Absolutely No Evidence of a Democratic Rebound

Though some hopeful partisans and a few members of the press have written recently about renewed hope among Democrats that the 2010 midterms will not be as bad as previously thought there is in fact no evidence to support the theory of a Democratic rebound. In fact, things appear to be getting worse not better. Some, including myself, argued that the election of Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell in Delaware had eliminated all hope among the GOP of retaking the Senate and had served to awaken Democratic voters and wavering Independents... not so fast. The latest round of survey data in key states suggests that GOP still has a shot at the Senate. Recent surveys in West Virginia and Wisconsin show a clear Republican advantage. Sharon Angle appears to have pulled ahead in Nevada and now two new surveys show Dino Rossi leading Patti Murray in Washington state. Republicans appear poised to win in AR, CO, IN, ND, and PA for a gain of five seats.  Now add WV, WI, IL, NV, and WA and that's 10 states and the majority.

In the battle for the House news is equally bad for Democrats. Republicans enjoy a lead in every survey of likely voters and the lead ranges from 3 to 18 points. Historically, Republicans have rarely ever led on the generic ballot making the consistent lead across polls especially significant. The most recent CBS News/ New York Times survey finds Republicans with an 8 point lead a substantial increase from the 2 point lead they enjoyed last month.

Certainly no evidence of Democratic momentum there.

And Republicans seem to be expanding the battlefield "Republican challengers are suddenly threatening once-safe Democrats in New England and the Northwest, expanding the terrain for potential GOP gains and raising the party's hopes for a significant victory in next month's elections." And even a institution in the House like John Dingell of Michigan is polling below 40% and trailing in his reelection bid. "If Dingell is truly down in this D+13 district, what does this say for Democratic chances in the 5th (D+12) and the 12th (D+13), neither of which appear to be on anyone's radar screens?"

Last, a new strategy memo from Stan Greenberg and James Carville finds that Democrats have been doing more harm than good by telling voters that Republicans would move America in the wrong direction.

"Voters are not moved by Democratic messages that say 'go forward, not back,' mention President Bush, compare then and now, or even that hint the economy is 'showing signs of progress'... After hearing this battle of Republican and Democratic messages, 8 percent shift their vote to support the Republican, while only 5 percent move to the Democrats. We lose ground. These messages are helping the Republicans."

There has been no rebound...

Maryland Morning Discussion of the Citizens United Ruling

On Friday October 8th, I spoke with Sheilah Kast of WYPR's Maryland Morning about the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC on Maryland as well as the gubernatorial race and the race in the 1st Congressional District. Listen to the segment.

In Maryland, Can Ehrlich Halt the Slide?

Though I stand by my recent critique of the Washington Post poll that showed Martin O'Malley with an 11 point lead over Bob Ehrlich, the latest statewide survey from Rasmussen Reports shows that Ehrlich has clearly lost momentum in the race. I believe the reason is O'Malley's aggressive and effective advertising campaign. Every morning as parents are getting their kids ready for school or daycare or otherwise prepping for the day they are treated to a number of positive ads touting O'Malley's support for education funding and even more hard hitting negative ads linking Bob Ehrlich to corporate interest and, brazenly, attacking Ehrlich for tax and fee increases during his tenure and for a 72% electricity rate hike by BGE.



O'Malley could be called to the mat on many of these issues, but especially on the issue of tax increases and the BG&E rate hikes.  On taxes, it is astonishing that O'Malley has chosen to run against Ehrlich on that issue. Though Ehrlich did preside over increases in titling fees, a new flush tax for the Bay, and a small property tax increase, O'Malley called a special session of the General Assembly in 2007 and substantially increased the state sales tax and the income tax. But the ads and claims have gone largely unanswered. With regard to BG&E, Ehrlich inherited a rate increase that resulted from poorly crafted legislation. The General Assembly had imposed a multi-year rate freeze on BG&E and that freeze expired in 2006. BG&E responded by raising rates to market levels. During the 2006 campaign, Martin O'Malley pledged to "take on" BG&E and halt the rate increases - even running campaign ads based on the pledge.



In the end, however, for all of the sound and fury the BG&E rate hike went into effect under Martin O'Malley's newly elected administration. The Ehrlich campaign has produced a video refuting the BG&E claims by O'Malley - but good luck ever seeing the ad on TV.



O'Malley clearly enjoys a cash advantage in this race and he has used that advantage to run a very effective ad campaign that has driven Bob Ehrlich's negatives higher. Everyone knew this would be a race decided by 4 points here or there and the O'Malley team knew that they just needed to raise doubts in the minds of the small group of undecided voters. Recent surveys suggest that they have done just that. The question now is whether the Ehrlich campaign has the time and the resources to effectively counter the O'Malley machine. They have to hope that it's not already too late.

The candidates have agreed to two debates so far, the first of which will air on Oct. 11. Ehrlich needs to bring his best game and appeared passionate and engaged. He needs to remind voters of his recently released Roadmap 2020 and enunciate a clear vision for the state - something he failed to do in 2006. If he fails to do that, he may not be able to recover. O'Malley tends not to connect well with voters in formal events and he needs to avoid sounding rehearsed or detached.

Why I Criticize Newsweek's Polls

Update - The latest data from Gallup further illustrates why I dismiss Newsweek polls. Gallup finds that the GOP has 3 point lead among Registered Voters, but when Gallup models the data for Likely Voters that GOP lead balloons to 13 points. These polls are tied to an actual upcoming election as such a model (like Gallup's) that seeks to estimate voter behavior is useful, whereas a model that seeks to estimate the views of all registered voters - those who will vote as well as those who won't (Newsweek) - is meaningless.

I've enjoyed a very constructive e-mail conversation with Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal today and based on that exchange I would like to make clear my problems with Newsweek's polls. Essentially it boils down to this - Newsweek is trying to characterizing how Americans will vote next month based on a sample of self-identified registered voters, weighted to match general population parameters, rather than on a more reasonable sub-sample or model of the likely electorate. As Blumenthal indicated in our exchange, and as most political scientists are aware, between 75% and 80% of all adults will self report as registered voters, but midterm turnout among eligible adults typically hovers around 40%. By focusing on the universe of registered voters, weighted to match the population, Newsweek's poll(s) actually tell us little about the upcoming (or any) election.

Allow me to explain my problems with Newsweek's polling methods:

The latest Newsweek poll, unlike all others, shows Democrats with a 5 point lead in the generic ballot - 48% to 43%. But if you look at the crosstabs on page 2 of the poll it shows that Republicans prefer a Republican by a margin of 93 to 4 and Democrats prefer a Democrat by a margin of 96 to 2 - but Independents prefer a Republican by a huge 47% to 30% margin... and yet Newsweek reports that Democrats enjoy a 5 point lead.

