Why The GOP May Be Disappointed In November

[Patrick Degan]

This article from the blogsite Reality Liberation Front seems to do a fairly good job pegging just why the GOP's hopes for November may be a tad overstated:

The November Myth: GOP Claps…Tinkerbell Remains Motionless
Posted in General by TBartine on March 26, 2010

If you’ve been following the Health Care Bill post-passage aftermath, you will generally hear one of these refrains coming from the Republican Party and their supporters:

1 – “This will cause the Democrats to get crushed in the November elections”
2 – “We’re going to repeal this bill.”
3 – “The people are angry about this.”
4 – “Several states are suing the federal government to block its implementation.”

I’ve heard a number of conservative “voices on the street” uttering the first claim, in particular, so I wanted to take some time to examine what I have termed, “The November Myth.” Let’s examine how three political demographic groups are likely to respond to the issues, followed by likely voting outcomes.

LIBERALS: Anyone on the far-to-moderate left is likely to see the passage of the Health Care Bill as a success. Perhaps not what they would deem a “full, unqualified” success, but victory over what they would view as GOP obstructionism, and a corrupt Health Insurance Industry. They are, of course, not going to support repeal of the legislation, nor lawsuits in their states to block its provisions. In other words…their reactions are just about exactly what one would expect them to be.

MODERATES: This is the segment of the population that BOTH extremes (far left and far right) understand the least…and which both sides often mistakenly believe agrees with them. Liberals assume that political events that stir their anger or their joy, provoke the same emotional response in moderates…and somewhat comically, conservatives are making the exact same assumptions about moderates: “If we are angry, they must be, too.“ They are most often, both TOTALLY mistaken. Moderates are easily fatigued by partisan bickering, generally stick to mainstream news from the major networks (if they even watch it at all), and if there is one thing unlikely to motivate them…it’s ideological and political causes. Extreme beliefs on either side of the fence tend to either turn them off, or even scare them outright. They are already adjusting to the bill: this group tends to set aside any complaints over a piece of legislation the moment it passes…and they quickly develop a sort of acceptance: “Well, it’s now law, so I guess we have to learn to live with it.“ A Gallop/USA Today poll shows that the minute the bill passed…its popularity started rising. What a difference a day makes. As the year progresses, and the legislation’s initial offerings affect these people’s lives, you’ll find them even more unwilling to consider repealing the bill. It’s a simple principle: once someone has been given a benefit (a tax credit, a reduced price, a service) they don’t want you to take it away. Plus – after watching the debate over health care tie up Congress for a year…moderates will not like the idea of even more time being spent in a protracted battle to repeal it, when legislators could be working on other issues that polls show they care more about (ie. the economy, jobs, Iraq/Afghanistan). Suing the federal government over the bill…will similarly look like a giant, futile waste of time and taxpayer money in moderate voters’ eyes. They will be told three things:

1 - The lawsuits will fail since states can opt out of the mandate.
2 – That the mandate was originally a Republican idea (Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley, along with 19 other GOP Senators, sponsored a bill in 1993 advocating the mandate…now they call it “totalitarianism”)
3 – That they better HOPE the suits fail, because if they succeed it might threaten Medicare and Social Security.

These points will effectively end support for that particular strategy among moderates…game, set, match. In short – they are likely unimpressed by this bill…over the next year will likely enjoy at least one of its benefits, which they won’t want to give up…and they neither think it is the “great hope” that the Democrats claim, nor the “great evil” purported by Republicans, which means they are unlikely to vote solely based on this issue.

