More About the Midterms

---

We're roughly 6½ months from the midterm elections.

With a split Congress, the priorities for both political parties have been predictable, haven't they? I mean, the Democrats have the Senate and would like to have the House, too. The Republicans have the House, and they would like to take over the Senate. All things being equal, either could happen — and neither could happen.

CNN's Ashley Killough reports that the political terrain is getting worse for Democrats. Killough reports that five Senate races that were previously thought to be reasonably safe for Democrats have become competitive. That is based on information from a memo from the political director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee — so take it with as many grains of salt as you wish.

Until the votes are counted in November, of course, anything (theoretically) is possible, but, as I have pointed out before, midterm elections don't usually work out too well for the president's party, especially in the second midterm of a president's tenure.

Historically speaking, therefore, since Democrats hold the White House, they are likely to experience setbacks in the midterms — unless something dramatic happens that has clear benefits for the president's party. How severe those setbacks will be is unclear.

With each passing day, the likelihood of something dramatic happening lessens.

How's it looking to observers so far?

• Over at Sabato's Crystal Ball, the emphasis lately is on the House of Representatives, which Democrats had hoped (and, presumably, still do) to flip in the fall.
  
  At one time, the Democrats with whom I spoke expressed optimism upon hearing of the retirements of Republican incumbents. Based on my highly unreliable conversations, that mood has shifted. In more recent weeks and months, the Republicans with whom I have spoken have expressed the same sense of optimism regarding the retiring Democrat incumbents.
  
  Actually, writes Geoffrey Skelley, associate editor for the Crystal Ball, "the degree of turnover in the House this cycle is not unusually high." An average of slightly more than 70 House members leaves every two years, Skelley writes, "about one–sixth of the total House membership."
  
  So far, 50 members of the House are leaving for one reason or another. Some are retiring. Others are seeking other offices. The reasons for a member's departure can be many (including losing a bid for renomination) and additional retirements may be announced, but, considering we are now better than midway through April, you have to wonder if the number of retirements will even reach the average.
  
  Currently, the Crystal Ball anticipates a gain for Republicans in the House of 5–8 seats. That is roughly what the Rothenberg Political Report projects.
  
  To people who haven't been watching elections too closely until, say, the last 10 years or so, that may seem like a low number. In the context of other recent elections, I suppose it is. In the last five election cycles, either Republicans or Democrats gained at least 21 House seats three times.
  
  But those other two elections, in which one party or the other gained fewer than 10 seats, were more typical of American legislative elections.
  
  An election in which one party or the other wins as many seats as the parties did in 2006, 2008 and 2010 is seen as a transformational year by political observers.
  
  Charlie Cook's Cook Political Report finds 17 House seats up for grabs. If all those seats were held by Republicans and Democrats carried each, it would be enough for the Democrats to seize control of the House.
  
  The problem is that only four of those seats are held by Republicans. The rest are in Democrat hands. To win the House, it looks more and more like Democrats will need something dramatic to happen.
• The latest Rothenberg Political Report finds Stuart Rothenberg obsessing over the rumor that outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius might challenge Sen. Pat Roberts in Kansas.
  
  
  
  Rothenberg wrote that his initial response to a New York Times article that reported Sebelius, a former two–term governor of Kansas, was "considering entreaties from Democrats who want her to run" was that Democrats "had to be encouraged," given the difficulty they have had in recruiting quality candidates to challenge Republican incumbents.
  
  "After that," wrote Rothenberg, "I quickly came to my senses." He pointed out the things that occurred to me immediately upon hearing that Sebelius was considering making a run — things that should have given her pause if she really was thinking about it. Maybe they did.
  
  It is true that, at one time, Sebelius was a popular figure in Kansas. She was elected governor in 2002 with more than 53% of the vote, and she was re–elected in 2006 with 58% of the vote.
  
  But she was perceived as more of a centrist then.
  
  "I remember interviewing her years ago," Rothenberg writes, "when she was running for governor. She was all business. No chit–chat. Not much personal warmth at all. She was all about Kansas and managing things properly."
  
