As Democrats Founder, Republicans Rise

The first paragraph of the story on the new Washington Post/ABC News poll paints the picture "Republicans have significantly narrowed the gap with Democrats on who is trusted to deal with the country's problems and have sharply reduced several of President Obama's main political advantages..."

According to the poll, on issue after issue, Republicans have wiped away the Democrats once sizeable advantage, a "year ago, Democrats held a 26-point advantage on dealing with the big issues; that lead is now six points. At the one-month mark, Obama's lead over the Republicans on dealing with the economy was 35 points; it's now five points."

The poll does offer some very telling bits "The GOP's image has improved since last year, but a majority of poll respondents still see the party in an unfavorable light (52 percent unfavorable, 44 percent favorable)."

The Republican party has gained on Obama and the Democrats, they are tied with the Democrats on the generic ballot - yet 52% of Americans view them unfavorably. What that tells me is that Americans have simply soured on the Democrats, that after one year with sizeable majorities in the House and Senate and control of the White House Americans are once again asking - can Democrats govern? It's the same question that was asked under Jimmy Carter and answered in 1980 and asked under Bill Clinton and answered in 1994. A question that is likely to be similarly answered in 2010 in a dramatic electoral repudiation.

Pundits like Jacob Weisberg at Salon may think that this is all the fault of the "childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large" but it is becoming increasing clear that the true fault may well rest with the stunning incompetence of the Democratic party leadership. Likewise, Norm Ornstein, co-author of one of the best books ever written about Congress, has tried to argue that the Democratic Congress has been "very productive" and he cites the stimulus bill passed in February of 2009 as evidence as well as passage of a "credit card holders' bill of rights" - I'm certain we'll be teaching our children about that one... He then adds to the list a host of bills that have been passed by the House of Representatives - Cap and Trade, Health Reform, Financial Regulatory Reform - but this is not the Nebraska state legilslature. We still have two houses of Congress and passing a bill in one house that has no hope of emerging from the other house is not a sign of productivity - rather it is evidence of gross incongruity.

Be clear, Republicans aren't winning based on their new and exciting ideas, they're winning because the Democrats seem so totally incapable of governing - and it's a story that is becoming all too familiar. The Democrats have been engaged in a 40 year search for their collective soul since a party civil war forced Lyndon Johnson from the ticket in 1968 (as well as national security liberals and eventually southern states from the party). Since that time the party has seen its share of registered voters fall from a lofty high of 51% to its present level of roughly 35%. Generational loyalties, residual socialization effects from the New Deal coalition, and the public backlash against Watergate and the resignation of Richard Nixon provided the party with a advantage that helped them maintain control of the House of Representatives until 1995. Between 1965 and 1973 Democrats suffered a net loss of 53 House seats, before winning 49 in the aftermath of the Nixon resignation. In the Senate they lost 12 seats between 1965 and 1973, before reclaiming 4 post-Watergate. The election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 presented the party with its first chance at unified government in 8 years. By the end of Carter’s only term the party had lost 15 seats in the Senate and control of the chamber and 50 seats in the House.

Democrats were out of the White House until the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, and within 2 years of unified government Democrats lost 54 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, and control of both chambers. They would not reclaim control until 2007. With the election of Barack Obama Democrats achieved unified government again in 2009 – Democrats hold 255 House seats and 57 Senate seats (plus two Independents) – this is nearly identical to the majorities that they held when Bill Clinton assumed office in 1993. At the moment, Democrats appear headed for a 2010 very much like 1994. Charlie Cook rates 60 House races as competitive and 50 of the 60 are Democratic seats (Republicans need a net gain of 40 seats to reclaim the House) and analysts are increasingly seeing the Senate as being in play – current estimates are the Republicans would gain 7 Senate seats if the election were held now. Can losses by Democrats be attributed simply to normal party losses during midterms? Not really, historically the party in the White House experiences the worse losses during their sixth year, not the second year. In 1982 Republicans did lose seats in the House, but their Senate majority was untouched and they rallied back in the House in 1984 reclaiming more than half of the seats lost in 1982. In 2002 Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate, a feat repeated in 2004. Though Republicans have had fewer years of unified government, they have proven more adept at maintaining it. Since 1968 every instance of unified Democratic government has been met with either the loss of Congress or the loss of the White House within 4 years. Democrats need to figure out why they cannot convince the public to trust them with the reins - it may be that so long as the Democratic party remains unclear as to just what it stands for, the public will be uncertain as well and that does not inspire confidence.

In his re-nomination acceptance speech in 2004 George W. Bush said "You may not agree with me, but you know where I stand." Much the same can be said of the Republican Party - they may be the party of No, but at least they are consistent. Such a statement could not be uttered by Barack Obama, nor could it be ascribed to the Democratic Party. A public option? Maybe/ Maybe not. A discretionary spending freeze? Maybe/Maybe not. Cap and Trade? Maybe/Maybe not. Wall Street Bonuses? Maybe/Maybe not. Tax Cuts for Business? Maybe/Maybe not. Agree or disagree, voters like to know where their elected leaders stand - Democrats have about 6 months to try and figure that out for themselves... after 40 years of searching.

George Owings III, O'Malley Challenger, Speaks to Students at St. Mary's College

The following story is posted courtesy of the Point News, the St. Mary's College of Maryland newspaper.

On Wednesday, Feb. 3, George Owings III, a candidate for the upcoming gubernatorial Democratic primary, visited the College. After a lunch with a small number of professors and students, Owings spoke to students in the 300-level political science course Maryland State and Community Politics, fielding questions about Maryland politics and the Maryland budget.

Owings previously served for 17 years in the Maryland House of Delegates representing Southern Maryland, eventually becoming the majority Whip, and he later served under Governors Robert Ehrlich (R) and Martin O’Malley (D) as Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs from 2004-2007. Before his work in state government, he served in the Marine Corps from 1964-1968, and fought in Vietnam from 1965-1968, receiving multiple awards for valor. He was also a mortgage banker, and is currently a member of the Calvert County Democratic Club.

Owings began his talk by pressing the importance of the right to vote.

“I take that right very seriously,” he said, and came prepared with voter registration forms for any student in the class not yet registered to vote.

Owings spoke about the power that the Maryland governor has over the state budget. The Maryland budget is often called the “gubernatorial budget” because the only way in which the legislature can influence the budget is to cut the funds that the governor has allotted. Owings called the power to decide the budget “the single most powerful thing” that a governor could do, excepting redistricting and reapportionment of districts.

