Well, literally not nobody came, instead, as Woody Allen once said, 90% of life is just showing up and that is what the Republicans did on Tuesday when they routed to a major sweep across the country.
First, consider nationally, only 33.3% of the voters showed up. This compares to 41% in 2010, and it is by far the lowest turnout going back to the early 1980s. Two-thirds of Americans stayed home, including young voters and people of color. These are core Democrat voters critical to Obama’s coalition yet they had better things to do than vote. Even in Minnesota, a state priding itself on the highest voter turnout in the nation, only 50.2% of the voters showed up, down from 55% in 2010, and 60% in 2006. Despite all the money and resources spent by the national Democrats and the DFL on GOTV, their base did not turnout. One might speculate what would have happened if they did. Perhaps the national GOP blowout would not have occurred and many of the close races would have tipped the other way. Perhaps the Minnesota House of Representatives would not have flipped with the loss of 11 DFL seats. Who knows, the results might have been different.
It would be too easy to blame the low turnout on restrictive voting laws. Maybe in some states that was an issue, but it does not explain places like Minnesota. Moreover, there were some states such as Wisconsin which actually had higher turnout than four years ago. No, the laws were not the sources of voter discontent. What was?
The first was that there was no constructive defining narrative in 2014. Republicans ran against Obama and Democrats away from him. Republicans told us what they would not do Democrats failed to explain what they did and why they deserve two more years. This was a repeated on the dueling non-narratives of 2010. Republicans had enough of a message to get their base out, Democrats did not. Democrats had a failure of nerve, a failure to articulate why they had made the lives of many people better. They can point to many successes, but too they failed. Obama really has failed on many scores.
Yes Republicans did scuttle many of his efforts, but the President never pushed far and bold enough. Too small a stimulus, too meek health care reform, waiting too late to tackle the environment, money in politics, or serious education reform. He gives a good speech but the reforms he pushed were never grand enough to make the types of differences that needed to be made. We all hoped Obama would be a transformative president, he turned out barely to be a transactional one. Thus, in part the reason why Democrats stayed home was a combination of disillusionment, disappointment, and simply a failure of the president move the country in a direction far enough for people to see a major difference in their life now or in the future.
Going forward, what does all this mean? The election results did little to change national politics. For the last two if not four years power has been gridlocked in Washington, and that is certainly not going to change with the new Congress. Obama was already a lame duck before the election and he was destined to lose influence no matter what the results. Tuesday’s returns simply accelerate the shrinkage of his presidency. The last four years have been marked by repeated but failed efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, inaction on immigration and global warming, short term stopgap budget issues, and stalemates on minimum wage and a host of other issues. Don’t expect to see that change in the next two years. New congressional majorities do not necessarily mean that the House and Senate will act more responsibly and that its leadership and Obama will reach agreement by necessity. What needs to be understood is that there is a basic philosophical difference over the role of government here, with little electoral incentive to compromise. This is the core to understanding the 2014 elections.
The Pew Research Center has argued correctly that what has emerged in American politics is a two tract election cycle. We have a presidential election cycle marked by turnouts in the mid 50s where women, the young, and people of color turn out, or at least vote in percentages greater than in midterm elections. These are presidential election years that favor Democrats, in theory. But the midterm elections produce significantly lower turnouts, with older, whiter, and more male electorates. In each of these election cycles a different mixture of congressional, state, and local seats are up for election too. The result is that different electorates create contrasting majorities and results. Effectively we have dual majorities rule in the United States, each checking one another. With right now the midterm majorities driving American politics.
Democrats are now looking to 2016 as their salvation when anticipated turnout is up to save them. Don’t count on pure demographics to bail them out. One still needs a good narrative and message, an argument to give people a reason to vote. Obama’s lasting legacy may be one I saw in a New Yorker cartoon from a few years ago when one person turned to another and said “I think Obama has the potential to get a whole new generation disillusioned.” It is this disillusionment that is the reason why we gave an election this past Tuesday and no one came.
Showing posts with label 2014 elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2014 elections. Show all posts
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Why the DFL will lose the Minnesota House
The DFL are going to lose the Minnesota House. There are many reasons for this but the main one is arrogance–both a refusal to recognize a bad strategy and an unwillingness to admit mistakes.
On the face of it, the DFL has much to cheer about come November. It will sweep the constitutional offices with Dayton especially winning by a wide margin. Franken too will win, probably big, as there is no sign that the election is tightening, contrary to what reporters any my colleagues rotefully declare. The coattails of these statewide victories plus the large cash advantage that the DFL enjoy should in theory be enough to keep them in power in the House. But it won’t be enough.
Yes, there are obvious reasons why the DFL will lose. Obama is unpopular and dragging down the party. It is a mid-year election and DFL voters are less likely to vote. Both of these factors explain why big-name Democrats such as the Clintons and Michelle Obama have visited the state with the hope of rousing the base and instilling passion into DFL voters. But still that will not be enough to overcome other major problems of the DFL.
Consider first that the DFL won many seats in 2012 by close margins in Republican areas. They did so in part because if was a presidential election year and also because they benefited from Republican legislative overreach in the 2011-2012 session. This means the DFL are defending many seats that are in Republican areas, or at the least, seriously lean GOP or are at best swing.
