Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Turnout in Virginia, N.J. Could Be a Big Problem for Democrats

By Stuart Rothenberg

We’ve all been reminded repeatedly that Democrats face problems this year because of both the normal drop in midterm turnout and the mix of voters in nonpresidential years (See my “Democrats Face Challenges in Key Districts in 2010,” June 4, 2009). But those national problems will be magnified in a couple of states without high-profile races at the top of the ballot.

Democratic problems in both Virginia and New Jersey, where Republicans won governorships in November, could well be repeated in Congressional contests this year, in part because neither state has a statewide race on the ballot in November.

Republican strategists are bubbling with optimism about their chances of knocking off freshman Rep. John Adler (D) in New Jersey’s 3rd district, a south-central district that stretches from just north of Camden east to the Atlantic Ocean.

Adler won an open Republican seat 52 percent to 48 percent over Chris Myers (R), an unimpressive showing given the Democratic political wave and the fact that Adler spent $2.8 million on the race to Myers’ $1.2 million (and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee outspent the National Republican Congressional Committee by better than 2-to-1).

The district is fundamentally competitive. George W. Bush carried it 51 percent to 48 percent in 2004, while Barack Obama carried it 52 percent to 47 percent in 2008. In last year’s gubernatorial race, Republican sources say, Chris Christie (R) beat Gov. Jon Corzine (D) by 17 points, 56 percent to 39 percent).

Turnout in New Jersey is highest in presidential years, followed by off years when the gubernatorial election is held and then midterm election cycles. Sometimes, the midterm turnout is only slightly below the gubernatorial years — as in 2002, when 2.1 million Garden State voters cast ballots for Senator, compared with 2001, when 2.2 million cast their votes for governor. But sometimes the difference is stark — as in 1993, when 2.5 million voted for governor, and 1994, when just 2 million voted for Senator.

The last midterm election when there was no Senate race on the ballot in New Jersey was 1998. That year, turnout in individual House races was generally down 10,000 to 20,000 votes over the previous midterm election (when a Senate race was also on the ballot).

There were only two exceptions to this trend — in Democratic Rep. Donald Payne’s district, where turnout was already so low that it didn’t have far to fall, and in former Republican Rep. Mike Pappas’ district, where turnout in 1994 and 1998 was flat.

But Pappas was a controversial Republican incumbent in a year when Congressional Republicans overplayed their impeachment hand, and Democratic voters had reason to turn out, both to dump him and to express their outrage at Republican attacks on President Bill Clinton.

The lack of a statewide contest to generate interest and drive turnout could help the prospects of former NFL star Jon Runyan, the likely Republican nominee against Adler.

Often, as they did last cycle, Republican leaders in Burlington and Ocean counties quarrel over which county should produce the party’s nominee for Congress. But this time, both counties have lined up behind Runyan. Angry voters are likely to be more motivated, and that probably means more Republicans going to the polls.

In Virginia, the lack of a statewide contest could hurt as many as four Virginia Democratic House Members: Reps. Glenn Nye, Tom Perriello, Rick Boucher and Gerry Connolly.

Freshmen Nye and Perriello were swept into office during the ’08 Democratic wave, while Boucher, who is sitting in a district that gave Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) his best showing in the state (59 percent) during the White House election, has not faced a stiff challenger in years.

The state’s GOP nominee for governor last year, Bob McDonnell, won Nye, Perriello and Boucher’s districts with more than 60 percent of the vote, and he carried Connolly’s district by more than 10 points.

It’s difficult to compare turnout in Virginia in the 1998 election — the last time Members of Congress stood for election without a presidential or Senate contest above them on the ballot — to election years with statewide contests because seven of the state’s 11 House Members in the 1998 election ran without major party opposition in November.

None of the four who had opposition that cycle faced a serious threat, so the fact that they, like their unopposed colleagues, saw total turnout plummet doesn’t necessarily say something about turnout in 2010.

Still, Democratic strategists have to be worried about what effect the lack of a statewide contest will have on turnout. They certainly are aware of the problem, and they will be forced to pour additional resources into those districts to ensure that turnout in competitive Congressional districts doesn’t plunge.

