the number needed to reclaim control of the chamber and the GOP may make inroads in New England in 2010. Keep an eye on CT-4 and CT-5 as well as MA-10.

In the Senate
If the election were held today the Republicans would pickup 7 seats:
AR, CO, DE, IN, NV, ND, and PA

Democrats would not win any Republican seats.

That would be a net gain of 7 Senate seats for Republicans, giving them 48 seats - 3 shy of a majority. That makes contests in CA, IL, NY, WI, and WA must wins for Democrats - if Republicans pickup 2 of the 5 they would reach 50 seats and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) could become a kingmaker.
 
So, with 8 months until the 2010 midterms Republicans would reach 212 seats in the House and 48 seats in the Senate - if the election were held today. Democrats would retain the majority, but those numbers should send shivers of fear through the party's leadership. Based on current trends, Republicans have a better than even chance of reclaiming the House. The Senate is still a long shot, but another surprise announcement like Bayh's could shift that dynamic sugnificantly. Stay tuned for the next update.

Note: This midterm update reflects the opinion of Professor Todd Eberly.

Ehrlich Should Look to Massachusetts for Inspiration

As former Governor Bob Ehrlich continues to play close to the vest with regard to his future plans he may want to look to Maryland's Bay Brother in Blue - Massachusetts - for inspiration. Massachusetts has not sent a Republican to the U.S. Senate since 1972, but a little known state senator by the name of Scott Brown has just won the seat once held by Ted Kennedy. If a Republican can win the Senate seat in Massachusetts then Ehrlich would certainly have a good shot at reclaiming his old job in Maryland. Massachusetts and Maryland share some interesting parallels – Democrats enjoy significant registration advantage in each state, roughly 3 to 1 in Massachusetts and 2 to I in Maryland. Unlike Maryland, most Bay State voters are registered Independents – about 50% I, 36% D, and 14% R. In Maryland, the breakdown is about 57% D, 27% R, and 16% I. So Maryland has more registered Democrats and more registered Republicans. But when Independent voters in Massachusetts are asked which party the lean toward the breakdown is about 50% D, 32% R, and 19%. “Leaner” data is not available for Maryland but according to 2008 exit polls, the Maryland electorate was 51% D, 28% R, and 21% I – suggesting closeness in party preference between the states.

In 2008, Barack Obama won Massachusetts by a 62% to 36% margin, he won Maryland 62% to 37%. In fact, presidential election results have tracked closely between the 2 states for a couple decades. Both states voted for Reagan by a similar margin in 1984. The two times when Massachusetts diverged most from Maryland were 1988 and 2004 when native sons were on the ballot. There are differences, the most striking being that Massachusetts lacks a significant block of minority voters. In 2008 the Massachusetts electorate was 79% white and only 9% African American. In Maryland the electorate was considerably more diverse – 64% white and 25% African American. African American voters overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama and traditionally vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates regardless of office. This does provide an advantage to O'Malley, but that advantage is somewhat offset by the fact that the white vote is less predictable in Maryland. In Massachusetts in 2008 59% of white voters voted Democrat, but in Maryland Obama received only 47% of the white vote. The latest Gonzales Poll shows that O'Malley holds a lead over Ehrlich, 48% to 39%, but O'Malley only wins 39% of white voters and 39% of Independents - this shows key danger areas for O'Malley.

In Massachusetts, an analysis done right after the election by Charles Franklin at Pollster.com found that Scott Brown won slightly more votes in Massachusetts than did John McCain in 2008. The Democrat, Martha Coakley, won only 56% of Barack Obama's total from 2008. In other words, Republicans and Independents turned out, but Democrats did not. Applying that turn-out model to Maryland I found that if Ehrlich won the McCain vote from 2008 and O'Malley received only 56% of the Obama vote Ehrlich would win the election 51% to 48%, essentially the same as his victory margin in 2002. Sound unrealistic? In 2008, Obama won 1,629,467 votes in Maryland compared to 942,279 for O'Malley in 2006 - 57.8% of President Obama's 2008 total. McCain won 959,862 votes in 2008 and Ehrlich 825,464 or 86% of McCain's total. If 2010 continues to be a year of depressed enthusiasm among Democratic voters Ehrlich could easily replicate Brown's path to victory here in Maryland. The shifting support among Independents and the enthusiasm among Republican voters should be a cause for concern among incumbent Democrats - O'Malley included.