The second problem is the lack of a Democrat or DFL narrative. Obama had a great narrative in 2008 but since then at the national level there has been no narrative for reelection. That is why Democrats were trounced in 2010. Obama held on in 2012 because Romney was such a horrible candidate. Dayton won in 2010 because Emmer was a weak candidate, and in 2012 the DFL won less on their narrative and more on GOP failures. This year, there is still no national Democrat narrative and at the state level, the narrative too is missing. Yes Dayton and Democrats can run on their record of accomplishments and on a good state economy, but neither play well in swing districts. Moreover, the DFL do not have a good narrative to counter MNSure, Obamacare, the new Senate Office Building, and many of their other legislative acts. Yes all of these play well to the base, but not to swing voters. There is a nagging yet silent sense of DFL over-reach here, but when you put it all together, what is the narrative? “Four more years?” “If you liked the past you will love the future?” The narrative is cloudy at best, thereby explaining in part the lethargy of the DFL voter.
But perhaps the main reason why the DFL will lose the House has to do with arrogance. It is arrogance on several scores. Over the last few months I have given more talks across the state than I can count. Repeatedly I hear that th DFL is using a cookie-cutter approach to running a state legislative campaign. They are using the same messaging, GOTV, and tactics in all of their campaigns. Such an approach is a recipe for failure, ignoring the special issues and needs of different districts. While we may live in a era where elections are often nationalized, Tip O’Neill is still correct that all politics is local.
Almost 30 years ago I moved to Minnesota and saw a party still fixated on the past. I saw a DFL bureaucratic and dominated by a small core of activists who in many ways still dominate the state and think the way you win is the way they used to win. Say what you might about the GOP, but the TEA has brought in a new crop of activists into the Republican Party, willing at times to challenge it with new ideology and tactics.
But what I have heard about and see this year is that the DFL leadership has refused to acknowledge that their strategy and campaign projections are flawed. It is a urban-based approach that might work well in cities with lots of Democrats, but it is still not well suited for many suburbs and especially rural Minnesota. I have heard several DFLers over-confidently say there are only about 8 swing races in the state, self-assured that there are some seats they really do not need to defend. Too many individuals have told me that they have been refused support or volunteers because the DFL thinks their race is unwinnable. Or that the DFL has not supported a race because of petty jealousies.
There is a lot of ego on the line here. Many in the DFL leadership have a stake in being considered wise gurus–they have decided who can win or lose and how–and they do not want to prove themselves wrong less they lose their stature within the party. This insularity and making it all about them is a sure downfall for the DFL this November.
On the face of it, the DFL has much to cheer about come November. It will sweep the constitutional offices with Dayton especially winning by a wide margin. Franken too will win, probably big, as there is no sign that the election is tightening, contrary to what reporters any my colleagues rotefully declare. The coattails of these statewide victories plus the large cash advantage that the DFL enjoy should in theory be enough to keep them in power in the House. But it won’t be enough.
Yes, there are obvious reasons why the DFL will lose. Obama is unpopular and dragging down the party. It is a mid-year election and DFL voters are less likely to vote. Both of these factors explain why big-name Democrats such as the Clintons and Michelle Obama have visited the state with the hope of rousing the base and instilling passion into DFL voters. But still that will not be enough to overcome other major problems of the DFL.
Consider first that the DFL won many seats in 2012 by close margins in Republican areas. They did so in part because if was a presidential election year and also because they benefited from Republican legislative overreach in the 2011-2012 session. This means the DFL are defending many seats that are in Republican areas, or at the least, seriously lean GOP or are at best swing.
The second problem is the lack of a Democrat or DFL narrative. Obama had a great narrative in 2008 but since then at the national level there has been no narrative for reelection. That is why Democrats were trounced in 2010. Obama held on in 2012 because Romney was such a horrible candidate. Dayton won in 2010 because Emmer was a weak candidate, and in 2012 the DFL won less on their narrative and more on GOP failures. This year, there is still no national Democrat narrative and at the state level, the narrative too is missing. Yes Dayton and Democrats can run on their record of accomplishments and on a good state economy, but neither play well in swing districts. Moreover, the DFL do not have a good narrative to counter MNSure, Obamacare, the new Senate Office Building, and many of their other legislative acts. Yes all of these play well to the base, but not to swing voters. There is a nagging yet silent sense of DFL over-reach here, but when you put it all together, what is the narrative? “Four more years?” “If you liked the past you will love the future?” The narrative is cloudy at best, thereby explaining in part the lethargy of the DFL voter.
But perhaps the main reason why the DFL will lose the House has to do with arrogance. It is arrogance on several scores. Over the last few months I have given more talks across the state than I can count. Repeatedly I hear that th DFL is using a cookie-cutter approach to running a state legislative campaign. They are using the same messaging, GOTV, and tactics in all of their campaigns. Such an approach is a recipe for failure, ignoring the special issues and needs of different districts. While we may live in a era where elections are often nationalized, Tip O’Neill is still correct that all politics is local.
Almost 30 years ago I moved to Minnesota and saw a party still fixated on the past. I saw a DFL bureaucratic and dominated by a small core of activists who in many ways still dominate the state and think the way you win is the way they used to win. Say what you might about the GOP, but the TEA has brought in a new crop of activists into the Republican Party, willing at times to challenge it with new ideology and tactics.
But what I have heard about and see this year is that the DFL leadership has refused to acknowledge that their strategy and campaign projections are flawed. It is a urban-based approach that might work well in cities with lots of Democrats, but it is still not well suited for many suburbs and especially rural Minnesota. I have heard several DFLers over-confidently say there are only about 8 swing races in the state, self-assured that there are some seats they really do not need to defend. Too many individuals have told me that they have been refused support or volunteers because the DFL thinks their race is unwinnable. Or that the DFL has not supported a race because of petty jealousies.
