The Problem is Collective Cowardice, not Collective Bargaining

In a report issued last year, the Pew center determined that there was a $1 trillion gap "at the end of fiscal year 2008 between the $2.35 trillion states had set aside to pay for employees’ retirement benefits and the $3.35 trillion price tag of those promises." Since then that gap has only grown and is estimated to now be closer to $2 trillion.

The report continued "In 2000, just over half the states had fully funded pension systems. By 2006, that number had shrunk to six states. By 2008, only four—Florida, New York, Washington and Wisconsin—could make that claim. In eight states—Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and West Virginia—more than one-third of the total pension liability was unfunded. Two states—Illinois and Kansas—had less than 60 percent of the necessary assets on hand."

In Connecticut, the state government has $9.35 billion in assets in its pension fund, but $21.1 billion in obligations. In Maryland, the state pension and retiree health health benefit system is underfunded to the tune of $35 billion. In New Jersey, the state's pensions are underfunded to the tune of $54 billion.

The impact of these pension obligations have come to head recently in Wisconsin where Governor Scott Walker has introduced legislation to increase state employee contributions to their health care and pension programs. In Maryland, Governor O'Malley has proposed changes to the state's pension system as well - essentially telling state employees that they can either pay more to receive current benefit levels, or pay current amounts and receive less. New employees would simply face greater costs to fund their beneifits, and receive less than under the current system.

Indiana, New Jersey, New York and myriad other states are attempting to deal with these unfunded obligations - but in Wisconsin, Governor Walker has gone a step farther. In addition proposing that public employees contribute more toward their benefits, he is proposing to eliminate the right of public employees to engage in collective bargaining for non-wage benefits. He argues that this must be done to allow the state and local governments restore fiscal order.

The idea that the budget troubles in states like WI, NJ, NY and CA (or, well, everywhere) are the result of public sector unions and collective bargaining is ridiculous. Certainly states face tremendous deficits owing to the legacy costs of retiree pensions and health - but the fault does not lie with the unions, it rest solely with the governments that made the deals then chose to not fund them (or that chose to invest them, ignoring the risks of a down market).

States agreed to the retiree benefits, wages, and health benefits, states agreed to wage increases, states made promises to their workers and then chose to not fund those promises. Doing so during tight times would have meant tax increases, program cuts, or both. Instead state goverments, governors and legislators, promised the moon and stars to everyone - great benefits for state employees, low taxes and public services for the taxpayers.

Now, the bills are coming due. States are facing the harsh reality of their unfunded obligations and realizing they have run out of options. And the magnitude of the problem has grown to the point where there are no easy solutions. Increasing taxes to close the gaps would require significant tax increases, cutting programs or benefits would require dramatic cuts - the only real option is a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. Promised benefits will need to be curtailed, Americans who have enjoyed the services provided by government will now have to start paying off the debt incurred by habitually underfunding them.

But even if pensions and benefits are cut, even if taxes need to be raised - curtailing or eliminating collective bargaining rights accomplishes little. We have not come to this point because unions demanded too much, we're here because policymakers made promises they never paid for.

At the federal level we see the same issue with the looming funding crises for Social Security and Medicare, the problems stem from promises made that we chose to not fund. The Social Security unfunded liability, in other words, what government has promised compared to what we have committed to fund, is projected to be $17.5 trillion. For Medicare, the unfunded obligation is greater than $80 trillion. Social Security will begin to pay out in benefits more than it takes in this year. Medicare faces a solvency crisis in about 6 years.
 
The unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare are no more the fault of workers and retirees than are the unfunded state pensions - they simply reflect promises made that have not been funded. It's a situation not unlike the decision to authorize wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at an annual cost of $200 billion while simultaneously reducing government revenue via tax reductions.
 
States face $2 trillion in unfunded obligations, the federal government tens of trillions, our current federal deficit is $1.6 trillion in a $3.7 trillion budget, our accumulated national debt stands at $14 trillion, and our interest payments on that debt are set to soar.
 
We cannot tax our way out of debt, we cannot cut our way out of debt, we cannot grow our way out of debt - the magnitude of the problem demands a combination of painful cuts and tax increases in the near term, coupled with reforms and ultimately reductions in entitlement programs (or, at the state level, retiree benefits) long term. Had we been more proactive and begun to deal with these problems sooner, it would have been less painful. Had we promised less, or actually funded the promises we made we would not be where we are... but we didn't, and we are.

How likely are we to make the tough decisions that are now required? At the federal level a very reasonable proposal from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility has already been rejected by Congress and the President that created the commission. Instead, Congress and the President agreed to extend the Bush era tax rates at a cost of $550 billion.

In the states, Republican governors like Chris Christie in New Jersey or Scott Walker in Wisconsin speak of fiscal discipline and budget cuts, all while cutting taxes and decreasing revenue. In Illinois, a Democratic legislature and governor raised income taxes by 66% to close a budget gap, but on the spending side merely restricted spending growth to 2% - a rate greater than the inflation rate. My award for political courage and common sense goes to Connecticut governor Daniel Malloy who has proposed solving his state's budget crisis with $1.8 billion in spending cuts and $1.5 billion in tax increases - neither Democrats nor Republicans are happy with his plan, which means it must be a pretty responsible and balanced plan. In Maryland, Governor O'Malley signed tax increases into law in 2007 and since then has submitted budget cuts totaling $6.6 billion, and has begun pension reform - other states need to follow the lead of Malloy and O'Malley.
 
In the end, the problem is not collective bargaining, the problem is a collective cowardice on the part of those who made easy promises and avoided tough decisions - and ultimately the collective willingness of the American public to believe that no bill would ever come due for all that we've enjoyed.

For Maryland, a Chance to Lead on Same Sex Marriage

Update 2: The Baltimore Sun is reporting "Sen. Katherine Klausmeier said today that she has decided to vote in favor of same-sex marriage..." Sen. Joan Carter Conway, Baltimore Democrat has  emerged as the crucial 24th vote.


Update: Democrat Sen. Edward Kasemeyer (Baltimore and Howard counties) is now a yes. According to the Washington Post "With Kasemeyer's support, 22 senators have now pledged to vote for the same-sex marriage bill, which needs 24 votes for passage. A 23rd senator, Joan Carter Conway (D-Baltimore), has said she will vote for the bill if she believes it will pass."

Same-sex marriage proponents appeared poised to score a significant victory in Maryland as the state Senate inches closer to approving a bill, SB 116, that would redefine marriage as being between two individuals as opposed to being between one man and one woman. The bill needs 24 votes in the state Senate and presently enjoys 22 committed supporters and 5 Senators who are considering supporting the measure.  

In the landmark Loving v Virginia case, which overturned interracial marriage bans, the Supreme Court ruled "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law"

The federal government and most states are well behind the curve on this issue - Maryland has a chance to lead on protecting this "basic civil right.".

