Arizona Senate: History Points to Another Term for McCain, if He Wants It

By Nathan L. Gonzales

If history is a guide, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is well-positioned for another six years in the Senate, should he choose to run for re-election in 2010.

Democrats would love for outgoing Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) to run for McCain’s seat, but it’s unclear whether President-elect Obama will tap her to be a part of his administration. McCain won Arizona 54 percent to 45 percent against Obama last week.

Frankly, there isn’t a ton of historical precedence, but since the direct election of Senators began, both sitting Senators who lost their presidential bids went on to win another term.

After losing the 2004 presidential race, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (D) returned to the Senate and won re-election last week, 66 percent to 31 percent.

South Dakota Sen. George McGovern (D) lost the 1972 presidential race and won re-election two years later with 53 percent. McGovern was subsequently swept out in 1980, defeated by then-Rep. James Abdnor (R), while Republicans netted 12 Senate seats nationwide.

Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater (R) was up for re-election in 1964, but he ran for president instead and lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson.

And in 1996, Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kansas) resigned his seat in June in order to focus on his ultimately unsuccessful presidential race.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on November 12, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Polls Show GOP Losing Edge on Taxes

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Republicans aren’t just losing ground in the House and the Senate. They’ve ceded their traditional advantage on some key issues, including taxes.

An Oct. 17-19 Opinion Research Corp. poll for CNN showed that Americans believed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) would do a better job handling the tax issue than Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), 50 percent to 44 percent.

Despite Republican efforts to brand Obama as just another tax-and-spend liberal, the Democratic nominee was very disciplined on the campaign trail, explaining that under his plan, 95 percent of Americans would not see a tax increase and that under McCain’s plan, health care benefits would be taxed.

On Election Day, most voters were skeptical — of both parties.

According to national exit polling, 71 percent of voters believed that their taxes would go up if Obama were elected president. But 61 percent believed their taxes would increase in a McCain administration.

An earlier Oct. 30-Nov. 1 Opinion Research poll showed that 48 percent of likely voters thought it to be very likely or somewhat likely that their taxes would be lower four years from now under President Obama. Only 40 percent believed that to be the case under President McCain.

A pre-election survey conducted in four battleground states by the Republican firm OnMessage Inc. for the American Issues Project, a conservative group that favors small government, a strong national defense and low taxes, confirms that the line has been blurred between the supposed tax cutting and tax hiking parties.

Fifty-one percent believed their taxes would go up under Obama, compared to 41 percent who believed they would see a tax increase under President McCain. But almost one-quarter of respondents believed their taxes would go down under Obama, compared to only 9 percent who believed they would pay fewer taxes under McCain.

The OnMessage poll surveyed 1,200 likely and early voters in Virginia, Ohio, Florida and Colorado Nov. 2-3.

There are numerous factors for the shift, but the electorate’s changing priorities are not helping the GOP.

Back in 2000, 14 percent of general election voters said that taxes were their most important issue, and 26 percent said a tax cut should be the most important issue for the new president. George W. Bush won the former group with 80 percent and the latter with 71 percent.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on November 11, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Watch Stu Tonight on the NewsHour

You can catch Stu's Election Night analysis on the NewsHour on PBS.

The Fat Lady Sings and Democrats Are Preparing to Rejoice

By Stuart Rothenberg

Although many in the media have acted as if the presidential contest were competitive, it’s been apparent for weeks that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been headed for a clear win.

Call it a wave or a blood bath, as I did in this space almost a month ago, on Oct. 7 (“For Republicans, Another Blood Bath Looms on Horizon”), the combination of a strong anti-Republican mood, news events that fueled the public’s strong desire for change, and the Democrats’ huge financial and organizational advantage this cycle also guaranteed big Democratic House and Senate gains.

The presidential race has been a foregone conclusion since shortly after the nation’s financial crisis exploded in the news a little more than a month ago. The virtual elimination of national security as a top issue, combined with Obama’s coolness in the face of the public’s near hysteria, helped him close a deal that he previously had not closed.

Polling for the past few weeks has shown voters increasingly comfortable with the Illinois Democrat, giving him better and better reviews on a number of issues and characteristics. His favorability rating (56 percent positive/35 percent negative) in the Nov. 1-2 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll is better than Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.), and the two men are even on the question of who “has a background and a set of values that you can identify with” — down from a 10-point McCain advantage in August and a 6-point McCain advantage in the Sept. 19-22 poll.

Even more important, now a majority of whites, 51 percent, say Obama has the background and values with which they can identify. Reputable national polls have shown Obama lengthening his lead, and the polls’ internals show why that is happening.

While it certainly is true that this isn’t a national presidential election as much as it is 50 state elections, it’s unwise to ignore the national numbers and focus on much less reliable state polls, some of which allegedly show the race closing. Obama already appears to be over the 270 electoral vote mark, and if that’s the case, it doesn’t really matter if he wins Ohio or North Carolina.

The fights for the House and Senate were over well before the presidential contest was decided. We’ve known for months that this would be a good Democratic year. All that remained to be decided was exactly how good a Democrat year it would be.

Democratic gains of seven or eight Senate seats, with a decent shot at nine, have appeared likely for weeks, and that’s still where Democrats are. Senate races in Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado and New Hampshire have been over for months. Democratic challengers appear to have a distinct advantage in Alaska, North Carolina and Oregon.

A mini-comeback by Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) has all but erased the small but consistent advantage that Al Franken (D) has had for a few weeks, now making that state’s Senate race a pure tossup.

Obviously, to reach the psychologically important 60-seat mark Democrats will need to win two out of four competitive races: Minnesota, Mississippi, Kentucky and Georgia, a tall order given the Southern states’ political dynamics. But it isn’t impossible, especially in a wave election.

It’s certainly possible that we will all wake up Wednesday morning with Democrats gaining eight seats and Georgia headed for an early December runoff, with the outcome there determining whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) will have 60 seats or 59 seats (or 58, depending what Senate Democrats do about Connecticut Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman).

In the fight for the House, anything from a Democratic gain in the mid-20s to a much bigger Democratic net gain of around 40 seems possible, with gains in the 27-33 seat range most likely.

Anyone wanting to chart the night might pay special attention to three groups of races.

First, there are the purest of tossups. If one party wins most of them, that will say something important about the overall results of the elections. Those districts include half a dozen Republican seats: open seats in Kentucky’s 2nd district, Maryland’s 1st, and New Jersey’s 7th, and re-election contests involving Rep. Steve Chabot (Ohio’s 1st), Thelma Drake (Virginia’s 2nd) and Dave Reichert (Washington’s 8th).

Second are a number of Republican seats that are tossups but that seem to favor Democrats ever so slightly, particularly in a wave election. If Republicans hold on to many of these districts, the night may not be as good for Democrats as many assume. These include three open seats — Minnesota’s 3rd district, New Jersey’s 3rd and Ohio’s 15th, along with the re-election bids of Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minnesota’s 6th), Christopher Shays (Connecticut’s 4th) and Jon Porter (Nevada’s 3rd).

