Friends,
Below you will find the weekly Anzalone
Liszt Research National Polling Newsletter, which provides a pollster's take on
data and trends that impact political campaigns.
This week, we tackle election forecasting.
We examine the variables that matter most to us when assessing Democrats'
prospects in 2010, and argue that far too many analyses miss a basic point:
campaigns matter.
Following our analysis are
additional news items and data we though you'd enjoy.
-John Anzalone and Jeff Liszt
STORY
OF THE WEEK: HANDICAPPING 2010
Lately, poll after poll seems to point to doom
and gloom for the Democrats. The president's approval is under 50%, the generic
Republican is ahead in the horse race, people loathe Congress, and so on. Obviously,
we pay attention to these movements. Yet as campaign pollsters, we feel that
the collective narrative fueled by this flood of national data is obscuring the
most basic axioms in politics: campaigns
matter, candidates matter, and races are ultimately won and lost on a
district-by-district basis.
Even in a cycle where some of our
candidates face a considerable headwind, we
approach each race knowing our candidate has a shot to win. It's not
because we're delusional optimists-we don't sugarcoat a candidate's prospects-but
because we know political races are complex political animals that can turn on
as little as a slip of the tongue or a miscoded voter list. We've seen time and again the peculiarities
of a race vaulting one candidate past the upper-level atmospherics that point
to victory for the other side.
So
for us, the question is not whether commentators' predictions of the Democrats'
fate are premature-they are, and most readily admit this-but whether they are
too reductionist, focusing heavily on atmospheric factors at the expense of others
that ultimately matter more in specific races. For various
reasons-benign and otherwise-this is often the case, but campaigns need a more
nuanced approach. While we certainly won't settle the debate here, we can
provide one pollster's take on some of the factors that keep our campaign team
up at night (and some that do not).
THINGS THAT REALLY AFFECT ELECTORAL
OUTCOMES
- The candidates:
More than anything else, the candidates set everything in motion, adding
texture to the cold political metrics that usually come to define the
prospects of a race. The landscape is replete with candidates who are
doing their best to squander good opportunities (e.g., Sharron Angle) and
those who are finding ways to navigate around daunting political
challenges (e.g., Bobby Bright).
- Fundraising: If
candidates set things in motion, fundraising helps candidates see
everything through. Campaigns are expensive, and money keeps the whole
machine moving. It can make unknown candidates competitive and mediocre
candidates the next big thing (e.g., Meg Whitman). It also tends to
produce diminishing returns for candidates who are already very well known
(e.g., Jon Corzine and Michael Bloomberg). But on the whole, we've seen
far too many races hinge on a candidate's unwillingness to pick up
the phone and dial a potential donor.
- Independent Expenditures: The focus of campaigns is often on the candidates themselves, and
for good reason. But behind the scenes sits a class of political operatives
who raise millions of dollars to deploy in voter contact in targeted races
across the country. The programs come in many flavors-corporate, labor,
and party committees have their own programs-but the objective is always
the same: influence electoral outcomes. It is not uncommon for IE spending
to far outpace spending on the part of the candidates in a given race.
THINGS THAT GET APPROPRIATE ATTENTION, BUT
MATTER SOMEWHAT LESS
- The "lean" of the district: It usually takes more firepower for a Democrat to prevail in a
place like Idaho's 1st or Alabama's 2nd than it does
in say, Illinois' 4th or New York's 15th. Still,
partisan leanings in a district are better used as a rough guide than as a
hard rule. In fact, party registration spreads-a common metric-can be
especially misleading when independents are not factored in (e.g., Massachusetts
and Scott Brown).
- Structural dynamics of mid-term elections: The rule of thumb goes that mid-term
elections are older and whiter than presidential-year elections. Both the causes
of and solutions to this fact are fiercely debated in Democratic circles
(this is beyond the scope here), but let's just say that nobody expects
the electorate that showed up in 2008 to show up in 2010. This is a
problem that Democrats can overcome by carefully targeting drop-off voters
and mending fences with independents, among other steps.
- Votes: Most
political cycles are defined by a handful of votes cast out of thousands
in a session. Sometimes, a single vote defines a race and a career. This
is a "handful" type of year, which, depending on the skill of the
Democratic incumbent means a few tough votes in Congress isn't necessarily
a death sentence. To take one
example: Blanche Lincoln successfully messaged her inconsistent party-line
voting record into evidence of both her political independence and her commitment
to core Democratic priorities.
- "Third party" candidates: Third party or splinter candidacies can quickly change the
fundamental dynamics of a race, mainly by helping nominate more extreme
candidates in primaries or siphoning off votes in a general. In some
cases, they can even turn safe seats into a pickup for the opposing party
(e.g., Hawaii's 1st CD). But this is often the exception, not
the rule
- Jobs, but not deficits: While Democrats ignore voters' concern about the national deficit
and debt at their peril, the national
data suggest that jobs-specifically, disposable income-is a much stronger predictorof a vote for the party in power.