CONSERVATIVES: Here is where some surprises reside. Like their counterparts on the far left, the supporters on the far right are fairly predictable. They will support any and all arguments against the bill. They will favor its repeal, they will support lawsuits against it. Moderate Republicans…are a bit more complicated. Many of these individuals chose to simply “sit out” the last election over the last GOP president and the current GOP leadership. Many, once the benefits of the bill kick in, will not openly and actively support its repeal. This is simply human nature. Anybody who no longer suffers because of the Medicare prescription “donut hole“…anyone whose child gets to stay on their insurance until age 26…anyone who finally gets insurance despite their pre-existing condition…anyone who finds out they no longer have to pay a co-pay or deductible for preventative services…these people will (quietly) not support repeal. I’m not saying they’ll suddenly start voting for Democrats…I’m saying that a campaign war cry of “repeal the bill” will not motivate them to show up at the polls. These moderates are also increasingly not fond of being associated with Tea Party demonstrators and other far right extremists. To them, lawsuits against the federal government sound like an expensive waste of time…and obstructionist measures like invoking an obscure Senate rule to stop all work at 2pm are starting to make them a little bit embarrassed.

So…what can we expect come November?

DEMOCRATS:
- ADVANTAGES: Passed the Health Care Bill. By November, many will have benefitted from it. Can claim some moderate economic successes. Credit Card Reform Bill has a couple of laudable measures. Have generally given off the appearance of attempting to be reasonable, even bipartisan, which will appeal to moderates. No major blunders.
- DISADVANTAGES: Apathy…after nearly every successfully presidential election, a party can expect its voters to “sleep in” during the mid-term voting…and Democratic voters have been traditionally bad about showing up ANYWAY. Promised much that has not come to pass: Iraq pullout, Gitmo closure, improved situation in Afghanistan, regulating Wall Street. Economy and jobs still struggling…and there are plenty of Americans who WILL hold it against a President and Congress for not “fixing everything” in two years. Activists liberals have cooled off, since progressive agendas have been largely ignored (ie. gay rights, environmental issues, prosecuting those responsible for torture). Incumbency: Often in poor economic times, incumbents face tougher re-election bids (due to increased “vote all of ‘em out” mentality), and since there are more Democratic incumbents…fewer “gimme” elections for Dems.
- WHO WILL VOTE FOR THEM: “Still-hopeful liberals” across the spectrum, ironically motivated more out of fear of all the extreme talk from the right-wing, than by anything said or done by the Democrats. Some moderates, either happy with what small progress has been made so far, or simply turned off by the actions of the far-right and the current GOP leadership.

REPUBLICANS:
- ADVANTAGES: Economy still stinks. Many Obama promises not yet fulfilled. Base is energized and likely to turn out at the voting booths.
- DISADVANTAGES: They can’t really point to anything they’ve accomplished…and the one thing they tried to block (Health Care), they failed to do so. AND…since they contributed nothing to Health Care Reform…they’ll have real trouble trying to take credit for any of it. Similarly, any attempts to take credit for improvements in their states tied to stimulus funds will be highlighted as political/ideological hypocrisy. Plus, energizing their base came with a steep cost…it also energized some liberals (fear is a motivator powerful enough to overcome considerable apathy and disenchantment), and has turned off minority and moderate voters. You’d think they’d have learned from the last election, that it’s not worth it, because you cannot win without strong support from moderate and independent voters. Just today, they failed to distance themselves from the “lunatic fringe” and in doing so, pushed moderates even further out of reach. In responding to the latest violent and racist attacks from conservative supporters…the GOP essentially said, “We’re against this violence…but it happened because people are angry.“ Representative Boehner: first of all, you cannot condemn violent acts and in the same breath try to justify them. Secondly…see below for my comment about your premise that “the American people are angry.”
- WHO WILL VOTE FOR THEM: Strong number among the far right, good numbers but less than expected from moderate conservatives, disappointing numbers from moderate sectors.

NET OUTCOME: The Democrats will likely lose a few seats in both houses, but not nearly what one would normally expect in the first mid-term election following a successful bid for the Presidency. Neither party will have a dominant majority in either house of Congress.

