MyDD :: Are Democrats Really Doing Better In 2006 than 2004?

Are Democrats Really Doing Better In 2006 than 2004?

by Chris Bowers, Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:51:41 PM EST

In a word, yes. But if I can say something in one word that I could have instead used 1,600 words and a load of data to back it up, then this wouldn't be MyDD and I wouldn't be me--Chris

Amidst and below all of the hope and excitement surrounding massive Democratic leads in congressional generic ballot polls, extremely low Bush approval ratings, and very strong Democratic recruiting information, I have noticed in progressive circles that there remains a nagging sense of dread about the 2006 elections. In the circles I travel, much this sense comes from a lack of faith in our leadership to capitalize on what is perceived to be the best opportunity to retake congress in a decade. I share this worry, especially when I hear more and more about Democrats in DC adhering to a strategy of stepping aside and letting Republicans implode of their own accord. My biggest worry about this strategy is that even if it were to produce a Democratic majority in congress, it would only be successful in producing a temporary Democratic majority in congress, ala the Republican majority of 1952. If your only plan to take power is to let your opponent implode, then you are operating as though your opponent is the natural governing party of the country, and that you can only take control for a brief period of time after they monumentally mismanage government. It is a cowering and defeatist strategy, one that does nothing to alter the conventional wisdom of he national political discourse that has grown so very poisonous to Democrats. Solving this problem is going to be extremely difficult and long term: we have to work with and support those Democrats who are willing to push the limits of conventional political wisdom, and try to change the behavior of those Democrats who are not.

Apart from a lack of confidence in the Democratic leadership, there is a second worry about 2006 that I often see voiced in the netroots. Specifically, many people, myself included, worry that while Democrats hold large leads right now, didn't we hold large leads in 2004 as well? We all know hat that turned out.

Fortunately, unlike the first fear, the second fear can dispelled in the short term. Comparing data from 2004 and 2006 quickly reveals that Democrats are, in fact, much further ahead of Republicans at this point in the 2006 election cycle than we were ahead of Republicans at any point of the 2002 or 2004 election cycle. For starters, compare the results of the most recent generic congressional ballot polls with the best results we had in such polls from 2004:

Most recent:
Newsweek (3/17): Dems 50, Reps 39
NPR (3/14): Dems 52, Reps 37
Gallup (3/12): Dems 55, Reps 39
Zogby (3/6): Dems 38, Reps 32
Fox (3/1): Dems 48, Reps 34
Democracy Corps (2/27): Dems 48, Reps 40
Hotline (2/19): Dems 46, Reps 31
GWU (2/15): Dems 46, Reps 41
Pew (2/5): Dems 50, Reps 41
ABC / WaPo (1/26): Dems 54, Reps 38
CBS (1/25): Dems 43, Reps 34

Eleven polling firms have publicly released standard generic ballots tests in 2006 (a standard ballot test asks people which party they will vote for, not which party they would like to win). Looking only at the most recent poll from each of those ten polling firms, the mean result shows a democratic advantage of 48.2 to 36.9, or a Demcoratic advantage of 11.3 (and clearly rising). For the sake of comparison, even if one were to cherry pick the best results from each of the ten polling outfits that conducted standard generic ballot tests in 2004 (according to polling report), the result would still not be as pro-Dem:

Best 2004 polls for Democrats:
Fox (9/24): Dems 41, Reps 36
NBC (9/19/04): Dems 46, Reps 42
Gallup (8/1/04): Dems 49, Reps 44
Democracy Corps (8/5/04): Dems 51, Reps 41
Newsweek (7/30/04): Dems 51, Reps 41
CBS (7/15/04): Dems 46, Reps 37
GWU (6/23/04): Dems 49, Reps 41
Time (5/13/04): Dems 53, Reps 40
AP-Ipsos (5/5/04): Dems 50, Reps 41 Zogby (1/04): Dems 39, Reps 30

These cherry-picked results still only produce a Democratic edge of 47.5 to 39.3, for a margin of 8.2.Thus, it isn't even possible to cherry pick results from all of 2004 that show a better situation than Democrats currently enjoy.

Apart from generic ballot polls, another factor that shows Democrats in a much better position than we were in 2004 are the "strong approve" and "strong disapprove" numbers for Bush. Right now, the number of people who "strongly disapprove" of Bush roughly double the number of people who "strongly approve" of Bush. However, in 2004, the two groups were almost exactly the same size. Alan Abramowitz summarizes the importance of this development:

An analysis of National Election Study data on voting patterns in midterm elections between 1982 (when the NES began asking a presidential approval question) and 2004 indicates that voters with strong opinions of the president's performance are more likely to base their House vote on their opinion of the president than voters with only weak opinions. Moreover, voters with strong negative opinions are by far the most likely to base their House vote on their opinion of the president.

