Does the MD GOP have a Deep Bench?

In a recent interview I was quoted as saying:

“It speaks to the sorry state of the Republican party in Maryland... You’re not going to have Doug Gansler … you’ve got an open race, the potential for a divisive Democratic primary. If they want anyone to ever take them seriously, they’ve got to win some statewide offices every now and then, which means trying to build a bench instead of running these throwaway challenges.”

 

Apparently this annoyed Red Maryland's Greg Kline. After taking the obligatory GOP talking point swipe against college professors (for the record, no one who knows me would ever think I read the Huffington Post) he suggested that the MD GOP has a significant and impressive bench of potential candidates.

The good assistant professor (actually I'm an Associate Professor) is right that a lack of a candidate even being discussed does reflect poorly on the MDGOP but he his so wrong about the state party not having a bench or plenty of qualified, potential candidates.... Any potential AG candidate knows that they would be on their own running statewide.  The state party is too much focused on creating a list of people to call and too little focused on what they are going to tell the person on the other end of the phone.

Kline then goes on to explain why the MD GOP cannot get potential candidates to agree to run for office in the state. "Candidate recruitment, like recruiting for a college football team, is about selling the experience and making someone want to be a part of something. This is exactly what the party isn't doing."

Kline then rattles off a list of what the MD GOP must do if it wants to recruit candidates. And Kline is spot on. Where Kline and I actually disagree is on just what constitutes "a bench of candidates." To me, a strong bench consists of candidates preferably with some degree of name recognition and a clear willingness to run if asked. Even better are candidates already holding office. The party would be best served if they were able to tap candidates from among the swelling ranks of elected GOP officials at the county level. Kline argues that the party has a deep bench simply because there are a lot qualified potential candidates in the state (there are 5.9 million people in the state, of course there are a lot of qualified potential candidates) - but those folks aren't willing to run. To me, that's not a bench. At best it's a two-legged stool. To build on Kline's football team analogy, the bench consists of those folks on the team and ready to play. It doesn't refer to the excellent potential players that are watching from the bleachers.

In 2010 the state GOP let Doug Gansler run unopposed for AG. Nationwide, 2010 was a fantastic year for the GOP - Maryland was a glaring exception that didn't need to be. In the U.S. Senate race Queen Anne's County Commissioner sEric Wargotz scored the highest level of support against Mikulski in two decades. With very little money and no debates Wargotz neared 40% of the vote.

As I have argued in prior posts, Maryland is not a 2-to-1 Democratic state. If you look at actual election results it's closer to a 60/40 state. Credible GOP candidates are able to hit that 40% mark, stronger candidates are able to exceed that share. But such strong candidates are rare in MD. Michael Steele and Bob Ehrlich were each able to top that 40% mark. William Campell and Anne McCarthy were quality Comptroller candidates in 2010 and 2006. In 2014 the state GOP has the potential to have strong candidates for governor and Campbell is likely to run again for Comptroller. Though I consider Harford County Executive David Craig to be the strongest gubernatorial candidate, Delegate Ron George is a solid candidate as well and either could give the Democratic nominee a real fight. Assuming Craig or George actually campaign for the job (as opposed to Ehrlich's lazy mess of a campaign in 2010) they should have no problem topping Ehrlich's 42% from 2010 and could even achieve victory.

It's important that the state GOP have quality candidates running for all statewide offices, yes they'd all face an uphill battle to win but a strong top of the ticket can boost turnout and help candidates down ballot cross the finish line in races for the state Senate, House of Delegates, County Commissioners, or other local offices. These down ballot winners then become the MD GOP's real bench. Because of redistricting and Martin O'Malley's political gerrymandering of state legislative districts the MD GOP is going to have a tough time holding onto it's meager 12 seats in the 47 seat state Senate. Falling below 12 seats would be a devastating blow to the morale of any already suffering party. The GOP needs to reach 19 seats in the Senate to truly have an impact as that's the number needed to filibuster. Gerrymandering makes that a tall order, improbable but not impossible - especially if the top of the ticket is strong. But at present, the state Republican party is just a mess. And so long as it is a mess the bench of candidates will be thin. Folks like Red Maryland's Greg Kline, Mark Newgent, and Brian Griffith have been offering the state GOP a lot a free and good advice, but I'm not sure the state party is organized enough to listen.