This real-world analysis clearly contradicts the claims of the GOP Party, but that is because they are currently, completely absorbed in what I call, “Tinkerbell Syndrome:” That is to say, they seem to think that if they say something enough times, and enough of their supports clap their hands and believe it to be true…it BECOMES true. They tell us “Americans overwhelming disapproved of this bill,” and that “Americans have spoken and they are angry,” and that the Democrats’ efforts violate the “will of the American people,” and they tell us that all these angry people are going to turn out at the polls in November and vote out all the Democrats. Problem is: These statements are contradicted by most polls, statistics, studies…and any other available real-world evidence. And these statements effectively ignore LAST NOVEMBER when a majority of the American people did indeed display the “will of the American people” in electing Barack Obama and a Democratic majority in both houses. In truth, the GOP is not in a position to tell us what “the American people” think at all. Their current and prolonged use of tactics appealing only to the far-right conservative base, GUARANTEES that they are unable to represent anything but a rapidly shrinking segment of the American population.

Now, a lot can happen between now and the November bi-elections. The economy could take another dive, there could be a major international incident or natural disaster, or a scandal. But the way things are looking right now, all other things being equal, the GOP may well be fooling themselves into thinking that Health Care Reform will still somehow, someway, undo the Obama presidency and Democratic control of Congress. Plus the whole Tea Party movement represents a very loose cannon rolling about the decks and more likely to wreck Republicans rather than Democrats due to it's Soviet-style demand for ideological purity.

[irishmick79]

If the Democrats can keep the losses to around 20-25 seats and 3-4 senate seats, that would be in keeping with the average mid-term losses suffered by an incumbent party since the Truman admin. That's looking like a best-case scenario, however. Realistically it seems like you could be looking at lossses in the 40-50 range.

[open_sketchbook]

Reading this article it just occured to me why Obama might be doing all the bipartisan stuff instead of just straight-up pushing what he wants through. He is going to have an absolute ton of soundbytes of him sounding reasonable and reaching out, and the Republicans being complete douches about it come november. You could run a decent campaign on that. "They can't work with us when we're running stuff, how the hell are we supposed to work together on anything if we're sharing it!"

[Darth Wong]

Reading this article it just occured to me why Obama might be doing all the bipartisan stuff instead of just straight-up pushing what he wants through. He is going to have an absolute ton of soundbytes of him sounding reasonable and reaching out, and the Republicans being complete douches about it come november. You could run a decent campaign on that. "They can't work with us when we're running stuff, how the hell are we supposed to work together on anything if we're sharing it!"

Yeah, but let's keep in mind that this is a country where public support for HCR dropped sharply after Palin et al started running around spouting their bullshit "death panel" and other scaremongering "he's trying to foreign-ize our country" crypto-racist bullshit, which strongly suggests that a large part of the country actually believed it. The problem I have with this article is that it gives short shrift to the notion that a really large chunk of the American public is composed of idiotic hysterical crypto-racist assholes.

[open_sketchbook]

It must be so easy to be a republican. The entire breath of your political positions can fit on a shopping list and whenever you have trouble articulating those positions, you can revert to scaremongering. I'm trying to think of how Obama could speak to the population on their level (ie tell them scary things to get them to agree with you) but nothing is coming to mind. Hell, the whole "make republicans look like douches" thing would probably backfire and end up make republicans look like they "stick to their values" or whatever the fuck.

[Coyote]

Here's a mistake the article makes:

REPUBLICANS:
- DISADVANTAGES: They can’t really point to anything they’ve accomplished…and the one thing they tried to block (Health Care), they failed to do so. AND…since they contributed nothing to Health Care Reform…they’ll have real trouble trying to take credit for any of it. Similarly, any attempts to take credit for improvements in their states tied to stimulus funds will be highlighted as political/ideological hypocrisy.

This statement makes the assumption that the Republican supporters are rational and will analyze what their political leaders are saying-- and will hold them accountable for acts that violate philosophical consistency.

The GOP political leaders will take credit for anything good that comes from HCR and stimulus packages, and their slobbering, drooling minions of teabagging supporters won't question it a bit --and even laud the GOPers for their "good conservative financial principles".

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, but let's keep in mind that this is a country where public support for HCR dropped sharply after Palin et al started running around spouting their bullshit "death panel" and other scaremongering "he's trying to foreign-ize our country" crypto-racist bullshit, which strongly suggests that a large part of the country actually believed it. The problem I have with this article is that it gives short shrift to the notion that a really large chunk of the American public is composed of idiotic hysterical crypto-racist assholes.

