To Reclaim the Governor's Mansion, MD GOP Should Look to McKeldin

In 1950, incumbent Democratic governor William Preston Lane was seeking reelection. Lane had won the office 4 years earlier by a wide margin. But by 1950, Lane was in trouble. He had committed his administration to taking on the numerous infrastructure improvements that had been delayed by WWII - including the Bay Bridge. Lane financed these improvements with an increased sales tax. Few could dispute the need for the improvements, yet the tax proved to be quite unpopular. In 1950, Lane was challenged for the Democratic nomination by George Mahoney. Mahoney was a conservative Democrat who appeared often on ballots during that era. Lane survived the primary challenge but emerged from the contest weakened.

In the general election he faced off against the former Republican Mayor of Baltimore City, Theodore Roosevelt McKeldin. McKeldin trounced Lane 57% to 42% in the election. At the time, it was the widest victory margin for any gubernatorial candidate in the state and it remains the high watermark for GOP candidates for governor. McKeldin was an effective and successful chief executive. He was what many today would call a New England Republican or a Rockefeller Republican. He did not dismiss government as evil or even a necessary evil - rather it served an important purpose. For McKeldin, that purpose was largely infrastructure and Marylanders benefit from his legacy any time they travel I-695, I-495, or US Route 50. McKeldin was re-elected in 1954 and after leaving public life in 1959, was reelected Mayor of Baltimore City from 1963-1967. He was the last two term Republican governor in MD and the last Republican Mayor of Baltimore City.

So what does any of this have to do with 2014 and the MD Republican gubernatorial nominating contest? I argue there are several things to be learned from McKeldin and the 1950 election. One important lesson being unpopular policies can harm a candidate even if voters support the need for the policies. Lane was seriously harmed by the increased sales tax - even as voters recognized the good that was coming from the revenue. Over the past 7 years, Marylanders have been subject to numerous tax increases - sales, income, gas, fees - voters in this Blue state may support the programs being funded, but that doesn't mean they're not smarting from the lost income. The increased sales and gas taxes may be the most onerous. Voter anger weakened Lane and created an opening for McKeldin.

The 1950 contest tells us as well that divisive primaries can provide opportunities for Republicans. The battle between Mahoney and Lane left the party divided and Lane weakened. This kind of party division also helped Republican Spiro "Ted" Agnew win the governorship in 1966. There is tremendous potential for a very divisive Democratic primary contest in 2014. At present, Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown and Attorney General Doug Gansler have nowhere to go other than the governor's mansion. Each man will fight like hell to win the party's nomination. Such a pitched battle could leave the Democratic electorate divided - providing an opening for the GOP. Such divisions occurred in 1950, 1966, and even in 2002 - when many in the party were less than thrilled by the coronation of the lackluster Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Townsend furthered party divisions by tapping a white Republican to be her running mate. Republicans won the governor's mansion in each of those years.

Finally, McKeldin was the right kind of Republican for Maryland. Make no mistake, McKeldin was a partisan. He was a proud Republican. But McKeldin was also a realist. In 1950, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by about 2.6-1. McKeldin could not win without winning over Democrats. Ever the pragmatist, McKeldin worked hard to win over elements of the Democratic electorate left divided after their party's primary. McKeldin took elements of Mahoney's and Lane's agendas and made them part of his own. He downplayed partisanship, instead focusing on accountability. He argued Lane had presided over wasteful spending and unnecessarily high taxes. He argued that Lane was inaccessible and simply a part of the Democratic party machine. As governor, he focused on governmental reform and increased transparency in the state. He stood up to unions and other entrenched interests - rarely invoking party.

Republicans do have an opportunity in 2014 to repeat 1950 (though repeating McKeldin's 15 point victory margin is beyond impossible- but winning by 1.5% or 0.15% is still winning). If Anthony Brown is nominated, he will carry with him the weight of Martin O'Malley's tenure in office. For all of the good - spending in check, funding for education, same sex marriage, etc... - he will also bear the burden of the bad - a declining tax base, mediocre job growth, higher gas, sales, and income taxes, and a government sorely lacking in transparency and electoral accountability. The GOP must look to the McKeldin model, it must run on an agenda that is economic and not social. It should make government a central issue, but not by portraying it as a force of evil. Rather, it must be presented as an essential partner. But a partner in need of reform and oversight. Brown must be portrayed as being part of the party machine, a candidate incapable of and unwilling to commit to needed reforms (his laundry list of endorsements by the establishment should make that an easy argument). The GOP needs to run a campaign based on reform and accountability. A campaign about anything else will just elect the democratic nominee.

In an upcoming post I'll look at the candidates for the GOP nomination, but at present, only one declared candidate appears ready to carry forward the McKeldin mantle and reclaim the governor's mansion in Maryland. And that's Harford County Executive David Craig.

"Ganslergate" and the Manufacturing of News

As everyone who pays attention to Maryland politics knows, the Free State is in the midst of a scandal! Ganslergate, as one reporter laughingly described it to me. The Washington Post obtained a secretly recorded meeting between Attorney General Doug Gansler and a group of supporters. As reported by the Post, Gansler was rather dismissive of Lt. Governor Anthony Brown's campaign for the Democratic nomination for governor.

“I mean, right now his campaign slogan is, ‘Vote for me, I want to be the first African American governor of Maryland. That’s a laudable goal, but you need a second sentence: ‘Because here’s what I’ve done, and here’s why I’ve done it.’”

The meaning of Gansler's comments seem clear - Anthony Brown doesn't have a record or a message to take to voters; rather his election would mark an historic first for Maryland.

I must admit, when I first read the story and the quotes I didn't get what the controversy was. Doug Gansler noted something that everyone knows - race still matters in American politics. It especially matters in Maryland where African Americans account for 30-35% of the  Democratic primary electorate and about a quarter of the general election voters. Despite the importance of African Americans as a voting bloc in Maryland, only two African Americans have ever been elected to statewide office - Michael Steele and Anthony Brown. And both were elected as Lt. Governors in a state where votes are cast for a Governor/LT. Governor ticket. So no African American has ever been elected to statewide office at the top of the ticket.

Everyone who covers, analyses, strategizes, and works on Maryland politics recognizes that race matters in our state elections. In 2002, it was widely regarded as a critical error when Democratic Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend picked a white Republican to be her running mate. That the choice risked alienating African American voters was openly discussed. When Republican nominee Bob Ehrlich picked Michael Steele to be his running mate, race was again openly discussed. In a particularly pointed editorial, the editors at the Baltimore Sun said of Steele he "brought nothing to the ticket but the color of his skin." Essentially, the editors were saying that lacking any record or accomplishments Ehrlich and Steele were relying on race to win votes.  There was no outcry over the Sun's comments - other than from Ehrlich and Steele.

In 2006, Steele decided to run for the U.S. Senate. The Democratic nominee was to be either Representative Ben Cardin or former Representative and NAACP president Kweisi Mfume. The impact of race on that contest was openly discussed. Under the headline "Maryland Senate Race May Hinge On Ethnicity," Washington Post reporters wrote:

"As they stand, the racial divisions are stark: In the primary, Mfume, who is black, gets 72 percent of his support from black voters, the poll shows. Cardin, who is white, gets 82 percent of his backing from white voters."

It's hard to imagine a more clearly divided electorate. The Post's reporters noted that Cardin was the stronger candidate in a general election match-up with Steele, even though Steele's support among African American voters jumped significantly in a hypothetical match-up against Cardin.

After Cardin won the nomination he received the Washington Post's nomination. In an editorial written just prior to the election, the Post dismissed Steele as a man with little experience, few accomplishments, and nothing really to offer voters. In the final paragraph, the writers note:

"A victory for Mr. Steele, an African American, would add diversity to the Senate. That is a worthy goal, and it is one reason given by a number of high-profile black Democrats for breaking party ranks to endorse him. But it is worth noting that even those backers have not made the argument that Mr. Steele would be an especially effective lawmaker or a leader on any particular issue in the Senate. Maryland deserves all that, and only Mr. Cardin, with his deep experience, can deliver it."

In other words, the Post editors believed that the only reason Steele was receiving support from black Democrats was because he was African American. In 2006, it was commonly accepted that Steele was counting on the fact that he would be the state's first African American Senator to deliver significant support from African American voters. I have a hard time seeing how Gansler's comments cross a line when they don't even come close to being as blunt as an editorial in the very paper that broke the "Ganslergate" story.

Since initially publishing the original story on Gansler's comments, the Post has doubled down with stories on the "fallout" and "flak" that Gansler is receiving. Yet in these stories, the reader is treated to folks who already support Brown feigning outrage over Gansler's comments. I have to ask, can it really be called "fallout" when folks who never intended to vote for Gansler reiterate that they still aren't voting for Gansler?

