Articles and Analysis


Midterms Are an Electoral Hurricane for Democrats

The race is on. No, I'm not referring to the one between Republicans and Democrats; instead, I'm talking about the race between pollsters and media organizations to project this November's GOP margin of victory. There have been some pretty smart analyses produced over the last several weeks, including ones by Cook, Rothenberg, RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight and, most recently, the vaunted NBC political unit with its Voter Confidence Index. However, in the quest to compare this year to other "wave" elections (see 1994, 1982 and 1974) they may have all missed the most important phenomenon of all: the growth rate of this potential electoral hurricane. We have all been so concerned about looking at this as some fixed point in time--by, for example, trying to compare this year to elections that took place 30 and 40 years ago--that we have forgotten to look back just 90 days ago. When one does, the only conclusion that you can have is the following: we are seeing an intensifying political storm that for Democrats is the electoral equivalent of a catastrophic hurricane.

First, here's a quick primer on hurricanes. According to climatologists, hurricanes can release an amount of energy in one day equal to all of the electricity generated across the globe in 200 days. Hurricanes also keep building as long as they keep getting energy from warm water. Hurricanes strengthen via the temperature of the water: the hotter the water, the more strength it gains. But if a hurricane moves over land or colder water, it starts to fizzle out. Just like climatological hurricanes, an electoral hurricane is fed by an energy source. In politics this energy source is usually voter anger and frustration with the status quo. The Tea Party movement is one byproduct of this energy (to further this analogy, wind and rain are by-products of regular hurricanes). So the question is will this political hurricane continue to feed off the warm water of voter anger, or will those waters cool a bit as we get closer to shore (Election Day)? To judge, let's look at how this storm has intensified over the last 200 days.

We examined five key measures of voter anger: the percentage of voters who say the country is on the "wrong track," the President's disapproval rating, Congressional disapproval rating, the Generic Congressional ballot share for the party out of power (GOP) and the Party ID for the out-of-power party (GOP). All of these are negative measures for Democrats; that is, the higher the number the worse for the Democratic Party. (All data is from Pollster.com monthly averages for registered voters.) We then simply calculated the sum of these negative measures, which we will call--trumpets please--the LCG Voter Anger Index.

As you will note from the table below, the Voter Anger Index score in February of this year was 246. In May it rose to 250 and in August it stood at 259. In the last 90 days it has risen 9 points. The lesson here is not just that anger is high, it is that it is increasing with each passing day/week/month. The water temperature is not cooling; instead, it is getting warmer and feeding the storm. If it increases another 20 points by Election Day, the result would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party. We are talking about a 50 - 60 seat loss in the House and loss of the Senate.


When we look at this from a historical perspective, we see that the anger level in February was already equal to 1994. In August of this year the Voter Anger Index was a full 14 points (or 6%) higher than it was in November of 1994. It is also important to note that this index is based on registered voters. Our assumption is that voter anger is even higher among likely voters and the measures we've seen--like the generic ballot--do suggest that.

Hurricanes are named. We all remember Katrina. For really destructive storms, the World Meteorological Organization sometimes takes names off the list. People don't want to see the name again. Democrats might soon want to have this year's election removed from the history books as well.

Current Political Environment

There is no doubt that the White House is now fully engaged in the mid-term elections. The question will be whether this is too little, too late. Real world events have a way of either complementing or distorting/diminishing the President's message as his party tries to hold Congress. We are getting some key month's end economic data this week and it will impact voter attitudes. Here are some observations on the current political milieu:

1. The "pledge" is a winner for the GOP if it does no harm. The pledge is important for Republicans because of the signal it sends to voters, not because of any specific policy agenda item. If voters have a neutral to slightly positive impression of the pledge it will have done its job. The goal of the pledge was to help clarify the GOP brand and toward that end we think it generally works. On the other hand, don't expect any big boost for Republican candidates as a result of the unveiling.

2. The focus on Christine O'Donnell's controversial comments may doom her candidacy in DE but have little effect on the GOP as a whole. This is all about her personally and there will be little residual impact on Republicans elsewhere or the Tea Party.

3. There has been a substantive drop in Obama's approval rating that is reflected in perceptions of his ability to handle issues. The recent Politico/GWU/Battleground poll asked who voters thought would be better in handling certain issues: Obama or Republicans in Congress. On turning around the economy, 49% chose The GOP (and only 41% Obama) and on creating jobs, 51% picked Republicans in Congress while only 40% chose Obama.

