Cook on Virginia and Beyond

Charlie Cook warns the Democrats that Virginia was no flash in the pan:

It is very convenient for Democrats to blame (Democratic candidate Creigh) Deeds and his campaign for a debacle that sets the party back years in the state, certainly easier than facing inconvenient truths.

The two key variables in this race were the GOP nominee, Attorney General Bob McDonnell, and the year -- a year when Democrats are facing a headwind, not a tailwind. As my colleague Ron Brownstein noted in his column in last week's National Journal: "The Democratic decline among independents should really be seen as part of the party's dismal overall showing among whites. Both Deeds and Corzine retained commanding support among minority voters. But each man won only about one-third of whites, much less than [President] Obama in those states."

Brownstein went on to point out that "Deeds and Corzine each won fewer than three in 10 whites without a college education, and just one-third of white seniors," and that both lost whites under 30, and received less than 30 percent of the vote among white independents and less than 40 percent among college-educated whites.

Brownstein concluded that the results "parallel those in national polls showing most whites moving toward a Ross Perot-like skepticism about Washington, even as minorities express more comfort with an enlarged federal role. That divergence looms as an ominously destabilizing force."

Virginia has become a swing state and, in 2009, it swung. Blaming the outcome on Deeds, a guy who would likely have beaten a weaker candidate or won in a better year for Democrats, is ignoring important lessons.

For Republicans, the lesson of Virginia was that you can nominate a staunch conservative and win, if that conservative works hard to project a mainstream, nonthreatening campaign. McDonnell's strategists point to a green jobs ad, run early on, as an example of their efforts to prevent him from being pigeonholed as another conservative living in the past. This served him well when he was hit with charges related to his master's thesis, attacks that might well have worked had he not inoculated himself early on.

Next year's voters will likely be older and whiter than in 2008. Last year, half the voters were 44 years of age or younger, but this year in New Jersey and Virginia, that group constituted only a third.

In 2008, these older and whiter voters might have been somewhat disillusioned with years of a GOP Congress and George W. Bush but were not specific about the change they were voting for.

This same group now seems to be growing increasingly concerned about the agenda of Obama and congressional Democrats.

A Democratic consultant recently pointed to Warner's tenure as governor of Virginia, before his election to the Senate. Soon after Warner took over as governor, he embarked on a campaign to streamline state government and cut costs. It was only after a couple of years of establishing his ability to look after the taxpayers' money that he sought the largest tax increase in the commonwealth's history, one that paid for the greatest expansion in spending on K-12 education. He went on to earn accolades as running one of the best-managed states.

Obama and Democrats are getting squeezed and face a paradox. Voters want the government to do more to turn the economy around and create jobs, but they are also concerned about the size and scope of government and deficit spending.

They believe Obama and congressional Democrats are focusing on issues beyond the economy and jobs, priorities that seem mismatched for a 2010 midterm electorate.

Source: Cook's weekly email newspaper; go here.

Obama the Pragmatist

The ever-clearheaded Charlie Cook makes better than I can a point I have been trying to make for a while (link): Obama is a pragmataist, not a liberal (nor a populist, nor even a centrist) who is likely to have major headaches from Democrats alongside those he gets from Republicans. "Take, for example, his economic policy team," says Cook--"nary a Robert Reich in the bunch." Ooh, that's gotta hurt, but I must say that for Reich I might have substituted Joseph Stiglitz. Stiglitz seems to me to be a pretty bright guy--Reich, more or less of a shadow of Paul Krugman.

[There's a round of the old "ask for...hope for...settle for" game--Ask for Paul Krugman, hope for Joe Stiglitz, settle for Robert Reich.]

I do wonder how long Tim Geithner will last though. But then again, I didn't think this guy would last, either.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Charlie Cook says a veto-proof Democratic Senate is "no longer implausible" (link). Here is one guy who should be scared of that.

Charlie Cook is Cranky This Week

From Cook's weekly email:

One of the byproducts of each major party nominating its most self-righteous and sanctimonious candidate is that with some degree of regularity in the campaign, each will be embarrassed by not adhering to an impossibly high, and politically impractical, standard of moral and ethical perfection. . . . Perhaps it is because I am on the wrong side of 50 years of age that I don't understand the concept of "post-partisan," the new buzzword that, as best I can tell, means that your last name is not Bush, Clinton or Dole.

This is, by the way, one of the best politics newsletters you can imagine. If you aren't getting it already, go here.

Who's He Losing? Oh, Them

If Obama is so popular with so many people, why is his lead so small? Charlie Cook has an answer, and it impressed him, and it impresses me: Obama is losing the baby boomers. Cook explains (link)

Of all people, the generation that brought us the Vietnam War protests and the Summer of Love is proving to be a very tough nut for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to crack. ...

Obama trailed McCain by 9 points among both 18-to-34-year-old white voters and those 65 and older. He lagged by 10 points among 35-to-49-year-old whites. But among those 50 to 64, Obama is losing by a whopping 18 points, 51 percent to 33 percent....