Across these six midterm elections, the average percentage of each group whose House vote was consistent with its opinion of the president's job performance was as follows:

Strongly approve 72%
Weakly approve 49%
Weakly disapprove 70%
Strongly disapprove 85%

With 44% of the public now strongly disapproving of George Bush's performance, these results provide further reason to expect substantial Democratic gains in the 2006 midterm elections.

Not only has this development probably fueled our massive leads in congressional generic ballot, it strongly suggests that such leads are very solid. If strong disapproval of the sitting President is the number one indicator of how an individual will vote in midterm elections, then the Democratic base of support in 2006 is both deeper and wider than the Republican base. Looking at today's Rasmussen numbers, we can actually develop a crude estimate of the base of voters for each party in 2006:

Strongly approve: 20% (20% * 72% = 14.4%)
Weakly approve: 20% (20% * 49% = 9.8%)
Weakly disapprove: 15% (15% * 70% = 10.5%)
Strongly disapprove: 44% (44% * 85% = 37.4%)

Those numbers produce an estimated Democratic vote of 47.9% to an estimated Republican vote of 24.2%, with around 30% of the vote either undecided or unpredictable. The strong disapproval block alone swamps the entire approval vote. This suggests that the currently massive generic ballot leads for Democrats are not soft. Such leads are fueled by tremendous anti-Bush resentment nationwide among both Democrats and Independents, and are no longer countermanded by a significant pro-Bush sentiment among the Republican base.

To make matters worse for Republicans, Democrats hold the generic advantage in 2006. In the absence of any national Democratic ticket in 2006, Democrats will be able to run "generic Democrat" against 100% name-ID Bush in every district nationwide. As I wrote a few months ago:

In a polarized environment where there is little movement from one camp to the other, and where up-ticket races have a large impact even upon House seats, the best Democratic chance for real, positive movement is going to take place when we can run "generic, local Democrat" against unpopular, specific, national Republicans, like Bush and DeLay. Polls throughout 2003 repeatedly showed that "Democratic candidate" fared several points better against Bush in trial heats than specific Democrats, like Dean, Clark and Kerry. In other words, actually knowing who the Democratic candidate was served as a drag on the Democratic ticket. However, in the generic versus specific ballot, voters were allowed to imagine their ideal Democrat going up against Bush, thus boosting the Democratic cause several points

There is no one for Republicans to Swiftboat in 2006. There is no Democrat who has to struggle to hold together his own base. Democrats are free to run the best Democrat for each district, while Republicans are forced to stick with Bush everywhere in the country. Republicans are forced to fight a far more diffuse opponent in 2006 than they were in 2004, which will make their character slime machine, which was so painfully effective against both Gore and Kerry, significantly less useful.

Now, all of these factors--better polls, a deeper and wider base, the generic advantage, and improved recruiting--do not mean that victory is somehow already assured in 2006. The election is still seven and a half months away, giving Bush a long time to turn his image around in the eyes of the country, giving the impressive Republican political machine a long time to produce something effective, and giving the strategically dense Democratic leadership a long time to blow it. We also historically have had severe turnout problems in mid-term elections. However, any honest and objective appraisal of the current political situation can only lead to the conclusion that Democrats have a much better opportunity to make significant gains in 2006 than we had in 2004. Anyone who tells you that we have been in this situation before and blown it is wrong. This is the best opportunity we have had to make non-Presidential electoral gains in the last twelve years (maybe more). I'm not saying that we can't blow it, just that if we do, it would be unprecedented.

Tags: Elections 2006, polls, turnout, fifty state strategy, generic advantage, Bush, Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 16 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Are Democrats Really Doing Better In 2006 than (none / 0)

I find this analysis more persuasive. If we don't get exceptionally large turnout, we won't win.

by Matt Stoller on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:40:11 PM EST

Wrong Basis, I Think (none / 0)

Okay, I've just skimmed it over lightly, but it seems like this analysis is the wrong basis for trying to understand this year. It's on much firmer ground in analyzing what happened in 1994. But what's to say the same patterns will hold this time out?

You really need more data points than one to tell you that a given pattern--no matter how strong at one point of time--holds true over time. And this analysis doesn't provide it.