There is a lot of ego on the line here. Many in the DFL leadership have a stake in being considered wise gurus–they have decided who can win or lose and how–and they do not want to prove themselves wrong less they lose their stature within the party. This insularity and making it all about them is a sure downfall for the DFL this November.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
The 2014 Elections and the Second Great Disenfranchisement
Elections are supposed to be the way people select their leaders. Increasingly that is no longer the case. The courts now occupy an enormous role in determining the outcome of elections–even before they start. That is clearly the case this year where too often the goal has become to rig elections by making it harder for some, especially people of color, the poor, and the young, to vote. This especially seems to be the strategy of Republicans who continue to push the Second Great Disenfranchisement in American history.
Consider what is happening across the country right now, with less than a month before the election and early voting already taking place in many states.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Ohio’s curtailment of early voting which was adopted by Republicans, after a federal district court and a court of appeals stayed the law. Republicans in Wisconsin pushed through a strict voter ID law and just in the last few days the Supreme Court has enjoined its enforcement for this election. Suits are challenging limits passed by Republicans in North Carolina limiting on same day voter registration and a ban on counting ballots from incorrect precincts. And in just the last few days a federal judge enjoined a voter ID law in Texas that would have disenfranchised over 600,000 voters, especially impacting African-Americans and Latinos. This law too was pushed by Republicans including the state’s governor Rick Perry.
In all of these cases it is Republicans pushing to shrink the electorate, to make it more difficult for people of color, the poor, and young to vote. If the First Great Disenfranchisement came after Reconstruction ended in the 1870s, we are now witnessing the Second Great Disenfranchisement. The former ushered in the era of Jim Crow, polls taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses as tools to deny African-Americans the right to vote. Today claims of voter fraud and measures such as voter ID, long voting lines, eliminating early voting, and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act are the tools to accomplish the same.
Republicans generally are advocating limits on voting, depressing voter turnout even more during midterms elections when Democrat-leaning voters are less likely to show up. This seems to be part of a national strategy to rig elections in their favor. In some states, such as Wisconsin and North Carolina, these curtailments of voting rights could make a serous difference in who wins as governor or the US Senate, and ultimately which party might control the Senate.
But even beyond legal efforts to disenfranchise, another one is occurring. Nationally, perhaps only around 38-40% of those eligible to vote this year. Young people, people of color, and the poor are especially likely to stay home. Yes it may be true that neither of the major parties offers any alternative or real choice for these people, but still one should vote. Vote even if it means writing in a candidate of your choice. Show up, vote, and use it as a protest vote if needed. Get in the habit of showing up and demonstrating to the two parties that your voice matters and it should be considered.
A lot of blood and energy was spent in the passed to get the young, people of color, and the poor the right to vote. Don’t waste those past efforts. Remember, there are many people who don’t want you to vote and who did not want your ancestors to vote. Voter ID laws and other legal restrictions are bad but it is even worse if you decide not even to bother to show up.
Side note: Over the last few days I have heard several commentators and reporters remark that despite the fact that Dayton and Franken have large leads in the polls the races will certainly tighten. Really? What is the evidence for that? In past elections that has happened but so far there is no evidence from the polls that these races are getting any closer. Since the August 12, primary both Franken and Dayton have maintained leads from at least 8 points to more. There is no evidence from the polls that the races are getting close. Instead, the evidence suggests either that public opinion has frozen or that the incumbents have leads that are increasing. Yes, I have some disagreements with the polls but right now there is no hard evidence to suggest these races are getting any closer. In fact, it is entirely possible that minds have been made up and that where we are now is where the final outcome will be. My point? Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is bad analysis to say that the races will tighten unless you have good data this year to support that assertion.
Consider what is happening across the country right now, with less than a month before the election and early voting already taking place in many states.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Ohio’s curtailment of early voting which was adopted by Republicans, after a federal district court and a court of appeals stayed the law. Republicans in Wisconsin pushed through a strict voter ID law and just in the last few days the Supreme Court has enjoined its enforcement for this election. Suits are challenging limits passed by Republicans in North Carolina limiting on same day voter registration and a ban on counting ballots from incorrect precincts. And in just the last few days a federal judge enjoined a voter ID law in Texas that would have disenfranchised over 600,000 voters, especially impacting African-Americans and Latinos. This law too was pushed by Republicans including the state’s governor Rick Perry.
In all of these cases it is Republicans pushing to shrink the electorate, to make it more difficult for people of color, the poor, and young to vote. If the First Great Disenfranchisement came after Reconstruction ended in the 1870s, we are now witnessing the Second Great Disenfranchisement. The former ushered in the era of Jim Crow, polls taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses as tools to deny African-Americans the right to vote. Today claims of voter fraud and measures such as voter ID, long voting lines, eliminating early voting, and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act are the tools to accomplish the same.
Republicans generally are advocating limits on voting, depressing voter turnout even more during midterms elections when Democrat-leaning voters are less likely to show up. This seems to be part of a national strategy to rig elections in their favor. In some states, such as Wisconsin and North Carolina, these curtailments of voting rights could make a serous difference in who wins as governor or the US Senate, and ultimately which party might control the Senate.
But even beyond legal efforts to disenfranchise, another one is occurring. Nationally, perhaps only around 38-40% of those eligible to vote this year. Young people, people of color, and the poor are especially likely to stay home. Yes it may be true that neither of the major parties offers any alternative or real choice for these people, but still one should vote. Vote even if it means writing in a candidate of your choice. Show up, vote, and use it as a protest vote if needed. Get in the habit of showing up and demonstrating to the two parties that your voice matters and it should be considered.