Finally, there are GOP seats where the Republican has anything from a slight edge to a much more considerable advantage. If many of these seats fall to Democrats, Republicans could well lose 40 seats. These districts include Ohio’s 2nd (Rep. Jean Schmidt), South Carolina’s 1st (Rep. Henry Brown), Virginia’s 5th (Rep. Virgil Goode), Indiana’s 3rd (Rep. Mark Souder), California’s 3rd (Rep. Dan Lungren), and the open seat being vacated by Rep. Barbara Cubin (Wyo.).

Wave elections normally sweep in a number of candidates who, under normal circumstances, would not win in their own right. That’s likely to happen this year, especially given the Democrats’ financial advantage. A remarkable turnout for Obama could also benefit Democrats downballot.

If you are looking for upsets that few others are paying any attention to, be sure to keep an eye on the Louisiana Senate race, a couple of Texas House races (7th and 10th districts), Democratic Rep. John Murtha’s race, and the open seat in California’s 4th.

Finally, turnout (on both sides) remains a huge factor. Most observers and many pollsters have been expecting a spike in younger voters, African-Americans and first-time voters nationally. Whether that happens, and how big a spike that might be, will affect the bottom line today.


This column also appeared in Roll Call on November 4, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Double Whammy: Money, McCain Burden Republicans

By Stuart Rothenberg

While President Bush’s unpopularity and the nation’s struggling economy are huge problems that guarantee a good Democratic election next week, two other factors — the massive Democratic fundraising advantage and Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) surprisingly weak showing in dozens of Congressional districts — are turning this election into a dramatically better one for Democrats.

We have all known that money would be a problem for the GOP, but the Democrats’ financial advantage, and the subsequent political benefit, has been breathtaking.

According to the Campaign Finance Institute, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent $67.7 million in independent expenditures through Oct. 28, compared with only $14.5 million for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

So far, according to the CFI, the DCCC has spent more than $1 million in 34 Congressional districts — and more than $2 million in nine — while the NRCC has spent more than $1 million on just one GOP candidate, Florida Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart. Democratic fears that “outside groups” would make up for the NRCC’s disadvantage proved to be completely unfounded.

In Minnesota’s 3rd district, where each party has nominated a strong candidate, the DCCC has spent more than $2.2 million on its nominee, Ashwin Madia, while the NRCC spent $500,000 on GOP nominee Erik Paulsen – a massive $1.7 million IE advantage for Madia in the race. Without that advantage, it’s difficult to believe that the contest would still be so competitive in a district that tilts slightly Republican.

In North Carolina’s 8th district, the DCCC has so far spent $2.3 million on behalf of Democratic nominee Larry Kissell, who lost narrowly two years ago to Rep. Robin Hayes (R). The NRCC, in contrast, hasn’t spent a nickel on an IE effort on Hayes’ behalf. Hayes likely will lose next week. He’d likely win without the DCCC’s IE for Kissell.

In western New York, the DCCC has spent almost $1.8 million to elect Alice Kryzan, an upset primary winner, in a Republican-leaning open seat, while the NRCC spent only $354,000 to elect Republican Chris Lee. Lee may still win, but Kryzan surely wouldn’t without the DCCC’s spending.

In seat after seat, the Democrats’ spending advantage is having a significant impact. While it is impossible to know exactly how the spending will translate into seats, it seems reasonable that the DCCC’s advantage will add at least a dozen seats, and perhaps many more, to the Democrats’ election night haul, depending on the size of the party’s net gain and which seats flip.

Over on the Senate side, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had “only” a 2-1 advantage in IE spending over the National Republican Senatorial Committee through Oct. 24, $53.2 million to $27.4 million.

The DSCC’s IE advantage has changed the political equation in at least two states — North Carolina and Oregon. Without outspending the NRSC by more than $5 million in each of those races, the DSCC almost certainly would not be able to defeat Republican Sens. Gordon Smith (Ore.) and Elizabeth Dole (N.C.). Now, both are likely to lose.

Late DSCC spending in Georgia and Kentucky could produce victories in those races, and Democratic prospects in Mississippi would be significantly worse without the DSCC’s IE of $5.8 million there (compared with the NRSC’s spending of $3 million for Roger Wicker). It’s not yet clear whether DSCC IE spending will help turn any of those contests to the Democrats. Still, Democrats will win at least two additional Senate seats this cycle because of the party’s financial advantage.

But at least Republican strategists and neutral observers have known for months about the GOP’s financial disadvantage and the Democratic IEs. Few expected McCain to be a liability rather than an asset to many Republican candidates in downballot races.

McCain was widely regarded as the one Republican candidate in the GOP presidential race who could appeal to swing voters, keep the presidential contest competitive and minimize the damage that moderate Republican nominees would suffer in an anti-Bush environment.

But polling in dozens of normally Republican districts shows McCain running well behind Bush’s 2004 showings, and far behind where many of us thought he might be at this point.

According to GOP polling, McCain is trailing Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in reliably Republican districts such as Colorado’s 4th and Virginia’s 5th. He’s essentially running even in Kansas’ 2nd district and Nebraska’s 2nd, two more Republican districts. Currently, Republican Members represent three of these four districts, yet Democrats could sweep all four next week.

Of course, if Republican Congressional candidates lose in all of those races, it’s not McCain’s fault. But Republican strategists had expected McCain to run far stronger in those districts than he is, and they believe that would have helped the party’s House candidates.

If McCain is doing poorly in those districts, it’s not hard to see the kind of a drag he has become in districts likely to go for Obama even in the best of circumstances.

Connecticut moderate Rep. Christopher Shays was able to squeeze out a 52 percent win in 2004 even as Bush was losing the district with 46 percent of the vote. But this time, with McCain running 20 points behind Obama in the district in two media polls, it is unclear whether Shays can run far enough ahead of McCain to survive.

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) face similar problems, because McCain is running stunningly poorly among their constituents. Of course, Sununu, who is expected to lose to Jeanne Shaheen (D), might have lost anyway, and Kirk, who probably would win if McCain were running even a little stronger in the district, may win anyway.


This column first appeared on RollCall.com on October 30, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Democrats Try to Use McCain to Saddle GOP Candidates

By Nathan L. Gonzales

President Bush has been a mainstay in Democratic television ads for the last three years, as Democrats try to use him as an anchor to bring down Republican incumbents and candidates.

Earlier this year, GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) was thought to be an asset to Republican candidates downballot. But apparently Democrats believe McCain could be a liability in some districts, as he is starting to appear in some negative advertising.

“1980. Pac-Man is the new fad and Frank Wolf goes to Congress,” an announcer says in a television ad for Wolf’s Democratic challenger, Judy Feder, in Northern Virginia’s 10th district. “Twenty eight years later, Frank Wolf supports the McCain plan to tax your health care benefits.”

“Wolf even supports risking your Social Security in the stock market. And a constitutional amendment that criminalizes abortion, just like John McCain,” the ad continues. “Judy Feder will work with Barack Obama to fix our economy and fight for affordable health care.”

Two years ago, Wolf defeated Feder, 57 percent to 41 percent. Feder spent an impressive $1.5 million last cycle, compared with $1.8 million for Wolf. This cycle, each candidate raised about $1.9 million through Oct. 15 and both are advertising in the expensive Washington, D.C., media market.

