Midterm Update - The GOP Wave Has Not Crested

Last week, some pundits wondered aloud if Democrats were staging a mini rally against Republicans. The Gallup tracking poll reported a Democratic lead in the so-called generic ballot question for two consecutive weeks. Charlie Cook wrote "One interpretation of recent results is that the momentum in this critical midterm election has shifted and the Republican wave has subsided. Another interpretation is that it's too soon to tell whether much has changed at all."

The latest Gallup poll shows that Republicans have reclaimed a 5 point lead. A review of the generic ballot question from several polls available at Realclearpolitics.com shows that Republicans currently lead in every national poll.

The Republicans enjoy an average lead of 6% - and nearly every poll is limited to registered voters and not likely voters. This is significant as Republicans appear far more motivated to vote in the 2010 midterm, so the average "likely voter" is probably much more Republican than the typical "registered voter." A recent survey by Pew found that "Fully 56% of Republican voters say they are more enthusiastic about voting this year than in previous elections – the highest percentage of GOP voters expressing increased enthusiasm about voting in midterms dating back to 1994."Among Democrats, only 42% reported such enthusiasm. To add a bit oh historical perspective "The Republican Party now holds about the same advantage in enthusiasm among its party’s voters that the Democratic Party held in June 2006 and the GOP had late in the 1994 campaign." Pew is actually understating the historical significance as this is the first time that any party has recorded an enthusiasm rating above 50% in the last 16 years.
 
What impact will this enthusiasm have come election day? Cook notes in his column that a 5 point lead among registered voters for Democrats typically translates into a tie with Republicans among actual voters - because registered voter numbers historically underestimate actual Republican turn-out. In October 1994 Gallup reported that Democrats enjoyed a 46% to 44% lead over Republicans in the generic ballot - on Election Day Republicans won the national popular vote 52% to 45%. So a 2 point Democratic lead among registered voters translated into a 7 point Republican lead among actual voters and a gain of just over 50 House seats.
 
The current 6 point lead held by Republicans would likely translate into a pick-up of at least 40 - if not 50 - seats in the House. If the actual lead come election day is closer to 10 points it would not be unrealistic to see Republicans pick-up roughly 70 seats in the House - and likely come within a single vote of retaking the Senate.
 
Events can still change, Democrats can still reclaim an advantage - though one must wonder how. A look at the generic ballot trend going back to President Obama's inauguration shows that voters began to turn on the Democrats just as the health reform battle was heating up last summer and despite a slight tightening in lat spring 2010 the trend has been favoring the GOP for over a year. As Republicans learned in 2006, once started it's hard to alter that trend.
 

 
The latest House race assessment from the Rothenberg Report finds that 88 House seats are "in play." Of the 88, only 12 are held by Republicans, and the Rothenberg report excludes some Democratic seats that now seem to be in danger including Illinois’s 17th congressional and North Carolina's 11th. In the Senate, Rothenberg predicts GOP gains of 5 to 8 seats and even sees the once safe seats in CA, WA, and WI as moving toward the GOP. All of this, coupled with President Obama's newly reached low of 41% approval in the USA Today Gallup poll, point to significant GOP gains in November. The coming wave has not crested.

President Obama and Independent Voters - A Marriage of Convenience Heading for a Nasty Divorce?

The always great William Galston takes a look at just how much public opinion of the Democrats and Republicans has shifted among Independents. Galston considers the recent PEW poll

"On the whole, 58 percent of voters see Democrats as liberal or very liberal, while 56 percent see Republicans as conservative or very conservative; no surprise there. But voters now place themselves much closer to the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party on this left-right continuum. Indeed, the ideological gap between the Democratic Party and the mean voter is about three times as large as the separation between that voter and the Republican Party. And, startlingly, the electorate places itself a bit closer to the Tea Party movement (which is well to the right of the Republican Party) than to the Democratic Party. All this represents a major shift from five years ago, when mean voters placed themselves exactly halfway between their ideological perceptions of the Democratic and Republican parties."

Many political insiders have wondered why the Democrats and the Presidents are in such dire straits considering the success they have had enacting legislation - the stimulus, health reform, regulatory reform - by many measures this Congress and President have had one of the most productive sessions in years. Yet with each new bill approval of Congress seems to fall more and the President's approval rating is stuck in the mid 40s.

Why? Consider two more points from Galston:

• "In May 2009, after Obama had taken office and the broad political debate had shifted away from social issues and national security toward the economy and federal regulation, Pew found that Independents had begun to move toward the Republican Party."
• "Democrats are far more ideologically diverse than Republicans. Twenty-four percent of Democrats describe themselves as conservative or very conservative, while only 5 percent of Republicans call themselves liberal or very liberal."

Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency was a campaign very much lacking in specifics. He spoke of health reform, tax reform, financial reform - but offered few details. His campaign was also quite centrist - Obama criticized Hillary Clinton's health reform proposal for containing an individual mandate to purchase health insurance. He criticized John McCain's proposal to tax employer based health insurance like income as "extreme." Candidate Obama spoke the language of Centrism when he problems absolutely no tax increases for any American earning less than $250,000 per year. He tapped into growing voter concern over America's rising debt and deficits and promised to reduce both and put us on a path to a balanced budget. Finally, he rightly sensed voter anger over special interests, corruption in Congress, and cozy relationships between the Bush Administration and corporate interests by pledging a transparent and ethical administration that would not hire lobbyists.

Obama's message spoke directly to the concerns of Independent voters and they supported him on Election Day by a margin of 52% to 44%. In 2004 Bush and Kerry split Independents 48% to 49%. Independents also increased their share of the electorate between 2004 and 2008 from 26% to 29%. So Independents have become more crucial to a presidential candidate and they helped deliver the White House to Obama.

In July of 2009 Gallup reported that Obama's support among Independents stood at a strong 56% - that was after the passage of the stimulus bill, but just before the summer of health care reform townhall meetings that would foreshadow the tough reform battle in Congress. Today, Obama's approval rating among Independents stands out 38% - an 18 point decline in one year.

Why the decline? Because Obama's legislative successes have turned Independents away. The economic stimulus bill added more than $800 billion to the national debt - on top of the $800 billion bank bailout passed in the waning days of the Bush administration. As a result, the nation's deficit for 2009 totaled $1.4 trillion and the deficit for 2010 is estimated to reached $1.5 trillion - simply staggering figures.