For example, here's an example of a long-term factor reflecting nationwide attitudes generally. It's UNC professor James Stimson's measure of policy mood, aggregated from ~200 data series:

What this shows is a sharp peak in liberalism, unmatched since the early 60s. By itself, this is no proof of anything, since we could discover a sharp drop this year, which is what happened in 1994. But more likely, the trend will continue (though probably not as steeply, once you've gotten this high), level off, or drop just slightly, still leaving the country significantly more liberal on election day than at any time since Kennedy was in office. That's a much more severe mismatch between policy mood and Congressional makeup than we had in 1994, which is just the sort of long-term factor that the analysis you linked to lacks.

Does Stimson's policy mood data invalidate that analysis? Of course not! But it's one example of the sort of long-term data that's needed to make the jump from very credible analysis of a single election to very credible prognostication about elections in general, and the next election in particular.

None of which is to say that we should be complacent. Dems always need to be concerned about turnout. Our voters are the ones who (quite accurately) think that government doesn't pay much attention to people like them, which undercuts the rationale for voting.

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 05:34:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Something slightly misleading there, I think... (none / 0)

Anyone who tells you that we have been in this situation before and blown it is wrong.

This is, of course, spot on.

But only because, if we exclude 2002 as hopeless 9/11-contaminated, the last time Dems faced, under a GOP president, a Congress of which the GOP had retained control at the previous elections was 1930.

(And, even though there was a Great Depression going on, the GOP still managed to retain nominal control of the Senate!)

So, while the statement highlighted above, is technically correct - there were no Gallup polls with generic Congressional questions, or presidential fav/unfavs back in the 1920s - the fact is that there is no data not because the Dems have been in the situation and triumphed, but because they haven't and have had no opportunity to triumph because of the sterling Dem record in controlling Congress ever since!

There's a lucrative job for you in Big Pharma, I'm thinking...

[That's a joke, BTW. Just thought I'd mention it.]

by skeptic06 on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:47:18 PM EST

Re: Are Democrats Really Doing Better In 2006 than (none / 0)

There are a few things I'd like to know, if the data are or become available:

1) When fundamantalists became an active, organized part of the electorate around the time of the Moral Majority, how many of them had been consistent voters before that? That is, to what extent did the fundamentalist political movement bring new voters into the electorate?

2) How did the GOP cultivate and encourage any such voters to remain among the ranks of likely voters? Of course we know, many of them became GOTV activists, multiplying their individual impacts.

3) To what extent do we have or can we develop data that tracks core dem voting patterns and participation, perhaps using Sun Tzu's psychographics? Would it be possible to bring new participants into the electorate with well-crafted base strategy?

4) Again using Sun Tzu's pschographic profiles, how likely are different factions that lean blue likely to vote? What factors would influence their choices to vote and/or encourage their friends and neighbors to vote? How much do the activities of establishment dem leaders influence these decisions, and (oy!) can we quantify the extent that any base-oriented strategy might hamper turnout in other psychographic groups?

by Pachacutec on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:09:32 PM EST

Re: Are Democrats Really Doing Better In 2006 than (none / 0)

First of all in the Christian community fundamentalist are considered those who use the King James version of the Bible and interpret it literally. I say this becasue I think some on this blog may not use this as a definition. As for when they became a politcal force for the GOP that would be 1980. There past go back to colonial times in the Northeast. They were resonsible for both the abolition movement and the temperance movement and were strong Republicans. However as a block thier influnce in the northeast was reduced when the Irish Catholics arrived, a group they often fueded with, and the Irsih Catholics found a natural home with the Democrats. In 1980 they were able to bring a Southen and midwestern movent to the GOP. Before 1980 these voters fundamentalist voters were both Democrats, Republicans Indepentdents and swing voters but in the election of 1980 they gave almost full support to the Republicans. It also is a mistake to lump them togather with the Dixiecrats because intergration was not a main concern to the fundametalist the way it was to the Dixiecrats, and the Dixiecrats have been slower to give an alliegince to the GOP, there still are pockets of Dixiecrats in the Democratic party which is how Democrats like Bud Cramer, Gene Taylor, Mike McIntyre, and others still exist.

by THE MODERATE on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 04:44:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not Quite (none / 0)

Protestant fundamentalism per se does not go back any further than the early 1900s. It derives from the publication of a pamphlet series, The Fundamentals, which was a response to the higher criticism. This is from an article by Slobodan Dimitrov that Random Lengths News published in March of last year (not available online):

Los Angeles has the reputation of being a liberal city, but in fact it is the birthplace of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism began through a series of 12 pamphlets, called The Fundamentals, published over a 5-year period, from 1910-15, with financing from two brothers, Lyman and Milton Stewart, co-founders of Bible Institute of Los Angeles (BIOLA). Lyman Stewart was BIOLA's first president as well as one of the three founders of the Union Oil Corporation.