Bush won Virginia’s 10th by 11 points in 2004, but Obama s doing very well in the region.



Earlier this cycle, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee used McCain and Bush against Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.).

The television ad used similar sound bites from all three men, talking about how the fundamentals of the economy are strong. McCain makes an appearance, but the last photo shows Shays hand in hand with Bush.

Bush lost Connecticut’s 4th district by 6 points in 2004, while Shays simultaneously won re-election by 4 points. But the Democratic wave is much higher this year.

McCain is losing the district by 20 points, according to an Oct. 15-18 University of Connecticut poll for Hearst Newspapers, and by 22 points, according to an Oct. 13-14 SurveyUSA poll for Roll Call.

It’s a stunning turnaround from earlier. McCain was precisely the presidential candidate that Republicans thought would help Members such as Shays and Wolf in their more moderate districts.



This story first appeared on RollCall.com on October 29, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

RNC, GOP tweak tactics to lure conservative Democrats

By Stuart Rothenberg and Nathan L. Gonzales

(CNN) -- While many in the media are single-mindedly focused on vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's outfits, Republican efforts to brand Sen. Barack Obama a socialist and the chances that Democrats will net nine Senate seats (giving them 60 seats in the next Senate), some other interesting things are going on -- things that are being missed.

One of those is an unreported major Republican National Committee radio buy in eight key states: Colorado, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia.

The buy is interesting because it includes some states expected to be in McCain's column by this time (Montana, North Carolina and West Virginia, for example), but also because of the message of the 60-second spot: gun control. Read the rest of the story on CNN.com.

It’s Getting Bleaker for McCain, Worse for Hill Republicans

By Stuart Rothenberg

While major media outlets are hesitant to pronounce the presidential race over for fear of being harassed by Republicans and conservatives, there isn’t much doubt at this late date that it is over. Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) will be elected president in less than two weeks.

Previously undecided voters have now decided that Obama isn’t as risky a choice as they once thought, and that has changed the contest. Talk that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has been closing over the past week is simply not demonstrated in public and private polling. In fact, unreleased polls in a number of statewide and Congressional races show that McCain has weakened significantly over the past two weeks.

Obama is now over the crucial 50 percent mark in many credible national surveys, and public and private polling in key states from Wisconsin and Florida to Virginia and Colorado all show the same thing: The Democrat is now considerably over 270 electoral votes, and McCain is struggling to hold on to normally Republican states such as Indiana, North Carolina and Missouri.

Republicans, conservatives and some in the media (who don’t want the competitive race story to end) hang their hopes onto a poll here or there that shows a tight race. Those who want to believe Rasmussen’s national poll showing the presidential race at 4 points or the most recent Hotline survey showing Obama at only 47 percent can certainly do so, but the race is not that tight.

Two recent presidential polls in Florida, one by Fox News/Rasmussen and the other by SurveyUSA, showed McCain ahead in that state within the margin of error. They are more than balanced out in my own mind by a just as recent Republican poll in Florida that has not been released publicly and that showed Obama over the 50 percent mark and beating McCain by 8 points in the state.

But couldn’t things change in the final 10 days? Theoretically, yes. But the chance is so small as to be insignificant.

In what increasingly is looking like a historic election, Democrats continue to be headed for substantial victories in the House and Senate, though not everything has gone their way in the past week.

The revelation that Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.) has had multiple affairs, including at least one during his 2006 challenge to then-Rep. Mark Foley (R), has even Democrats uttering obscenities about the Congressman. GOP polling shows Mahoney is likely to be defeated by his Republican challenger, Tom Rooney.

In Senate races, there is remarkable agreement on the part of unbiased observers that Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens’ (R) chances of being re-elected have spiked after a trial in which the prosecution looked less than perfectly adept. But that race still hangs on the jury’s decision.

Still, Democrats are headed for huge gains in the Senate, and continuing competitive races in Kentucky, Mississippi and Georgia demonstrate how strongly the political landscape is tilted in their favor. Those three contests, plus races in North Carolina, Alaska and Minnesota, should determine whether Democrats reach the 60 mark in next year’s Senate.

So far, a five-seat Democratic pickup looks like a lock, with Democratic wins expected in Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire and Oregon. A sweep of the other GOP Senate seats in play would give Democrats a double-digit gain. That’s certainly not the most likely scenario, but it is not impossible, because in a number of recent “wave” elections (including 2006), almost all of the close Senate races have been won by one party.

Obama’s weakness in Kentucky probably enhances Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R) chances of surviving, while the Democratic presidential nominee’s strength in Georgia, combined with Sen. Saxby Chambliss’ (R) late advertising and his delay in attacking Democratic challenger Jim Martin, puts the first-term Republican Senator at greater risk. The possibility of a runoff in the Georgia race if no candidate gets an absolute majority of total votes cast probably improves Chambliss’ ultimate prospects.

Democratic House prospects are almost as good, and after winning 30 seats in 2006, that’s noteworthy.

When I wrote a few weeks ago that Democratic gains in the 20-30 seat range were reasonable, some Democrats told me that I was way too far out on the limb, and one Democratic Congressman telephoned me to suggest that I had gotten carried away about Democratic chances.

But Democratic gains in that range still look very reasonable, even though Republicans now seem likely to knock off a few incumbent Democrats, including Mahoney, Rep Nick Lampson (Texas) and possibly Rep. Paul Kanjorski (Pa.).

GOP polling over the past couple of weeks shows McCain’s numbers worsening in many places, creating a problem for Republican strategists who hoped that the top of the ticket would be a considerable asset. Indeed, in some places, McCain has gone from an asset to a liability.

Democratic House gains of 27 to 33 seats now looks likely. This is the kind of wave election when even second- and third-tier candidates pull off upsets, and I’d expect that to happen this year. It would be only a guess to pick those winners, so all I can say is that a couple of long-shot Democratic upsets are likely as the party’s wave crashes ashore in 12 days.

Republican Congressional candidates will hope to stop the bleeding and improve their prospects in the campaign’s remaining days. But Democrats still have the momentum.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 23, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Nathan Talks Politics on CNN.com

GOP House candidates struggle against McCain drag

By Nathan L. Gonzales and Stuart Rothenberg

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Chris Shays of Connecticut, the last Republican in the House of Representatives from New England, is used to running against the partisan tide. But this year, the wave might be too high for the Republican congressman to overcome.

Shays is just one of many GOP candidates trying to win by outperforming Sen. John McCain's underwhelming performance in congressional districts nationwide. Read the rest of the story on CNN.com.

Should Congressional GOP Throw McCain Under the Bus?

By Stuart Rothenberg

A dozen years ago this month, with GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole mired far back in the polls, the National Republican Congressional Committee spent millions of dollars on a television ad that urged voters not to give Bill Clinton and “liberal special interests” a “blank check” on Election Day by giving Democrats control of Congress.

Now, with Nov. 4 approaching quickly and the campaign of presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) slipping into a hole that in all likelihood is inescapable, GOP House and Senate strategists — and individual candidates — must decide whether to do the same thing.