Just as concern over the debt was reaching a critical mass las summer the health reform debate began. Estimates placed the cost of reform at $1 trillion over ten years - triggering more debt concerns. Other elements of the reform proposals caused more concern - the individual mandate that Obama had opposed during the campaign was now part of the mix as was a proposal to tax employer health benefits. The individual mandate included a tax penalty for failure to comply - so the two proposals that candidate Obama had criticized were now on the table and the pledge to not raise taxes was pushed aside.

The manner in which health reform passed further antagonized Independent voters. The use of budget reconciliation to pass the bill in the Senate following the surprise election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts and the brief flirtation with using the "deeming" process to pass the bill in the House so as to avoid politically painful votes struck many Independents as more of the "politics as usual" that Obama had promised to change. Worse, subsequent news accounts reported that the cost of reform may well be more than initially estimated - and in fact may well worsen our deficits and increase costs.

Promises of transparency have been undermined with recent news regarding financial regulation and word that it exempts the Securities and Exchange Commission for freedom of information act requests. Add to this the fact that Obama administration issued an executive order prohibiting the hiring of lobbyists and then went about issuing multiple exemptions to that order so that lobbyists could be hired.

Adding more fuel to the debt fire a just released report from the Congressional Budget Office warns that unless serious actions are taken - significant spending cuts, dramatic tax increases, or both - "growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels... In only one other period in U.S. history—during and shortly after World War II" has our debt reached its current levels.

But the CBO warns that tax increases "would discourage work and saving, further reducing output and incomes."

In sum, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have scored considerable legislative successes - but many of those successes contained elements that directly broke pledges made by the President during the 2008 campaign - pledges that were central to his gaining the support of Independents. This means that Democrats cannot go into the midterms touting their accomplishments. Instead, indications are that they will base their campaign not on why they are worthy of support, but rather on why Republicans are unworthy- including portraying Republicans as racist Tea Party fanatics. It's a desperate and risky tactic, but it's the only option they have. They cannot win back the support of Independents in the near term, so instead they are trying to depress their support for and turnout on behalf of Republicans.

It's a sad state of affairs and speaks to how much the Democrats' fortunes have changed in the last two years. Between 2002 and 2006 unified Republican government drove Independents into the arms of the Democrats. Four years later Democrats appear to be driving them right back. It remains to be seen whether the result will divided government, and if so, how Independents will react to that.

New Poll Offers Cause for Concern for Ehrlich and O'Malley

Maryland political junkies have been treated to a slew of statewide polls lately - we've been treated to 4 new polls in as many weeks. In general, the polling data released during the first half of the last four weeks mostly suggested that Governor Martin O'Malley is in danger of losing his job and that former Governor Bob Ehrlich is gaining momentum in his quest to reclaim his old job. But the two most recent polls paint a far murkier picture - combined, the four polls confirm that the Maryland gubernatorial race is a pure toss-up (and that's usually considered to be worse news for the incumbent).

Polls by Rasmussen Reports and Magellan strategies, release in late June and the first week of July, each should Ehrlich with a narrow lead. The Rasmussen survey showed Ehrlich erasing what had been a O'Mally lead, and the Magellan poll showed Ehrlich running strong among Democracts - a necessity in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a two-to-one margin.

A few days after the Magellan poll, Public Policy Strategies reported that O'Malley had a slight lead - but confirmed that Ehrlich was winning nearly a quarter of all Democrats and enjoyed a wide lead among Independent voters.

Today, the latest Gonzales Research poll was released and it shows O'Malley with a small lead as well - 45% to 42%.

The bad news for Ehrlich:

• The Gonzales poll shows O'Malley and Ehrlich tied among Independents and Ehrlich winning only 20% of Democrats - Ehrlich must win Independent voters by a clear margin and he needs to carry roughly 25% of Democrats.

The Bad news for O'Malley:

• O'Malley's re-elect numbers have gone down 4 points since last year, he is stuck in the mid-40% range in this and every other poll.. What had been a 9 point lead in January is now a 3 point lead. O'Malley's approval rating is below 50%.

The take away from all of these polls?

• This race could go either way. I think that it is likely to be decided by a matter of 20,000 votes - more or less.
• O'Malley is in a bad spot for an incumbent, but two of the last four polls have Ehrlich still in the low 40s.

In Maryland, Poll Finds More Bad News for O'Malley

In a recent radio interview with John Domen I was asked whether all the polling on the Maryland race was telling us anything. The reporter wondered whether it was a forgone conclusion that Democrat Martin O'Malley would win given the Democrat's registration advantage in Maryland (roughly 58% D to 27% R).  I said that the race was anything but a safe bet for O'Malley - in fact I said O'Malley needed to be worried. O'Malley has not polled at 50% or above in any reelection poll and worse yet, every new poll shows former Republican governor Robert Ehrlich in a stronger position.

A new poll from Rasmussen finds Ehrlich edging Gov. O'Malley 47% to 46%. This may not seem like much, but the trend has been clear. In February, O’Malley led 49% to 43%, After Ehrlich announced the race narrowed in April to 47% to 44%. The two were tied last month with 45% apiece. So since February O'Malley has fallen from +6 to -1. Since announcing, Ehrlich has gone from -3 to +1. Simply stated, O'Malley is losing ground and Ehrlich is gaining.

In the Rasmussen survey, Ehrlich wins 87% of the state’s GOP vote and 22% of Maryland Democrats, while O’Malley earns just 71% support in his own party. These numbers essentially mirror the results in a recent poll by Magellan Strategies that I wrote about in a prior post. The Magellan poll showed the candidates tied among Independent voters, but Rasmussen reports that Ehrlich leads by 15 points.

If Ehrlich can win 87% of Republican, roughly a quarter of Democrats, and carry Independent voters by 15% he will be very happy on Election night 2010.


A new poll from Public Policy Polling is expected very soon and will either confirm or confound what other polls have shown. I've written much on the Maryland race and expect to write much more. Stay tuned!

In Blue Maryland, O'Malley Threatened by Growing GOP Wave

A new poll from Magellan Strategies shows Republican Bob Ehrlich holds a 3 point lead over incumbent Governor Martin O’Malley, 46% to 43%. Another 4% of voters prefer “another candidate”, and 7% are undecided. This poll comes on the heels of a Rasmussen poll that showed the race tied at 45%. Since announcing his candidacy, Ehrlich has steadily improved his position, while O'Malley has been losing ground.

