washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

staff

Sabato: Turnout Sealed GOP Win in VA

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.”


TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira: Chill, Dems

TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira’s op-ed in The New York Times provides one of the better antidotes for all of the hyper-ventillating about Republicans winning the governorships of VA and NJ. From Teixeira’s chill-pill:

Start with the predictive value of the Virginia and New Jersey victories: there is none. Sometimes the party that wins both those governorships gains seats in the next Congressional election; sometimes that party loses seats. Far more consequential is the historical pattern that the new president’s party tends to lose seats in the first midterm election. Once that is taken into account, as the political scientist Alan Abramowitz of Emory University has shown, victories in Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races tell you nothing about who will gain seats in 2010 or how large that gain will be.

Teixeira shreds the GOP’s “Obama was repudiated” meme, noting,

In New Jersey…it’s significant that Mr. Obama’s approval rating among 2009 voters (57 percent) was identical to the percent of the vote he received there in 2008. In Virginia, while the president’s 2009 approval rating was 5 points less than his 2008 voting result, the 2009 electorate was also far more conservative than last year’s. Besides being far older and whiter than in 2008, the voters in Virginia on Tuesday said they had supported John McCain last November by 8 points, meaning they were not favorably inclined toward President Obama to begin with. In fact, given that only 43 percent of these voters said they supported Mr. Obama last November, his 48 percent approval rating among them does not indicate a shift away from him but rather toward him.

Teixeira also points out that the GOP defeat NY-23 — one of the most staunchly conservative districts in America –provides a grim omen for a party that is now dominated by conservatives, and especially for “those in the party seeking to emulate the electoral strategies of Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey,” both of whom tried to “cover up the conservatism of their views” on key issues. “That was relatively easy to do in governors’ races in an off-year election,” says Teixeira. “It will be harder for candidates to do in national elections in 2010 and especially 2012.”


Creamer and Lux: Dems Must Learn the Lessons, Act Boldly

No election post-mortem would be complete without insights from a couple of Democratic luminaries and occasional TDS contributors named Mike Lux and Robert Creamer, both of whom are posting at the HuffPo: Here’s Lux’s take:

Let me try to explain this to the caution captains in my party. There are two reasons we lost those Governors’ races yesterday, and they are closely related: voters are in a foul mood, and base Democrats – young folks, unmarried women, minorities – didn’t come out.
Let’s just spend a minute talking about the economy. Unless we start to produce a whole lot more jobs than even the optimists are projecting right now, voters are going to be in a really foul mood a year from now when they go to vote…And for the young people who haven’t found decent jobs, economically struggling single women, and minority voters who overwhelmingly voted for Obama and other Democrats in 2008 and 2010, they could well be feeling that they haven’t seen change they can believe in, that they haven’t seen the Democrats they voted for and in many cases worked for delivering anything that matters to their lives, and that will make them very tough to get out to vote. That’s what happened in NJ and VA this year, and it is incumbent on Democrats to change that dynamic in time for the election in 2010…In the face of a weak economy, angry voters, and a discouraged Democratic base, Democrats have exactly one chance at surviving the elections a year from now: deliver the goods.
…We are going to need to craft a strategy for winning that is based on deserving to win because we delivered important, tangible things that mattered to voters, things that make angry voters understand that we share their anger and are doing something to change things so their lives will be better, and things that help Democratic base voters feel like it is worth voting again.

And from Creamer’s “Four Lesson’s for Democrats in Tuesday’s Elections“:

First and foremost, the results show that it is critical that the Democratic message be framed in populist terms…Not surprisingly voters are unhappy. Ten percent unemployment, rising health care bills and shrinking incomes will do that. All of these problems resulted from the Republican policies of the previous eight years and the conservative values frame of the last thirty years. They have been caused by the concentration of power in Wall Street, the big health insurance companies and the dominant role of corporate special interests in Washington…But if Democrats do not clearly frame the debate in those terms, it is easy for voters to vote against whoever is in power at the moment — which now happen to be Democrats.

In Creamer’s point #3, ‘inspire the base,’ he notes:

Without an inspired base, Democrats cannot hold our own in 2010 — it’s that simple…Success at making change will help renew the faith of Independents and also help energize the base. But to be inspired, the base of the Democratic Party must be convinced that the president and his party are the champions of core progressive principles as well. A hopeful populist frame is critical to motivate mobilizable voters.

Creamer’s points #2, addressing how to win independent voters and #4, a cautionary note that comes with benefiting from the Republicans’ ‘circular firing squad,’ also merit a read. Both Lux and Creamer are saying that the wrong take-away from the ’09 elections is for Dems to embrace centrist timidity and fear of real change in the mistaken belief that the election indicates that moderation is the wave of the future. Instead, winning in ’10 and ’12 will require a bold, unmistakable commitment to fighting for jobs and reforms that benefit working people, instead of Wall St.