After a quick budget overview, Owings then took questions from the class. When asked about why he wanted to become governor, Owings said that while he liked Governor O’Malley on a personal level, he was worried about some of the policies that O’Malley had enacted. Owings was especially worried about Maryland jobs, and criticized O’Malley for looking to bring in workers from outside the state. He also proposed the consolidation of government agencies and criticized the governor for taking “already inflated salaries…and increas[ing] them by some $6,000.” He positioned himself as a more conservative option within the Democratic party, and his Web site advocates fiscal responsibility and a return to center-right positions.

Still, Owings said, “I am a Democrat.”

“The Democratic tent is so big, all are welcome underneath,” he said. He distinguished himself from Republicans by adding, “The Republican party was always for big business. I still represent the working people.”

Owings also provided his positions on a variety of issues when asked by the students.

For example, Owings said that he is a supporter of oyster restoration in the Chesapeake Bay, but he disliked the way in which the restoration would be implemented under the current administration. He said, “Before you do it, shouldn’t you let the watermen know?…They read it in the paper.”

When it came to Owings’ economic solutions for the state of Maryland, he said that raising taxes and cutting spending were not either-or propositions.

“You cannot just cut a budget and make things work,” Owings said. “You have to have a combination of both…You have to raise taxes.” Maryland law requires that the state balance its budget every year; Owings said that as a lawmaker, “you might not like it, but if [the budget]’s balanced, you vote for it.”

Owings also said that he has “always been a supporter of slots,” and saw firsthand the revenue that they could generate when he lived in North Beach in Calvert County. He also said that while he supported slots, common sense had to be used in their placement. Slots in the inner harbor in Baltimore would be a “terrible idea,” but in areas like Laurel, and Pimlico with its racetrack, slots could bring in revenue and also help the horse-racing industry.

When asked about social issues, Owings expressed conservative points of view. Regarding same-sex marriage, he said, “A marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the law in this state,” however, he is a supporter of domestic partnerships, both for people like his brother, who needs medical help that domestic partnerships can allow a healthy partner to provide, but also for loving same-sex couples looking for the closest alternative to marriage.

On abortion, Owings said that he has “come down on the pro-life side” on budget issues regarding abortion funding. Although he supports Roe v. Wade as law, he said, “Personally, I’m a pro-life believer.”

On education, Owings said that “you are entitled in this state and in this country to a free education,” referring to levels K-12, and pointed to the “historic levels” of K-12 funding by the state of Maryland under Governors Glendening and Ehrlich. He said that he “supported charter schools under Glendening, under Ehrlich.” He also supports community colleges, having attended Prince George Community College. In addition, he believes that the No Child Left Behind Act has failed, saying that “When you teach to a test, you’re not teaching basics.”

Political science professor and Director of Public Policy Studies Todd Eberly, who teaches the Maryland State and Community Politics Class, was pleased with the way the talk went.

“He was enthusiastic and engaged and willing to take any question,” Eberly said. “And he was willing to express his opinions, not gloss over them like many who seek public office.”

Eberly added that the fact that Owings is a “Blue Dog Democrat” added to the experience for students.

“Conservative Democrats were crucial to the Democratic party becoming the majority party during the New Deal up through the Johnson administration,” Eberly said. “If the Democratic party wants to maintain its control of Congress, the White House, and the majority of our State Houses, it needs to find a way to balance the demands of liberal, moderate, and even conservative voices within its coalition.”

Eberly added that Governor Martin O’Malley was also invited to speak at the College, but his office declined the invitation but will be sending Maryland Secretary of State John McDonough in O’Malley’s place later in the semester.

Chris Rodkey, a senior in the class, described Owings as “a fiery candidate who definitely has the potential to stir things up in the Democratic primary.”

“He energized me to follow the upcoming campaign and make an informed decision when I vote,” he added.

The Maryland Democratic gubernatorial primary will be held on Tuesday, Sept. 14, 2010. More information about George Owings III can be found on his Web site, http://www.owingsforgovernor.org/index.php .

By Lara Southgate

Larry Sabato Predicts that Ehrlich would Defeat O'Malley in Maryland... and Other 2010 News

The latest crystal ball prediction from Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics contains some fear inducing predictions for Democrats.  "...if the election were held today... Republicans would pick up nine governorships currently held by Democrats, but lose three they currently occupy. Therefore, the GOP would have a net gain of six governorships, plus opportunities to play offense in three more toss-up races in states where Democrats now reign." Sabato further predicts the GOP will gain 7 Senate seats and 27 House seats.

In Maryland, Sabato predicts that Robert Ehrlich would defeat Governor Martin O'Malley and he rates the race as a likely GOP win.

I have argued for weeks here, here, and here that Governor O'Malley faced a serious threat from Ehrlich - it's nice to see Sabato following my lead, and I'm willing to back up my analysis with data.

I feel obliged to mention as well that I've been discussing the potential for significant Republican gains in the House and Senate for several weeks.  I think that Sabato is underestimating Republican gains in the House and Senate. Independent voters are becoming an ever more important factor on Election Day, and this introduces significant unpredictability into our elections. From one election to the next roughly 90% of Democrats and 90% of Republicans cast a vote loyal to their party, but fully 1/3 of Independents shift their support between the two parties. When Independents represented a smaller slice of the electorate this was not such a issue. Independents now comprise fully 1/3 of the American electorate - rivaling Republicans and Democrats in voter share. A shift of 1/3 of 1/3 of the electorate - or roughly 11% - can have a significant impact on election outcomes.  Independents broke heavily for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 - delivering them the Congress and White House. But in VA, NJ, Massachusetts and nationally Independents have turned on the Democrats. Evidence of this shifting support can be seen in the Republicans current 3 point lead in the generic Congressional ballot - this is significant given that in the two most recent election cycles when Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate - 1994 and 2002 - the generic ballot in November of each election year had Republicans and Democrats either tied (at 46% in 1994) or Republicans trailing the Democrats (by 5% in 2002) - yet Republican performed better come election day. The simple reason being that Republican voters are more likely to turn-out. So Democrats need a significant lead to offset turn-out. If Republicans enter November with a lead in the Generic ballot then Democrats can say goodbye to their House majority and expect no better than a 1 seat majority in the Senate.

And 2010 matters because states will engage in redistricting after the 2010 census - gaining the governorships in states like Maryland, Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan would give Republicans an advantage in redrawing Congressional districts that could then protect a potential GOP majority for a decade.

George Owings III to Speak to Students at St. Mary's College on Feburary 3rd

George Owings III the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under Robert Ehrlich and current challenger to Martin O'Malley for the Democratic nomination for governor will speak to students at St. Mary's College of Maryland on Wednesday February 3rd. Secretary Owings will speak to students studying State and Local Politics in Maryland. The class meets at 2:40 PM in Kent Hall and will be open to the press.

Secretary Owings was a member of the Maryland House of Delegates from 1988 to 2004 and held the position of Majority Whip from 1994-2004 after serving as Deputy Majority Whip from 1992-94.