None of this means that the endangered Democrats will lose. The two parties have very different views on the extent to which Adler is vulnerable, and the DCCC has the resources it will need to boost Democratic turnout in states where other races on the ballot could lull Democratic voters to sleep.

Still, with turnout a key factor, Democratic Party strategists will have to pay some additional attention to certain states, and New Jersey and Virginia will likely be on the list.

This column first appeared in Roll Call and on CQPolitics.com on April 12, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Friday, April 09, 2010

Michigan 1 Moved to Toss-Up

Michigan Cong. Bart Stupak's (D) retirement creates another open seat opportunity for the Republicans. The 1st District is competitive, but in this political climate, Republicans may have the slight edge. Since the seat has been open for all of a few hours, it will take a few weeks for the candidate fields to solidify. For now, we've moved the race to Toss-Up.

We just finished our House Overview, so subscribers to the print edition of The Rothenberg Political Report will get the first look at our ratings changes (in almost four dozen other races) early next week. Stay tuned...

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

Pure Toss-Up (1 R, 12 D)
  • AR 1 (Open; Berry, D)
  • AR 2 (Open; Snyder, D)
  • CO 4 (Markey, D)
  • IL 10 (Open; Kirk, R)
  • IN 8 (Open; Ellsworth, D)
  • MI 1 (Open; Stupak, D) *
  • MI 7 (Schauer, D)
  • NH 1 (Shea-Porter, D)
  • NH 2 (Open; Hodes, D)
  • NY 29 (Open; Massa, D) Special Election
  • PA 7 (Open; Sestak, D)
  • TN 8 (Open; Tanner, D)
  • WA 3 (Open; Baird, D)
Toss-Up/Tilt Republican (0 R, 10 D)
  • AL 2 (Bright, D)
  • FL 8 (Grayson, D)
  • ID 1 (Minnick, D)
  • KS 3 (Open; Moore, D)
  • MD 1 (Kratovil, D)
  • MS 1 (Childers, D)
  • NM 2 (Teague, D)
  • OH 1 (Driehaus, D)
  • OH 15 (Kilroy, D)
  • VA 5 (Perriello, D)
Lean Republican (3 R, 2 D)
  • CA 3 (Lungren, R)
  • LA 3 (Open; Melancon, D)
  • PA 6 (Gerlach, R)
  • TN 6 (Open; Gordon, D)
  • WA 8 (Reichert, R)
Republican Favored (8 R, 0 D)
  • CA 44 (Calvert, R)
  • CA 45 (Bono Mack, R)
  • MN 3 (Paulsen, R)
  • MN 6 (Bachmann, R)
  • NE 2 (Terry, R)
  • OH 2 (Schmidt, R)
  • OH 12 (Tiberi, R)
  • PA 15 (Dent, R)
Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic (0 R, 3 D)
  • FL 24 (Kosmas, D)
  • IL 14 (Foster, D)
  • VA 2 (Nye, D)
Lean Democratic (0 R, 10 D)
  • HI 1 (Open; Abercrombie, D) Special Election
  • IN 9 (Hill, D)
  • MO 4 (Skelton, D)
  • NV 3 (Titus, D)
  • NY 1 (Bishop, D)
  • NY 19 (Hall, D)
  • NY 23 (Owens, D)
  • NY 24 (Arcuri, D)
  • SC 5 (Spratt, D)
  • WV 1 (Mollohan, D)
Democrat Favored (2 R, 24 D)
  • AZ 5 (Mitchell, D)
  • AZ 8 (Giffords, D)
  • CO 3 (Salazar, D)
  • CA 11 (McNerney, D)
  • CA 47 (Sanchez, D)
  • CT 5 (Murphy, D)
  • DE A-L (Open; Castle, R)
  • GA 8 (Marshall, D)
  • IA 3 (Boswell, D)
  • LA 2 (Cao, R)
  • MA 10 (Open; Delahunt, D)
  • NY 13 (McMahon, D)
  • NY 20 (Murphy, D)
  • NC 8 (Kissell, D)
  • ND A-L (Pomeroy, D)
  • NJ 3 (Adler, D)
  • OH 16 (Boccieri, D)
  • OH 18 (Space, D)
  • PA 4 (Altmire, D)
  • PA 8 (Murphy, D)
  • PA 10 (Carney, D)
  • PA 11 (Kanjorski, D)
  • PA 12 (Open; Murtha, D) Special Election
  • PA 17 (Holden, D)
  • SD A-L (Herseth Sandlin, D)
  • TX 17 (Edwards, D)
  • VA 9 (Boucher, D)
  • WI 8 (Kagen, D)
Total seats in play: 77
Republican seats: 14
Democratic seats: 63

PA Senate Polling: Burn After Reading?

