A Reconstructive President? Not in this Political Time.

A recent editorial from the McClatchy new service opined that Barack Obama was on the verge of missing his chance to be the next FDR or Ronald Reagan… in truth, Obama never had such an opportunity. Presidential scholar Stephen Skowronek argues that American political history is marked by the rise and fall of regimes. The strengths of these regimes ebb and flow, but all will ultimately fray and collapse. Every president comes to office either affiliated with, or opposed to, a given regime. Weak or strong, affiliated or opposed – each combination affords a unique set of opportunities or limitations to a president. With the exception of the reconstuctive opportunity, each places significant limitations on what a president can accomplish. Table One presents Skowronek's opportunity structure typology.

Table One: Skowronek's Opportunity Structure Typology

	President’s Political Identity
Previously Established Commitments	Opposed	Affiliated
Vulnerable	“Politics of Reconstruction”	“Politics of Disjunction"
Resilient	“Politics of Preemption”	“Politics of Articulation”

Reconstructive presidents come to power opposed an existing coalition at a time when its regime is weakened and its legitimacy questioned. Such leaders face a fortuitous opportunity structure and the rare chance to create a new political order. Disjunctive presidents come to office affiliated with an existing regime at a time when its legitimacy has come into questions. These presidents may in fact have only the most tenuous connection with their regime as originally constructed. This “regime drift” is a natural result on ongoing decay of a long established coalition and the actions of the disjunctive president will likely serve to further fragment the regimes existing coalition – thus setting the stage for a reconstructive opportunity. Articulation presidents represent the vast majority of American presidents; they enter office affiliated with a still resilient regime. To them falls the often challenging task of maintaining a political order established by the president that constructed the present political order. Preemptive presidents enter office in what Skowronek refers to as the “most curious of all leadership situations.” Such presidents are opposed to an existing, but still resilient, regime but they seek to manipulate and aggravate existing “cleavages and factional discontent” within a regime.

I cannot do justice to Skowronek's theory here, but in short, Barack Obama came to office facing one of two possible opportunity structures - Reconstruction or Preemption - as he was opposed to the electoral regime created by Ronald Reagan, the most recent Reconstructive president. For Obama to have inherited a reconstructive opportunity structure, like Reagan, FDR, Lincoln, or Andrew Jackson, one must accept that the Reagan regime met its demise under George W. Bush. If this is true, then history tells us that there should have been some indication of electoral upheaval in the 2008 election - as every reconstructive president has entered office during such episodes of upheaval. No such upheaval occurred in 2008.

Indeed, an examination of state by state election results shows that 2008 election was highly correlated with the election of 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, and 1988 - as odd as it may sound, the election that sent Barack Obama to the White House in 2008 was little different from the elections that twice sent George W. Bush there (I will present the statistical analyses that verify my assessment at the Midwest Political Science Association's annual meeting in Chicago on April 22nd). This suggests that the Reagan regime is still strong, but that enough of a cleavage existed for an opposed president to be elected - much as Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, or Eisenhower in 1952 during the FDR regime. So Obama joins the ranks of the preemptive presidents. Men whose tenure in office served to galvanize the existing regime; presidents who while personally popular had little lasting impact on American politics.

If Skowronek’s theory is solid and if my assessment that Obama has inherited a preemptive structure is also correct, then his tenure in office will serve to re-galvanize the Reagan regime. Obama may, and if history is a guide likely will, serve two terms as the elements of the Reagan coalition seek a new leader to articulate the movement's vision, but Obama's impact on national politics will be limited, his legacy not too far reaching. He will be a Cleveland, an Eisenhower, a Clinton – but not a Jackson, an FDR, or a Reagan. This is the reality of President Obama's place in political time and he would do well to heed the lessons of Eisenhower and Clinton - presidents who came to embrace their place in the political order and enjoyed reasonable success in office. If, however, Obama believes that he can effect transformative change he is likely to be very disappointed.

Democrats' March of Folley

Pat Caddell and Douglas Schoen offer a very frank warning to the current leadership of their party in the Washington Post:

"As pollsters to the past two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, respectively, we feel compelled to challenge the myths that seem to be prevailing in the political discourse and to once again urge a change in course before it is too late. At stake is the kind of mainstream, common-sense Democratic Party that we believe is crucial to the success of the American enterprise.

Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate's reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.

Health care is no longer a debate about the merits of specific initiatives. Since the spectacle of Christmas dealmaking to ensure passage of the Senate bill, the issue, in voters' minds, has become less about health care than about the government and a political majority that will neither hear nor heed the will of the people.

Voters are hardly enthralled with the GOP, but the Democrats are pursuing policies that are out of step with the way ordinary Americans think and feel about politics and government. Barring some change of approach, they will be punished severely at the polls."