The Fundamentals were published as a conservative response to liberal modernist wing of Protestantism during a period of intense struggle that raged between and within various denominations within American Protestantism around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, a period not unlike the turn of 20th to the 21st century. Both eras witnessed a dramatic rise in affluence and wealth, the former being driven by the great Westward expansion and the resulting wealth from oil and railroads; the latter due to the great explosion of technological innovation, from the computer chip to the reaches of Space, with benefits sprinkling across the economic landscape. Both eras magnified the disparity between the have and have-nots, and both have produced their versions of social concern.

Oh, yeah. It also involved oilmen.

And, of course, when it came to the issue of slavery, the Bible was the primary source of pro-slavery arguments, as documented by Larry E. Tise in Pro-Slavery: A History of the Defense of Slavery in America, 1701-1840. The Publishers Weekly review noted:

Tise chronicles a constant stream of books, articles, pamphlets and sermons--his chapter on the growth of proslavery arguments by clergy, usually derived from narrow interpretations of Scripture, is illuminating--and builds to a remarkable and probably controversial exploration of the "proslavery Republicanism," which he sees as the full flowering of the conservative Federalist viewpoint that had only temporarily been defeated by America's founding fathers when they framed our Constitution.

Furthermore, the notion that fundamentalists are preserving a traditional form of religion is utterly specious, as Karen Armstrong makes quite clear in her book, The Battle For God.

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 10:35:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fundamentalists Were Mostly Politically Disengaged (none / 0)

Regarding fundamentalists, I don't have voter participation data, but the more general issue of engagement as a group can be briefly summarized as follows:

From the time of the Scopes Monkey Trial until the 1970s, the dominant attitude amongst fundamentalists from a religious perspective was primarily one of disengagement from the world. They focused on saving souls.

Of course, many of them were politically engaged on other grounds--as members of labor unions, for example. But the attitude promulgated through their religious culture was primarily as I have described it. This changed in the 1970s, first with Nixon's cynical manipulations, then Carter's self-declaration of his "born again" status (not the same as Fundamentalism, but close enough to motivate engagement), and finally the creation of the explicitly rightwing Moral Majority.

There were also some politically engaged fundamentalists, of course, particularly incarnated in anti-Communist garb after WWII. But this was a distinctly sub-dominant theme until the 1970s.

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 10:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are Democrats Really Doing Better In 2006 than (none / 0)

A couple concerns:

You say that the strategy of waiting for the Republicans to implode is treating them like the natural governing party. Yet it has become at least blogger CW that we need to act as an opposition party, not a governing party. So how would this be bad?

And, from a completely different angle, it seems as though waiting for the Republicans to implode IS acting like the natural governing party - it is acting under the assumption that Republicans can't govern, and things will just naturally shift back to the Democrats. So I think your point there is doubly wrong.

Also, I think your analysis of the partisan base by Presidential approval is pretty specious (and you do admit that it is crude). Those who currently strongly approve of Bush (or really even weakly approve) are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans. They will give many more votes to Republican congressional candidates than the averages suggest. Do you have the standard deviation for those percentages you list?

Bleeding Heartland - Iowa's Progressive Community-oriented blog

by ItsDrewMiller on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST

Re: Are Democrats Really Doing Better In 2006 than (none / 0)

Just to be clear, I do agree with your thesis.

Bleeding Heartland - Iowa's Progressive Community-oriented blog

by ItsDrewMiller on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:15:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are Democrats Really Doing Better In 2006 than (none / 0)

2006 will ultimately be decided by turnout for each party despite the current generic ballot.

The Repubs have been playing strongly to their base despite how it polarizes the electorate yet they have won, albeit narrowly as the extra points of turnout have made the difference in close elections. No matter how they feel right now when it comes time in Nov the Repub base will vote solidly down their party line tickets.

2006 will be a lot closer than the current prognosticators expect.

Can the DC Dems leadership energize their base? They have been unsuccessful in the past few election cycles. Will they do anything different this cycle? The Dems base IMO only want one thing - an unafraid Dems leadership willing to challenge the corruption and extremism of the current Repubs on principle without any of the political "calculation" and "triangulation".

