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.

Democratic Congressman to Switch Parties - Join the GOP

Could this be a bit of the politcal price that Democrats will pay for passing health care reform in the most partisan of manners? According to Politico Rep. Parker Griffith, a doctor and freshman Democrat from Alabama, will announce this afternoon that he's switching parties to become a Republican. According to the NRCC, the seat has not been held by a Republican since 1866. Add this to the 4 Democratic House members that have announced their retirements and the evidence continues to mount that 2010 will be a wave election - and that the Democrats need to be worried.

Health Reform Secures 60 Votes in the Senate! Will the House Play Ball?

After weeks of false starts it appears that Senate Democrats have united behind a health reform bill - my read of Harry Reid's changes - the so-called Manager's Amendment - convinces me that this is a good bill and one that will substantially improve the American health care system. It is also, with minor exceptions, essentially the bill that Max Baucus reported from his Senate Finance Committee months ago. The key sticking points came down to federal funding for abortion and the creation of a so-called public option - both are gone. No federal funds will be used to cover or even subsidize insurance that covers abortion and states will have the option of excluding abortion coverage within the newly created health insurance exchanges. The Medicare expansion is gone as well, but the federal Office of Personnel Management will oversee a new national non-profit plan that people can buy in to.

Significant Elements:

• Insurers in the large group market will be required to spend at least 85% of all premiums on medical care (that leaves 15% for administration, marketing, profit), in the small group market the standard will be 80%.
• Individuals and families under 400% of the federal poverty line who receive employer-sponsored coverage and spend 8-9.8% of their income on premiums, could “convert their tax-free employer health subsidies into vouchers that they can use to choose a health insurance plan in the new health insurance exchanges. This would allow folks more choices in selecting coverage and force insurers to compete with the exchange.
• Medicaid eligibility would be extended to everyone earning less than 133% of the federal poverty level and as a protection for states the federal government will pay for 100% of the cost until 2017 - typically a state pays nearly half the cost of Medicaid.

Why should Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman - the hold outs who forced so many concessions - be celebrated and not derided?

• Lieberman - Had it not been for Lieberman's efforts to strip away the public option the bill never would have received 60 votes. Lieberman has provided political cover for vulnerable Democrats like Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) as well as dozens of House Democrats from conservative districts.
• Nelson - The abortion concessions won by Nelson will also  provide coverage for House Blue Dogs, but Nelson's greatest contribution was his insistence that the full cost of the Medicaid expansion in Nebraska be covered by the federal government forever - while the expansion in all other states is covered for only 5 years. Seem unfair? Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) summed it up well "In 2017... when we have to start phasing back from 100 percent, ... they are going to say, 'Wait, there is one state that stays at 100?' And every governor in the country is going to say, 'Why doesn’t our state stay there?'" In other words, Nelson win for Nebraska is likely a win for every state.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the new proposal would reduce the deficit by $132 billion over 10 years and by $1.3 trillion over 20 years and it would extend insurance to 31 million individuals, covering approximately 94% of legal residents by 2019. This bill is a step in the right direction. It deserves the support of conservatives and liberals alike. To those on the left who argue that it is better to have no bill at all than to accept a bill that limits abortion coverage and contains no public option - I urge you to get your priorities straight. This bill is about extending health insurance, not about imposing ideological rigidity. To those on the right who lament the lack of malpractice reform or the fact that you were essentially shut out of the process – get over it. This is a common sense bill that deserves bipartisan support.

If Harry Reid truly has the 60 votes necessary for cloture then the stage would be set for a vote by December 24th. After that it goes to conference committee where Nancy Pelosi will need to win major concessions from House liberals in order to avoid having this deal fall apart early in the new year. Of course, early word is that House Democrat conservatives may not be willing to accept the abortion compromise...

Welcome Baltimore Sun Readers

The FreeStater Blog welcomes those of you visiting us via the Op-Ed in the Baltimore Sun. Click here for a detailed analysis of the 2010 gubernatorial race and Bob Ehrlich's chances.