A lot of blood and energy was spent in the passed to get the young, people of color, and the poor the right to vote. Don’t waste those past efforts. Remember, there are many people who don’t want you to vote and who did not want your ancestors to vote. Voter ID laws and other legal restrictions are bad but it is even worse if you decide not even to bother to show up.
Side note: Over the last few days I have heard several commentators and reporters remark that despite the fact that Dayton and Franken have large leads in the polls the races will certainly tighten. Really? What is the evidence for that? In past elections that has happened but so far there is no evidence from the polls that these races are getting any closer. Since the August 12, primary both Franken and Dayton have maintained leads from at least 8 points to more. There is no evidence from the polls that the races are getting close. Instead, the evidence suggests either that public opinion has frozen or that the incumbents have leads that are increasing. Yes, I have some disagreements with the polls but right now there is no hard evidence to suggest these races are getting any closer. In fact, it is entirely possible that minds have been made up and that where we are now is where the final outcome will be. My point? Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is bad analysis to say that the races will tighten unless you have good data this year to support that assertion.
Monday, June 2, 2014
Handicapping the 2014 Minnesota Republican Chances
The 2014 Minnesota election season has officially begun. The legislative session is over, the candidate filing period has begun, and the Green and Independence parties have already had their nominating conventions and the Republicans just selected Mike McFadden and Jeff Johnson to challenge AL Franken and Mark Dayton for senator and governor respectively. The GOP convention also touched off the effort by the Republicans to reclaim the House of Representatives. Let’s consider some possibilities affecting the Republicans’ prospects this fall. Two factors will be considered: The political math and the narrative.
Political Math
First do the math. Mark Dayton is the DFL incumbent who latest approval rating according to an April Survey USA poll was 49% (40% disapproval), down from a February Minnesota Poll that had him at 58% (29% disapproval). The February Minnesota Poll had DFL incumbent Senator Al Franken’s approval at 55% (34% disapproval) and the Survey USA poll placed him at 46% approval (42% disapproval). Either these two polls reveal a shift in public opinion against them or different survey methodologies, questions, and margins of errors demonstrating small shifts in popularity. In either case, Dayton looks far better in the polls than Franken, with the latter making some marginal if not significant gains in the polls compared to his narrow margin of victory six years ago. But beyond the poll numbers, both candidates have significant fund raising leads over an possible opponents.
All 134 members of the Minnesota House of Representatives are up for election. The DFL hold a 73-61 majority. Republicans need to pick up 7 seats to capture the majority. Fourteen House members have announced retirements, 10 GOP and four DFL. Open seats are generally easier to switch parties than those occupied by incumbents, however, not all of these seats are in swing districts. Michael Paymar is retiring in St Paul and there is little chance the Republicans can pick up this seat. Similarly Mary Liz Holberg is retiring from her seat in Lakeville and there is little chance for the DFL to pick this up. Best estimates are that the total number of real swing seats is in the range of 8-15 seats, with about 12 being the most likely number. Thus, the GOP need to hold all their current seats, including open ones, and then pick up another seven to take control of the House. Not an impossible task, but certainly a difficult one.
The State Republican Party is in better financial situation than it was two years ago but it is still not where it should be and it is probably behind the DFL in terms of fundraising. The Republican House caucus may be doing better in comparison and may get closer to what their DFL rivals have. However, the issue is less in terms of how they are doing in fundraising overall but more in terms of how money may get channeled to specific House races. Finally, there are unknown variables such as how recent court decisions striking down campaign finance laws may benefit either party.
Finally, consider two last numbers. First, Minnesota leads the nation in presidential voter turnout at 75.7% (2012). In non-presidential or midterm elections the state still leads the nation but the turnout drops to 55% (2010). Exit polls in presidential election years place the number of individuals who consider themselves to be DFLers at the 38-40% range, with the GOP coming in at 30-33%. Independence Party members constitute about 10-12%, the Greens one percent, and about 20% unaffiliated. These are numbers than generally favor Democrats but in non-presidential election years much of the 20% drop in voter turnout comes from women, young voters, people of color, and the undecided. Democrats nationally and in Minnesota face a problem motivating their base to vote in midterm elections, and they also struggle to capture the unaffiliated who often are swing voters. Midterm voters are older, whiter, and more conservative than presidential year voters.
Second, the DFL will struggle with this electorate especially given the last important number–President Obama’s poor approval numbers. The Minnesota poll has his approval at 43% and disapproval at 50%, and an April KSTP poll has a more questionable 36% approval and a 54% disapproval; both survey providing numbers historically associated with a bad showing for his party in November.
Third, whatever chance the Republicans have in Minnesota they have to be considered in light of the prospects of their party capturing the US Senate or other governorships across the country. There are other states where the GOP have better chances of picking up Democrat Senate seats, such as in Montana and South Dakota, and the Republicans have to defend more gubernatorial seats than their main rivals. Unless the numbers change in Minnesota quickly, look to see more time, effort, and money spent by outside groups on other races besides those to unseat Dayton and Franken.
Political Messaging and Narratives
Besides the numbers, campaigns and elections are won and lost based on political messages or narratives. This year the narratives will be simple–do you like Obama, Obamacare, and the direction of the country, and do you like what the DFL did under unified control the last two years?
For good or bad, the DFL party in Minnesota delivered on their promises because they were in charge. This is the result of unified government. When all is told the Democrats largely did what they promise, for good or bad. They raised the minimum wage, passed anti-bullying legislation, cut taxes, passed a massive bonding bill, and also did more. The DFL acted like, well, Democrats are expected to act and they made no real missteps or mistakes in the process. They did fail to address the constitutional problems with the civil commitment process for sexual offenders, but no one seriously thought they would do that in an election year. They also failed miserably to pass new disclosure laws for campaigns and elections, and they did a lousy job on infrastructure funding. But come November they will tell the voters that they did what the aimed to do, that it bettered Minnesota, and that because of that they deserve to retain single party control.