I spoke with several reporters yesterday regarding this story, most agreed (off the record) that there was nothing particularly damning or offensive in what Gansler said. But these reporters were writing stories about the "scandal" because it was in the Washington Post...

This is a ridiculous story full of false indignation. Gansler is perhaps guilty of one thing, Brown himself has never made this contest about race - in fact he never speaks of the issue (though Gansler's comments appeared to be directed at the Brown campaign). That's the double standard of contemporary politics. We all know that race has an impact on elections, we know there are racial divisions in voting choices, we know that race has influenced election after election in Maryland. And the Cardin/Mfume contest in 2006 suggests there will be a significant racial divide among Democratic voters come election day. In a three person contest, the severity of that divide will likely determine the outcome. But the minute a candidate references race he/she is accused of exploiting the issue.

But the issue of race and the potential for an African American candidate for governor do play a role in this contest. Gansler was trying to make the point that Brown has offered few, if any, proposals for the future. Gansler was trying to say that Brown has "no achievement, no record." Whether or not that's true is debatable, but the claim is pretty tame and standard stuff in Maryland and certainly consistent with opinions offered by the very paper now pushing this story when writing about other candidates.

I realize that this is a particularly boring time in Maryland politics, but that doesn't mean we need to create scandals just to have something exciting to write about.

I'll reiterate what I've said before - I am not affiliated with the Gansler campaign and have no dog in the Gansler/Brown hunt. I had hoped that Comptroller Franchot would run, when he dropped out my attention shifted to Ken Ulman, the he opted to run for Lt. Governor. At present, I have no idea who I'll support in the general election and as an unaffiliated voter I can't even vote in the primary. So I'm not defending my candidate... I'm just annoyed by what is really a pointless story.

Maryland 2014: Part 1 - The Democrats Running for Governor

It's been awhile since I've written about the 2014 gubernatorial contest in Maryland. In a post last September, I profiled the four men most likely to seek the nomination - Attorney General Doug Gansler, Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, Comptroller Peter Franchot, and Howard County Exec. Ken Ulman. I mentioned Heather Mizeur as a "rumored to be thinking about it" candidate. I argued then, that Brown was the odds on favorite to win the nomination.

"If the 2014 primary were like a typical Democratic primary in recent years with only two credible candidates then certainly Gansler would be the favorite - but in a three man race his odds drop considerably and in a 4 man race a clear new favored candidate emerges from the pack - Lt. Governor Anthony Brown."

Much has changed since September... and yet very little has changed.

Two of the expected candidates are now out of the race.  The Franchot folks always understood thy had a very narrow path to victory, it was a path that relied on moderate and conservative Democrats outside of the I-95 corridor. The Franchot team understood that if Gansler and Brown split the progressive vote, and Gansler, Brown, and Ulman divided the I-95 vote, and if Franchot could compete with Gansler in their shared home turf of Montgomery County, and if Franchot could win over Democrats from parts of the state that feel ignored by the Democratic party, then Franchot could build an electoral plurality in a multicandidate race. It was a path to victory that needed every "and if" to fall into place. In the end, Franchot decided that he enjoyed being Comptroller too much to risk everything on a series of and ifs. It was probably the correct call. I had written and spoken favorably of Franchot and make no secret of the fact that he would have been my preferred candidate. He openly and passionately challenged the Democratic party status quo in the state and would have been the candidate most likely to embrace the types of good government reforms so desperately needed in Annapolis.

As for Ken Ulman, there had been rumblings for some time that the Brown campaign was working feverishly behind the scenes to get Ulman on board as Brown's running mate. Those rumblings turned out to be true and the Brown/Ulman team have been traveling the state fundraising and securing nominations all summer long. At first blush, this was a smart move by Brown. Not only did he eliminate a dynamic and appealing opponent - someone with the only real claim to the Baltimore region, which can really matter in a primary contest - Brown also absorbed Ulman's campaign war chest, and Ulman had proven to be a damn good fundraiser. Going into this contest, Gansler enjoyed a tremendous cash advantage, but the merging of the Brown and Ulman coffers largely eradicated that advantage. I'm still not certain if taking Ulman out of the race was the best option for Brown - I argued in January of last year that Brown's chances of securing the nomination increased with each additional candidate in the race. By tapping Ulman, Brown may have created a simple two man contest between himself and Gansler. In that scenario, Gansler has an advantage.


But of course, it's not a simple two man race; rather it's shaping up to be a pretty exciting three person race. Heather Mizeur officially announced that she was joining the fray just one month ago this week, but her intentions were clear months beforehand. Mizeur is among the very few women to ever seek the nomination for Maryland governor, and if elected she would be the Free States's first female governor. Mizeur is also one of only 8 openly gay members of the Maryland General Assembly. If she were to win the nomination, she would become the first openly LGBT candidate to run for governor on a major party ticket. Given the recent swings in public opinion in favor of marriage equality, Maryland's legalization of same-sex marriage (uphold by the voters at referendum), and the election of Tammy Baldwin to the U.S. Senate, Mizeur must feel a little bit of the winds of change at her back.

There are still the occasional rumblings about another candidate hopping into the race (Dutch Ruppersberger anyone?), and there's certainly plenty of time for a new candidate to get in - but one is left with a strong sense that the Democratic field is set - Doug Gansler, Anthony Brown, and Heather Mizeur.

As everyone understands, Maryland is a heavily Democratic state. The party claims 56% of registered voters to the GOP's 27%. As a result, the Democratic nominee is the odds on favorite to become the states next governor). So who will win the Democratic primary?

Last year, many a political observer assumed Attorney General Doug Gansler was the favorite. He had an impressive campaign war chest and had twice run and won statewide. The GOP didn't even bother challenging him in 2010 (I'll more to say about the GOP in a follow-up post). Gansler enjoys high name recognition and his work on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay and his official opinion that the state would recognize same sex marriages performed out of state have endeared him to state progressives - crucial in a primary. And Gansler hails from Maryland's most populated county - Montgomery. After the disaster that was the 2012 session of the Maryland General Assembly, Gansler's stock rose significantly. Governor O'Malley absorbed a tremendous amount of criticism (deservedly so) for the failure that was the 2012 session. Being part of the O'Malley team was no feather in Brown's cap that year.

But O'Malley quickly realized that the bad press from the failed session was harming his own presidential ambitions. Over the summer of 2012 he called two special sessions, one to settle the state budget and the other to address the issue of casino gambling in the state. O'Malley took control of the casino issue and worked hard at crafting a proposal acceptable to the House and Senate. Then, in November of 2012 O'Malley found himself symbolically on the ballot in Maryland not once, but four times. The casino measured passed by the Assembly was subject to voter approval, and three laws - marriage equality, the MD DREAM Act, and the new Congressional district map - were successfully petitioned to referendum. Would the voters rebuke O'Malley? The answer was a resounding "No." O'Malley carried the day on all 4 issues.

Then, the 2013 legislative session came and went with nary a hitch. The Assembly tackled several high profile issues - including a gas tax increase, a ban on the death penalty, off-shore wind development, and comprehensive gun control. It was an incredible string of progressive victories. Things were clearly breaking in favor of Brown.  He received O'Malley's endorsement early and since naming Ulman as his running mate Brown has collected an impressive portfolio of endorsements. In addition to O'Malley, he's been endorsed by Senate President Mike Miller, U.S. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, the Laborers International Union of North America, VoteVets.Org... the list goes on. In fact, almost daily I receive a press release from the Brown campaign announcing a new endorsement.

Meanwhile, Gansler has not formally announce a candidacy and has offered no hints regarding a running mate. Gansler, and his people, argue that no one other than political insiders are paying any attention to the 2014 race at this point. As such, there is little to be gained from making an announcement, picking a running mate, or collecting endorsements. There is some truth to Gansler's argument. Most Marylanders are not paying any attention to the 2014 race, but Gansler's audience is not most Marylanders. In 2010, only 25% of registered Democrats turned out for the primary. Primary voters tend to be the most dedicated and attentive voters - and these folks are likely paying some attention to the 2014 contest.

