…Hope for Democrats, that is, according to an editorial in today’s Los Angeles Times, “A Blue Tinge in the West“. Adding to reports that Democrats are surging in western states (see our recent posts “How the Wast Was Won” and “Go West Young Dem” below), the Times notes that:

The social conservatism that keeps the South red may not be enough for the West. Old-fashioned individual liberty and Democratic populism are getting a hearing. The national Democratic Party seems interested, but unsure how to get to the new rodeo…
The West, once ignored for its paltry populations, has bulked up as the blue states of the Northeast and Midwest lose residents. Latinos with potential Democratic loyalties are moving in. So are retirees from Democratic states, especially California.
The political factors are many. Nevada is at war with the federal government over the proposed nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain. Environmentalism, once sneered at in the spacious, resource-rich West, is gaining a foothold as tourism and adventure sports gain economic importance. Winning candidates have brought fiscal conservatism, pragmatism and workable ideas to the job, generally leaving ideological baggage behind.

The Times editorial offers further clues about the kinds of policies that Dems have ridden to success:

Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a native farm boy and former U.S. attorney who took office in 2003, persuaded an initially balky Republican Legislature to spend some of this year’s $1-billion budget surplus from mineral and energy industry tax revenues instead of socking it all away. The state boosted spending on highways, a wildlife habitat trust fund, bonuses for teachers and community college scholarships.
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico has won tax cuts, incentives for new jobs and rapport with business interests. Richardson, whose mother is Mexican, appointed two Republicans to his Cabinet along with Indians and Latinos. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is strong enough that top Republicans are declining to run against her next year.

The editorial suggests that Dems can build on their beachhead in the west by protecting civil liberties and emphasizing privacy issues, such as the GOP’s disastrous handling of Terri Schiavo’s ordeal, that will “resonate with the hands-off individualism of the mountains and deserts.”

On Earth Day, Gallup released some data on the public’s view of Bush’s environmental record. Not surprisingly, it’s pretty negative.
On protecting the environment, half now say he’s doing a poor job, compared to just 39 percent who say he’s doing a good job. That’s down from 51 percent who thought he was doing a good job at the beginning of his first presidential term.
And on improving energy policy, his rating is even worse: only 32 percent think he’s doing a good job in that area, 26 points down from the 58 percent who thought so at the beginning of his first term.
As for whether progress is being made on the environment, the public is quite pessimistic. Right now, 63 percent say it is getting worse, more than twice the number who think it is getting better (29 percent).
The poll also shows that the public prefers a generally activist approach to improving the environment. As Gallup’s report on the poll notes:

….When asked if they “think the U.S. government is doing too much, too little, or about the right amount in terms of protecting the environment” a clear majority of Americans (58%) say “too little” and only a small minority (5%) say “too much.” These figures represent the highest ratio of “too little” to “too much” observed since 1992, and a continuing increase in support for governmental action since a low point in March 2003 when 51% held this view.
Such results demonstrate that the vast majority of Americans do not want to see a reduction in the government’s environmental protection efforts (as 92% respond that it is doing “too little” or “about the right amount”).
Similarly, Americans continue to favor the environment when asked to choose between environmental protection and economic growth. After dipping slightly below 50% last year, a majority (53%) once again says that protection of the environment should be given priority, when environmental protection conflicts with economic growth.

Ipsos-AP have released new data specifically on energy problems and how well Bush is handling them. The verdict: not well at all.
In the poll, exactly twice as many (62 percent) say Bush is not handling the nation’s energy problems effectively as say he is (31 percent). The poll also finds 88 percent saying that the higher gas prices affect them personally either a lot (55 percent) or some (33 percent) and 51 percent saying that gas price increases will cause them financial hardship in the next six month, including 30 percent who describe the hardship as “serious”.
In terms of specific actions due to increased energy prices, 60 percent say they’ve turned down the heat or air conditioning in their home, 58 percent have reduced the amount of driving they do and 57 percent have cut back on other expenses.
Energy and the environment: two more areas where the public is apparently starting to run out of patience with the Bush administration’s failures.