The Big Ten (Elections Today)

The Governorships races in NJ and VA, along with the congressional race in NY-23 have gotten a lot of news coverage. But there is a lot more going on, election-wise, than just these three contests. For a quickie guide to today’s most interesting elections across the nation, check out CNN.com‘s “Ten Races Worth Watching.” The article has paragraphs on ‘Why it matters” and “What’s the story” for each of the ten races, plus video clips and links to more in-depth coverage for many of the ten run-downs. A sample:

Houston, Texas, mayor
Why it matters: The nation’s fourth-largest city could elect its first openly gay mayor.
What’s the story?: City Controller Annise Parker, who has been elected six times to citywide posts, has an even chance of winning, according to polls. Among her competitors are City Councilman Peter Brown and City Attorney Gene Locke.
Watch how a Texas candidate could make history
Houston Chronicle: Scouting report on mayoral race

If there are any trends with implications for national politics that can be identified, perhaps looking at the results of these ten races as a whole, rather than focusing on one or two, will provide some insight.


TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira: Right’s Blame Game Falls Flat

TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira’s latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’ at the Center for American Progress web pages takes a look at conservatives’ success in propagating the “It’s Obama’s fault” meme regarding health care and the economy. Teixeira shows pretty conclusively that the public isn’t buying it. On the economy:

…A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds just 20 percent blaming Obama’s policies for current economic conditions, compared to 63 percent who say this is a situation Obama has inherited.

On the difficulty of securing health care reform:

…A question in the same poll also asked respondents who was to blame for making health care reform legislation so difficult to pass. Almost half—49 percent—said “special interest groups such as big pharmaceutical and health insurance companies” deserved “a great deal of blame” and another 26 percent thought these special interests deserved “quite a bit of blame.” By comparison, just 18 percent thought Obama deserved a great deal of blame and another 20 percent thought he deserved quite a bit of blame. Almost three-fifths (58 percent) thought he deserved very little blame or none at all.

Teixeira adds “…The Bush administration and big insurance and pharmaceutical companies—are associated strongly with the conservatives and their policies. That should make conservatives very, very nervous.”


‘Progressive Legislative Exchanges’ Needed to Tap Dem Ideas

Veteran congressional staffer Bill Goold is doing some creative strategic thinking over at the HuffPo, where today he shares “Building Progressive Staying Power,” proposing the establishment of “a progressive legislative exchange” for shaping and refining ideas into legislative reforms. As Goold rolls it out:

The resurgent progressive movement needs to think more long-term, come together quickly, and systematically build a Progressive Legislative Exchange to share and hone a steady, perpetual stream of the best, actionable ideas that progressives and liberals, near and far, have to offer for public and private sector problem-solving. This is a very egalitarian, 21st century idea whose time has come and is all the more attainable because of the Internet and other far-flung communication capabilities. Progressive leaders and activists have it within our grasp to organize and create a permanent incubator and clearinghouse for conceptualizing and refining progressive legislation to serve the public interest and address myriad problems confronting our nation and our world that will connect and empower imaginative thinkers inside and outside of Congress as never before.
…Imagine an organized intersection on-line and otherwise through which progressives can exchange, funnel, and refine ideas and proposals for possible legislation that interested Members of Congress and their dedicated hard-working, over-stretched staff can easily survey and pick and choose for possible further development, introduction, and advancement in the House and Senate. Conversely, this Progressive Legislative Exchange could also make it possible for Members of Congress and their staff to efficiently post or otherwise make available any pieces of legislation they have conceived and want to further refine before the bill(s) and/or amendment(s) are formally introduced, subjected to hearings, and voted upon.

Among Goold’s interesting examples of ideas that can be shaped into legislation:

Provide a tax credit and other financial incentives to enable all taxpayers to invest more reliably in socially and environmentally responsible companies that employ Americans;

and,

Establish enforceable worker rights (e.g. freedom of association, prohibition against job discrimination) and environmental safeguards as cornerstones for all future U.S. trade agreements;

Goold cites a compelling need to “capitalize more fully upon this rare window of opportunity when lasting, historic change is attainable because of last year’s elections.” He see’s the exchanges as a unique way Dems can leverage “our existing comparative strengths,” including “a stronger hand in the free-wheeling intellectual marketplace of ideas” and faith in government, in glaring contrast to “the pinched, narrower marketplace of commercial ideas and self-interested, short-term profit-making” of the GOP.


