Yesterday, President Obama spoke at a large rally at the University of Wisconsin that was intended to help rally the Democratic base for the midterm election. But will he and his party be able to narrow the enthusiasm gap with Republicans? The indicators aren't encouraging.
One possible obstacle was suggested recently by The New Republic's Jon Chait, who suggested that Democrats can't sustain enthusiasm when their party holds the presidency like Republicans:
The Democratic base tends to lose interest in the threat of right-wing politics when their party holds power. Republicans, I'm guessing offhand, have had more success energizing their base during Republican rule. (Anybody want to quantify this?) Specifically I'm thinking of the 2002 and 2004 elections, which featured revved-up Republican bases despite total GOP control of government.
My seat of the pants analysis is that this reflects a psychological difference between the left and the right. The liberal coalition is more ideologically diffuse and attracted to individualism. Sometimes you see left-wing splintering at the end of periods of Democratic control -- 1948, 1968, 2000 -- but more often it's simply harder to make liberals understand the urgency of preserving their party's control of power against a hypothetical threat. Conservatives, by contrast, may find the idea of rallying behind a leader more attractive. Liberals were obviously very enthusiastic about the historical nature of Obama's election, but the enthusiasm has waned since. The conservative cult of personality around George W. Bush actually seemed to peak in 2004.
Is this claim supported by the data? Gallup has asked survey respondents whether they are more or less enthusiastic are about voting than usual in every election since 1994. In previous years, I use the last available poll before the general election. However, Gallup changed their question wording this election cycle for the enthusiasm question so I rely on the June 11-13, 2010 survey (the last using the old wording) to make sure the results are comparable with previous years (the current estimates of enthusiasm using the new wording are very similar).
Using this measure, I calculate net enthusiasm by party (% more enthusiastic - % less enthusiastic) and then take the difference between parties, constructing a measure of the net enthusiasm advantage for the president's party.* (This abstracts away from features of the election that may increase or decrease enthusiasm in both parties.) The results are more ambiguous than Chait's claim:
Democrats have been less enthusiastic relative to the other party in the first midterm under both Clinton and Obama than Republicans were under Bush, but it's important to keep in mind that the 2002 election is an outlier due to 9/11. By comparison, 1994 and 2010 were extremely unfavorable electoral environments. In more favorable conditions (principally, a booming economy), we see that Democrats were relatively more enthusiastic for Clinton in the 1996-2000 elections than Republicans were for Bush in 2004-2008. It's unlikely that Democrats will close the enthusiasm gap with Republicans in this election -- the conditions are just too unfavorable -- but the historical record doesn't indicate that they are incapable of enthusiastically supporting a Democratic president.
* I relied on Gallup's tabulation of enthusiasm by party (including leaners) when available. I calculated results myself for 1996 and 2000 using survey data archived by the Roper Center. Note: The 1996 survey includes "the same" as an option for the enthusiasm question; in other years, it was only recorded if volunteered by the respondent.
[Cross-posted to brendan-nyhan.com and Huffington Post]
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
NBC News / Wall Street Journal
9/22-26/10; 1,000 adults, 3.1% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(NBC: story, results; WSJ: story, results)
National
State of the Country
32% Right Direction, 59% Wrong Track (chart)
Obama Job Approval
46% Approve, 49% Disapprove (chart)
Economy: 42 / 54 (chart)
2010 Congress
20% Approve, 73% Disapprove (chart)
Positive / Negative
Barack Obama: 47 / 41 (chart)
Sarah Palin: 30 / 48 (chart)
Mitt Romney: 21 / 30 (chart)
Mike Huckabee: 26 / 25 (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
CBS News / New York Times
9/23-27/10; 941 likely voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(CBS: story, results; NYTimes: story, results)
Ohio
2010 Senate
45% Portman (R), 34% Fisher (D) (chart)
2010 Governor
43% Kasich (R), 42% Strickland (D) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
Suffolk University
9/24-27/10; 500 registered voters, 4.4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Suffolk release)
Pennsylvania
2010 Senate
45% Toomey (R), 40% Sestak (D) (chart)
2010 Governor
47% Corbett (R), 40% Onorato (D) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
Ipsos/Reuters
9/23-25/10; 440 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Reuters release)
Ohio
2010 Senate
50% Portman (R), 37% Fisher (D) (chart)
2010 Governor
47% Kasich (R), 46% Strickland (D) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
Rasmussen
9/27/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Ohio
2010 Senate
51% Portman (R), 42% Fisher (D) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
Marist