Based on the reported sample size of 305 Republicans (34%), 327 Democrats (36%), and 234 Independents (26%) this simply cannot be - in fact based on those numbers the poll should show a 44% to 44% tie. The data is then weighted based on Census data and the result is an impressive 8% point advantage for Democrats among registered voters in the sample - 39% Dem, 31% Rep, 26% Ind. Then there are another 4% or 36 respondents not mentioned much anywhere in the results, but clearly included in the calculation. If one assumes that roughly 55% of those 36 unaffiliated voters prefer Democrats then indeed you can arrive at the 48% to 43% number.

If you weight your data to turn a 2% turnout advantage for Democrats into an 8% advantage you're likely to find some good news for the Democrats. But is it realistic? The Newsweek numbers are akin to the advantage enjoyed by Democrats in 2008, an unlikely scenario in 2010.

I'm not questioning Newsweek's motives, but I am suggesting that the assumptions upon which they weight their data are flawed when trying to predict actual voting. As flawed as the recent Washington Post poll of the Maryland gubernatorial contest and as flawed as the recent surveys in California that showed Democrats surging. If you ignore past turnout models, if you dismiss evidence of strong GOP turnout in your own sample, and if you make a series of assumptions that work only to the benefit of Democrats then your polls will indeed show good news for Democrats - but will they be accurate?

Weighting by "gender, age, education, race, region, and population density" based on Current Population Survey data is not at all uncommon, but may not be the best predictor of actual voting. If I were interetsted favorite ice cream flavor I would weight by CPS, but not for voting. For instance, were a firm to survey Maryland voters and then weight the sample for known population parameters the survey would overstate the share of the electorate that would be African American or from Baltimore City and understate the share that would be Republican. Whereas a review of actual turnout data would show that the actual voters in Maryland are quite different from the universe of possible voters derived from the CPS.

This is why building a weight based on actual past voter turnout and exit polls from prior elections is more useful and appropriate. Can anyone seriously say that the electorate come November is going to be 39% Democrat to 31% Republican? That Democrats will match their 2008 performance? The fact that the initial sample was 36% Dem to 34% Rep should have been an indicator of voter intention and preference.

To quote from Alvarez and Nagler (2005) "If the known and observable attributes (say age, which we observe in the population and measure in the sample) are correlated with the political behavior we want to estimate (say the Kerry-Bush vote in the 2004 election), then if we have a sample that does not accurately represent the age distribution of the electorate adjustment to the age distribution of our sample can help improve the accuracy of our behavioral estimate. This is where reliable weighting methodologies can help improve the accuracy of our inferences; this is also where poor weighting methodologies can lead our inferences astray."

Newsweek ignores actual vote trends and turnout in favor of a methodology that will almost always result in a weighted sample that is more Democratic than was the initial sample and, based on their track record, the actual voters.

One may well ask "Why should an unweighted sample with known biases toward older, whiter, better educated and more affluent Americans produce a more reliable estimate of party ID than a sample weighted to match Census estimates of gender, age, education, race, region, and population density?"

A reasonable answer would be, perhaps because in the current electoral environment, and in fact in nearly every election, the electorate will in fact be be older, whiter, better educated and more affluent than the population of registered voters and especially the actual population of those eligible to vote. Weighting a sample based on the CPS so that 21% of the sample is aged 18-29, for example, would not improve the findings given that 18-29 year olds are only 18% of actual voters. Or weighting it such that those 65+ were 12% of the sample would not help when they are in fact 16% of voters. When the weights that one applies result in a party ID breakdown that appears to be clearly at odds with present conditions and past voting patterns then it may be time to reconsider those weights.

I understand that the Newseek poll is in fact in line with other national polls given the margin of error, but Newsweek "makes news" with its polls and when they are writing stories suggesting that the 2010 political terrain isn't really that bad for Democrats (based solely on their own polls) as they did this month and last then I think that it is only right to point out their methods have a long history of overstating Democratic turnout. An unmotivated Democratic voter reading the latest issue of Newsweek may well conclude, "gee, 2010 might not be so bad, I guess I don't need to vote."

Is the New Washington Post Poll "Out of Whack?"

Update - According to Blair Lee with the Gazette of Business and Politics the Washington Post weights it polls according to Census data and not actual turnout - as a result the poll is overstating turnout among key constituent groups and heavily Democratic Baltimore City.

Original Post with revised analysis based on material provided by the Washington Post:

Much news has been made in the past few days since the Washington Post released a new poll in the Maryland governors race that showed incumbent Democrat Martin O'Malley opening a huge 11 point lead over former governor Bob Ehrlich. No other poll has found this race to be anything but a dead heat and news that the O'Malley campaign is bringing President Obama to the state certainly suggests that this is a close race.

When asked about the new poll, Ehrlich described it as "out of whack." In a story about Ehrlich's comments, Washington Post reporter John Wagner noted that Ehrlich did not identify any problems with the polls methodology. Having read through the data made available by the Post I can see no obvious methodological problems, but I am left wondering about the Post's turnout assumptions, like some recent polls in California I think the Post may be overstating likely Democratic turnout.

The Post does not provide a breakdown of party ID among likely voters, but polling director Jon Cohen provided that data to me today. Party ID was 50% Dem, 26% Rep, and 23% Ind. The Post data also lacks cross tabs showing the level of support for each candidate by party ID among likely voters, Cohen provided that as well - O'Malley is winning 87% of Dems, 5% of Reps, and 31% of Inds, Ehrlich wins 10% of Dems, 93% of Reps, and 54% of Inds.

This is crucial information and suggests that the Washington Post is overstating Democratic turnout and understating Republican turnout in 2010.  Consider - the 2004 Maryland turnout (a decent Republican year)was 48% Democrat, 30% Republican, and 22% Independent; the 2008 turnout numbers (an incredible Democratic year) were 51% Democrat, 28% Republican and 21% Independent.

So the Post sees a 2010 electorate that every bit as Democrat as was 2008 and less Republican than either the bad year of 2008 or the good year of 2004. In other words, in a year marked by a tremendous enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans the Post thinks that Democrats will rival their 2008 turnout and Republicans will not even be able to reach their's - this is just not a reasonable assumption.

Those differences may seem slight, but based on the cross tab data provided by Jon Cohen it is possible to model the Post's data based on a turnout dynamic like 2004 and 2008. I've done this in Tables One through Four below.

If 2004 turnout numbers are applied to the Post poll (Table One) the results become 50% O'Malley to 45% Ehrlich - a statistical tie in line with all other polls.

Using the 2008 turnout assumptions (Table Four) the results of the poll become 54% O'Malley to 44% Ehrlich - essentially the margin reported by the Post. This leads me to believe that the Post is assuming/modeling a turnout dynamic similar to 2008 - and that seems highly unlikely in the current political environment. This primary season has been marked by historic levels of GOP voter turnout and in key races in VA, NJ, and MA Democratic turnout was well off of the 2008 levels while GOP turnout was steady.