I hate to sound defeatist but my pragmatic side tells me that the DC Dems and their consultants will make the same plays as before and that will not cause the Dems base to run out and vote with passion. If the recent TX race is any indicator, Ciro was unable to get out his vote even compared to his own performance 2 years ago. Let's see what Busby can do. But I am not very optimistic that the Dems base will turn out in the numbers to turn the 2006 elections unless the Dems leadership becomes more inspired.

However, if the challengers like Lamont can make some serious headway in the Dems primary elections and change the configuration of the races in Nov then we will see a Dems landslide with more than even odds that the Dems take a majority in either or both the House and Senate. For the netroots which IMO is the activist section of the silent majority the question is can we make the difference for the Dems challengers to succeed in the primaries.

by ab initio on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:25:34 PM EST

The ground game gap -- still big (none / 0)

Dean's precinct-by-precinct build is still under construction.

GOTV success will vary widely from well organized counties and precincts to those poorly organized.

True story: there is at least one Democratic party county chair who forgot to sign the contract with the state party for the VAN data. Canvassing is on hold there until the problem is corrected.

Bottom line: you need passion AND competence to win. The GOP may not have the competence to govern, but until proven otherwise, they are better at getting votes.

Visit DebateScoop

by demondeac on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 04:52:15 PM EST

Leadership (none / 0)

Its not just that I feel like I have seen some of these polls before, but I just don't trust our congressional leadership. I like Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer, but I really don't love Nancy Pelosi. I do worry she is significantly outside the mainstream. But beyond my ideological worries, I think she is tone deaf.

I feel like the President's political team is smarter and more aggressive than ours, I have been optimistic every other election and had my heart destroyed each time.

I do really like Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer a lot. They do really know what they are doing. They are by far the best team we have had so far.

by optimist on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 05:21:41 PM EST

Support amongst Republicans for Bush (none / 0)

Reading Chris' comment about the strong disapproval rating of Bush amongst Democrats and Indepentants is outweighing the strong approval for Bush amongst Republicans makes me ask if polls have been done to find out WHY Republicans still approve of Bush so strongly?

I think it'd be interesting at the least and quite possibly exceptionally useful to know what Republicans think Bush is doing right specifically and break that down into various sub-groups for various issues and such.

by Quinton on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 06:35:03 PM EST

Sense of Dread (none / 0)

The sense of dread I feel is that I'm seeing very few progressive candidates under the Democratic flag. I'm seeing very few primary battles between what I'l use shorthand to call progressive dems versus establishment dems.

So, while I still think the Dems might still win one or both houses, my sense of dread is that it will mainly be comprised of the sort of Dems that either vote republican or pro-corporate most of the time, or that refuse to stand up to republican and pro-corporate ideas.

A couple of examples... will a Democratic majority force a withdrawal from Iraq? Well, the Dems running seem largely unwilling to even to mention the subject, so why would I think a Dem majority after the election would do this?

Same for impeachment. Since almost no Dem candidates are talking about impeachment, why would I think a Dem majority might proceed on this after the election?

I think the Dems might win. But then I think its going to be the same old same old after that.

by COBear on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 07:18:07 PM EST

We in the progressive blogosphere (none / 0)

.... can take the lead. We need to get as many of us as possible to come up with a 10 point program, and then we need to bang heads until we all come around one 10 point program. Both the House and the Senate can be had.

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker

http://democracyforum.blogspot.com

by paramendra on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 10:18:53 PM EST

We are going to clock Repubs on Social Security (none / 0)

In fact in my more vicious moments I think we are going to Glock Repubs on Social Security. Seventy years of attacks are just going to blow up in these guys faces (or in my metaphor 'temples')

Social Security is not broke, Single Payer is a winning issue, and anyone who believes that Ronnie was qualified to carry anymore than FDR's jock is misinformed about the the fundamental muscularity of each.

Democrats can continue to cower in the corner or fundamentally defend the New Deal against what GHWB correctly labeled "Voodoo Economics". 41 handed us a slogan and a viable argument and a bunch of spineless Democrats have been running away from the New Deal ever since.

Big Government Works. It has a proven record. And those who have bent over to Reaganite rhetoric over the last thirty years can bite me. Not that I am bitter, or sickened to my stomach that my Party for the most part simply bought into Iraq because opposing a "popular war-time President" might cost us a seat or two. Which they lost and more so.

Well it is just about time to 'Unleash your inner FDR'. The other side can't even add.

by Bruce Webb on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 10:37:33 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.