Here is the list of Supporters and Opponents and Undecideds:   

No public position/Undecided   

Sen. John Astle, Anne Arundel County Democrat
Sen. Joan Carter Conway, Baltimore Democrat
Sen. Ulysses Currie, Prince George's County Democrat
Sen. Katherine Klausmeier, Baltimore County Democrat
Sen. James Rosapepe, Prince George's County Democrat

For

Sen. James Brochin, Baltimore County Democrat
Sen. Bill Ferguson, Baltimore Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Jennie Forehand, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Brian Frosh, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Rob Garagiola, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Lisa Gladden, Baltimore Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Verna Jones, Baltimore Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Edward Kasemeyer, Baltimore and Howard counties Democrat
Sen. Delores Kelley, Baltimore County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Nancy King, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Allan H. Kittleman, Howard County Republican
Sen. Katherine Klausmeier, Baltimore County Democrat
Sen. Richard Madaleno, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Roger Manno, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Nathaniel McFadden, Baltimore Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Karen Montgomery, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Paul Pinsky, Prince George's County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Catherine E. Pugh, Baltimore Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Victor Ramirez, Prince George's County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Jamie Raskin, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. James Robey, Howard County Democrat
Sen. Ronald Young, Frederick County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Bobby Zirkin, Baltimore County Democrat (sponsor)

Against
Sen. Joanne Benson, Prince George's County Democrat
Sen. David Brinkley, Carroll and Frederick counties Republican
Sen. Richard Colburn, Eastern Shore Republican
Sen. James DeGrange, Anne Arundel County Democrat
Sen. Roy Dyson, Southern Maryland Democrat
Sen. George Edwards, Western Maryland Republican
Sen. Joseph Getty, Baltimore and Carroll counties Republican
Sen. Barry Glassman, Harford County Republican
Sen. Nancy Jacobs, Harford and Cecil counties Republican
Sen. J.B. Jennings, Baltimore and Harford counties Republican
Sen. James Mathias, Eastern Shore Democrat
Sen. Thomas Middleton, Charles County Democrat
Sen. Thomas V. Mike Miller, Prince George's and Calvert counties Democrat
Sen. C. Anthony Muse, Prince George's County Democrat
Sen. Douglas J.J. Peters, Prince George's County Democrat
Sen. E.J. Pipkin, Eastern Shore Republican
Sen. Edward Reilly, Anne Arundel County Republican
Sen. Christopher Shank, Washington County Republican
Sen. Bryan Simonaire, Anne Arundel County Republican
Sen. Norman Stone, Baltimore County Democrat  

At present, only five states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriages to be performed within their states. Three other states, Maryland included, recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdiction. Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticutt, and DC are the only jurisdictions to have legalized
same sex marriage via legislation. In Iowa and Massachusetts state courts ordered the legalization of same sex marriage. 

In 31 states, legalization has been put to the voters via referendum and in each state, the voters have rejected it. 

It's an historical coincidence that by 1940, 31 out of 48 states had banned interracial marriage in some form. Gradually, as attitudes began to change 15 of the states overturned their laws - including Maryland, but Maryland waited until 1967, the same year that the Supreme Court would eventually declare bans on  interracial marriage.

Maryland has a chance to make a statement, Maryland has a chance to lead - voters have a chance to tell their representatives that equality knows no caveats. 

Find your state Senator's contact information here.

New Census Data Should be a Wake-up Call to Maryland GOP

Want to better understand Martin O'Malley's 14 point victory margin over Republican and former Governor Bob Ehrlich in Maryland? Look no farther than the just release Census data for Maryland - all of Maryland's population growth over the past decade has been among racial and ethnic minorities. In 2000, non-Hispanic whites were 65% of the state's population. In 2010, that has fallen to below 55%. All told, that state has welcomed 477,000 new residents, a 9% increase in the past decade. But the population of non-Hispanic whites has declined by 3.9% while the Hispanic population more than doubled, the Asian population increased by 51% and the African American population by 14%.
These numbers should serve as wake-up call for the Maryland Republican Party. Table One shows what the new numbers are likely to mean for the composition of Maryland voters based on national voter registration and turnout rates.

In November 2010, Bob Ehrlich, a former governor elected by a 3 point margin in 2002, defeated by 6 points in 2006, was trounced by a 14 point margin. Ehrlich's 14 point margin of loss was first forecast in a Washington Post poll released days before the election. In that poll, the Post found that O'Malley was leading among African American voters by a margin of 88% to 6%, Ehrlich led among whites 50% to 44% (When Ehrlich won the governorship in 2002 he received 64% of the white vote). I could not find any Maryland polls from 2006 of 2010 that reported support among Hispanic or Asian voters, but this is not surprising as each population composed less than 5% of the state's population. A review of national exit polls from 2010 shows that Democrats won Hispanic voters by a 60% to 38% margin and Asian voters by a similar 58% to 40%. Democratic and Republican support among African Americans was 89% and 9% respectively - essentially the same as in Maryland. Nationwide, Republicans fared better among white voters, 60% to 37%, than did Ehrlich in Maryland.

If I take the nationwide numbers and apply them to voter numbers in Table One the result is a 56% to 44% Republican loss (Table Two) - not far from the 55.8% to 42.3% actual results (note that my population tallies do exclude a a few thousand state residents of mixed, or Native American heritage - exit polls often categorize these populations collectively as "other" and show that Democrats win them by a margin similar to that of Hispanic and Asian voters).

The new Census data is an alarm bell for Maryland Republicans and it's warning them that unless they can broaden their appeal beyond the state's shrinking share of white voters they will not be winning statewide office. But let's assume that Republicans in Maryland can regularly receive 60% - or even Ehrlich's 2002 level of 64% support among white voters - I show that in Table Three - the Republican still loses by 10 points.

Republicans cannot base a statewide electoral strategy on winning the white vote and losing all other racial and ethnic groups by wide margins. Table Four offers just one simulation of how Republicans would  have to perform among the non-white population just to receive 50% of the vote in Maryland.

Notice that it is a substantial change - a dramatic improvement among African Americans and considerable improvement among Hispanics. Critics of my quick analysis may well point out that turn-out among African American voters in Maryland is often lower than nationwide turn-out so I may be overstating Democratic performance a bit, but I would counter by pointing out that a strategy based on the hope that key voting groups stay home is no strategy - it's a gamble. I would add as well that Hispanic and Asian voters still have very low turn-out rates, but these rates have been rising and if turn-out among Hispanics eventually rises to that of African-American and white voters then Republicans will have no hope of winning statewide without becoming more competitive among non-whites.

The demographic changes taking place in Maryland are but a leading indicator of changes taking place throughout the United States. If Maryland Republicans can find a way to broaden their appeal and again become competitive in the Free State, they may well serve as an example for national Republicans to emulate. Republicans reclaimed the House of Representatives in November in victory fueled by support among white voters and lower turn-out by minority voters. In 2008, Barack Obama won election even though he lost white voters by a 12 point margin - his victory was driven by wide victories among racial and ethnic minorities - winning Hispanic and Asian voters by a nearly 2 to 1 margin. Just 4 years early, George W. Bush was much more competitive among these voters - but between 2004 and 2008 the GOP adopted a hard line on immigration reform and minority voters turned away from the party.

In Maryland, the GOP could begin by supporting measures such as the Maryland DREAM Act which would extend in-state college tuition benefits to undocumented immigrants who have attended state high schools. One may wonder what impact that would have on the votes of legal immigrants but consider just one example recently profiled in the Washington Post - Anngie Gutierrez is a High School senior at Bladensburg High, she is an undocumented resident and ineligible for in-state tuition (nor can she register to vote). When asked about the bill, Republican House Minority Leader Anthony O'Donnell said "Why would we offer in-state tuition to people who violated our laws to get here?"