For these reasons I would argue that 2004 is a much more likely scenario - and that would make this a 4 point race and within the margin of error.

The Post poll also found that Ehrlich is winning just 10% of Democrats. That seems low, in the Democratic primary just two weeks ago fully 14% of Democrats voted against O'Malley and for two unknown candidates.  If one assumes that Ehrlich wins 14% of Democrats (a number well below the roughly 22% he won in 2002 and the 15% he won in 2006) the poll results become 51% to 49% (Table Three).

Of course, if Ehrlich did receive 20% of the Democratic vote and the turnout is like 2004 then he's ahead 52% to 48% (Table Five). Even using a 2008 dynamic the race would be tied at 50% to 50% (Table Six).

In short, I suspect that the Washington Post poll actually confirms that the race between Martin O'Malley and Bob Ehrlich is a toss-up. I don't think that the poll is "out of whack" I just think that their turnout assumptions are wrong. Jon Cohen explained to me that the post weights "our adult sample to information we have good reason to believe is true, not an estimate about what a future population (voters might look like." That is of course their right, but it makes far more sense to base turn-out on actual past turnout numbers and not on a simple breakdown of the adult population - in other words a model should be based on actual voters not just all people.

I'd like to thank John Wagner and Jon Cohen for being so willing to speak with me about the poll and for being so accessible.

Stay tuned....

For Democrats, No Relief in Sight

Though the Realclearpolitics average of Generic Ballot questions has shown a decided narrowing between Republicans and Democrats a slew of recent stories suggests that the playing field has far from improved for Democrats. Consider these three tidbits from the last 12 hours:

• The Voter Confidence Index, created by NBC News, is a combination of three questions commonly asked in national polls: the president's job approval rating, the direction of the country, and the generic congressional ballot. A positive VCI is good for the president's party; a negative one is bad. Currently, the VCI shows Obama and the Democratic Party in negative territory, with a -38 VCI average for the month of September. That’s eight points worse than where President Clinton and the Democrats stood in 1994, when Democrats lost 54 seats in the House and eight in the Senate.

• A new Pew poll finds "For the third national election in a row, independent voters may be poised to vote out the party in power. The Republican Party holds a significant edge in preferences for the upcoming congressional election among likely voters, in large part because political independents now favor Republican candidates by about as large a margin as they backed Barack Obama in 2008 and congressional Democratic candidates four years ago.The survey finds that 50% of likely voters say they will vote for the Republican in their district, while 43% favor the Democratic candidate. The GOP’s advantage comes as a result of their 49% to 36% lead among independent and other non-partisan voters.

• In a new poll, GOP pollster Glen Bolger finds Republicans leading the generic congressional ballot, 44% to 39%.  "We looked at the sample in the 66 Democratic INCUMBENT districts that Charlie Cook lists as either toss-up or leaning Democratic at the time of the survey. In that key crosstab of Swing Democratic Incumbent Seats, the Republican lead grows to 49%-31% on the generic ballot. That is a very powerful crosstab that says the wave is coming... Regionally, the Republican wins 47%-39% in the South, 47%-35% in the Midwest, and 46%-36% in the West, while trailing 36%-47% in the Northeast. The Midwest is going to be a killing field for Democrats this year — from western PA through to the Plains, Republicans are going to sweep a LOT of Democrats right out of office."

So collectively,  Democrats are in worse shape on the VCI than in 1994, Independents have shifted to the GOP with the same intensity that they shifted to Democrats in 2006 and 2008, and the GOP enjoys a tremendous lead in the 66 most vulnerable Democratic districts - AND, contrary to claims that the GOP is becoming a regional party the Glen Bolger poll finds the GOP leading everywhere except the Northeast.

In Maryland, O'Malley Hits the the Big 5-0

Democratic turnout on primary day may not have held much good news for Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, but the latest survey from Rasmussen Reports finds O'Malley in new territory - at the 50% mark. This marks the first time since former Governor Robert Ehrlich entered the race that O'Malley has seen his reelect number reach 50%. Since February, O'Malley's level of support has ranged from 49% to 45% and now to 50%. Ehrlich's support has ranged from a low of 43% to it's present high watermark of 47%.

The poll also finds O'Malley with a 51% approval rating - one of the few polls to find a positive approval rating for the Governor. In all, the poll offers considerable good news for O'Malley. His reelect number and his approval rating are each hovering at the 50% mark and very few Marylanders describe themselves as being "undecided."

The poll results offer further evidence that the race will be close, but Ehrlich needs to win over the few remaining undecideds and hope for better turn-out to win this race and last week's primary clearly indicated an enthusiasm gap in Maryland.

Ehrlich Beats Back Tea Party, O'Malley Gets the "Fustero Treatment"

The big news in Maryland so far has got to be the size of Bob Ehrlich's victory over Tea Party and Sarah Palin favorite Brian Murphy. On a night when conservative insurgents scored a dramatic victory in Delaware and battled to a near tie in New Hampshire Bob Ehrlich defeated Brian Murphy 76% to 24%.

On the other side of the ballot, Martin O'Malley has to deal with the unexpected embarassment of losing 14% of the vote to two unknowns with 10% going to J.P. Cusick, a candidate whose entire campaign is based on reforming child support and custody laws. This is like Kathleen Kennedy Townsend losing 20% of the vote to grocery store clerk Robert Fustero in 2002.

Winning 76% to 24% against a known and financed candidate in a year of upsets is far more impressive than winning 86% to 14% over two unknowns with no campaign organization of which to speak.

Worse, the ratio of Democratic turnout compared to Republican turnout is lower than in any recent election and thus far O'Malley is on track to underperform compared to his own performance of 500,000 votes in 2006 and to finish roughly on par with Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's 400,000 in 2002. Though Ehrlich received only 76% of the GOP vote he is on track to receive roughly that same number of votes as 2002 and 2006.

Interesting Turnout Dynamics in Maryland

In 2002, when neither Democrat Kathleen Kennedy Townsend nor Republican Bob Ehrlich faced serious primary threats Townsend received roughly 400,000 votes to Ehrlich's 200,000 - a 2 to 1 margin that closely matched the Democrats' registration advantage. Roughly 100,000 Democrats opted to vote against Townsend in the primary. So there was a 2.5 to 1 turnout advantage among Democrats, but 20% lodged a protest vote against Townsend and she went on to lose the general election.

In 2006, neither Ehrlich or Democratic challenger Martin O'Malley faced any primary challenge. O'Malley received 500,000 votes to Ehrlich's 200,000 - essentially the same 2.5 to 1 turnout in 2002, but the Democratic vote was unified.