It is easy to show how boneheaded actions and poor performance in areas from Social Security and Terri Schiavo to the economy and Tom DeLay are dragging down Bush’s popularity and that of his party. But the key question from now through the 2006 election will be the extent to which that unpopularity spreads to the GOP’s Congressional candidates and drags down their electoral fortunes.
Which brings us to the very interesting case of Pennsylvania. Based on a new Quinnipiac University poll, it appears that in this state Republican Senator Rick Santorum, up for re-election in 2006, is definitely being hurt by his association with unpopular GOP initiatives. As Clay Richards, assistant director of the poll, notes:

The numbers show clearly that Sen. Santorum has lost ground in his re-election bid over the last two months. The Senator has come under strong criticism for his outspoken involvement in the Schiavo case and his campaigning for President Bush’s unpopular Social Security proposal.

Let’s take a look at some of the data from the poll.
1. Santorum’s approval rating is down to 48 percent approval/35 percent disapproval (40/40 among independents), only the second time his rating has been below 50 percent. Bush’s approval rating in the state is down to 43 percent, with 55 percent disapproval (37/60 among independents), his second worst rating ever.
2. Santorum’s re-elect number has slipped to 44 percent, 9 points down from February’s 53 percent. And he now loses to Democrat Bob Casey in a Senate horse race question by 49-35, a contest that was only 46-41 in February. Santorum gets thumped, 52-28 among independents, loses 62-28 in the Philadelphia area and loses every other area of the state (except the central area) by at least 11 points.
3. Bush’s proposal to change Social Security “to allow people to invest some of their Social Security taxes in stocks and bonds” is opposed 55-37 by Pennsylvania voters (59-31 among independents.
4. By 38-15 (41-11 among independents), Pennsylvania voters say Santorum’s advocacy of Bush’s proposal makes them less likely not more likely to vote for him. And by 34-14 (41-11 among independents), Pennsylvania voters say Santorum’s role in urging Congress to intervene in the Schiavo case makes them less likely not more likely to vote for him.
Sounds like Santorum’s loyal service to the Bush machine is starting to backfire on him! And that’s got to make Bob Casey–and Democrats everywhere who want to take back Congress–very happy indeed.

Who knows? But two new polls suggest he hasn’t hit the floor yet.
The new CBS News poll has some truly cringe-inducing findings for the Bush administration. On the classic right direction/wrong track question, just 32 percent say the nation is going in the right direction, compared to 62 percent who say it is off on the wrong track. That’s a net negative of 30 points on this question, a swing of 20 points from February’s rating in this poll, when it was “only” 10 points net negative (42/52 right direction/wrong track).
Moreover, this question generates an astonishingly negative response among independents: 26 percent percent right direction/67 percent wrong track. Wow!
Bush’s overall approval/disapproval is now 44/51 (-7), compared to 43/48 (-5) in March. His approval rating on Iraq is now 39/56 (-17), down from 39/53 (-14) in February. His economic approval is down to 34/57 from 36/53 in March. And even his rating on handling the campaign against terrorism has sunk to 53/41, from 61/33 in February.
Bush’s approval ratings among independents are all substantially lower than even the anemic figures cited above: 36/56 overall; 35/59 on Iraq, 29/60 on the economy (!); and 50/41 on the campaign against terrorism.
And how about this one: are you confident or uneasy about Bush’s ability to make the right decisions about Social Security? That question returned a crushingly negative 70 percent uneasy/25 percent confident response.
Perhaps reflecting which way the wind is now blowing, Democrats in Congress in this poll now get a better favorability rating (49 percent favorable/40 percent unfavorable) than their Republican counterparts (42/49, including 34/50 among independents). That’s a switch from public polls earlier in the year had been showing.
The new ARG poll provides similarly sobering news for the White House. The poll has Bush’s overall approval rating at 44/50 and his economic approval rating at 38/56–the latter rating the worst rating he has received going back to April, 2004 (the ARG release does not provide any data earlier than that date).
The poll also shows an exceptional level of economic pessimism. In terms of whether the national economy is getting worse or better, 53 percent say it is getting worse, 25 percent say it is getter better and 21 percent say it is staying the same. The 53 percent figure is the most negative figure recorded going back to last April. Moreover, when asked where the economy will be in a year, an amazing 44 percent say it will be worse than today, compared to 27 percent better and 25 percent the same. That 44 percent figure compares to just 2 percent last April who thought conditions in a year would be worse.
More evidence that economic pessimism is running rampant is provided in article today in the Washington Post, “Economic Worries Aren’t Resonating on the Hill“. That article cites just-released WP/ABC News Consumer Comfort survey data showing that almost half (48 percent) now think the economy is getting worse, compared to just 14 percent who think it is getting better. That’s the most negative reading on this question in two years of monthly polls.
Can Bush go lower? On this evidence, I’d have to say yes. How much lower? Don’t know, but the way things are going, it could be considerably lower. Stay tuned.