But for Gansler, waiting may well be the best course of action. To the extent that voters are tuning out the campaign, Brown is making headlines and receiving largely positive press during the time of year when folks are more concerned with their kid's summer camp and weekend traffic on the Bay bridge. By the time they snap back into reality in September (when Gansler makes his campaign official), Brown will have burned through most of his high profile endorsements and his naming of Ulman will be a memory. When Gansler announces his candidacy, how will Brown/Ulman counter program? When Gansler announces his running mate, how will Brown/Ulman counter program? When Gansler receives endorsement, how will Brown/Ulman counter program? The Brown campaigns needs to worry about peaking too soon and about burning through their positive press stories too early in the cycle. If Brown comes to be seen as the obvious frontrunner, the press will inevitably start looking for his weaknesses and any sign of weakness will be exaggerated.

There is another silver lining for Gansler. Brown is running as the consummate political insider, he is collecting endorsement after endorsement from the Democratic party establishment. He cannot claim to be anything but the candidate of the status quo. Maybe that's not so damaging in Democrat-friendly Maryland, but public confidence in government is at an all time low and Maryland has been criticized for it's lack of transparency and accountability in government. Being seen as the establishment's candidate may not be a winning strategy in 2014.  Brown has created an opportunity for Gansler to run as the only candidate who can shake up the system and claim some level of independence. The Attorney General is free from gubernatorial influence and with all of the high profile endorsements flowing to Brown - who in the establishment would Gansler feel beholden too?

The establishment is circling the wagons around "their guy" Anthony Brown, the guy who won't rock boat. But then there's Doug Gansler - as Attorney General he was more than happy to rock things. He was making progress protecting the Chesapeake while the General Assembly was waffling on the permeable surface tax, he was fighting for consumer protection long before the White House decided we needed a federal consumer protection agency. And same-sex marriage? Gansler was ahead of everyone else in Maryland on that issue. At a time when Team O'Malley and the General Assembly would rather have ignored the issue, Gansler stated that Maryland would recognize marriages from other states. It would be reasonable to argue that he forced the rest of MD's Democratic establishment to get on board.

If I'm a member of the Gansler team (and I'm not), I'm making the case that on issue after issue, Gansler was doing what he believed to be right for all Marylanders and not just what was best for the party establishment. I'd ask the question, do Marylanders want a tested and proven agent of positive change or a foot soldier for the status quo?

It remains to be seen whether Gansler will choose that strategy, but, while Brown has been travelling the state collecting endorsements Gansler has been traveling the state talking policy specifics as part of a “Building Our Best Maryland” tour. And Gansler has not chosen to narrow his focus to just feel-good policy issues. In a recent forum he tackled the weighty issue of prisoner recidivism in Maryland. It's a sad fact that our prisons are good at only one thing - creating repeat offenders. Once someone has served their sentence it is extremely difficult for them to return to society as productive members and many get caught in a prison revolving door. Gansler has proposed a number of significant changes for Maryland - including transitional housing assistance, hiding criminal convictions from potential employers if someone has been "clean" for 5 years, and better training and rehabilitation while in prison. It's never popular to talk about investing in those convicted of crimes, but it's the only way we're going to tackle our prison crowding problem where over 40% of released prisoners return to prison. Reducing recidivism would mean reducing crime.

Gansler has also proposed changes that would make Maryland government more transparent. Last year, the Center for Public Integrity released its “Corruption Risk Report Card” on which Maryland received an overall grade of D- and ranked 40th among states. As reported in the Washington Post, Maryland received an F on public access to information and legislative accountability. Among other reforms, Gansler envisions the creation of an inspector general who would facilitate access to public information. A proven agent of positive change or a foot soldier for the status quo?

And then there is Heather Mizeur. Mizeur was largely ignored by the Maryland political press until she shocked everyone by coming in second in a straw poll of Western Maryland Democrats. Mizeur has decided to run a rather unorthodox campaign. But Mizeur's decision to focus her campaign events around the themes of community and service may well resonate with the folks who get out and vote in primaries. So far her campaign events have collected supplies for a women's shelter, restored a playground, and cleaned a marshland. Though some Democratic party insiders have grumbled that she is too young and has jumped the queue by getting into this race only to serve some future political ambitions, Mizeur has countered that if she loses the primary she's done with politics. Mizeur is from Montgomery county - a crucial and vote rich county and she has strong connections to the Eastern Shore as she and her spouse operate an organic farm there.

Though Mizeur makes headlines as an LGBT candidate, her record on issues hits the mark for many a party activist. Mizeur was central in the effort to allow college age kids in MD  to remain on their parents insurance - well before this became the law nationally. She is a passionate defender of the environment and leading voice in the effort to prevent natural gas extraction via fracking in Western Maryland. In addition to her policy positions, Mizeur offers Maryland women a chance to finally crack the Annapolis glass ceiling AND she offers Maryland progressives a chance to say that we have turned the page on the issue of LGBT equality. Despite the challenges she'll face, I consider her to be the most exciting candidate in the race - and in a primary, excitement matters.

So who has the upper hand? I still argue the odds favor Brown. Having the party establishment behind you is a big deal in a low turn-out election where getting people to the polls is all that matters. Gansler and Mizeur will divide the Montgomery county electorate while Brown will be uncontested in his home turf of PG county. Though running mates rarely impact an election, Ulman certainly can help Brown in Howard county and Brown's connection to O'Malley will help in Baltimore City. In a three way race it can take as little as 33.4% of the vote to win - Brown is the candidate most likely to cross that mark in a multi-candidate race.

If Maryland voters feel O'Malley fatigue in 2014, then Brown could suffer the consequences. And Gansler will need to run against the O'Malley record on several key issues if he's going to damage Brown.

For Mizeur, her best hope is an all out negative battle between Brown and Gansler (that's also the GOP's best hope). In the midst of such a battle, her focus on community and service may offer the perfect alternative.

So, much has changed since I last looked at the 2014 race... and yet, nothing much has changed.

Next, I'll look at the MD GOP and the candidates for governor (announced and unannounced), a recent Red Maryland poll offers some interesting results.

The Hiatus is Ending...

I decided last year that I was going to go on a Freestater hiatus and focus solely on my tenure review (something that happens in a professor's seventh year... it's like an academic pon farr, but without the crazy hormones - violent rages and (academic) death are there though). I stopped almost all political writing and commentary, scaled back interviews on Maryland politics, and focused on my classes, book, and tenure.

I'm proud to say that I received tenure at the end of the May and my book, American Government and Popular Discontent was published shortly thereafter. I've had a nice summer with my family, but classes resume in 3 weeks, so...

The hiatus is over. Next week I plan to re-enter the world of Maryland politics with a nice little piece exploring the current state of the Maryland gubernatorial race and the GOP and Democratic prospects. As I argued last year, Doug Gansler was not then, and is not now, the favorite in the race. Heather Mizeur entered the race with minimal press attention, but has suddenly gained (well deserved) media attention. Anthony Brown eliminated a potential opponent by coaxing Ken Ulman to be his running mate - and the team has spent the summer collecting endorsements and cash.

On the GOP side former Harford county exec David Craig was the first man in and he has picked solid running mate whose conservative credentials well balance Craig's moderate politics. Delegate Ron George and failed Congressional candidate Charles Lollar are also on board. We're still waiting to hear from other potential candidates - perhaps none more important than ChangeMaryland's Larry Hogan.

After exploring the gubernatorial race, I plan to begin a series looking at the MD GOP and whether or not it can be saved (and whether it wants to be saved). The party is experiencing a revival at the county level, but still has no real impact at all on state politics. I'll begin by exploring the state senate seats the GOP would need to win to reach the 19 seats needed to mount a filibuster in the state Senate - 17 can happen, but 19 will require one hell of a race for governor.

I'm looking forward to jumping back into the fray.

Obama's Katrina Moment

***Update: Several folks have contacted me insisting that Obama received 53% of the vote in 2012 and that he won by over 9 million votes... Newsflash folks, those were Obama's numbers in 2008. This piece makes specific reference to Obama's re-election in 2012. 

Original Post:
It has been a rough week for the Obama Administration. From Benghazi to obtaining reporters' phone records to the IRS admitting that it targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny, the press is in a frenzy and many are questioning Obama’s fate.  If President Obama does not soon regain control of the narrative, he is likely to suffer the same fate as his predecessor – a collapse in public confidence and a vastly diminished second term. To understand President Obama’s situation we need to explore a little presidential theory and some recent presidential history.

While still a college professor Woodrow Wilson wrote of the presidency, “Let him once win the admiration and confidence of the country, and no other single force can withstand him, no combination of forces will easily overpower him.” Wilson believed that presidents could rely on inspiring and soaring rhetoric to win over the public and overpower Congress. What Wilson failed to contemplate was what happens once a president loses the admiration and confidence of the public. George W. Bush provided the answer to that question in late 2005.