In 2010, O'Malley faced no serious challenge and Ehrlich did. So far, there have been 411,000 Democratic votes cast and 255,000 Republican votes. Ehrlich has claimed 76% or 195,000. O'Malley has received 86% or 354,000. Three things stands out - 1) Democratic turnout is barely 1.6 to 1 over Republican, an incredibly low ratio, 2) O'Malley's advantage over Ehrlich is thus less than Townsend's over Ehrlich in 2002, and 3) 14% of Democratic voters have lodged a protest vote against O'Malley.

If these ratios hold then tonight will be a bad night for Martin O'Malley and perhaps indicative of a rough general election to come.

In the 5th Congressional District, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's district, Republicans have nominated newcomer Charles Lollar. In 2008 there were 110,000 Democratic votes cast in the primary and only 28,000 Republican votes - 3.5 to one in a district that is 2 to 1 Democrat. Hoyer won in 2008 75% to 25%. Tonight, there have been 53,000 Democratic votes so far to 25,000 Republican votes - about 2 to 1.  This suggests that even Hoyer may have a race on his hands - though odds are still very much in his favor.

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.

In Maryland the Only Surprise is the Lack of Surprises

With early returns in the AP has called the gubernatorial races for Martin O'Malley and Robert Ehrlich. In the end, insurgent Republican Brian Murphy fizzled. Ehrlich carried 78% of vote in early returns - simply trouncing Murphy. Any suggestions that the result indicates a weakness for Ehrlich are simply wrong. Murphy was a reasonably well financed candidate with a strong organization, and Tea Party backing - Murphy should have cracked 25% or more. Look across the border in Delaware where Christine O'Donnell toppled establishment Republican Mike Castle in that state's Senate primary and you see how well insurgent Republicans are doing this year. Murphy underperformed...

In other news - Republican Andy Harris easily won the nomination for a rematch against Frank Kratovil in the 1st Congressional District and political newcomer Charles Lollar appears destined to challenge Majority Leader Steny Hoyer in Maryland's 5th Congressional District.

Is it Really All about Trust or is the Party Over?

In Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism, Marc Hetherington argues that a decline in  political trust has undermined progressive policy enactment in America since the 1960s. He writes that America has not become more conservative, rather that Republicans have been able to exploit declining levels of trust to gain power.

In chapter 8, under the heading What the Left Should Learn he argues that liberals can reenergize public trust and reinvigorate progressive policy making if they only stopped the reflexive criticisms of the system and started to talk positively about government and the effect of policy. From page 146 and 147 "If progressives provide and alternative vision of government as one that takes care of older Americans, protects the environment, builds highways, and the like, Americans will trust that version of government... Recent Democrats have been too frightened to tell this story."

I cannot help but think that Democrats have been engaged in that exercise since 2006 and certainly since 2008. Democratic leaders like Speaker Pelosi and President Obama have an incredibly positive view of what government can do. President Obama spent his campaign and first 18 months in office trying to change public perception about government - yet the result thus far has been the opposite of what Hetherington predicted. Trust in government has fallen further, expressions of conservativism have risen, preferences for less government and fewer services are at recorded highs.

It seems that we are currently putting Hetherington's theories in Why Trust Matters to the test and thus far they are falling short.

The caveat may be that Democrats attained power by attacking government as helmed by Republicans - so they had to undermine confidence in Republicans to achieve victory, but may well have undermined confidence in government as well. This is a challenge for liberals, how do you simultaneously try to bolster confidence in government while criticizing government as led by Republicans. Can one expect the public to discern the difference between criticizing Republican governance specifically as opposed to American government in general?

This is of course the reality of governing and campaigning in an era of weak party attachment among the mass public. Since the 1960s the electorate has become much less attached to either political party. Data from the American National Election Study show that there has been a marked increase in the share of the electorate that is either Independent or Leaning Independent.

At the same time, the share of the electorate identifying as Strong Partisans has fallen from its highs in the 1950s and early1960s.

Why does the decline in partisanship matter? Because it effects how parties must campaign for office. In an era when partisanship was strong and very few Americans considered themselves to be Independent candidates for office could campaign based on voters positive attachment to their party. Voters were being asked to vote for the Democratic party, for the party's agenda. As relatively few Americans identified as Independent such partisan appeals worked. In the present era, however, neither the Democrats nor Republicans have a sufficient foundation of electoral support to campaign merely based on party attachment. Instead, they must campaign on a platform of rejection of the opposing party and its administration of government. To accomplish this it becomes necessary to undermine public confidence in opposition's governance and this typically, inevitably undermines public confidence in government.

Evidence of these efforts were seen in the Democratic criticisms of President Bush’s handling of the War in Iraq, in calls for a 9/11 Commission, and in response to the government’s response to hurricane Katrina. More recently, Republican criticisms of President Obama’s handling of the gulf oil spill serve the purpose of undermining confidence. Though these efforts at undermining confidence in the other party may offer short-term political gain, they also serve further to erode public confidence in government. Solutions to big problems, such as budget deficits, often seem too risky for either side in this “confidence game” to pursue.

Hetherington treated trust as an independent variable that undermined progressive policy making - in reality trust is a dependent variable resulting from a dramatic decline in mass partisan attachment since the 1960s. Trust is unlikely to rebound unless the American party system rebounds - at present there is little indication that such a rebound is likely to take place in the near future. Though Hetherington, in subsequent research, and other scholars like Alan Abramowitz (see his just released The Disappearing Center) argue that the public has become more partisan in recent years and more attached to party what these scholars have actually found is increased partisanship and polarization among political elites and they have mistakenly attributed that polarization to the mass electorate.

Rather more than one-third of the electorate operates as non-partisan free agents. So each party seeks immediate strategic advantage, but neither can undertake substantial policy reforms as they lack mass-based support. We entered an era that political scientist Walter Dean Burnham defines as the “politics of collision, coalition, and the permanent campaign.” This has created a system of government incapable of addressing the significant challenges before us, which then reinforces distrust and likely further undermines partisan attachment.

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.

Just How Bad Might 2010 Be for Democrats?

A little historical perspective courtesy of Jim Geraghty and Charlie Cook:

Cook Political Report from September 1, 2006: 35 GOP House seats rated as Lean or Toss Up; 9 Democrat House seats rated Lean or Toss Up.

Actual swing in November: 31 Democrat challengers beat GOP incumbents or won open seat races; no GOP challengers beat any Democrat incumbents.

Cook Political Report from September 2, 2010: 73 Democrat-held seats are rated as Lean or Toss Up; 8 GOP House seats are rated Lean or Toss Up.

Candidates for 5th Congressional District Seat Will Answer your Questions Sept. 7

(St. Mary’s City, MD) August 26, 2010—A public forum for candidates seeking party nominations in Maryland’s 5th Congressional District will be held 6:30-8:30 p.m. Tuesday, September 7, at Auerbach Auditorium in St. Mary’s Hall at St. Mary’s College of Maryland. The 5th Congressional District seat is currently represented by Democrat Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader. Three Democrats, including Hoyer, Sylvanus Bent, and Andrew Gall, and four Republicans, Collins Bailey, Chris Chaffee, Charles Lollar, and Chris Robins, will appear on the September 14th primary ballot; all have been invited to attend.

