Chris Good’s post “Does Voting For Health Reform Hurt Conservative Dems? Democratic Polling Says No” at the ‘Politics’ blog of The Atlantic leads the ‘must-read’ list for political operatives and activists. Good explains:

39 Democrats voted against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) health care reform package…These lawmakers represent conservative districts–31 of 39 of which backed McCain in 2008–and the Democratic health care reform (whatever that may be, exactly) is opposed, on average, by most Americans–even though some reputable polls have shown strong, some would say overwhelming, support for the public option.
It stands to reason that, in the most conservative districts held by Democrats, voters are at least as cool on reform.
Democratic polling, however, says this isn’t the case, and, while partisan-commissioned polling should always be looked at with a suspect eye, that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth looking at.

Good rolls out the data for the swing districts held by Dems, “the polling the left has done–and it’s really all we have to go on” First, from Good’s overview of GQR/DCorps polling of LVs:

A poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlian Rosner for Democratic polling, research, and strategy firm Democracy Corps October 6-11, meanwhile, shows voters in the 20 most vulnerable Democratic seats think Republicans are doing a “better job” on health care, 46-42.
But in the 20 next-most vulnerable seats, the “tier 2” Democratic targets, voters said Democrats are doing a better job than Republicans on health care, by a margin of 47-40–a pretty solid preference for Democrats.

Good also presents conclusions based on data from Anzalone Liszt Research, commissioned by Health Care for America Now! in September, indicating “residents of districts held by Blue Dog Democrats say major health care reforms are necessary by a margin of 57-41” and “When the Democratic plan is described, they support it 50-43.” Good acknowledges that polls commissioned by political parties and other interested groups generally have a bias built into the questions, and then he quotes one of the key questions asked LV respondents:

Let me give you a little more information about the health insurance reform plan in Congress, and get your reaction
Under the plan, insurance companies would be required to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and couldn’t charge more or cancel if you get sick. People could keep their existing insurance, but if they aren’t covered at work they could choose between private insurance plans and a new public health insurance option. Everyone would be required to have health insurance, and families of four making less than eighty-eight thousand dollars would receive a discount. Small businesses would receive tax credits to help them provide coverage, and large companies would be required to either provide health insurance, or pay a tax to help employees buy their own coverage. The plan would be paid for with cost savings in the healthcare system, and higher taxes on households making over three hundred fifty thousand dollars a year.

LVs in Blue Dog districts supported the reforms by a margin of 50-43.
So, given the data indicating favorable support for the public option and other key reforms, why do these House members continue to oppose the Democratic health care reform proposals? It’s not hard to find opinions — everything from their financial contributions by private insurers and pharmaceutical companies to a belief that these majorities, even if real, are maleable and not based on deeply-held beliefs to ignorance and unwarranted fear of ‘tea-bagger’ protests. But the data does indicate that there is strong constituent support for far-reaching health care reform even in Blue Dog districts, and this gives reform advocates something to work with as they seek to firm it up.

Not to put too much lipstick on the ’09 elections pig, but Rhodes Cook has a positive (for Dems) perspective at Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball that merits a read. From Cook’s “’09 Elections: Some Parting Thoughts“:

…The Republicans did not emerge from this month’s elections unscathed. Their loss of a historically GOP House seat in upstate New York exposed the party’s own problem–their ongoing failure to win free-standing special congressional elections even on favorable terrain….The loss in upstate New York marked the fourth time since the beginning of 2008 that the Democrats picked up a previously Republican House seat in a special election, with no similar takeaways by the GOP.
The Democratic special election gains have not been localized in one part of the country, but rather have been scattered across the map–two in the deep South, one in the Midwest and now one in the rural Northeast, a loss that transforms the partisan count of House seats in the Empire State to Democrats 27, Republicans 2.

Cook provides some details on the other three House races, and makes a convincing argument, based on our losses of the governorships of VA and NJ, that the key demographic going forward for Dems is geographic — it’s about the ‘burbs:

The Democrats’ suburban collapse was not a problem unique to Virginia. It was replicated in Democratic New Jersey, where suburban Middlesex County (outside New York City) and Burlington County (outside Philadelphia) switched from the Obama column in 2008 to Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie in 2009.
This may ultimately be the biggest test for Democrats in 2010–to reclaim the upper hand in the nation’s suburbs. With the Democrats enjoying hegemony in the major cities and Republicans in rural and small-town America, the suburbs are the balance of power in 21st century politics, a major source of independent voters and the prime battleground for the two parties.
Suburban support was a cornerstone of Democratic victories in the elections of 2006 and 2008. But in 2009, the vote-rich suburbs of Virginia and New Jersey showed significant movement to the Republicans, giving them the upper hand in the gubernatorial contests in both states.

