New York 20: Stu on Newshour

Stu was also on the Newshour this evening talking about the special election in New York's 20th District. Unfortunately, they don't have an embed function, but you can listen to the segment by clicking here.

New York 20: Stu on CNN

Is the New York Race a Referendum on the Candidates or Politics?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Is the special election in New York’s 20th district a referendum on the national political environment — on President Barack Obama, Washington, D.C.’s handling of the American International Group bonus scandal, the economic stimulus package and the national reputations of the two parties? Or, rather, is it about the skills and appeal of the two candidates?

It’s about both.

Republican Jim Tedisco initially appeared to possess the most important qualities for the brief campaign. A veteran of the New York state Legislature, he is known as “Mr. Schenectady” and has deep roots in the area. He also appeared to benefit from the district’s GOP leanings and a 70,000-voter registration advantage.

But even some Republicans acknowledge that Tedisco, the State Assembly Minority Leader, is, as one put it, like “the old dog that can’t learn new tricks.” Democrats have used his lengthy record against him, portraying him as an insider and part of the problem.

One Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee-funded TV ad, for example, asserted that “politician Jim Tedisco” is “just another Albany politician,” while a different spot attacked the Republican for collecting per diem allowances from the state even though he lives 17 miles from Albany.

Democrat Scott Murphy, 39, has never run for office before and claims to have created jobs as a businessman. He worked for two Democratic governors in Missouri, but voters don’t seem to care that he hasn’t lived in the area as long as Tedisco. The Democrat presents himself as the candidate of change and new ideas, another not-so-subtle effort to create a contrast with his Republican opponent.

Murphy stumbled out of the gate but has become a better candidate. And yet he has given Republicans openings, such as his recent comment that he opposes the death penalty even for terrorists. That view is simply out of touch with the district. And his decision to reiterate his support of the stimulus bill, even knowing that a measure to prevent bonuses for executives of companies like AIG had been removed, is a potentially serious blunder.

Still, local observers note that the Midwestern Murphy may be a better fit for the northern and southern parts of the district than Tedisco, an urban ethnic politician who plays well in Schenectady and Albany — neither of which are in the 20th district — but not necessarily in the “white bread,” old Yankee areas of the district.

But while the candidates matter, so do the race’s atmospherics, and that’s where national figures and issues come into play.

Polling shows Murphy doing well among independents and getting a chunk of GOP voters, a function no doubt of his outsider profile and embrace of change, jobs and Obama.

Obama carried the district in 2008, and he remains popular. So is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D), who won it twice. She urges voters to support Murphy in a TV spot, and she will be active in get-out-the-vote efforts in the race’s final days.

The jobs issue is Murphy’s ace in the hole. His campaign and the DCCC repeatedly emphasize the Democrat’s support of the president’s job creation agenda, trying to create a contrast with Tedisco.

While the Republican nominee has talked about job losses and his commitment to bringing jobs to the area, nationally, the GOP still has problems convincing voters that it has a quick fix for job losses. The Republican Party’s image is poor, and the national atmosphere isn’t better for the party than it was in 2006 and 2008.

Fundamentally, the Republican answer to all economic slowdowns and unemployment is tax cuts, and while party policy advocates may be correct that that is the best way to get the economy going and to keep it going, tax cuts simply aren’t a compelling message to voters who have lost their jobs and want immediate help. The national Democratic approach is more effective, politically, right now, and Murphy seems to be reaping the benefits of that advantage.

The big questions in this race, however, involve AIG, the insurance giant-turned-financial services company. Is Tedisco benefitting enough from the issue to help him win?

The Republican continues to attack Murphy on that front, noting in a radio spot that began airing Tuesday that the Democrat “backs the law allowing AIG millionaires to collect outrageous bonuses” and that that’s not surprising because Murphy has “approved bonuses for failing executives before in another company taxpayers helped.”

Insiders agree that the race is “within the margin of error,” which is why both sides are so focused on turnout. A new Siena College poll expected to be released Friday could be an important indicator of how the race has moved in the campaign’s final days.

If Tedisco loses, it’s hard to see how National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (Texas) and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele deserve any blame, but I’m sure someone will fault them. If Murphy wins, local Democrats and the DCCC will deserve considerable credit, as will the candidate.