Voters may submit questions to candidates either during the evening's program or in advance by e-mailing questions to arlyons@smcm.edu with Candidate Question in the subject line. Though the forum will be limited to 5th Congressional District candidates, which covers Calvert, Charles and St. Mary’s as well as portions of Prince George’s and Anne Arundel counties, all local candidates are invited to "meet and greet" the public and to offer campaign literature on the grounds of St. Mary’s Hall prior to the forum.

The forum is sponsored by the college’s Center for the Study of Democracy and the St. Mary’s County branch of the NAACP.

The Center for the Study of Democracy was founded as a joint initiative of St. Mary's College of Maryland and its partner institution, Historic St. Mary's City, the site of Maryland's first capital. The Center provides a forum for presentations by government officials, journalists, and scholars, and encourages and supports public participation in political processes. You can learn more about the Center by visiting www.smcm.edu/democracy/ or by following the Center on Facebook www.facebook.com/SMCMDemocracy.

The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination. The St. Mary's County Branch was chartered in January of 1946. You can learn more about the St. Mary’s County branch by visiting http://www.stmarysnaacp.org/.

For forum information, contact arlyons@smcm.edu or 240-895-6432.

For Democrats, A Year of Warning Signs Ignored

I have been arguing for many months that the 2010 midterms would be a devastating election for Democrats - not the typical midterm rout for the president's party but rather a political earthquake. The first real rumbles of the earthquake began in the Summer of 2009 when town hall protests over health reform became front page news. At the time, many in the traditional press and within the Democratic party leadership dismissed the protests and the protesters as the rantings of a vocal, uninformed, angry minority with little national significance.

Then came the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia.

New Jersey is a reliably Democratic state that voted overwhelmingly for President Obama, the President and Vice President nearly took up residence in the state to help incumbent John Corzine, but he lost to Chris Christie. No matter, the press and party officials declared - it was a local race and Corzine was a bad candidate - no national significance.

Virginia was once a reliably Republican state and hadn't voted for a Democrat for President since Johnson in 1964. Barack Obama won it by a comfortable margin in 2008 and suddenly Virginia was declared a swing state. In 2009 Creigh Deeds won the Democratic nomination for governor against Republican Bob McDonnell. Deeds was an experienced state senator and he ran a tough campaign for the nomination, defeating Terryy McAuliffe, former chair of the Democratic National Committee and Virginia congressman Brian Moran. Deeds won nearly 50% of the vote in that three way race - an impressive feat. In the general election, Deeds ran as a moderate and sought to portray McDonnell as an extremist, 1950s throwback, based entirely on a graduate thesis that McDonnell had written in college.  McDonnell won 59% to 41%.  No matter, the press and party officials declared - it was a local race and Deeds was a bad candidate - no national significance.

The health care debate continued into the fall and on Christmas Eve the US Senate passed a health reform bill in a strict party line vote. At the time, Pollster.com showed that the public opposed the bill by a 50% to 40% margin.  No problem, thought Democratic party leadership, people will eventually support the bill.

Then came Massachusetts... seemingly out of nowhere a little known Republican state senator by the name of Scott Brown defeated the Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakely to fill the U.S. Senate vacated by the late Ted Kennedy.  Coakley was an experience Massachusetts politician. She was the District Attorney of Middlesex County and in her 2006 campaign to become Attorney General she carried 73% of the vote. In the 2009 primary for the Democratic Senatorial nomination she topped a four person race receiving 47% of the vote. As the general election race tightened, President Obama came to the state to campaign for Coakley, but she lost to Brown 52% to 47%. No matter, the press and party officials declared - it was a local race and Coakley was a bad candidate, prone to gaffes - no national significance.

In late March, the Senate passed the House version of health reform - using the reconciliation process to circumvent an expected Republican filibuster. At the time, the public opposed the bill by a margin of 50% to 42%. No problem, thought Democratic party leadership, people will eventually support the bill.

During all of  this time - from Summer 2009 to late Spring 2010 - there were increasing indications that things were getting bad for Democrats. Charlie Cook's Political Report and Stuart Rothenberg's  Rothenberg Report were regularly updating House and Senate race rankings and an ominous trend was evident. With each new update, more Democratic House seats were in play and Republican seats seemed safer and safer. Then Democratic Senate seats were moving to the danger column. At the same time, and in no way unrelated, President Obama's approval rating was falling. In the Summer of 2009 the President's approval rating was hovering around 52% and his disapproval was about 40-42%. By the late Spring of 2010 he was even-up at 47%.
 
In April 2010, I wrote about a new Pew Poll that suggested a major shake-up was coming in November. I wrote then "2010 has the potential to be a wave election that will surpass 2006 and 2008 and rival 1958, 1974, and 1994." The Rothenberg Report listed 79 House seats in play and 68 were held by Democrats. It was in April that I first suggested that a GOP Senate was a real possibility. In May, I warned that low Democratic turn-out in primary elections was an ominous sign of things to come. In late June, after Republicans gained a rare, but now common, lead on the so-called generic ballot I wrote that an "Electoral Bloodbath" was coming. I noted that "Senate races that should be safe bets for Democrats in Washington, California, Oregon, and Illinois are all competitive or tied." Just this month I predicted that a GOP wave was coming and argued that a gain of 70 House seats and a Senate majority are both distinct possibilities. At that time, the Rothenberg Report listed 88 competitive Seats and 76 were held by Democrats. Rothenberg was also predicting GOP Senate gains of 5-8 seats.
 
Today, Al Hunt has declared the Democrat's Senate majority "In Danger." Charlie Cook has officially put the number of possible GOP House gains in a range that would mean reclaiming the House and recently offered this tidbit "there are a whopping 32 Democratic incumbents who have trailed GOP challengers in at least one public or private poll. At this point in 2006, there were only 11 Republican incumbents who trailed in at least one public or private poll, yet 22 went on to lose." And Mark Halperin, the Senior Political Analyst for Time magazine, Time.com, and MSNBC, recently predicted "Republicans are in a position to pick up as many as 60 seats." Meanwhile, the President's approval rating is in negative territory, the GOP continues to lead the generic ballot, and Pollster.com shows that opposition to health reform is at roughly the same level it was in December 2009 and March 2010.

For nearly a year, Democrats ignored the significant signs of a restless and unhappy electorate. Warnings in VA, NJ, and MA were dismissed. Legislation that was overwhelmingly opposed was passed  under less than admirable circumstances. The party now stands less than 70 days from the 2010 midterms and they are poised to pay a political price most closely aligned with the dramatic elections of 1974, 1994, and 2006. Don't be surprised if in January 2011 Republicans find themselves in control of the House, the Senate,  a majority of the Governorships, and the State Legislatures - a complete reversal from today and from what many were predicting the day after the election in 2008.