I think they're being classified among the hardcore Republicans.

The Republicans can only get so far by mobilizing that chunk; it's big but not that big. And the price of playing to idiotic hysterical assholes is starting to become clear: they're scaring the people who aren't hysterical idiots. They can't win without the people they're scaring, which means that they can't just automatically succeed by appealing harder to the idiot wing.

[Darth Wong]

To me, the sharp drop in support for HCR due to Republican propaganda suggests that the idiotic hysterical assholes are not the small Republican hard-line minority that you describe them to be. I think that a lot of the so-called "moderates" are also idiotic hysterical assholes.

Need I remind you that Bush coasted into the Iraq War with a ridiculous 90% approval rating? Where were all of these oh-so-reasonable moderates then? The population hasn't undergone massive turnover since then; it's mostly the same people.

[Coyote]

It has become my experience that the term "moderate" and "Independent" are buzzwords for "libertarian conspiracy theorist teabagger".

[Crossroads Inc.]

To me, the sharp drop in support for HCR due to Republican propaganda suggests that the idiotic hysterical assholes are not the small Republican hard-line minority that you describe them to be. I think that a lot of the so-called "moderates" are also idiotic hysterical assholes.

Need I remind you that Bush coasted into the Iraq War with a ridiculous 90% approval rating? Where were all of these oh-so-reasonable moderates then? The population hasn't undergone massive turnover since then; it's mostly the same people.

This is something that often needs to be stated. Again and again Liberals here under estimate the stupidity and gullibility of Americans. I cannot count the times when Progressives in America DON'T fight back against Conservatives because they seem to reflexively think "The only people that listen to them are just other conservatives."

Really if the current democratic movement wants to have ANY chance of avoiding a disastrous loss in Nov, then need to begin hitting back against every lie, every distortion and every blatant falsehood the GOP churn out 24/7. A good example of just how gullible people are and how easily duped came when I talked to a friend of mine, who I consider quite Liberal, about 'ACORN' being forced to close. He commented "I hate to see the GOP win, but it looks like the group really had it coming" I asked him why and without missing a beat he mentioned the now debunked "Pimp tapes". It took less then 10min to show him that everything he thought he knew was utterly false, and he felt rather foolish.

The obvious point is that even groups of voters you "Think" are a sure thing or Left leaning will easily, frighteningly easily be swayed by the 24/7 Bullshit from the right.

The worst part about it, and Coyote alluded to his earlier, is that for all the shit the GOP has done in the past year, they will receive NO Backlash form the right what so ever. As of now, I am willing to bet that the 2010 elections will have the Highest GOP voter turnout in the past decade. Passing HCR didn't depress them it only makes them more determined. Adding insult to injury, the Right can come out and with a straight face tout the "good things" in the bill that helps out their own voters without the slightest bit of Irony.

To make things even worse, the power behind Obama and the Dems huge victories in 2008, young voters, has basically evaporated. It gulls me that people under 25 make up a truly massive voting bloc, yet unless its a Presidential election they never seem assed to go out and vote.

So heading into 2010 we have a 100% Energized Right Wing mob who can be counted on to vote in massive numbers. We have the Liberals who continue to "play nice" and let lie after lie go unchallenged. We have a huge block of voters who probably won't bother leaving thier rooms come Nov. And of course we have 'the mindless middle' who will happily eat up most any tripe fed to them.

So yeah, as far as Im concerned Nov2010 is going to be a Massacre.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It doesn't help that the news media outlets in this country are either incompetent or liars.

[Dominus Atheos]

Realistically it seems like you could be looking at lossses in the 40-50 range.

Don't forget, the democrats only have a margin of 38 seats, so your prediction would have them losing the House.

[Mr Bean]

Realistically it seems like you could be looking at lossses in the 40-50 range.

Don't forget, the democrats only have a margin of 38 seats, so your prediction would have them losing the House.