The day after Election Day 2004, President Bush confidently stated he had earned political capital in the election and he intended to spend it. It was a bold statement for a man who been reelected with a bare 51% majority. And history tells us that Bush had anything but a successful second term. His ambitious plans for Social Security reform foundered, he was thwarted in his efforts to achieve immigration reform, and much of his policy decisions regarding Iraq and Afghanistan were made via his use of the veto to overrule Congress. The veto is a powerful weapon, but it’s a weapon wielded in weakness, not in strength (strong Presidents need not resort to the veto). In November 2006, Republicans lost control of the House and Senate, and Bush’s political capital was nowhere to be found.

What happened to Bush between Election Day 2004 and the Democratic victories in the 2006 election is a cautionary tale that the Obama Administration would do well to consider. It’s debatable whether Bush’s reelection truly bestowed any political capital upon him. Fully 49% of the electorate voted for someone else and the Bush election team had made a concerted effort to define John Kerry as an unfit leader and political “flip-flopper.” Election 2004 was as much a John Kerry rejection as it was a Bush reelection. Bush had presented himself as a competent manager and a reliable leader – a stark contrast to Kerry. That image collapsed in spectacular fashion in latter half of 2005.

In late August of that year, hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans. What followed were weeks and months of media coverage of looting, violence, displaced people, and thousands stranded in the Superdome. As coverage of the post-storm situation continued, criticism of the

government’s response mounted. Criticism tended to focus on problems of mismanagement by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and a perceived lack of leadership. In our book, American Government and Popular Discontent, my coauthor Steve Schier and I argue that to lead effectively, contemporary presidents need support from federal courts and Congress, the steady allegiance of the public, and accordance with contemporary public opinion about the proper size and scope of government. Bush had argued for a scaled back government, yet Katrina undermined that argument. Fairly or not President Bush became the focal point for public dissatisfaction with the Katrina response and his image as a competent and reliable manager collapsed. His approval rating fell into the 30 percent range and never recovered. Then in October, the Special Counsel appointed to investigate the possible outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame indicted Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Bush was finished. The President lost the admiration and confidence of the country – he did not get it back.

This brings us to President Obama’s current troubles. and the similarities between Obama's 2012 reelection and George W. Bush's 2004 reelection.  Like Bush, Obama was reelected by the same 51% bare majority. Obama’s narrow popular vote victory was bolstered by a more substantial Electoral College victory. Like Bush, Obama was rejected by 49% of the electorate and exit polls showed a majority of voters favored full or partial repeal of the President’s signature legislative accomplishment – health care reform.  Much like the Bush 2004 strategy, the Obama campaign spent millions defining Mitt Romney as an unfit leader. Like 2004, 2012 was as much a Romney rejection as an Obama reelection. Obama was portrayed as the reliable and competent manager who understood there was a positive role for government to play in improving people’s lives. If Obama is not careful, that image will collapse in spectacular fashion.

When House Republicans decided to reopen investigations into the White House and State Department response to the attacks on our embassy in Benghazi few thought it would inflict any serious damage to the President, though it was attracting press attention. Then came an admission from the IRS that it had unfairly singled out conservative groups for scrutiny during the 2012 campaign. Suddenly the press had two scandals to focus on. Then the Associated Press "wiretap" story made landfall. In April and May of 2012 the Department Of Justice secretly obtained two months of phone records for roughly two dozen AP reporters (no wires were actually tapped). It is suspected that the phone records were seized as part of an investigation into national security leaks. With the emergence of a third scandal, the press has seemingly turned on an administration that it had long treated with kid gloves.

The initial response from the White House appears to be “the President had no knowledge” of the IRS audits, the Justice Department wiretaps, or changes to Benghazi talking points. The White House is engaged in a confusing two-step – the President is responsible for the executive branch, but he is not responsible for the actions or misdeeds of executive branch employees or officers – actions and misdeeds that he did not know about. In reality, it makes no difference whether Obama was directly responsible for or knowledgeable of any of the actions alleged. The catastrophe of the Katrina aftermath was very much the fault of then Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, and FEMA Director Michael Brown. The Valerie Plame investigation never revealed any evidence that members of the Bush Administration illegally leaked her identity to the press. But pas is often the case in politics, perception mattered more than reality and the buck stopped with President Bush.

The perception emerging now is that President Obama is a detached bystander in his own Administration. Rather than embracing his role as Chief Executive he is otherwise engaged – too busy with the permanent campaign. Worse, the IRS and Justice Department wiretap stories undermine a central tenet the President’s agenda – that government can be a trusted and competent partner in improving lives. These scandals bolster conservative arguments about government as a malevolent force that should be constrained. It certainly does not help Obama that the IRS will play a central role in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Obama's best hope may be the GOP. When Bush was in meltdown in 2005, Democrats were wise to stand back and just watch the President implode. As a result, it was not possible for the Bush Administration to simply dismiss the accusations and investigations as political theatre. But Republicans are so eager to see Obama weakened that they have jumped headlong into the fray - even tossing the impeachment word around. If the GOP overplays its hand, they'll play right into Obama's and provide him with political cover. The next week or two will be critical. Ezra Klein is already arguing that the scandals are falling apart. Perhaps, but I think that's more a case of wishful thinking at this point. He seems to think that there must be direct involvement at the top for these scandals to have an impact. I don't think that's correct, especially if we're talking about public confidence in Obama's leadership and his argument about government as a positive force for change.

This is Obama’s Katrina moment, if he cannot regain control of the narrative then he will face the same loss of public confidence suffered by President Bush. If that happens, Obama will spend the next 3 years relying on little more than the power of the veto to influence the agenda of others. He's already at a disadvantage owing to GOP control of the House. Much as 35% of the public stood with George W. Bush until the very end, Obama can expect to maintain the support of a very committed segment of the public, and they will defend him no matter what. But legacies are not built on the cult-like adherence of a passionate and deluded minority. Just ask George W. Bush.

Maryland Cannot Afford to not Invest in Infrastructure

Last year, I criticized Governor O'Malley for proposing an increase in the gas tax in the midst of a weak economy. O'Malley's proposal went nowhere last year as neither Senate President Mike Miller or House Speaker Michael Busch were particularly interested in pursuing the increase.

This year, things are different. O'Malley, Miller, and Busch held a joint news conference today to announce a plan for infrastructure investment in Maryland. Under the plan worked out by the three party leaders, a new 2 percent sales tax on gasoline would be applied starting in July. The tax would increase to 4 percent in July, 2014. O'Malley's plan also would reduce the current excise tax on a gallon of gas by 5 cents, from 23.5 cents to 18.5 cents. The plan would then index the excise tax to the consumer price index to adjust for inflation.

The proposal is expected to generate $3.2 billion over 5 years to be dedicated to highway and transit projects. And make no mistake, Maryland is desperate need of infrastructure investments. A 2009 report card on Maryland's infrastructure found:

• 44% of Maryland’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition.
• 55% of Maryland’s major urban highways are congested.
• Vehicle travel on Maryland’s Interstates increased 52% from 1990 to 2004 while lane miles increased only 21%.
• 29% of Maryland’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

 My prior criticism of O'Malley's proposed gas tax increase was as much based on the weak economy as it was on the very regressive nature of excise taxes. Simply stated, excise taxes such as a gas tax or a sales tax on food or clothing has a disproportionately negative impact on lower income and working class folks. These folks have less disposable income to begin with and the added tax burden makes their situation worse. The couple hundred dollars lost each year to sales and gas taxes means a lot more to person earning $20,000 per year than it does to someone earning $150,000.

Make no mistake, the new O'Malley, Miller, Busch plan will place a serious burden on working class Marylanders. The plan would essentially place two taxes on the purchase of gas - a flat tax imposed per gallon that would increase with inflation (meaning it would likely increase every year) and a 4% sales tax applied to the total purchase. This means that as the price of gas increases, the additional charge generated by the sales tax will increase.

The flat tax indexed to inflation is perhaps the more troubling of the two - we have been blessed with relatively low levels of inflation for well over a decade, but there is no reason to assume that inflation will not return. The Federal Reserve has been pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the US economy and should we emerge from the current economic slowdown higher rates of inflation are quite possible. The Federal Reserve engaged in aggressive monetary policy in the 1970s as well and it contributed to several years of double-digit inflation. Should we experience a few years of high inflation, that newly adjustable flat tax is going to hurt. It would be better to simply eliminate the flat tax and replace it with a sales tax.

Criticisms and concerns aside, Maryland cannot afford to not make changes in infrastructure funding right now. Virginia recently enacted a major funding bill that will generate $3.5 billion in infrastructure funding. Maryland cannot risk remaining idle while Virginia invests billions in infrastructure upgrades. Such investments are crucial to attracting businesses as well as new federal investment - like a new FBI headquarters.

