For Democrats, This Isn’t Simply Another Chicken Little Story

By Stuart Rothenberg

For Democrats, the sky is falling, according to two national polls, one conducted by Peter Hart and Bill McInturff for NBC News/Wall Street Journal and the other by OnMessage Inc. for the Republican National Committee.

The results of the two surveys are very much in sync and present an increasingly disturbing picture for Democrats.

OnMessage’s March 9-11 survey found President Barack Obama’s job rating at 49 percent approve/47 percent disapprove, while the Hart/McInturff survey (March 11, 13-14) found it at 48 percent approve/47 percent disapprove.

Both found far more Americans believing the country was headed off on the wrong track (66 percent in OnMessage and 59 percent in Hart/McInturff) than in the right direction, and both found the once strong Democratic advantage in the generic ballot, which measures how people plan to vote in November (OnMessage) or which party they would like to control Congress after the next election (Hart/McInturff), has narrowed or disappeared.

The Hart/McInturff poll shows only 35 percent of respondents saying the February 2009 stimulus legislation was a good idea, while 42 percent said it was a bad idea.

Even worse for Democrats, by 61 percent to 30 percent, Americans now say it is better to have different parties controlling Congress and the presidency rather than to have one party controlling both branches — a significant increase in the “different parties” response compared to the October 2008 Hart/McInturff poll.

On specific issues, Democratic numbers have weakened dramatically, according to NBC News/Wall Street Journal polling

When asked which party would do a better job dealing with health care, the Democrats’ 31-point advantage in July 2008 has slipped to a mere 9 points now. The party’s 16-point advantage in July 2008 on dealing with the economy has evaporated completely, and the parties are now even. And on taxes, the Democrats’ 1-point advantage in July 2008 has turned into an 11-point GOP advantage.

No matter what happens with the health care bill (and it may well have been passed by the House by the time you read this), the issue has severely damaged Democratic prospects for the fall.

Not surprisingly, the OnMessage survey shows Democratic support for the bill and Republican opposition, but it also shows 2-to-1 opposition from voters who identify themselves as undecided about which party they plan to support in the midterm elections. In question after question in the OnMessage poll, these “generic undecided voters” look like very much like Republican voters.

After scouring dozens of polls over the past couple of weeks, I have found only a few poll questions that can give Democrats much hope for November.

First, the Republican brand still stinks. Voters aren’t clamoring for Republicans to run anything in Washington, D.C., and polls continue to show that Americans still think that former President George W. Bush bears more of the responsibility for the nation’s economic pain than anyone else.

Unfortunately for Democrats, their own brand has fallen like a rock.

In April, almost a year ago, the Hart/McInturff poll found 45 percent of Americans with a positive view of the Democratic Party and 34 percent with a negative view. In the most recent Hart/McInturff survey, the Democratic Party’s positives have sunk to 37 percent and its negatives have risen to 43 percent. Yes, those numbers are slightly better than the GOP’s (31 percent positive/43 percent negative), but not enough to help Democrats in the fall.

As for Bush, he won’t be on the ballot or in the public’s consciousness in November, so Democrats will have to spend a great deal of time (and money) trying to make the midterms a referendum on the former president rather than on the sitting president. The chances that most Democratic candidates will succeed in that effort are exceedingly small.

Privately, many Democratic insiders acknowledge that the party’s outlook is increasingly bleak for the fall. Health care reform, once seen as a party strength, has turned into a significant liability, and few think the economy will turn around far enough or fast enough to help Democratic candidates in the midterm elections.

Even before this election cycle started, midterm election turnout trends put Democrats at something of a disadvantage. But now, every poll that I have seen suggests that Republicans are dramatically more motivated than are Democrats, which means a more conservative and Republican electorate this year than in 2008, as well as much-improved Republican prospects.

I have been hesitant — and I remain hesitant — to get too far in front of the election cycle, since circumstances can change and Democrats could well have an important financial advantage in the key post-Labor Day time period. But let’s be clear about what is developing: Obama and the Democratic Congressional leadership have dug themselves into a deep and dangerous political hole, and the only question right now seems to be the severity of the drubbing.

As one smart Democratic strategist told me recently, “All of the elements are in place for a disaster like 1994. But it could be even worse.”

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on March 22, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Can Polling Memos Change the Narrative About 2010 Races?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Here’s a bulletin for you: Anytime a campaign releases a polling memo, it is making an argument, not merely offering survey data for your information. Polling memos aren’t written to make you smarter.

This shouldn’t need to be said, of course, but when I see reporters swallowing spin as if it were information — as one Louisiana Gannett reporter did recently in writing about the state’s Senate race — I get very uncomfortable.