But for all that they did, the Republicans will use it against them. All of the accomplishments or victories that the DFL will triumph the Republicans will say is the reason why they should be elected. They will argue that the DFL damaged the economy with a higher minimum wage, that the tax cuts are illusionary given the massive increases the year before, that the Democrats overreached into social issues, and that the bonding bill was simply an example of wasteful pork to buy votes. They will also try to talk about the botched rollout of MNSURE and excess spending on a new Senate office building. Republicans will say the DFL acted like Democrats–as tax and spend liberals–and that their party has a better or different vision on state government. Republicans and Democrats will offer contrasting views on the role of the state in Minnesota, with both parties making the election a referendum on the DFL’s performance. The burden will be on the GOP to convince Minnesotans that they have a better narrative. It may be easier to do with a 2014 electorate than a 2012 one, but still they need to make the case for why Dayton, Franken, and the DFL House should be ousted.
Conclusion
Whatever and whoever the GOP nominate this weekend look to see an August primary. The Republicans will be spending the summer fighting one another instead of quickly uniting against Dayton, Franken, and the Democrats. The Minnesota Republicans, like the national party, is torn in many factions, potentially challenging the chances of them taking advantage of low voter turnout and disaffection with Obama. The Republicans have a chance to flip Minnesota but in comparative perspective, they face an uphill battle to win the governorship, the senate, and take back the House.
Political Math
First do the math. Mark Dayton is the DFL incumbent who latest approval rating according to an April Survey USA poll was 49% (40% disapproval), down from a February Minnesota Poll that had him at 58% (29% disapproval). The February Minnesota Poll had DFL incumbent Senator Al Franken’s approval at 55% (34% disapproval) and the Survey USA poll placed him at 46% approval (42% disapproval). Either these two polls reveal a shift in public opinion against them or different survey methodologies, questions, and margins of errors demonstrating small shifts in popularity. In either case, Dayton looks far better in the polls than Franken, with the latter making some marginal if not significant gains in the polls compared to his narrow margin of victory six years ago. But beyond the poll numbers, both candidates have significant fund raising leads over an possible opponents.
All 134 members of the Minnesota House of Representatives are up for election. The DFL hold a 73-61 majority. Republicans need to pick up 7 seats to capture the majority. Fourteen House members have announced retirements, 10 GOP and four DFL. Open seats are generally easier to switch parties than those occupied by incumbents, however, not all of these seats are in swing districts. Michael Paymar is retiring in St Paul and there is little chance the Republicans can pick up this seat. Similarly Mary Liz Holberg is retiring from her seat in Lakeville and there is little chance for the DFL to pick this up. Best estimates are that the total number of real swing seats is in the range of 8-15 seats, with about 12 being the most likely number. Thus, the GOP need to hold all their current seats, including open ones, and then pick up another seven to take control of the House. Not an impossible task, but certainly a difficult one.
The State Republican Party is in better financial situation than it was two years ago but it is still not where it should be and it is probably behind the DFL in terms of fundraising. The Republican House caucus may be doing better in comparison and may get closer to what their DFL rivals have. However, the issue is less in terms of how they are doing in fundraising overall but more in terms of how money may get channeled to specific House races. Finally, there are unknown variables such as how recent court decisions striking down campaign finance laws may benefit either party.
Finally, consider two last numbers. First, Minnesota leads the nation in presidential voter turnout at 75.7% (2012). In non-presidential or midterm elections the state still leads the nation but the turnout drops to 55% (2010). Exit polls in presidential election years place the number of individuals who consider themselves to be DFLers at the 38-40% range, with the GOP coming in at 30-33%. Independence Party members constitute about 10-12%, the Greens one percent, and about 20% unaffiliated. These are numbers than generally favor Democrats but in non-presidential election years much of the 20% drop in voter turnout comes from women, young voters, people of color, and the undecided. Democrats nationally and in Minnesota face a problem motivating their base to vote in midterm elections, and they also struggle to capture the unaffiliated who often are swing voters. Midterm voters are older, whiter, and more conservative than presidential year voters.
Second, the DFL will struggle with this electorate especially given the last important number–President Obama’s poor approval numbers. The Minnesota poll has his approval at 43% and disapproval at 50%, and an April KSTP poll has a more questionable 36% approval and a 54% disapproval; both survey providing numbers historically associated with a bad showing for his party in November.
Third, whatever chance the Republicans have in Minnesota they have to be considered in light of the prospects of their party capturing the US Senate or other governorships across the country. There are other states where the GOP have better chances of picking up Democrat Senate seats, such as in Montana and South Dakota, and the Republicans have to defend more gubernatorial seats than their main rivals. Unless the numbers change in Minnesota quickly, look to see more time, effort, and money spent by outside groups on other races besides those to unseat Dayton and Franken.
Political Messaging and Narratives
Besides the numbers, campaigns and elections are won and lost based on political messages or narratives. This year the narratives will be simple–do you like Obama, Obamacare, and the direction of the country, and do you like what the DFL did under unified control the last two years?
For good or bad, the DFL party in Minnesota delivered on their promises because they were in charge. This is the result of unified government. When all is told the Democrats largely did what they promise, for good or bad. They raised the minimum wage, passed anti-bullying legislation, cut taxes, passed a massive bonding bill, and also did more. The DFL acted like, well, Democrats are expected to act and they made no real missteps or mistakes in the process. They did fail to address the constitutional problems with the civil commitment process for sexual offenders, but no one seriously thought they would do that in an election year. They also failed miserably to pass new disclosure laws for campaigns and elections, and they did a lousy job on infrastructure funding. But come November they will tell the voters that they did what the aimed to do, that it bettered Minnesota, and that because of that they deserve to retain single party control.