Owings announced in early January that he would challenge O'Malley for the Democratic nomination. 

Contact Professor Todd Eberly with questions - teeberly@smcm.edu or 240-895-4391.

President Obama's Budget Would Provide Millions for Maryland

President Obama is receiving heated criticism over his proposed $3.83 trillion budget for fiscal year 2011. Critics have seized on the fact that the budget would add $5.08 trillion in deficits over the next five years an amount that is $1.32 trillion, or 35%, more than the White House predicted just 12 months ago. Lost in the discussion of the budget proposal, however, is the inclusion of some much needed relief for states and an especially important bit of help for Maryland. The President’s budget includes nearly $25 billion in supplemental Medicaid funding for states via a temporary boost to the share of program costs paid by the federal government. The so-called Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, or FMAPs, determine the share of Medicaid costs paid by Washington and all states receive at least a 50% match on dollars spent. Although Medicaid is jointly funded by states and the federal government it is an expensive program and in many states represents the largest slice of the budget pie – averaging about 22% of a typical state’s budget. Medicaid participation is very responsive to changes in the economy and the recent economic downturn has caused state Medicaid enrollment to swell. A study by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid determined that each 1 percentage point increase in the national unemployment rate translates into one million additional Medicaid participants and state revenue declines of 3 to 4%. It was estimated that nearly 5 million Americans had enrolled in Medicaid since the start of the recession.

To help states defray the cost of this increased demand for Medicaid, Congress included a 6.2% increase in the FMAP as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act past early last year. But that assistance expires on 12/31/2010. Few states expect to experience an economic recovery sufficient to offset the loss of those supplemental funds by then. The House of Representatives had included supplemental Medicaid funding in its version of health reform and more recently included the 6.2% increase in the FMAP in a jobs bill passed in December. The House version of health reform is considered to be dead in light of the special election in Massachusetts that ended the Democrat’s supermajority in the Senate, and the Senate is yet to move on the jobs bill. Many states, Maryland included, were already counting on the receipt of the additional Medicaid funds to avoid making painful cuts in their fiscal 2011 budgets. In an effort to close a nearky $2 billion hole, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley assumed the receipt of nearly $400 million in supplemental Medicaid funds in the budget that he submitted to the General Assembly on January 20th. The Massachusetts election seemed to put those funds in doubt and state Republican leaders criticized the inclusion of the funds in the governor's budget. But the Presidents budget proposal appears to vindicate O’Malley’s choice to count on the funds. If approved, the 6.2% increase would mean several hundred million additional Medicaid dollars for Maryland in fiscal 2011.

Questions with the Prime Minister: American Style

America has imported much from British television - American Idol, The Office, Threes Company - and now may be the time to import a new British television staple. In the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister spends half an hour every Wednesday answering questions from Members of Parliament. These televised sessions force the chief executive and the rest of the legislature (as they are merged in a parliamentary system) to face one another on aregular basis. The exchanges may be respectful, though they are often raucous and contentious. These televised exchanges allow the public to see and judges their elected leaders. In the U.S. the separation of powers means that the President need not subject himself to the public questioning of the legislature and his continuation in office is dependent on the voters and not on majority support in the legislature. Instead, Americans are typically treated to the President dismissing the opposition party as obstructionist and devoid of any useful ideas and the opposition accuses the President of ignoring their suggestions. This past Friday, however, Americans were treated to a U.S. version of Questions with the Prime Minister when President Obama accepted an invitation to attend a retreat of the House Republican caucus in Baltimore. Those who watched the coverage saw a President in top form. Obama shed the confrontational tone of his State of the Union Address and engaged in a thoughtful back and forth with his GOP questioners. Likewise, Republicans dropped the harsh tones of their frequent criticisms and offered a plethora of policy proposals. They argued that if the President would only bypass the House Democratic leadership then bipartisanship could be attained. The meeting represented a win for both sides and for the American people.

Such meetings should occur monthly and they should be televised. The event in Baltimore allowed the President to demonstrate a commitment to his campaign pledge to change the tone in Washington and accept new ideas. For Republicans, it allowed them to disprove the accusations that they simply seek to obstruct and have no constructive policy options on issues such as health care and the budget deficit. In other words, the event made both sides look better, made both sides seem more responsive and responsible. For those reasons I fear that there will not be further events like this – it’s very difficult to turn your opponent or opponents into a simple caricature when you spend an hour or so every month in a face to face televised meeting openly discussing your differences.

If Indiana is in Play, so is the Senate - and now Wisconsin?

Update: Could it be that Wisconsin is also in play? If so, this could be a crazy year. A new poll shows that Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold (D) trails former Governor Tommy Thompson (R) in a potential match-up.

Birch Bayh was a Senator for the state of Indiana from 1963 until 1981, his son Evan was elected Attorney General of the state in 1986, governor in 1989 and has served as one of the state's Senators since 1998 - he received 64% of the vote in 1998 and 62% in 2004. Evan Bayh is as close to political royalty as one come in Indiana. Bayh is a Democrat. Although Indiana is a reliably Republican state in Presidential elections, Barack Obama scored a stunning victory there in 2008 - leading many to wonder if the political stars were realigning in Indiana. Apparently not, news comes today of a new poll showing Bayh trailing Indiana Representative Mike Pence in a hypothetical match-up. Bayh leads two other possible rivals, but polls below 50%. Make no mistake, if Evan Bayh is in jeopardy in Indiana then control of the US Senate is in play come November. Republicans could look to win AR, CA, CO, DE, IL, IN, NV, ND, PA – If the GOP held their seats and won those the Senate would be split 50 GOP, 48 Democrat, and 2 Independent. If those Independents continued to caucus with the Democrats VP Biden would be the tie breaking vote and Democrats would still have control, but if the GOP also picked up NY or Joe Lieberman switched to the GOP the Senate would be theirs… It would be difficult for the GOP to win back the Senate, but after MA and with IN in play it seems that anything is possible this year.

Charlie Cook had this to say about the current state of affairs: "The last six months, since we began writing about impending Democratic problems in August, has been like watching a car wreck in slow motion. We keep watching, anticipating that one of the drivers will swerve or hit the brakes, but they never do. The White House and Democratic Congressional leaders have done nothing to halt the impending collision. Things could change over the next nine months, but we have seen little to convince us that the trajectory of this election is changing at all."

Cook currently predicts that Democrats will lose 25 to 35 House seats and 5-7 Senate seats.