Democrats, and many analysts, made a significant error after the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. They became convinced that Americans were gravitating to the Democratic party and they assumed that the new allegiances were secure and not fleeting. It was an assumption based on an outdated understanding of mass based party attachment. A growing number of Americans no longer align themselves with party long term. They are perfectly comfortable voting Democrat in 2008 and Republican in 2010. (Republicans made a similar error after 2002 and 2004 - and may well again after 2010).

Even now, there is little indication that Democrats fully appreciate what is happening. Much as they thought to make excuses for the losses in NJ, VA, and MA they have sought to explain opposition to health reform, the President, and the party's overall agenda by looking outward rather than inward. As such, many defenders of the faith have taken to declaring that opposition to the party's agenda is driven by fear, hatred, and racism. The flaw in this argument being that Democrats are in dire straits because they have lost folks who previously voted for them - so for Democrats to be correct then these voters must have overcome their intolerant and racist tendencies in 2006 and 2008 but now Republicans or Tea Partiers have managed to fan the smoldering flames. It's hard to imagine how the Democrats hope to win over voters after spending months defaming them. Worse, if Democrats create a caricature of their opposition they will never take seriously the lessons of any electoral defeat and learn no lessons from the loss. Gallup reports today that Republicans have taken an historic 10 point lead on the generic ballot - bigotry and nativism are simply insufficient explanations of such significant developments.

Democrats thought that they had a foundation of popular support on which to build their policy priorities - they were wrong. They are now convinced that opposition to their agenda is based on economic anxiety and intolerance. Those who are desperately trying to paint this election as being driven by the economy are simply looking for convenient excuses and failing to recognize the substantial changes in the American political system and the growing disconnect between the electorate and the elected in recent decades.  These are crucial miscalculations. And at this late date, there is really nothing they can do to correct their errors or stop the coming wave.

Newsweek Poll Creates more Questions than it Answers

Please see my latest post, regarding the New Newsweek poll.

Update: According to Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com Princeton Survey Research provided him with the data on the missing cases that were not included in the offical release. With that data in hand, Blumenthal was able to replicate the survey results and the 45% to 45% tie. My original post was intended to criticize Newsweek for releasing data that did not allow for replication of its reported results. I stand by the criticism. I would add as well that given the impact that the inclusion of the 5% of unaffiliated voters had on the final results they should have been included in the final release. That 5% overwhelmingly favored Democrats - a fact that should have been addressed - or given the small size of the sub sample discarded.

Original Post:
In a front page story on their website Newsweek proclaims "NEWSWEEK Poll: Democrats May Not Be Headed for Midterm Bloodbath." According to Newsweek, the poll's results suggest  "the party is better off this year than Republicans were in 2006, when the GOP lost 30 House seats, and than the Democrats were in 1994, when they lost 52 House seats."

What did the poll find?  That President Obama's approval rating is at 47% and Democrats and Republicans are tied at 45% on the generic ballot. Compared to other recent polls the Newsweek survey does show the Democrats to be in far better shape - problem is, the Newsweek poll actually confirms what other polls have found and should give Democrats great cause for concern.

Newsweek reports that Republicans and Democrats are tied at 45%. The folks at Newsweek were kind enough to break down that support by party - see Table One.

 
 
According to Table One, Democrats are winning 90% of the Democratic vote and Republicans are winning 94% of the Republican vote - Independents favor Republicans by a 45% to 33% margin - resulting a 45% to 45% tie...
 
Something seem fishy? It should. Consider the breakdown by party - 284 Republicans, 280 Democrats and 247 Independents - that's 33% Republican, 33% Democrat and 29% Independent (a few folks must have reported no party).  It is mathematically impossible for Democrats and Republicans to be tied at 45% if each party is receiving similar shares of their own party vote, but Independents prefer Republicans by 12 points.  If Democrats are winning a few less of their own votes as compared to the GOP, and they are losing Independents - they simply cannot be tied.
 
If you apply the actual sample size to the reported results then you end up with what is shown in Table Two.
   

The two right columns show the actual share of the respondents who supported each party - if one looks at the actual sample then Republicans are leading the generic ballot by a margin of 46% to 40%. Contrary to the headline and tenor of the story, a 6 point lead for the GOP among registered voters would signal a coming bloodbath. It would also be consistent with most recent polls.

Newsweek includes a disclaimer that reads: Data are weighted so that sample demographics match Census Current Population Survey parameters for gender, age, education, race, region, and population density.

 
Notice that no mention is made of party identification - but the only way to arrive at a 45% to 45% split is by significantly altering the party identification of the survey respondents. I do this in Table Three.
 
 

                                *** See Update

In order to get to a 45% to 45% race, one must change the sample such that 37% are Democrats, 30% are Republicans and 33% are Independents. There are few other combinations that get you to 45% but all involve a significant increase in Democrats and considerable decrease in Republicans. Newsweek offers no explanation for such a dramatic change to its own sample, but there is no reasonable argument for such a party breakdown (According to data provided to Mark Blumenthal by Princeton Survey Research the 5% of unaffiliated respondents supported Democrats by a 40% to 29% margin - this data was not included in the official release).
 
In the 2008 election Democrats were 39% of the electorate, Republicans 32% and Independents 29% - no one believes that Democrats will hold a similar advantage in 2010. In 2004, the last good Republican year, Democrats and Republicans were 37% of the electorate and Independents were 26% - roughly equal to the actual Newsweek sample.

If you want to become truly confused, look to the last page of the survey where Princeton Survey Research (Newsweek's pollster of choice) reports the results of the following question "In politics TODAY, do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or Independent?" They report that respondents were 32% Republican, 36% Democrat, and 27% Independent - so the last page provides a partisan breakdown that does not match the breakdown reported on the first page. Worse - if you plug the reported breakdown into Table Two or Table Three Republicans still lead by 47.4% to 42.6% - the poll is pure nonsense.

Now it's possible that after weighting for gender, age, education, race, region, and population density the partisan ID of the sample would change - but if one reasonably assumes that the party ID shown on the final page of the survey is the weighted breakdown then the poll's results still cannot be explained. Newsweek should release fully the effects of it's weighting so that a true assessment of its poll can be made.
 
So Newsweek may be reporting that all is well and that 2010 will not be a bloodbath, but they had to do some serious data weighting to arrive at that conclusion. Something that Newsweek has done before and that I wrote about in National Review Online in 2008. When I "corrected" Newsweek's data back in 2008 I showed that their poll reporting an 11 point lead for Barack Obama over John McCain was more like a 4 point lead - guess who was closer to the actual election result (hint: It wasn't Newsweek then and I do not think that it's Newsweek now).