Anecdotally, the jobs picture tends to figure more prominently at the
district level as well (hence the inclusion here). Democrats should put
much more effort into growing, and selling, job creation than in reducing
the deficit this cycle.
THINGS THAT ARE OFTEN WAY OVERBLOWN
- President Obama: While Obama's job performance is a decent indicator of the
Democrats' aggregate fortunes in November, it is an imperfect measure at
the district level. Forty-nine Democrats won seats in districts that went
for John McCain, and many will keep their seats this year. At the end of
the day, Obama's name will not appear on the ballot (even though some will
run as if his name were-a dicey strategy).
- The anti-incumbent narrative: No doubt this year is a difficult year for incumbents, but if
incumbents' win-loss ratio is any measure of anti-incumbent
sentiment-naturally, it seems like it should be-then the evidence from the
primary season is not very compelling.
So far, 98% of congressional incumbents have won re-nomination, despite
obvious public opprobrium
heaped on Congress.
- The "enthusiasm gap": One of the most abused statistics in politics is the vote among
"very likely" voters, which currently favors Republicans. While parties
obviously prefer a base that is "fired up, ready to go," it is important
to remember that less energized voters still show up to vote (albeit at a
lower rate). In three races this year for which there was late public
polling, the Republican candidate performed noticeably worse than expected based
on the vote margin among "very excited" voters. For example, in the
special House election in Pennsylvania, Democrat Mark Critz defeated
Republican Tim Burns by 9 points, even though Burns led Critz among "very
excited" voters by 22 points (a swing of 31 points). This doesn't mean
Democrats can sit back and expect the base to show up; they still must
convince their voters that there is plenty to lose by staying home.
- 1994: Comparing
2010 to 1994 is tempting, but there are as many differences (here and here) as there are
parallels. Comparing 2010 to any other year is even more problematic.
- National metrics (job performance, the generic ballot, etc.): These are useful tea leaves but they
tell us precious little about what is happening in any given race.
Looking at this list, it becomes clear that
we tend to prioritize the district-level factors like fundraising over the
national factors like Obama's job performance. This may be all to the good,
since candidates tend to have more control over these factors and therefore
have more control over their political destiny. In the end, we think national
factors are convenient shorthand-they will allow some pundits to guess
correctly the number of seats won and lost by the Democrats; but they won't
tell us much about the outcome in any specific contest come November 3rd.
Campaigns still matter.
---
OTHER
NEWS FROM THE POLLING AND POLITICAL WORLD
Field: The AFL-CIO is dropping over 300k flyers at worksites in 23 states over
the next two weeks as part of its 2010 field operations.
Experts weigh in on 2010: The latest National Journal Political insiders Poll suggests
the GOP's chances of taking over the House are increasingly likely.
On gender equality: According to a recent Pew survey of 22 nations, "People
around the world say they firmly support equal rights for men and women, but
many still believe men should get preference when it comes to good jobs, higher
education or...the simple right to work outside the home."
Incumbency: A new Washington Post/ABC national poll
finds that 6-in-10 Americans say they are "inclined to look around for someone
new" this November.
Hot spot: Check out the clever new Rory Reid spot here.
Jobs, jobs, jobs: The Times David Leonhardt examines 5 steps Congress can take to
bolster growth. Here's the summary: "It could clear up some of the uncertainty
about future government policy and, in the process, persuade companies to spend
some of the $1.8 trillion in cash they have
hoarded. Congress could agree to help struggling states if, and only if, they
took steps to reduce their own long-term deficits. And Congress could push two
opaque bureaucracies on opposite sides of the world - the Federal Reserve and the Chinese Communist Party - to do
more for global growth."
Independents: A recent Gallup tracking poll shows the
president's approval among at just 38% among indies, a full 18 points lower
than it was on year ago.
Worth
a click: Politico has a neat graphic
showing where each senator stands on a comprehensive energy and climate bill.Part 1: http://politi.co/9qc5SJ
Part 2: http://politi.co/bcM2Ml
Iraq update: As the president promised, U.S. forces in
Iraq are drawing down. According to Joel Wing: "U.S. forces
are scheduled to draw down to 50,000 by September 1, 2010 following President
Obama's withdrawal plan. It's hardly been noticed, but U.S. troops are almost
at that level already... In January 2009 when Obama first took office, there
were 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq." (h/t Mike Allen)
Primary season: In defeating her runoff primary opponent
last night, Terri Sewell is on track to become the first African American women
ever elected to the U.S. Congress from Alabama. Sewell will face Republican Don
Chamberlain to succeed Rep. Artur Davis. The seat is considered safe for the
Democrats.
Moving on up: The Huffington Post this week announced its acquisition of
Pollster.com. According to Arianna Huffington, "...we'll be able to both
aggregate polls, point out the limitations of them and demand more transparency."
We strongly encourage HuffPost's efforts on these fronts.
They said it: Nevada
U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle's (R) off-message musings on BP (slush fund), on abortion (make lemonade out of lemons), on
Social Security and Medicare (phase it out), and on job creation (not her job). Check out Angle's original campaign site for more issue statements.