The infrastructure funding bill will hurt, but failing to take the initiative now will hurt the state far more in the long run. 

MD Assembly to Consider the Voter Irrelevance Act

The Maryland General Assembly's disdain for the voters is on full display with the introduction of a bill that would essentially end the right of the people to petition a law to referendum.

SB706 would change the criteria to bring legislation to referendum by increasing the number of necessary votes from 3% of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election to 5% of the total number of registered voters the day the bill was passed. 

The change to the petition process should be named the Voter Irrelevance Act. Much like Republicans in TX and NC, Maryland Democrats have used their majority power to strip away nearly all checks on their power by the voters. They've used legislative redistricting to gerrymander the state inflate their numbers in the House and Senate well beyond what would be expected based on them share of the vote Democrats and Republicans receive in the state.

Now they want to dramatically alter the petition/referendum process. Personally and professionally, I do not like referenda or direct democracy. We elect representatives to exercise their judgment, subject to our approval or disapproval come election day. But when a majority party manipulates the process to the point that elections have become meaningless (and that's what gerrymandering does) petition and referendum become one of the only means left to the public to check power. And that's why the Assembly is looking to take that last remaining check away.

Under existing law, a petition challenge to a law must gather signatures equal to 3% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. About 1.7 million votes were cast in the 2010 election so that means 56,000 signatures for any petition after the 2010 election and before the 2014 election. The new law would require signatures equal to 5% of all registered voters in the state at the time the bill was passed. There were 3.4 million voters in MD in April of 2010, so instead of 56,000 signatures the new requirement would be 177,000 signatures - triple amount of signatures. That's roughly 70,000 more signatures than the number of Marylanders who signed the petition to bring the Marriage Equality legislation to the ballot (the concept of holding a referendum to decide a question of basic civil rights is especially offensive to me, but it's allowed under Maryland law). The Marriage Equality challenge was an incredibly high profile piece of legislation. That it likely would have failed the new 5% of all registered voters standard suggests that few if any laws would ever be successfully petitioned to referendum - which is precisely the point of the proposed law.

Keep in mind, there have only been 4 succesful petition efforts in the last 30 years. True, 3 of them were in the last 2 years and appeared on the 2012 ballot, but the voters upheld each of the laws. It's unlikely, after that round of losses, that we're going to see another ballot with so many challenges. There's simply no need to make it even harder for the people to petition a bill to referendum.

The new requirement is really just another example of the Assembly's attempt to make voters irrelevant. Consider, the state constitution calls for a vote on a constitutional convention every 20 years. In 1930, 1950, and 2010 the call for a convention received majority support. But the General Assembly refused to call a convention.  Article XIV of the state constitution reads "It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to provide by Law for taking, at the general election to be held in the year nineteen hundred and seventy, and every twenty years thereafter, the sense of the People in regard to calling a Convention for altering this Constitution; and if a majority of voters at such election or elections shall vote for a Convention, the General Assembly, at its next session, shall provide by Law for the assembling of such convention, and for the election of Delegates thereto." In order to prevent a convention that may threaten their power, Assembly Democrats have relied on a disingenuous interpretation of the constitutional language. They have argued that the constitutional convention question must receive majority support from all folks who voted on election day, not just those who voted on the specific question of holding a convention. In effect, folks who don't vote are counted as no votes. In 2010, a majority of folks voting on the convention question voted to hold a convention, but because several thousand people didn't vote on the issue, it fell short of a majority of all voters who participated in the election.

Refusal to accept the judgment of the people on the question of a constitutional convention wouldn't be so bad, if not for the fact that the Assembly refuses to consistently apply it's majority of all voters standard. Article XIX of the MD constitution makes clear that gambling can not be expanded in the state unless "approval is granted through a referendum, authorized by an act of the General Assembly, in a general election by a majority of the qualified voters in the State." The language is clear - a gambling expansion requires approval by a majority of all registered voters. But the assembly ignored that requirement in November and declared that casino gambling needed merely a majority of those voting on that specific questions. The Attorney General's office happily complied with that determination (just as it has agreed with the more strict requirement for calling conventions).

The reason for the hypocrisy is clear, if you simply want to have a check on the Assembly's power by petitioning a law to referendum or by voting for a constitutional convention then the Assembly sets the bar impossibly high. But if you are a multi-billion dollar special interest group - like the gambling industry - the Assembly sets the bar very low.

That the Assembly is out to erect yet another barrier to the peoples ability to serve as a check on the power of the Assembly is not surprising, but it's still quite a sad thing to observe...

** In an earlier version of this post I lumped HB493,the Referendum Integrity Act, in with SB796. I regret the error. HB 493 would not curtail the right to petition, rather it would better guard against fraud.

O'Malley Delivers His Best State of the State Address... Ever

I like to think that I am mostly immune from hyperbole, so please forgive the title of this post, but I see no way around the conclusion that Martin O'Malley's 7th State of the State address was his best address ever - it was certainly one of his best speeches ever - and I fully expected that he would conclude the speech by saying "and that's why I am asking for your support to be the Democratic nominee for President in 2016."

Perhaps he should have ended with that request... though I suspect that everyone viewing or listening to the speech got a free preview of his nomination battle stump speech.

O'Malley is a policy wonk, he is strongest when discussing policy and this speech was full of policy and thankfully lacking in his tendency to engage in poetic flourish (life is an evolving story...).

Consider his opening salvo:

Remember seven years ago? Our State had veered off course. We started following the same, never-mind-the-math approach that created our federal deficits. Democrats and Republicans alike – in this very Chamber – had voted to cut taxes for millionaires, and to greatly increase state spending, without paying for either one.

The result: a $1.7 billion structural deficit. What’s less, we were paying taxes for a government that was not working; that was failing to deliver results. Underperforming schools. Tuition hikes approaching 40%. Rising crime outside of Baltimore.

But in 2007, together, we started making better choices. We cut spending growth. We added a penny to the sales tax to improve our children’s education. We restored revenues by making our tax code more progressive and fair. We took concrete action to close our structural deficit.

But beyond talking about what Maryland has done, O'Malley focused much of his speech on what Maryland must do moving forward.



O'Malley called for job creation through needed infrastructure investment - clearly reminding people that their is a clear role for government in the economy through the provision of desperately needed services. He tackled gun control and called for a ban on assault rifles and handgun licensing. And he made another push for green energy via offshore wind.

O'Malley spoke of an end to the death penalty and he did so passionately. It is no small thing that a sitting governor and aspirant for the White House made the following comparison  "across our ever-more-closely connected world, the majority of executions now take place in just seven countries: Iran. Iraq. The People’s Republic of China. North Korea. Saudi Arabia. Yemen. And the United States of America."  A nation should be judged by the company that it keeps and when it comes to executions we're in some very sorry company. 

O'Malley offered an unapologetically progressive vision, but he wisely wrapped it up in commonsense rhetoric and placed it atop a very moderate (politically) record of accomplishments.

Consider, he prefaced his speech by reminding voters that under his leadership:

We used the pressure of sinking revenues to make government more efficient. For the first time, we started setting public goals with more immediate deadlines. We started measuring weekly performance to make government more effective.

We constrained budget growth and made government smaller. We strengthened our rainy Day Fund and protected our Triple A Bond Rating.

We fixed our pension system. We reformed hundreds of pages of regulations, streamlined permitting, and fast tracked jobs projects. We eliminated paperwork, simplified applications for business licenses, and reduced waiting times from months to days.

O'Malley's record as governor is not one of left-wing ideological leadership. Two years ago, commenting on O'Malley's re-election, I wrote O'Malley had "made some very difficult choices as governor. And, despite his progressive leanings, has presided over an era of very conservative budgeting." I stand by that assessment and believe that O'Malley highlighted that record very well today.

I have been very critical of O'Malley at times (when deserved) and suspect that I will continue to be. I believe that O'Malley will have a very hard time rising above the crowd should he seek the Democratic nomination in 2016 - but this speech is a positive sign.

Make no mistake, O'Malley's 2013 Maryland State of the State address was very much a 2016 campaign launch speech - and it was a damn good one. Watch your back Andrew Cuomo.

Obama's Power Problem

In an op-ed in today's Baltimore Sun I make the case that Barack Obama faces a daunting challenge if he truly expects to see his second term agenda become a reality. I argue that all presidents since the 1960s have had a problem of eroding political capital - defined as a mix of public approval, Congressional support, and victory margin.