It is also worth noting that Brown spent far less money than did Coakley. This suggests that O'Malley's impressive $5.7 million war chest may not be so impressive. Incumbent Governor John Corzine's $30 million investment in New Jersey proved to be no match for challenger Chris Christie's $8.8 million - come Election Day Corzine won only 44% of the vote, roughly equal to his 45% approval rating one month before the election. The latest Gonzales Poll shows that O'Malley's approval rating has been below 50% since October 2007 and is only at 46% now - this is the greatest danger sign.

Back to New England, the fact that the race in Massachusetts was a contest suggests that there may be few Democratic seats that can truly be labeled as “safe” come November 2010. Given Brown's win, Ehrlich should announce his candidacy for Governor now. There seems to be no more benefit in waiting.

Todd Eberly, Assisitant Professor of Political Science

O'Malley Holds Solid Lead Over Ehrlich in New Poll, but Has Cause for Concern

The latest state survey from Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies shows that Governor Martin O'Malley continues to lead former Governor Bob Ehrlich by a 48% to 39% margin in Maryland. That represents a 1 point drop for O'Malley and and 1 point increase for Ehrlich since the last poll in September. The 9 point lead should give O'Malley some cause for relief given recent election results in Virginia and New Jersey, but there are also danger signs for him in the poll. O'Malley enjoys the support of 73% of Democrats and only 39% of Independents - 11% of Democrats and 25% of Independents are undecided and incumbents tend not to do well among undecided voters. O'Malley should be concerned as well that his approval rating has taken another dip falling to 46%. O'Malley's approval rating has been below 50% since October of 2007 and incumbents rarely do better among voters come Election Day than thier approval rating at the time of the election. O'Malley only receives 39% of the white vote in the poll, he needs to get that number into the 40's to feel comfortable on Election Day.

Finally, although O'Malley leads Ehrlich it's important to remember that Ehrlich is not a declared candidate and has done no campaigning. Should Ehrlich launch a bid, those numbers could change quickly. The poll found that the economy is the top concern among Maryland voters and with O'Malley set to release his budget the economy is going to take center stage in the next few weeks. That provides an opportunity for O'Malley to attempt to assuage voter concerns but also an opening for Ehrlich to exploit those concerns. One potential area of trouble for O'Malley is that his proposed budget assumes that the state will receive $400 million in federal money for Medicaid. The problem is that the money was included in the House version of health reform and that bill is all but dead after the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. It is likely that he'll need to make up much of that $400 million by the end of the session in April - will he do that via unpopular spending cuts or unpopular tax increases? While O'Malley will be busy making the tough budget calls, Ehrlich would enjoy the freedom that comes from being the challenger. In the end, the race may be O'Malley's to lose but with his approval rating below 50% and 13% of the electorate undecided victory is far from certain.

Click here for a related post on the implications for Maryland of the Massachusetts special election.

Todd Eberly, Assisitant Professor of Political Science

In Maryland, Echoes of 1970 and 2002 as O'Malley Faces a Primary Challenge

I have argued recently that Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley is vulnerable to a challenge from former Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich. That vulnerability stems from national political trends that are boosting Republicans and state financial woes that are hurting Democrats. But news that O'Malley will face a primary challenge - a credible primary challenge - from George Owings III, a former legislator from Southern Maryland and former state secretary of veterans affairs only serves to boost Republican chances. Owings served in the Ehrlich administration and will run a right of center challenge to O'Malley. Given current national trends and Maryland's budget woes, such a strategy may be effective. An examination of recent gubernatorial elections in Maryland shows that Republicans perform best when the Democratic party is neither unified nor enthusiuastic about its candidate. Only time will tell if the Owings challenge weakens O'Malley. It is very likely that this challenge will influence Ehrlich's decision whether or not to run against O'Malley in 2010 - I suspect that it will encourage Ehrlich to seek a rematch with the man who defeated him in 2006.

Josh Kurtz makes a solid argument over at Center Maryland that the Owings' challenge is real and poses a true threat to O'Malley. Kurtz makes agood analogy to 2002 when a grocery store clerk named Robert Fustero took 20 percent of the vote in the 2002 Democratic gubernatorial primary against Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend - revealing Townsend's many weaknesses. Kurtz predicts that Owings will do better than Fustero and inflict serious harm to the O'Malley effort. I agree and will make a different comparison - to 1970 and the race for the Senate in Maryland.