By Nathan L. Gonzales

With the proliferation of polling this cycle, political junkies, journalists and party strategists are swimming in a sea of numbers. With each new survey that is released, the party that is ahead touts the results while the party that trails disparages and discounts the pollster. Rinse and repeat.

But divergent poll results aren’t necessarily the result of a partisan agenda. An examination of seven polls over six weeks in the Pennsylvania Senate race demonstrates varying methodologies and, more importantly, a difference of opinion on the makeup of the electorate in November.

Instead of just reading the top-line results, it’s necessary to examine dates and sample sizes and digest the poll in context. Unfortunately, context is often a casualty in the current 24/7 churn of the news cycle.

Beginning in late February, a Quinnipiac University poll showed Sen. Arlen Specter (D) ahead of former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) by 7 points in a general election matchup. A week later, Susquehanna Polling and Research (R) showed Toomey with a 6-point advantage. A couple days after that, a Research 2000 survey done for the liberal Web site Daily Kos gave Specter a 6-point edge. Five days later, Rasmussen Reports had Toomey up by 9 points, and then Franklin and Marshall College showed the Republican with a narrower 4-point lead.

More recently, a Public Policy Polling (D) survey showed Toomey with a statistically insignificant lead and, in a Quinnipiac poll released Thursday, the former GOP Congressman was up by 5 points. Click here to see the chart of all seven polls and details of the samples.

So what happened? Why so much movement in a race seven months away from Election Day?

Even though the polls were taken against the backdrop of the escalating health care fight on Capitol Hill, the Senate campaigns were not engaged in heavy paid media campaigns that often affect poll results.

Instead, the varying results were likely because of a difference in methodologies, and if the margins of error are applied correctly, the polls are not that far off from each other.

At this stage of the cycle, pollsters are still looking at different samples of people. Susquehanna, Research 2000, and Rasmussen surveyed likely voters while Quinnipiac, PPP, and Franklin and Marshall polled registered voters. Comparing the two different groups is wrong.

“I don’t know why people pay attention to polls of people who aren’t going to vote,” said Jon Lerner of Red Sea Communications, who is polling for Toomey.

“Registered samples, as you get closer, are useless,” according to Research 2000’s Del Ali, who added that they aren’t necessarily a problem months out from Election Day.

“The importance of likely voters gets greater as Election Day approaches. [But] it seems a stretch that [the likely voter pool] you’re envisioning today will hold up to Election Day,” explained Berwood Yost, head methodologist of the Franklin and Marshall College poll. “Voters aren’t sure about the campaigns and aren’t paying attention.”

Franklin and Marshall and Quinnipiac will be switching to likely voter samples later this cycle.

So, how does this affect the survey results?

“I believe that the likely voter model will be more favorable to Republicans,” Scott Rasmussen told Roll Call, noting the increased enthusiasm of the GOP and general historical midterm trends against the party in power. “I don’t believe that there is a Republican resurgence,” added Rasmussen, whose polls are often criticized as being GOP-friendly. “It’s a resistance to Democratic rule ... the inverse of 2006 and 2008.”

But that doesn’t explain Research 2000’s poll of likely voters, which had Specter with a significant lead. The age of the electorate is becoming a critical point of contention.

“That’s the magic question,” laughed Ali of Research 2000, whose March 8-10 survey had 18-to-29-year-olds making up 14 percent of the sample and Specter leading by 6 points, 47 percent to 41 percent. Younger voters (18-29) made up 18 percent of the electorate in 2008 and 11 percent in the 2006 midterm elections, according to exit polling.

“I don’t look at exit polls as gospel,” Ali said. “I’m not so much etched in stone that every midterm electorate will be the same.” The pollster has seen the number of younger voters decrease over the past year in other polls he’s conducted. Younger voters made up 16 percent of the sample in Ali’s August poll in Pennsylvania.