Only time will tell if President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid can break out of the Washington bubble long enough to see just how badly the have misjudged the meaning of the 2008 election. Voters wanted change - in that they wanted an end to the Bush administration - beyond that simple fact it is increasingly clear that there was no larger mandate.

For Maryland Republicans 19 is the New 41, but is it Attainable?

Maryland Republicans have set their sights on the magic number 19 – the number of Senators they would need in the Maryland General Assembly to successfully mount a filibuster and therefore become relevant players in Annapolis. Currently, there are 14 Republicans in the Senate so the GOP need only pickup 5 seats – or more precisely – pick off 5 of the 33 Senate Democrats in 2010.

Unfortunately for the Maryland GOP, five seats may simply be too tall of an order.  A review of district by district election results from 2002 and 2006 shows that there are very few truly competitive districts for the GOP to target (Table One). In 2006 there was only one district where a Democrat won by less than a 10 point margin – district 30 in Anne Arundel County. The next 6 most competitive races were all decided by decisive margins. The election in 2006 represented a high water mark for Democrats nationally and in the state, so I looked to 2002 as well. In 2002 Republicans did very well nationally and Bob Ehrlich won the governor’s race. Even in 2002, however, there were only 3 races decided by a margin of less than 10 points – District 13 in Howard County, District 42 in Baltimore County, and District 15 in Montgomery County. None of those districts were close to being competitive in 2006. If the GOP truly hopes to pick up 5 seats they will have a very hard time identifying good targets. They may have to rely on unexpected retirements, primary challenges, or the sudden arrival on the agenda of a politically divisive issue to weaken Democratic incumbents. In addition, Republicans scored only narrow victories in District 3 in Frederick County and District 31 in Anne Arundel in 2006  - so they would need to pick up 5 Democratic seats AND defend all of their own.

When Scott Brown was running to succeed Ted Kennedy to the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts he campaigned on the pledge to be “number 41.” Meaning that he would be the crucial 41st vote to deny Senate Democrats their filibuster-proof majority. All indications are that the tactic worked. Maryland Republicans may want to emulate the Brown approach, but it’s a harder case to make when candidates would need to proclaim “I’m number 15, and I’m number 16, and I’m number 17…” Reaching 19 votes would likely revitalize the Maryland GOP and bring some much needed checks and balances to the state's one party rule, but the bar may be too high. Although any number closer to 19 would mean one less Democrat that the GOP would need to convince to join a filibuster effort. In the end, if Maryland Republicans are to have any hope of reaching the magic number of 19 they’ll need a strong candidate at the top of the ticket (and there is only one candidate who fits that description) and a GOP wave nationally to carry them over the line.

Reconciliation is Not an Acceptable Approach for Passing Comprehensive Health Reform

According to multiple news reports President Obama and Congresional Democrats will seek to pass health reform via the reconciliation process - bypassing the possibility of a filibuster and thereby needing only 51 votes in the Senate. Many reform advocates have been urging the use of the reconciliation process and several experts on Congress have come forward to argue that reconciliation is an appropriate process for the creation of comprehensive new programs. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities “Congress has employed reconciliation many times to make major policy shifts.”

These shifts in policy included the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (welfare reform), the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 (tax cuts), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (more tax cuts), and the creation of several health programs such as the health portability changes contained in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), and the creation of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program passed as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Indeed, each of those measures were enacted via the budget reconciliation process, but contrary to what the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities as well as Thomas Mann and Molly Reynolds of the Brookings Institution and Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute have explained, using reconciliation to enact health reform would NOT be consistent with past congressional practice.

I have argued many times in favor of enacting comprehensive health reform, including the need for a single payer system - but I cannot endorse the use of the reconciliation process and will explore prior uses of the procedure to argue that they do not, in fact, support the use of the process to enact comprehensive reform.