Scott Brown and Health Reform

I have argued several times on this page that there were significant obstacles to passing health reform, even after the House and Senate passed separate versions I noted that key differences over abortion funding, taxes of high end health plans, and the public option would be difficult to overcome. In recent weeks House and Senate negotiators along with the White House had been working to hammer out differences in hopes of having a final bill ready to the President by early February… that was so last week. The election of Republican Scott Brown to fill the Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts has caused a political earthquake that has placed health reform’s fate on an uncertain path. The following series of headlines from Politico pretty much sums up the disarray in Washington right now:

• Reid, Pelosi work to save reform Jan 23 2010 - 12:05 AM EST
• Dem health care talks collapsing Jan 21 2010 - 8:20 PM EST
• Pelosi: 'I don't see the votes' Jan 21 2010 - 12:49 PM EST
• Dems weigh scaled-down reform Jan 20 2010 - 7:56 PM EST
• Dems in disarray on health care Jan 20 2010 - 2:02 PM EST

In the immediate aftermath of the election, some Democrats tried to spin the Massachusetts results as a being all about local issues – it was not. One month ago Scott Brown was 20 points behind Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley. He was the Republican sacrificial lamb in the race. Then he declared that he would be the 41st vote against health reform, that he would be the vote that would break the Democrat’s filibuster proof majority. As he traveled the state he would sign autographs “Scott Brown No. 41”. Exits polls taken in Massachusetts showed that opposition to health reform drove his victory.

That Democratic leaders find themselves unable to move forward at this point tells us much about how tenuous their hold on party members was to begin with. Democrats enjoy a majority in the Senate that has been rarely seen in the past century – yet they are stifled. Attempts to point fingers at obstructionist Republicans notwithstanding it is surely no sign of strength when the loss of a single vote jeopardizes your top domestic agenda item. Placing blame on Republicans in the Senate also fails to acknowledge that Democrats could pass health care right now, if only the House would accept the Senate version of the bill – but as Nancy Pelosi said “I don’t see the votes.” Blue Dogs in the House are afraid of voting for any bill, worrying that they might meet their own Scott Brown come November and House Progressive appear to prefer no bill at all rather than less comprehensive Senate bill (the real problem being that the Senate bill would tax high end insurance plans, many belonging to union members and Democrats have no intention of taxing a crucial source of campaign cash). If Democrats are not willing to compromise within their own caucus, can the be that critical of Republicans who are unwilling to compromise on two bills that reflect none of their proposals? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid openly lamented the "wasted time" spent courting Liberal Republican Olympia Snowe (R-ME) - hardly a sensible thing to say shortly after losing your 60th vote.

Health reform teeters on the brink – the next week will tell the tale. Will the President and Democrats seek to double down and push for reform? Will they attempt to pass a scaled down version of the bill? Will they walk away and focus instead on jobs, jobs, jobs. Each approach is fraught with political risks – at the moment there appears to be no clear plan. That should worry people. William Galston is no less harsh when discussing the role of President Obama in all of this "If he continues to utter hopeful banalities devoid of concrete meaning, the fragile reform coalition will collapse within days, with consequences that will endure for decades."  Ezra Klein had a great assessment of the current state of affairs “Democrats have 59 votes in the Senate and almost 260 votes in the House. They brought their bill to the one-yard line before Scott Brown forced a fumble. Proving yourself unable to govern in that scenario is proving yourself unable to govern.”

Many voters may be asking that question come November 2010.

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 Political Earthquake, Scott Brown Wins Clear Victory in Massachusetts

In a political earthquake, Republican Scott Brown has won (comfortably) the Massachusetts Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy. With that victory the Democrats have lost their filibuster proof majority. Expect dramatic political news to come over the next few weeks in the form of more House Democrats in marginal districts announcing retirement plans and previously thought safe Democrats like Senator Evan Bayh in Indiana suddenly seeming vulnerable going into 2010. With regard to Maryland, I expect Ehrlich to jump into the gubernatorial race very soon. In a year that Massachusetts sent a Republican to the Senate, it's quite reasonable to believe that Maryland might send one to the Annapolis. In an interview with ABC News today, Evan Bayh said "If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call, there's no hope of waking up."

All Politics is Local, Except when it Ain't...

Update: This poll from NBC was released aftermy post, my certainly confirms my assessment of the political environment: "Perhaps most troubling for Mr. Obama and the Democrats is that independents are souring on them. That bloc backed Democrats in 2006 and 2008. Now, by a nearly 2 to 1 margin, independents said they would prefer Republicans to control Congress after November."

Original Post:
Former Democratic House Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neill once famously said that all politics is local - meaning that the problems and concerns of people in our towns and cities influence the decisions of elected officials and are the driving force behind elections - whether for Mayor or President. I have a great deal of respect for O'Neill, but I would argue that sometimes our politics is quite national - by that I mean that issues and concerns of national important influence how people vote at all levels. I believe that is what we are witnessing in Massachusetts as little known Republican State Senator Scott Brown stands on the verge of winning the U.S. Senate seat long held by the late (and great) Ted Kennedy. That a Republican is poised to win the seat once occupied by the Liberal Lion of the U.S. Senate in a state that has not elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since 1972 suggests that what is happening in Massachusetts is not simply "a local issue." Rather Massachusetts has become ground zero for ongoing public discontent with Washington politics, the state of the economy, and a year of unfulfilled promises by President Obama and the Democratic Congress. Promises of bipartisanship, openess, and end to special interest control of the agenda have all fallen by the wayside. Instead of openness major legislation like the Economic Recovery Act was negotiated in secret, the normal procedures for House and Senate Conference bypassed, Health Reform has followed a similar path and promises of bipartisanship melted away as quickly as the January snow following President Obama's inauguration, the President engaged in secret negotiations with the Pharmaceutical lobby and made considerable concession to win their support for health reform, more recently labor unions won concessions exempting union workers from paying the proposed tax on high end insurance plans (as proposed in the reform bill passed in the Senate).

In 2008, Barack Obama rode a wave of populist anger into the White House. Voters were angry about Wall Street bailouts, angry about a sluggish economy, about retirement plans that suddenly lost 40% of their value. During the course of the past year President Obama has come to symbolize, in the eyes of many voters, the very system that he ran against. It's no coincidence that Republican Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Scott Brown in Massachusetts have been able to tap into that populism and have run campaigns modeled after Obama’s 2008 effort. If one looks to the voters that were crucial to Obama’s victory in 2008 you can see no group more important than the growing number of Independent voters who broke overwhelmingly for Obama. That same group of voters broke 2 to 1 for McDonnell in Virginia, for Republican Chris Christie in New Jersey, and according to polls are favoring Scott Brown by the same margin in Massachusetts.