It's hard to not see some parallels forming between the 2010 gubernatorial race and the 1970 senatorial race in Maryland. In 1970, incumbent Democrat Joseph Tydings was seeking re-election and facing a challenge from Republican J. Glenn Beall, Jr the son of the man he had defeated 6 years prior. As the incumbent, Tydings enjoyed the support of the Democratic Party, but he faced a primary challenge from George Mahoney, the Democratic nominee for Governor in 1966. Mahoney was a conservative Democrat – a Dixiecrat – and challenged the liberal Tydings from the right. As expected, Tydings won the primary, but lost the three counties in Southern Maryland and lost the Eastern Shore – then, as now, those regions represent strong pockets of conservative Democrats. Mahoney also did well in the working class areas of Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties and ran surprisingly strong in Howard county. Tydings’ loss in Southern Maryland and the Eastern Shore and his weakness in other areas revealed a weakness with important elements of the Democratic party in Maryland. In the general election Tydings lost to Beall. In the end, Tydings won the three key Democratic strongholds of Prince Georges and Montgomery counties, as well as Baltimore City but suffered losses is rural and working class regions of the state - losses that were foretold by his seemingly comfortable 53% to 38% victory over Mahoney in the primary. Beall defeated Tydings by a scant 50.7% to 48% in the general election – proving that winning Prince Georges, Montgomery, and Baltimore City can only take a candidate so far.

Coming back to 2010, Owings hails from Southern Maryland and spent 16 years in the legislature. He is a credible candidate who will likely draw his greatest support from the same areas of the state as Mahoney in 1970. The question for observers of a possible O’Malley/Ehrlich contest is not whether Owings defeats O’Malley (he won’t) it’s how well he runs outside of the Big Three areas and what that can tell us about divisions within the Democratic party’s rank and file. If Owing’s can crack 20% in the primary O’Malley’s days are likely numbered.

If Massachusetts is a Battleground State then Democrats are in Real Trouble in 2010

Without question the most interesting and unexpected political story of 2010 is the suddenly competitive race to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts.  Massachusetts has not elected a Republican senator in 40 years. As recently as one month ago the Democratic nominee, Martha Coakley, enjoyed a 30 point lead over Republican nominee Scott Brown - today two polls show the race to be a dead heat and the National Democratic Party is committing $1 million to the race. Given history and pure electoral advantage Democrats should be walking away with this race, the fact that it is a contest demonstrates just how bad the national electoral picture is for Democrats. It is highly doubtful that Brown will win this race, but if it is even close (within low single digits) then Democrats should panic about their prospects in 2010. If the party cannot rely on an easy victory in true blue Massachusetts then they should prepare to say goodbye to Democratic Senators in IL, NY, PA, NV, DE, AR, and CO - and they would be unlikely to pickup any Republican seats. That would mean the Democrats could see their 60 seat supermajority fall to 53 seats. If Brown actually manages to win in Massachusetts then I would throw the California Senate seat into play as well and could easily see a 51 seat majority for the Democrats - and most analyst agree that 2012 is a worse year for Democrats as they will have far more seats to defend. If Brown wins Massachusetts then I would argue that the Republicans would have a better than even chance of reclaiming the House - a Brown victory would be that seismic.  How worried are the Democrats about losing Massachusetts? So worried that they are actively seeking ways to deny seating Brown, should he win, for as long as possible so that they could pass health reform. So worried that they are rushing ads on to TV that misspell Massachusettes (sic).  So worried that Coakley is spending time in DC raising money from the pharmaceutical industry instead of campaigning. In some respects, the fact that Democrats have had to spend precious resources on this race already makes it a victory for the GOP. It's stunning just how far the Democratic prospects have fallen since January of 2009. Seems that much of the post election talk of an Obama realignment may have been a bit premature.

The Political Center Takes a Hit as Dorgan Announces Retirement

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) has announced that he’s retiring at the end of his term - he will not seek re-election in 2010. This will make it nearly impossible for Democrats to maintain their 60 seat super-majority in the Senate and North Dakota now becomes a likely pick-up for the GOP. In a broader context, however, Dorgan's retirement will mean that there will be one less centrist in the Senate resulting in an even more polarized Senate.

Democratic Congressman to Switch Parties - Join the GOP

Could this be a bit of the politcal price that Democrats will pay for passing health care reform in the most partisan of manners? According to Politico Rep. Parker Griffith, a doctor and freshman Democrat from Alabama, will announce this afternoon that he's switching parties to become a Republican. According to the NRCC, the seat has not been held by a Republican since 1866. Add this to the 4 Democratic House members that have announced their retirements and the evidence continues to mount that 2010 will be a wave election - and that the Democrats need to be worried.