• The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 amended existing tax law to deny employers the ability to deduct health insurance costs unless it allowed employees and their immediate family members to maintain their coverage if for up to 18 months if they were to lose coverage. COBRA initially passed in the Senate in November on 1985 by a 93-6 margin. A subsequent vote on the conference report reconciling differences between the House and Senate passed with 78 votes, additional changes were then made to appease the House and the final bills was passed in the Senate with no recorded vote – meaning there was no serious opposition. So COBRA passed the Senate with a filibuster proof majority, reconcilation was a procedural not a strategic choice.
• The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 amended the Social Security Act to end the entitlement to Aid to Families with Dependent Children and replace it with the non-entitlement program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. PRWORA passed the Senate 74-24 and a subsequent conference report passed 78-21. So like COBRA, PRWORA passed via reconciliation, but not in an effort to bypass negotiation and compromise.
• The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the creation of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) represented the culmination of true bipartisan negotiations in the Senate. SCHIP, a program to provide grants to states to provide health care to children with family incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid was the work product of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. After several early roadblocks over funding mechanisms and worries about the creation of a new social program broad agreement was eventually reach on SCHIP and it was attached to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Although the Balance Budget Act was passed via reconciliation it initially passed the Senate with Unanimous Consent and a subsequent Conference Report passed by an 85-15 margin. So SCHIP was technically created via reconciliation, but only after negotiations garnered broad support for the program, and it was merely attached to a budget bill as “last train leaving the station” means by which to enact an already bipartisan piece of legislation. Reconciliation was not used to bypass negotiations.
• The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 (EGTRA) amended existing tax law to utilize projected surpluses to provide broad tax reductions. Consistent with the reconciliation process the law included an expiration date of 10 years post enactment and it passed the Senate by a vote of 62-38. The subsequent Conference Report was passed by a vote of 58-33. Two Republicans, that supported the measure, were not present to cast votes – Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Pete Domenici (R-NM). So the bill enjoyed a filibuster proof majority.
• The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 amended existing tax law – namely the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 – to accelerate tax reductions. This is the one example that could be pointed to as an effort by the Republican majority to circumvent the process – because they did. The GOP violated the letter and spirit of reconciliation to accelerate the bipartisan tax cuts approved in 2001 – they did not, however, create any new programs.

Although 19 bills have passed via reconciliation since the creation of the process, the five that I just cited are the ones most frequently mentioned as evidence that the reconciliation process has been used to create new programs – including new health programs - and would therefor be appropriate for enacting health care reform. The fact of the mater is that these bills show quite the opposite. The most extensive health reform, SCHIP, represented the culmination of intense bipartisan negotiations and though it was attached to the budget bill passed via the reconciliation process reconciliation was not “used” to create a new program. The President and Congressional Democrats are seeking to use reconciliation so as to avoid compromise and negotiation - this is not what has been done in the past.

The use of reconciliation to enact comprehensive health care reform would be a violation of the process. The only reason that reconciliation is being considered is because health reform, as currently written, cannot overcome a filibuster threat. In other words, reconciliation is being proposed solely for the purpose of bypassing normal rules of procedure in the Senate. This represents a clear abuse of process and one that should be rejected by all responsible. James Madison warned that men are not governed by angels nor are they angels themselves – as such we rely on auxiliary precautions to prevent the abuse of power. The division of the legislature into a House and Senate, each with a distinct connection to the electorate, and each with divergent interests and motivations, was done to prevent majoritarian tyranny – in other words, it was never expected that in America 51 votes would be enough for a majority to do whatever they wished.

O'Malley Leads Ehrlich by 6, But Cannot Break 50%

The latest poll in the Maryland governor's race shows incumbent Martin O'Malley with a 6 point lead over potential rival, and former governor, Bob Ehrlich - the race stands at 49% to 43%. The new survey, by Rasmussen Reports, shows a closer race than a poll conducted last month, and a near halving of O'Malley's lead since a poll conducted last September. Like every poll on the race it shows that O'Malley simply cannot crack 50% and polling below 50% is a bad sign for any incumbent, but the Maryland race is a bit unusual as it pits two governors against one another. Ehrlich may not be the incumbent, but he cannot seem to make it into the mid 40s. Maryland is a tough nut for any Republican candidate to crack with a 56% to 27% voter registration advantage among Democrats. Ehrlich carried the day in 2002, but came up well short in 2006. He'll need a strong GOP electoral wind come November to help carry him over the top.

Ehrlich may hold out hope that a Democratic primary challenge from George Owings weakens O'Malley as he enters the final months of the race - the 1970 race for the Senate in Maryland offers some interesting parallels. State Attorney General Doug Gansler's recent decision on same-sex marriage may also play a role in the 2010 race. The Washington Post offers a great analysis of the potential political fallout of the decision in Maryland - a state that often prefers its Democrats to be more Blue Dog and a bit less True Blue.

Chart: RealClearPolitics

Proposed Cuts to Maryland Medicaid Threaten Access to Health Care

The following is an editoral comment from Professor Todd Eberly.

As Gov. Martin O’Malley proposes cutting $123 million from Medicaid for the 2011 budget in addition to the $179 million cut from fiscal 2010, a recently published study that I co-authored found that Medicaid has improved access to medical care and reduced racial and ethnic disparities among children and adolescents in Maryland.

Medicaid has proven to be crucial to the health and well being of our children. It provides health insurance for 23 million children every month in the U.S. and nearly 400,000 in Maryland. Unfortunately many states, including Maryland, have had to make cuts to the program in recent years to balance their budgets. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities at least 29 states have made cuts to their public health programs. Given that public health programs like Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) account for approximately 25% of a given state's budget (in Maryland it's 27%) it's understandable why they have become the targets of cuts. President Obama's budget proposal holds the promise of additional Medicaid funds for states, but that would be only a one time fix, and in these tight budgetary times there is no guarantee that the funds will be approved by Congress.

