DC political prognosticator Charlie Cook is getting a lot of attention for his doom and gloom about Democrats’ chances this November. He has controversially asserted that health care reform is Barack Obama’s Iraq War and that the Democrats will likely lose the House.
It’s worth pointing out that other major political pundits don’t (yet) agree with Cook’s forecast; Larry Sabato and Stuart Rothenberg, for example, still see Republican gains in the House in the mid-to-upper 20s. Cook’s analysis can’t be totally dismissed, however. Congressional approval ratings, though always low, are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Democratic enthusiasm is hugely down, economic forecasts indicate slow job growth through the end of the year, and Obama’s approval rating is the second-lowest of any president at this point.
Moreover, young and minority voters are unlikely to turn out in large numbers; many, even if supportive of Obama and liberal-ish in their views, aren’t especially political and may treat the midterms with apathy. As Obama’s approval ratings are low with older voters and white voters, a turnout favoring them could well deliver the GOP big gains.
Nonetheless, Cook’s analysis seems flawed to me. It’s not that Democrats couldn’t lose the House. And it’s not just the standard “a week is a lifetime in politics,” caveat. Rather, Cook seems to me to miss many mitigating factors, and I’m curious if others agree.
First, I don’t think Cook accounts for the weakness of the GOP brand, which remains very low. It’s true that in an anti-incumbent year, Democrats will be the main losers as the party in power. But while large GOP gains aren’t out of the question, the voters’ low enthusiasm for the GOP seems to me to be a major hurdle. Hatred of the GOP could prove extremely potent in getting a higher proportion of Democratic-leaning voters to the polls. In 1994, pre-Newt’s speakership, surveys showed Democrats had relatively low disapproval of the Republican Party.
Second, I think Cook understates the potential for Democratic mobilization. Especially if Democrats can pass health care reform, they will likely at least stabilize their position with Democratic-leaners and have a concrete – and real – achievement to champion before the voters. Frankly, even without that, mobilization alone would shift turnout somewhat in their favor. And by all accounts, it appears that Obama will take a major personal stake in the midterms. This will be an all-out, nationalized campaign, and while there will be districts where that will be hindrance, revving up Democratic voters and convincing them to turn out and vote could well save several marginal seats.
Third, I think Cook underestimates Obama’s continuing popularity. There’s no doubt that Obama’s numbers have fallen, but the public still likes Obama personally by a heavy margin. And for all the talk of Democratic disillusionment, approval and enthusiasm for the president among Democratic-leaners remains extremely high. Comparisons with Bill Clinton are difficult, as Clinton’s approval ratings in early 1994 were actually quite high. But by the late spring of ’94, Clinton’s job and personal ratings were significantly down due to several big political defeats and the controversies over Whitewater. While Obama’s job approval ratings and personal favorability ratings could fall to the low 40s, I have a hard time seeing them doing so. And if Obama’s ratings are around 50% in November 2010 and if he maintains high personal approval ratings, it would add up to a less hostile climate for Democrats than they faced in 1994.
All of these factors suggest to me that Republican gains will likely top out at the mid-to-upper 20s or low 30s, in the House. And the potential is there, actually, for actual losses to prove smaller. Unless there is a double-digit recession, it is difficult (though, again, not impossible) for me to see Republicans picking up 40+ seats. If, as forecasted, we have at least some modest job growth, approval ratings for Obama around 50%, passage of health care reform and at least a few other popular items, and Democratic mobilization heavier-than-today, that points towards more modest losses than what Cook is forecasting.
In fairness to Cook, we’re in somewhat uncharted waters here. Neither 1994 or 2006 looked like wave elections this far out, although moderate gains for the opposition in both years seemed likely. In both years, voter anger grew and grew and didn’t peak prior to election day.
This year, the level of angst is present so early that it’s hard to predict what will over the coming months. It is entirely plausible that the seeming wave will crest. Democrats are aware of voter anger far earlier and for the GOP to look like they’re returning to power this early on may give time for wavering voters to have second thoughts. Alternately, the wave could build, which would indicate catastrophic losses for Democrats. Or it could remain roughly the same as it is today.
So do people agree? Disagree? Or is Cook right regardless of the factors I name?
I haven’t seen the Democrats able to mobilize since November 4th, 2008. You’ve been losing races left and right to a much, much worse extent than Republicans did in 2005. Look at Joe Cao, Scott Brown, Chris Christie, John Fleming…
Maybe that will change if Obama magically passes the public option through the House and Senate, despite the loss of five votes in the House (Cao flipping, Abercrombie and Wexler resigning, Murtha dying) and despite the end of the filibuster-proof majority. I doubt it.
I thought for a while that all Obama really needed to do was crack down on Congress’ excesses and communicate more, and that that would be enough to turn things around. I don’t feel that way any more. The entire strategy for his first year has been a political fiasco that’s unprecedented in my lifetime.