  That image has been transformed by the Obamacare experience. It is no secret that Sebelius' name is intricately tied to Obamacare, which is not popular in red–state Kansas. Her boss for the last five years, Barack Obama, got 41% of the vote in Kansas when he first sought the presidency in 2008, and that dropped to 38% of the vote when he ran for re–election in 2012.
  
  If Sebelius had run for the Senate, Obamacare would have been front and center, keeping the story in the headlines and benefiting Republicans elsewhere at a time when Democrats have been trying to change the subject to ... anything.
  
  Then there is Kansas' electoral history in Senate races. It hasn't been unusual for Democrats (even Democrat women) to be elected governor of Kansas — rare but not unusual — but Kansans haven't voted to send a Democrat to the U.S. Senate since (appropriately) the year before the premiere of "The Wizard of Oz."
  
  Rothenberg concluded that the Senate seat is safe for Roberts — and, apparently, so did Sebelius.
  
  Republicans need to win six seats to take control of the Senate. Rothenberg currently thinks a gain of 4–8 seats is probable. The Crystal Ball says Republicans appear likely to win four Senate seats with three more rated tossups. The Cook Political Report is a little more conservative right now, saying that three Democrat–held seats appear likely to flip and five more are up for grabs. But it also says two Republican–held seats are in jeopardy.
• Those observers analyze politics professionally. I only do it on an amateur level.
  
  But, at this stage of a midterm campaign, I think it is useful to compare presidential job approval ratings for presidents in their second midterm election years.
  
  About a week ago, the McClatchy/Marist poll reported that Obama's approval rating was 45%. That's better than some polls, not as good as others, but it is the most recent one of which I am aware.
  
  How does that compare to other presidents in their second midterm election years?
  
  Well, Obama's immediate predecessor, George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 39% in a Los Angeles Times poll conducted in April 2006. Bush seldom enjoyed approval ratings of 40% or higher in 2006. His Republicans suffered, losing six Senate seats and 32 House seats.
  
  In April 1998, Bill Clinton had just survived an attempt to impeach him, and he was enjoying consistent approval ratings in the 60s. Thanks to the backlash against the impeachment attempt, the party division in the Senate was unchanged, and Clinton's Democrats actually gained four seats in the House.
  
  Ronald Reagan was facing his second midterm election in 1986. In mid–April of that year, Gallup reported that his approval rating was 63%. Reagan's Republicans lost eight Senate seats and five House seats.
  
  The circumstances of the midterm election of 1974 were unique in American history. Richard Nixon had been re–elected in 1972, but he resigned about three months before the midterm election of 1974. His successor, Gerald Ford, had to face the wrath of the voters in the grip of Watergate backlash.
  
  Nixon was still president in April 1973, and Gallup reported his approval rating at 26%. Republicans lost five Senate seats and 49 House seats.
  
  Dwight Eisenhower faced his second midterm election in 1958. In April 1958, Gallup reported his approval rating at 55%. 1958 was a tough year for Ike. His approval dipped below 50% in late March for the first time in his presidency. In November, Eisenhower's Republicans lost 13 Senate seats and 48 House seats.
  
  Harry Truman wasn't elected president, but he wound up serving most of Franklin D. Roosevelt's fourth term, and he presided over the midterm elections of 1946. The midterms of 1950 were the second midterms of his presidency, and, in the spring of 1950, his stunning victory in the 1948 presidential election was a distant memory, and he was fluctuating from the 30s to the 40s in his Gallup job approval ratings. Democrats lost six Senate seats and 29 House seats.
  
  Roosevelt had his own troubles. In the spring of 1938, with the second midterm of his presidency approaching, FDR's approval rating was 54% less than two years after he was re–elected in a landslide. In November, Roosevelt's Democrats lost six Senate seats and 71 House seats.

The Sky Is Falling!

Do you recall the fable of Chicken Little?

As I understand it, there are several versions of that particular fable, and the moral varies from version to version.