A number of Democratic polling memos from reputable polling firms have been circulating over the past couple of weeks — two from Anzalone Liszt Research about the Louisiana Senate race and about Rep. Bobby Bright’s (D-Ala.) re-election prospects, and one from Harstad Strategic Research about the Colorado Senate race — and readers should understand what’s going on with them.

I am not, I must emphasize, challenging the data. These are credible polling firms, and almost every pollster I know has released these kinds of memos in the past. I am only using Anzalone Liszt and Harstad as examples.

The purpose of the Louisiana poll memo is to alter the developing narrative that the state’s Senate race is essentially over and that Sen. David Vitter (R) won’t be seriously threatened by Rep. Charlie Melancon (D). The Alabama memo seeks to create a sense of inevitability about Bright’s re-election prospects and undercut GOP challenger Martha Roby’s credibility (and fundraising and buzz).

The Colorado memo seeks to rebut polling that shows appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D) trailing in his race and to help him build momentum for his primary and the fall election.

I recently asked a pollster, not for attribution of course, about these kinds of memos and received a gloriously forthright answer: “Anyone who does a survey for strategic reasons isn’t going to release strategic information.”

Pollsters say that their surveys present only a “snapshot” of a race at a particular moment. That’s true. But often the snapshot presented in a memo is misleading, and the pollster knows it. Memos include numbers intended to build an argument that seems empirically based but isn’t. They don’t present the whole picture, because the whole picture isn’t in their client’s interest.

Even highly regarded, methodologically legit pollsters tell me to call them up privately if I want to get their real assessment about a race — don’t go by the memo they release. I get this from both Republican and Democratic pollsters, and I have received the same advice for years.

Actually, most pollsters hate to write these kinds of memos, but their clients want them to create a more favorable narrative, so they write them, usually using their words very carefully.

The Bright memo begins “Congressman Bobby Bright is well positioned to win re-election in Alabama’s 2nd Congressional district. Bright’s personal popularity and positive job rating are extremely high.” The memo looks at the Congressman’s excellent favorable/unfavorable ratings, respondents’ answers to questions about Bright’s qualities and his leads of 24 to 32 points over possible November opponents.

The memo ends with the following paragraph: “Bright leads Roby among virtually all gender, race, and geographic subgroups. Bright earns double-digit margins with white voters, African American voters, Independent voters, and in both the Montgomery and Dothan media markets.”

Bright, a conservative Democrat, won election to Congress because of the Democratic wave in 2008. He beat a politically damaged GOP nominee who had emerged from a bruising primary by six-tenths of a point (50.2 percent to 49.6 percent), winning by 1,790 votes out of more than 286,000 cast.

However highly regarded Bright is, this is a Republican district. President Barack Obama drew only 37 percent of the vote in it in 2008, losing it to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) by more than 25 points.

Bright does start off well-positioned for his re-election bid, but he is almost guaranteed to have a razor-close race against Roby, a Montgomery city councilwoman and the likely GOP nominee. Maybe he’ll win; maybe he won’t. Whatever the outcome, he won’t win by 20 points or carry white voters by double digits.

If Bright holds on to win re-election, he’ll win by a point or two. Given that, the Anzalone Liszt poll tells us little about November. Voters apparently don’t know anything about the Republican candidates, and it’s so far from Election Day that most voters haven’t given much thought to what their vote might mean or who they really will vote for in the fall.

The Bright memo reminds me of a June 15, 2009, Anzalone Liszt polling memo that listed all of Democrat Creigh Deeds’ advantages in the 2009 Virginia gubernatorial race.

That memo asserted: “Deeds has a high favorable rating, and a lower unfavorable rating, even though McDonnell spent more on television [during the primary]. Deeds also holds critical issue advantages that will make it difficult for McDonnell to make up ground.”

The memo said that Deeds held a 4-point lead in the race and was able to win votes across the state “including traditional Republican strongholds.” “At the same time, McDonnell will have a difficult time making inroads in increasingly Democratic Northern Virginia,” it asserted.

Of course, McDonnell won 59 percent to 41 percent, turning a 4-point deficit in the poll into an 18-point victory. Deeds didn’t do well in “Republican strongholds,” and McDonnell carried Fairfax County, the state’s largest county and the epitome of what is meant by “Northern Virginia.”

Polling memos sometimes contain useful nuggets of data, but they often leave out other important data and stress the narrative the campaign wants to create. Don’t take them at face value.


This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on March 18, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

New Governors Ratings

We've changed our rating in six gubernatorial contests, four in the direction of the Republicans.