In a prior post I showed that the key for Republican candidates in Maryland is not reduced turnout among Democratic voters, but rather a poor performance among them by the Democratic candidate and increased turnout by Republican voters. In 1994, Republicans came within 6,000 votes of winning the gubernatorial race because the Democratic candidate's vote total was only 80.5% of all Democrats voting. In contrast, the Republican's vote total equaled 155.6% of all Republicans voting - the Democratic candidate lost a lot of Democrats and the Republican candidate claimed them.  The scenario was nearly identical in 2002 when Ehrlich won the race.

The new poll shows O'Malley winning 64% of Democrats to Ehrlich's 25%. Among Republicans, Ehrlich wins 90% to O'Malley's 7%. The two essentially split the Independent vote with O'Malley at 38% and Ehrlich at 34%. 

What would those numbers mean when applied to actual voter registration data? In may 2010, there were 1,929,966 Democrats and 902,222 Republicans in the state, with another 574,979 essentially Independent. If Maryland had 100% turnout and the each man received the share of the vote reported by the new poll, O'Malley would win the race by a narrow 27,000 vote margin.

Of course, 100% turnout will not happen. The average turnout for registered Democrats in gubernatorial elections since 1994 has been 61.6%, turnout for Republicans has averaged 64.4%, and Independent voters have average 43%. Add those assumptions to my prior vote estimate and O'Malley's 27,000 vote victory margin becomes a 9,000 vote margin of loss.

But I'm not done... in the strong Republican years of 1994 and 2002, Democratic turnout was close to the 4 election average at 61.95%, but GOP turnout was higher - 66.15%. Independent turnout was unchanged. Apply those turnout assumptions to the Magellan poll and Ehrlich wins by 19,000 votes.

So O'Malley by 27,000 or Ehrlich by 19,000? It all depends on how many Democrats ultimately defect to Ehrlich and how many Republicans turnout. If the 2010 election in Maryland follows the pattern of 1994 or 2002 then Ehrlich will make a return trip to Annapolis. Unfortunately for Martin O'Malley, all indications are that 2010 will look very much like 1994 and 2002. As political guru Charlie Cook wrote today - "A GOP Wave is On the Way...."

This Keynesian Votes for Austerity

Battle lines are being drawn over whether America and indeed the world needs to increase government spending in order to stimulate economic growth or institute austerity measures to stem the tide of crippling government debt. 

I am a Keynesian - I believe in government stimulus - but I cannot endorse Keynesian policies at this time because we have failed to adhere to Keynesian theory for so long. Put into the simplest of terms Keynesian economic theory tells us that government should engage in deficit spending during economic downturns in order to compensate for lax private sector activity and to spur economic growth. This can be accomplished via spending, tax cuts, or both. This aspect of Keynesian policy has been standard practice since the 1930s.  Even the Reagan era policies - often derided as supply side or trickle down - were truly Keynesian. The tax cuts were financed via large federal deficits. These government financed tax cuts spurred tremendous economic growth during the 1980s.

But deficit spending only tells half the Keynesian tale. The rest of the theory holds that during times of economic growth, government must pay down the debt incurred to bring about that growth. So once an economy returns to healthy growth deficit spending must be reigned in, debt paid off. This is accomplished via spending cuts, tax increases, or a bit of both. This aspect of Keynesian economic policy has never been standard practice - rather our government (and in fact most western democracies) have instead maintained the "stimulus" policies of deficit spending even during strong economic times.

Look at the chart to the right -  it tracks total US debt as a percentage of the overall economy, or GDP. During our nation's first century you'll notice a rise and fall of our debt to GDP ratio. Our debt was high after the Revolutionary War, but we slowly retired it. It grew again during the War of 1812, but we retired it, it spikes during the Civil War only to fall again.

We see another spike following World War I and a steady decline just prior to the onset of the Great Depression -at which time Keynesian economic policy truly comes to America. Our prior periods of debt were caused by national crisis - War. The debt accrued during the Depression was related to an attempt to mitigate a financial crises. At the onset of the Great Depression our nations accrued debt was only 16.3% of GDP. Depression era deficit spending, or stimulus, doubled our debt ratio to post-World War I levels.

This spending did halt the dramatic economic declines on the early 1930s, but did not produce sustained growth. That would not occur until the build up for World War II when US debt ballooned to a rate more than twice that of GDP. Note in the next chart how economic growth peaked during the height of wartime spending. Though there was a decline in growth after the war, it was short lived and followed by a half century marked by economic expansion and brief episodes of contraction, or recession.

If you return to the first graph you'll see that initially we did begin to retire our debt. The US debt to GDP ratio fell dramatically during the post war economic boom. This halted during the latter part of the 1960s as economic crisis and the Vietnam War put pressure on our economy and the US budget. Our debt to GDP ratio fell to Depression-era levels, but has never since fallen below those level.

The economic expansion of the 1980s and 1990s should have been met with measures intended to retire our burgeoning debt - but those tough decisions were not made - with two exceptions. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 increased taxes. It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% of the wage earners, it created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations, the cap on Medicare taxes was repealed, and transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon. The result was increased federal revenue and declining debt. Then in 1997, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 trimmed hundreds of billions from the Medicare program - reducing government spending.

The net effect of these two acts was a brief period of surpluses during the late 1990s/early 2000s (see the third graph). But this era was short lived. Congress gave into special interest pressure in 1999 and restored many of the Medicare cuts in the Medicare Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999. Returning to the second graph we can see a period of recession in early 2000-2002.

That recession was met with an aggressive tax reduction/stimulus plan - The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA). EGTRRA reduced tax rates across the board and reduced the top rate from 39.6% to 35%. In addition, taxpayers were sent rebate checks ranging from $300 a person to $600 a couple to stimulate the economy. Economic growth returned until the current downturn.

Those 2001 tax cuts and the Medicare increases came at a high price as US deficits soared and our debt to GDP ratio began to rise again.

So we find ourselves in 2010 in the midst of a dramatic economic slowdown. Unemployment is at 9.5% and the US economy has lost 8 million jobs in the last two years. In late 2008, Congress passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP to allow the United States Department of the Treasury to purchase or insure up to $700 Billion of "troubled assets". In January of 2009 Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which appropriated $787 billion in tax cuts and spending. TARP and the Recovery Act were financed via deficit spending and added greatly to our debt and deficit.