This shift among Independents should frighten Democrats going into 2010. According to the most recent polling, the partisan advantage briefly enjoyed by Democrats after the 2006 and 2008 election has gone. Democrats, Republicans and Independents now stand at near parity with each claiming about 1/3 of the electorate (with Independents actually claiming a plurality). Democrats cannot maintain their majority hold on the machinery of national government without breaking even among Independents. Be clear, Independents have not suddenly fallen in love with the Republican party – but at the moment it is the only other viable option, and they seem to be taking it. Democrats need to figure out how to reclaim the precious middle – they could start by living up to their own campaign promises from 2006 and 2008…

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 Link between Presidential Approval and Midterm Election Results

Public Opinion Strategies has begun a series a briefs exploring the link between presidential approval and party performance in midterm elections. The findings thus far pretty interesting. According to the first report: "If the President’s approval rating was 60% or higher, the President’s party picked up an average of 1 seat. If the approval rating was between 50 and 59%, the average loss was 12 seats. Finally, if the President’s approval rating was below 50%, the average loss was 41 seats (one seat more than the 40 seats GOPers need to win back control of the House)."

The most recent approval rating average from Real Clear Politics places President Obama in a real danger zone - 47.6% - and the overal trend is clear. Three of the most recent five polls have Obama at 46% or 45% and he scores no better than 51% in the other two.  The question for observers of the 2010 election is whether the President's approval rating can recover. Democrats need the president to get back above 50% or better, Republican prospects hinge on his approval rating staying where it is.

It's Official: Owings to Challenge O'Malley in the Primary

As expected, George Owings III announced today that he will challenge Martin O'Malley for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Maryland. Before a crowd of supporters in the Southern Maryland town of Prince Frederick Owings declared that O'Malley's 2006 campaign slogan of "Leadership That Works" has been "a veiled and empty promise."  Time will tell how this impacts O'Malley, but given Owings likely appeal in the fast growing counties of Southern Maryland as well as Western Maryland and on the Eastern Shore his campaign will distract O'Malley from focusing on his eventual GOP rival - that's a distraction that O'Malley does not need given his faltering approval ratings.

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.

Differences Remain between House and Senate on Health Reform

News broke yesterday that Democrats will bypass normal rules of process and not convene a House/Senate Conference to reconcile differences between the two chambers' health reform bills. Rather the House and Senate will play a game of legislative "ping-pong" as each body seeks to pass amendments until an agreement between the two is reached. This was views as being the only way to exclude Republicans from the process given the minority protections built into the Conference process. Interestingly, Democrats instituted many of those minority protections after reclaiming Congress in 2007 with the passage of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. By bypassing the Conference Democrats hope to speed up the process and have a bill for the president by early February. But many difficult negotiations await as an 11 page memo prepared by Democratic staffers shows - there remain over 50 substantive differences between the House and Senate that must be resolved. In the House, their version of reform passed with only 3 votes to spare and the Senate had not votes in reserve - the question now is how can Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi craft a compromise that will be acceptable to both chambers.

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.

Health Reform Secures 60 Votes in the Senate! Will the House Play Ball?

After weeks of false starts it appears that Senate Democrats have united behind a health reform bill - my read of Harry Reid's changes - the so-called Manager's Amendment - convinces me that this is a good bill and one that will substantially improve the American health care system. It is also, with minor exceptions, essentially the bill that Max Baucus reported from his Senate Finance Committee months ago. The key sticking points came down to federal funding for abortion and the creation of a so-called public option - both are gone. No federal funds will be used to cover or even subsidize insurance that covers abortion and states will have the option of excluding abortion coverage within the newly created health insurance exchanges. The Medicare expansion is gone as well, but the federal Office of Personnel Management will oversee a new national non-profit plan that people can buy in to.

Significant Elements:

• Insurers in the large group market will be required to spend at least 85% of all premiums on medical care (that leaves 15% for administration, marketing, profit), in the small group market the standard will be 80%.
• Individuals and families under 400% of the federal poverty line who receive employer-sponsored coverage and spend 8-9.8% of their income on premiums, could “convert their tax-free employer health subsidies into vouchers that they can use to choose a health insurance plan in the new health insurance exchanges. This would allow folks more choices in selecting coverage and force insurers to compete with the exchange.
• Medicaid eligibility would be extended to everyone earning less than 133% of the federal poverty level and as a protection for states the federal government will pay for 100% of the cost until 2017 - typically a state pays nearly half the cost of Medicaid.

Why should Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman - the hold outs who forced so many concessions - be celebrated and not derided?

• Lieberman - Had it not been for Lieberman's efforts to strip away the public option the bill never would have received 60 votes. Lieberman has provided political cover for vulnerable Democrats like Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) as well as dozens of House Democrats from conservative districts.
• Nelson - The abortion concessions won by Nelson will also  provide coverage for House Blue Dogs, but Nelson's greatest contribution was his insistence that the full cost of the Medicaid expansion in Nebraska be covered by the federal government forever - while the expansion in all other states is covered for only 5 years. Seem unfair? Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) summed it up well "In 2017... when we have to start phasing back from 100 percent, ... they are going to say, 'Wait, there is one state that stays at 100?' And every governor in the country is going to say, 'Why doesn’t our state stay there?'" In other words, Nelson win for Nebraska is likely a win for every state.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the new proposal would reduce the deficit by $132 billion over 10 years and by $1.3 trillion over 20 years and it would extend insurance to 31 million individuals, covering approximately 94% of legal residents by 2019. This bill is a step in the right direction. It deserves the support of conservatives and liberals alike. To those on the left who argue that it is better to have no bill at all than to accept a bill that limits abortion coverage and contains no public option - I urge you to get your priorities straight. This bill is about extending health insurance, not about imposing ideological rigidity. To those on the right who lament the lack of malpractice reform or the fact that you were essentially shut out of the process – get over it. This is a common sense bill that deserves bipartisan support.

If Harry Reid truly has the 60 votes necessary for cloture then the stage would be set for a vote by December 24th. After that it goes to conference committee where Nancy Pelosi will need to win major concessions from House liberals in order to avoid having this deal fall apart early in the new year. Of course, early word is that House Democrat conservatives may not be willing to accept the abortion compromise...

Welcome Baltimore Sun Readers

The FreeStater Blog welcomes those of you visiting us via the Op-Ed in the Baltimore Sun. Click here for a detailed analysis of the 2010 gubernatorial race and Bob Ehrlich's chances.

Breaking Waves of Dealignment

Realignment: the coming to power of a new coalition, replacing an old dominant coalition of the other party (or replacing a stalemate, as in the United States in 1896 or 1932). The concept of realignment or a critical election was first put to paper by political scientist V. O. Key in a 1955 article titled "A Theory of Critical Elections." According to Key and subsequent realignment adherents political parties, voter loyalty, and policymaking routinely shift in swift, dramatic sweeps - or critical elections. Realignment literally means that voters, en masse, switch allegiances from one party to another. In contrast, a dealignment is said to occur when voters abandon party loyalty to become independents or nonvoters.