There are 253 democrats in the Senate to 177 Republicans at the moment.
http://clerk.house.gov/

[Teebs]

Don't forget, the democrats only have a margin of 38 seats, so your prediction would have them losing the House.

There are 253 democrats in the Senate to 178 Republicans at the moment.

But every seat that the Democrats lose is a Republican gain so their majority shrinks by two.

Edit: A 38 seat loss would give the Democrats 215 seats to 216 Republicans.

[Mr Bean]

That assumes those seats go Republican. Unlike the Senate we have Conservatives, Libertarians, every Socialists who get elected to the House.

[Teebs]

That assumes those seats go Republican. Unlike the Senate we have Conservatives, Libertarians, every Socialists who get elected to the House.

I make it all Republicans and Democrats at present and the same in 2008 and 2006. 2004 and 2002 had one independent, 2000 had two, 1998 we're back to one and it stays that way until 1990 at which point I stopped bothering to look.

The consistent one of those is Bernie Sanders who is clearly an exception since as soon as he moved up to the Senate there was no serious independent in his district.

The other who was an independent for one term (Virgil Goode) was first elected as a Democrat and then became an independent for a couple of years before joining the Republicans.

I can't see how that translates into having conservatives, libertarians and socialists who get elected to the house (other than as members of the two parties). I think it's a pretty safe assumption that any seats the Democrats lose will go Republican.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The more i look at this the more it looks like Clinton 2.0 all over again...

The GOP will make Massive gains in the house and senate and could easily win back the majority. The Massacre will send the Democrats scurrying like ants and everyone will think they lost because they "Wern't moderate enough"

When the Conservatives loose, they become more conservative...
When Liberals loose, they become more conservative...

So assuming We loose both the house and senate, Obama quickly becomes a lame President, the GOP goes back to ramming through bill after bill with no protests from the Democrats, and ANY hope we had for actually doing something to benefit America goes down the tubes for another 10 years.

And now I ask, is there a single person out there who CAN'T see this happening?

[Temujin]

I don't know, the country is more divided then it has been in years; some have said since the sixties, while others the 1850s. Right now I only think we're seen the tip of the iceberg, and while certain voting trends have come to be expected, there's nothing that says they are set in stone.

As usual I'm hoping for the best while expecting the worst. But I think there is a real possibility that it might not be too bad for the democrats. The Republicans are in a downward spiral that they most likely won't recover from. Granted they'll probably be around for a while in some form, but the party that Reagan built is already a bloated, festering corpse, barely lurching along and ready to burst at the seems. They began to show some serious fractures in the last election, but then were able to pull it together, barely.

I guess we should hope that the Tea Partiers and their vocal media supporters get more and more crazy in both word and deed. The more trouble they cause, the more the democrats are likely to benefit.

[Broomstick]

The problem I have with this article is that it gives short shrift to the notion that a really large chunk of the American public is composed of idiotic hysterical crypto-racist assholes.

They're only "cryto-racist" in front of TV cameras and people darker than themselves. There's nothing "crypto" about the racist shit I hear almost daily from people who assume that because I'm pale I'm on their side.

[Raptor 597]

Here is an interesting article I read yesterday on Real Clear Politics relevant to the discussion. I think the populist backlash will be damning for Democrats since their base is not spread out enough to fight this Tea Party wave of discontent. Also, the sheer amount of new coverage and background noise covering all these protests aren't helping the Dems. However, I also think that the Tea Party will screw the GOP over in 2012 when they hijack the party and force nominate someone like Palin. There's a chart and map that I didn't post up on the link. How Bad Could 2010 Really sGet For Democrats?

April 14, 2010
How Bad Could 2010 Really Get For Democrats?
By Sean Trende

Though Election Day is still months away, pundits have already begun to speculate on possible outcomes for this year's midterms. There's a general consensus that Democrats will lose seats in November, but beyond that opinions vary widely on how big those losses might be. Some argue that because of the advance notice, passage of health care, and an improving economy (or some combination of all three), Democrats will be able to limit their losses significantly. Others are predicting a repeat of 1994, when Democrats lost 50+ seats and control of the House.