Total US debt has reached 80% of GDP and is expected to surpass GDP by 2015. We are already at levels not seen since the height of World War II.  The most recent economic outlook from the Congressional Budget Office looks at the share of debt held by the public, as opposed to what the government owes itself, finds that debt to GDP ratio is 62%, but "federal debt held by the public would rise... to 181 percent of GDP in 2035, and annual deficits would exceed 10 percent of GDP beginning in 2027." 

Why does this matter?

If the ratio of debt to GDP continues to rise, lenders may become concerned about the financial solvency of the government and demand higher interest rates to compensate for the increasing riskiness of holding government debt. Eventually, if the debt-to-GDP ratio keeps increasing and the budget outlook does not improve, both foreign and domestic lenders may not provide enough funds for the government to meet its obligations. By then, whether the government resolves the fiscal crisis by printing money, raising taxes, cutting spending, or going into default, economic growth will be seriously disrupted.

So how does all of this come back to my current opposition to additional stimulus and more Keynesian demand side policies? Simple, we have defied Keynesian policy for over 40 years. Since the late 1960s we have continually spent beyond our means in good times and lean years. Rather than pay down the debt accrued during periods of recession, we have continued to accrue debt at an alarming rate. At the onset of the Great Depression our debt to GDP ratio was but 16% and our budget balanced. Today, we entered the Great Recession with a debt to GDP ratio of 80% and a budget habitually out of balance. Rather than stimulus, America must embrace austerity. Such austerity will cause pain, but it will be a temporary pain as we pay for the excesses of the past 4 decades. The other option is continued deficit spending and crushing debt that we will never be able to grow out from under. The choice is between short term pain with long term health (austerity) and short term relief with long term ruin (stimulus).

2010 Midterms: An Electoral Bloodbath in the Making

Based on a spate of recent polls I conclude that if the 2010 midterm elections were held now Democrats would lose the House, the Senate, and crucial gubernatorial races - marking a dramatic turn of fortune since January of 2009.

Consider:

• Three current national polls have President Obama underwater with an approval rating lower than his disapproval rating and all three have his approval rating at 45%.
• Republicans are tied or leading on the generic ballot questions - something that last happened in 1994.
• A recent NPR survey of the most competitive House races identified 70 and Democrats held 60 of those and trailed the GOP badly in the generic ballot.
• Senate races that should be safe bets for Democrats in Washington, California, Oregon, and Illinois are all competitive (tied) - while Republicans are vulnerable in only one state - North Carolina.
• Gallup recently reported that a record number of Americans believe that the Democratic party is "Too Liberal."
• Congress has an approval rating of 20% and Gallup reports that "in the five midterm elections in which Congress' approval ratings at the time of the election were below 40%, there was an average net change in seats of 29 from the president's party to the opposition."

• In the reliably Blue state of Maryland, incumbent Democratic governor Martin O'Malley has been losing ground against former governor Bob Ehrlich and is now tied with him. The last time Republicans did well statewide in Maryland were in te strong national Republican years of 1994 and 2002.
• Last, Gallup reports that since 2008, the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as conservative has risen 5 percentage points to 42 percent, while the number of liberals has dropped 2 points to 20 percent. If that figure remains through the end of the year, "it would represent the highest annual percentage identifying as conservative in Gallup's history of measuring ideology..."

Considered collectively these data point to a very unhappy electorate and a very dangerous election cycle for Democrats. If this pattern holds (and it has for more than 9 months now) Democrats will lose the House, the Senate, and a substantial number of governorships - and redistricting in key states like Ohio and Pennsylvania will be overseen by Republican governors.

Today's New York Times includes a report that Democrats see a "glimmer of hope" in key states where the economy has been recovering more quickly, but the article reads more like wishful think on the part of the author and Representative Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

A Transformative Presidency?

Over at Politicalwire, Taegan Goddard writes

Now that Democrats have agreed on a Wall Street reform bill, President Obama is set to have an incredible year of accomplishments. He's already signed major health care reforms into law and is more than likely to have energy/climate change legislation on his desk later this year. Not since FDR has a president done so much to transform the country.

I'm sorry, but as a professor of political science I find the suggestion that Barack Obama has done more to transform the country than any president since FDR to be a ridiculous statement to make 18 months into his presidency - it's also simply wrong.

I invite everyone to consider just one year in the presidency of Lyndon Johnson - 1965:

• The Voting Rights Act
• The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
• The Immigration Act
• The Higher Education Act
• The creation of Medicare and Medicaid
• The National Endowment for the Arts
• The National Endowment for the Humanities 

all were accomplished in one year....

Want to include 1964?

• The Civil Rights Act
• The Revenue Act
• The Economic Opportunity Act 

Lyndon Johnson transformed America, and every president since Johnson has been living in the house that he built. Barack Obama has spent the last 18 months doing some remodeling - but he has not "transformed" anything. In no way could any reasonable person compare the half-measure health and financial reforms that have passed this year with the transformative policies of FDR or Lyndon Johnson. To stretch a metaphor, FDR built a modest one-story house of American Public Policy. Lyndon Johnson modernized the first floor, added a second floor, and a two car garage - and invited millions of previously excluded American to come on in. Barack Obama has repainted, added new curtains, and a small deck in the back yard. It looks nice, but hasn't changed much.

Those on the Left that are attempting to overstate President Obama's accomplishments are no more credible than those on the Right who are trying to portray him as a threat to Democracy. So far Obama has been as successful as many recent presidents, but has been no more "transformative" than George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. Might Obama be a transformative president? Certainly, but he has not been one yet. And most president are not.

Neither a Racist nor Traitor be....