Christopher Hayes’s article “Corruption — A Proven Winner” in the May 2nd issue of The Nation (though not yet available through their website) makes a strong case that corruption and ethics are powerful issues for Democratic candidates. Hayes, a contributing editor to In These Times, shows how the corruption issue was skillfully addressed by Democratic candidates to turn Illinois into a solid blue state in a relatively short time. As Hayes explains:

For much of the twentieth century, Illinois was the quintessential swing state, the Ohio of its day. Its state government tilted toward moderate Republicans. It voted for the winner in the presidential election twenty-one of twenty-four times in the twentieth century through 1996, going for Reagan in 1980 and 1984, George Bush I in 1988 and Clinton in 1992 and 1996. The rock-ribbed Republican suburban “collar” counties around Chicago canceled out the heavily Democratic city, leaving the fate of statewide elections to the fiercely independent voters downstate. Now the state looks like a Democratic lock–Gore and Kerry both won it by double-digit margins–and in these dark days you’ve got to wonder, How did this happen? And are there any lessons to be gleaned for Democrats elsewhere?

Hayes acknowledges the important role of demographic change in producing the Dems Illinois miracle:

Local observers use the term “perfect storm” to describe the confluence of disparate factors that has produced such a true-blue state, but it’s clear that demographic changes account for much of the transformation. Over the past decade, both Chicago and its surrounding suburbs have been getting progressively more Democratic as a result of the widespread migration of black and Latino families into the collar counties, an influx of immigrants and the rightward tilt of the national GOP on social issues, which has alienated many suburban moderates. Also, as John Judis and Ruy Teixeira argue in their book The Emerging Democratic Majority, the transition of the regional economy from manufacturing to service and technology has brought with it a substantial number of professionals with graduate degrees, a group that increasingly forms a bedrock Democratic constituency.

Illinois was clearly ready for a strong Democratic candidate to lead the charge. They found him in Rod Blagojevich, a candidate for Governor who took advantage of an exploding “license for bribes” scandal in the GOP statehouse and turned it into Democratic gold:

In 2002, as the scandal was reaching a fever pitch, Blagojevich won the gubernatorial race by successfully exploiting the taint of scandal against his opponent, Attorney General Jim Ryan, who, while neither related to nor implicated in the scandal, had the misfortune of sharing the same political party and last name as George Ryan. Blagojevich ran a barrage of ads showing side-by-side pictures of Jim Ryan and George Ryan, and promised to clean up state government and pass ethics reform.
But the damage done by licenses-for-bribes has reverberated well past that election, tarnishing the entire Republican brand in the state. When in last year’s US Senate race Republican nominee Jack Ryan went down in flames after sealed divorce records revealed he had pressured his wife into attending sex clubs, there was a general “here we go again” feeling to the coverage, despite the fact that Jack Ryan’s sins were venial and George Ryan’s mortal…[Democratic congressional candidate} Melissa Bean attributes at least some of her support to scandal fatigue among Republicans in her district. “I think it helped a lot,” she told me. “It’s one thing to be the right candidate for the district and another to be the right candidate at the right time. There’s no question that this was a district that was ready for change.”

Not every state is as ripe as Illinois, but the Dems do have opportunities elsewhere, including Washington, where the DeLay scandal is percolating nicely. But Hayes argues that they have to work the right levers:

Democrats do have to make the case forcefully. In Illinois the US Attorney’s office played a key role in doggedly pursuing GOP corruption, and if Democrats learned anything from the Clinton years, it’s the power of an officially sanctioned investigation to turn smoke into fire. But with the GOP currently controlling both houses and barring any ethics investigations that don’t have majority support, Democrats will have to rely on the press and public outrage. Of late, it seems Congressional Democrats have been catching on to this, taking steps to move the ball forward on the scandals that the blogosphere has worked feverishly to call attention to, pushing for a floor vote to reinstate revoked ethics rules, and issuing a 147-page report about the “death of deliberative democracy” under the GOP’s reign.