It’s an interesting perspective. Might be good for some of the creative thinkers in the Democratic Party to begin focusing on how to address the most critical concerns of suburban voters.

Mark Mellman has a post up at The Hill, “Lessons from Elections ’09,” which makes an interesting point about turnout in last week’s election, that “President Obama did a relatively better job rallying the African-American community for Jon Corzine in 2009 than he did for himself in 2008.” Mellman, president of The Mellman Group (political consultants) explains that “African-Americans constituted a greater share of the New Jersey electorate this November than last,” and adds:

Turnout was not the culprit in Virginia, either. In Alexandria, turnout was down by fewer than 1,000 voters, compared to 2005. Gov. Tim Kaine (D) won it by 50 points then; Creigh Deeds by far less — 32 points — this year. Arlington witnessed an uptick in participation, but the percentage of the vote won by the Democrat plunged…In short, these Democrats lost not because they failed to turn out voters, but rather because they had too few voters to turn out.

Hard to avoid the conclusion that we had flawed candidates in those states. next year, however, could be a very different story, says Mellman. “…By then the environment is likely to be meaningfully altered.”
TDS contributor Chris Bowers concurrs — to a point. But he elaborates with some skepticism in his OpenLeft post, “Which is the bigger problem, lower Democratic turnout or voter shift toward Republicans?”

Over at Pollster.com, Charles Franklin looks at the data in New Jersey and Virginia. He concludes that a shift of Democratic-voters toward Republicans was a bigger factor in the Democratic defeats in those states than was the lower turnout among (mostly young) Democrats.
Franklin’s conclusions are not entirely convincing, because it is difficult to separate the two variables from each other. For example, the large shift among Independents toward Republicans was partially caused by lower turnout among young, Democratic-leaning Independents. The pro-Republican shift among Independents was not just caused by Independents switching their vote from Democrats to Republicans.
However, even if it is not possible to definitely prove whether lower Democratic turnout or voter shift to Republicans is the main problem facing Democrats, even attempting such a determination may present a false choice. First, both of these problems exist, and so addressing only one is always only a partial strategy. Second, there may well be ways to appeal to both disillusioned voters and to swing voters at the same time.

Bowers cites a range of other factors and concludes, “the best strategies will reject an either / or of exciting the base and appealing to swing voters as an unnecessary false choice.”

It’s frequently said that change comes to California before it comes to the rest of the nation, and if that’s the case America may be in for a rocky ride, according to a new report, published by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, in conjunction with Public Opinion Strategies. The report, based on a survey of 1,500 CA RVs for the L.A. Times and the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, indicates that widespread discontent with state leadership may be creating a political vaccuum. From the exec summary:

Results reveal that voters in California are deeply pessimistic about where things currently stand in their state and are very unhappy with their state leaders. The State Legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger both receive very low approval ratings and it seems that these low marks are more driven by voters’ disappointment with their leaders than anger. Despite their unhappiness voters resist all of the changes presented to them that would help shore up the large budget deficit and eliminate some of the gridlock in Sacramento.

An L.A. Times article by Evan Halper based on the study, reports,

More than a third of those polled said they or a family member had lost a job in the last year. Nearly half said they or someone in their family had been hit with a cut in take-home pay, and 57% said their investments or those of family members had dropped by more than a quarter.
The recession’s impact is particularly strong among blacks and Latinos, with 57% of Latinos and 41% of blacks in the survey saying they or someone in their family had lost a job as a result of the recession. Among Latinos, 21% reported a home foreclosure, a number more than twice the overall rate of those surveyed.
Nearly a quarter of those polled said they or someone in their family had lost healthcare coverage as a result of the recession. And 27% said they or someone in their family had put off or canceled a medical appointment or prescription in the last year because of the cost.