Should Republican operatives act as if McCain still can win next month or change their message to something like “Don’t give Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats a blank check in November,” thereby virtually accepting the inevitability of McCain’s defeat and giving House and Senate Republicans a new, potentially effective message in the election’s final weeks?

The NRCC’s decision in late 1996 was not without controversy. Dole’s running mate, former New York Rep. Jack Kemp, strongly criticized the strategy, and even those party insiders who supported it seemed embarrassed by the tactic, which tacitly accepted the idea that the Kansas Senator no longer had any chance to win the presidential race.

But the ad, which ran in more than four dozen Congressional districts, may have helped Republicans minimize their losses and retain their House majority that year.

Republicans don’t have the resources to blanket the country with a similar ad this cycle, and the circumstances are different because Bill Clinton already had served a term in the White House when the 1996 campaign was heading into the final stretch.

And for this strategic shift to work, the Republican National Committee would have to shift some spending away from the presidential contest, and individual candidates would have to take up the message, framing it on a case-by-case basis depending on the district or state.

Still, Republican candidates and strategists have to consider the “no blank check” strategy because it might change the nature of this year’s House and Senate contests from a referendum on President Bush and the financial industry’s meltdown to the next four years under Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and huge Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate. Any success in doing that would help GOP downballot candidates.

Not everyone agrees that the strategy would work.

One strategist I spoke with noted that voters have little patience with “process arguments” and suggested that the message would need to be more specific about what Obama and a heavily Democratic Congress might do.

But others pointed out that a stunning 40 percent of voters don’t know that Democrats control Congress and that a “blank check” argument could be an effective message for Republican challengers and open-seat candidates.

Still, even those who think the message is a good one are realistic about its potential effect. “It’s a good message, but it isn’t a winning message. I think that it may minimize the damage,” one GOP strategist speculated.

“Nothing else has worked very well this cycle anyway. It’s worth a try,” another Republican agreed.

But wouldn’t throwing McCain under the bus drain Republican enthusiasm, depressing GOP turnout and thereby hurting the party’s House and Senate hopefuls?

Two Republican strategists that I spoke with say it would not. Both argued that Republican voters see what is happening in national polls and increasingly expect McCain to lose. In fact, one said, a “blank check” message might actually increase Republican turnout by convincing the party’s voters that there is “something at stake in this election.”

The most obvious reason to oppose a “blank check” argument is that McCain still may be able to win, and if anyone is able to use the argument it should be McCain, because nothing can stop Democrats from controlling both chambers of Congress with big majorities after November.

In fact, while an external event could theoretically save McCain, the Arizona Republican’s current prospects are horrible.

Obama has now opened up comfortable leads in some supposedly swing states, and his image is improving as McCain’s worsens. As they did in 1980 when they swung late in the campaign to challenger Ronald Reagan, voters apparently have decided that Obama is not a risky choice.

One GOP poll shows McCain trailing by more than 15 points in Wisconsin, a state that Bush lost by two-tenths of a point in 2000 and four-tenths of a point in 2004. Even worse, Obama’s favorable rating in the state is more than 60 percent, while McCain’s is in the mid- to low-40s.

Anyone who thinks that all McCain needs is more TV ads doesn’t understand where this election is. Given the lateness in the cycle, the Republican Party’s current poor image and the party’s financial problems, additional spending on House and Senate contests may well be too little too late. But it just might help deliver a new “no blank check” message that could help Republicans win a few more races than now seems likely.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 16, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

2008 Presidential Battleground Ratings

Total Electoral Votes
(270 needed to win)

Obama - 214 (safe/likely) + 72 (lean) = 286
McCain - 160 (safe/likely) + 23 (lean) = 163
Toss-ups = 89

Toss-Ups

• Florida (27)
• Indiana (11)
• Missouri (11)
  
• Nevada (5)
• North Carolina (15)
  
• Ohio (20)

Lean McCain

• Georgia (15)
  
• Montana (3)
• West Virginia (5)
  

Lean Obama

• Colorado (9)
  
• Minnesota (10)
• New Hampshire (4)
  
• New Mexico (5)
• Pennsylvania (21)
• Virginia (13)
  
• Wisconsin (10)

Safe/Likely McCain

• Alabama (9)
• Alaska (3)
• Arizona (10)
• Arkansas (6)
• Idaho (4)
• Kansas (6)
• Kentucky (8)
• Louisiana (9)
• Mississippi (6)
• Nebraska (5)
• North Dakota (3)
• Oklahoma (7)
• South Carolina (8)
• South Dakota (3)
• Tennessee (11)
• Texas (34)
• Utah (5)
• Wyoming (3)

Safe/Likely Obama

• California (55)
• Connecticut (7)
• Delaware (3)
• Hawaii (4)
• Illinois (21)
• Iowa (7)
• Maine (4)
• Maryland (10)
• Massachusetts (12)
• Michigan (17)
  
• New Jersey (15)
• New York (31)
• Oregon (7)
• Rhode Island (4)
• Vermont (3)
• Washington (11)
• D.C. (3)

Big Five States: Tough and Getting Tougher for McCain

By Stuart Rothenberg

A few months ago in this space, I wrote that if you tell me who will win Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, Ohio and Michigan, I can tell you who will win the White House in November (The Big Five: Picking the States That Will Pick the President, July 17, 2008).

With the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) pulling out of Michigan, one of those battlegrounds, we are down to only four states. If any one of them goes for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), he will win the presidency. And, barring a game-changing development, it is increasingly difficult to see how he loses all four.

In taking Michigan off the board, McCain probably has only one path to victory, and it is a very difficult one. He must reassemble the Bush Electoral College coalition, winning all of the 29 states that George W. Bush won twice. (Bush won 30 states in 2000 and 31 in 2004. He won New Hampshire, Iowa and New Mexico only once during those two elections.)

Winning those 29 states would give McCain 274 electoral votes, four more than he needs to win the presidency. Losing even one of those 29 states with five or more electoral votes would give the White House to Obama.

Michigan was one of the few Al Gore/John Kerry states that McCain could have hoped to win this year.

Of course, it was always difficult for the Republican given his free-trade stance and party label. In 2004, the president lost Michigan by more than 3 percentage points, and in 2000, he lost Michigan by more than 5 points.

But the state’s Democratic governor, Jennifer Granholm, has been a serious disappointment to many Wolverine State voters, especially older, working-class whites, and the bad publicity Detroit has received recently over its now former mayor gave Republicans some reason for an upset.

But, by pulling its media, McCain’s campaign has acknowledged that its candidate can’t win it.

Two other states share some of Michigan’s characteristics and could replace it on my list of key indicator states. But McCain isn’t doing all that much better in Pennsylvania right now, another state with an older, white blue-collar electorate, and Wisconsin, which was close in both 2000 and 2004.

Of the two, Wisconsin may be McCain’s best chance, since Bush lost the state to Gore by just two-tenths of a point in 2000 and only four-tenths of a point to Kerry four years later. State polling suggests that the presidential contest is closer in Wisconsin than in Pennsylvania, but Obama leads.