TDS Co-Editor Bill Galston: Warning Flags for ‘Bold Action’

TDS Co-Editor William Galston has a post up at The New Republic, “Is the Public Ready for Bold Action?,” which makes an opinion data-based case that President Obama doesn’t have a lot of leeway remaining for audacious reforms regarding health care and other progressive initiatives. As Galston explains:

…Trust in government now stands at 23 percent—the lowest level in at least twelve years. A stunning 76 percent of Americans believe that the government in Washington will do the right thing only some of the time, or never. These statistics confirm the findings from a recent CBS/New York Times poll, and they suggest that proponents of government action must overcome deep skepticism….fully 53 percent of the respondents expressed the fear that if government gets more heavily involved in health care, it will just make matters worse. Similarly, the NBC/WSJ survey found 51 percent more concerned that government will end up “going too far and making the health care system worse than it now is in terms of quality of care and choice of doctor” versus only 44 percent concerned that the government will not do enough to lower costs and cover the uninsured.

Galston continues, limning the statistical decline in public confidence in the leadership of the President, congress and the political parties. He concludes “This bad news does not warrant the conclusion that the president’s program has been misguided. It does suggest, however, that the bold actions he has undertaken have taken a toll in public confidence and support.”


Juan Cole gives Obama high marks on policy on Iraq, Iran and Pakistan

Here’s what leading mid-east expert Cole says”

When Obama came into office in January, 142,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq, conducting regular patrols of the major cities. His Republican rivals were dead set against U.S. withdrawal on a strict timetable. He faced something close to an insurrection from some of his commanders in the field, such as Gen. Ray Odierno, who opposed a quick departure from Iraq. Moreover, Obama assumed the presidency at a time when Iran and the U.S. were virtually on a war footing and there had been no direct talks between the two countries on most of the major issues dividing them. In February, the government of Pakistan virtually ceded the Swat Valley and the Malakand Division to the Pakistani Taliban of Maulvi Fazlullah, allowing the imposition of the latter’s fundamentalist version of Islamic law on residents, and Islamabad had no stomach for taking on the increasingly bold extremists.
Eight months later, it is a different world. While it is still early in his presidency, and there is too much work unfinished to give him an overall grade, it’s already apparent he’s outperforming his predecessor.

Read the rest here


TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira: Public Wants Action on Climate Change

Behind the high drama of the debate over health care reform, other progressive reforms are gaining momentum, despite being bounced to the back pages. In his latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot‘ at the Center for American Progress web pages, TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira has good news for supporters of legislative reforms to address climate change — new data from the Pew Research Center indicates that “public is ready to move forward in this area.” Says Teixeira:

First, the public rejects the idea that the United States should go alone in addressing climate change. By 56-32, they say that the United States “should join other countries in setting standards to address global climate change” rather than “set its own standards to address global climate change.”
Second, the public gives 50-39 support to “setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if it may mean higher energy prices” (emphasis added).

Teixeira concludes that “legislators should not rest on their laurels even if they succeed in passing health care reform. The public appetite for change is clearly broader than that.”


Important New D-Corps Study: Congressional Battleground Stable and Within Normal Historical Range

2010 Congressional Battleground: Stable and Within Normal Historical Range
Overview
With Charlie Cook and Republican leaders raising the prospect of Democrats losing control of the Congress in 2010, we thought it important to expand the Democracy Corps congressional battleground early to determine whether a loss of 41 seats was in the offing based on current polling. A new survey from Democracy Corps conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research across the 75 most competitive congressional districts suggests potential losses for the Democrats well within the normal historical range. Their losses will be offset by some further Republican losses and are unlikely to approach what it would take for Republicans to regain congressional control.
Moreover, the vote and incumbent job approval in the most contested Democratic districts are stable – without sign of a broad deterioration. This should give some perspective.
To be sure, there are serious trends that put some Democrats at risk, particularly a pervasive anti-incumbent mood across all of the Democratic seats; however, this is present in the Republican-controlled districts as well. Voters in both the Democratic- and Republican-held vulnerable seats are unsure if they will reward their members with reelection next November.
Limiting Republican gains is the continuing crash of the Republican Party across these districts. This development is part of the reason that Republicans are having trouble capitalizing on the anti-incumbent mood. It also explains why they will have trouble replicating what the Democrats did in 2006 and 2008, when the Democratic Party emerged with a surprising image advantage across the Republican-leaning districts they picked up.
This memo is based on a survey of 2,000 likely voters in the 55 most competitive Democratic-held districts and the 20 most marginal Republican-held districts conducted for Democracy Corps by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research October 6-11, 2009.
“Analysis: Anti-incumbent mood persists across marginal districts” after the jump