Anngie, like most undocumented youths, was brought to the US illegally when she was a child. Her parents may have violated the law, but she did not. More significant with regard to political fallout, however, Anngie has three siblings who were born in the US. They are citizens and they will be able to vote when they're 18. Can anyone reasonably assume that they would consider voting for a party that sought to block their sister's access to an affordable education? Doubtful.

When asked about the doubling of the state's Hispanic population Republican Delegate Patrick McDonough reportedly replied  "This should be a warning bell to the state of Maryland that we have a serious illegal immigration problem." The fact that McDonough see Hispanic as synonymous with illegal immigrant is not a good sign that Republicans have a strategy to deal with the electoral significance of the state's changing demographics.

For Maryland Republicans, the phone is ringing - will they take the call?

In Maryland, Budget Proposal Shows Why O'Malley Won Re-election

I openly admit that I was shocked by Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley's margin of victory in his re-election bid against former Governor Bob Ehrlich. I argued on this blog and in the pages of the Baltimore Sun and the Maryland Gazette that the race would be close. In the closing days of the campaign, the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun released polls showing O'Malley ahead by 11 to 16 points - I dismissed both polls. I had no doubt that O'Malley was ahead, but double digits?  In one interview, in an unguarded moment, I pledged to eat my Blackberry if O'Malley won by 14 points... he won by 14.45 (at least I now have an excuse to get the new Verizon iPhone).

In the waning days of the race, as Ehrlich was losing momentum, I explained that Ehrlich had a very tough case to make. Martin O'Malley, a progressive Democrat by admission, had very much governed as a fiscal conservative. O'Malley's single flourish of progressive budgeting was evident in the 2007 special session of the Maryland General Assembly when taxes on businesses and individuals were raised resulting in $800 million in new revenue in FY 2009 - but even those tax increases were coupled with $500 million in spending reductions that same year - rather than a "tax and spend" liberal O'Malley was a "tax and cut spending" moderate.

Then came the Great Recession and a collapse in state revenue - since December of 2007 the state has realized $8 billion less in revenue than forecast. As revenue declined the state's budget deficits ballooned and O'Malley became a "cut spending" conservative. Since assuming office in 2007, O'Malley had presided over $5.6 billion in cuts to the state's General Fund budget - with the FY 2012 budget released today the record of spending cuts will jump to $6.6 billion. Those cuts, coupled with the 2007 tax increases, and roughly $1.3 billion in federal bailout dollars allowed the state to balance its budget every year (coupled with a multitude of additional cuts imposed by the Board of Public Works).

But current forecasts show Maryland $1.4 billion shy of a balanced budget in FY 2012, and with a newly elected Republican House of Representatives in Washington there will be no more federal bailout dollars. In the budget submitted today, Governor O'Malley doubles down on his record of spending cuts as he closes the deficit relying almost entirely on them. Fully $1 billion in savings comes from reduced spending, another $300 million comes from fund transfers, and only $150 million from projected increases in revenue. The budget also begins the process of dealing with the state's unfunded pension obligations and introduces a new, optional pension system for new employees.  It will now take longer for employees to be vested in the pension, early retirement age increased from 55 to 60, and benefit calculated on highest 5 years of salary rather than highest 3 years. Substantial savings will also be achieved by shift future retirees to the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit - eventually I believe the state will have to abandon its defined benefit pension system, but O'Malley found a way to protect it at least for a few more years.

The 2010 midterm election was an election driven by concerns over the economy and concerns over seemingly irresponsible government spending. Martin O'Malley not only weathered the GOP tide that swept across statehouses in November, he generated a tide of his own. He was able to accomplish this not simply because Maryland is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, but because he has made some very difficult choices as governor. And, despite his progressive leanings, has presided over an era of very conservative budgeting.

With that record of fiscal management, what did Bob Ehrlich have to run against? What reason would Maryland voters have to defeat O'Malley? If you were a progressive voter seeking an expansion of government you may not have been happy with O'Malley - but Ehrlich was not an alternative. If you were a moderate seeking responsible budgeting, O'Malley was delivering. And if you were a conservative, you may have preferred even less spending and lower taxes - but here you would have been challenged by the fact that general fund spending increased dramatically under Ehrlich. Under O'Malley, the state has eliminated 4,200 positions and the ratio of state employees to state residents is at its lowest level in 40 years.

I will temper my praise for O'Malley's 2012 budget by making clear that I think more needs to be done to reform the state's pension system - namely it should be eliminated and replaced by a defined contribution system with no future state obligations. I also think that the Governor has already cut too much from Medicaid reimbursements and hospitals in the state - but on balance, I have a hard time imagining a more responsible and reasonable budget.

So yes, I was shocked that O'Malley won by 14 points... but on reflection, I shouldn't have been.

The Arizona Tragedy and the False Narrative of a Polarized America

There is a great write-up in the New Republic on just how bad the press covered the tragedy in Arizona and how it ignored a real problem (treating mental illness, seeing warning signs) while focusing on an imagined one (heated rhetoric).

The false narrative with regard to the shooting created by the press and opportunistic political leaders served to reinforce perhaps the greatest false narrative of our day, that the American public is polarized. There is little to no evidence that the general public is polarized - at least any more polarized now than at any point in the last 30 years. Rather we live in a two party system and the parties have become ever more polarized and controlled by partisan fringes. Polarized parties create the illusion of a polarized public.

As if on cue, Paul Krugman furthers the myth of a divided America today writing "One side saw health reform, with its subsidized extension of coverage to the uninsured, as fulfilling a moral imperative: wealthy nations, it believed, have an obligation to provide all their citizens with essential care. The other side saw the same reform as a moral outrage, an assault on the right of Americans to spend their money as they choose." Says Krugman, "There’s no middle ground between these views."

There of course is a middle ground between those views and it's the ground upon which a plurality, perhaps a majority, of Americans reside. What Mr. Krugman means to write is that for the political class, such as himself and Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, there is no middle ground. But the political class is quite polarized and in that respect a poor representation of America.

Scholars like Alan Abramowitz have made a cottage industry of trying to prove that the electorate is indeed becoming more polarized. They cite as evidence the stark differences between self identified Republicans and self identified  Democrats on issues such as abortion, health insurance, aid to minorities, presidential approval and voting, and self identification as Liberal or Conservative.

When defined in that way, there is in fact evidence that Democrats and Republicans have drifted farther apart over the last 20 years - but as odd as it sounds, it does not demonstrate polarization. To paraphrase an old country song, folks are looking for polarization in all the wrong places. Morris Fiorina has explored polarization from the perspective of changes in popular opinion, separate from party labels and has found no increase in polarization.

When Americans are asked to express support or opposition for the supposedly polarizing policy areas cited by Abramowitz and Paul Krugman - health insurance, aid to minorities, government spending and services, defense spending, and abortion - Fiorina finds that there has been no increase in polarization on these issues in the past 20 years. In fact, Fiorina finds that the public has shifted slightly to the left on the issues government support for health coverage and the provision of services and slightly to the right on the issues of national defense and aid to minorities. There has been no change with regard to abortion. In other words, we're shifting together on some issues, not at all on others.