In Maryland, Comparing Ehrlich/Murphy to Townsend/ Fustero is Ridiculous

A new poll conducted by Center Maryland/OpinionWorks found what most analysts had long expected - that former Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich is in no danger of losing the GOP nomination to newcomer Brian Murphy. The survey of 600 likely General Election voters (and a much smaller sample of 170 Rebublicans) found that Ehrlich leads Murphy 75% to 13% with only 11% undecided.

The poll is devastating news for the Murphy campaign. It shows that after two weeks of generally positive news, a high profile interview on a national cable news station, multiple interviews on statewide television, talk radio, and newspapers- all the result of a surprise endorsement by Sarah Palin - Murphy has barely topped 10%. One cannot help but wonder - how low was his support before the last two weeks?

Center Maryland is to be commended for conducting this poll, it fills a much needed void in the Maryland race, but the write-up on the poll contained a very poor analogy.  It their write-up, Center Maryland states

But with 11 percent of likely Republican primary voters still undecided, it’s possible that Murphy could break through Maryland’s “Fustero line” – the 20 percent threshold that political observers suggest might represent a weakness in Ehrlich’s hold over his party base.
For many political observers, the performance of established gubernatorial candidates in primary elections against unknown or relatively unknown challengers marks an opportunity to assess how well those candidates will hold their base in general elections. Eight years ago, when then-Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend lost 20 percent of the Democratic primary vote to an unknown retired grocery clerk named Robert Fustero, many analysts quickly suggested that she was having trouble energizing core Democratic constituencies. Townsend ultimately lost to Ehrlich two months later. Similar questions might be raised about Ehrlich if Murphy were to exceed 20 percent of the vote in the September Republican primary.

This is simply a ridiculous analogy and no serious observer of Maryland politics should ever compare the Ehrlich/Murphy race to the Townsend/Fustero primary. In 2002, the campaign of Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was deeply embarrassed when David Fustero managed to win 20% of the primary vote. Fustero had no organized campaign of which to speak, virtually no money, and was all but ignored by the press. As the primary approached he was campaigning via letters to the editor. Fustero had spent less than $1,000 on his candidacy, compared to Townsend's $2.3 million. Fustero should not have received 5% of the vote, let alone 20%. It's safe to say that few who voted for Fustero had ever seen his name before reading it on the ballot - it was a pure protest vote against Townsend.

Murphy, on the other had, is an organized and reasonably well funded candidate. He has respectable name recognition, has run a rather good insurgent campaign and he's received plenty of press coverage. He has also raised over $200,000 and spent $170,000 on his campaign. It may well be much less than the $1.3 million that Ehrlich has spent, but there is a sizable difference between $1,000 and $170,000.

The question should not be whether breaking the "Fustero Line" of 20% indicates weakness by Ehrlich, the real question should be how is Murphy not doing any better than 13%? Reaching 20% on primary day will not signal dissatisfaction with Ehrlich, rather it would mark a low bar of achievement for Murphy's campaign. Spinning it any other way is just nonsense.

Poll: Maryland Voters Seem Comfortable with O'Malley and Ehrlich

A new poll confirms that the race for governor in Maryland continues to be tight. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey finds Martin O'Malley and Bob Ehrlich tied at 47% to 47%. The race has been tied all summer and nothing much has changed.  Recent campaign fundraising reports show that Martin O'Malley has a $4.7 million cash advantage over Ehrlich - and these numbers suggest that O'Malley will need that advantage to turn out the vote. Ehrlich needs to use these numbers to convince potential donors that he can in fact win this race - so long as he has the money to compete.

There are several truly interesting findings in the latest poll and as always they offer areas of hope and concern for both campaigns. An equal share of voters consider each candidate to be "mainstream." This should worry team O'Malley - in a state that is 2 to 1 Democrat one would expect voters to see the Republican as less mainstream. Likewise, the candidates have equal favorability ratings. The O'Malley camp wants to convince voters that the Ehrlich years were not good for the state - but this finding suggests that voters have a rather positive recollection of Ehrlich's tenure.

Likewise, 77% of respondents describe Ehrlich as Somewhat or Very Conservative. For O'Malley, 25% describe him as Moderate and 55% describe him as Somewhat or Very Liberal. These numbers tell us something important about the Maryland electorate - commentators obsess over the Democrats' 2 to 1 voter registration advantage in the state portraying Democratic voters as a monolithic group. This is simply wrong. While the Democratic Party in much of the nation has slowly purged itself of the social conservatives who once called it home there is still a strong element of those old school Democrats in Maryland - call them "Boll Weevils" or "Blue Dogs" they are Democrats by tradition, even though the party is no longer aligned with many of their core beliefs. This is why Republicans win in counties where registered Democrats outnumber them. In only 7 of Maryland's 24 counties (Baltimore City is, in effect, a county) do Republicans hold an advantage - and it's often a slim one (Harford only recently switched from plurality Democrat to plurality Republican). Yet Ehrlich carried 21 counties in 2002 and 20 counties in 2006.

A look at Maryland's Senate makes that clear - the sea of red are legislative districts represented in the state Senate by Republicans - yet most of the counties included in these districts are majority Democrat.

O'Malley should should be a bit concerned that he is tied with a candidate that 3/4 of Marylanders consider to be Somewhat or Very Conservative - it may suggest that that many voters like that about Ehrlich - or that in 2010 many voters are looking for a conservative candidate.

O'Malley can take heart in the fact that his job approval rating has finally topped 50% - reaching 54% in this poll. President Obama has a 56% approval rating, so the president is unlikely to be a drag on the O'Malley ticket.

All things considered, I would give an edge to Bob Ehrlich based on the favorability and mainstream ratings, but mostly based on the last two questions in the survey:

9* Generally speaking, how would you rate the U.S. economy these days? Excellent, good, fair, or poor?

•  1% Excellent
• 7% Good
• 37% Fair
• 55% Poor
• 1% Not sure

10* Are economic conditions in the country getting better or worse?

• 31% Better
• 41% Worse
• 23% About the same
• 4% Not Sure

I would not want to be associated with the party in power heading into an election in which 55% of potential voters rate the economy as poor and 41% say it is getting worse. That's a strong tide for O'Malley to fight.

If Ehrlich can get his fundraising in order this may well become his race to lose.

* Image courtesy of RealClearPolitics.com

Democrats' "Extreme" Strategy May not Work

Facing awful polling numbers, an unpopular President, and a dreadful economy Democrats have sought to change the narrative of the 2010 midterms by portraying Republican candidates as being "outside the mainstream" and "extreme." This is hardly a new strategy and Republicans have often sought to define Democratic candidates as too liberal for the American mainstream.

There is mounting evidence, however, that the strategy will have little effect on the outcome of the 2010 election. With the President sinking to new lows in public approval, seemingly everyday, and the Democratic led Congress reaching all time lows of public approval it's increasing hard for the Democrats to define their opponents as extreme.