In Maryland, the need to close the state's $2 billion budget gap must be balanced with the simple fact that Medicaid has improved the lives of thousands of children.  At a time when access to affordable health care is falling, it would be a shame to see the state forced to make even more cuts to a program so essential to the health of our young people.

Due to federal rules that govern the Medicaid program, the state cannot cut benefits or deny eligibility, doing so would mean the loss of federal money - in Maryland we receive about $0.62 in federal funds for $0.38 in state funds that we spend on Medicaid and our SCHIP (called MCHP). So what Maryland and other states are doing instead is cut reimbursements to providers. In other words, those who provide care for Medicaid patients will be paid less. The net effect of the lower reimbursement will be decreased access to care for folks on Medicaid - including 400,000 Maryland children. Facing the prospect of reduced payments providers will react by seeking to avoid providing care. Though the Maryland cuts target hospitals many physicians may well decide to stop seeing Medicaid patients out of fear that their already low reimbursements will be cut at a future date.

My study also showed that black and Hispanic children in Maryland are more likely to live in areas with fewer providers participating in the program. The continued reductions in reimbursement to hospitals and the potential that this will discourage physicians from seeing Medicaid patients may serve to exacerbate an existing problem. This could undermine the success that Medicaid has experienced with regard to reducing disparities in health care access among children in the state.
 
The most frustrating part of all of this is that fact that cuts are not needed. There are alternative means by which the state could fill the budget shortfall. One proposal would add an additional $0.10 to the excise tax on alcholic beverages generating $200 million per year. Given the upcoming 2010 election, many members of the General Assembly have said that tax increases of any sort are off the table for the current legislative session - but the proposed cuts to hospital reimbursement rates will be paid for by Maryland taxpayers. According to a report at CenterMaryland the proposal from the state "will allow hospitals to raise the rates they can charge patients with private insurance... to generate revenue to offset the decrease in Medicaid payments." In other words, the Medicaid cuts will be offsett via higher prices charged to the privately insured. Make no mistake, this is a tax, but it's a tax implemented with no political price as no legislator will be forced to vote for it. This approach will not prevent providers from refusing to treat Medicaid patients; rather it sets the stage for the very real possibility that Medicaid patients will suffer reduced access AND the privately insured will pay higher prices for care.
 
This approach to budget savings amounts to little more than a stunning act of political cowardice that will result in reduced services to those least able to protest while shifting the potential cost to taxpayers in a way that seeks to avoid any political accountability. Marylanders deserve better from their elected leaders.

The paper, entitled “Managing the Gap: Evaluating the Impact of Medicaid Managed Care on Preventive Care Receipt by Child and Adolescent Minority Populations” examined the impact of Maryland's Medicaid program on 260,000 children as the program was expanded during the past decade. The study was published in the Black History Month edition of the Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved.

FreeStater Midterm 2010 Outlook

With the stunning news that Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh will not seek re-election in 2010 today seems like a good day to post the first in a monthly series of Midterm updates at the FreeStater Blog.  These assessments will be based on reviews of polling data as well and district or state trends as well as national dynamics. Democrats currently hold a 255 to 178 majority in the House and a 57 to 41 seat majority in the Senate (with two independents who caucus with Democrats). Republicans need 40 House seats and 10 Senate seats to reclaim control of each chamber.

Here's how things stand today -

In the House

I estimate that if the election were held today Republicans would pickup 36 seats in the following districts:
AL-2, AZ-5, AZ-8, CO-3, CO-4, FL-8, FL-24, MO-4, ID-1, IN-9, KS-3, MD-1, MI-7, MS-1, NV-3, NH-1, NH-2, NM-2, NY-13, NY-29, ND-AL, OH-1, OH-15, OH-16, OH-18, PA-7, PA-10, PA-12, SC-5, TN-8, TX-17, VA-2, VA-5, VA-9, WA-3, and WV-1

Democrats will pickup 2 seats:
IL-10 and LA-2

That would be a net gain of 34 seats for Republicans, 6 shy of the number needed to reclaim control of the chamber and the GOP may make inroads in New England in 2010. Keep an eye on CT-4 and CT-5 as well as MA-10.

In the Senate
If the election were held today the Republicans would pickup 7 seats:
AR, CO, DE, IN, NV, ND, and PA

Democrats would not win any Republican seats.

That would be a net gain of 7 Senate seats for Republicans, giving them 48 seats - 3 shy of a majority. That makes contests in CA, IL, NY, WI, and WA must wins for Democrats - if Republicans pickup 2 of the 5 they would reach 50 seats and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) could become a kingmaker.
 