So what's going on, what are folks like Abramowitz really measuring? Simple, it's called party sorting. As the agendas of the political parties became ever more divergent Americans began to "sort" more neatly into one party or the other - and more Americans began to identify as either pure Independents or only loosely associated with a party.

As the agenda of the Democratic Party became more liberal and the Republican Party more conservative, liberal Republicans left the party and became Democrats or Independents and conservative Democrats became Republicans or Independents.

Krugman writes "Commentators who pine for the days of civility and bipartisanship are, whether they realize it or not, pining for the days when the Republican Party accepted the legitimacy of the welfare state, and was even willing to contemplate expanding it."  What Krugman has conveniently ignored is the fact that the Democratic Party once included many folks who rejected the legitimacy of the welfare state as well.

The following graph charts Congressional polarization from the 89th Congress through the 110 Congress, notice the considerable overlap in the middle that existed in the 1960s and through the 1970s.  There was a time when Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans were not anomalies. This helps to explain why legislation that today would divide the parties, the Civil Rights Act, the Creation of Medicare and Medicaid, even passage of President Reagan's first budget in 1981 were, in fact, bi-partisan affairs.

Today, however, there is no home in the Democratic Party for conservatives and no real home in the Republican Party for moderates - this is why Jim Jeffords bolted the GOP in 2001 and Joe Lieberman felt so ill at ease with Democrats back in 2006.

The parties polarized, the public did not. As Fiorina notes, there has been precious little change in the last 30 years with regard to the share of Americans who identify as Conservative, Moderate, or Liberal. Rather conservatives no longer feel comfortable in the Democratic Party and Liberals are no longer comfortable in the Republican Party - Moderates appear to be less comfortable with both parties.  The electorate is no more polarized now than in 1970, 1980, or 1990 - but the parties are. So of course 90% of Republicans vote Republican and 90% of Democrats vote Democrat. Of course Presidential approval correlates to party affiliation, it's the natural byproduct of party sorting, but party sorting is not the same as polarization.

The reasons for party polarization are many - the breakdown of mass-based political parties that operated as bottom-up entities driven often by local issues has played a role. Parties are now top-down entities controlled by a relative and ideologically similar few.

The increase in political competition has played a role as well. The Democrats lost their hold on the South, the Republicans lost their hold on the North East. According to data from State Politics and Policy Quarterly only 7 states had divided government in 1954, in 2007 that number stood at 23 states. With few exceptions, either party has fair shot at winning statewide elections in most states (remember, we vote for offices other than President). A recent study by political scientist Daniel Coffey determined that there is a direct and positive correlation between party competition and party ideology. As a state becomes more competitive between Republicans and Democrats the respective parties become ever more conservative and liberal.

V.O. Key hinted at this in 1956 when he argued that competition would force parties to offer more distinct policies to voters in an effort to influence their choice. Additionally, as competition increases the parties come to rely more heavily, not on the mean, median, or moderate voter, but rather on the more committed and active voter. For Democrats this means liberal activists and for Republicans conservative activists. This has the effect of pushing the parties ever farther to the extreme. This is, of course, what has happened.

Where is there evidence of polarization? Among the most engaged and active third of the electorate - what we call base voters, as they form the foundation of support for each party. Sadly this third has a tremendous impact on the direction and agenda of the two major parties. This third votes regularly and is more likely to contribute to and be active in politics. Parties and politicians seek to motivate these voters by painting every election as a choice between political life and death. Recall the closing days of the 2000 election when Al Gore suggested that "strict constructionists" like George W. Bush are little different from those who once deemed a black man to be but three-fifths of a person. Or the waning days of the 2008 campaign when Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists."


The goal for the left and the right is the same, scare the hell out your base to motivate them. So the left reduces the right to a caricature of bigoted, racist, violent, homophobic fascists and the right reduces the left to a caricature of immoral, anti-American, authoritarian socialists. The hope is that the scare tactics will motivate the base and win over wavering voters in the middle - remember, Democrats won Independent voters by 19 points in 2006 only to see Republicans win them by 19 points in 2010.

So America is not a deeply polarized nation on the brink of civil war. Rather, the American electorate is being poorly represented by a very polarized political class. A political class that sees the world in measures of black and white where there is "no middle ground." It is a pernicious myth that is doing great harm to America - and as we just witnessed in Arizona it all too often causes the political class to focus on imagined problems at the expense of real problems.

American Politics: Electoral Realignment or a Model of Stability?

As part of a larger research project, I've been working on updates to Gerald Pomper's 1968 study of electoral coalitions by studying the linear correlation of state by state election results in paired presidential elections. According to Pomper an electoral conversion or realignment would be evident via a “change in the parties’ bases of support… the geographic distribution of each party’s vote would be different from the past: traditional strongholds would fall, while new areas of strength would become evident.” Such changes or shifts in support would be evident in statistical analyses of the correlation between sequential elections. High levels of correlation would indicate stability, and low levels change.

Though some have openly wondered whether the 2008 election of Barack Obama represented a political realignment, I contend that the political realignment of the late 1960s has been maintained, and is in fact incredibly stable.

Using election data for all states and DC since 1928 I have calculated linear correlations for all successive elections in the last 8 decades.  As shown in the first graph below, the correlations reveal the very stable New Deal realignment as well as it's collapse in the 1960s and the emergence of a new and stable electoral pattern - a realignment. The only disruption of that new stability occurred in 1976 with the election of Jimmy Carter, likely a reflection of fallout from Richard Nixon and Carter's strength in the south, in the midst of the southern realignment toward the Republicans.


What is unmistakable is that 2008 fit comfortably into the electoral pattern that emerged at the end of the 1960s - 2008 was very much a normal election, its correlation with 2004 and the average of 1992-2004 were both quite high. This suggests that no realignment, defined by James Campbell as "a durable and substantial shift in the parties’ national electoral balance of power,” took place in 2008.

I wanted to be certain that I was not missing more subtle evidence of realignment by focusing too much on national trends, so I next divided the states into three groups - Reliably Democratic states, Reliably Republican, and Swing states. Reliably Republican or Democratic states were defined as having voted with their respective party's candidate in at least four of the last five elections, through 2004. The designations were based on an analysis by the Population Reference Bureau conducted prior to the 2008 election.


This resulted in 39 states (including DC) that were not considered to be competitive. The remaining 12 states were coded as swings.

As shown in the following graph, I found a high degree on stability in the Democratic states (light green line)through 2008, lesser but still high stability in the Republican states (red line) and in the swing states (blue line) I found high levels of correlation from one election to the next only when a president was re-elected, or succeeded in office by a member of the same party. Conversely, elections that witnessed the defeat of an incumbent or a shift in party control of the White House was marked by lower correlations - until 2008. Swings state results were highly correlated with 2004.





The swing state finding for 2008 was intriguing given that George W. Bush won 11 of the 12 swing states in 2004 and Barack Obama only 5 in 2008.  I suspect the high degree of correlation reflects the closeness of the results across those swing states in both elections - even though the partisan outcome shifted in nearly half.


It is also possible that the high degree of correlation indicates some changes taking place in swing states. Six swing states (AR, KY, LA, MO, TN and WV) have not gone Democratic since 1996, suggesting that they may no longer be swing states.


I recoded those states as reliably Republican and it reduced the correlation coefficient for 2008 among swing states from the high .845 to a much lower .416 (no graph). The Republican correlation coefficient in 2008 declined slightly from .917 to .795.