Breaking Waves of Dealignment

Realignment: the coming to power of a new coalition, replacing an old dominant coalition of the other party (or replacing a stalemate, as in the United States in 1896 or 1932). The concept of realignment or a critical election was first put to paper by political scientist V. O. Key in a 1955 article titled "A Theory of Critical Elections." According to Key and subsequent realignment adherents political parties, voter loyalty, and policymaking routinely shift in swift, dramatic sweeps - or critical elections. Realignment literally means that voters, en masse, switch allegiances from one party to another. In contrast, a dealignment is said to occur when voters abandon party loyalty to become independents or nonvoters.

Many believed that the one-two punch of the 2006 mid-terms and the 2008 presidential election was heralding a realignment in America with voters moving to the Democratic party. Indeed, the party reclaimed Congress and the White House and enjoyed a clear advantage in voter expressed party preference for the first time in 20 years. It appears that such realignment predictions were made in haste. Democrats no longer enjoy an advantage in voter preference and according to the latest NBC News/WSJ Poll only 38 percent of voters said their representative should be re-elected, while nearly half (49 percent) believe it’s time to give a new person a chance. According to Politico “That’s the lowest net re-elect number for Congress since November 2005 – and even worse than the polls taken right before the landslide election of 2006 that swept Democrats in control of Congress (39 re-elect/45 new person), and worse than those taken before the Republican revolution of 1994 (39/49).”

Translation? 2010 is shaping up to be another wave election – a term that non-political scientists and media commentators often use to describe a critical mid-term election. This presents a problem – critical elections were thought to usher in generational shifts in loyalty. But we have now had two wave elections in 12 years – 1994 and 2006 and may have a third on the way - only 4 short years after the last wave. All of this suggests that we have in fact dealigned in America. Voters are no longer loyal to any party, as such they willingly and easily switch allegiances from one election to the next. Writing for Politico back in August, Eamon Javers referred to this new generation of voters as “Fickle Kids” who change voting preference as often as they do cell phones. If this is true, if we have dealigned, if voters no longer have a true connection to either party, America is likely to enter a very unstable era in which party control of government will be very unpredictable and likely short-lived. It remains to be seen how the parties will react to this change.

Turkish Delight Has Turned Sour for Some Washington Insiders

Turkey has been lately undergoing major transformations, domestically and internationally. The Turkish economy has been growing steadily, save the expected ramifications of the global recession. The political influence of the military is dramatically reduced. Turkey is now debating a comprehensive reform package aimed to integrate a free and fair representation of the Kurdish identity in the political system. Turkey has also made a significant progress toward normalizing relations with long-time foes such as, Armenia and Syria. Turkey is now an active and dynamic regional player, engaging diplomatic wrangling in an area ranging from the Balkans to the Caucasus, to the Levant, and to the Caspian Sea. Albeit these developments, which delight most Turkish citizens, for some among the foreign policy circles in Washington, Turkish delight has certainly turned sour.

For these analysts, Turkey’s recent ambitious domestic and international overtures are bound to doom for one overarching reason: Turkey is ruled by an “Islamist” party—Justice and Development Party (known as AKP)—and, because of its ideological identity, whatever initiative the government would advance will only help further Islamize the Turkish nation, undermine the secular political structure, and distance Turkey from the West. I believe that this outlook is not only reckless in assessing Turkey’s position, but also a reminiscent of Cold War mentality of bipolar world. Accordingly, the world is divided into West and the “Rest” (and the “other”, i.e. the Muslim World) and Turkey needs to make a decision about which side it truly belongs.

One recent and—one of the most representative—example of this view was illustrated by David Schenker (The Wall Street Journal, November 5, 2009). The title of his essay says a lot: “A NATO Without Turkey?” According to Schenker, the Turkish government “is increasingly pursuing illiberal policies at home…while aligning itself with militant, anti-western Middle East regimes abroad”. Accordingly, this wrong choice of policy by Turkey certainly warrants reconsideration of Turkey’s membership to NATO. Another example is a recent essay published by Morton Abramowitz and Henri J. Barkey (“Turkey’s Transformers”, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2009). In this piece, the authors, although they could not resist praising some recent initiative by the AKP government as radical and transformative in a positive sense, felt the need to close their essay with a dire warning for Turkey’s ambitious policy makers: “Turkey’s leaders, for their part, must not think that they can expand the country’s influence without first having a firm footing in the West”.