Without any of those three, McCain is stuck in a rut — the Bush electoral map rut. I suppose there is a chance he could win one of the states Bush split with his Democratic opponents in 2000 and 2004 — New Mexico would seem to be the most likely choice — but that’s not very likely either, and losing Virginia or Colorado would offset that McCain takeaway.

Obama’s improved position in Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Nevada, Florida, North Carolina, Missouri and Indiana makes it increasingly difficult to imagine a McCain victory without an event or events that dramatically remake the presidential contest. And any event that could be a game-changer is almost certainly out of McCain’s control.

Recent state polls show Obama even or ahead in all of these states, but he will need to win one or at most two of them to guarantee victory.

And while McCain needs a clear Electoral College majority, 270 electoral votes, Obama will win the White House if he and McCain tie with 269 electoral votes, since Obama would win if the election were to go to the House of Representatives.

While it’s true that Obama hasn’t locked up the election quite yet, it’s also true that McCain has been stuck at the low- to mid-40s in most national surveys, a significant sign of weakness.

Given all of the odd twists and turns that have taken place during the nominating phase and since, it’s probably dangerous to declare the presidential race over. As I have noted repeatedly, this election is being driven by news, not spin or handicappers’ assessments.

But it’s fair to say that the current trajectory of the race means Barack Obama is heading to victory in the 2008 presidential election, and John McCain must do something to change that trajectory to avoid a loss.

And McCain’s chances of doing that are growing dimmer and dimmer.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 9, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Obama Maintaining Status Quo With White Evangelicals

By Nathan L. Gonzales

After months of well-publicized outreach to evangelicals, the Democratic Party and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign are struggling to outperform the normal Democratic vote.

A Sept. 4-21 Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (D) survey for Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly showed Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) leading Obama 71 percent to 23 percent among white evangelical voters. In comparison, President Bush won white evangelical/born again voters 78 percent to 21 percent four years ago.

McCain was receiving only tepid support from evangelicals before he added Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to the GOP ticket. This survey provides some evidence that McCain is creeping closer to Bush’s totals with those voters.

The GQRR poll was accompanied by a memo, which highlighted how younger evangelicals were less supportive of McCain than older evangelicals. Subsequent media coverage generally focused on that point, but the results were more complicated.

McCain led Obama 62 percent to 30 percent among white evangelicals ages 18-29, compared with the Arizona Senator’s 73 percent to 22 percent advantage among white evangelicals ages 30 and older.

While Obama is doing better on the ballot test, younger evangelicals held a less favorable view of him compared to the views of evangelicals ages 30 and older. According to GQRR’s favorability “thermometer,” young evangelicals gave the Illinois Senator a 28 percent “warm” and 50 percent “cool” rating. Older evangelicals had a slightly better 36 percent warm and 48 percent cool view of Obama.

Younger evangelicals also viewed McCain, Palin and Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) less favorably than older evangelicals did.

But both Republicans were far more popular than the Democratic ticket. McCain did well with young white evangelicals (54 percent warm/31 percent cool) and older evangelicals (68 percent warm/18 percent cool). Palin also enjoyed favorable ratings among young evangelicals (52 percent warm/25 percent cool) and older evangelicals (60 percent warm/17 percent cool).

Biden received the lowest rating of the foursome. Young white evangelicals gave the Delaware Senator a 13 percent warm/41 percent cool, while older evangelicals gave him a 25 percent warm/40 percent cool.

Even President Bush scored better than Biden, including among young evangelicals who gave him a 39 percent warm/48 percent cool. Evangelicals ages 30 and older might be the last remaining voter bloc to give Bush a net positive rating: 57 percent warm/29 percent cool.

A level of caution should always be administered when evaluating polling data about evangelicals because each polling firm tends to have its own definition. In the case of GQRR, “Evangelical Christians were defined as Protestants or members of another Christian religion, and who identified as fundamentalist, evangelical, charismatic, or Pentecostal or who indicated they were born-again Christians.”

Any conclusions about young evangelicals from the survey should be even more tentative because of the survey’s methodology.

The survey started with a sample of 1,400 adults, including an over-sample of 400 evangelical Christians ages 18-29. But only 127 of the 427 sample of young evangelicals were contacted by telephone. The remaining 300 “were drawn from an opt-in Web panel that is designed to be demographically representative at a national level,” according to the firm.

This methodology means that the young evangelical over-sample is no longer “random,” a fact that GQRR acknowledged at the end of its own memo, and the margin of error listed for the young evangelical sample is statistically irrelevant.

The survey research firm noted that “Internet panels, like this one, use non-probability based sampling methods, by necessity, and these results need to be considered with that limitation in mind.”

Young evangelicals may be more conservative than older evangelicals, but more studies are needed. It is unclear whether young evangelicals will carry their current views throughout their lives or become more conservative or liberal. For the moment, however, Democrats have to be disappointed that after all of their talk and efforts, white evangelicals, as a whole, appear to be as supportive of the McCain-Palin ticket as they were of Bush.

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on October 3, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Plenty of Questions Still Remain in This Bifurcated Election

By Stuart Rothenberg

Is the presidential race opening up for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), or is GOP Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in the middle of a comeback even as analysts note that the financial crisis is hurting the GOP?

Are Democratic House and Senate candidates getting a bounce because of the crisis, or are Republican numbers on ballot tests around the country relatively steady?

There is so much contradictory data out there — some of it seemingly illogical based on the recent news — that it’s hard to know what to believe.

Two polls released the same day by major news-gathering organizations painted very different pictures of the state of the presidential contest. A Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that the financial crisis was damaging McCain and the GOP, and that Obama had opened up a 9-point lead (52 percent to 43 percent) in the race for the White House, while an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found Obama leading McCain by just 2 points, 48 percent to 46 percent.

Twenty-four hours later, Gallup’s tracking poll showed McCain erasing a 3-point deficit and pulling even with Obama at 46 percent for each. And 24 hours after that, Obama re-established a 3-point advantage in Gallup’s track — suggesting strangely dramatic movement in a three-day rolling average during heavy news days.

Then there are polls in Michigan’s 7th district, currently held by Republican Rep. Tim Walberg.

A Sept. 23-24 Myers Research & Strategic Services poll for challenger Mark Schauer (D) showed him leading the Republican by 6 points, 42 percent to 36 percent. A week earlier, a National Research poll for the Congressman showed Walberg holding a 50 percent to 40 percent advantage.

It’s certainly possible that a Congressional race could turn that dramatically in a week, especially when a dramatic event, such as a national financial crisis, occurs. But it seems unlikely.

The Democratic poll found the district’s partisan identification as 35 percent Democratic and 33 percent Republican, while the National Research survey found the generic Congressional ballot at 46 percent Republican and 41 percent Democratic, again suggesting two slightly different views of a district that went 54 percent to 45 percent for President Bush in 2004.

But there are some things about this election cycle that now appear crystal clear.

First, the Republican brand remains damaged. The most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed voters had a much more favorable view of the Democratic Party than the GOP, and the Republicans trail in both party identification and the generic ballot nationally. Any uptick in the public’s attitude toward the GOP after the party’s convention has now disappeared.