The results appear to suggest that the Southern realignment that began in the late 1960s is complete as 4 of the 6 swing states recoded as Republican are southern states. In all, it suggests that the battlefield of swing states may be decreasing.


It's too soon to tell whether Indiana, North Carolina, or Virginia need to be removed from the reliably Republican column and added to the swing state group.


A recent blog post by Professor Andrew Gelman noted that there has been a decline in state by state vote swings, noting "the red-blue map is much more stable from election to election than it used to be." My analysis suggests that much of this stability results from the culmination of the southern realignment, the Democratic electoral coalition has been very stable since 1968 and the hiccups in the Republican coalition have involved southern states in elections with southern Democratic candidates. In recent elections, southern states once considered swing states (because they still voted for southern Democratic presidential candidates) seemed to have completed their journey to the Republican column - witness the failure of southern Democrat Al Gore to carry a single southern state in 2000.


The overall results from my analyses thus far do support my contention that a relatively stable electoral pattern emerged in the late 1960s and there is little evidence of any break in that stability. America remains in the post New Deal electoral system. A highly competitive system in which Republicans and Democrats are near parity and neither party dominates the political scene. Though Republicans have won 7 of the 11 Presidential contests between 1968 and 2008, Democrats have have enjoyed majority control in the House of Representatives in 15 of 22 Congresses between 1968 and 2010. And unified party control of the House and the White House has only existed for 5 of 22 Congresses.


Everett Carll Ladd labeled the post New Deal era the "No Majority Realignment." It's a fitting and effective description of an era that emerged in the late 1960s, and it appears, remained intact through 2010.

Compromise in the Era of the True Believers

The recent handwringing on the Left and on the Right over the tax deal struck between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans has provided a nice opportunity for Americans to see that there is in fact little difference between the far Left and the far Right in America - to be sure, they differ with regard to their stance on issues - but when it comes to the their arrogant, self-righteous, intransigence they are cut from the same cloth.

Political scientist E. E. Schattschneider once wrote,

Democracy is based on a profound insight into human nature, the realization that all men are sinful, all are imperfect, all are prejudiced, and none knows that whole truth…. Even when we disagree with other people we like to think that they speak from good motives and while we realize that all men are limited, we do not let ourselves imagine that any man is bad. Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure that they are right.

In other words, the very foundation of the democratic social contract is the understanding that no one philosophy or ideology is to be privileged above others. In contemporary American politics this is simply no longer the case. As political elites, be they Liberal or Conservative, have grown ever more polarized they have lost sight of the reality that "none knows that whole truth" and that at its heart "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure that they are right."

Instead we live in an age when the Left and the Right have drifted so far apart that neither is able to see any good in the opposition. Last year, William Galston presciently warned,

"polarized partisanship creates a climate in which each party is likely to deny any truth or virtue to the other. But because no party has a monopoly on truth or virtue, this mindset all but rules out legislation that draws from the best ideas of both... partisan polarization tends to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. If Democrats feel sure that Republicans will only obstruct their legislative agenda, why allow them to participate in drafting it?"

In the midst of an ever more partisan and bitter era in American politics, and following a devastating electoral defeat for Democrats, President Obama and Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell achieved the impossible - compromise. As the clock ticked down on tax rates enacted under George W. Bush and a Republican Congress many Democrats, still stinging from the midterm elections, demanded that only the tax rates for those earning less than $250,000 per year be extended. Republicans sought to maintain all tax rates at current levels. During his presidential campaign, Obama had promised to allow the upper income tax rates to expire. During the same time that Congress and the White House was discussing the issue of the tax rates, Congress was also considering an extension of federal unemployment benefits - but Republicans in the Senate were blocking the effort.

The deal struck between McConnell and the White House allowed for a temporary two-year extension of the Bush era tax rates, a temporary 2 percentage point reduction in the payroll tax, and a 13 month extension of unemployment benefits. The legislation passed the Senate by an impressive 81-19 margin and after considerable moaning by Democrats it passed the House with a bipartisan majority of 277-148.

Yet this tremendous victory has caused many on the Left to view President Obama as a traitor who betrayed his base. Some have even called for a primary challenge to Obama in 2012. It's enough to give a casual political observer whiplash. During the height of the health care debate the American Left defended Obama against attacks from the Right. Obama critics were derided as racists, radicals, birthers - all seeking to bring down the President. Now Obama has to deal with flak from his Left - his great treasonous crime? Compromise.

In his book "The True Believer" Eric Hoffer wrote

"It is the true believer's ability to "shut his eyes and stop his ears" to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequalled fortitude and constancy. The fanatic cannot, can not be weaned away from his cause by an appeal to his reason or moral sense. He fears compromise and cannot be persuaded to qualify the certitude and righteousness of his holy cause.  Though they seem to be at opposite poles, fanatics of all kinds are actually crowded together at one end. It is the fanatic and the moderate who are poles apart and never meet. The fanatics of various hues eye each other with suspicion and are ready to fly at each other's throat. But they are neighbors and almost of one family. They hate each other with the hatred of brothers."

Those "true believers" on the Left who now decry President Obama as a traitor to the faith are little more than the dizygotic siblings of those on the Right who angrily dismiss the President as a socialist out to destroy America or who believe McConnell sold out. Left or Right, they are fanatics. Democrats lost 63 seats in the House of Representatives in the November midterm, they lost 6 Senate seats, and over 700 state legislative seats in the worst electoral rout in 70 years. Somehow, many Democrats have convinced themselves that the correct response is to entrench, to defend ever more vigorously progressive policies - seemingly oblivious to the fact that the 2010 losses were driven by the massive defection of Independent voters who felt that Democrats were already pursuing an agenda that was too far left. Meanwhile, conservatives and Tea Party folks in Congress have mistaken the voters repudiation if Obama and the Democrats. The greatest threat to the GOP in 2012 isn't Obama it's the possibility of Tea Party intransigence.

President Obama got the message of the 2010 midterms, the tax deal is evidence of that and probably the first significant mile marker in his road to reelection. Mitch McConnell got the message as well and provided a significant boost to Congressional Republicans. Congressional Democrats seem clueless.

What has been too often lost in the discussion of the tax compromise are the effects that it is having on other legislation. Now that the tax deal is out of the way it is very likely that the Senate will join the House and vote to repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the Senate is likely to ratify the START treaty - it's event possible that the Dream Act will pass the Senate - none of this would have been possible without the compromise on taxes.

The far Left thinks that President Obama sacrificed too much, the far Right suspects the same of Senate Republicans. All I can say is, if the fanatics are angry, it must have been a damn good compromise. It's not the bill I would have preferred, but I welcome the precedent that it may set for future relations between the White House and Congressional Republicans.

It Wasn't a Messaging Problem

I spoke to a group of St. Mary's College alums tonight about the 2010 midterms. I said the same things that I've been saying for two weeks - I called it the Myths of 2010 talk: 

Myth One - Democrats didn't turn-out. This is not true. Compared to the last midterm election in 2006 Democratic turnout was essentially the same, as was Republican turnout. Democrats lost because Independents shifted their support to Republicans by nearly 36 points compared to 2006. Too many folks are comparing 2010 turnout to that of the 2008 Presidential election - but this is a poor comparison. Turnout in midterm elections never rivals Presidential turnout. The 2006 to 2010 comparison is more appropriate. 