Some of this may be attributable to long-term voting patterns. These are voters who remember the disappointing--some would say failed--presidency of Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, which was followed by the fairly popular--many would say successful--presidency of Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1989. The voters in this bloc were ages 19 to 33 when that 12-year downer period for Democrats began and 31 to 45 with their voting patterns set, most likely for life, when it ended. Obviously, there are exceptions.

It is often said that Reagan drew a whole generation into the Republican Party. And some observers wonder whether George W. Bush may have driven another generation away. If this is true, Barack Obama, meet Ronald Reagan, your real opponent.

But do white Boomers' past voting patterns explain Obama's problems with them? Or, is his difficulty that these are voters in their prime earnings years, when they are most sensitive to the issue of taxes? Do they view national security issues differently and want beefier credentials than Obama offers? ...

Cook says he doesn't know the answer to his own question, but would like to find out. He does recall a first principle of modern politics, well known to political junkies although perhaps not so well among the population as a whole: the last Democrat to carry even a plurality of white voters was Lyndon Johnson in 1974.

Dems and Reps: Current State of Play

Charlie Cook seems right on the button:

In short, the good news for McCain is that he has successfully pulled his party together and competes very well among independents. My guess is thathe has a good chance of replicating the number of votes won by President Bush in 2004, on both a national and state-by-state level. The $64,000 question is whether the greater enthusiasm levels that we are seeing among Democrats this yearwill give either Obama or Clinton vote totals that run substantially higher than John Kerry received in 2004.

From the email newsletter; see link. I also heard a bit of Ed Rollins last night, I believe saying that McCain isn't winning but that the Dems are beating themselves. Right again, I'd say.

Charlie Cook Says it's Over

....Out of politeness, the Democratic establishment is holding off on calls for Clinton to drop out of the race until after the Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont nominating contests on March 4. Democrats owe her that much.

However, Clinton victories in those states with sufficient margins to generate the delegates needed to overtake Obama are extremely unlikely. Once she comes up short, the calls for her to get out will begin. Within a few weeks, this is precisely what should happen. Maybe sooner, maybe a bit later -- but it will happen.

If the political situation were not futile enough, the financial reality certainly is. There simply will not be enough money for her to go on.

Source:Charlie Cook's weekly email newsletter, from The National
Journal (link).

Charlie Cook is Not Just Bewildered, He's Mad

Charlie Cook works hard to keep his political newsletter detached and objective. But today, he's mad. Or rather, he starts off with straight reporting:

This must be a tremendously frustrating time for Republican members of Congress, particularly those in potentially competitive re-election fights next fall.

There is so much happening outside of their control: the direction of Iraq, the current softness of the economy, flat retail sales and the free fall in the housing sector.

They can't do anything about President Bush's near-record low approval ratings either.

Then he is bewildered:

But that is exactly why it is inexplicable that almost two dozen Republican House members sitting in potentially competitive districts -- ones with a Republican advantage in the Cook Political Report Partisan Voting Index (PVI) of 4 points or less -- voted against the State Children's Health Insurance Program legislation and appear likely to vote this week to sustain the president's veto of the SCHIP expansion.

Currently, most states offer SCHIP coverage to families of four with incomes up to $41,000 (two times the poverty level), but the expansion would extendeligibility to families making up to three times the poverty level at $62,000.

In high-cost states, the least expensive health maintenance organization option can run as high as $20,000 a year for a family of four and $30,000 for a point-of-service plan, clearly out of reach for most families in that income range.

Then he gets mad:

Some argue that Republicans have turned their backs on one of their party's core values -- restraining government spending -- and have turned the balanced budget they received in 2000 into ugly deficits.

That's absolutely true.

But given some of the dubious spending approved during the period Republicans controlled the House and the Senate and the years they controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, is an expansion of a health care program for children, the working poor and lower-middle-class families really the place to draw the line?

For more Charlie Cook, go here.

Cook on the Demands of Office

In the deluge of potential distractions, I always make time to read Charlie Cook's "Off to the Races," his column on politics and elections, available as a free email newsletter (link). This week, he is considering the possibility of a third-party run by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, perhaps in company with Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel. Here, Cook offers a neat recap of what is up with Bloomberg as mayor, together with one boffo basic insight about the demands of office--any office, I suspect, public or private:

Bloomberg marked the point of having 1,000 days remaining in his second term as mayor by making a novel request of his department heads. In effect, Bloomberg told them to imagine they were about to leave office and to prepare transition reports for their successors, outlining the problems that they would inherit. Then he told them to analyze the reports and figure out which problems can realistically be solved over the next 1,000 days. Bloomberg has very high approval ratings, but said that if he left office with similar high marks, it would mean he hadn't tried to do enough and had left unspent political capital on the table.

Itals mine. That's the kind of thing the rest of us may forget from time, but a seasoned pol (or a seasoned manager, I suspect) just has to remember.