I personally think that if he doesn’t change course soon he’s going to be a one-term President.
I think Cook will turn out to be right.
I’d like to see more pushback against Cook. He is way too pessimistic against Dems at this stage, and his comments mean more to fundraisers and candidates than Rasmussen.
or amateur hour. Looking at some of their house ratings shines some light on just how devoid of thought Cook’s house editor David Wasserman seems to be. Here are some highlights h
1) Cao as a tossup – this is just flat out wrong, even in a year that is so bad for us that we lose 50+ seats, this seat will revert back to our column without the need to to life a finger (CQ and Rothenberg both have this as likely democrat so Cook’s reasoning behind this one is beyond me)
2) Sutton as Lean D – reactionary nonsense, Ganley is certainly better than nothing but he’s also a teabagger and over 95% of his CoH is from his own pocket. This district is D+5 and Sherrod Brown’s old seat. Just because he made a sudden, last-minute race switch doesn’t somehow throw this seat to Lean D.
3) Open seats for Berry and Ellsworth as Lean R – while Dems enjoyed quick recruitment successes in Bryles and Van Haaften, Republicans are stuck with some dude in AR1 and some only slightly better dude in IN8. It would seem that these two seats are almost the same situation as Tanner’s open seat and there the GOP actually have a better candidate. But nothing pushes Cook’s gloom and doom for Dems narrative better than a bunch of Dem seats in bold font sitting prominently in Republican columns.
4) The ridiculous number of Dem seats that are in the likely D column. This also seems to be designed to push the same narrative. Ross, Costa, Boyd, Bean, Carnahan, Wilson, Wu, and Larsen have no business being in the same column as actual likely D candidates such as Klein, Halvorson, Walz, Altmire, and Connolly who all represent swing districts and have drawn respectable opposition.
5) Mollohan as a tossup – If Mollohan is a tossup then you might as well say that Skelton, Boucher, Pomeroy, Edwards, and Lincoln Davis are all tossups. That an almost 30 incumbent can draw a second tier (at best) challenger and be moved to a tossup seems to indicate they are pushing the retirements of some of these long serving Dems.
That David Wasserman actually gets paid to come up with this crap is a crime. Either he willfully follows Cook’s own opinions so increase the number of subscriptions, or these are simply the ratings of someone who has the reasoning ability of middle school dropout.
American voters are slow, but by November they will probably figure out that it’s the Republicans’ fault, not the Democrats’, that nothing got done.
I still think the Democrats will lose some seats, because they are behaving like wimps, and nobody respects a wimp. Strong Democrats like Grayson, Perriello, and Massa will get reelected, while more timid Democrats like Reid will get defeated.
Also the sooner Obama stops trying to be bipartisan, then better the Democrats will do in November. He should tell Republicans he’ll extend his hand when they unclench their fist.
People like Cook are more privy to private polling than even most reporters. He probably gets a dozen or two every day. He must be seeing something for him to make such a statement. That being said, Rothenberg and Sabato have the same access he does but their predictions are more optimistic for Dems.
Who knows at the point?
the Obama factor has definitely been left untapped and that where Cook and other prognosticators will go wrong is in Dem turn-out and enthusiasm.
I just got done reading The Audacity to Win by Obama’s campaign manager and throughout the book, there are two themes, one is when we didnt play by the rule book we won/exceeded our expectations. And two, our volunteers are the most die-hard group of volunteers to grace politics and we can do whatever we want because we know we have the core group of volunteers to make it happen. It is how they won Iowa, they expanded the playing field and got young people out to caucus. It’s how they had so much freaking money and why their volunteer base was off the charts, because of my generation.
Getting Obama donators to donate to other candidates will be extremely tough when it comes to college students and AA. When it comes to volunteering and voting, Obama will be able to wield the power of the AA community no doubt. Him threatening Rep. Bishop to personally door-knock AA communities in Brooklyn and the Bronx on behalf of Gillibrand to me says he is willing to go there. To put it bluntly, the AA community is in the pocket of Obama; he is the first black president and even whities like me practically revere him as a god for being the first. If he calls, the AA community will answer.
The college students, on the other hand, were both the volunteer crew and the fundraising crew. The book said that Obama’s two big groups for fundraising were retirees and college students, which is pointed out as probably being the most awkward pairing in political fundraising history. I think Obama is going to have a much much much tougher time mobilizing college students than he did in 2008 because we wont be working for him, we’d be working for our gubernatorial, senatorial, and congressional candidates. But, I do think he is heavily revered for two reasons. College students, in a world where they question all authority, believe Obama to be on their side and to really wanting to change the system and make it seem less retarded seeming. Second, I also think there could be a “first black president effect”. We are quite socially liberal, wanting to support the first black president I think could be quite ingrained in us after hearing so many of our older relatives still calling them colored people and such.