Myth Two - Democrats were overwhelmed by outside spending. The Citizen's United ruling allows corporations to engage in political spending and this certainly provided cash to Republicans, but the simple truth is all that outside spending merely brought Republicans to spending parity with Democrats. Certainly Republicans had more money than in past midterms, but Democrats were not "overwhelmed." 


Myth Three - It was the return of the "Angry White Male." Republicans made gains among most demographic groups, but their victory was actually fueled by an historic victory among women.  For the first time since exit polling of midterms began in the early 1980s Republicans won a majority of women's votes, they also improved their standing among Hispanics, older voters, and gay and lesbian voters.

Myth Four - The losses were normal for a midterm. Most models for midterm elections projected Democratic losses of 30 to 50 seats with the typical range in the high 30s. As Nate Silver at 538.com recently noted, the loss of 60+ seats exceeded the normal and it appears that support for health reform, cap and trade, and the stimulus bill hurt Democrats.

Myth Five - Democrats were too timid (This is the one that got me in trouble). The myth is that Democrats lost because they failed to be bold, they compromised too much, they did not defend or explain what they accomplished.  This is just wrong, Democrats were bold, but the voters rejected what they accomplished. It was not about messaging, voters simply did not like what Democrats did.

On myth five I was asked, "how can it be that it was not a messaging problem when exit polls show that people supported health care reform?" To which I replied, no poll showed that. The response? "Yes, exit polls showed that people liked parts of the bill." And there you have it... there is a crucial difference between liking parts of a bill and supporting the entire bill.  A recent Kaiser poll demonstrates this: 

"...almost half of Americans want Washington lawmakers to repeal all or parts of the health care reform law. However, when asked about specifics, most want to keep key provisions. Over 70 percent want to keep the parts that provide tax credits to small businesses and financial help to Americans who don't get insurance through their jobs. A majority also want to keep provisions that close the Medicare doughnut hole and prohibit denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. The requirement for all Americans to have health insurance or risk paying a fine is the lightning rod of health care reform. Sixty-eight percent of Americans want this provision repealed."

So people like some of it, but dislike other parts - it's possible to support repeal of a bill that contains elements that you like. I offer an illustration, Democrats support extension of the Bush tax cuts for people earning less than $250,000 a year, but oppose extending them for those earning more - if a Republican House passes an extension for everyone, Democrats will still support the part of the bill that benefits those earning $250,000 or less, but likely oppose the bill.
I understand the desire to blame the 2010 results on messaging - after all, who wants to accept that their policy preferences were just rejected by a majority of Americans? Also, a messaging problem means tweaking a communications strategy - the alternative explanation, that voters got the message but rejected the policy, means either altering your policy agenda or suffering more defeats at the hands of voters.It may be tough to accept, but Democrats did not lose because of their messaging, they lost because of their policies.

The Coming Tidal Wave

I admit to being almost overwhelmed as I try to predict just what will happen on November 2nd.  In a recent essay in the Baltimore Sun I wrote that the 2010 midterms would likely be a wave election that would return House Democrats to where they were prior to the 2006 election.  That would mean a loss of 55 seats in the House. In my official prediction - as a member of the St. Mary's College faculty - I predicted a net Republican gain of 55 seats in the House and 9 in the Senate. Since making that prediction 1 week ago I now believe that I understated Republican gains in the House and overstated gains in the Senate.

Pictured below is the final collection of generic ballot results as compiled by Real Clear Politics. Look at the most recent polls from Fox, Pew, CNN, and Gallup - all show that Democrats have filed to close the gap with Republicans. President Obama and former President Clinton have been crisscrossing the country to motivate Democrats and yet they have made no impact - in fact, the CNN and Gallup numbers suggest that Republicans have gained strength in the closing days of the campaign. The momentum is with Republicans, and in close races that will likely translate into final victory by the GOP.

As Gallup notes in the write-up on its final poll, the current lead enjoyed by Republicans is unprecedented, it far surpasses their lead in 1994 or 2002. Gallup suggests that a 60 seat gain is likely the floor for gains. Several of the polls show the GOP leading even among registered voters - an almost unheard of occurrence.

Given the current state of the polls, just 48 hours before the polls close in most states, I am now revising my predictions. I believe that Republicans will gain 65 seats in the House, I also think that they'll gain 6 seats in the Senate an fall short of the number needed to claim a majority in the Senate. The gains will likely be in AK, IL, IN, ND, PA, WI - totaling 6 seats. It's possible that the GOP could pick up Harry Reid's seat in NV, but I suspect he is stronger than polls suggest and I know he has a better ground game.

Such gains in the House would be unrivaled since the age of sophisticated partisan gerrymandering, but if Republican turnout and enthusiasm, coupled with the overwhelming support of political Independents, is as predicted in current surveys - then the coming wave will be too large for gerrymandered districts and Blue state Senate candidates to withstand. Though some have tried to discount the accuracy of the polls by suggesting that the great multitude of cellphone users are not being surveyed, this is simply wrong. I stand by my argument that no matter the size of the Republican victory, it will not represent a mandate for party's agenda. Rather it will be a victory driven by Independents, many of whom voted for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 but are now unhappy with the agenda that Democrats pursued.

Generic Congressional Vote

Full Video and Highlights of the Steny Hoyer/Charles Lollar Debate at St. Mary's College on Oct. 29th

Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Republican Challenger Charles Lollar faced off at a forum sponsored by the the Center for the Study of Democracy and the St. Mary's County NAACP at St. Mary's College of Maryland on October 29th.  The full video, as well as select highlights are included below.

Full Video:


On Illegal Immigration:


On Healthcare Reform:


On Cap and Trade Legislation:


On a Balanced Budget Amendment:

Democratic Support Understated Due to Cell Phones? Not So Fast.

Over at Polising.com (and linked at Politicalwire.com), Jonathan Singer notes that the new McClatchy Poll finds Democrats in a much stronger position on the generic ballot and he thinks he knows why “The Democrats' strength among registered voters comes directly from the cell-only population... This data buttresses the findings published earlier this month by Pew that if pollsters are skipping cell-only voters -- exactly the type of voters who are more likely to vote Democratic -- their results may simply be too favorable for the GOP."

The problem is, pollsters are not excluding cell phone users. Pollster.com's Marc Blumenthal addressed this issue in a recent posting "At the national level, many organizations now routinely sample and call both landline and mobile phones. These include, in addition to the Pew Center, ABC News/Washington Post, AP/GfK, CBS News/New York Times, Gallup (both their daily tracking and the surveys in partnership with USA Today), Kaiser Family Foundation, McClatchy/Marist University, NBC News/Wall Street Journal and Newsweek."

Gallup, the most widely cited generic ballot pollster, has been including cell phones since 2008 and according their website "Gallup includes cell phones in each national Gallup poll. Further, cell phone-only households are now as likely to fall into national Gallup polls samples as those living in traditional landline households." Roughly 20% of households are cell phone only - and they are included in these national surveys.

If one looks at the recent polls at Realclearpolitics.com, it's clear that McClatchy is an outlier - I would advise against pinning Democratic hopes on some unmeasured mass of committed, eager to vote cell phone users (because they are in fact being measured). Could folks like Stu Rothenberg, Charlie Cook, and Larry Sabato be so shortsighted?