Many believed that the one-two punch of the 2006 mid-terms and the 2008 presidential election was heralding a realignment in America with voters moving to the Democratic party. Indeed, the party reclaimed Congress and the White House and enjoyed a clear advantage in voter expressed party preference for the first time in 20 years. It appears that such realignment predictions were made in haste. Democrats no longer enjoy an advantage in voter preference and according to the latest NBC News/WSJ Poll only 38 percent of voters said their representative should be re-elected, while nearly half (49 percent) believe it’s time to give a new person a chance. According to Politico “That’s the lowest net re-elect number for Congress since November 2005 – and even worse than the polls taken right before the landslide election of 2006 that swept Democrats in control of Congress (39 re-elect/45 new person), and worse than those taken before the Republican revolution of 1994 (39/49).”

Translation? 2010 is shaping up to be another wave election – a term that non-political scientists and media commentators often use to describe a critical mid-term election. This presents a problem – critical elections were thought to usher in generational shifts in loyalty. But we have now had two wave elections in 12 years – 1994 and 2006 and may have a third on the way - only 4 short years after the last wave. All of this suggests that we have in fact dealigned in America. Voters are no longer loyal to any party, as such they willingly and easily switch allegiances from one election to the next. Writing for Politico back in August, Eamon Javers referred to this new generation of voters as “Fickle Kids” who change voting preference as often as they do cell phones. If this is true, if we have dealigned, if voters no longer have a true connection to either party, America is likely to enter a very unstable era in which party control of government will be very unpredictable and likely short-lived. It remains to be seen how the parties will react to this change.

Turkish Delight Has Turned Sour for Some Washington Insiders

Turkey has been lately undergoing major transformations, domestically and internationally. The Turkish economy has been growing steadily, save the expected ramifications of the global recession. The political influence of the military is dramatically reduced. Turkey is now debating a comprehensive reform package aimed to integrate a free and fair representation of the Kurdish identity in the political system. Turkey has also made a significant progress toward normalizing relations with long-time foes such as, Armenia and Syria. Turkey is now an active and dynamic regional player, engaging diplomatic wrangling in an area ranging from the Balkans to the Caucasus, to the Levant, and to the Caspian Sea. Albeit these developments, which delight most Turkish citizens, for some among the foreign policy circles in Washington, Turkish delight has certainly turned sour.

For these analysts, Turkey’s recent ambitious domestic and international overtures are bound to doom for one overarching reason: Turkey is ruled by an “Islamist” party—Justice and Development Party (known as AKP)—and, because of its ideological identity, whatever initiative the government would advance will only help further Islamize the Turkish nation, undermine the secular political structure, and distance Turkey from the West. I believe that this outlook is not only reckless in assessing Turkey’s position, but also a reminiscent of Cold War mentality of bipolar world. Accordingly, the world is divided into West and the “Rest” (and the “other”, i.e. the Muslim World) and Turkey needs to make a decision about which side it truly belongs.

One recent and—one of the most representative—example of this view was illustrated by David Schenker (The Wall Street Journal, November 5, 2009). The title of his essay says a lot: “A NATO Without Turkey?” According to Schenker, the Turkish government “is increasingly pursuing illiberal policies at home…while aligning itself with militant, anti-western Middle East regimes abroad”. Accordingly, this wrong choice of policy by Turkey certainly warrants reconsideration of Turkey’s membership to NATO. Another example is a recent essay published by Morton Abramowitz and Henri J. Barkey (“Turkey’s Transformers”, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2009). In this piece, the authors, although they could not resist praising some recent initiative by the AKP government as radical and transformative in a positive sense, felt the need to close their essay with a dire warning for Turkey’s ambitious policy makers: “Turkey’s leaders, for their part, must not think that they can expand the country’s influence without first having a firm footing in the West”.

Both these views are part of a misguided approach based on the erroneous—or imprudent—reading of Turkey and its government. Calling AKP as “Islamist” and seeing it as a catalyst of Islamization in Turkey is just plain wrong. AKP is not an Islamist party in both sociological and practical senses. The fact that the leadership of the party had a history of political Islam does not conceal the fact that only after a democratic epiphany the party leaders such as Recep Tayyip Erdogan (currently the prime minister) and Abdullah Gul (currently the president) were able to appeal to mainstream majority, which lies at the center-right of the political spectrum. Second, it is outlandish to argue that AKP Islamizes the Turkish society when 90 percent of the population identifies themselves as Muslim, 70 percent would like to see elimination of headscarf ban in public institutions, 50 percent claims to practice their religion on a daily basis. These statistics were not affected by AKP; rather, AKP’s popularity is greatly enhanced by its skilful incorporation of the values dearly held by an overwhelming majority of the Turkish people and its integration of the demands of the new conservative middle class emerged as result of liberalization policies launched in mid-1980s. AKP, at best, is a Muslim Democrat party. In this respect, and contrary to some observations, religiosity in Turkey is not increasing; rather, the restrictions imposed on religiosity are decreasing as part of the further democratization of the system and normalization of civil-military relations.

Some assessments of the recent assertiveness of the Turkish foreign policy also suffer from similar one-sided and misguided reading of the events. Seeing AKP as an Islamist party with an arguably hidden Islamic agenda can provide emotional satisfaction for some. But this view is seriously missing the point. Turkey neighbors not only EU member countries such as Bulgaria and Greece, but also Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. A policy that seeks “zero problems with neighbors” as advocated by Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s highly esteemed minister of foreign affairs, would certainly seek zero problems with the last three of those neighbors which happen to be Muslim-majority countries. Turkey engages with Russia, and Bulgaria, as much as it does with Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Turkey’s “strategic depth” entails engaging beyond the immediate neighbors. In this respect, Pristina, Grozny, Jerusalem, and Baghdad are all located at about the same distance to Turkey’s borders and would require similar level of attention. Consequently, the West-and-the-Rest dichotomy just does not work from Turkey’s vantage point.

To conclude, reading Turkey’s domestic and international policies and achievements through Islamism is either inaccurate representation or manipulation of the facts on the ground. Turkey’s attempts to achieve peace and harmony at home and abroad is a win-win situation both for Turkey and the region and ought not to be considered as part of a civilizational clash that does not really exist. And for all those who seek similar goals, Turkey appears to be the best partner in the region.

Health Reform Will Pass.... Probably

Update - There's a reason why I tend to practice cautious optimism - Susan Collins appears to be a solid "No" and Ben Nelson continues to say "No" as well. And the Democratic Left may be unwilling to accept the watered down bill.