But for all that they did, the Republicans will use it against them. All of the accomplishments or victories that the DFL will triumph the Republicans will say is the reason why they should be elected. They will argue that the DFL damaged the economy with a higher minimum wage, that the tax cuts are illusionary given the massive increases the year before, that the Democrats overreached into social issues, and that the bonding bill was simply an example of wasteful pork to buy votes. They will also try to talk about the botched rollout of MNSURE and excess spending on a new Senate office building. Republicans will say the DFL acted like Democrats–as tax and spend liberals–and that their party has a better or different vision on state government. Republicans and Democrats will offer contrasting views on the role of the state in Minnesota, with both parties making the election a referendum on the DFL’s performance. The burden will be on the GOP to convince Minnesotans that they have a better narrative. It may be easier to do with a 2014 electorate than a 2012 one, but still they need to make the case for why Dayton, Franken, and the DFL House should be ousted.
Conclusion
Whatever and whoever the GOP nominate this weekend look to see an August primary. The Republicans will be spending the summer fighting one another instead of quickly uniting against Dayton, Franken, and the Democrats. The Minnesota Republicans, like the national party, is torn in many factions, potentially challenging the chances of them taking advantage of low voter turnout and disaffection with Obama. The Republicans have a chance to flip Minnesota but in comparative perspective, they face an uphill battle to win the governorship, the senate, and take back the House.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Minnesota Republicans and the 2014 Elections: Opportunity Lost?
These should be heady times for Minnesota Republicans. The 2014 elections should be a great opening for them to make political inroads in Minnesota, yet for all the advantages they have, they will probably do no better in the state than retain a congressional seat that they should have held all along.
Consider the state of 2014 elections. It will be midterm elections with no presidential candidate on the ticket. During presidential elections Minnesota’s voter turnout is about 77%. In non-presidential years it drops significantly, with the majority of those who stay home being the youth and those more likely to voter for Democrats. Republicans generally do well in off-year elections. In 2010 state turnout dropped to about 53%. Given that there is a US Senate and governor’s race, do not expect a drop that far; anticipate perhaps a 60% turnout. This is still respectable compared to other states, but certainly not great compared to presidential years. Expect to see many Democrats and swing voters (especially the young) stay home. This is especially the case given that unlike in 2012 when the elections and marriage amendments drove voters to the polls. Now with same-sex marriage legal, many Millennials may decide their work is done and they may get involved some other way. On balance, this is an election with an electorate more favorable to Republicans.
Historically second term midterm elections are also bad for the president’s party. Few think the Democrats can take back the House–especially with so few competitive seats in existence–and with Democrats having to defend so many Senate seats and many of their strong incumbents retiring, the prospects for a GOP senate are strong. Obama has a 50% approval rating, but the job market and economy are still tepid and Obamacare will have implementation problems. All told, the political climate favors Republicans.
Now consider Minnesota. Two of the closest races in Minnesota history have their DFL incumbents up for election in 2014. While once governor Dayton rode high in the popularity polls, his approval rating is now below 50% and his disapprovals are close to that. In theory he is vulnerable. Senator Franken, who won by 312 votes in 2008, is also up for election. He too should be vulnerable. And Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has declared that he is not running for election. That creates another opportunity. Finally, the Minnesota House of Representatives faces election next year. Many Republicans may think that rasing taxes on the wealthy, same-sex marriage, and bills to allow for union votes with daycare workers smells of overreach, offering a rallying cry and opportunity to retake that chamber in 2014.
Yet despite these opportunities, the GOP may not capitalize on any of them. In the case of Dayton and Franken, the Republicans do not have a varsity candidate to run against them. So far no household names have emerged. Perhaps some will, but it better happen soon. At least with the Senate race, a successful candidate may need to raise $20 million to win. Franken has good approvals, name recognition, and money in the bank. The clock is ticking for Republicans to find someone soon. In terms of legislative races, perhaps only about 20 House seats are competitive. This is enough to switch party control, but Republicans need a message, candidates, and money.
For governor, the issue is money too, and the state Republican Party is broke and split. It is a party torn between Ron Paul supporters, Tea Party followers, and the few remaining moderates that it has. It lacks a common message and theme and organizationally it is not clear it can provide the resources to support both a statewide race and at the same time assist in the House races next year. While the House GOP caucus generally supports its candidates, it needs help from the party and it will not get much of that. Do not count on the House caucus having too many resources to help out with the governor’s race either.
But the more curious issue is why the empty bench? Why are there so few if any varsity GOP candidates for governor, senate, and even Secretary of State? First, the losses of 2012 depleted the GOP of candidates–majority legislative leaders lost power and position. Other such as Amy Koch self-destructed. Additionally, the party has moved far to the right while the state as a whole remains centrist. While there are strong pockets of conservatism across the state–such as in the 6th Congressional district and in many state legislative seats–on balance Minnesota’s voter registration and party breakdown favor Democrats in a statewide election.
This brings us then to the 6th Congressional district. Many fellow political scientists were convinced that Bachmann was vulnerable and Graves could win. Maybe, yet for the last three elections Democrats have gotten it wrong in the 6th. Bachmann remained a good candidate in a district strongly favoring a Republican. Her base would not have cared about the ethics issues and Bachmann could have turned them into assets. Graves had little money and could perhaps only go so far as the anti-Bachmann candidate. Having said that, he was the “Great Democratic Hope” in that district. With him out, probably any Republican can win.