Don't you just love hypocrisy? In a recent Salon article Jake Knotts trots out the intellectually lazy argument that conservatism, and therefore criticisms of President Obama, are all rooted in a deep racism that rests at the core of conservative belief. This is ridiculous and is used merely as a ploy to intimidate critics. “Criticize my guy? I’ll call you a racist.” It’s a pathetic accusation meant to devalue the very valid arguments put forward by conservatives concerning debt, deficits, and the questionable tactics employed to enact a health reform law that everyday seems evermore less than what was promised. It was but a few years ago when the Left was cricising rising debt and procedural abuses in Congress.  So along comes Herman Cain to challenge the racist claim – from his unique vantage point as a black conservative. Cain rightly refutes the charge, but then commits the same offense by accusing those who use the racist label as the true racists…


During the Bush administration, critics of the Bush War on Terror were frequently accused of undermining the war effort and of aiding the terrorists. "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists." The clear implication being that those who questioned the President’s tactics were unpatriotic. The intent was the same – intimidate critics. “Criticize my guy? I’ll call you a traitor.” It was a pathetic accusation meant to devalue valid concerns about the use of executive power and the possible violation of basic constitutional rights – rights that neo-cons once considered to be universal, but during the War on Terror decided applied only to citizens, and then only to citizens not linked via six degrees of Kevin Bacon to a terrorist organization.

All of these baseless accusations undermine and cheapen our political discourse. We should hold no greater liberty than the right to openly and forcefully criticize our government – even our President – without being intimidated by those who would smear us as racists or traitors.

Make no mistake; those who accuse President Obama’s critics of being closet racists are no different from those who questioned the patriotism of President Bush’s critics. And they all can look to The House UnAmerican Activities Committee and Sen. Joseph McCarthy for a clear reflection of themselves…

Ehrlich misses the bus on mass transit

In today's Baltimore Sun I argue that Bob Ehrlich made a critical error in his decision to oppose the proposed Purple Line expansion in favor of rapaid bus service.

Todd Eberly, a professor of political science at St. Mary's College in Southern Maryland, said Ehrlich's position gives O'Malley an opening in the swing counties where the race could be decided.


"For so many of the voters in the counties Ehrlich needs, they want the expanded mass transit," Eberly said.

Voters in Anne Arundel, Charles, Frederick and Howard counties would take a decision to cut rail projects in Montgomery and Prince George's as a sign that they could never expect such service to come their way, he said

Eberly said that while Ehrlich's opposition to light rail seems to play into his theme of fiscal responsibility, the Republican had erred in the issue he chose to highlight it because business wants infrastructure investment.

"It can really counter Ehrlich's business-friendly message," the political science professor said.

In addition to votes, Ehrlich's stand could cost him in terms of fundraising from businesses that might like his stance on taxes and regulation but oppose him on transportation issues. But he also could achieve gains by cutting into O'Malley support in heavily Democratic areas that oppose the governor's light rail plans.

I believe that Ehrlich has made a serious miscalculation here. This position may help him on the Eastern Shore or in Western Maryland - but he was already going to win those regions.  Ehrlich needs Anne Arundel, Howard, and Baltimore Counties and he needs to have a respectable finish in Montgomery County - bus rapid transit will not secure those results.

"...the big difference here and in ’94 is you’ve got me"

At the height of the health care debate nervous House Democrats met with the President to express their concern that 2010 would turn out like 1994 - when Republicans won the House and Senate. Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark reported that the response from President Obama was simple ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’

Berry was not impressed then and it turns out that he shouldn't have been.  A new poll from Public Policy Polling finds that Barack Obama is a drag on the Democratic ticket.

"PPP's most recent national survey found that while Obama had a positive approval rating at 48/47, only 33% of voters were more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by him while 48% said support from Obama would make them less likely to vote for someone."

In 1994, Republicans effectively used television ads that would morph photos of Democratic candidates into Bill Clinton. Such an ad may seem hokey today, but Obama's appearances in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Virginia certainly did the party no good. In 2010, Obama is likely going to be relegated to fundraising among the faithful not rallying the masses - certainly not what many would have predicted just a year ago.

Obama Governs Like an Academic...

Reaction to President Obama's first Oval office address seems to be universally negative.  Even the Huffington Post has dismissed it as "pointless." The normally loving Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann derided it as "Carter-like" and lacking any executive authority.

I think that Michael Gerson hit the right note in the Washington Post:

"The setting of the Oval Office creates an expectation of decisive executive action. It recalls memories of President Dwight Eisenhower dispatching federal troops to Little Rock or President John F. Kennedy announcing the naval "quarantine" of Cuba. This speech will not be confused with those precedents. Obama urges others to take action, kibitzes with corporate executives, shifts some government personnel and signals the start of a review process. A crisis is met with a study. The action verbs in this speech have somehow gone missing. It is all rather limp and weak."

This is of course Obama's greatest weakness - he governs like an academic. His solution to every problem is to call a panel of experts and talk. Surely every problem can be solved if only we bring together the smartest people. Never mind that many of these "experts" have no practical or hands on experience. How many times in one speech could the President mention that our Energy Secretary has a Nobel Prize?

“… I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge – a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.”

Guess what Mr. President - you have the Nobel Peace Prize - have you actually brought about peace anywhere? Perhaps the Nobel Prize is not the qualification needed here.

Barack Obama approaches governing like a faculty meeting. On every issue that requires executive action he delegates, forms commissions, and schedules future meetings. To him, this is action. And in the egalitarian world of academe it would be.  But in the real world it's anything but leadership.

2010 is NOT an anti-incumbent year, it's an anti left-of-center year...

Many analysts and pundits have been trying to determine the theme of the upcoming 2010 mid-terms elections. Will it be a repeat of the so-called "angry, white male election" of 1994? Will the Tea Party movement deliver an anti-establishment election? Many friends of the Democratic Party have sought to portray the coming election as anything but a referendum on President Obama and the Democratic Party. Rather, they argue that economic insecurity and frustration with Washington - the same anger and frustration that elected Barack Obama - is feeding a non-partisan anti-incumbent mood among the electorate. This narrative is crucial to Democrats as it helps them convince their vulnerable incumbents that the electorate is simply anti politics and not anti Democratic policies. 

Purveyors of this narrative point to the May defeat of Republican Senator Bob Bennett at the party's nominating convention in Utah as proof. As added insurance for their argument they point to the special election in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District where Democrat Mark Critz easily defeated Republican Tim Burns in a district that had voted for John McCain in 2008. If this were simply an anti-Democrat year, the argument goes, then why the defeat of Bennett and the election of Critz?

