The Electoral Landscape

Unless something changes pretty quickly, Republicans are going to win the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey. The press is saying that these elections turn on local issues and not larger, national ones, which is what you say when you don't like the trend. That is truer in New Jersey, with its corruption scandals, but in both states the economy is a big reason for grief and that is a national issue.

Unless something changes over the next fourteen months, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Harry Reid of Nevada are going to lose their senate seats. Either of those would be a big blow to the Democrats, but the latter would be especially grievous. For a second Senate Democratic leader to lose his seat in less than a decade is one of those facts that gets people's attention. But the big bucks are riding on Congress in general. Beth Fouhy at AP has this:

Despite sweeping Democratic successes in the past two national elections, continuing job losses and President Barack Obama's slipping support could lead to double-digit losses for the party in next year's congressional races and may even threaten their House control.

In the House of Representatives the Democrats have two big structural disadvantages. One is that the party that holds the White House generally does poorly in off-year elections. Another is that Democrats won a lot of generally Republican leaning districts over the last two elections. Others won swing districts that, well, tend to swing. That success reflected general tides that swept heavily against the GOP. If the tide is indeed going in the other direction, a lot of those seats will return to the Republicans in 2010.

Then of course, there is the economy and the Democrat's legislative agenda. A weak economy generally hurts the party in power. The economy is unlikely to feel a lot better by next year. A lot of House Democrats who voted for the stimulus package and for Cap and Trade have gotten grief over the one and the other. Finally there is the healthcare thing.

Perhaps the President's firm talk last week will firm up the public support. But the basic problem for the Democrat's is a strong and general anxiety among the public. The President was supposed to clarify things, and present us with a plan that we could understand and evaluate. He didn't do that. Here is the Washington Post:

WHEN POLITICIANS start talking about paying for programs by cutting "waste and abuse," you should get nervous. When they don't provide specifics -- and when the amounts under discussion are in the hundreds of billions of dollars -- you should get even more nervous.

The WaPo goes on to list the questions to which the President provided no answers. I submit that waiting for such answer from this Administration is like waiting for Godot. He ain't showin'.

There is a reciprocal relationship between the legislative agenda and the electoral fortunes of the parties. If people are uncertain about your agenda, your electoral outlook is grim. If your electoral outlook is grim, it's hard to pass your agenda. So far, I see little to encourage the Democrats.

I don't know what will happen next year, and the cycle has favored Democrats in one respect. Up until this summer, the tide still seemed to be with them and that helped them build a list of very competitive candidates. The GOP has only recently had enough encouraging news to tempt the best and brightest to throw their hats in the ring. But that's about the only good news the Democrats have right now.

Comments

[Travis Dahle]

I agree with you Dr. Blanchard that at the moment the Dems seem to be in trouble. However, a month is a lifetime in politics, so 14 months is too long of a time to assume anything (which you do say you're not sure what will happen). It would be interesting to track something month by month to see a continuous trend - that might give us a better idea of what is going to happen. Also, love the reference to Waiting for Godot.

[KB]

Thanks, Travis. And good luck with that "a month is a lifetime" thing. It worked for Republicans, who were way behind only a short time ago.

[George Mason]

The trend that is most likely to occur is Democrats (especially Blue Dogs)beginning to find ways and methods separate themselves from Obama. Look
for this around Christmas as the dawn of the election year is in sight.
Obamas inexperience and incompetence can no longer be overcome with vacuous
eloquence, and are unlikely to be cured by New Years day 2010.

[A.I.]

Regarding New Jersey and Virginia, I wouldn't be counting those chicks just yet: http://www.americablog.com/2009/09/movement-for-democratic-candidates-for.html

[KB]

If the Monmouth/Gannett is right, it represents an almost ten point reversal from what the earlier M/G poll showed and what every other poll is showing. I still think that an incumbent governor who has been polling like Corzine is probably toast.

[KB]

A.I.: the story you link to cites the M/G poll, and misrepresents what the poll shows. The one point Corzine lead is among registered voters, which doesn't help much. Among likely voters, Christie leads Corzine by eight points. Corzine's job approval and personal evaluations are in the toilet. Of course things may change by November, but I can't see how Corzine's situation could look much worse than this at this point.