None of Barack Obama's recent predecessors solved the political capital problem or avoided the power trap. It is the central political challenge confronted by modern presidents...

Pressed by this governing reality, recent presidents have tried to defy the political capital deficit via ever more claims of executive power - signing statements, executive orders, and recess appointments have all increased in the post-1960s world. But these claims of power ten to further erode public support and antagonize Congress - so political capital falls more.

The president's recent issuance of multiple executive orders to deal with the issue of gun violence is further evidence of his power trap. Faced with the likelihood of legislative defeat in Congress, the president must rely on claims of unilateral power. But such claims are not without limit or cost and will likely further erode his political capital. Only by solving the problem of political capital is a president likely to avoid a power trap.

One element of my argument has annoyed a few people; namely my reference to Obama's narrow reelection. Many are suggesting that Obama's reelection was not so narrow. I stand by what I wrote. Consider these important facts - few dispute that George W. Bush was narrowly reelected in 2004 when he bested John Kerry 51%-48%. Obama's margin over Romney was little different at 51%-47%. Folks are quick to point to Obama's clear electoral college victory - but political capital is linked to public support and the electoral college is a poor proxy for public support.

Aside from the narrowness of Obama's victory margin, there is something far more substantial which points to seriously diminished political capital - Obama's lost voters. Barack Obama is the first president in at least 100 years to be elected to a second term and receive fewer total votes than in his first election. Obama received 65.9 million votes in 2012, roughly 3.6 million fewer votes than his  69.5 million haul in 2008. By comparison, every other president elected to a second term in the last 100 years added to their first election total. George W. Bush received a  whopping 12 million more votes in 2004 than in 2000. Bill Clinton added 2.5 million to his 1992 total, and Ronald Reagan added 11 million voters. Richard Nixon added over 15 million more voters.You must look to Franklin Roosevelt election to he fourth term to really see a fall of in support for a reelected incumbent. Typically, when an incumbent receives fewer total votes when seeking reelection they lose. Even Mitt Romney managed to best John McCain's vote total by about 1.5 million voters.

Unlike every other president to be elected to a second term in the last 100 years, Barack Obama's base of support shrank after 4 years in office. That is a very bad indication of the state of his political capital. Obama talked a good game in his inaugural address today, but with a bare majority approval rating, a bare majority reelection, a diminished base of mass support, and a Republican House of Representatives Obama is unlikely to see much of what he envisions ever come to pass. That's simply the reality of modern presidential politics.

Obviously I was Wrong about Romney

There have been multiple postmortems on the Romney campaign and all reveal significant flaws. The campaign had virtually no get out the vote machine, they became over confident about their position in key swing states and they spent a lot of precious time in PA instead of VA, FL, OH or CO. It was a lower turnout election with Romney receiving fewer votes than McCain in 2008 and the President winning far fewer votes than he did in 2008. And then there was Hurricane Sandy.

If you look to the Real Clear Politics polling data for the two/three weeks prior to the hurricane Romney had established a consistent lead. But more important than the Romney lead, the President had a poll ceiling of 47% and most polls had him at 45, 46 or 47% - this is deadly for an incumbent. Then Sandy hit and the numbers shifted quite clearly in the President's favor. His 46 and 47% poll numbers jumped to 49 and 50%. His approval rating increased as well. It certainly gave him a boost on election day.  Of course any discussion of the hurricane impacting the race is immediately dismissed by the Left as they try to magnify the significance of what was a rather poor 50%-48% re-election margin for the President. And the Right is trying to avoid facing the facts that they are losing racial and ethnic minority voters and are too reliant on the votes of a shrinking white electorate. I don't much care what the Left or the Right have to say - but to deny that Sandy had a positive impact on Obama's bid and a negative impact on Romney is to deny common sense. Much as would any attempt to deny the Romney campaign's serious failings.

A review of pollster accuracy by Nate Silver reveals something pretty amazing - nearly every pollster overstated GOP strength. This is an historic anomaly, polls tend to understate GOP strength. The systemic bias in favor of the GOP suggests just how impressive the Obama campaign's turn-out machine was. Turn-out overall was done by several million voters, but based on exit polls youth, African-American, and Hispanic voters turned-out at the same numbers as they did in 2008 (the Hispanic numbers were actually up a bit), but they accounted for a greater share of the electorate because so many white voters simply failed to show up. The GOP needs white voters to win and when millions stay home, the GOP loses (Of course, if the GOP had not succeeded in turning away Hispanic voters in recent years then all of those white voters would not have mattered. Had Romney won the same share of Hispanics as McCain in 2008 he would have likely eked out a win. Had he received the same share as Bush in 2004 he would have won comfortably.).

On election day the Obama folks found and turned-out their voters and the GOP did not. There have been reports the Romney campaign's turn-out program - code named Orca - was based on a proprietary software program designed to identify likely GOP voters who not yet voted. The program was top secret and in an effort to keep it that way the Romney folks barely tested it and did minimal training. Worse, it crashed on election day. So field workers, ready to turn-out voters, were left twisting in the wind as their voters stayed home. It was a colossal failure. In a lower turn-out election, the team with the better ground game will win, and in this case they did.

As with any election, winners win and losers lose for a multitude of reasons. Blaming any one reasons is pretty much folly. The losers will look to find any excuses so as to avoid a painful period of self-reflection. The winners will look to ignore any factors that serve to diminish the significance of their victory. As New Republic's Timothy Noah recently wrote there appears to be no clear reason for Obama's win or Romney's loss. Exit polls reveal no clear endorsement of Obama's agenda or a rejection of Romney's. Rather the election results point to a status quo election in which the voters sent to no clear message to anyone. Regardless of the voters' lack of a message, the loss makes quite clear which side is better able to win when no national wave is carrying either party to the finish.

Perhaps ABC's Political Director Amy Walter wrote it best: "In 2006, 2008 and 2010 voters punished the party it saw as too consumed with its own agenda and unfocused on the concerns of average Americans. But each "wave election" only served to convince the winning party that they had a mandate for their ideological agenda. Ironically, it took a "status quo" election to finally convince the two sides to hear what voters have been telling them along: stop the posturing and work together to get something done to fix the many problems this country is facing."

We can only hope she is correct.

If Early Voting Numbers are Correct, Obama is a Goner

And it's a big "IF", But here are Gallup’s stats from October 28, 2008: Obama led in early voting by 15 points (55/40).  His election day edge was just three points.  He ended up winning by seven points.  One more note.  According to Gallup, by 10/28/08, the percentage of Americans who said they’d already voted or planned to vote early was 33 percent.  Four years later, that number sits at…33 percent.

Today, Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney's 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup's Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.

If these numbers are even close to accurate - and Gallup's presidential track record is solid - then Romney will take the national popular vote by roughly 4% - and with it an electoral college majority.

Get Ready for a Crazy 7 Days, and Perhaps Beyond!

I keep saying that 2012 looks like 2004 and that advantages Romney, but there is an important caveat. In 2004 Bush narrowly won OH and narrowly lost many states such as WI and PA. This time around we are seeing similar trends with Romney and Obama close in otherwise Democratic states such as WI, MN, MI and PA. The few polls that have come from solid Democratic states like NJ and CA show Obama with much smaller leads than in 2008 while Romney is well ahead in truly red states.

This does set the stage for that rare event - a split between the electoral college and the popular vote. Though I have no faith in Nate Silvers so-called "election models" I agree with him in one area - Obama has a better chance of winning the electoral college than he does of winning the popular vote (and the electoral college is all that matters - I say that because it's obvious and because I support the electoral college). So it's possible Romney will win the popular vote by 1 or 2% and lose the election by losing OH. In that light, it is possible to see the closing week actions by the president in a different light.

Obama may be expending campaign resources in states like PA and MN because he wants to boost his popular vote numbers, but also because he fears that he may win OH and then lose the race because a state like PA or MN slips away from him.

Now, am I hedging my bets? No, not really. I predicted a Romney win because I believe the fundamentals point to his win. But even with those fundamentals it is not a certainty. Rather than a 50/50 chance Romney wins I see a 55/45 chance. That's hardly overwhelming and I am fully prepared to be wrong - but in the end I've made a prediction based on campaign activity, choices regarding ad buys and campaign stops, on polling numbers among key voting blocs (women and independents), and actual early voting data (not polling data). I do not believe that an election can be predicted the way one might predict a batting average.

Much evidence will come in the next 7 days - that Romney is planning an even in MN and that Biden is going to PA are telling and suggest a race breaking toward Romney. GOP early voting numbers are up in nearly every battleground state and Republican enthusiasm remains higher. But if there is a late break for Obama or for Romney there should be some clear indication by Friday... I know I'll be obsessed with every twist and turn between now and next Tuesday.