In two states, Arizona and Nevada, the GOP's chances have gotten better with the expectation that Govs. Jan Brewer (AZ) and Jim Gibbons (NV) will not be their party's nominee. Republican chances have also gotten better in Massachusetts, where Democratic Treasurer Tim Cahill's run as an Independent is making unpopular Gov. Deval Patrick's (D) reelection extremely challenging. In Oregon, former Gov. John Kitzhaber (D) is looking like a mortal, even though Republicans still have an uphill climb.

We never expected Gov. David Paterson (D) to be the Democratic nominee in 2010, but his retirement announcement clears the path for popular Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D). It's interesting that Democratic Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy is switching parties to run as a Republican, but, at this stage, there is little reason to believe he'll be a serious threat to Cuomo. And in Illinois, Gov. Pat Quinn's (D) narrow primary victory doesn't inspire confidence, but Republicans nominated Downstate legislator Bill Brady who has to work hard to avoid getting swamped in Chicago and the suburbs.

In the spirit of the NCAA tournament, two other states are on the bubble. It might be generous to Democrats to call Florida a Toss-Up since Attorney General Bill McCollum (R) has demonstrated a consistent lead in the polls. But he hasn't been near 50%, so we'll keep it there for now. And it might be generous to give Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) the advantage in California since he's either even or trailing former eBay Executive Meg Whitman (R) in the polls. But the Democratic nature of the state might save him in the end.

Here are our latest gubernatorial ratings.
# - Moved benefiting Democrats
* - Moved benefiting Republicans

Lean Takeover (4 R, 7 D)

• CA Open (Schwarzenegger, R)
• CT Open (Rell, R)
  
• HI Open (Lingle, R)
• VT Open (Douglas, R)
  
• Culver (D-IA)
  
• KS Open (Parkinson, D)
• MI Open (Granholm, D)
  
• OK Open (Henry, D)
• PA Open (Rendell, D)
  
• TN Open (Bredesen, D)
• WY Open (Freudenthal, D)

Lean Independent (1 R, 0 D)

• RI Open (Carcieri, R)

Toss-Up (3 R, 4 D)

• Brewer (R-AZ) *
  
• FL Open (Crist, R)
  
• MN Open (Pawlenty, R)
• CO Open (Ritter, D)
• Patrick (D-MA) *
  
• Strickland (D-OH)
  
• WI Open (Doyle, D)
  

Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (2 R, 3 D)

• Perry (R-TX)
  
• GA Open (Perdue, R)
• O'Malley (D-MD)
• Quinn (D-IL) #
  
• ME Open (Baldacci, D)
  

Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (3 R, 2 D)

• Gibbons (R-NV) *
  
• AL Open (Riley, R)
• SC Open (Sanford, R)
• NM Open (Richardson, D)
• OR Open (Kulongoski, D) *
  

Currently Safe (5 R, 3 D)

• Herbert (R-UT)
  
• Heineman (R-NE)
• Otter (R-ID)
• Parnell (R-AK)
• SD Open (Rounds, R)
  
• Beebe (D-AR)
• Lynch (D-NH)
• NY Open (Paterson, D) #

Project Runway Meets the Campaign Trail: The Brown Jacket

By Nathan L. Gonzales

In a toxic climate, candidates are shedding the politician label and donning a critical wardrobe item to weather the electoral storm: the brown barn jacket. Candidates are running to demonstrate their political independence by following this year’s hottest campaign trend in an effort to relate to the common folk.

Over the last few years, the barn jacket has struggled at the ballot box. In 2004, Sen. John Kerry’s wardrobe choice was widely panned as he donned the jacket for a hunting photo opportunity.


In 2008, Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin wore the female version, but it wasn’t enough to make independent voters warm up to the GOP ticket.



But after this year’s Senate special election in Massachusetts, the barn jacket is back and candidates are merging the runway with the campaign trail in their television ads.



Republican Scott Brown’s stunning victory breathed new life into the fashion statement. His spokesman even suggested that the jacket hang in the Smithsonian.

Now, we’re seeing the jacket pop up all across the country. Republican Buz Mills is running for governor in Arizona and putting his trust in the jacket.


The fashion trend knows no partisan boundaries. Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet (D), who is looking at competitive primary and general elections this year, just went on television with his first ad, and of course he’s wearing the jacket.



For multi-million dollar campaigns, an $85 investment in a Men’s Sandstone Chore Coat by Carhartt may be the best investment a candidate will ever make.

But as the weather warms up, campaigns may be missing their opportunity to relate to regular people. We’re either going to see some incredibly hot and sweaty candidates or they're going to have to find a new fashion statement.