At first blush, it is a reasonable argument, but dig a bit deeper and the narrative unravels. 2010 is not shaping up to be a simple anti-incumbent year, nor is it simply an anti-Democrat year. All indications are that 2010 is shaping up to be an anti left of center year and that hurts Democrats. Republican Bob Bennett lost because he was perceived as being too moderate and too willing to compromise with the Democratic party - though to many this may be an admirable trait it was not among GOP faithful this year. Democrat Marc Critz won a special election in a Congressional district that has been held by Democrats for over 3 decades and he won by running as a very conservative Democrat. Critz openly opposed the Obama health reform bill, declared himself to be firmly pro-life, and was unabashedly pro-gun rights. Critz won by running as a Republican.

There are a few other races of note as well. West Virginia Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan was defeated in his state's primary by a wide margin. His 14 term career ended at the hands of a conservative Democrat who campaigned against Mollohan's support of health reform. The case of Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas is also worthy of mention. Lincoln failed to break 50% in her state's primary as she faced a challenge from the left from Arkansas Lt. Governor Bill Halter. In the subsequent run-off contest many considered Lincoln to be a goner. Lincoln withstood the challenge - largely with the help of the consummate centrist, Bill Clinton. So the more liberal incumbent loses in W. VA and the moderate incumbent wins in AR. It's not just an anti-incumbent year.

New polls from Gallup and NPR offer further evidence that 2010 is an anti-left of center year. The Gallup poll found that a record high share of Americans consider the Democratic party to be "too liberal."  According to Gallup "Americans have become increasingly likely to describe the Democratic Party's views as "too liberal" (49%), and less likely to say its views are "about right" (38%). Americans' views of the Republican Party, on the other hand, have moderated slightly..."

Gallup further shows Republicans with a 5 point lead over Democrats on the generic ballot question - historically, Republicans rarely lead the generic ballot.

The NPR poll offers worse news for Democrats. "Democrat Stan Greenberg and Republican Glen Bolger conducted the first public battleground poll of this election cycle. They chose the 70 House districts experts regard as most likely to oust incumbents this fall. What they found was grim news for Democrats." Of the 70 districts, 60 are held by Democrats. In those Democratic districts voters indicated that they WILL NOT vote for the incumbent by an overwhelming 56% to 36% margin. In the Republican districts, Voters said they WOULD support the incumbent by a 52% to 39% margin.

Overall, Republicans enjoy an 8 point advantage in the 70 battleground districts - including a 5 point advantage in the 60 Democratic districts. The NPR poll also found that President Obama is quite unpopular in those 70 districts with 54 percent of likely battleground voters disapproving of Obama's performance and 40 percent approving. Republican voters are also far more energized.

Taken together, all of this suggests that any attempt to define 2010 as an anti-incumbent year is simply wrong. 2010 will be an anti-Democrat year, but largely it would seem that is a manifestation of what is an anti-liberal year. News that will no doubt frustrate many liberals who have lamented that the President and his party have not been aggressive enough in pursuing progressive policies. If this trend continues, expect Republicans to win the 40 seats needed to retake the House and to win at least 7 Senate seats.

All Tied Up in Maryland - O'Malley should be Worried

The latest poll from Rasmussen Reports finds the Maryland raced all tied-up at 45% to 45%. Since Rasmussen began polling this race in February, O'Malley has fallen by 4 points and Ehrlich is up by 2 points. O'Malley needs to be a bit worried about that trend. Consider:

1. Maryland has weathered the recession better than most states.
2. Maryland's job situation is better than in most states.
3. The Maryland General Assembly just concluded a very non-contentious session.
4. O'Malley submitted a shrunken and balanced budget without any tax increases and a tax credit for businesses that hire unemployed Marylanders.

Yet O'Malley is in worse shape against Ehrlich now than he was prior to the session. O'Malley needs to halt his slide and Ehrlich needs to continue his climb. All told, I would rather be Bob Ehrlich right now. The trend is in his favor and O'Malley has not polled at 50% in any re-election poll. That's not a good sign for any incumbent - just ask John Corzine, the former governor of New Jersey. 

2010 is still shaping up to be a very strong year for Republicans and Ehrlich is clearly riding that building wave. He just needs to hope that wave crests in early November and not in late summer.

Barack Obama's Oil-Soaked Foundation of Sand

In the fall of 2004 President George W. Bush faced re-election with his approval rating resting on the razor's edge. After reaching a peak of 90% in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush's approval rating steadily eroded under the pressure of an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq and public concerns over an economy that seemed to be in neutral. Bush was re-elected with 51% of the popular vote - a number that essentially matched his approval rating (it is a well understood axiom that incumbents rarely outperform their approval rating come election day). Bush argued in the days after his re-election that he had earned political capital and now intended to spend it on tax reform and Social Security reform. Alas, it was not to be. Just one year after winning re-election, George W. Bush saw his average approval fall to the upper 30% range. With the exception of a brief spike in early 2006, Bush never saw an average approval rating above 40% again and his post re-election agenda foundered.

Bush's experience between 2004 and 2005 has much to offer Barack Obama - and the president and his advisors should be worried.

First- let's explore a little political theory. In what would be his final scholarly work, Woodrow Wilson wrote in Constitutional Government on the tremendous leadership potential of American Presidents. "Let him once win the admiration and confidence of the country, and no other single force can withstand him, no combination of forces will easily overpower him... A President whom it trusts can not only lead it, but form it to his own views." Wilson believed that presidents were uniquely positioned to appeal for and gain unrivaled strength from public opinion. Indeed, a century later another political scientist named Jeffrey Tulis would write of the Two Constitutional Presidencies. Presidents derive status, authority, and limited explicit powers from the formal Constitution adopted over 200 years ago. But presidents are further empowered by the small "c" constitution of popular support. The ambiguous nature or Article II of the Constitution bestows upon presidents the potential to make his office "anything he has the sagacity and force to make it," again quoting Wilson.

A quick review of available data reveals that Presidential success in Congress is most closely correlated not with unified party control, but with public approval - popular presidents enjoy greater success regardless of partisan control of government.

So what does any of this have to do with Barack Obama now and George W. Bush in 2004/2005? Simple - there is a downside to the small "c" presidency. Although a presidency premised on the powers of Article II may be somewhat limited, the powers are founded in stone - they cannot be washed away except via constitutional amendment. The small "c" powers of public approval are, however, built on a foundation of sand. Wilson wrote "Let him once win the admiration and confidence of the country, and no other single force can withstand him, no combination of forces will easily overpower him." What Wilson failed to consider was what would happen should a President lose the admiration and confidence of the people. Can any combination of forces help to restore the loss? Once lost, can a presidency based on public approval and confidence continue to govern?