So, with 8 months until the 2010 midterms Republicans would reach 212 seats in the House and 48 seats in the Senate - if the election were held today. Democrats would retain the majority, but those numbers should send shivers of fear through the party's leadership. Based on current trends, Republicans have a better than even chance of reclaiming the House. The Senate is still a long shot, but another surprise announcement like Bayh's could shift that dynamic sugnificantly. Stay tuned for the next update.

Note: This midterm update reflects the opinion of Professor Todd Eberly.

Eliminating the Filibuster is a Cure Worse than the Disease

Update: Word comes today that Illinois Senator Dick Durbin has now joined the effort to essentially eliminate the filibuster. So what has changed since May 23, 2005 when Durbin said “Those who would attack and destroy the institution of the filibuster are attacking the very force within the Senate that creates compromise and bipartisanship.”? All that has changed is that Democrats had only 45 seats in the Senate when Durbin defended the filibuster... today they have 59. Those who would abandon the filibuster for short term political gain need to sit down, take a deep breath, and truly consider what they are proposing.

Original Post: Two Senate Democrats have formally launched an effort to kill the filibuster. Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) introduced a bill that would set a gradually lowering threshold to shut off debate on legislation, starting at 60 votes and lowering to 51 over six days.

So let’s just imagine the future – a future where the filibuster is no longer an option and only 51 votes are needed in the Senate to pass, or repeal, legislation.

In the near term, Democrats will pass Cap and Trade, Comprehensive Health Reform, and a truly progressive tax code. Then, by 2012 Republicans reclaim the House, the Senate, and the White House – a very plausible scenario, especially if the public reacts negatively to Democrats passing their agenda by changing the rules to circumnavigate debate and public scrutiny.

The new Republican majority, needing only 51 votes in the Senate to accomplish anything, shuts out the minority Democrats and repeals Cap and Trade, repeals Health Reform, passes a flat tax – and with their new freedom they privatize Social Security, next they decide to turn Medicaid into a block grant giving states the freedom to cover whomever they wish –or no one at all. Vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals? No problem, no debate. Vacancies on the Supreme Court? No problem, no debate. Drilling in ANWAR? No problem, no debate. Offshore drilling? No problem, no debate.

Are you thinking “well if they did all of that then the people would vote the Republicans out of office.” Indeed they would, and Democrats would then spend their time repealing what the Republicans had done… and then proceed to pass their partisan legislation and approve their partisan nominees… and the process would repeat.

Make no mistake, if Democrats repeal the filibuster it will set the stage for a complete breakdown of the legislative process – and yes, I reject the claims that the process is already broken. The best fix for our federal woes must take place at the state level where congressional districts are drawn. Partisan gerrymandering has created a polarized House making compromise with the Senate difficult and has served to polarize the Senate by discouraging turn-out among moderate and indepedent voters.

In Federalist 63 James Madison wrote of the Senate “that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought… ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers… how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves…”

The Senate was intended to be the place where everything slowed down, where the passions of the people, as expressed in the House, received a more discerning look. Where “the cool and deliberate sense of the community” prevailed. The filibuster does not represent what is wrong with our system of government, rather it represent what is best. The filibuster served our nation when it forced more intense scrutiny of George W. Bush’s judicial nominees and his proposal for Social Security reform and it serves us now as we debate fundamental policy changes.

Indeed, in 2005 when Senate Republicans were threatening to strip the ability of Democrats to filibuster judicial nominees it was current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who defended the filibuster saying that "stripping away these important checks and balances is about the arrogance of those in power who want to rewrite the rules so that they can get their way... This isn't about some arcane procedures of the Senate. It is about protecting liberty and our limited government... It would mean that one political party — be it Republicans today or Democrats tomorrow — gets to have all the say." Reid's words were true in 2005 and are true today.

In Federalist 73, Alexander Hamilton bragged openly about the difficult nature of policymaking in America “It may perhaps be said that the power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing good ones; and may be used to the one purpose as well as to the other. But this objection will have little weight with those who can properly estimate the mischiefs of that inconstancy and mutability in the laws, which form the greatest blemish in the character and genius of our governments… The injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws, will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones.”

If Democrats cannot muster 60 votes in the Senate, the answer is not to change the rules so that they only need 51 – the answer is to craft legislation that can attract a coalition of 60 Senators – whether that is 59 Democrats and 1 Republican, or 40 Democrats and 20 Republicans, or 35 Republicans and 25 Democrats. Anyone who dismisses that approach should take the time to read Robert Caro’s Master of the Senate and read how Lyndon Johnson negotiated the Civil Rights Act of 1957 – a bill that liberals viewed as toothless and hollow. But Johnson knew that he needed a bill that could pass, so he caved to Southern Democrats and accepted a weak bill – he didn’t win their vote, but he overcame their filibuster. That legislation then served as the foundation for the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and then 1964, and most importantly the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - perhaps none of which would have been possible without that crucial, and toothless, first bill.