Last month I took to this page to argue that health reform would fail to pass. In my original post and one subsequent follow-up I theorized that disagreements within the Democratic Party and between the House and Senate over funding, mandates, taxes, and abortion would ultimately sink health reform - and they almost did. But it is now increasingly likely that health reform will pass and all credit goes to two Senators - Max Baucus (D-MT) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Lieberman has become public enemy number one among the Left this week since stating that he would filibuster any bill with a Public Option AND any bill that allowed for a Medicare buy-in. Baucus enjoyed a similar bit of infamy back in September when his Senate Finance Committee drafted health reform legislation that did not include a public option and had watered done the individual and employer mandates. Baucus argued that his goal was to write a bill that could receive 60 votes.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took Baucus' bill and added a public option and has spent the better part of a month trying to reach 60 votes. It seems that Reid has now surrendered. Word out of Washington is that the Senate will strip away the public option, will strip away the recently proposed Medicare expansion and will essentially consider the legislation originally reported by Baucus' committee back in October. Liberal Senate Democrats such as Tom Harkin (D-IA) have stated that they will accept scaled back legislation and the White House has urged Reid to make what ever concessions are necessary to get the bill passed.

Perhaps most significant is the increased likelihood that the scaled back Baucus inspired bill may receive 2 Republican votes – Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both from Maine. Snowe supported the Baucus bill in committee and Collins recently praised Lieberman’s efforts to strip away objectionable elements in the bill. So there you have it – the bill that Baucus originally produced has now become the savior of the Democrats' health reform effort and because of the efforts of Joe Lieberman it is likely to pass complete with a Republican vote or two.

If you are wondering why Harry Reid opted to not introduce the Baucus bill in the beginning it is because of the politics of the House of Representatives and the powerful progressive caucus there. Reid needed to prove that a public option could not survive in the Senate, he needed to prove that the Baucus bill was the only acceptable legislation. The last month has made that clear. Given that the House has passed a health care bill the normal process would be for a House/Senate Conference Committee to reconcile differences between the chambers and return a compromise bill for final votes in each. I do not expect that to happen – rather I suspect that whatever passes in the Senate will be introduced in the House and approved unamended, thereby negating the need for a conference. Any other approach would introduce more delay and uncertainty. The White House and Democratic Leaders will exert tremendous pressure on progressive House members to grit their teeth and simply vote for the Senate bill, or risk getting no reform at all.

I would add that abortion remains a hurdle – but I suspect that it is one that will be overcome.

Will 2010 be a Repeat of 1994? Yes and No.

Last week I argued that the political forecast for Democrats looked pretty bleak. Less than a week later I would argue that the forecast has worsened. That said, several prominent bloggers took to the web this weekend to argue that 2010 will not present a repeat of 1994 when Republicans netted 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to claim a majority in both houses of Congress. Writing for his Talking Points Memo Josh Marshall argues that the 1994 rout by Republicans was largely the result of the Southern realignment coupled with redistricting efforts in 1990-92 and a spate of Democratic retirements. Marshall argues "2010 is fundamentally different. The key problem for Dems isn't unpopularity. It's a highly apathetic Democratic electorate facing an extremely energized Tea Party GOP."  Marshall does not dismiss the possiblity that Democrats may lose the House or Senate, he simply veiws the comparisons to 1994 as being inappropriate. I do not disagree, but when it comes to elections, any election, comparisons to prior elections are largely inappropriate. Each election cycle takes on its own dynamic and unique set of issues and circumstances.

Asking if 2010 will be like 1994 is not the same as asking if the the same dynamics that shaped 1994 will shape 2010. In all but two midterm election cycles in the past since FDR the party in the White House has lost seats in the midterm - what made 1994 unique was the size of the loss in the House and the Senate. In the past 50 years there have been 12 midterm elections, in 10 of those races the party in the White House lost seats. In 5 of the 12 the losses in the Houses amounted to 15 or fewer seats, in 2 of the 12 the losses ranged from 26 to 30 seats (1982 and 2006), in only 3 of the 12 did the losses top 40 seats -1966 (47 seats), 1974 (49 seats), and 1994 (52 seats). In 1998 and 2002 the party in power gained seats. So the real question for 2010 is whether the Democrats will suffer losses in line with historical norms - about 15 seats - or will the party suffer the more extraordinary losses registered in 1966, 1974, and 1994?

Current political conditions suggest that 2010 will not follow the historical norm model of 15 or so seats. The latest edition of the Cook Politcal Report finds that of the 258 House seats held by Democrats 218 are considered to be safe - that is the exact number needed to maintain their majority status. Cook rates 39 Democratic seats as competitive and only 11 Republican seats. The generic Congressional ballot from multiple pollsters favors the Republicans and 4 Democratic House members have announced plans to retire. Add to all of this a president with an approval rating below 50% and you have the makings for an election year that will not be good for the Democrats. At the moment the most likely scenario is a midterm that follows the 1982 and 2006 model of 25 to 30 losses. In the Senate, the Democrats face challenges in AR, CO, CT, DE, NV, NY, OH, and PA while Republicans are fighting to keep KY, MO, and NH - a net Republican gain of 4 or 5 seems likely at this point.

So will 2010 be like 1994? The dynamics of the race will be different - but such is true of all races. With regard to shifting control of Congress 2010 also is unlikely to be like 1994.  But make no mistake, if Republicans gain 30 seats in the House and 5 seats in the Senate the 2010 election will be like 1994 in that it will fundamentally alter the political dynamic in Washington. The midterm vote will be viewed as a harsh assessment of the president and the Democratic majority and will result in an altered agenda leading into 2012. It will also give the GOP tremendous influence over that agenda as they reclaim the ability to filibuster in the Senate.

Could Only Obama Could Go to Oslo?

President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech yesterday drew praise from both the left and right. The praise from the left is hardly surprising, but accolades from both the Wall Street Journal editorial board and Sarah Palin are noteworthy. The strong response from conservatives tended to focus on the section of the speech were Obama meditates on the notion of “just war” and the meaning of a President fighting two wars receiving the Peace Prize.

“But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation ... I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.”

This portion of the speech, arguing both that war may be justified and using the word “evil”, led other commentators to argue that Obama was simply using his flowery rhetoric to say the same things put more bluntly by his predecessor. Historian Walter Russell Mead from the Council on Foreign Relations argues that Obama is simply better than Bush at selling the same policies. He argues,

“Barack Obama's acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize was a carefully reasoned defense of a foreign policy that differs very little from George Bush's... If Bush had said these things the world would be filled with violent denunciations. When Obama says them, people purr.”

Similar sentiments have been echoed elsewhere on the right. The only problem is that President Bush would have never given a speech like this. Let’s call it the “Only Obama Could Go To Oslo” phenomenon. Obama accepts the prize for peace and makes the case for the necessity of war. However, the greatest differences between Bush and Obama were not in what Obama said, but in those things left unsaid. There was no discussion of Iraq, other than the oblique reference to a war that “is winding down.” No discussion of the need to use U.S. power to spread American ideals. And while Obama did mention evil in the world, there is no talk of good versus evil.