Both these views are part of a misguided approach based on the erroneous—or imprudent—reading of Turkey and its government. Calling AKP as “Islamist” and seeing it as a catalyst of Islamization in Turkey is just plain wrong. AKP is not an Islamist party in both sociological and practical senses. The fact that the leadership of the party had a history of political Islam does not conceal the fact that only after a democratic epiphany the party leaders such as Recep Tayyip Erdogan (currently the prime minister) and Abdullah Gul (currently the president) were able to appeal to mainstream majority, which lies at the center-right of the political spectrum. Second, it is outlandish to argue that AKP Islamizes the Turkish society when 90 percent of the population identifies themselves as Muslim, 70 percent would like to see elimination of headscarf ban in public institutions, 50 percent claims to practice their religion on a daily basis. These statistics were not affected by AKP; rather, AKP’s popularity is greatly enhanced by its skilful incorporation of the values dearly held by an overwhelming majority of the Turkish people and its integration of the demands of the new conservative middle class emerged as result of liberalization policies launched in mid-1980s. AKP, at best, is a Muslim Democrat party. In this respect, and contrary to some observations, religiosity in Turkey is not increasing; rather, the restrictions imposed on religiosity are decreasing as part of the further democratization of the system and normalization of civil-military relations.

Some assessments of the recent assertiveness of the Turkish foreign policy also suffer from similar one-sided and misguided reading of the events. Seeing AKP as an Islamist party with an arguably hidden Islamic agenda can provide emotional satisfaction for some. But this view is seriously missing the point. Turkey neighbors not only EU member countries such as Bulgaria and Greece, but also Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. A policy that seeks “zero problems with neighbors” as advocated by Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s highly esteemed minister of foreign affairs, would certainly seek zero problems with the last three of those neighbors which happen to be Muslim-majority countries. Turkey engages with Russia, and Bulgaria, as much as it does with Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Turkey’s “strategic depth” entails engaging beyond the immediate neighbors. In this respect, Pristina, Grozny, Jerusalem, and Baghdad are all located at about the same distance to Turkey’s borders and would require similar level of attention. Consequently, the West-and-the-Rest dichotomy just does not work from Turkey’s vantage point.

To conclude, reading Turkey’s domestic and international policies and achievements through Islamism is either inaccurate representation or manipulation of the facts on the ground. Turkey’s attempts to achieve peace and harmony at home and abroad is a win-win situation both for Turkey and the region and ought not to be considered as part of a civilizational clash that does not really exist. And for all those who seek similar goals, Turkey appears to be the best partner in the region.

Health Reform Will Pass.... Probably

Update - There's a reason why I tend to practice cautious optimism - Susan Collins appears to be a solid "No" and Ben Nelson continues to say "No" as well. And the Democratic Left may be unwilling to accept the watered down bill.

Last month I took to this page to argue that health reform would fail to pass. In my original post and one subsequent follow-up I theorized that disagreements within the Democratic Party and between the House and Senate over funding, mandates, taxes, and abortion would ultimately sink health reform - and they almost did. But it is now increasingly likely that health reform will pass and all credit goes to two Senators - Max Baucus (D-MT) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Lieberman has become public enemy number one among the Left this week since stating that he would filibuster any bill with a Public Option AND any bill that allowed for a Medicare buy-in. Baucus enjoyed a similar bit of infamy back in September when his Senate Finance Committee drafted health reform legislation that did not include a public option and had watered done the individual and employer mandates. Baucus argued that his goal was to write a bill that could receive 60 votes.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took Baucus' bill and added a public option and has spent the better part of a month trying to reach 60 votes. It seems that Reid has now surrendered. Word out of Washington is that the Senate will strip away the public option, will strip away the recently proposed Medicare expansion and will essentially consider the legislation originally reported by Baucus' committee back in October. Liberal Senate Democrats such as Tom Harkin (D-IA) have stated that they will accept scaled back legislation and the White House has urged Reid to make what ever concessions are necessary to get the bill passed.