Second, we are in the middle of a bifurcated election, and there is no sign of that changing.

At the Congressional level, voters are using party to make their choice for change, and that has Republican candidates back on their heels in swing districts and in those states and districts that normally prefer Democrats. Democrats still have a very difficult road knocking off Republicans in reliably Republican areas, but elsewhere Democratic opportunities abound.

At the presidential level, however, voters are focusing on the two presidential candidates (not their running mates). Surprisingly, the ABC News/Washington Post poll did not ask respondents about their feelings about the two presidential contenders. But the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll did, and it found both men with nearly identical numbers: McCain 46 percent positive/ 38 percent negative to Obama’s 48 percent positive/38 percent negative.

Given those results, it’s easy to understand that the presidential ballot would be competitive.

The NBC poll also asked voters whether they preferred a candidate who would “end the Bush Administration policies” and “have active government oversight in areas such as prescription drugs and financial institutions,” or a candidate who would “clean up Washington” and “take on waste and fraud in the system such as reducing government inefficiency and pork-barrel spending.”

Those polled picked “clean up Washington” over “end the Bush Administration policies” by a stunning (to me, at least) 67 percent to 29 percent. Again, those results help explain why McCain has so far remained very much in the presidential race.

In general, Republican insiders remain exceedingly nervous about the national political environment, fearing that the economic crisis will keep the electorate’s focus on issues that benefit Obama and his party. That seems reasonable, given that Americans still hold Bush in low regard and seem inclined to give him and his party a disproportionate amount of the blame for bad news. (They also hold Congress in low regard, but so far there is no evidence that is hurting Democratic candidates in general.)

Events are likely to continue to shape and reshape the presidential race, but in the fight for the House and the Senate, the die is already cast. The only question in those contests is “how bad” it will be for the GOP.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 29, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

When Campaigns Lie, What Should the Voters Do?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Now that both campaigns have lost all of their credibility by distorting each other’s records and agendas, where does the 2008 presidential contest stand?

I don’t have data on this, but I’m willing to bet that at this point in the race most voters don’t believe anything that they see or hear in Sen. Barack Obama’s (Ill.) and Sen. John McCain’s (Ariz.) TV ads, or from talking heads supporting the candidates. I know that I don’t.

I’m tired of the bizarre distortions and half-truths, and of the endless platitudes. McCain, the straight-talker, isn’t doing that anymore, and Obama is equally bad. Both are running blatantly misleading campaigns.

So when I see an ad, the first thing I think about is how it might be a distortion. McCain wants the war in Iraq to last at least 100 years? Obama wants to teach sex ed to kindergartners? McCain’s Social Security plan would have cost senior citizens all of their retirement savings? Obama wants to raise everyone’s taxes?

How stupid do they think we are? Pretty stupid, apparently.

Campaign distortions are nothing new, of course. But maybe it’s the length of this campaign or, more likely, the fact that both Obama and McCain promised that they were different that makes this campaign so painful to watch.

If most people react to the charges and counter-charges as I do — and my travels around the country speaking to various groups reinforce my belief that they do — then how are people making decisions about the election?

First, voters are falling back on preconceived notions and stereotypes, the strongest of which remains the viewers’ partisan bent. Not surprisingly, polls show Republican voters are backing McCain, while Democrats are supporting Obama. When in doubt, cast your usual party vote.

In addition, voters are falling back on the “intangibles” of image, bio and mood.

McCain is the older guy who has been in government for almost three decades, so many voters see him as experienced, steadier, more reliable. Democrats, on the other hand, see him as part of the past.

Obama is younger and looks much younger than his opponent, and his governmental service is much shorter. Democrats view him as having new ideas and offering hope for the future. Republicans regard him as inexperienced and dangerously ill- prepared to serve in the nation’s top job.

And then there is race, which we are not supposed to talk about because it makes all of us very uncomfortable. But it, too, is a vote “cue.”

Many voters see an African-American politician and immediately pigeonhole him as a liberal who favors higher taxes, increased domestic spending, gun control and abortion rights and would pursue a generally left-of-center agenda.

This shouldn’t be surprising given that most of the most visible African-American political figures over the past few decades (though certainly not all) have been on the Democratic Party’s left and represented positions (including affirmative action) that many white voters don’t identify with.

I recently met a terrific African-American Congressional candidate from Louisiana, state Sen. Don Cravins Jr. (D), who is one of my favorite candidates this cycle. He’s personable, understands politics and, I expect, is going to lose.

You see, Cravins is black. He is a Democrat. He attended an Obama event during the Democratic primary. So, even though Cravins says he’s pro-life and pro-gun and describes himself as a conservative Democrat, I believe that most white voters in Louisiana’s 7th district, who are currently quite content to be represented by Republican Rep. Charles Boustany, will see him as just another black Democrat, and they’ll read a lot into that.

Because Cravins isn’t likely to be able to introduce himself well enough during the campaign to overcome stereotypes, many conservative white voters will look at him and think of Obama or embattled Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson (D) — or even the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Unfair, you say? Voters shouldn’t judge a candidate by his skin color. Maybe, but is it any more unfair than, for example, saying that because McCain and President Bush are both Republicans that a McCain administration would produce a third Bush term? No, it isn’t.

One vote cue is based entirely on party, while the other is based on a combination of factors that leads voters to end up at the same place.

When voters don’t believe anything the candidates say, they’ll use these familiar vote cues to figure out which candidate they prefer.

I believe that voters are already to this point, and that’s why the presidential contest is moving in a narrow range. The fundamentals of the election still work in Obama’s favor, since change is such a strong force this cycle and the financial crisis has benefited the Democrat.

As we saw last week, news — real news, not controversies manufactured by the campaigns — does have an impact on how people will vote since it can play to the candidates’ stereotypes.

This election could well turn on those voters who feel cross-pressured on the vote cues I’ve referred to. They may prefer Obama’s party but infer things about him — because of his age and experience, or his race — that they find troubling.

For many of these older, working-class voters (we used to call them “Reagan Democrats”), their votes will be determined on which stereotype they like, or fear, more. Frankly, given the quality of the two campaigns, I can’t really blame them regardless of their eventual choice.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 25, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

What’s the Top Electoral College State This Year?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Two months ago in this space, I identified five states that I argued would pick the next president. Tell me how these states — Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Nevada and Michigan — will go in November, I wrote, and I’ll tell you who will be our next president (“The Big 5: Picking the States That Will Pick the President”).

As the presidential race has developed, those five states seem to hold the same predictive value now that they did then. Sure, there are a handful of additional states that could turn the election to either Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) or Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) — New Hampshire, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and North Carolina — but the longer the list, the less it tells us about who’ll win.

I’ve become convinced that my initial list of five states probably can be boiled down to just one — one state that is most likely to determine who will be the next occupant of the White House. And that state is Colorado.

If John McCain carries Colorado in November, I’d expect him to hold onto all of George W. Bush’s 2000 states, with the exception of New Hampshire. If he does that, and if Obama holds all of Al Gore’s states, plus New Hampshire, McCain would win 274 electoral votes to 264 for Obama.

