The Manchin-Toomey gun law defeat heralds trouble for Senate Democrats | Harry J Enten

Demographic shifts in the US, with Democratic support concentrated in big cities, are driving ever more partisan politics

On Wednesday, the United States Senate defeated the Manchin-Toomey proposal on background checks. The defeat was a setback for gun control advocates, though it should not have come as a surprise. The defeat with a manifestation of growing problem for Democrats: their coalition is bad for winning many seats in the Senate, so it’s bad for passing legislation, too.

Each state, regardless of size, gets two senators. The least populous state, Wyoming, at 576,000 residents, has two senators, as does the most populous state, California, at 38 million. These less populated states tend be mostly rural. The more populated states like California gain their population because of large cities.

The issue is that Democratic voters tend to congregate in larger cities. Per the 2012 exit polls, President Obama won cities with populations over 500,000 (or cities with populations about the size of all of Wyoming) by 40pt. They won cities with a population of between 50,000-500,000 by a still impressive 18pt. They lost the suburbs by 2pt, cities with populations between 10,000 and 50,000 by 14pt, and rural areas by an astounding 24pt.

Indeed, look at a key part of the Democratic coalition: Latinos. Forty-five percent of Latinos live in the ten largest metropolitan areas. Obama won 12 out of the 16 top states with the largest Latino population. Latinos have helped to solidify the Democratic hold on what was once the swing state of California with 38% of the state’s population – far greater than the national average of 16.3%. Forty-one states, however, have a Latino population at a lower proportion than the nation’s 16.3%; 33 have a population that is less than 10% Latino.

So, how did this manifest itself on the state level?

President Obama won a 7.3pt victory in 2008, yet only carried 28 states. Four years prior, President Bush won only a 2.5pt victory and carried 31 states. Eight years prior to that, in 1996, President Clinton won by 8.5pt and took 31 states. George HW Bush emerged victorious by 7.7pt and won 40 states. That’s right: GHW Bush’s national margin was about the same as Obama’s was 20 years later, but he took 12 more states.

Democrats have tended to win fewer states than Republicans given the same national vote victory, but it’s become worse. To win 30 states in the 2012 election, Obama would have needed to carry the national vote by about 9pt more than he did. He lost Arizona by 9pt, even as he won nationally by 3.9pt. It would have taken a true landslide for Obama to have won by 13pt nationally.

Twenty years ago, this concentration of Democratic strength might not have been too big of a deal, in terms of Senate representation. As I noted back in December, 49% of the Democrat’s 1993 senate caucus came from states that were more Republican the nation as a whole in the prior presidential election. Today, that percentage has been cut in half to only 25%.

When you combine the fact that Democratic presidential nominees are winning fewer states with the fact that there is more straight ticket-voting, the Democrats have a major problem on their hands. It’s simply going to get harder here on in to win a Senate majority, let alone a super-majority of 60 seats, which a party really needs to overcome the growing use of the filibuster.

The Democrats who are in “red” states recognize this fact and you saw it this week in the gun ownership background checks amendment vote. The four Democrats who bucked their party line were from states more Republican than the nation as a whole in the last presidential election. Three of the four are up for re-election in 2014. Of the red state Democrats running for re-election in 2014, three of five voted against the Manchin-Toomey compromise.

Just as bad for Democratic legislation is that there are no Republicans out there willing to compromise. Only 16% of the Republican Senate caucus comes from states where Obama won by a greater percentage than he won nationally. The percentage of blue state Republicans is also down by about half from the 28% it stood at after the 1992 elections. The Republicans who are elected now come from red states and just have no electoral need to compromise. If anything, they’re more fearful of a primary challenge from a stricter conservative.

Only one Republican from a red state, John McCain, voted for Manchin-Toomey. The other three were all from states that were more Democratic than the nation as a whole. The bill’s co-sponsor Pat Toomey, who is no liberal, likely benefitted from the politics of being on board with a bill that is popular in his home state of Pennsylvania.

None of this means that Democrats won’t get back to 60 seats, or can’t bring Republicans on board, in the future. It just means that it’s just much harder than it used to be and will get harder still. The current Democratic coalition is concentrated in a few states, which has resulted in fewer states being Democratic on the national level. Combine this with less split-ticket voting between presidential and congressional races, and it’s bad news for Democrats in getting proposals through the Senate.

The immediate result was the failure of Manchin-Toomey – an event that I expect to be repeated with much future Democratic legislation.

Harry J Enten

The final three: the Democratic senators against gay marriage | Harry J Enten

Only three Senate Democrats now refuse to support same-sex marriage. So why won’t they toe the party line?

We’re now down to the final three!

No, I’m talking about a sports tournament. I’m talking about the number of Democratic senators who are opposed to gay marriage. With South Dakota’s Tim Johnson announcing his support, only Arkansas’ Mark Pryor, Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu and West Virginia’s Joe Manchin are left as Democratic senators against same-sex marriage. So just why are these senators holding out?