So how bad could 2010 get for the Democrats? Let me say upfront that I tend to agree with analysts who argue that if we move into a "V"-shaped recovery and President Obama's job approval improves, Democratic losses could be limited to twenty or twenty-five seats.

That said, I think those who suggest that the House is barely in play, or that we are a long way from a 1994-style scenario are missing the mark. A 1994-style scenario is probably the most likely outcome at this point. Moreover, it is well within the realm of possibility - not merely a far-fetched scenario - that Democratic losses could climb into the 80 or 90-seat range. The Democrats are sailing into a perfect storm of factors influencing a midterm election, and if the situation declines for them in the ensuing months, I wouldn't be shocked to see Democratic losses eclipse 100 seats.

Consider that Democrats typically lead in the generic ballot, even if they do not gain control of Congress. In 2004, for example, Democrats led Republicans in 63 out of 72 generic ballot tests taken that year. Yet Republicans picked up a handful of seats in 2004 and won the popular vote by three points.

This year, five different polling companies have put Republicans in the lead for the generic ballot in the last two weeks alone - one reason why Michael Barone calls this the worst polling environment for Democrats "during my 50 years of following politics closely." The RCP Average has Republicans leading Democrats by 2.8 points on the generic ballot test. That should equate roughly to a 225-seat Republican majority (Republicans won the national vote by 5 points in 1994), which would almost represent a 50-seat pickup.

But many of these polls survey registered voters. Polling among likely voters, such as Rasmussen Reports, shows Republicans up by about 8-10 points, which would probably represent a seventy-seat pickup.

And the polls of the most highly energized voters are even worse for Democrats. Recent NBC/WSJ polling found that Democrats led by three points among registered voters. But among those most interested in the November elections, Republicans led by 13 points.

This reminds me of the polling that showed Martha Coakley up 15 points in early January, but which also showed her and Scott Brown tied among those most interested in the race.

The exit poll model I used in late 2009 to suggest that the Massachusetts Senate race would be a close one leads to a similar conclusion. You can read the article here for a more thorough explanation, but applying the model to a national ballot test suggests that the Democrats should lose the popular vote 57%-43%.

It isn't just the generic balloting that has been horrendous. Every Democratic Senate candidate except five from very blue states (Pat Leahy (VT), Chuck Schumer (NY), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Dan Inouye (HI) and Richard Blumenthal (CT)) has had at least one poll test placing him or her below 50% this cycle. Similarly, the individual House polling has been uniformly dismal for Democrats. Democrats in light blue districts , like Ben Ray Lujan and Jerry Costello, have been significantly below 50% in polls. Democrats in red districts who normally receive around 60% of the vote are below 50% as well. If these Democrats are truly below 50% in their polling, a ninety-seat pickup is not out of the question.

And this is the present situation. If unemployment doesn't abate and incomes don't rise much, President Obama could easily be hovering around 40% approval in November. What does the generic ballot, which is partially keyed off of the President's approval rating, look like then?

Why, then, do commentators resist the conclusion that 1994 is far from a worst-case scenario? After all, Democrats just finished winning the national popular vote by eight points in 2006 and by eleven points in 2008. Surely, given present conditions, Republicans could win by at least similar margins in 2010. And given the hole that Republicans are digging themselves out of, the accompanying seat swing would be massive.

The first reason that observers resist this conclusion is recent history. There hasn't been more than a 60+ seat swing in a midterm election in eighty years.

But there hasn't really been a midterm election like this one is shaping up to be in eighty years, either. Chart I below lists the "wave" midterm elections since the country began having regular midterm elections after the Civil War (before then, many states held their Congressional elections the year after and the year before the Presidential election, i.e. odd-numbered years, while other states followed the Presidential/midterm model). I've also marked whether the midterm election was marked by a poor economy, an overextended party, or a controversial agenda. The final column is the number of seats that the President's party lost on election night.