As Early Voting Ends, Numbers Suggest A Republican Victory in MD-1

Update: Early voting ended yesterday and the trends in the 1st District have held - 46.4% of ballots cast by Republicans, 42.9% by Democrats, 10.7% by Others. These numbers must be very encouraging to Harris, and probably explain why the Democratic Party is now spending money on behalf of the Libertarian candidate in the 1st District - hardly a sign of confidence.

Original Post: Maryland's 1st Congressional district is the quintessential swing district. It is 41.6% Democrat, 41.7% Republican, and 16.7% Other (mostly unaffiliated). In 2008, Democrat Frank Kratovil won against Republican Andy Harris by 2,000 votes. Kratovil is facing Harris in a rematch. Recent polls have been inconsistent with the race either tied or with Harris ahead by 4 or 11 points.

According to early voting data in Maryland, turnout has been highest in the 1st Congressional district and the numbers thus far should encourage Harris supporters. Statewide, Democratic turnout has been stronger than Republican turnout, but not in the 1st District. Republican turnout is higher and as of 10/26 Republicans have cast 46.6% of the votes, Democrats 43.4%, and Other 10%.  These numbers take on added significance given that a poll released last week by Monmouth University caused quite a stir as it showed Harris opening an 11 point lead in the race. The partisan breakdown in that poll was 46% Republican, 45% Democrat, and 9% I - so far, Republican turnout is better and Democratic turnout worse than the Monmouth sample.

In the Monmouth poll, Harris and Kratovil did equally well among their respective party's, but Harris enjoyed a 24 point lead among Independents. If I take the Monmouth poll's level of support by party ID and apply it to the early voting numbers then Harris is leading 52.4% to 47.6% - a 5 point margin. But that may understate Harris' margin. Monmouth reported both actual respondent registration as well as self-reported registration. Actual registration was the 46% R, 45% D, and 9% I - but self reported ID was 39% R, 33%D and 28% I - meaning far more Democrats are rejecting the party label than are Republicans, and, according to Monmouth, supporting Harris.

As an aside, the Baltimore Sun released a poll this week showing this race to be tied, that same poll showed that Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley had opened a 14 point lead over former Governor Bob Ehrlich. Early voting data suggests that the Harris/Kratovil race is anything but tied - one must wonder if the O'Malley/Ehrlich numbers in the Sun poll are off as well. According to the Ehrlich campaign, a poll conducted for them by Public Opinion Strategies finds the race statistically tied at 47% O'Malley to 44% Ehrlich among likely voters.

A 3 Point Race for Maryland Governor?

According to an Ehrlich campaign internal poll the race for Maryland governor is within the margin of error:

"Contrary to what The Baltimore Sun and Washington Post want you to believe, this race is extremely close. A survey commissioned by the Ehrlich campaign shows that as of yesterday, the campaign for governor was statistically tied among those most likely to vote. That’s right: 47 percent of the most likely voters support O’Malley and 44 percent support Bob Ehrlich, with a margin of error of 4 percent."

The poll was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies, the same firm that polled for candidate Ehrlich in 2002. Public Opinion Strategies is a well respected polling firm that polls for NPR, NBC, and the Wall Street Journal.

I have requested additional details on the poll and will post more if I receive those details, but this result seems far more realistic than the 14 point race suggested by recent Washington Post and Baltimore Sun polls and would explain why the O'Malley campaign has been bringing heavy hitters like President Obama and former President Clinton to the state. If this were a 14 point race, or even a 10 point race, Obama and Clinton would be spending time elsewhere.

In Maryland: Two Polls, Two Very Different Findings, but the Same Results?

Two polls in as many days suggest that Martin O'Malley has opened a formidable 14 point lead over former governor Bob Ehrlich - the Baltimore Sun reports that O'Malley has a 52% to 38% lead over Bob Ehrlich. The next day the Washington Post reported an O'Malley lead of 54% to 40%. Reporters from both papers seemed less than convinced by the poll results, but took comfort in the seemingly similar results - two polls, two papers, two pollsters - a 14 point lead.

In reality, the polls are quite different. Consider:

The Washington Post sees an likely voter electorate that is 59% Democrat, 30% Republican, and 11% Independent or other. The Sun poll is 57%, 30%, and 13% - not much difference, but both likely overstate Democratic turnout.

Things get a little weird when you dig a bit deeper into the cross tabs- the Post reports that Ehrlich wins Republicans by a 92% to 6% margin and wins Independents 52% -36% - he also receives only 7% of the Democratic vote. In the Sun poll, Ehrlich is doing poorly among Republicans winning 78% to O'Malley's 12% (the rest are undecided). The Sun also reports that Ehrlich is losing among Independents 37% to O'Malley's 52% - a mirror image of the Post poll. Finally, Ehrlich wins 18% of Democrats to O'Malley's 72%. The Sun also finds Ehrlich losing among men, 43% to 48% and women, 34% to 55% - in the Post Ehrlich is winning men 48% to 46%, and losing women by 62% to 33%.

So, compared to the Post, the Sun finds Ehrlich doing far worse among Republicans, losing considerably among Independents, but faring much better among Democrats- yet the topline margins are the same 14 points. So how do they arrive at the 14 point margin?  The Sun assumes a higher turnout among Independents than does the Post, but has O'Malley winning them. The Post has Ehrlich doing well among Independents, but horribly among Democrats and over states Democratic turnout.

When I take the various results and turn them into more likely turnout and support assumptions - 56% Democratic, 31% Republican, 13% Independent - and assume, realistically, that Ehrlich wins Independents and Republicans by the margin in the Post, and Democrats by the margin in the Sun then this becomes a 6 point race - 53% to 47%, advantage O'Malley. I think that's about where this race is - and the Sun and the Post should resist using the other's polls to assuage doubts about each poll based on the significant differences evident in the cross-tabs. There can be no question, however, that Ehrlich is clearly behind and by more than just a few points.

In Closely Watched Maryland Swing District Republican Andy Harris Widens Lead

Update: 
Many reporters have asked me how Democrat Frank Kratovil in Maryland 1st Congressional District had managed to weather the storm so far this election cycle - I said that it was testament to his strength as a candidate, but in the end the 2010 electoral tide woould wash him out of office. It now seems that the tide is coming in. After running a close race with Andy Harris a new Monmouth Poll finds Harris opening an 11 point lead.

This new poll has implications for the Maryland governors race as well, Harris leads Kratovil 58 to 34 among Independents. The district includes parts of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, and Harford counties. These counties, along with Howard, will be crucial to Republican Bob Ehrlich's reelection bid. If Harris truly enjoys a 24 point lead among Independents over the conservative Kratovil then it is reasonable to assume that Ehrlich will enjoy a similar margin over the more progressive Martin O'Malley.  Ehrlich needs to win Anne Arundel, Baltimore, and Harford and run even in Howard to win the governors race - if the segments of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, and Harford included in the first district are representative of their respective counties then Bob Ehrlich may just manage a come from behind victory.

Original Post
I'm often asked about the Andy Harris / Frank Kratovil rematch in Maryland's 1st Congressional District. The moderate district had been a reliably Republican district when represented by the equally moderate Wayne Gilchrest. In 2008, Gilchrest was defeated in the Republican primary by the more conservative Andy Harris. Gilchrest endoresed Democrat Harris and that combined with Barack Obama's strong performance in the state helped elect Kratovil by about 2,000 votes.