Perhaps most significant is the increased likelihood that the scaled back Baucus inspired bill may receive 2 Republican votes – Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both from Maine. Snowe supported the Baucus bill in committee and Collins recently praised Lieberman’s efforts to strip away objectionable elements in the bill. So there you have it – the bill that Baucus originally produced has now become the savior of the Democrats' health reform effort and because of the efforts of Joe Lieberman it is likely to pass complete with a Republican vote or two.

If you are wondering why Harry Reid opted to not introduce the Baucus bill in the beginning it is because of the politics of the House of Representatives and the powerful progressive caucus there. Reid needed to prove that a public option could not survive in the Senate, he needed to prove that the Baucus bill was the only acceptable legislation. The last month has made that clear. Given that the House has passed a health care bill the normal process would be for a House/Senate Conference Committee to reconcile differences between the chambers and return a compromise bill for final votes in each. I do not expect that to happen – rather I suspect that whatever passes in the Senate will be introduced in the House and approved unamended, thereby negating the need for a conference. Any other approach would introduce more delay and uncertainty. The White House and Democratic Leaders will exert tremendous pressure on progressive House members to grit their teeth and simply vote for the Senate bill, or risk getting no reform at all.

I would add that abortion remains a hurdle – but I suspect that it is one that will be overcome.

Will 2010 be a Repeat of 1994? Yes and No.

Last week I argued that the political forecast for Democrats looked pretty bleak. Less than a week later I would argue that the forecast has worsened. That said, several prominent bloggers took to the web this weekend to argue that 2010 will not present a repeat of 1994 when Republicans netted 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to claim a majority in both houses of Congress. Writing for his Talking Points Memo Josh Marshall argues that the 1994 rout by Republicans was largely the result of the Southern realignment coupled with redistricting efforts in 1990-92 and a spate of Democratic retirements. Marshall argues "2010 is fundamentally different. The key problem for Dems isn't unpopularity. It's a highly apathetic Democratic electorate facing an extremely energized Tea Party GOP."  Marshall does not dismiss the possiblity that Democrats may lose the House or Senate, he simply veiws the comparisons to 1994 as being inappropriate. I do not disagree, but when it comes to elections, any election, comparisons to prior elections are largely inappropriate. Each election cycle takes on its own dynamic and unique set of issues and circumstances.

Asking if 2010 will be like 1994 is not the same as asking if the the same dynamics that shaped 1994 will shape 2010. In all but two midterm election cycles in the past since FDR the party in the White House has lost seats in the midterm - what made 1994 unique was the size of the loss in the House and the Senate. In the past 50 years there have been 12 midterm elections, in 10 of those races the party in the White House lost seats. In 5 of the 12 the losses in the Houses amounted to 15 or fewer seats, in 2 of the 12 the losses ranged from 26 to 30 seats (1982 and 2006), in only 3 of the 12 did the losses top 40 seats -1966 (47 seats), 1974 (49 seats), and 1994 (52 seats). In 1998 and 2002 the party in power gained seats. So the real question for 2010 is whether the Democrats will suffer losses in line with historical norms - about 15 seats - or will the party suffer the more extraordinary losses registered in 1966, 1974, and 1994?

Current political conditions suggest that 2010 will not follow the historical norm model of 15 or so seats. The latest edition of the Cook Politcal Report finds that of the 258 House seats held by Democrats 218 are considered to be safe - that is the exact number needed to maintain their majority status. Cook rates 39 Democratic seats as competitive and only 11 Republican seats. The generic Congressional ballot from multiple pollsters favors the Republicans and 4 Democratic House members have announced plans to retire. Add to all of this a president with an approval rating below 50% and you have the makings for an election year that will not be good for the Democrats. At the moment the most likely scenario is a midterm that follows the 1982 and 2006 model of 25 to 30 losses. In the Senate, the Democrats face challenges in AR, CO, CT, DE, NV, NY, OH, and PA while Republicans are fighting to keep KY, MO, and NH - a net Republican gain of 4 or 5 seems likely at this point.

So will 2010 be like 1994? The dynamics of the race will be different - but such is true of all races. With regard to shifting control of Congress 2010 also is unlikely to be like 1994.  But make no mistake, if Republicans gain 30 seats in the House and 5 seats in the Senate the 2010 election will be like 1994 in that it will fundamentally alter the political dynamic in Washington. The midterm vote will be viewed as a harsh assessment of the president and the Democratic majority and will result in an altered agenda leading into 2012. It will also give the GOP tremendous influence over that agenda as they reclaim the ability to filibuster in the Senate.