In 2005, George W. Bush lost the public's confidence. His foundation of sand was washed away by the force of hurricane Katrina, an unpopular war, and an accelerating investigation into allegations that senior members of the Bush administration had "outed" covert CIA operative Valerie Plame in retribution for her husband Joe Wilson's public criticisms of President Bush's claims that Iraq had sought uranium for a nuclear weapon program. The one-two punch of Katrina and the Plame investigation fundamentally eroded public confidence that Bush was trustworthy - regardless of whether one agreed with his policies. Bush never recovered the public confidence. Republicans experienced historic losses in the 2006 and 2008 election and Bush left office with an average approval rating of 32%. He spent his second term largely relying on the limited but secure Constitutional powers of his office - namely the veto - to defend his first term policies.

But Bush was lucky, his foundation of support collapsed during his second term. Obama is facing a similar collapse and he has not yet reached the midpoint of his first term. After several legislative successes -that have proven to be quite unpopular - Obama has seen a significant decline in his approval rating. His peak of 65.5% in January of 2009 has fallen to a point consistently hovering around 48%. The President now faces his own Katrina-Plame one-two punch with the ongoing BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico and the growing press and Congressional inquiries into behind-the-scenes White House efforts to discourage Democratic primary challenges in Pennsylvania and Colorado - the accusation being that members of the White House violated federal law by offering federal jobs to potential challengers to the candidates preferred by the White House.

The handling of the BP oil leak raises public doubts about the President Obama's competence, the election meddling raises doubts about his integrity - just as Katrina and the Plame investigation did for Bush. Barack Obama's presidency was very much premised on a foundation of public support based upon a belief in his integrity and competence - qualities the public sought by the end of the Bush years. The President's supporters will protest that there is little the President can do about the oil leak and that nothing untoward happened with regard to the Pennsylvania and Colorado elections - that may be, but much the same was said about Katrina and the Plame investigation.

All of this speaks to a larger narrative regarding the American Presidency - it is an office with great potential for power and the public expects president to present and pursue an agenda with vigor. But that awesome power is tempered by the reality that public support can and often is fickle. The temptation is great for a president to rely solely on the promise of public support, but if lost what power then does a president have? The President and his advisors wrongly believed that foundation was rock solid. Over the course of the coming weeks they are likely to see that belief soundly challenged.

Looking to Government in an Era of Incompetence

Peggy Noonan's latest column actually taps into something much larger than the BP spill - she speaks to the defining narrative of our current political era. American politics realigned in the 1960s and 1970s, we entered a period of declining trust in government and an ever growing sense that government was in fact incompetent. Our traditional attachment to mass-based political parties fell away and we began an era where neither party had a strategic advantage. It's not just a period of divided government, we've experienced that in the past (think of the balance between the Whigs and Democrats in the mid 1800s), and it was a vibrant policy era. The difference now is that neither party has a substantial base of support. Rather more than one-third of the electorate operate as non-partisan free-agents. So each party seeks immediate strategic advantage, but neither can undertake substantial policy reforms as they lack mass-based support. We entered an era that political scientist Walter Dean Burnham defines as the "politics of collision, coalition, and the permanent campaign." This has created a system of government incapable of addressing the significant challenges before us - which then reinforces the notion of incompetence.

Democrats, as the pro-statist party, are more harmed by this crisis of confidence than are Republicans. In "Why Trust Matters" Marc Hetherington makes a compelling case that American liberalism cannot recover barring a resurgence of trust and confidence in government. But since the 1960s every crisis, except 9/11, has served to further erode public confidence.

Noonan rightly points to hurricane Katrina to illustrate this point:

Katrina did at least two big things politically. The first was draw together everything people didn't like about the Bush administration, everything it didn't like about two wars and high spending and illegal immigration, and brought those strands into a heavy knot that just sat there, soggily, and came to symbolize Bushism. The second was illustrate that even though the federal government in our time has continually taken on new missions and responsibilities, the more it took on, the less it seemed capable of performing even its most essential jobs.

This is the problem for President Obama and for his supporters - conservatives have long believed that the government was ineffective, but liberals tended to believe that federal failures resulted more from a lack of competent leadership. The failure of financial regulation and the failed response to Katrina were emblematic of the incompetence of George W. Bush or the anti-government philosophy of Ronald Reagan - but certainly not the result of ineffective government.

Enter Obama:

His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America—confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality.

This is the real challenge for Democrats, the Left, and all advocates of active government - if government fails even when led by seemingly competent adherents to its promise and potential then who is at fault? The response from the Right will be that this simply provides additional evidence that government cannot solve society's problems. The likely response from the Left will be a call for an ever more powerful government (read E.J. Dionne's latest) - if only there was more oversight, more regulation - the crisis could have been avoided.

In the current era, the Right will win that message war with the Left - as Noonan observes:

But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: "Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust." Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable: "We pay so much for the government and it can't cap an undersea oil well!"

The Right will win in the short term, but in the long run we all suffer from this crisis of confidence in government. The current era has produced incompetent and ineffective government. Burnham argues that at some point a crisis will occur that will demand a reenergized governmental system.  Thus far, however, crises have served to reinforce the dominant narrative of ineffective governance. The Obama Administration's "handling" of the BP disaster offering the latest example.

An excellent piece from Michael Gerson in today's Washington Post on the public's reaction to health reform serves as a further illustration of the troubles that await the Democrats. The fundamental miscalculation made by President Obama and Congressional Democrats was that the recent crises would make the public more open to government intervention - but in fact the public sees the government as being complicit in the crises.

One and a half years after a financial meltdown that some supposed would be a crisis for capitalism itself, 58 percent of Americans agree that "the government has gone too far in regulating business and interfering with the free enterprise system."

The reaction from political elites has all too often been to dismiss the public as simply being uninformed - the real danger for Democrats is that the public is informed and is simply rejecting their policies.

New Poll Offers Hope to O'Malley and Ehrlich

A new poll from the Washington Post offers a little something for Governor Martin O'Malley and former Governor Bob Ehrlich.  The topline numbers are likely those that the O'Malley campaign will hope that everyone notices. According to the Post poll O'Malley leads Ehrlich among registered voters by a 49% to 41% margin - a nice 8 point lead.  O'Malley is likely to direct attention to the finding that his approval rating has reached a record high of 58% and registered voters believe that O'Malley better understands their problems by a margin of 41% to 31%.