The data show that in elections where two of these factors are present, the party that controls the Presidency loses about 50 seats. But in this election, all three factors are present. To get an idea what this means, imagine what 1974 might have looked like if 1972 had produced a Congressional landslide to go with the Presidential landslide, and Republicans had entered the year with 232 seats instead of 192 seats. What if the economy had been in recession in 1966? What if Eisenhower had followed a more partisan agenda before 1958? What if Roosevelt had enjoyed his typical coattails in 1944, instead of receiving the fairly narrow 242 seat majority?

Those elections probably would have looked like 1938, 1894, or 1874. In those elections, the American people took their vengeance out on a party that was perceived as incompetent, and that was predisposed to fall due to the massive size of its majority. What we're seeing in the polls is a manifestation of something similar. While the power of incumbency has increased significantly since the 1950s, it's also true that both the Republicans and the Democrats are national parties now for the first time in our history. If Republicans can win in Massachusetts, they can win just about anywhere. And remember, Republicans don't need to win in Massachusetts for a landslide; they could pick up seventy seats without winning a single one in a Democratic-leaning district.

Analysts also fail to appreciate the damage that Obama has done to the brand that allowed the Democrats to stay competitive in Congress during the 1990s, and win it in the 2000s. As I detailed last November, Bill Clinton's rebranding of the Democratic Party as a more libertarian party - culturally cosmopolitan and antipathetic toward the religious right, fiscally conservative and supportive of balanced budgets - allowed him to take what remained of the Party's historic Democratic base among Jacksonians and the white working class, keep minorities and white liberals, and then add on Northern suburbanites and voters in the Mountain West.

This brand filtered down to the Congressional level, where Democratic candidates could wrap themselves in the "New Democrat" label and win in places where Democrats had been losing ground. Today there are well over a hundred Democrats in these Mountain West/Jacksonian/northern Suburban/working class districts. This includes, by my count, about fifty such seats that the Democrats won from Republicans between 1996-2006, offsetting Republican gains in the Deep South and rural North and preventing Republicans from amassing big majorities during that time.

But Obama is shattering that coalition. As Jay Cost and I observed in early 2009, Obama lost the "Jacksonians" before he was even elected As I noted in my November piece on the Clinton coalition, the 2009 gubernatorial elections indicated that the Jacksonians are continuing to abandon the Democrats, both up and down the ticket.

But 2009 also demonstrated that other critical pieces of the Clinton coalition were abandoning Obama, pieces where Obama himself had actually improved upon Clinton's showings. Suburbia moved toward the Republicans in 2009 in both New Jersey and Virginia, and then did so again in 2010 in the Massachusetts election (Scott Brown handily carried the suburban Fifth, Sixth and Tenth Districts). The Massachusetts election revealed other problems for the Democrats as well. White working class voters in the Second, Third and Ninth Districts voted for the Republican.

The President is also showing real weakness in one more area that is critical to the Democrats' coalition: The Mountain West. For an idea of how the Democrats are faring in swing states, the map below illustrates a rough average of the President's approval in recent state polls. A dark red state has the President's net approval rating at negative 10 or less, while a dark blue state is positive ten or more.

Almost all of the Bush states are 10 points or more against the President now, while Florida and Ohio are close to -10. The President is underwater in all of the Mountain West states except for New Mexico, and badly so. If we extrapolate to the Congressional level, we can probably assume that in the average swing district, Democratic incumbents are probably running into serious headwinds.

The President's weakness in these states reveals another problem for his party. Since he is weak in Republican areas and swing areas, and yet doesn't have horrible approval ratings overall, he must be very, very popular among his party's base. Some polls have his approval ratings among African Americans at 95%. Even in Massachusetts, Martha Coakley managed to win the First, Seventh and Eighth Districts, which are home to the state's liberals and minorities.

The problem for the Democrats is that these voters are packed into a relatively few states and Congressional districts nationwide, diluting their vote share. This is why the median Congressional district is an R+2 district. Thus, the President could have a relatively healthy overall approval rating, but still be fairly unpopular in swing states and districts. The increased enthusiasm that Obama generated among minorities, the young and the liberal is useful, but only if it is realized in conjunction with Democratic approval in a few other categories.