Could Only Obama Could Go to Oslo?

President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech yesterday drew praise from both the left and right. The praise from the left is hardly surprising, but accolades from both the Wall Street Journal editorial board and Sarah Palin are noteworthy. The strong response from conservatives tended to focus on the section of the speech were Obama meditates on the notion of “just war” and the meaning of a President fighting two wars receiving the Peace Prize.

“But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation ... I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.”

This portion of the speech, arguing both that war may be justified and using the word “evil”, led other commentators to argue that Obama was simply using his flowery rhetoric to say the same things put more bluntly by his predecessor. Historian Walter Russell Mead from the Council on Foreign Relations argues that Obama is simply better than Bush at selling the same policies. He argues,

“Barack Obama's acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize was a carefully reasoned defense of a foreign policy that differs very little from George Bush's... If Bush had said these things the world would be filled with violent denunciations. When Obama says them, people purr.”

Similar sentiments have been echoed elsewhere on the right. The only problem is that President Bush would have never given a speech like this. Let’s call it the “Only Obama Could Go To Oslo” phenomenon. Obama accepts the prize for peace and makes the case for the necessity of war. However, the greatest differences between Bush and Obama were not in what Obama said, but in those things left unsaid. There was no discussion of Iraq, other than the oblique reference to a war that “is winding down.” No discussion of the need to use U.S. power to spread American ideals. And while Obama did mention evil in the world, there is no talk of good versus evil.

In fact, while Obama front-loads the discussion of just war, the speech ranged over a number of topics that draw upon a broad array of international relations theories. The clear-eyed discussion of war reflects political realism, while the call for the United States to adhere to global standards reflects idealism. The significance of international institutions in maintaining the post-war order mixes in neoliberal institutionalism, while arguing that, “America alone cannot secure the peace,” draws in traditional foreign policy liberals. For good measure, Obama includes a discussion on democratic peace (“America has never fought a war against a democracy”), just war (“philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war”), classical realism (“War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man.”), and clash of civilizations-type arguments (“the cultural leveling of modernity… people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities”).

If anything, the Oslo speech seems to undergird Obama’s emphasis on addressing the complexity of the problems confronting the United States and the administration’s emphasis on “smart power.” While the meaning of “smart power” remains broad enough to be frustratingly elusive, the general emphasis of Obama’s speech seemed to be that it is critical to find the proper diplomatic tool to fit the job. Thus, to Nobel speech can draw praise from across the American political spectrum, because it acknowledges a simple point: the Obama’s foreign policy will draw on a broad array of international relations theories. While this may frustrate those who seek clear and simple guiding principles in U.S. foreign policy, it offers hope to those that believe context is critical.

Democrats Facing an Ever More Bleak Political Forecast

Hyperbole is all too common in political commentary, but it’s increasingly difficult to overstate just how the political landscape has shifted under the feet of the Democratic Party. Last year they had reclaimed the White House, added to their majority in the House and were well on their way to attaining a 60 vote super-majority in the Senate. More important, the American public was on their side. In an Ipsos-McClatchy poll taken last November the Democrats enjoyed almost unimaginable levels of public support. On issue after issue the public preferred Democrats over Republicans. Handling the economy? A 58% to 37% advantage for Democrats. Taxes? 52% to 35%. Dealing with the deficit? 56% to 26%. Reforming the health care system? 62% to 23%. Jump ahead one year and the most recent Ipsos poll shows those Democratic advantages are gone. The Economy? A 40% to 39% tie. Taxes? Democrats now trail the GOP by 2 points. Dealing with the deficit? Now a 41% to 34% advantage for the GOP. Reforming health care? The Democrats 39 point advantage has dwindled to 4 points. And on the all important question of which party would be better for economic growth the Democrats have gone from a 30 point lead to a 3 point deficit. The poll also finds President Obama falling to a new approval rating low of 49%. Among the all important Independents fully 55% disapprove of the job he is doing.