Coalition and compromise that’s the Senate and it forces us to recognize that the true test of any bill is not how effective or comprehensive it may be – the true test is whether it can pass. If it can’t, move on, start over, make changes. Only those measures that can successfully navigate the obstacle course that is the American legislative process are worthy of becoming policy – and that’s how it was always meant to be. In Federalist 10, Madison argued that the only way to eliminate the threat of faction was to eliminate liberty. Today we face the question of how we might eliminate obstacles to legislating, the supposed solution is the elimination of the filibuster.  I'll respond in the same manner as Madison - such an option would be a "cure worse than the disease."

David Brooks Offers a Brutally Honest Assessment of Obama – Year One

New York Times columnist David Brooks, frequent critic of all that is wrong with the Republican Party, offers a brutally honest assessment of what has gone wrong in President Obama’s first year.
“There were actually two elements to the Obama campaign. First, he promised a less partisan government. Second, he promised a more activist government… It was clear voters wanted the first element, but it was never clear how many wanted the second.”

“The stimulus package, the cap-and-trade legislation and the health care bill were all blends of expert planning and political power-broking. This project would have permanently changed government’s role in national life... It was not to be… Unlike 1932 and 1965, Americans do not trust Washington to take them on a leap of faith, especially if it means more spending.”

The country has reacted harshly… Independent voters have swung against the administration… A president can’t lead a social transformation without a visceral bond with the center of the electorate and without being in step with the rhythm of the times. Obama is lacking these things. As a result, the original Obama project, the third Democratic wave, is dead.”

Brooks goes on to offer the President advice on how to restore his Presidency, but with a new agenda. Only time will tell if the President takes the advice.

As Democrats Founder, Republicans Rise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Lara Southgate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Obama's Budget Would Provide Millions for Maryland

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

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

Questions with the Prime Minister: American Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott Brown and Health Reform

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

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

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

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

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

Many voters may be asking that question come November 2010.

Ehrlich Should Look to Massachusetts for Inspiration

As former Governor Bob Ehrlich continues to play close to the vest with regard to his future plans he may want to look to Maryland's Bay Brother in Blue - Massachusetts - for inspiration. Massachusetts has not sent a Republican to the U.S. Senate since 1972, but a little known state senator by the name of Scott Brown has just won the seat once held by Ted Kennedy. If a Republican can win the Senate seat in Massachusetts then Ehrlich would certainly have a good shot at reclaiming his old job in Maryland. Massachusetts and Maryland share some interesting parallels – Democrats enjoy significant registration advantage in each state, roughly 3 to 1 in Massachusetts and 2 to I in Maryland. Unlike Maryland, most Bay State voters are registered Independents – about 50% I, 36% D, and 14% R. In Maryland, the breakdown is about 57% D, 27% R, and 16% I. So Maryland has more registered Democrats and more registered Republicans. But when Independent voters in Massachusetts are asked which party the lean toward the breakdown is about 50% D, 32% R, and 19%. “Leaner” data is not available for Maryland but according to 2008 exit polls, the Maryland electorate was 51% D, 28% R, and 21% I – suggesting closeness in party preference between the states.

In 2008, Barack Obama won Massachusetts by a 62% to 36% margin, he won Maryland 62% to 37%. In fact, presidential election results have tracked closely between the 2 states for a couple decades. Both states voted for Reagan by a similar margin in 1984. The two times when Massachusetts diverged most from Maryland were 1988 and 2004 when native sons were on the ballot. There are differences, the most striking being that Massachusetts lacks a significant block of minority voters. In 2008 the Massachusetts electorate was 79% white and only 9% African American. In Maryland the electorate was considerably more diverse – 64% white and 25% African American. African American voters overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama and traditionally vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates regardless of office. This does provide an advantage to O'Malley, but that advantage is somewhat offset by the fact that the white vote is less predictable in Maryland. In Massachusetts in 2008 59% of white voters voted Democrat, but in Maryland Obama received only 47% of the white vote. The latest Gonzales Poll shows that O'Malley holds a lead over Ehrlich, 48% to 39%, but O'Malley only wins 39% of white voters and 39% of Independents - this shows key danger areas for O'Malley.