The Hotline is reporting today that "A prominent Democratic pollster is circulating a survey that shows George W. Bush is 6 points more popular than President Obama in "Frontline" districts -- seats held by Democrats that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sees as most vulnerable to Republican takeover. That Bush is more popular than Obama in Democratic-held seats is cause for outright fear."

You read that correctly, President Bush - who left office with a 35% approval rating - is more popular than Barack Obama in key congressional districts currently held by Democrats - that is devastating.

It is also clear that the Republicans are going to push back hard against the extremist label. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has released a very hard hitting ad suggesting that Republicans are not the extremists in this election.



Adding his voice to the chorus of bad news, Charlie Cook has just released a revised estimate of the House 2010 outlook:

With today’s ratings changes in 10 House districts, The Cook Political Report is now raising its House forecast from a Republican net gain of between 32 and 42 seats to a gain of between 35 and 45 seats, with the odds of an outcome larger than that range greater than the odds of a lesser outcome. A turnover of 39 seats would tip majority status into Republican hands. At this point, only 214 House seats are Solid, Likely or Lean Democratic, while 181 seats are Solid, Likely or Lean Republican, and 40 seats are in the Toss Up column. While this would imply an advantage for Democrats, given the continuous erosion we have seen in dozens of contests so far this cycle, races shifting from Solid and Likely Democrat to Lean Democratic and Toss Up, we would be surprised if there was not more movement over the 78 days from now until Election Day.

There are barely 80 days to go and Democrats still have not found a narrative that works for them - and they are running out of time.

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.

Is Ehrlich Debate Challenge a Smoke Screen?

Update III: And now it makes sense - Ehrlich raised $3.2 million, but only has $2 million in the bank. So O'Malley has a tremendous cash advantage. No wonder Ehrlich wanted to change the story.

Update II: The Ehrlich camp is reporting that they raised $3.2 million - essentially on par with what the O'Malley camp raised during the same period. There is no doubt that O'Malley will have raise more cash - in total - but Ehrlich will have more than enough to run a competitive race. I'm not sure why they waited until Friday to release this data.  I assume that they worried about comparisons between Ehrlich's cash on hand and O'Malley's. 

Update: Julie Bykowicz is reporting at the Baltimore Sun that team Ehrlich is going to wait until tomorrow to release their numbers. To me, this is further evidence that the numbers will be weak and the debate challenge was a smoke screen. It is a tried and true tactic in politics to issue bad or otherwise unflattering news on a Friday so that it will be lost in a weekend full family activities and other real life distractions.

Seemingly out of the blue, and one month before the nominating primary, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Ehrlich has issued a pretty detailed debate challenge to his likely Democratic opponent, Governor Martin O'Malley.

The general election is 3 months away and the race is pretty much tied - why issue a debate challenge now?  Call be suspicious but I have to wonder if Ehrlich is trying to change the storyline and there are three possible stories that he's trying to quash:

1. He wants people to stop talking about Brian Murphy. His rival for the GOP nomination has been receiving a great deal of free press following his surprise endorsement from Sarah Palin. Murphy has been all over the pages of the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun and has landed interviews on local TV and radio as well as the Fox Business channel.
2. O'Malley just announced that he has a campaign war chest loaded with $6.7 million - a hefty sum heading into the campaign and a number that may dampen enthusiasm among Ehrlich supporters.
3. Speaking of fundraising, Ehrlich still has not released his current fundraising totals. O'Malley released his yesterday (so that he could brag about the impressive haul) but the Ehrlich camp seems to be waiting. I find it odd that they would issue a debate challenge on the same day they intend to release their fundraising totals - unless those totals are less than impressive. Ehrlich wanted to raise $3 million, if he came in under that number the press spin would be very negative and it would make Ehrlich appear weak against the fundraising prowess of O'Malley.

I suspect Ehrlich issued the debate challenge to grab back some headlines, but wait until his campaign releases their fundraising totals. If those numbers are below $3 million, then we'll know exactly why he issued the challenge - distraction.

With Palin Endorsement is Murphy a "Mama Grizzly"?

Sarah Palin waded into Maryland politics last week when she released a short statement endorsing Brian Murphy in the Republican gubernatorial primary. Palin said Murphy is "a pro-life, pro-second amendment, commonsense conservative and a firm believer in the free market and the cause for energy independence. Brian has the private sector experience that is so lacking in government today. He knows how to incentivize industry to get our economy moving again." Murphy, a little known 33 year old, is fighting an uphill battle against the well known and well financed former governor Robert Ehrlich.

Though some are quick to dismiss the impact of Palin's endorsement, it is worth noting that Palin's track record so far this election cycle has been pretty good. And for Murphy, the endorsement provided two things that he desperately needed - free advertising and better name recognition. CNN,the New York Times, the Baltimore Sun, and the Washington Post have all committed new ink to the Murphy campaign. Murphy even landed an interview on the Fox Business channel and the endorsement was covered by all the local news stations. In the near term, this endorsement will help Murphy, but it is unlikely that Palin will come to the state and campaign for him and equally unlikely that there will be a long term effect.

As for the impact of her endorsement on Robert Ehrlich's campaign - I think that Tom Schaller got it mostly right in the Baltimore Sun: "Mr. Ehrlich said the snub didn't matter, but he knows better and ought to be giddy. Ms. Palin would have done far more harm to his candidacy by endorsing him, and if anything she gave Mr. Ehrlich the opportunity to polish his preferred image as a non-ideological pragmatist."

Come the general election, Governor Martin O'Malley will likely claim that Bob Ehrlich is a dangerous, right-wing conservative, out of step with Maryland voters. Ehrlich can respond by reminding voters (the majority of whom will be Democrats) that he was too moderate for Sarah Palin.

Liberal commentators like Schaller are too quick to dismiss Palin and her impact on politics - this is a mistake. Palin has had a tremendous effect on national politics since being plucked from obscurity in 2008. But her brand of conservatism is simply a poor fit with Maryland, a state that has sent only three Republican governors to Annapolis since 1950 and each - Theodore McKeldin, Spiro "Ted" Agnew, and Ehrlich - was a moderate Republican with significant bi-partisan appeal (yes, even Agnew). Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 2 to 1 margin in Maryland and although many Maryland Democrats are of the conservative "Blue Dog" variety they are not Republicans. Any statewide Republican candidate needs to win about 25% of the Democratic vote - an endorsement from Sarah Palin is not an effective strategy to achieve that mark.

Brian Murphy should enjoy the exposure that Palin's endorsement has afforded him, and his time in Maryland politics may yet come, but not this year and not in this race. In the end, Palin's endorsement of Murphy will have roughly the same impact on the campaign as the economic stimulus bill signed by President Obama last year had on the economy - the effect will near-term, limited, and mostly inconsequential - other than to boost the political fortunes of his opponents.