Republicans believe the midterm electorate will be significantly older than the one that showed up to vote in 2008, and consequently more friendly to GOP candidates. Steven Shepard of National Journal recently compared R2K’s sample with Susquehanna, which had 18-to-29-year-olds making up just 5 percent of the sample and Toomey with a 42 percent to 36 percent advantage.

Rasmussen evaluates exit polls and adjusts the sample compared to trends in his monthly national tracking survey, among other factors. Younger voters made up 9 percent of the Rasmussen poll, which had Toomey ahead 49 percent to 40 percent.

However, age does not always determine the outcome of the ballot tests. The February Quinnipiac and March Franklin and Marshall surveys pegged younger voters similarly making up 12 percent and 11 percent of the vote, both sampled registered voters, and each poll had a different leader. The Franklin and Marshall poll was taken at the height of the health care debate and could have picked up GOP enthusiasm.

In some cases, divergent poll results can be explained by the partisanship of the sample. In the Massachusetts special election, partisan pollsters disagreed about who would show up to vote. But the partisan makeup of the sample may not matter as much in the Keystone State.

“The high level of two-party registration masks the divisions within the party,” Lerner said. Party registration usually reflects base support, but the two-party registration is so high that there are many “soft” partisan voters in those numbers.

Pennsylvania has an extremely high rate of two-party registration: 51 percent Democratic, 37 percent Republican and 12 percent others. In comparison, even though Massachusetts is a Democratic state, it’s only 37 percent Democratic, 12 percent Republican and 51 percent unenrolled or others. Identifying the number of independents is critical because those voters helped vault Republicans to victory in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections in 2009 and in Massachusetts.

There are other considerations when evaluating polling such as random digit dial versus polling off a voter file, question wording and interactive voice response versus live callers.

Even though party operatives handling polling results like hand grenades, the pollsters themselves are much more deferential.

“It troubles me from an industry standpoint that when polls come out, people instantly decide who to root for,” Rasmussen said. “I believe you learn from all the polls out there.”

By the end of the month, Rasmussen will have polled in every Senate and gubernatorial race in the country and plans to poll at least once a month in the competitive races through Election Day.

“He’s accurate based on his weighting. I feel good about our numbers based on our weighting,” Ali said about Rasmussen. Like any election, this year’s results will boil down to who shows up to vote. “The jury is still out,” Ali added about the November electorate, “How does anyone know that?”

This story first appeared on RollCall.com on CQPolitics.com on April 8, 2010. 2010 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Thursday, April 08, 2010

Cuomo Endorses Castle?

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Doing a little spring cleaning this week, I came across New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s book, Crossroads: The Future of American Politics, written and edited in the wake of Cuomo’s primary loss in the 2002 gubernatorial race.

Since he is the heavy favorite to win the Empire State’s governorship this fall, I decided to crack open the book to try to uncover some hidden gems.

“I have asked forty-one of the nation’s most thoughtful citizens to address the current state of American politics,” Cuomo wrote in the book’s introduction. One of those citizens is Republican Congressman and candidate for the U.S. Senate Mike Castle of Delaware.

The introduction to Castle’s chapter is even more glowing as it describes the Republican’s ideology as “focusing his efforts on finding pragmatic, bipartisan solutions to some of the most pressing problems facing the nation.”

Those are kind words, but not something Castle will want to take to a Tea Party. It doesn’t look like Castle will need to dust off the quotes in his race this year, but you never know.

Cuomo is up big in his own race this year, but he may be interested in helping Republicans recruit a top tier candidate.

“I believe in checks and balances and the two-party system,” Cuomo wrote in 2003. “Each party serves the nation better when faced with stiff opposition from the other party. The old adage is true: your game is only as good as the person on the other side of the net. To that end, a vigorous debate between two viable parties (at a minimum) is essential.”

Of course that was written at a time when Democrats were on their heels and in the minority. Cuomo might have a different definition of checks and balances today.

Looking back, Cuomo compiled an interesting collection of “thoughtful citizens” that demonstrates how people’s profiles change over time. Former Sen. John Edwards was an aspiring presidential candidate who is now known for his marital problems and then-Gov. Gray Davis (D) was recalled by California voters within the same year that the book was published. On the other hand, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi ascended to become the Speaker of the House.