No, Robo-Polls and Landline Only Polls are not Inaccurate

With the race for the White House so close it seems that whichever side is down in the polls seeks some way to dismiss polling accuracy. At present it is Team Obama that is trying mightily to convince folks that the polls are misleading and their typical line of attack either focuses on so-called Robo-Polls where the survey is conducted via computer instead of a live operator or the lack of cell phone only households in a survey sample. Robo-Polls are not permitted to dial cell phone numbers and the argument is this exclusion of cell phone only households introduces a bias to the detriment of the President.

Unfortunately, there's no support for the anti-Robo-Call or cell phone exclusion argument. A paper written for the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) by an ad hoc committee formed to study polling accuracy found no problems with automated polls. They addressed both the cell phone issue and the "robo-poll" question and found: "The exclusion of cell phone only (CPO) individuals from the samples did not seem to have an effect" and "The use of either computerized telephone interviewing (CATI) techniques or interactive voice response (IVR) techniques made no difference to the accuracy of estimates."

Mark Blumenthal, the polling guru from Pollster.com has written often on the issue of robo-polls and concludes there is no evidence they are are any more or less accurate than live operator polls: "automated telephone surveys did at least as well as those from conventional live-interviewer surveys in predicting election outcomes."

Then there's the Pew Foundation, in a study they conducted in 2009 they determined "pre-election polls conducted by telephone did very well in forecasting the outcome of the election in 2008. This was true for polls using live interviewers and those conducted with recorded voices. It was true for those based only on landline interviews and those that included cell phones."

So there you have it - there is simply no evidence to support the argument that robo-polls and the exclusion of cell phone only households introduces any bias into polling results.

All Signs Point to a Romney Win

Update: Obviously I was wrong.

The election is a mere two weeks away and I've decided to step away from the twitterverse and provide a more detailed write-up on the state if the race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Anyone who has read my tweets on the campaign will not be surprised when I say that I believe that Romney currently has the momentum and I consider him to be the favorite to win on Election Day. I argue the current electoral college map, national polls, support levels among women and Independents, and the results of the debates all point to a Romney win. I'll consider each in turn.

The Electoral College
There can be no question but that Romney has made significant gain in the battle for 270 electoral votes in the past 3 weeks. Romney has a solid hold on every state John McCain won in 2008 and has reclaimed two Obama states - Indiana and North Carolina. But that tells only part of the story. Florida and Virginia have also moved significantly toward Romney and if you look at the top ten advertising market ad buys Virgina is nowhere to be found and Florida is at the bottom of the list. Democratic operative and CNN contributor Paul Begala told CNN just yesterday that Florida has been lost to Romney. That Virginia is not even in the top ten speaks to the reality of race in that state. Add to that the fact that the scuttlebutt is that Obama for America has ceased polling in Virginia and team Obama may have pulled upwards of half of their staff out of the state to be used elsewhere.

With Florida and Virginia in the Romney column I see a current electoral map with 237 electoral votes for Obama and 248 for Romney. Six states remain as toss-ups - Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and New Hampshire.

Among those six states, Colorado has been trending to Romney and Nevada has been trending to Obama - that would create 243 votes for Obama and 257 for Romney. There has been much talk of everything coming down to Ohio, but that is now only true for Obama. In the map I'm seeing, Obama must win Ohio to win, but he'd only have 267 electoral votes and would need New Hampshire, Iowa, or Wisconsin to cross the victory line.  Romney can hit 270+ by winning Wisconsin and New Hampshire or Wisconsin an Iowa. Romney doesn't need Ohio, but if he does win it, he wins it all. And the trend in Ohio is toward Romney. Since the first debate Obama's average lead in OH has fallen from 5% to below 2% and multiple polls show Obama receiving 47% support or below - that's a dangerously low level of support for an incumbent. If one looks to the last 5 presidential elections, in 4 of the 5, late deciders broke strongly for the challenger. In Ohio specifically, late deciders broke for John Kerry by a 22 point margin in 2004. Kerry still lost, but a key difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama is the fact that Bush was closer to the 50% mark already and there were fewer undecided voters in 2004.

But the electoral story goes deeper. Recent polling data and campaign actions suggest that once safe Obama states may now be in play - Pennsylvania and Minnesota. Paul Ryan attended a rally in Pittsburgh last weekend and in Minnesota the Obama campaign has made an ad buy. Worse, I'm hearing rumblings today that one of two campaigns is conducting polls in Oregon. Obama won all three states by comfortable margins in 2008. Romney is unlikely to win any of the three, but the simple fact that they are in play demonstrate how Obama's fortunes have changed. I see an end result that puts Romney at 285 electoral votes as a minimum.

The National Polls
The national polls provide the best evidence of Romney's momentum. Prior to the first debate on October 3rd, Obama held a clear advantage.

The table above, from Realclearpolitics.com makes clear the strength of Obama's position just before the first debate. Obama was ahead by an average of 3 to 4 points and more important he was regularly hitting 49% and 50% in the polls.

Then came the debate....

Obama's advantage was gone and worse his 49% and 50% marks were now accompanied by 45% and 46% levels of support - deadly for any incumbent.  Some on the American Left have tried to argue that Romney gained temporary momentum after the first debate and that momentum stalled after the 2nd debate - that is clearly wishful thinking.

 

Romney is in a better position today than after the first debate. Romney is hitting the 49%, 50% and 51% mark and appears to be establishing a lead. The one poll that offered Obama hope was the IBD/TIPP tracking poll that had Obama with a 6 point lead on Sunday, but within two days the lead fell to 2% suggesting the lead was just the result of a bad day of polling. Obama is regularly receiving support in the 45%-47% range and it's hard to see how he climbs back to 50.1%. 

Support Among Key Voting Blocs

When you take a glance deeper inside the polls you see greater trouble signs for Obama. Obama is counting on a large gender gap to win him a second term - namely he hopes to win women by a large margin. That was the basis for the "war against women" meme and the constant talk of contraception access. But the approach isn't working. The Monmouth/SurveyUSA survey shows what has been a common element most national polls - Obama is not winning women by a margin sufficient to win. Romney has a double digit lead among men, but Obama has only a mid single digit lead among women. Team Obama has failed to recognize that women are more concerned with the economy than any other issue. The focus on "gender issues" came at the expense of presenting a plan for improving the economy in his second term.

Independent voters are the other key group. Obama won Independents by 7-8 percentage points in 2008, yet in most national polls and in most swing states - including Ohio - Romney has a clear advantage among Independent voters - usually in the 5-7% range. Absent the gender gap and the support of Independent voters, Obama would need Democratic turn-out to match or exceed 2008 levels. But 2008 was an election marked by tremendous enthusiasm among Democrats and the party's 7 percentage point turn-out advantage likely was a high water mark that will not be repeated. If the party's turn-out advantage winds up at the 4% range (the average of 2004 and 2008) Obama will fall short of victory.

The Debates

The prior paragraphs make clear the gains Romney made from the first debate, but his gains continued through the 2nd and 3rd - debates he "lost." After the 2nd debate, a CNN poll of viewers found Obama scored a narrow victory, but on the most important question - who would be the better leader on the economy - Romney won 58%-40%. After the final debate on foreign policy, many of Obama's supporters were convinced of the president's clear victory. But CNN again found viewers gave the president a narrow win and on the only question that mattered - is the candidate ready to be commander-in-chief - Obama and Romney tied. A different poll of  viewers by PPP (a Democratic firm) asked if the debate made viewers more or less likely to support a candidate. Among Independent voters, 32% said they were more likely to vote for the President and 48% answered less likely. For Romney, the numbers were reversed, 47% more likely and 35% less likely. 

The debates also allowed Romney to undo the negative effects of $100 million in swing state advertising by the Obama campaign to define him as an unacceptable candidate. Going into the fall Obama enjoyed a tremendous favorability advantage over Romney. Romney was considered to be one of the least liked candidates ever. As of today, Romney enjoys a 6% advantage over Obama on favorability! It marks a stunning turnaround.

Summary

For all of the reasons discussed above, and many more, I see a race that has shifted dramatically in Romney's favor and at present I consider him the most likely victor. Obama's Intrade advantage has collapsed and one of his biggest supporters, Nate Silver of the 538blog, has begun to hedge his bets and discuss the limits of his probability models (which are actually variants of the rather commonplace Monte Carlo method). If you follow Silver religiously you should really move on, because he's not doing anything special and the modifications he's made to the Monte Carlo model all favor Obama - for instance he tends to add greater weight to polls favorable to the President and will even weigh such polls more heavily when they are older and clearly contradicted by newer surveys. Those who follow the futures markets have seen in the past 24 hours how quickly they can change.