Further,

Amid tough times, “voters seem uninterested in budgetary innovation,” said Stan Greenberg, one of the two pollsters who supervised the survey. His Republican counterpart, Neil Newhouse, concurred, saying the poll indicated widespread voter “distrust” of proposed reforms, in favor of a focus on cutting spending and reducing the power of special interests.
…A solid majority, 65%, opposed plans to place sales tax-like levies on services such as legal advice and car repairs. A proposal to flatten the income tax to make the state less dependent on the wealthy was opposed by 48% of voters and supported by just 33%. The nonpartisan panel had endorsed the argument made by many budget experts that income taxes from wealthy residents make state finances too erratic because they rise and fall dramatically as the stock market moves.
Another proposal being pushed by budget reformers, although not the commission, would ease the restrictions on property tax increases put in place three decades ago by Proposition 13. That idea was also unpopular. Just 30% of voters support such changes even if they would affect only commercial property and not residences.

Another L.A. Times report on the survey by Cathleen Decker indicates that there is an emerging opportunity for Democrats:

Read more…

Mike Lux has a HuffPo post on the House health care reform vote which provides some illuminating observations about the struggle to unify Democrats in support of the measure, including this tribute to Speaker Pelosi’s leadership:

Nancy Pelosi deserves enormous credit for finding a way to get this done. Like all progressives, I am deeply unhappy with the abortion language that was allowed to be voted into this bill. That language is unacceptable and has to be changed in conference committee. But I was looking at the vote count on Friday night too, and we really were done unless that vote was allowed. There were literally no good choices at that moment, because to let the bill fail or pull the bill from being voted on would have caused everything to get unraveled. We still have a very good chance at stripping this terribly restrictive anti-abortion language in conference committee, and need to keep fighting to do that.
On the final vote, the whipping process was intense and impressive. Democratic leaders I have known in the past have rarely played this kind of hardball, but some kneecaps were broken Saturday night to get these votes, and the Speaker did a masterful job of doing every little thing that needed to be done. She gave no passes to people, and she was very clear there would have been consequences to all who voted no. She got the job done.

After giving due credit to the leadership, Lux has a scold for both the single-payer and Blue Dog purists:

On the other hand, there are some Democrats I am appalled by. As a 30-year supporter of single-payer, and with full knowledge of the imperfections in this bill, I am angry that single-payer supporters Kucinich and Massa were happy to let any hope of health care reform for a generation die because the bill wasn’t everything we hoped it would be. To let another generation go by where tens of thousands of people die every year from being under-insured, and have the insurance companies continue to be allowed to screw people over preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, and recessions is just wrong.
Then there is the large collection of Blue Dogs who care nothing about the President or the Democratic Party’s top priority, let alone all those people without insurance. After all that Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi did for these reps in the 2006 and 2008 elections, all the money and time and staff and consultant help they gave them, for those Blue Dogs to walk away on the biggest issue, when they were needed the most, is a sign of their selfishness…They are also dumb about their own political fate: if Democrats don’t deliver, Democratic base voters will walk away in massive numbers, and it will be the people in marginal districts that will suffer the most.

Lux names and thanks the conservative Dem House Reps who supported the party on this crucial vote and looks to the future with confidence that Dems will soon pass a transformational health care reform bill, “making history when we do.”

If you suspect that the oft-repeated meme that last week’s elections were about local concerns, rather than national politics is a bit overstated, The New Republic has a couple of posts that add some clarity. First up is
WaPo columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr., author of the recently published Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who explains:

Democrats will highlight Obama’s continued strong approval ratings in New Jersey as part of their larger argument that these contests were local in character. But the disaffection in both Virginia and New Jersey–and the unexpected narrowness of New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s re-election margin, despite his record-breaking campaign spending — should worry all incumbents, particularly governors seeking re-election next year. And after their strong showings in the last two national elections, Democrats happen to constitute a large share of the pool of incumbents.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, as he made his way to Corzine’s concession speech at a hotel here, said he sees an electorate in a dark mood. “There are two things happening,” the New Jersey Democrat noted. “One is fear. The other is punishment. Voters fear for themselves and their families, and they want to punish anyone who got them into this condition.”
What Lautenberg underscored is a spirit far different than the buoyant confidence Barack Obama inspired a year ago. And the Obama change-agents, particularly the young, were notably absent from the voting booths this week. In Virginia, a state Obama carried comfortably last year, a majority of those who showed up to vote on Tuesday said they had backed John McCain. This much more Republican electorate produced a GOP landslide all the way down the Virginia ballot.
That is the fact from this week that Democrats would be fools to ignore. It’s not a resurgent right wing that should trouble Obama’s party…for the moment, the thrill is gone from politics, and that is very dangerous for the mainstream progressive movement that Obama promised to build.