Tom Emmer is already in. He has name recognition and politics that match the district. Yet as he showed in 2010, he is not a great campaigner and some Republicans resent that he did not win then. He may be the Republican that Democrats have the best chance to beat–if they can find a candidate. Senator Mary Kiffmeyer has a perfect political alignment with the 6th district–Bachmann without the baggage–and in 2014 she can run without giving up her legislative seat. Yet she could also be a candidate for Secretary of State again. The other name mentioned is Matt Dean. He is a decent, quiet person who could garner moderate support. Whether he can excite the base remains to be seen.
There is a window of opportunity for Minnesota Republicans, but it is closing quickly except perhaps for the 6th Congressional district. The challenge is not to let the need to defend this safe seat overwhelm the other chances out there.
Consider the state of 2014 elections. It will be midterm elections with no presidential candidate on the ticket. During presidential elections Minnesota’s voter turnout is about 77%. In non-presidential years it drops significantly, with the majority of those who stay home being the youth and those more likely to voter for Democrats. Republicans generally do well in off-year elections. In 2010 state turnout dropped to about 53%. Given that there is a US Senate and governor’s race, do not expect a drop that far; anticipate perhaps a 60% turnout. This is still respectable compared to other states, but certainly not great compared to presidential years. Expect to see many Democrats and swing voters (especially the young) stay home. This is especially the case given that unlike in 2012 when the elections and marriage amendments drove voters to the polls. Now with same-sex marriage legal, many Millennials may decide their work is done and they may get involved some other way. On balance, this is an election with an electorate more favorable to Republicans.
Historically second term midterm elections are also bad for the president’s party. Few think the Democrats can take back the House–especially with so few competitive seats in existence–and with Democrats having to defend so many Senate seats and many of their strong incumbents retiring, the prospects for a GOP senate are strong. Obama has a 50% approval rating, but the job market and economy are still tepid and Obamacare will have implementation problems. All told, the political climate favors Republicans.
Now consider Minnesota. Two of the closest races in Minnesota history have their DFL incumbents up for election in 2014. While once governor Dayton rode high in the popularity polls, his approval rating is now below 50% and his disapprovals are close to that. In theory he is vulnerable. Senator Franken, who won by 312 votes in 2008, is also up for election. He too should be vulnerable. And Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has declared that he is not running for election. That creates another opportunity. Finally, the Minnesota House of Representatives faces election next year. Many Republicans may think that rasing taxes on the wealthy, same-sex marriage, and bills to allow for union votes with daycare workers smells of overreach, offering a rallying cry and opportunity to retake that chamber in 2014.
Yet despite these opportunities, the GOP may not capitalize on any of them. In the case of Dayton and Franken, the Republicans do not have a varsity candidate to run against them. So far no household names have emerged. Perhaps some will, but it better happen soon. At least with the Senate race, a successful candidate may need to raise $20 million to win. Franken has good approvals, name recognition, and money in the bank. The clock is ticking for Republicans to find someone soon. In terms of legislative races, perhaps only about 20 House seats are competitive. This is enough to switch party control, but Republicans need a message, candidates, and money.
For governor, the issue is money too, and the state Republican Party is broke and split. It is a party torn between Ron Paul supporters, Tea Party followers, and the few remaining moderates that it has. It lacks a common message and theme and organizationally it is not clear it can provide the resources to support both a statewide race and at the same time assist in the House races next year. While the House GOP caucus generally supports its candidates, it needs help from the party and it will not get much of that. Do not count on the House caucus having too many resources to help out with the governor’s race either.
But the more curious issue is why the empty bench? Why are there so few if any varsity GOP candidates for governor, senate, and even Secretary of State? First, the losses of 2012 depleted the GOP of candidates–majority legislative leaders lost power and position. Other such as Amy Koch self-destructed. Additionally, the party has moved far to the right while the state as a whole remains centrist. While there are strong pockets of conservatism across the state–such as in the 6th Congressional district and in many state legislative seats–on balance Minnesota’s voter registration and party breakdown favor Democrats in a statewide election.
This brings us then to the 6th Congressional district. Many fellow political scientists were convinced that Bachmann was vulnerable and Graves could win. Maybe, yet for the last three elections Democrats have gotten it wrong in the 6th. Bachmann remained a good candidate in a district strongly favoring a Republican. Her base would not have cared about the ethics issues and Bachmann could have turned them into assets. Graves had little money and could perhaps only go so far as the anti-Bachmann candidate. Having said that, he was the “Great Democratic Hope” in that district. With him out, probably any Republican can win.
Tom Emmer is already in. He has name recognition and politics that match the district. Yet as he showed in 2010, he is not a great campaigner and some Republicans resent that he did not win then. He may be the Republican that Democrats have the best chance to beat–if they can find a candidate. Senator Mary Kiffmeyer has a perfect political alignment with the 6th district–Bachmann without the baggage–and in 2014 she can run without giving up her legislative seat. Yet she could also be a candidate for Secretary of State again. The other name mentioned is Matt Dean. He is a decent, quiet person who could garner moderate support. Whether he can excite the base remains to be seen.
There is a window of opportunity for Minnesota Republicans, but it is closing quickly except perhaps for the 6th Congressional district. The challenge is not to let the need to defend this safe seat overwhelm the other chances out there.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
News of Michele Bachmann’s Vulnerability are Greatly Exaggerated
Alex Seitz-Wald of Salon recently penned that three pending ethics investigations surrounding Congresswoman Bachmann could doom her in the next election. At least this is the hope of the Democrats and many other observers. Of course this is an interesting thesis but Democrats are too quick to assume that she is as vulnerable as they think.