President Obama's policy choices to date are wreaking havoc on the brand that Democrats cultivated carefully over the past twenty years. Bill Clinton worked long and hard to make it so that voters could say "fiscal conservative" and "Democrat" in the same sentence, but voters are finding it difficult to say that again.

If brand damage is truly seeping over into Congressional races - and the polling suggests it is - then the Democrats are in very, very deep trouble this election. There is a very real risk that they could be left with nothing more than Obama's base among young, liberal, and minority voters, which is packed into relatively few Congressional districts. It would be the Dukakis map transformed onto the Congressional level, minus the support in Appalachia. That would surely result in the Democratic caucus suffering huge losses, and in turn produce historic gains for the GOP this November.

Sean Trende can be reached at strende@realclearpolitics.com.

[Samuel]

President Obama's policy choices to date are wreaking havoc on the brand that Democrats cultivated carefully over the past twenty years. Bill Clinton worked long and hard to make it so that voters could say "fiscal conservative" and "Democrat" in the same sentence, but voters are finding it difficult to say that again.

Clinton was in charge during an economic boom and Obama is in charge during a recession- of course on is going to not be able to balance the budget! Bush didn't either- are people so stupid that they will blame the stimulus bill instead of the wars that eat up a large portion of our revenue?

Apparently for the Democrats to succed they need to avoid

poor economy, an overextended party, or a controversial agenda.

which translates to "looking exactly the same as the Republicans". Please tell me he is wrong... he isn't, is he?

[Raptor 597]

President Obama's policy choices to date are wreaking havoc on the brand that Democrats cultivated carefully over the past twenty years. Bill Clinton worked long and hard to make it so that voters could say "fiscal conservative" and "Democrat" in the same sentence, but voters are finding it difficult to say that again.

Clinton was in charge during an economic boom and Obama is in charge during a recession- of course on is going to not be able to balance the budget! Bush didn't either- are people so stupid that they will blame the stimulus bill instead of the wars that eat up a large portion of our revenue?

Apparently for the Democrats to succed they need to avoid

poor economy, an overextended party, or a controversial agenda.

which translates to "looking exactly the same as the Republicans". Please tell me he is wrong... he isn't, is he?

I admit the author is pretty republican leaning. But the thing is people's memories are short and they are simply willing to blame the current incumbents even though this whole mess started in 2008 and both parties deregulating commerce and banking. But what the article is inferring is the Dems are going to get schwacked by a big wave of populism. It also doesn't help that voters in mid terms are usually older which doesn't help Obama his base being younger.

[Darth Wong]

The one possible saving grace is that there's a hefty half-year between now and November, and moods can change significantly over that time. Let's face it, elections are not about logic, or facts, or even policies: they're about moods. It's all driven by emotion, and maybe, if we're lucky, the fickle public with its short attention span will get tired of Republicans spewing the same tripe over and over and over and over again by then.

Mind you, I wouldn't count on it.

[The Romulan Republic]

The more i look at this the more it looks like Clinton 2.0 all over again...

The GOP will make Massive gains in the house and senate and could easily win back the majority. The Massacre will send the Democrats scurrying like ants and everyone will think they lost because they "Wern't moderate enough"

When the Conservatives loose, they become more conservative...
When Liberals loose, they become more conservative...

So assuming We loose both the house and senate, Obama quickly becomes a lame President, the GOP goes back to ramming through bill after bill with no protests from the Democrats, and ANY hope we had for actually doing something to benefit America goes down the tubes for another 10 years.

And now I ask, is there a single person out there who CAN'T see this happening?

Me.

Two words: Tea Party. If the Tea Party backs further Right candidates, it could divide the Republicans, and maybe cause a more wide-spread repeat of this interesting little race:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%2 ... tion,_2009

However, I will concede that I am worried that the kind of defeatism expressed above will result in a lot of Left-wingers conceding before election day and not bothering to vote, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

[Xisiqomelir]

Do any of you read fivethirtyeight? It's the site I used to make my Obamabet in '08. Nate Silver is an expert statistician and he's probably going to call these mid-terms correctly months in advance.