But, in the version I remember from my childhood, a falling acorn strikes a chicken in the head, and she concludes that the sky is falling. She decides she must give this information to the king so she embarks on a journey to do precisely that. Along the way, she runs into several other animals, and she tells them what has happened. They decide to come with her.

At some point, they encounter a fox, who eats most of the chicken's friends.

Essentially, the moral of the story is to have courage and not give in to hysteria.

For Democrats, in a celebratory mood after passing health care reform on Sunday and sending it to the White House, where Barack Obama signed it into law today, this may seem like a strange time for talk of an imminent disaster.

But nonpartisan political analyst Stuart Rothenberg isn't trying to lure Democrats into a trap in his piece at The Rothenberg Political Report, where he asserts that "[f]or Democrats, the sky is falling."

He's actually trying to give them the early warning that many insisted — all evidence to the contrary — that they got from January's special election in Massachusetts.

Citing the results of a couple of recent polls, Rothenberg writes, "Both found far more Americans believing the country was headed off on the wrong track ... than in the right direction, and both found the once strong Democratic advantage in the generic ballot, which measures how people plan to vote in November ... or which party they would like to control Congress after the next election ... has narrowed or disappeared."

But wait. There's more.

"Even worse for Democrats," he writes, by a two–to–one margin, "Americans now say it is better to have different parties controlling Congress and the presidency rather than to have one party controlling both branches."

Doesn't sound promising. What about the familiar old fallback positions upon which Democrats have relied?

"[T]he Republican brand still stinks," Rothenberg writes. "Voters aren't clamoring for Republicans to run anything in Washington, D.C., and polls continue to show that Americans still think that former President George W. Bush bears more of the responsibility for the nation's economic pain than anyone else."

Is that enough? Apparently not. "Unfortunately for Democrats," Rothenberg observes, "their own brand has fallen like a rock."

What about blaming Bush? Democrats got considerable mileage from that in 2009, didn't they?

Well, "he won't be on the ballot or in the public's consciousness in November," Rothenberg writes, "so Democrats will have to spend a great deal of time (and money) trying to make the midterms a referendum on the former president rather than on the sitting president. The chances that most Democratic candidates will succeed in that effort are exceedingly small."

Well, doesn't the passage of health care reform count for anything?

"Health care reform, once seen as a party strength, has turned into a significant liability," Rothenberg writes, "and few think the economy will turn around far enough or fast enough to help Democratic candidates in the midterm elections."

Rothenberg admits that he has been reluctant "to get too far in front of the election cycle, since circumstances can change and Democrats could well have an important financial advantage in the key post–Labor Day time period. But let's be clear about what is developing: Obama and the Democratic Congressional leadership have dug themselves into a deep and dangerous political hole, and the only question right now seems to be the severity of the drubbing."

Does that mean a change in party control of either chamber of Congress — like what happened in 1994 — is possible?

"As one smart Democratic strategist told me recently," Rothenberg says, " 'All of the elements are in place for a disaster like 1994. But it could be even worse.' "

The Shifting Political Tides

---

A timeless reminder of the wages of arrogance.

---

I don't know how much of a role the results of the special election in Massachusetts played in this, but The Rothenberg Political Report moved the Senate seat of incumbent Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas to its "Lean Takeover" category today.

"Given the bent of Independent voters (in the recent Massachusetts special election but also in national surveys), we are increasingly doubtful that the Arkansas Democratic Senator can win another term," says the Report. It gives Lincoln some wiggle room and notes that things can change. We don't yet know the identity of Lincoln's Republican challenger, it observes, and the economy could improve.

"Still, the burden of proof has shifted in our minds, from requiring Republicans to prove that they can defeat Lincoln to requiring Lincoln to show she can win re–election."

Well, I guess that confirms something I wrote yesterday, only a few hours after Scott Brown claimed victory in the special election:

"I'm inclined to think that yesterday's election changes America's political landscape as indisputably as the use of nuclear weapons against Japan changed the world in 1945," I wrote. "Our political world today is not what it was yesterday."

I still believe that, but I don't think a consensus has been reached yet about what this really means. But The Rothenberg Political Report touches on an important part.