4. The economy remains the number one issue but likely voters are being driven by two secondary but potent issues: 1) perceptions that the stimulus (and TARP) was a government handout and a failure and 2) that the healthcare reform law was an example of too much government intrusion and over-reach. While some in Washington still find it difficult to believe, anger over the deficit and spending in general is what is driving the likely midterm voter and it is a powerful and emotional issue.

5. On the economy, the political problem continues to be one of unmet expectations. People expected things to get better more quickly than they have. The country lost 7.6 million jobs since the start of the recession in December of 2007, but we have only recently begun adding jobs over the last few months (and at an awfully slow rate). It will likely take years to add back those jobs. Similarly, household net worth has recovered only four percentage points of the 21% lost according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The problem was that people expected things to get better much, much faster. That has hurt Obama and Democrats as much as anything.

Thanks again to John Zirinsky and Peter Ventimiglia for their insights and contributions. For real-time reactions to events and more thoughts on the public opinion environment, please follow us on Twitter @lcgpolling.



Boy, this article is going to generate some irate posts at Huffpo. See the comments to Mark's "CT Senate Race" blog.

I have to say,, however, I respect so far Huffpo's willingness to post the bad news with the good news (you wouldn't see this article at Daily Kos, I think).



The good news about the GOP winning, is their policies will be so horrifying, and nothing will get done, that it will help and re-energize the Democrats in 2012. Of course Obama would lose if he were on the ballot this year, but a lot can change in politics.

Back in 2008 Grassley looked like a dead duck with fairly low approval and Harkin was riding high, and now it is reversed. Two years from now, if the GOP continues to be the party of no, they may get the same people who vote for them this year, but turnout will be much higher and Obama will win big.



Not counting the hyperbole, you are of course correct FLAP. I don't know if 2012 will be the Dem's year, but they aren't going anywhere. The pendulum will swing back.

In 2012, if the economy has recovered, I think Republicans will get a lot of credit (assuming they took the House). But Obama will get credit too, and will probably win re-election. The Republicans will look somewhat different - a greater focus on fiscal matters, less on social matters. The Dems will make a similar move on fiscal matters,but will become more strident on social issues. Gay Marriage, anti-war sentiment and immigrant rights will become their discriminators in an effort to wrest control back from the Republicans.

Of course, Republicans are going to do well by reapportionment in 2011, so the Democrats may have a long hard slog to their next double majority in D.C.


Field Marshal:

The good news about the GOP winning, is their policies will be so horrifying

It couldn't possibly be more horrifying than the policies the Dems gave us in the last 2 years so i'm not too worried. Heck, its why we are here starring at a bloodbath for Dems in the first place!



Field Marshal: It isn't what I think is horrifying or what you think is horrifying, it will ultamately be up to the voters to make their decisions. I can think of maybe 4 or 5 Democrats in Congress and the senate who are as extreme left as Sharron Angle and Rand Paul are right. Maybe Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich come close but that is about it.



You could be right. Or you could be chicken little. The problem is, at least in the house, that the individual race numbers are not showing a 50-60 seat pickup. More like 40-45. Maybe. For instance, when the best the Republicans can show in an internal of MD-1 is a four point lead by Harris over Kratovil, and a 5 point lead for the Republican in VA-2, both in the top 15 of vulnerable Dem seats, you have to wonder.


Plus, Dems are either ahead or tied in such swing districts as NV-3, NM-1, SD and NJ-3. Plus, they're likely to pick up 3 or 4 seats from DE, HI-1, LA-2 and IL-10. So, again, you have to wonder.



Turnout for 2006 midterms nationally:

36.8% congressional ballots cast
29.7% senatorial ballots cast

The angry shall inherit the congress.


Field Marshal:


There are a ton of lefty loons in congress (Just a few are Waters, Frank, Grayson). Too many to list. In the senate, you left out Feingold, Franken, and Schumer.



The notion of a recent upsurge in anger against Obama's policies downplays the fact that the far right media has been orchestrating a groundswell of indignation and self-righteousness since day 1 of the Obama presidency. The Hannibots have metamorphosed into Tea Partiers, picking up numbers and funding and mainstream media coverage along the way. The media attention to Tea Party ire validates the queasiness of the ordinary citizen. While in previous elections dissatisfaction has led to staying home, the Messianic fervor of far-right outrage, under the guise of protecting the Constitution from Pelosi's redcoats, i.e. the notion that "we don't have to take it any more," may well transmute anger into action, thereby surprising traditional pollsters.


Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.