If Obama carries the state, he has altered the arithmetic of the Electoral College so as to make it difficult for McCain to win.

It’s true, of course, that Obama could win Colorado and still lose the election. Republicans continue to look at Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota as possible swing states they could win to offset the loss of Colorado or Virginia. But if there is a single state among this group that is most likely to switch parties and therefore determine the winner of the presidential contest, it now appears to be the Centennial State.

Colorado, which generally has been characterized as a part of the conservative, Republican Mountain West, has voted Republican in nine of the past 10 presidential elections. George W. Bush carried it twice, including by 5 points in 2004.

But recently, the state has been trending Democratic. Democrats won a Senate seat in 2004 with Ken Salazar and the governorship two years later. With Sen. Wayne Allard (R) calling it quits, Democratic Rep. Mark Udall is a slight favorite to win the state’s other Senate seat this year. And Democrats now hold majorities in both chambers of the Colorado Legislature.

Until late July, polling in the state showed Obama ahead, from anywhere between 2 and 9 points. But recent polling has been more mixed. Polls have generally shown one candidate or the other ahead by the low single digits, making for a race that looks to be a tossup.

But my confidence in these surveys is not great. A number of the surveys are automated, and some of the internals look more than a little odd. That doesn’t mean the results are wrong. It just means that I don’t have a great deal of confidence that they are correct.

One of the recent surveys, conducted on Sept. 11 by Insider Advantage, showed Obama up by 3 points. But the survey found McCain getting an unbelievable one-quarter of the African-American vote and Obama winning both men and women by an identical 49 percent to 46 percent margin.

Given the gender gaps everywhere — with McCain running well ahead of Obama among men nationally, as well as in Colorado surveys conducted by Public Policy Polling (D) and even Rasmussen Reports for Fox News — it seems unlikely that there would be no gender gap in Colorado. And if McCain wins 25 percent of the black vote anywhere, I’d be stunned.

Still, the state looks to be made for a tight contest. With upscale white voters who would seem likely to prefer Obama, Hispanics, Boulder liberals and plenty of swing suburbanites, Colorado looks like a one-time Republican state where Obama should have appeal.

One of the problems facing Obama is that the Democratic nominee for president has not won more than 47 percent of the vote in the state since 1964, when Colorado went for Lyndon Johnson (D). Bill Clinton carried the state with only 40.1 percent of the vote in a three-way race in 1992, and John Kerry drew 47 percent last time.

Of course, with Bob Barr running as a Libertarian, Cynthia McKinney as a Green and Ralph Nader as an Independent (to say nothing of the 11 other tickets on the ballot in the state), the presidential candidate who carries the state need not win a majority of the total votes cast.

A month from now, the national landscape could look very different. The contest for the White House might have blown wide open. But at this point, with the race looking very tight, Colorado surely is one of the key swing states, and it now looks like the best indicator of how the nation will go.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 18, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Latest Polls Raise Questions About the Political Landscape

By Stuart Rothenberg

Don’t assume that the first flurry of polls we’ve seen this week will reflect the 2008 electoral landscape two or three weeks from now. Like the Democratic convention bounce that benefited Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the Republican bounce that now benefits Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) is likely to dissipate.

Where the race will be a month from now depends not only on what happens during the daily campaign war, but also on whether the most recent CNN/Opinion Research survey is a mirage or an accurate indicator of a fundamental change that has occurred in public opinion.

The CNN survey, and to a lesser extent some of the other recent surveys, suggest an electorate that is hardening along traditional lines, with half the country preferring change, Democrats and Obama, and half opting for strength and experience, Republicans and McCain.

If that’s true, it suggests a return to the partisan equilibrium that we saw in 2000 and 2004, and a tight race all the way to November. Given the strong mood for change and the sense of impending doom in Republican ranks just a few weeks ago, that would be disappointing news for Democratic partisans who hoped to avoid a nail-biter.

The most recent CNN/Opinion Research poll found a dramatic rebound by the Republican Party. If that has occurred — and it still is nothing more than an “if” — then it changes the entire dynamic of the election.

The survey showed a significant drop in the public’s view of the Democratic Party — from 56 percent favorable/35 percent unfavorable in late April to 51 percent favorable/40 percent unfavorable now — and a corresponding improvement in the GOP’s image, from 38 percent favorable/53 percent unfavorable in April to 48 percent favorable/45 percent unfavorable now. That still leaves the Democratic Party with a better image, but the difference between the parties’ standings is far less dramatic than it was.

It also showed what can only be described as the total collapse of the party’s advantage in the “generic Congressional ballot” question, which asks respondents whether they plan to vote for the Republican or the Democratic candidate for Congress.

The Sept. 5-7 CNN poll showed Democrats with a 3-point advantage on the generic ballot, 49 percent to 46 percent. In November, the Democrats held an 11-point advantage (53 percent to 42 percent), and in June of 2007, their advantage was a dozen points (53 percent to 41 percent).

Most surveys have shown the Democratic Congressional generic ballot advantage to be 8 points to 15 points for more than a year, so a dramatic narrowing of those numbers would be significant. I’m not yet ready to believe that has happened until I see corroborating data.

For months, I’ve argued that the public’s disconnect between McCain’s brand and the GOP brand was filled with both risk and opportunity for Republicans. Either the party’s terrible image could rebrand McCain, causing him to plummet in the polls and dragging him down to defeat, or McCain could redefine the Republican Party and improve its image.

While the CNN poll suggests that McCain’s image — or running mate Sarah Palin’s — has re-branded his party, it is far too early to conclude that that is exactly what has happened. The recently released NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, which rarely jumps around erratically and therefore has earned my admiration, showed less redefinition of the parties.

That survey found Republicans now with a 40 percent positive/43 percent negative image, compared with a 27 percent positive/48 percent negative image in April. The obvious explanation is that rank-and-file Republican partisans are now feeling better about their party and have responded that way to pollsters. Unlike the CNN survey, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed the Democrats’ image essentially unchanged from the spring, and that they have a far better reputation than the GOP.

Unfortunately, none of the NBC News/ Wall Street Journal, the USA Today/Gallup or the ABC News/Washington Post poll included questions about the generic Congressional ballot.

Whether or not the Republican Party’s image has improved is no small matter.

McCain has been forced to swim against a strong current, and his task would be made easier if voters had a significantly more positive view of the GOP. Just as importantly, a much closer generic Congressional ballot, especially combined with a more positive image for the Republican Party, would improve GOP prospects in upcoming House and Senate elections, reshaping a landscape where some Republican incumbents are at risk primarily because of their partisan label.

Republicans, quite naturally, will prefer to believe the CNN numbers. But unless and until other surveys confirm a new political reality in the electorate, it’s wise to be cautious and assume that Republicans are still swimming against a strong tide.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 11, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Some Bellwether States Losing Their Status

By Nathan L. Gonzales

The presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has vowed to compete in all 50 states this fall. While he should perform better than Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in some traditionally Republican states, he’s not going to achieve a Reagan-esque 1984 sweep.

If he defeats Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama’s path to victory will be different from the most recent Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, who came from the South. And an Obama victory will likely jeopardize the bellwether status of some Southern states. Even so, some of the 11 traditional bellwethers remain.