It doesn't mention the political world that existed a year ago, when Obama had just taken the oath of office and enjoyed, according to Gallup, a 68% approval rating. In those heady days for Democrats, the skies were blue and so was the political terrain. But things are far different today. Obama's approval rating hovers around 50%, and Democrats have lost the governorships of two states and the Senate seat that was held for nearly five decades by the liberal lion, Ted Kennedy.

The editorial writers at the New York Times, for example, insist that the Massachusetts election was not a verdict on Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, the editorial writers at the Chicago Tribune, while never mentioning the special election, seem to be making implications based on the results in their editorial today. The Tribune, it should be said, is a conservative newspaper, but it broke a 161–year–old tradition when it endorsed Obama in 2008.

And that, I suppose, frees the Tribune to opine about Obama whenever it likes. And however it likes.

---

"In his book 'The Audacity of Hope,' Barack Obama had the insight to explain much of his political appeal. 'I serve as a blank screen,' he wrote, 'on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.' That lack of definition proved a big asset in the presidential campaign, allowing him to attract support from liberals who saw Hillary Rodham Clinton as too hawkish, moderates who saw her as too liberal, and independents who saw John McCain as too conservative and too partisan.

"But in his first year in office, the president has had to fill in that screen. And many Americans are disillusioned with the picture that has emerged."

Chicago Tribune

---

Meanwhile, the San Diego Union–Tribune thinks what happened on the East Coast could well happen on the West Coast.

"Scott Brown's decisive and historic victory in the U.S. Senate race in the Bay State could be a bad sign for Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer's re–election chances in November," the paper says.

The Union–Tribune, like the city it serves, is politically conservative — so what it says about Boxer should be taken with a grain of salt. But, given the high unemployment and the serious budget problems facing California, it is not inappropriate to think that anti–incumbent fervor could affect Boxer's chances in the fall. Those independent voters get cranky when times are tough, and they lash out at incumbents, whoever they are.

In the past, U.S. News & World Report has had a more conservative reputation than other newsmagazines with which it has been in competition. So it's probably a good idea to keep that in mind when you read anything from that publication.

Even so, Mary Kate Cary says the election in Massachusetts should guide Democrats to the political center. I gather that she is speaking of Democrats in general, not merely the Democrats in Massachusetts. At this point, of course, no one can say whether Democrats like Lincoln or Boxer will run into trouble in November, but if last fall's elections in New Jersey and Virginia — and Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts — tell Democrats anything, it is that there is widespread dissatisfaction in America today. It is not unreasonable to think that it could stretch from sea to shining sea.

Will that lead to a Republican takeover in one or both of the houses of Congress? I don't know, but I presume Cary uses the Clinton presidency as her model for Obama to follow, as many observers are doing. Such thoughts don't necessarily concede control of Congress to the Republicans, but they do imply that Democrats are expected to be dealt a setback in November, as often happens to the party in power in midterm elections. Sometimes the setback is significant. Other times, not so much.

If that happens — and, personally, I believe the Democrats will sustain significant losses this year — Obama, like Clinton, may have to devote most of his time and energy to bolstering his case for a second term. I don't know if the Democrats will lose enough seats to lose their majority status, but I do believe they will lose seats in both houses.

And, in that case, the demands of survival mode will dictate that a more moderate approach will be necessary. It has happened before. In the historical context, fairly recently, in fact.

Think back to before the days of impeachment and the Lewinsky scandal — when the Republicans overwhelmed the Democrats in 1994 and captured control of both houses of Congress. After the election, Bill Clinton moved more to the center, which was the ideological territory he staked out for himself in the 1992 campaign. He seemed to abandon it after taking the oath of office in 1993. After losing majority status in 1994, his party didn't retake Congress for more than 10 years, but Clinton was re–elected in 1996 after repositioning himself.

Perhaps, if Obama moves more to the center now and refocuses his attention on the things people are saying that they are concerned about — like joblessness — he may be able to minimize his party's losses in November.

It's worth a try.