9/19-22/10; 617 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Marist release)
New York
2010 Senate (B)
54% Gillibrand (D), 42% DioGuardi (R) (chart)
2010 Senate (A)
59% Schumer (D), 38% Townsend (R) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
Fox News / Pulse Opinion Research
9/25/10; 1,000 likely voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Fox release)
(CORRECTED)
Ohio
2010 Senate
50% Portman (R), 37% Fisher (D) (chart)
2010 Governor
45% Kasich (R), 43% Strickland (D) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
Fox News / Pulse Opinion Research
9/25/10; 1,000 likely voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Pulse release)
Washington
2010 Senate
48% Murray (D), 47% Rossi (R) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
Fox News / Pulse Opinion Research
9/25/10; 1,000 likely voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Fox release)
Illinois
2010 Senate
42% Kirk (R), 40% Giannoulias (D), 7% Jones (G) (chart)
2010 Governor
46% Brady (R), 36% Quinn (D), 8% Whitney (G) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
Fox New / Pulse Opinion Research
9/25/10; 1,000 likely voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Fox release)
Colorado
2010 Senate
47% Buck (R), 43% Bennet (D) (chart)
2010 Governor
44% Hickenlooper (D), 34% Tancredo (C), 15% Maes (R) (chart)
The race is on. No, I'm not referring to the one between Republicans and Democrats; instead, I'm talking about the race between pollsters and media organizations to project this November's GOP margin of victory. There have been some pretty smart analyses produced over the last several weeks, including ones by Cook, Rothenberg, RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight and, most recently, the vaunted NBC political unit with its Voter Confidence Index. However, in the quest to compare this year to other "wave" elections (see 1994, 1982 and 1974) they may have all missed the most important phenomenon of all: the growth rate of this potential electoral hurricane. We have all been so concerned about looking at this as some fixed point in time--by, for example, trying to compare this year to elections that took place 30 and 40 years ago--that we have forgotten to look back just 90 days ago. When one does, the only conclusion that you can have is the following: we are seeing an intensifying political storm that for Democrats is the electoral equivalent of a catastrophic hurricane.
First, here's a quick primer on hurricanes. According to climatologists, hurricanes can release an amount of energy in one day equal to all of the electricity generated across the globe in 200 days. Hurricanes also keep building as long as they keep getting energy from warm water. Hurricanes strengthen via the temperature of the water: the hotter the water, the more strength it gains. But if a hurricane moves over land or colder water, it starts to fizzle out. Just like climatological hurricanes, an electoral hurricane is fed by an energy source. In politics this energy source is usually voter anger and frustration with the status quo. The Tea Party movement is one byproduct of this energy (to further this analogy, wind and rain are by-products of regular hurricanes). So the question is will this political hurricane continue to feed off the warm water of voter anger, or will those waters cool a bit as we get closer to shore (Election Day)? To judge, let's look at how this storm has intensified over the last 200 days.
We examined five key measures of voter anger: the percentage of voters who say the country is on the "wrong track," the President's disapproval rating, Congressional disapproval rating, the Generic Congressional ballot share for the party out of power (GOP) and the Party ID for the out-of-power party (GOP). All of these are negative measures for Democrats; that is, the higher the number the worse for the Democratic Party. (All data is from Pollster.com monthly averages for registered voters.) We then simply calculated the sum of these negative measures, which we will call--trumpets please--the LCG Voter Anger Index.
As you will note from the table below, the Voter Anger Index score in February of this year was 246. In May it rose to 250 and in August it stood at 259. In the last 90 days it has risen 9 points. The lesson here is not just that anger is high, it is that it is increasing with each passing day/week/month. The water temperature is not cooling; instead, it is getting warmer and feeding the storm. If it increases another 20 points by Election Day, the result would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party. We are talking about a 50 - 60 seat loss in the House and loss of the Senate.
When we look at this from a historical perspective, we see that the anger level in February was already equal to 1994. In August of this year the Voter Anger Index was a full 14 points (or 6%) higher than it was in November of 1994. It is also important to note that this index is based on registered voters. Our assumption is that voter anger is even higher among likely voters and the measures we've seen--like the generic ballot--do suggest that.
Hurricanes are named. We all remember Katrina. For really destructive storms, the World Meteorological Organization sometimes takes names off the list. People don't want to see the name again. Democrats might soon want to have this year's election removed from the history books as well.