In Massachusetts, an analysis done right after the election by Charles Franklin at Pollster.com found that Scott Brown won slightly more votes in Massachusetts than did John McCain in 2008. The Democrat, Martha Coakley, won only 56% of Barack Obama's total from 2008. In other words, Republicans and Independents turned out, but Democrats did not. Applying that turn-out model to Maryland I found that if Ehrlich won the McCain vote from 2008 and O'Malley received only 56% of the Obama vote Ehrlich would win the election 51% to 48%, essentially the same as his victory margin in 2002. Sound unrealistic? In 2008, Obama won 1,629,467 votes in Maryland compared to 942,279 for O'Malley in 2006 - 57.8% of President Obama's 2008 total. McCain won 959,862 votes in 2008 and Ehrlich 825,464 or 86% of McCain's total. If 2010 continues to be a year of depressed enthusiasm among Democratic voters Ehrlich could easily replicate Brown's path to victory here in Maryland. The shifting support among Independents and the enthusiasm among Republican voters should be a cause for concern among incumbent Democrats - O'Malley included.

It is also worth noting that Brown spent far less money than did Coakley. This suggests that O'Malley's impressive $5.7 million war chest may not be so impressive. Incumbent Governor John Corzine's $30 million investment in New Jersey proved to be no match for challenger Chris Christie's $8.8 million - come Election Day Corzine won only 44% of the vote, roughly equal to his 45% approval rating one month before the election. The latest Gonzales Poll shows that O'Malley's approval rating has been below 50% since October 2007 and is only at 46% now - this is the greatest danger sign.

Back to New England, the fact that the race in Massachusetts was a contest suggests that there may be few Democratic seats that can truly be labeled as “safe” come November 2010. Given Brown's win, Ehrlich should announce his candidacy for Governor now. There seems to be no more benefit in waiting.

Todd Eberly, Assisitant Professor of Political Science

O'Malley Holds Solid Lead Over Ehrlich in New Poll, but Has Cause for Concern

The latest state survey from Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies shows that Governor Martin O'Malley continues to lead former Governor Bob Ehrlich by a 48% to 39% margin in Maryland. That represents a 1 point drop for O'Malley and and 1 point increase for Ehrlich since the last poll in September. The 9 point lead should give O'Malley some cause for relief given recent election results in Virginia and New Jersey, but there are also danger signs for him in the poll. O'Malley enjoys the support of 73% of Democrats and only 39% of Independents - 11% of Democrats and 25% of Independents are undecided and incumbents tend not to do well among undecided voters. O'Malley should be concerned as well that his approval rating has taken another dip falling to 46%. O'Malley's approval rating has been below 50% since October of 2007 and incumbents rarely do better among voters come Election Day than thier approval rating at the time of the election. O'Malley only receives 39% of the white vote in the poll, he needs to get that number into the 40's to feel comfortable on Election Day.

Finally, although O'Malley leads Ehrlich it's important to remember that Ehrlich is not a declared candidate and has done no campaigning. Should Ehrlich launch a bid, those numbers could change quickly. The poll found that the economy is the top concern among Maryland voters and with O'Malley set to release his budget the economy is going to take center stage in the next few weeks. That provides an opportunity for O'Malley to attempt to assuage voter concerns but also an opening for Ehrlich to exploit those concerns. One potential area of trouble for O'Malley is that his proposed budget assumes that the state will receive $400 million in federal money for Medicaid. The problem is that the money was included in the House version of health reform and that bill is all but dead after the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. It is likely that he'll need to make up much of that $400 million by the end of the session in April - will he do that via unpopular spending cuts or unpopular tax increases? While O'Malley will be busy making the tough budget calls, Ehrlich would enjoy the freedom that comes from being the challenger. In the end, the race may be O'Malley's to lose but with his approval rating below 50% and 13% of the electorate undecided victory is far from certain.

Click here for a related post on the implications for Maryland of the Massachusetts special election.

Todd Eberly, Assisitant Professor of Political Science

In Political Earthquake, Scott Brown Wins Clear Victory in Massachusetts

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Maryland, Echoes of 1970 and 2002 as O'Malley Faces a Primary Challenge

I have argued recently that Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley is vulnerable to a challenge from former Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich. That vulnerability stems from national political trends that are boosting Republicans and state financial woes that are hurting Democrats. But news that O'Malley will face a primary challenge - a credible primary challenge - from George Owings III, a former legislator from Southern Maryland and former state secretary of veterans affairs only serves to boost Republican chances. Owings served in the Ehrlich administration and will run a right of center challenge to O'Malley. Given current national trends and Maryland's budget woes, such a strategy may be effective. An examination of recent gubernatorial elections in Maryland shows that Republicans perform best when the Democratic party is neither unified nor enthusiuastic about its candidate. Only time will tell if the Owings challenge weakens O'Malley. It is very likely that this challenge will influence Ehrlich's decision whether or not to run against O'Malley in 2010 - I suspect that it will encourage Ehrlich to seek a rematch with the man who defeated him in 2006.