But Bob Ehrlich need not fret - Ehrlich can argue that in a state where Democrats enjoy a 30 point voter registration advantage the Democratic incumbent governor should be ahead among registered voters. What truly matters is where the race stands among actual voters. The Post poll finds that O'Malley and Ehrlich are deadlocked at 47% each among those voters who are certain to vote. Additionally, voters were asked to rank the issues most important to them - The Economy, Education, Maryland's Budget Deficit, and Taxes were the top four issues. O'Malley and Ehrlich are tied among voters most concerned with the economy, O'Malley leads among those concerned about education, and Ehrlich wins among voters concerned about the budget and taxes.

Ehrlich's advantage on the budget issue should worry O'Malley.  Maryland's general fund budget has actually shrunk under O'Malley, whereas  it increased by nearly 40% under Ehrlich. Certainly the economic climate was different, but if O'Malley isn't trusted to manage a budget that he has decreased then he has a serious message problem. There is little doubt that the economy, the budget, and taxes will be significant issues come November - O'Malley needs to blunt Ehrlich's early advantage on those issues.

Ehrlich and O'Malley should both be worried by the finding that 45% of registered voters are not satisfied with their current slate of candidates and wish that there were other options.  Full poll results can be found here.

Midterm Clues In Primary Races

There were primary elections in several states on Tuesday and theyoffered some clues on the November midterms. In 2008, Barack Obama won 365 Electoral Votes to John McCain's 173. Among Obama's tally were Ohio's 20, Virginia's 15, and North Carolina's 13 votes. Key to Obama's victory was exceptionally high turnout among Democratic voters. There were statewide primaries in each of these states on Tuesday and Democratic turnout was down dramatically. As detailed by National Journal, Democratic turnout was down across the board - and not compared to the 2008 election, but compared to other off year primary elections. Republican turnout, however, was up. In Ohio, GOP turnout for the Secretary of State primary was up over 50% compared to 2006.

Gallup adds more to the challenge facing Democrats in a new poll that finds 43% of Republicans are "very enthusiastic" about voting, compared to just 33% of Democrats.

One can add one more ominous sign for Democrats - twenty term incumbent Rep. David Obey (WI-07), the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has announced that he will not seek re-election. When someone as powerful as Obey sounds the retreat in a district with a Democratic voter registration advantage the evidence is clear that 2010 will not be a good year for Democrats, in fact it may be a disaster.

New Poll Confirms that Ehrlich/O'Malley Rematch will be Competitive

A new poll from Rasmussen confirms what I have argued for months - a gubernatorial rematch between former governor Bob Ehrlich and current governor Martin O'Malley would be very competitive. The poll finds that in a General Election Match up Martin O'Malley (D) would receive 47% to Bob Ehrlich's (R) 44% - that's a statistical tie. Undecideds were at 7%. Since the last Rasmussen poll in late February (before Ehrlich entered the race), Governor O'Malley's support has fallen by 2 points, Ehrlich's is up by 1 point and the share of Undecideds has increased by 2 points.

The poll continues a troubling trend for O'Malley in that he cannot seem to reach 50% support in a state where 56% of voters are registered Democrats and they outnumber Republicans by a 2-to-1 margin. Perhaps equally troubling for O'Malley, Ehrlich has a 56% favorability rating - that's a good place for a defeated Republican governor to be in a Democratic state.

There are two bright spots for O'Malley 1) his approval rating has hit 50% for the first time in three years, and 2) President Obama has a 59% approval rating in the state. Both should work to O'Malley's advantage in turning out the party faithful - provided that each holds through November.

Much more on the Ehrlich/O'Malley race can be found here, here, here, and here....

St. Mary's College of Maryland to Host 2010 Legislative Session Wrap-Up

On Monday, April 26th from 3:30-5:00PM, St. Mary's College of Maryland will hosts it's Annual Legislative Wrap-Up and Discussion of Highlights of Maryland's 2010 Legislative Session.

St. Mary's County Delegates John Bohanan, Anthony O'Donnell, and John Wood, Jr. will offer their impressions of the 2010 session and then take audience questions.

What happened in Annapolis this year? Find out how the state is tackling budget issues, tuition costs and environmental problems in Maryland. The discussion will provide an opportunity for St. Mary’s College students and community members to hear directly from legislators about the highlights of the 2010 Maryland legislative session.

Delegate John Bohanan represents district 29B in the Maryland House of Delegates. He is chairman of the House Spending Affordability Committee as well as the deputy majority whip. He is also a member of the House Appropriations Committee and its pensions oversight, its capital budget and its public safety & administration subcommittees.

Delegate Anthony O’Donnell represents district 29C in the Maryland House of Delegates. He has served as the Minority Leader of the House since 2007. He is a member of the Environmental Matters Committee and the Joint Legislative Work Group to Study State, County and Municipal Fiscal Relationships.

Delegate John Wood, Jr. represents district 29A in the Maryland House of Delegates. He is a member of the Appropriations Committee and its Public Safety & Administration Subcommittee, as well as the Legislative Policy Committee.

The meeting will be open to the public.

3:30-5:00 pm Glendening Annex

For more information please call the Center for the Study of Democracy at 240-895-4215.

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.

Monday Morning Food for Thought: Will Bush Be the Next Truman?

Will Bush Be the Next Truman? Mark McKinnon thinks it's a question worth considering:

Truman holds the dubious distinction of achieving the lowest in-office job approval of 22 percent, edging out Nixon at 24 percent and Bush at 25 percent.

And yet, time and history have been kind to Truman. In the 2009 C-Span Historians Presidential Leadership Survey, the top four slots go to, no surprise: Lincoln, Washington, Franklin Roosevelt and Teddy Roosevelt. And No. 5? Truman. Today George W. Bush sits at 36, while his father comes in at 18.

Will time be as kind to Bush? There are some early indicators that his resurrection may well be under way. The media, notoriously tough on Bush, have already started turning their coverage around. Newsweek recently ran a cover story on Iraq headlined “Mission Accomplished.” And 60 Minutes, which arguably tried to take down the Bush presidency with Dan Rather’s bogus National Guard story, broadcast an Easter Sunday segment praising Bush for his implementation of HIV/AIDS treatment programs in Africa that are now credited for saving millions of lives across that continent.

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.