Current Political Environment
There is no doubt that the White House is now fully engaged in the mid-term elections. The question will be whether this is too little, too late. Real world events have a way of either complementing or distorting/diminishing the President's message as his party tries to hold Congress. We are getting some key month's end economic data this week and it will impact voter attitudes. Here are some observations on the current political milieu:
1. The "pledge" is a winner for the GOP if it does no harm. The pledge is important for Republicans because of the signal it sends to voters, not because of any specific policy agenda item. If voters have a neutral to slightly positive impression of the pledge it will have done its job. The goal of the pledge was to help clarify the GOP brand and toward that end we think it generally works. On the other hand, don't expect any big boost for Republican candidates as a result of the unveiling.
2. The focus on Christine O'Donnell's controversial comments may doom her candidacy in DE but have little effect on the GOP as a whole. This is all about her personally and there will be little residual impact on Republicans elsewhere or the Tea Party.
3. There has been a substantive drop in Obama's approval rating that is reflected in perceptions of his ability to handle issues. The recent Politico/GWU/Battleground poll asked who voters thought would be better in handling certain issues: Obama or Republicans in Congress. On turning around the economy, 49% chose The GOP (and only 41% Obama) and on creating jobs, 51% picked Republicans in Congress while only 40% chose Obama.
4. The economy remains the number one issue but likely voters are being driven by two secondary but potent issues: 1) perceptions that the stimulus (and TARP) was a government handout and a failure and 2) that the healthcare reform law was an example of too much government intrusion and over-reach. While some in Washington still find it difficult to believe, anger over the deficit and spending in general is what is driving the likely midterm voter and it is a powerful and emotional issue.
5. On the economy, the political problem continues to be one of unmet expectations. People expected things to get better more quickly than they have. The country lost 7.6 million jobs since the start of the recession in December of 2007, but we have only recently begun adding jobs over the last few months (and at an awfully slow rate). It will likely take years to add back those jobs. Similarly, household net worth has recovered only four percentage points of the 21% lost according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The problem was that people expected things to get better much, much faster. That has hurt Obama and Democrats as much as anything.
Thanks again to John Zirinsky and Peter Ventimiglia for their insights and contributions. For real-time reactions to events and more thoughts on the public opinion environment, please follow us on Twitter @lcgpolling.
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
Fox News / Pulse Opinion Research
9/25/10; 1,000 likely voters; 3% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Fox release)
Wisconsin
2010 Senate
52% Johnson (R), 44% Feingold (D) (chart)
2010 Governor
49% Walker (R), 45% Barrett (D) (chart)
We have seen some hopeful polls for Democrats in recent days, but the last 24 hours brings results that will cheer Republicans and restore Democratic heartburn, especially in Connecticut where a new Quinnipiac University poll out this morning shows a "very close" race between Democrat Richard Blumenthal and Republican Linda McMahon.
The Quinnipiac poll shows Blumenthal's margin over McMahon narrowing to just three points (49% to 46%), a slightly closer margin than on their previous poll earlier in the month (51% to 45%). Rasmussen Reports also released a new Connecticut poll yesterday that showing Blumenthal ahead by just five points (50% to 45%), a slightly closer than the 9-point margin they found earlier in September (53% to 44%). The new surveys narrow Blumenthal's lead on our trend estimate to just four percentage points (49.8% to 45.3%), shifting the race to "lean Democrat" status.
The Blumenthal campaign will likely quarrel with these numbers, as they preemptively shared results of an internal poll yesterday with other media outlets, purportedly showing their candidate with a double-digit lead. But while the levels of support measured by the Quinnipiac and Rasmussen surveys may or may not be right, the trend evident in their results is unmistakable: McMahon has narrowed the gap significantly since winning the Republican primary in August.
Elsewhere, two new polls in Pennsylvania produced results consistent with previous data. In the Senate race, a new Muhlenberg College/Morning Call poll shows Republican Pat Toomey leading Democrat Joe Sestak by 7 points (46% to 39%), while a new automated survey by the Republican firm Magellan Data and Mapping puts Toomey ahead by 8 (49% to 41%). That makes 18 public polls in a row since July showing Toomey with a nominal lead. Our more sensitive trend line shows that while voters have been growing increasingly decided, the roughly 7-8 point margin between Toomey and Sestak has not changed since August.
In the Pennsylvania governor's race, the Muhlenberg College poll shows Republican Tom Corbett leading Democrat Dan Onorato by 9 points (48% to 37%), while the Magellan poll has Corbett up by 12 (50% to 38%). Corbett's margin on the Muhlenberg result is one of the narrower reported in recent weeks. Our trend estimate gives Corbett a roughly 12-point advantage (50.3% to 38.7%).