TNR Sr. Editor John B. Judis also cites Democratic base-neglect, and the economy in particular. According to Judis,

There are two reasons, I think, for the lack of enthusiasm. The first is the continuing economic slump (according to some economists, we can no longer say “recession.”) As I have argued before, rising unemployment almost inevitably makes presidents unpopular. And if unemployment rises above ten percent, and stays there for 2010, the Democrats are going to be in trouble in 2010. Their base will not come out, and swing voters will decide to take a chance on the other party.
The economists in the White House may have good grounds for believing that unemployment will begin to fall by next June without the equivalent of a second stimulus. But if they don’t believe this, or are not sure about it, then the Obama administration better find ways to dole out more money. Increases in spending like this will cause howls of disbelief from the far right and from the would-be centrists, but these kind of measures–and not a further urge to compromise–are what will help the party’s prospects in 2010.
The second reason has more to do with the administration’s political style. While making much of his community organizing background, Obama has failed to keep the Democratic–and more broadly, liberal–base enthusiastic and committed. There is simply no feeling of a political movement or a crusade among the Democratic grassroots the way there was, say, among Republicans and conservatives during a comparable time in Ronald Reagan’s first term.

And the best response, according to Judis:

…Obama has cultivated an insider style of politics aimed at Congress rather than the public. This is not to say that Obama should hold out for a single-payer health insurance program or nationalize the banks. Like Reagan, Obama should be ready to compromise–and also, obviously, to propose actions that will actually work. But in putting forward their programs, Obama and the White House have to begin to wage more of a public campaign that touches upon the ideals of social justice that got him into office. He has to make clear to voters and to what remains of a political movement that he is not just on their side, but fighting for them. He hasn’t quite done so, and that is one reason for the difficulties he and the Democrats encountered in this month’s elections.

With respect to next year’s mid-terms, the challenge to re-ignite the base is clear for Obama, the Democratic Party — and progressive activists alike.

If you like a blog that both skewers low-watt political commentary and provides an important reality check about a much misunderstood political category, read Nate Silver’s post “Independent Voters and Empty Explanations” at FiveThirtyEight.com.
Silver begins by quoting from articles by writers who should know better, including Karl Rove, all in agreement that ‘Independent voters’ hurt the Dems in Tuesday’s elections — to which Silver responds:

This is what passes for analysis nowadays.
Why did Democrats lose in Virginia and New Jersey on Tuesday? Because independent voters moved against them, say the pundits…This is true, insofar as it goes; Democrats lost independents nearly 2:1 in the gubernatorial race in Virginia, and by a 25-point margin in New Jersey.
But it doesn’t really tell us very much. It’s a lot like saying: the Yankees won the Game 6 last night because they scored more runs than the Phillies. Or: the unemployment rate went up because there were fewer jobs.

Silver then provides a reminder course in J-101:

But in politics, it’s not the proximate cause we’re interested in but the ultimate one. Yes: independents went mostly for Republicans in New Jersey and Virginia (we could have inferred this without having to look at the exit poll). Yes, this “caused” the Democratic defeats. But what caused the independents to move against the Democrats? That’s what we’re really interested in, since that’s what will have implications for future elections.
Too often in “mainstream” political analysis, once it is pointed out that independents have swung in one or another direction, the analysis stops. The pundit inserts his own opinion about what caused the independent vote to shift (“Obama’s far-reaching proposals and mounting spending”, says the Washington Post), without citing any evidence. It’s a neat trick, and someone who isn’t paying attention is liable to conclude that the pundit has actually said something interesting.

Ouch, sayeth the punditry. Now, some poly sci for grown-ups from Silver’s post:

Part of the problem is that ‘independents’ are not a particularly coherent group. At a minimum, the category of ‘independents’ includes:
1) People who are mainline Democrats or Republicans for all intents and purposes, but who reject the formality of being labeled as such;
2) People who have a mix of conservative and liberal views that don’t fit neatly onto the one-dimensional political spectrum, such as libertarians;
3) People to the extreme left or the extreme right of the political spectrum, who consider the Democratic and Republican parties to be equally contemptible;
4) People who are extremely disengaged from politics and who may not have fully-formed political views;
5) True-blue moderates;
6) Members of organized third parties.
These voters have almost nothing to do with each other and yet they all get grouped under the same umbrella as ‘independents’. But that’s getting away from the point. Independent voters are treated as a cause, when all that they really are is a symptom. The key is in figuring out what ails the patient.