As negotiations on health reform continue a new Quinnipiac poll shows the public opposes reform by a 52% to 38% margin. The polls also found a nearly equal level of disapproval of Obama's handling of health reform and the 20 point advantage that he enjoyed over Republicans on the issue back in July has now shrunk to 7 points. As for the 2010 midterms - the list of Democratic incumbents who plan to retire has now grown to 3 and Charlie Cook counts 39 potentially vulnerable Democratic House seats and only 11 Republican seats (and the number of vulnerable Democrats grows each week). In the ever important swing state of Ohio (crucial to any Republican White House quest) the Democratic incumbent Ted Strickland now trails challenger John Kasich by 9 points. It's hard to find any cause for optimism among Democrats other than the news that the national unemployment rate dropped from 10.2% to 10% last month. So far the political trajectory of 2009 is looking a lot like 1993 - Democrats desperately need a course correction to keep 2010 from ending up like 1994.

As Progress is Made on Health Reform, Public Opposition Solidifies

Update II: Senate Democrats have reached an agreement and the Public Option is gone. This clears one hurdle, but another has popped up. The Senate rejected Ben Nelson's abortion funding amendment making the math of 60 votes still a difficult equation.

Update: Late word indicates that GOP moderate Olympia Snowe is not a fan of the new compromise that would expand Medicare and Medicaid, this could make it very hard for Democrats to reach 60 votes. Especially if they lose Ben Nelson over the issue of abortion coverage.

News today suggests that significant progress is being made in the Senate on compromise health care reform as Democratic Party leaders seek a path to 60 votes. It is increasingly clear that the Public Option that Majority Leader Harry Reid had included in the bill will be dropped - but progressive members of the Democratic caucus have not simply surrendered, rather they are using the elimination of the Public Option to bargain for new and potentially far reaching concessions. Multiple sources are reporting that the Public Option would be replaced with a new nationwide nonprofit health plan to be administered by the federal Office of Personnel Management (the same agency that administered the federal employee health benefit system). The new national plan would be offered by a private insurance company. Party leaders hope that progressives will find this to be an acceptable alternative to a Public Option run by the government. In exchange for dropping their demands for the Public Option, progressives have pursued amendments to the current legislation in the form a significant expansion of the Medicare program – the nation’s health insurance system for those over the age of 65. Under the proposal currently being discussed, the Medicare program would be opened to Americans over the age of 55. This is a population that can face great difficulty obtaining affordable coverage – especially if they suffer a job loss. Also being pursued is a proposal to open the new national health insurance exchange to more Americans. As originally proposed, the exchange would have been limited to a select few small employers and uninsured Americans, perhaps as few as 15-30 million. Adoption of these compromises would have a far more significant impact on health reform and coverage expansion than would the limited Public Option and progressives would be wise to pursue them.

Interestingly, or perhaps distressingly for Democrats, just as progress is being made on reform public opposition is on the rise and public support is collapsing. According to the latest tallies from Pollster.Com a majority of the country now opposes reform and less than 40% is in support. As heated debates remain over touchy issues such as abortion and funding – to say nothing of a needed reconciliation with the House – Democrats in tough re-election fights need the cover of public support - at the moment they do not have it. Only time will tell if that changes as details of these new negotiations emerge.

A Comeback for the Political Center in Maryland's 4th District?

At the moment all of the mid-term Congressional drama in Maryland has been focused on the 1st Congressional district and the tough re--election battle that Democrat Frank Kratovil is likely to face in a rematch with Andy Harris. I urge everyone to consider another race as well. Prince George's County State's Attorney Glenn Ivey is expected to mount a primary challenge against Democratic Rep. Donna Edwards for Maryland's 4th District Congressional seat. In 2008, Edwards defeated incumbent Rep. Al Wynn in the primary to claim the safe Democratic seat. Wynn was a moderate Democrat and his defeat in the primary by the unabashedly liberal Edwards struck a blow to the already dwindling number of political moderates in Congress. Ivey has a reputation as a moderate political voice and his victory in the September primary could signal an anti-incumbent and potentially anti-liberal preference among voters. The September primary in Maryland could serve as a barometer for things to come in the general election 2 months later.