In Delaware, Rasmussen Reports' latest poll shows Democrat Chris Coons leading Republican Christine O'Donnell by 9 points (49% to 40%), a slightly narrower margin than the CNN/Time poll found a week ago (55% to 39%).
The Rasmussen poll also found 5% support for Mike Castle, the incumbent Senator who lost the Republican primary to O'Donnell earlier this month. Castle is said to be considering a write-in candidacy. Rasmussen's approach was to omit reference to Castle in the first part of the question, but offer him as a option in the second. If the answer categories followed Rasmussen's typical format, their respondents would have heard something like this:
If the 2010 Election for United States senate, were held today would you vote for Republican Christine O'Donnell or Democrat Chris Coons?
If you are for O'Donnell, press 1
If you are for Coons, press 2
If you are for Mike Castle, press 3
If you are for someone else, press 4
If you are not sure, press 5
In this case, if the Rasmussen system allows respondents to answer immediately (without waiting to hear all the choices), many would have chosen O'Donnell or Coons before hearing that Castle was an option. Measuring support for a write-in candidacy is difficult, especially when it is still hypothetical. This sort of question will tend to measure the floor of a write-in candidate's support. So don't be surprised if other Delaware polls in the near future offer Castle as a more explicit option and show more potential support.
[Cross-posted to the Huffington Post]
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
Rasmussen
9/26/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Connecticut
2010 Governor
50% Malloy (D), 40% Foley (R) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
Rasmussen
9/27/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
West Virginia
2010 Senate
48% Raese (R), 46% Manchin (D) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
Rasmussen
9/23/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Oklahoma
2010 Senate
68% Coburn (R), 26% Rogers (D) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
Gallup
9/20-26/10; 3,148 registered voters, 2% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Gallup release)
National
2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
46% Democrat, 46% Republican (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 28, 2010
Quinnipiac
9/21-26/10; 1,083 likely voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Quinnipiac release)
Connecticut
2010 Senate
49% Blumenthal (D), 46% McMahon (R) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 27, 2010
Zogby
9/24-27/10; 2,073 likely voters, 2.2% margin of error
Mode: Internet
(Zogby release)
National
2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
46% Republican, 41% Democrat (chart)
Obama Job Approval
54% Disapprove, 45% Approve (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 27, 2010
Rasmussen
9/20-26/10; 3,500 likely voters, 2% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
National
2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
46% Republican, 40% Democrat (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 27, 2010
American Research Group
9/22-26/10; 800 likely voters, 3.5% margin of error
Mode: live telephone interview
(ARG Release)
New Hampshire
2010 Governor
42% Lynch (D), 40% Stephen (R), 4% Babiarz (L) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 27, 2010
American Research Group
9/22-26/10; 800 likely voters, 3.5% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interview
(ARG release)
New Hampshire
2010 Senate
46% Ayotte (R), 32% Hodes (D), 1% Blevens (L), 1% Booth (I) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 27, 2010
Rasmussen
9/23/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen Release)
Iowa
2010 Governor
55% Branstad (R), 37% Culver (D) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 27, 2010
Garin Hart Yang (D) for the DSCC
9/20-22/10; 701 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
Missouri
2010 Senate
45% Blunt (R), 41% Carnahan (D), 4% Beck (C), 2% Dine (L) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 27, 2010
Magellan Strategies (R)
9/21/10; 1,430 likely voters; 2.6% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Magellan release)
Pennsylvania
2010 Governor
50% Corbett (R), 38% Onorato (D) (chart)
2010 Senate
49% Toomey (R), 41% Sestak (D) (chart)
Magellen is a Republican affiliated firm that has previously done microtargeting and modeling work on behalf of the Toomey campaign.
Emily Swanson |
September 27, 2010
Global Strategy Group (D) for the Missouri Democratic Party
9/14-18/10; 601 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Global Strategy Group release)
Missouri
2010 Senate
43% Blunt (R), 39% Carnahan (D), 4% Beck (C), 4% Dine (L) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 27, 2010
Muhlenberg College / Morning Call
9/18-23/10; 445 likely voters, 5% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Muhlenberg College release)
Pennsylvania
2010 Governor
46% Corbett (R), 37% Onorato (D) (chart)
2010 Senate
46% Toomey (R), 39% Sestak (D) (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 27, 2010
Rasmussen
9/26/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Delaware
2010 Senate
49% Coons (D), 40% O'Donnell (R), 5% Castle (chart)
Emily Swanson |
September 27, 2010
Rasmussen
9/26/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Connecticut
2010 Senate
50% Blumenthal (D), 45% McMahon (R) (chart)