In fact, while Obama front-loads the discussion of just war, the speech ranged over a number of topics that draw upon a broad array of international relations theories. The clear-eyed discussion of war reflects political realism, while the call for the United States to adhere to global standards reflects idealism. The significance of international institutions in maintaining the post-war order mixes in neoliberal institutionalism, while arguing that, “America alone cannot secure the peace,” draws in traditional foreign policy liberals. For good measure, Obama includes a discussion on democratic peace (“America has never fought a war against a democracy”), just war (“philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war”), classical realism (“War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man.”), and clash of civilizations-type arguments (“the cultural leveling of modernity… people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities”).

If anything, the Oslo speech seems to undergird Obama’s emphasis on addressing the complexity of the problems confronting the United States and the administration’s emphasis on “smart power.” While the meaning of “smart power” remains broad enough to be frustratingly elusive, the general emphasis of Obama’s speech seemed to be that it is critical to find the proper diplomatic tool to fit the job. Thus, to Nobel speech can draw praise from across the American political spectrum, because it acknowledges a simple point: the Obama’s foreign policy will draw on a broad array of international relations theories. While this may frustrate those who seek clear and simple guiding principles in U.S. foreign policy, it offers hope to those that believe context is critical.

Democrats Facing an Ever More Bleak Political Forecast

Hyperbole is all too common in political commentary, but it’s increasingly difficult to overstate just how the political landscape has shifted under the feet of the Democratic Party. Last year they had reclaimed the White House, added to their majority in the House and were well on their way to attaining a 60 vote super-majority in the Senate. More important, the American public was on their side. In an Ipsos-McClatchy poll taken last November the Democrats enjoyed almost unimaginable levels of public support. On issue after issue the public preferred Democrats over Republicans. Handling the economy? A 58% to 37% advantage for Democrats. Taxes? 52% to 35%. Dealing with the deficit? 56% to 26%. Reforming the health care system? 62% to 23%. Jump ahead one year and the most recent Ipsos poll shows those Democratic advantages are gone. The Economy? A 40% to 39% tie. Taxes? Democrats now trail the GOP by 2 points. Dealing with the deficit? Now a 41% to 34% advantage for the GOP. Reforming health care? The Democrats 39 point advantage has dwindled to 4 points. And on the all important question of which party would be better for economic growth the Democrats have gone from a 30 point lead to a 3 point deficit. The poll also finds President Obama falling to a new approval rating low of 49%. Among the all important Independents fully 55% disapprove of the job he is doing.

As negotiations on health reform continue a new Quinnipiac poll shows the public opposes reform by a 52% to 38% margin. The polls also found a nearly equal level of disapproval of Obama's handling of health reform and the 20 point advantage that he enjoyed over Republicans on the issue back in July has now shrunk to 7 points. As for the 2010 midterms - the list of Democratic incumbents who plan to retire has now grown to 3 and Charlie Cook counts 39 potentially vulnerable Democratic House seats and only 11 Republican seats (and the number of vulnerable Democrats grows each week). In the ever important swing state of Ohio (crucial to any Republican White House quest) the Democratic incumbent Ted Strickland now trails challenger John Kasich by 9 points. It's hard to find any cause for optimism among Democrats other than the news that the national unemployment rate dropped from 10.2% to 10% last month. So far the political trajectory of 2009 is looking a lot like 1993 - Democrats desperately need a course correction to keep 2010 from ending up like 1994.

As Progress is Made on Health Reform, Public Opposition Solidifies

Update II: Senate Democrats have reached an agreement and the Public Option is gone. This clears one hurdle, but another has popped up. The Senate rejected Ben Nelson's abortion funding amendment making the math of 60 votes still a difficult equation.

Update: Late word indicates that GOP moderate Olympia Snowe is not a fan of the new compromise that would expand Medicare and Medicaid, this could make it very hard for Democrats to reach 60 votes. Especially if they lose Ben Nelson over the issue of abortion coverage.

News today suggests that significant progress is being made in the Senate on compromise health care reform as Democratic Party leaders seek a path to 60 votes. It is increasingly clear that the Public Option that Majority Leader Harry Reid had included in the bill will be dropped - but progressive members of the Democratic caucus have not simply surrendered, rather they are using the elimination of the Public Option to bargain for new and potentially far reaching concessions. Multiple sources are reporting that the Public Option would be replaced with a new nationwide nonprofit health plan to be administered by the federal Office of Personnel Management (the same agency that administered the federal employee health benefit system). The new national plan would be offered by a private insurance company. Party leaders hope that progressives will find this to be an acceptable alternative to a Public Option run by the government. In exchange for dropping their demands for the Public Option, progressives have pursued amendments to the current legislation in the form a significant expansion of the Medicare program – the nation’s health insurance system for those over the age of 65. Under the proposal currently being discussed, the Medicare program would be opened to Americans over the age of 55. This is a population that can face great difficulty obtaining affordable coverage – especially if they suffer a job loss. Also being pursued is a proposal to open the new national health insurance exchange to more Americans. As originally proposed, the exchange would have been limited to a select few small employers and uninsured Americans, perhaps as few as 15-30 million. Adoption of these compromises would have a far more significant impact on health reform and coverage expansion than would the limited Public Option and progressives would be wise to pursue them.

Interestingly, or perhaps distressingly for Democrats, just as progress is being made on reform public opposition is on the rise and public support is collapsing. According to the latest tallies from Pollster.Com a majority of the country now opposes reform and less than 40% is in support. As heated debates remain over touchy issues such as abortion and funding – to say nothing of a needed reconciliation with the House – Democrats in tough re-election fights need the cover of public support - at the moment they do not have it. Only time will tell if that changes as details of these new negotiations emerge.

A Comeback for the Political Center in Maryland's 4th District?

At the moment all of the mid-term Congressional drama in Maryland has been focused on the 1st Congressional district and the tough re--election battle that Democrat Frank Kratovil is likely to face in a rematch with Andy Harris. I urge everyone to consider another race as well. Prince George's County State's Attorney Glenn Ivey is expected to mount a primary challenge against Democratic Rep. Donna Edwards for Maryland's 4th District Congressional seat. In 2008, Edwards defeated incumbent Rep. Al Wynn in the primary to claim the safe Democratic seat. Wynn was a moderate Democrat and his defeat in the primary by the unabashedly liberal Edwards struck a blow to the already dwindling number of political moderates in Congress. Ivey has a reputation as a moderate political voice and his victory in the September primary could signal an anti-incumbent and potentially anti-liberal preference among voters. The September primary in Maryland could serve as a barometer for things to come in the general election 2 months later.