All indications are that the results of the election will be close, and it may well come down to a single state that makes the difference, but right now Romney is the candidate with the momentum and the likely victor. I will add, however, that there is the possibility - if national polls are truly capturing the dynamics of the race - that Romney will win by a more comfortable margin.

I may well be wrong, but a week before the the 2010 midterms when most political science models and analysts (including Nate Silver) were predicting GOP House gains in the 50 seat and below range - with many models predicting the GOP would fail to even capture the majority in the House - I predicted a 65 seat gain (the actual was 63) and I correctly called all of the Senate races (also something Silver failed to do) - so I'm just sayin'...

Is Obama in Trouble in Minnesota?

Update - 10/25: Mitt Romney has purchased TV ads in Minnesota. Recent polls suggest a very close race there, but Romney may be trying to force President Obama to divert resources to this assumed to be safe state. Romney may as well be seeking the positive coverage such an ad buy would generate as it shows him playing offense on traditionally Democratic turf. We'll know better on November 6th...

Update II - 10/26: The Obama campaign has now started running TV ads as well. Minnesota is in play.


There were whispers that team Obama sensed some danger in Minnesota - a state most have considered to be a safe Obama state. Then came word that the campaign was sending Jill Biden to the state. If the campaign was not concerned they wouldn't be sending anyone. They can't risk sending Obama or Joe Biden because that would make the campaign's Minnesota worries front page news. I was hesitant to accept the Minnesota news, but then I received the following e-mail from my colleague and co-author Steve Schier, the H. and Edward C. Congdon Professor of Political Science at Carleton College in Minnesota. Schier is an expert on Minnesota politics:

"Here is a link to a memo from GOP pollster Glen Bolger revealing a new poll indicating Obama ahead by only 47-43 in Minnesota. A competitive race?


The two most recent SurveyUSA polls of the sixth and eighth Congressional districts provide supportive evidence for Bolger's poll result. In the eighth, a D +3 district, Romney led in the Survey USA poll 47-45. Romney led by 17 points -- 53-36 -- in the sixth district, which has a partisan index of R +7.

Add to that the fact the a major surrogate, Jill Biden, will campaign in the Twin Cities and Duluth next week.

If Minnesota is competitive, Obama is in trouble."

Make no mistake, if Minnesota is in play then Obama has already lost the election. It's now clear that the Romney debate bounce was more than just a bounce. It has remained and translated to crucial swing states. Romney is surging in Florida and Virginia and appears to be ahead in Colorado, New Hampshire, and perhaps Nevada. In Ohio, Romney has eliminated Obama's once considerable lead and now the race is a statistical tie. Even Pennsylvania has become competitive.

The Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls have the race at 49%-47% - advantage Romney. At present, the 2012 race is starting to look like 2004 with Romney as Bush and Obama as Kerry. Assuming 2/3 of the undecideds break for the challenger (common in an election featuring an incumbent) the 49-47 race would end up 51-48 - just as in 2008. In a race that close Romney would win, but receive 300 electoral votes or less. He'd likely lose Minnesota and Pennsylvania - but both would be close.

Beyond what's happening in Minnesota, one need only look at Obama's average in the national polls. Obama is averaging 46% - that's deadly for an incumbent. Obama needs to be polling above 47% to have a chance at re-election.

The Case Against Re-electing Obama

The conventions are over. The GOP and the Democrats have had their parties and spent six days preaching to their respective choirs. Ratings and surveys show us that few people watched the conventions and those that did had already made up their minds.

Unfortunately for me the conventions offered little to clarify my choice. You see, I'm an undecided voter. And contrary to the claims of many a pundit, I'm not undecided because I know too little about the candidates or issues. I'm undecided because I know too much.

I do not want to vote for President Obama because he has not earned a second term. I had serious reservations about Senator Obama in 2008. He lacked much experience and ran a campaign premised on vague promises designed to let voters hear what they wanted to hear. There was nothing in his time as either a state or US Senator that suggested he was prepared to be President. In fact, his qualifications appeared to be his ability to give great speeches.

As I consider his record during the last 3.5 years I believe that my reservations regarding his preparedness were largely validated. After promising to be a post-partisan President, Obama repeatedly deferred to then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to craft his legislative agenda. Pelosi is proud partisan who actively sought to exclude House Republicans from any meaningful discussions of legislation.

Obama's first substantial legislation was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (stimulus bill). More than a simple stimulus bill it was actually a Christmas Tree bill adorned with projects House and Senate Democrats had been unable to enact during the prior 8 years of Republican control. Worse, the bill cynically offered financial assistance to states for cash starved Medicaid and Unemployment programs, but in order to receive the temporary funds states were required to make programmatic changes that would increase costs long after the stimulus dollars were gone. Though the President promised much of the stimulus funds would be directed to "shovel ready jobs," only $111 billion of the $800 billion stimulus went to infrastructure. Estimates are the stimulus created or saved 3 million jobs - but at $800 billion that's about $266,000 per job. This is because most of the funds were not directed to job creation. It was a missed opportunity.

Obama again deferred to Congressional leadership for what would become the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In the House, Pelosi shut Republicans out of the process entirely. In the Senate, only Finance Committee chair Max Baucus actively sought a bipartisan bill. In the end his committee produced a bill that did receive the vote of Republican Senator Olympia Snowe. But when it came time to introduce the bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced a version that excluded the bipartisan efforts of Baucus. Throughout the process President Obama consistently refused to engage in the debate. He offered little leadership and frequently confused the process as he seemed to waffle on issues such as whether there should be a public option.

When Democrats lost their filibuster proof majority after the stunning election of Republican Scott Brown in early 2010 - an election that served as an early indicator of public opposition to the health care law that was taking shape - the President held a hastily arranged "bipartisan" summit to discuss ways in which Republicans could be part of the reform process. They talked, he listened, and then he ignored their suggestions. In the end, the White House and Congressional Democrats chose to rely on a procedural trick - the use of budget reconciliation - to pass the reform law. Reconciliation allowed the measure to avoid an expected GOP filibuster.

Though I support universal health care, the manner in which the bill was enacted was unacceptable. Additionally there are two major problems at the heart of the bill. The first is the individual mandate - a requirement that every American purchase health insurance. Senator Obama had rejected such a mandate when running for President, but then embraced it after the election. My real objection the mandate was the claim that the Constitution's "Commerce Clause" empowered Congress to compel a citizen to purchase a private good - health insurance. Contrary to the claims of many a partisan pundit, such a claim of power was unprecedented. Ultimately the Supreme Court rejected the commerce clause argument, but upheld the mandate as little more than a tax under a different name.

The second problem with the legislation is its reliance on expanding Medicaid. The law expects to add 17 million people to the rolls of a program that is already breaking most state budgets and suffers from severe physician shortages. In many ways the Medicaid expansion is a cruel joke. It offers the promise of coverage, but many enrollees will still be unable to receive care.

Though I support many of the President's policy goals, I am repeatedly disturbed by the manner in which he achieves them. In November 2010, voters elected a majority Republican House of Representatives. In response to this voter-imposed obstacle to his agenda the President has shown a blatant disregard for constitutional limits on his power and the separation of powers.

He has made recess appointments while Congress was not recessed. He used executive orders to initiate substantive policy changes to the No Child Left Behind Act and the 1996 welfare reform law - even though the originating legislation makes no provision for such executive discretion. He unilaterally decided that he would not enforce elements of US immigration law in order to end deportation of folks who were illegally brought to America as children. Again, I support the goal - allowing folks to remain in the only country they've ever known rather than deport them for laws broken by their parents - but such a decision should be made legislatively and not unilaterally.

But all of these issues pale in comparison to President Obama's national security abuses. The President has established a "secret kill list" and has authorized the execution of suspected terrorists - including American citizens. How this can be defended or justified is beyond explanation. He authorized military action in Libya in direct violation of the constitution and the War Powers Act. And, the President has taken drone warfare to new limits in North Waziristan where he is responsible for the deaths of not just terrorists, but hundreds of innocent men, women, and children - including a 16 year old American citizen in Yemen.

To borrow a phrase from The Atlantic's Connor Friedersdorf, these many transgressions are simply deal-breakers.

I have problems with Mitt Romney and view votes cast for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein as wasted votes. But for all the things I find objectionable about Mitt Romney, he has never killed a 16 year old American citizen. And that sort of makes the whole "47%" comment seem pretty silly.