Though Kline may think that I'm some left-wing Huffington Post reading academic, the reality is that I'm an unaffiliated voter who would very much like to see Maryland's one party monopoly broken. I may disagree with the GOP on a host of issues, but the same can be said of the Democrats. I have no preference for one party over the other. What I do want is a vibrant and open debate of the issues, I want deliberation and not one party hegemony. I want the 40% of Marylanders who consistently vote against the Democrats to have a voice equal to their numbers, instead of the gerrymandered mess that has effectively held the GOP to less than 30% of the seats in the General Assembly and only 1 seat among the states congressional delegation. Republicans have figured out how to win and be relevant in states like New Jersey and Massachusetts. There simply no excuse for the party's continued problems in Maryland.

Congressional Dysfunction - Part 1: Congress Today

In a recent post, Ezra Klein profiled 14 reasons why the current Congress is the worst Congress ever. I find little to argue with in Klein's myriad criticisms of Congress, other than to suggest that the present dysfunction has been a long time coming and is the result of many moving parts slowing coming into sync. In the next few months, a book that I co-authored with Steven Schier - The Dysfunction of American Politics - will begin to hit book shelves. In advance of that publication I have decided to excerpt my chapter on Congress over the course of the next week or so. What I hope to create is a more complete picture of Congressional dysfunction. Perhaps of greater importance, the picture I'll present portrays a dysfunction that is deeply bipartisan. Contrary to the recent claims by noted Congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein the dysfunction is not simply the fault of an insurgent and radicalized GOP. The problem goes much deeper than that and as a result will be much more difficult to repair.

Part 1: Congress Today

Writing in 2006 in their aptly titled "The Broken Branch" Congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein described the contemporary Congress as “a supine, reactive body more eager to submit to presidential directives than to assert its own prerogatives." According to the authors, many characteristics that define the contemporary Congress took shape during the period of the late 1960s. Among the changes was a shift away from the “textbook” Congress of the New Deal era characterized by a decentralized power structure, powerful committee chairs, and weak parties.

Though I agree with much of what Mann and Ornstein presented in The Broken Branch, I believe the seeds of Congressional dysfunction where planted a bit earlier. A combination of internal and external pressures dating to the late 1950s set in motion the creation of the contemporary Congress. A series of elections spanning nearly two decades (from the the 1950s-1970s) changed the ideological make-up of the Democratic party. A combination of court decisions and federal legislation (in the 1960s) changed the nature of congressional constituencies. A series of internal reforms enacted from the late 1960s through the mid-1970s empowered individual members of Congress. Concomitant with these changes was a dramatic rise in interest groups, a marked rise in two-party competition, and the frequent presence of divided partisan control of the legislative and executive branches. Collectively, these changes raised the stakes in the pitched battle over lawmaking.  Highly professionalized members, intense partisan polarization, centralized control among party leaders, and an increased reliance on “unorthodox” procedures to secure passage of legislation mark the Congress that emerged.

Over the course of the next few weeks, I will discuss in detail what I merely summarize now.

Two deeply polarized political parties engaged in a close-fought and bitter struggle for electoral victory and legislative control mark the contemporary Congress. Though the even level of electoral competition has been especially evident in recent years, it first emerged in the late 1970s when Republicans gained a congressional foothold in the south. Increased electoral competition coupled with the advent of divided government gave rise to reforms in the Congress that first empowered individual members to become highly professional representatives but then gave way into further changes that effectively centralized control around the organizing principle of party. In the House and Senate, members realized that the best way to ensure success of the party agenda and to obstruct the minority party was through greater centralization of power in party leadership. This was more readily achieved in the House, but even in the Senate changes in the minority/majority approach to floor activity and amendments show that centralization around party – if not necessarily party leadership – has occurred.