Josh Kurtz makes a solid argument over at Center Maryland that the Owings' challenge is real and poses a true threat to O'Malley. Kurtz makes agood analogy to 2002 when a grocery store clerk named Robert Fustero took 20 percent of the vote in the 2002 Democratic gubernatorial primary against Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend - revealing Townsend's many weaknesses. Kurtz predicts that Owings will do better than Fustero and inflict serious harm to the O'Malley effort. I agree and will make a different comparison - to 1970 and the race for the Senate in Maryland.

It's hard to not see some parallels forming between the 2010 gubernatorial race and the 1970 senatorial race in Maryland. In 1970, incumbent Democrat Joseph Tydings was seeking re-election and facing a challenge from Republican J. Glenn Beall, Jr the son of the man he had defeated 6 years prior. As the incumbent, Tydings enjoyed the support of the Democratic Party, but he faced a primary challenge from George Mahoney, the Democratic nominee for Governor in 1966. Mahoney was a conservative Democrat – a Dixiecrat – and challenged the liberal Tydings from the right. As expected, Tydings won the primary, but lost the three counties in Southern Maryland and lost the Eastern Shore – then, as now, those regions represent strong pockets of conservative Democrats. Mahoney also did well in the working class areas of Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties and ran surprisingly strong in Howard county. Tydings’ loss in Southern Maryland and the Eastern Shore and his weakness in other areas revealed a weakness with important elements of the Democratic party in Maryland. In the general election Tydings lost to Beall. In the end, Tydings won the three key Democratic strongholds of Prince Georges and Montgomery counties, as well as Baltimore City but suffered losses is rural and working class regions of the state - losses that were foretold by his seemingly comfortable 53% to 38% victory over Mahoney in the primary. Beall defeated Tydings by a scant 50.7% to 48% in the general election – proving that winning Prince Georges, Montgomery, and Baltimore City can only take a candidate so far.

Coming back to 2010, Owings hails from Southern Maryland and spent 16 years in the legislature. He is a credible candidate who will likely draw his greatest support from the same areas of the state as Mahoney in 1970. The question for observers of a possible O’Malley/Ehrlich contest is not whether Owings defeats O’Malley (he won’t) it’s how well he runs outside of the Big Three areas and what that can tell us about divisions within the Democratic party’s rank and file. If Owing’s can crack 20% in the primary O’Malley’s days are likely numbered.

If Massachusetts is a Battleground State then Democrats are in Real Trouble in 2010

Without question the most interesting and unexpected political story of 2010 is the suddenly competitive race to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts.  Massachusetts has not elected a Republican senator in 40 years. As recently as one month ago the Democratic nominee, Martha Coakley, enjoyed a 30 point lead over Republican nominee Scott Brown - today two polls show the race to be a dead heat and the National Democratic Party is committing $1 million to the race. Given history and pure electoral advantage Democrats should be walking away with this race, the fact that it is a contest demonstrates just how bad the national electoral picture is for Democrats. It is highly doubtful that Brown will win this race, but if it is even close (within low single digits) then Democrats should panic about their prospects in 2010. If the party cannot rely on an easy victory in true blue Massachusetts then they should prepare to say goodbye to Democratic Senators in IL, NY, PA, NV, DE, AR, and CO - and they would be unlikely to pickup any Republican seats. That would mean the Democrats could see their 60 seat supermajority fall to 53 seats. If Brown actually manages to win in Massachusetts then I would throw the California Senate seat into play as well and could easily see a 51 seat majority for the Democrats - and most analyst agree that 2012 is a worse year for Democrats as they will have far more seats to defend. If Brown wins Massachusetts then I would argue that the Republicans would have a better than even chance of reclaiming the House - a Brown victory would be that seismic.  How worried are the Democrats about losing Massachusetts? So worried that they are actively seeking ways to deny seating Brown, should he win, for as long as possible so that they could pass health reform. So worried that they are rushing ads on to TV that misspell Massachusettes (sic).  So worried that Coakley is spending time in DC raising money from the pharmaceutical industry instead of campaigning. In some respects, the fact that Democrats have had to spend precious resources on this race already makes it a victory for the GOP. It's stunning just how far the Democratic prospects have fallen since January of 2009. Seems that much of the post election talk of an Obama realignment may have been a bit premature.

The Link between Presidential Approval and Midterm Election Results

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

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

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

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

The Political Center Takes a Hit as Dorgan Announces Retirement

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) has announced that he’s retiring at the end of his term - he will not seek re-election in 2010. This will make it nearly impossible for Democrats to maintain their 60 seat super-majority in the Senate and North Dakota now becomes a likely pick-up for the GOP. In a broader context, however, Dorgan's retirement will mean that there will be one less centrist in the Senate resulting in an even more polarized Senate.

Differences Remain between House and Senate on Health Reform

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