The Dems have a great start in making corruption a pivotal issue that will pervade the ’06 election. But the outcome will ride on the Dems follow-through, says Hayes:

Congressional Democrats should take a page out of Gingrich’s and Blagojevich’s books and propose comprehensive ethics reform. They should talk about the “corrupt Republicans” and “restoring transparency and integrity” at every turn. They should use DeLay’s mounting ignominy to tar fellow Republicans who benefit from his fundraising and clout. In short, they should make Republican scandal and Democratic reform one of the central narratives of their opposition over the next two years. “Newt Gingrich came to power because of an ethics scandal,” says Obama’s state political director, Dan Shomon. “Rod Blagojevich got elected partly because of scandal. You can defeat an incumbent if you can catch his or her hand in the cookie jar.”

Corruption will be a powerful issue for Democrats for as long as there is a GOP, which is driven by greed as much as any other value. Hayes’s article should be included in the playbook for all Democratic candidates in upcoming elections.

The “Buying Blue Can Be Tricky” post below (April 15) mentioned that the AFL-CIO does not provide a list of currently unionized companies on its web page. Not exactly accurate, it turns out. The AFL-CIO does provide a separate web page “Buy American. Buy Union!,” which helps consumers identify unionized companies, as well as companies that have been targeted by unions for boycotts as a result of their backward labor policies. “Buy American. Buy Union” should be used as a screen for companies endorsed by the “Buy Blue” campaign.

A new Gallup report finds that Bush averaged 50.7 percent approval (just 43 percent among independents) in the 17 quarter of his presidency (January 20-April 19, 2005). That compares quite poorly with his predecessors. The report notes:

Most other presidents were well above the 50% job approval mark at similar points in their presidencies: Dwight Eisenhower at 69.0%, Richard Nixon at 60.8%, Ronald Reagan at 58.0%, and Bill Clinton at 57.5%. The lone exception was Lyndon Johnson, who — unlike the other presidents — was not beginning his second term during the 17th quarter of his presidency, but rather, nearing the end of it. An average of 44.3% of Americans approved of Johnson at that time. In Johnson’s first full quarter after being re-elected (January to April 1965) — similar to where Bush and the other presidents were in their 17th quarters — he averaged 68.4% job approval.

The report concludes:

Absent some dramatic international or domestic event that could produce a rally in support, Bush’s approval ratings are unlikely to improve substantially in the near term. In the long term, the state of the economy and Bush’s ability to handle pressing issues such as Social Security, Iraq, and energy costs will help determine whether Bush can break out of the low 50% approval range, or whether he will slip below that level.

In light of what has been happening lately, especially on the economy, slipping below that 50 percent level seems like a very real possibility.
On Monday, for example, the New York Times had a front page story on “Sudden Bearish Sentiment Underlines Fears on Economy“, detailing the sudden and serious investor jitters about the economy.
Also on Monday, Paul Krugman pointed to the unmistakable signs of stagflation that are now afflicting the economy.
Last week, several papers, including the Times, pointed out that real wages in the last year have declined, reversing the steady progress in living standards that had started under Bill Clinton in the mid-90’s.
And on April 11, I posted on the latest evidence concerning declining consumer confidence and rising consumer credit worries.
Maybe Bush better savor that 50.7 percent average while he’s got it!