In today’s Congress, lawmakers pursue initiatives important to their constituents, to key interest groups, and to their party in a professional environment of ideologically uniform parties with sharp agenda differences. Washington’s professional and partisan legislature often supports a president in the same party as a congressional majority and obstructs an opposition party president. As measured by the number of pages in the Federal Register, the contemporary Congress appears capable of legislating, though not when addressing issues of major concern.  Why?  The congressional parties diverge sharply on major issues, leading to attempts at legislative domination by partisan majorities and obstruction by partisan minorities.

There are now so many voices at play in policy-making, described fully in chapters two and six, that it has become more difficult to legislate and easier to obstruct. Multiple congressional committees and subcommittees enjoy some degree of jurisdiction over major issues. These committees in turn have established mutually beneficial relationships with interest groups. Multiple committee referrals are quite common as a result. Party leadership uses restrictive rules and post-committee adjustment to ensure buy-in by the multitude of interested voices. Such buy-in requires difficult and finely crafted compromises. In a closely divided and polarized environment, every incentive exists for a minority party to derail or prevent such compromises. The result is often congressional inaction and policy stasis.

The great challenges of the present era will often require congressional action. By acting, Congress frequently defines the scope and powers of the executive bureaucracy – Washington’s “permanent government” -- and the scope and jurisdiction of the judiciary. Since the 1960s and 1970s, Congress has become increasingly divided by party and unable to perform its duties with decorum and dispatch.  Dysfunction within Congress reverberates throughout the entirety of the American political system.

Next - Part 2: The Rise of Progresive Democrats - 1958-1974

America is not Polarized, but the Parties Are, part 15...

Now that the battle over the Debt Ceiling is settled (at least until Congress comes back from recess) we are once again treated to the usual chorus of voices bemoaning how polarized America has become. As such, I feel compelled to once again dispell the myth that America is a polarized nation.

As I argued during the healthcare battle, after the Gabbie Giffords shooting, and prior to the 2010 midterms, Americans are not polarized (at least no more polarized than at any point in the last 40 years), but our two political parties are very polarized - dominated by ideological and issue activists who do not represent the beliefs of the larger electorate.

Since the 1960s and the end of the Democratic Party’s dominance of the New Deal Era, American politics has become far more competitive. Democrats lost their solid hold on the South and Republicans lost their hold on the North East. 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. Control of Congress and the White House has bounced back and forth between the two parties. The parties have responded to this era of competition by becoming ever more partisan and polarized.

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 activist voter. This means liberal activists for Democrats and conservative activists for Republicans. This has the effect of pushing the parties ever farther to the extreme.

As the agendas of the two political parties became ever more divergent after the 1960s Americans began to "sort" more neatly into one party or the other, a phenomenon known as party sorting. As 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. The parties polarized, the public did not.

In fact, 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 and that explains why Independent voters have emerged as the fastest growing segment of the American electorate. As a result of this sorting, the Republican Party became more homogenously Conservative and the Democratic Party more homogenously Liberal. So the distribution of Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates within the the two parties has changed significantly while the distribution of Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates within  broader electorate has changed very little.

The electorate is no more polarized now than in 1970, 1980, or 1990 - but the parties are. So of course 90 percent of Republicans vote Republican and 90 percent of Democrats vote Democrat and Presidential approval correlates to party affiliation, and Democratic members of Congress have become more Liberal and Republican members of Congress more conservative. Meanwhile, Moderate voters tend to split their support between the parties, but also vote at lower levels - likely a result of feeling ill-represented by either party. All of this is a natural byproduct of party sorting, but party sorting is not the same as polarization.

Though some scholars (especially, but not limited to, Alan Abramowitz) have advanced the theory that this growing polarization among elected officials is in fact reflective of a polarized public, there is in fact little evidence that the mass public has become polarized. Rather the polarization has occurred among committed political activists and the interest groups they support – a relatively small share of the electorate.

This is evident in Figure One, panel A shows the self-identified ideological orientation of the general electorate at three points 1972, 1994, and 2008. Although the distribution has shifted over time, the distribution remains normal with most voters amassed in the center as Moderates. Panel B is limited to those members of the electorate who indicated that they had worked for a campaign and given money to a candidate – I define these voters as party activists. Among these activists, a clear bimodal distribution is evident with the peaks of the distribution to the left and the right of moderation.