If Tedisco wins, it isn’t likely to be pretty, and Republicans should breathe a sigh of relief rather than celebrate wildly.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on March 26, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Polls, Press Releases and Partisanship: Let the Reader Beware

By Stuart Rothenberg

Nobody is under oath, so I suppose that it’s too much to expect “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” especially when it comes to press releases, headlines and even reputable pollsters.

But I was disappointed to see how some of the results of a March Public Opinion Strategies/Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll of likely voters for National Public Radio were presented.

Yes, the two firms have very different partisan bents, but they collaborated on a national survey for NPR, a nonpartisan organization, so it’s reasonable to expect a certain level of analytical neutrality from both.

But if you only read about the NPR poll on the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Web site, you would have a seriously distorted view of the results of the survey.

“Latest NPR Poll: Democrats Besting Republicans in National Debate on Key Budget Issues” proclaimed the headline on the Democratic firm’s Web site.

The report on the Web site continued by saying the poll “shows [President] Barack Obama with high overall approval ratings and strong marks on handling the economy, but much more important, Democrats winning the big debates surrounding Obama’s first budget on taxes, energy, health care, and the deficit by significant margins.”

If you are looking for any bits of data that are more even-handed, you can find it in the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner statement only if you have a powerful magnifying glass.

For example, “On both energy and health care the Democratic message wins by 53 [percent] to 42 percent, a margin nearly twice the Democrats’ 6-point partisan advantage.” So Democrats have only a 6-point advantage?

Or this: “President Obama’s approval rating remains strong. Nearly six-in-ten voters (59 percent) approve of the job President Obama is doing while just 35 percent disapprove.” Just 35 percent disapprove? That’s a surprisingly high number compared to other polls and given the euphoria implicit in the Greenberg analysis.

You would think that analysis of a survey examining the national political landscape might note prominently that the Democratic Party’s 6-point advantage in party identification was down from a 10-point advantage in May 2008, the last NPR poll, or holding steady from November, when the national exit poll showed the electorate as 39 percent Democratic and 32 percent Republican.

And, you might think that it’s worth noting that the Congressional generic ballot in the new NPR survey showed the parties deadlocked at 42 percent, a surprising reversal from Election Day, when Democrats had a substantial advantage in ID, especially given the public’s low opinion of the Republican Party.

And while I wouldn’t disagree with the characterization of Obama’s poll numbers as “strong,” NPR correspondent Mara Liasson’s observation that the president’s job approval is “down from the mid-60s” and “just about where the past 4 presidents have been at this point in their terms” put the numbers in a far more realistic context.

The cheerleading of the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner release is all the more obvious and misleading because the NPR poll came just one day after the release of a Pew Research Center for the People & the Press national poll headlined “Obama’s Approval Rating Slips Amid Division Over Economic Proposals.”

That Pew survey found Obama’s job approval had slipped from 64 percent in February to 59 percent in March, while his disapproval rating rose from 17 percent to 26 percent. (That’s not a seismic shift, but it’s enough to get almost anyone’s attention.) Pew’s analysis accompanying the poll also noted that “the public expresses mixed views of his many major proposals to fix the economy.”

When I went over to the Public Opinion Strategies Web site, I found a brief item on the poll. The piece was headlined “New NPR Poll Released.” No spin, no bias.

The first substantive paragraph on the poll results was merely a reprint from the NPR analysis, noting that Obama’s job ratings were “still high” and that among likely voters, “the Democratic position on issues was favored across the board.” “Still, there’s some reason for Republicans to hope,” ended the paragraph.

NPR’s more matter-of-fact reporting and analysis — and Public Opinion Strategies’ use of the NPR language — stands in stark (and welcome) contrast to Greenberg’s very partisan presentation.

But NPR can’t be left off the hook entirely. NPR headline writers attached a curious headline to the release: “NPR Poll: More Voters Think U.S. Is On Right Track.”

Huh? More voters think the country is on the right track than think that it is going off in the wrong direction? Or more voters now think the country is on the right track compared to what they thought in the previous NPR poll?

The NPR story makes it clear that 63 percent still think the country is on the wrong track, so the improvement in sentiment is modest. And with a popular new president in the White House and Democrats talking constantly about change, wouldn’t you think that the “right direction” number would be higher than 31 percent?

There are plenty of polls floating around and more analysis than anyone could ever need. But partisan analysis isn’t analysis at all. It’s message.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on March 23, 2009. 2009 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.