By Alan Abramowitz
Democrats need to gain 15 seats in the House in 2006 to regain control. That’s not a large number by historical standards. In fact it’s close to the postwar average for seat losses by the president’s party in midterm elections. The problem is there are fewer and fewer marginal districts in the House and the cost of running a competitive campaign for a House seat keeps increasing. So Democrats will need to carefully target the most promising seats currently held by the GOP. An analysis of the performance of House GOP incumbents in the 2004 election suggests some candidates. I identified seven current incumbents who did considerably worse than expected based on the partisan composition of their districts and the amount of money spent by their challengers. These seven could be vulnerable if Democrats put up strong, well-financed challengers in 2006. There are some juicy targets here so an energetic and skillful challenger should be able to raise enough money to put these seats in play.
1. David Dreier–CA 6. Dreier has been a long-time fixture in the House and a key player on intelligence issues, but his performance in 2004 suggests that he could be vulnerable to a strong Democratic challenger in 2006. Despite outspending his Democratic challenger by a better than 20 to 1 margin, Dreier won only 55.8 percent of the major party vote in a district than leans Republican but appears to be trending Democratic.
2. Marilyn Musgrave–CO 4. Everyone knows about Bob Beauprez in the 7th district, but don’t forget Musgrave. Despite the strongly Republican make-up of the district, this right-wing ideologue won only 53.3 percent of the major party vote in 2006. Musgrave’s Democratic challenger spent a respectable $869,000 but was outspent by a nearly 4 to 1 margin. Democrats have been gaining ground in Colorado and a well financed challenger could give Musgrave a run for her money in 2006.
3. Katherine Harris–FL 13. Need I say more. Despite outspending her Democratic challenger by a 6 to 1 margin in 2004, Harris won only 55.3 percent of the major party vote in this Republican-leaning district. What Democrat wouldn’t want to go down in history as the candidate who knocked off Katherine Harris? And what Democrat inside or outside of Florida wouldn’t be willing to contribute to that candidate?
4. Henry Hyde–IL 6. If Hyde decides to run for another term, he could be vulnerable to a well-financed challenger. This long-time GOP stalwart and former House impeachment manager won an unimpressive 55.5 percent of the major party vote in 2006 despite outspending his Democratic challenger by a 3 to 1 margin. Illinois has been trending Democratic and a strong challenger could put this seat in play.
5. Chris Chocola–IN 2. No surprise here. Chocola got 54.9 percent of the major party vote in this marginally Republican district despite outspending his Democratic challenger by a better than 2 to 1 margin. Chocola is another right-wing ideologue who could be vulnerable to a well-financed challenger in 2006.
6. Robin Hayes–NC 8. Hayes has failed to improve his margins since his first election in 1998. In 2004, he won only 54.5 percent of the vote in this marginally Republican district despite outspending his Democratic challenger by an almost 8 to 1 margin.
7. Jim Gerlach–PA 8. No surprise here either. Gerlach’s 2004 challenger was the only one in this group who was not underfinanced, spending more than 1.9 million dollars. Even so, Democrats should take another crack at Gerlach. Gerlach won by a narrow 51-49 margin in 2004 and Al Gore carried the district in 2000.
This list is by no means exhaustive. There are undoubtedly other potentially vulnerable GOP incumbents and Democrats will need to target open seats as well as vulnerable incumbents if they are to have any chance to regain control of the House in 2006. But targeting these seven seats would be a good place to start.

EDM received a couple of comments about the “Buying Blue, Boycotting Red” post below, and both writers make excellent points. One is that union membership should be a consideration. The other is that what a company does, especially its role in partisan politics, should also be a criterion in buying blue. For example, the News Corp company listed as a “blue buy” is part of the Fox Network and red-listed UPS has unionized drivers. To this we might add a company’s environmental and diversity track records should be factors to look at for consumers who want to “buy blue.” No doubt the folks at buyblue.org have wrestled with these and other factors. Indeed, it would be a good idea for them to provide links to such lists. (Oddly enough, however, aflcio.org does not provide a list of currently unionized companies). The more such filters are applied, however, the shorter the buy blue list becomes. But buyblue.org nonetheless provides a great service for Dems as it is — to make good choices as consumers, we need to know which companies’ top executives lavish cash on the GOP.

True blue Dems have a great resource over at buyblue.org, which is loaded with information about which companies are supporting Democrats and Republicans. Check out, for example, “The Top Ten Bluest and Reddest Corporations.” Here’s their ranking list of companies, based on “amounts given by their C-level executives in 2003-2004” in both dollars and percentage terms:
Ten Bluest Corporations
Time Warner, $1,713,621, 77% Blue
Viacom, $892,513, 78% Blue
News Corp, $689,549, 61% *
Walt Disney, $606,504, 70% Blue
IBM, $397,936, 68% Blue
Cablevision, $326,842, 68% Blue
Torchmark Insurance Cos., $314,441, 88% Blue
Sony Corp. of America, $287,535, 69% Blue
Working Assets, $234,255, 100% Blue
Costco, $224,803, 99% Blue
Ten Reddest Corporations
United Parcel Service, $2,361,922, 71%
SBC Communications, $2,028,031, 67% Red
Merrill Lynch, $1,900,326, 72%, Red
Pfizer, $1,465,317, 67% Red
MBNA Corp., $1,453,497, 73% Red
Union Pacific, $1,428,663, 79% Red
Southern Co., $1,041,025, 80% Red
Wachovia Corp, $998,997, 75% Red
Clear Channel Communications, $764,318, 67% Red
General Electric, $747,386, 67% Red
There are other ways of ranking companies according to their financial support for both parties (See April 11th post “Calling All Dems: Stop Funding GOP Causes” below.) The beauty of selective patronage and boycotts is that it is a way that rank and file Dems can get involved in supporting their party on a daily basis and their success does not depend in any way on politicians. Reducing a company’s profits by even 1 percent can start stockholders howling for reform.