According to political scientist Anthony Downs in a winner-take-all election system coupled with two dominant parties (as in the United States) the parties will adopt positions that are ideologically attractive to the greatest concentration of voters.

The distribution of the American electorate (in the broadest sense) is unimodal which, according to Downs, should promote more moderate parties as they compete for the median voter. But Downs’ theory further suggests that if the electorate was polarized into two distinct voting blocs, one left of center and one right of center, the parties would “diverge toward the extremes rather than converge on the center. Each gains more votes by moving toward a radical position than it loses in the center (p. 143).” Steven Hill writes "one of the defining characteristics of a winner-take-all system is that it promotes adversarial politics so that on a whole host of issues it is painfully obvious that the overriding agenda for both major parties is... to stake out positions vis-a-vis the other side."

In the 1960s Republicans exploited several emerging schisms in the ranks of the Democratic Party's coalition in order to become competitive - schisms revolving around national security, welfare spending, and policies with regard to race relations. The party defined itself by being what the Democratic Party was not. Over time both parties increasingly defined themselves by being the antithesis of the other party - this is why there can be no middle ground on isues ranging from abortion, entitlement spending, taxes, environmental regulation, healthcare reform - each party's identity is inextricably linked to being the mirror image of the other party.

This led to party sorting, internal partisan homogeneity, and the bimodal distribution of the engaged voters evident in Figure One. The distribution of the most engaged and activist elements of the electorate, those most likely to participate and vote in elections, is bimodal which has resulted in two polarized parties and the system now feeds off of that bimodal distribution. So long as the more Moderate members of the general electorate remain less engaged there is little incentive for either party to moderate and pursue Moderate voters; rather to do so would risk alienating more committed activist party members. So long as neither party moderates and pursues more Moderate members of the electorate there is little incentive for Moderate voters to become more engaged – a self-reinforcing cycle exists.

The increased electoral competition between the Democratic and Republican parties, in the current era, has had a significant impact on public opinion, partisanship, polarization, and the institutions of governance. As described by Congressional scholar Norm Orstein the present era is “an extended era of close partisan margins, which gave rise to high-stakes legislative politics and sharply reduced incentives for lawmakers to work across party lines to solve problems.”

The only hope for restoring moderation, compromise, and good government - for breaking the hold on the current system of partisan activists - is for the vast and unengaged middle to re-enter the game and wrest control from the ideologues. Simply chosing between the tweedle-dee Democrats and the tweedle-dum Republicans will not suffice. Rather the current party system must be brought down.

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?

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

Partisanship, Polarization, and the New Normal in Midterm Elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Republicans, has the Senate Moved out of Reach?

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

Pew Poll Points to Major Shake-Up in 2010 Midterms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Senate Majority for Republicans? It's Not Out Of The Question.

The latest Gallup poll finds a record-low 28% of American voters say most members of Congress deserve to be re-elected. The previous low was 29% in October 1992. According to Gallup, "The same poll finds 49% of voters, a near-record low, saying their own member of Congress deserves to be re-elected. This marks only the second time since Gallup began asking this question in 1992 that the figure has dipped below 50%, and the first on the doorstep of a midterm election."

The latest round-up of 2010 Senate races at RealClearPolitics.Com finds that Republicans would gain 7 seats in the Senate if the election were held today - bringing the balance of power to 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans. These projections are based on poll averages in contested states. A close examination of that polling data reveals that a 51 seat majority for Republicans is not out of reach. At present, California, Wisconsin, and Illinois are projected to remain in democratic hands - but the most recent polls in Wisconsin and Illinois show Republicans in the lead and the race is tied in California.

Last year at this time pundits were predicting that Democrats would likely add to their margin in the US Senate, about 7 months ago they began to estimate losses of maybe 2 seats, now the estimate is roughly 7 seats - but the trend is clear and a Republican Senate is no longer out of the question come January 2011. Democrats need to find some way to change the dynamic of the 2010 midterms, but with the latest CBS News poll showing that the public is opposed to the recently passed health reform law by a margin of 53% to 32% it is unclear to me how they will accomplish that goal.