No doubt Bachmann has a close scare last year against newcomer Jim Graves. Perhaps had he received more money and better support earlier from the DCCC maybe he would have won. Running again in 2014 Graves brings many advantages in terms of name recognition and better campaign skills. and the ethics accusations surrounding Bachmann add additional cogency to his campaign.
But one should not forget that 2012 was a unique year that will not repeat itself in 2014. Nationally 2012 was a presidential year with higher turnout. It featured an incumbent president running against a weak Republican. Romney was especially weak in MN, having done badly here in the caucuses. Minnesota’s turnout was approximately 75% and it also featured Senator Klobuchar running for reelection. On the ballot were two controversial constitutional amendments (a ban on same-sex marriage and a Voter ID Amendment) that strongly drove DFL turnout and backlashed against Republicans in Minnesota. None of this will exist in 2014.
In 2014 there will be a governor’s race and Senator Franken is up again. Both may draw Democratic attention and away from Bachmann. Moreover, Democrats nationally will be battling to hold on to the US Senate whereas there seems little chance to regain the House. These factors may divert money and resources away from a Bachman race. Furthermore, some believe Representative John Klein is also vulnerable and that race too may divert resources and attention.
Second, midterm elections generally do not favor the President’s party and in Minnesota and across the country expect a significant downturn in turnout. Constitutional amendments will not be on the ballot either. Overall, expect there to be voter turnout in the mid 50s and not 70s in 2014, with such turnout favoring a more Republican voting block.
Moreover, Bachmann will not be unprepared this time. She has way more in her campaign war chest now than Graves and she has already launched ads attacking Graves. Her fundraising skills are still excellent with a terrific network of supporters across the country. While Bachmann did not use it well in 2012, her district is not about plus 6 or 7 GOP, again giving her a real advantage in her district, again especially in the off-year elections. In 2012 Bachmann’s congressional campaign suffered from her presidential adventures, including spending most of her first year of her term in Iowa. This will not occur this time.
Finally, for many years her district has been forgiving and even embraced her often controversial and fact-challenged statements and there is no reason to think that they may discount them again in 2014.
Overall, Bachmann may be vulnerable in 2014 and perhaps the patience of her constituents is running out. Her opponents have gotten it wrong in the last two election cycles against her, overestimating her weakness in 2010 and underestimating it in 2012. Being burned twice is a note for caution.
Perhaps also the ethics issues will hurt her, but it is also possible by November, 2014 the story has run its course and Bachmann can again assert that it is a liberal media that is driving the attacks. Democrats have mis-estimated her political skills and they again may do they to their misfortune in 2014. Much like Mark Twain once declaring that news of his death were greatly exaggerated, so too might be news of Michele Bachmann's political career.
No doubt Bachmann has a close scare last year against newcomer Jim Graves. Perhaps had he received more money and better support earlier from the DCCC maybe he would have won. Running again in 2014 Graves brings many advantages in terms of name recognition and better campaign skills. and the ethics accusations surrounding Bachmann add additional cogency to his campaign.
But one should not forget that 2012 was a unique year that will not repeat itself in 2014. Nationally 2012 was a presidential year with higher turnout. It featured an incumbent president running against a weak Republican. Romney was especially weak in MN, having done badly here in the caucuses. Minnesota’s turnout was approximately 75% and it also featured Senator Klobuchar running for reelection. On the ballot were two controversial constitutional amendments (a ban on same-sex marriage and a Voter ID Amendment) that strongly drove DFL turnout and backlashed against Republicans in Minnesota. None of this will exist in 2014.
In 2014 there will be a governor’s race and Senator Franken is up again. Both may draw Democratic attention and away from Bachmann. Moreover, Democrats nationally will be battling to hold on to the US Senate whereas there seems little chance to regain the House. These factors may divert money and resources away from a Bachman race. Furthermore, some believe Representative John Klein is also vulnerable and that race too may divert resources and attention.
Second, midterm elections generally do not favor the President’s party and in Minnesota and across the country expect a significant downturn in turnout. Constitutional amendments will not be on the ballot either. Overall, expect there to be voter turnout in the mid 50s and not 70s in 2014, with such turnout favoring a more Republican voting block.
Moreover, Bachmann will not be unprepared this time. She has way more in her campaign war chest now than Graves and she has already launched ads attacking Graves. Her fundraising skills are still excellent with a terrific network of supporters across the country. While Bachmann did not use it well in 2012, her district is not about plus 6 or 7 GOP, again giving her a real advantage in her district, again especially in the off-year elections. In 2012 Bachmann’s congressional campaign suffered from her presidential adventures, including spending most of her first year of her term in Iowa. This will not occur this time.
Finally, for many years her district has been forgiving and even embraced her often controversial and fact-challenged statements and there is no reason to think that they may discount them again in 2014.
Overall, Bachmann may be vulnerable in 2014 and perhaps the patience of her constituents is running out. Her opponents have gotten it wrong in the last two election cycles against her, overestimating her weakness in 2010 and underestimating it in 2012. Being burned twice is a note for caution.
Perhaps also the ethics issues will hurt her, but it is also possible by November, 2014 the story has run its course and Bachmann can again assert that it is a liberal media that is driving the attacks. Democrats have mis-estimated her political skills and they again may do they to their misfortune in 2014. Much like Mark Twain once declaring that news of his death were greatly exaggerated, so too might be news of Michele Bachmann's political career.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)