Much has changed since 2008. The momentum nationally is with Republicans and Kratovil, though he voted against health care reform, has been painted with the broad brush of the unpopular Democratic leadership and Kratovil will not have the benefit of Barack Obama or Wayne Gilchrest's endorsement.  For those reasons I give the edge to Andy Harris. A new poll shows Harris leading 43% to 40% with about 15% undecided. Though within the margin of error, Kratovil is at 40% - deadly territory for an incumbent. Given the trajectory of the 2010 midterms, I do not see how Kratovil survives.

I'm Martin O'Bama and I Approve of this Message

Bob Ehrlich and Martin O'Malley met for a third time today on WOLB radio. The station has a largely African American audience and issues of concern to the African American community topped the agenda early on and throughout. 

A casual listener may have been confused, however, and wondered if President Obama was running for governor of Maryland. On question after question O'Malley made reference to President Obama - President Obama is moving America forward and he needs our help to move Maryland forward. The great recession is ending and President Obama prevented a great depression.

O'Malley referred to health care as a great and "courageous" accomplishment for President Obama, his response had little to do with the question asked, but O'Malley again had to link himself to President Obama. Ehrlich offered a reasonable critique of the health reform bill, he defended some of it, criticized others - it's what a governor, what any thinking person, should do. O'Malley was so busy trying to convince voters that a vote for O'Malley was the same as a vote for Obama that he refused to even consider questioning anything the President has done and at times it seemed that he spent more time discussing Obama's record than his own. I fully expect the next O'Malley ad to end with the tag "I'm Martin O'Bama and I approve of this message."

O'Malley's worst response came early on when host Larry Young asked O'Malley to defend his zero tolerance policy while Mayor of Baltimore - a policy that resulted n the mass arrests of innocent African American men. O'Malley completely ignored the question and never defended the program.

Ehrlich had no "worst moment" but at times spent too much time talking about fact checkers instead of just refuting O'Malley. But Ehrlich did come across as a moderate and reasonable voice in a debate where O'Malley seemed like little more than a cheerleader and yes-man for President Obama.

In general I would have rated the debate a draw, if not for O'Malley's constant deference to everything President Obama has ever done. It simply came across as cheap pandering. I have to assume that the audience saw through the incredibly obvious tactic - and they should have been somewhat offended by it.

I commend Larry Young for doing an excellent job hosting the debate.

As Expected, a Closer Race in Maryland

A new poll from Maryland's best pollster, Gonzales Research and Marketing Strategies, shows the O'Malley/Ehrlich contest to be a 4.5 point race - 46.9% to 42.4%. This makes much more sense than other polls that have shown a much larger O'Malley lead. Ehrlich has had a serious problem breaking the mid-40s barrier in most polls. O'Malley's approval is below 50% (where it's always been) but probably close enough to 50% in this Democratic state.

The poll makes reasonable turnout assumptions and though it shows Ehrlich within 5 points it also suggests that Ehrlich will have a tough time winning the state. It is the first poll since Ehrlich began a new round of advertising and it reflects some post debate samples.

In general, the poll shows that Ehrlich needs to boost his numbers among Democrats and in the Baltimore suburbs. O'Malley enjoys a tremendous lead in the Wasington suburbs.

Does Christine O'Donnell Define Modern Conservatism? Let's Ask Alvin Greene

Anyone else find it strange that the American media is so obsessed with Delaware Republican Christine O'Donnell? Though she trails Democrat Chris Coons by double digits in the polls America was treated to national coverage of a debate between the two moderated by Wolf Blitzer. Americans are also being told that Christine O'Donnell's surprise primary victory over moderate Republican Mike Castle is evidence that the Republican Party is being taken over by an anti-intellectual denizen of Tea Partiers. Time magazine's Joel Klein suggested that it was proof that we celebrate our ignoramuses. Eugene Robinson declared her nomination to be evidence of the politics of insanity.

My problem with these arguments is simple - why is it that Christine O'Donnell defines the Republican party, but Democratic Senatorial candidate Alvin Greene of South Carolina does not define the Democratic party?

Why is it that only a rather odd Republican nominee warrants the scrutiny and concern of Klein and Robinson and the attention of CNN? O'Donnell received the votes of about 31,000 Republicans in the Delaware primary. By way of contrast, more than 100,000 South Carolina Democrats cast votes for Greene, a man under indictment for showing pornographic pictures to an 18-year old female college student. Seems that far more Democrats found him to be an appropriate spokesman.

To be fair, O'Donnell is not offered as the sole piece of evidence in the "GOP gone crazy" argument. Did Republicans in New York nominate Carl Paladino? Yes. But is he really any worse than Democrat Alan Grayson in Florida? No. The simple and inconvenient truth is that both parties are home to some pretty embarrassing candidates - but those candidates do not define the parties and we should stop pretending otherwise.

O'Donnell is being used to further a false narrative that the GOP has been taken over by anti-intellectual extremists - never mind that she won a primary in which two-thirds of Republicans in the state did not vote and she is now poised to lose the general election. Christine O'Donnell is no more the face of modern American conservatism than is Alvin Greene the face of modern American liberalism.

Ehrlich v O'Malley Round Two....

The debate is over, what a difference from Monday. Ehrlich was focused and on message and I believe that he won the debate. O'Malley's answers to nearly every question were essentially the same as his answers on Monday, rather than seeming polished they seemed rehearsed. Also, during the Monday debate it was clear that neither man liked the other. Today, Ehrlich was much more respectful toward O'Malley, but O'Malley was almost dismissive of Ehrlich.

Ehrlich was also strong in response to the question about O'Malley's reference to "coded language" in the last debate. When asked, O'Malley again suggested that Ehrlich was not friendly to the interest of "poor black" citizens and Ehrlich quickly turned that into a criticism of the sales tax which he said was a regressive tax that hit poor families the hardest.

I wasn't a fan of the "silly" rapid fire questions, but one was revealing. When asked about things people may not know about the candidates and favorite music, Ehrlich had fun with the question. O'Malley revealed that he "works too hard" and passed on the favorite song question. It reinforced this rather cold demeanor that had throughout the debate.

I think O'Malley's worst moment was the discussion of pensions for state workers his "I've appointed a commission" answer is wearing thin.  Ehrlich clearly stated that defined benefit must end, as has nearly everywhere for private employees. O'Malley would not commit to ending defined benefit pensions. Mr. Governor, that ship has sailed and this election cycle voters do not want to hear about protecting generous pensions for public employees. O'Malley stumbled.

Ehrlich's weakest moment was actually on the question of the state recognizing same sex marriage. He dismissed the issue before the question was complete. It is a serious matter and deserved more serious treatment. O'Malley's defense was strong, yet O'Malley's record of leadership on the issue is non-existent.

I thought the Ehrlich's closing statement was much stronger this time as well , he was very focused on taxpayers and small business. Stated that O'Malley views citizens as a source of revenue, Ehrlich sees them as a source of jobs. He mentioned rising taxes and collapsing 401(k)s - I think he tapped into the narrative of the national political landscape well.

I give round two to Ehrlich, he was the clear winner of the debate.