Missouri. Arguably, the champion of all bellwethers, the Show Me State has chosen the presidential winner in each election since 1904, with the exception of 1956. This year, Missouri remains a battleground, and the two vice presidential nominees will face off in St. Louis for the official debate. An Aug. 13-17 Public Policy Polling survey showed McCain ahead 50 percent to 40 percent.

Ohio. One of the most hotly contested states in recent years, Ohio remains a significant battleground. The Buckeye State voted for Richard Nixon in 1960 and has gotten it right ever since. The McCain campaign would like to challenge in Michigan, but it can’t afford to lose Ohio. An Aug. 31-Sept. 2 CNN/Time poll had Obama leading 47 percent to 45 percent, and an Aug. 17-24 Quinnipiac University poll gave the Democrat a similarly narrow edge of 44 percent to 43 percent.

Florida. After the 2000 fiasco, Florida will always get a significant amount of attention. The state has only two knocks against it since 1960, voting for George H.W. Bush in 1992 and Nixon in 1960. An Aug. 25-26 Mason-Dixon poll showed Obama with a 45 percent to 44 percent lead, while Republican firm Strategic Vision (Aug. 22-24) and Quinnipiac University (Aug. 17-24) give McCain 7- and 4-point leads, respectively.

Nevada. Nevada has picked the presidential winner every time since 1960, except for 1976. According to an Aug. 24-26 CNN/Time poll, Obama led 49 percent to 44 percent in a state that is experiencing a tremendous amount of population growth.

New Mexico. Since 1960, voters in the Land of Enchantment have voted for the presidential winner, except 1976 and 2000. President Bush prevailed in 2004 in one of the closest races in the country. New Mexico should be a battleground once again, although an Aug. 24-26 CNN/Time poll showed Obama with a significant 13-point lead.

North Carolina. Tar Heel State voters went for George H.W. Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996, but have a great presidential track record beyond that. Recent polls have shown McCain with a slight advantage — he had a 45 percent to 42 percent edge in an Aug. 20-23 Public Policy Polling survey — but he can’t take this one for granted. If Obama is on the verge of winning North Carolina, he’s probably already won Virginia and well on his way to the Oval Office.

Arkansas. Since 1960, the Natural State has voted for every presidential winner, except for 1968, when it was one of five states to go for third-party candidate George Wallace. Today, Arkansas is one of the last to receive attention from the Obama campaign, after losing the state 70 percent to 26 percent in the primary to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the former first lady of Arkansas.

Kentucky. In 1960, the Bluegrass State went for Nixon, who lost to John F. Kennedy, but the state has supported the presidential winner ever since. Kentucky is another Southern state where Obama performed poorly in the primary (30 percent).

Tennessee. Obama did slightly better in the Volunteer State primary (41 percent). But the Democratic nominee is not expected to carry the state in the general election, even though Tennessee has picked the last 11 presidential winners.

Louisiana. This state has only gotten it wrong twice (1964 and 1968) at the presidential level since 1960. McCain is favored to carry the state this fall.

Delaware. The First State has a great track record for choosing the presidential winner since 1960. But Delaware is trending Democratic, voting for the unsuccessful Democratic nominee in the last two presidential elections, and the presence of native son Sen. Joseph Biden (D) on the ticket makes the state neither a battleground nor a bellwether this year.

This item first appeared on RollCall.com on September 4, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

For GOP Delegates, Sarah Palin on the Ticket Is a No-Brainer

By Stuart Rothenberg

We won’t know for at least a few days, maybe even a few weeks, whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was a smart addition to the Republican ticket, but it already is clear that delegates at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., are close to unanimous in their enthusiasm for the self-proclaimed “hockey mom.”

Yes, Palin’s selection pleased social conservatives and gun owners, who see her as an unapologetic supporter of their causes. As one former Member of Congress from a swing state told me on the floor on the opening night of the Republican convention, “The party was with McCain intellectually, but not emotionally. Now, with the selection of Palin, that’s changed.”

Another Republican, a moderate from New England who doesn’t necessarily agree with all of Palin’s positions on the issues, was no less enthusiastic.

“She connects with people. She’s the mom next door,” said the Republican, who argued that Palin’s greatest strength is getting presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) back to his maverick image and message.

Another Republican, who hails from a state that Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) surely will carry in November but who could help rebuild his party’s reputation in his home state, also raved about the pick, saying that all the feedback he received about Palin, including from family members, was positive.

McCain’s selection of Palin as his running mate clearly injected a dose of enthusiasm and energy into Republican regulars, who had already committed to support their party’s ticket but found the prospect less then exciting. But the selection of Alaska’s governor changed all that.

Surprises are energizing, even if they are inherently risky. But for McCain, the selection of Palin has energized Republicans in a way that could help the party eat into the Democrats’ advantage on fundraising and turnout.

But any neutral observer must be careful not to get caught up in momentary enthusiasm for Palin on the convention floor. Conventions tend to be misleading. Well- orchestrated events, whether with fireworks at football stadiums or with well-produced videos inside hockey arenas, lead one to draw premature conclusions.

The revelation that Palin’s daughter is five months pregnant didn’t seem to depress GOP delegates’ enthusiasm about her selection, but only a naive partisan Republican would fail to acknowledge the possible dangers of Palin’s nomination.

The Alaska governor remains an unknown, and it isn’t clear how she will perform on the campaign trail and during her sole debate with Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden (D), Obama’s running mate.

But at least Palin’s fortune is in her own hands. She will have the opportunity to prove to voters that she’s ready for the job, and she should benefit from relatively low expectations, particularly about her ability to debate Biden.

While Palin’s performance initially after being selected was good, she has never before been under the political microscope, and she’ll face a national media that will test her repeatedly, both on her knowledge of issues and on world leaders and events, as well as on her areas of agreement and disagreement with McCain.

One GOP consultant was even more explicit about the risks, arguing that reporters are likely to compete with each other to try to trip up Palin and embarrass her.

Some Republican insiders continue to worry about Palin’s selection, suggesting that her relative lack of experience undermines McCain’s great advantage against Obama, and fearing that Palin simply will fail to pass the smell test as a possible presidential successor.

Yes, Palin’s selection probably dilutes the effectiveness of the “experience” and “readiness” argument for McCain, but it does not obliterate it. Palin, after all, is running for her party’s No. 2 spot, while Obama is his party’s nominee for president.

And those GOP operatives who fear that Palin could be “another Dan Quayle” might remember that Quayle did not stop then-Vice President George H.W. Bush from being elected president of the United States in 1988.

That election, following Quayle’s embarrassing introduction to the American media and public, should remind us that vice presidential selections aren’t nearly as important six weeks after they are made as they are when they are announced. In any case, in her first few days as McCain’s VP pick, Palin has performed far better than Quayle did.

We’ll all have to see how Palin performs on the stump, in interviews and during her debate with Biden. But so far, the sheer shock of her selection has acted like a shot of adrenaline for a political party that seemed in a coma. That, in itself, is an accomplishment.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on September 3, 2008. 2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.