If anything more pertinent has ever been said about “independent voters,” do share.

Others may dither, but Thomas Schaller cuts to the chase today over at FiveThirtyEight.com with his post “The Big 2010 Question“:

…The big question for both parties–and particularly the Democrats–is one I raised this morning on MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan show: How replicable is Barack Obama’s precedent-setting presidential coalition in an off-year election?
It’s easy to just say, well, it’s not replicable. Of course it isn’t exactly replicable. The so-called “Obama surge” voters clearly will not turn out at the same rates, and thus not constitute the same proportion of the electorate a year from now that they did a year ago. So the question really is, To what degree, along some continuum between the 2008 presidential electorate and the ones from the 2009 elections this week, will 2010 look like one or other other? And looking backward may provide poor guidance: Because there’s never been an electorate assembled like the one Obama did in 2008, we’ve also never had a post-Obama midterm cycle.

Schaller then asks what may be an even bigger question, this one directed at Team Obama:

…I want to start this series of posts with a very simple question that is, more or less, directed at the Obama White House political operation, and can be rather simply stated: One year out, what are you planning to do in order to safeguard your newly-acquired congressional, gubernatorial and even state legislative majorities?

Schaller continues with a series of thought-provoking ‘sub-questions’ regarding: agenda-setting; candidates; contacting and turnout; and messaging, followed by a lengthening list of reader comments, some of which are equally perceptive. This one’s a must-read.

Chris Bowers has an Open Left post that taps exit poll data to reveal the influence of the youth vote, or rather the lack of it, in the NJ and VA gubernatorial election outcomes. Bowers presents charts depicting a significant decline in the percentage of voters 18-29 and 29-44 for both states, and explains:

About two-thirds of Christie’s victory margin can be accounted for by this shift in the age of the electorate. While Deeds still would have been wiped out even with the 2008 age composition of the electorate, the change there is no less striking:..In Virginia, Democrats went from a 39-33 advantage in party ID, to a 33-37 deficit. In New Jersey, Democrats went from a 44-28 advantage, to a 41-31 advantage.

Bowers concludes “Republicans seem to have gained another 3-4%, simply from turnout differential based on age,” and adds “…the lack turnout among voters under the age of 45 threatens to cost Democrats more votes than any other factor.” It’s understandable, says Bowers, because “…younger voters have been hit hardest by the recession, and that they tend to not turnout in off-year elections.”
Bowers is skeptical that the Blue Dogs and beltway insider Dems will address the age gap. Let’s hope our mid-term candidates are paying more attention.

It would be hard to find a more astute observer of Virginia politics than Larry J. Sabato, Director, U.Va. Center for Politics and head wizard at Larry J. Sabato’s CrystalBall website. Although it’s been well-reported that Democratic turnout and especially African American turnout were critical factors in the NJ and VA gubernatorial elections, just to flesh it out a bit, here’s a couple of nuggets regarding VA turnout from his “Sabato’s Fun Facts–Election ’09” post today:

…In Virginia, one result of absentee Democrats was the lowest voter turnout for a gubernatorial election in the state’s modern two-party history (1969 to 2009). The 2009 turnout of 39.8 percent of the registered voters was the lowest in forty years. Even with all the population growth since 2005, the absolute voter turnout in 2009 (1.97 million) fell below that of four years ago (2.0 million). And the electorate was barely more than half that of 2008 (3.7 million). Astounding.

And the African American vote in particular:

…In a sampling of heavily black precincts around Virginia. Even though Creigh Deeds received a larger percentage of the black vote (93 percent) than the previous Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Tim Kaine, in 2005 (90 percent), the turnout was miserable for Deeds–more than 10 full percentage points lower. He received many fewer African-American votes than Kaine, despite near-unanimous backing from blacks who cast a ballot.

And while you’re at the CrystalBall, read Alan Abramowitz’s post-mortem, “What Happens in Virginia and New Jersey, Stays in Virginia and New Jersey,” which provides elegant numbers-crunching to verify that the data,

…provides no support for the belief that the Virginia and New Jersey results predict what will happen across the entire nation next year or that these elections constituted referenda on President Obama’s performance. Instead, the Democratic defeats in Virginia and New Jersey reflected a combination of normal turnout patterns favoring the out-party in off-year elections and the weaknesses of the Democratic candidates in both states.

Abramowitz expects Democratic losses in the mid-terms next year, the extent of which would at that time more likely be linked to how voters “evaluate the performance of President Obama.”