Mark Pryor hasn’t made any statements to suggest that he personally approves same-sex marriage. In fact, he seems to be undecided on civil unions, which have long been a more accepted middle ground. Whatever he says, we’ll have to take Pryor at his word, though he has some plain political reasons to oppose gay marriage, starting with the fact that Arkansans passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2004 – with 75% of the vote.

Even if the US overall has undergone a sea-change, there’s little sign that opinion in Arkansas has altered much over the past nine years. Late last year, a University of Arkansas poll found that 55% of Arkansans were against any legal recognition for same-sex couples, including gay marriage and civil unions. Even in famously conservative Louisiana, only 41% were against some sort of legal recognition. In polls taken last year, only about 30% of Americans opposed recognizing same-sex couples in any official capacity.

In the same poll, only 18% of Arkansas adults thought gay marriage should be legal; when civil unions appear on the questionnaire as an alternative, support for gay marriage generally drops. Yet, on a similar question nationwide, support for same-sex marriage polled at 37% and 38% in Fox News and CBS/New York Times, respectively – double the numbers in Arkansas.

Pryor is running for re-election in 2014, and in a state shifting to the right. His Democratic counterpart in the Senate, Blanche Lincoln, lost by 21pt in 2010, after having won two terms. President Obama lost the state by 24pt, even as he won the national vote by 4pt. Republicans just gained control of the state legislature after Democrats had controlled it for nearly 140 years.

Adding to his problems, Pryor’s approval ratings are lackluster. In the latest Talk Business/Hendrix College survey, Pryor has a +7pt net approval. That’s quite the downturn for a politician against whom no Republican was willing to run in 2008. Also, that net approval probably obscures part of Pryor’s troubles: many voters are unsure of him, and only 42% of Arkansans approve of his performance. In fact, a Republican poll already shows Pryor losing to a potential Republican opponent.

In the case of Mary Landrieu, it’s clearly politics that are keeping her from endorsing same-sex marriage. Landrieu has more or less said that she supports it, personally, but has always couched those statements with a clear desire not to go against her state’s consensus. Back in 2004, Louisiana voters passed a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage, with 78% of the vote. The situation in Louisiana has changed, but not that much.

Today, only 29% of Louisiana voters think that same-sex marriage should be legal, and 59% believe it should be illegal, per Public Policy Polling (PPP). We might that expect to rise by about 3pt by 2014, but it will be a long time before Louisiana has anything near a majority supporting same-sex marriage.

Landrieu, like Pryor, is up for re-election in 2014. When she first won a seat in the Senate, Landrieu represented a state that was more Democratic than the nation as a whole. Since then, Louisiana has leaped to the right. President Obama won only 40.6% of the vote in the Bayou State in 2012 – 10pt lower than his national result.

Landrieu probably feels that she has little room for error. The latest PPP survey pegs her net approval at only +2pt. Put that together with the fact that she’s never won a race with more than 52% of the vote, and you start to get a picture of a senator who is trying to walk a delicate line.

Joe Manchin’s opposition to same-sex marriage appears to be borne almost completely out of ideology, rather than electoral concerns. He voted against the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and he backed the Defense of Marriage Act. Overall, he’s rated the most conservative Democrat elected to the 113th senate.

Even if Manchin wanted to get in touch with his liberal side, the fact is that West Virginia, too, has rapidly turned to the right – much like Louisiana. Clinton won it by 15pt in 1996, and he was winning nationally by 8.5pt. In 2012, even though Manchin won re-election by 24pt, Obama lost West Virginia by 27pt. Add the fact that only 19% of West Virginians supported gay marriage in 2011 – meaning that majority support is hardly likely by 2018 – and Manchin has no electoral incentive to break with his own convictions and support same-sex marriage.

But should any of these politicians fear a political backlash if they change their tune to fit with the rest of their party?

Probably not: gay marriage, as an issue, can rarely make or break a politician. It didn’t even register in a national CBS News poll last month, which asked voters to rank their most important issues. Last year, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that a politician’s position on same-sex marriage was not important to whether they were voted into office. That’s why you saw North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan come out in favor of gay marriage, even as she gears up for re-election in a state that chose to ban gay marriage last year with 61% of the vote.

The issue for Landrieu, Pryor and, to a lesser extent, Manchin is that they represent states in which Obama is deeply disliked. Given that neither Landrieu nor Pryor are particularly popular themselves, they likely worry that any issue at all could be the final nail in the coffin of their hopes for re-election.

Maybe, next week, we’ll see if these stragglers fold into the party ranks. One way or another, we’ll see the consequences come November 2014.

Harry J Enten

Bill and Claire’s Unconstitutional Adventure

“No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”

-The 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1992)

Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill today that would force members of Congress to take pay cuts equal to the cuts affecting other government agencies under sequestration. This proposal is likely to be hugely popular with the American people. What’s the problem with this plan? It’s clearly unconstitutional, as well as simply being a bad idea.

The 27^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (posted above) makes it unconstitutional for congressional pay to be changed until an election has taken place. While ratified in 1992, this amendment was originally proposed as part of the Bill of Rights and was supported by James Madison.

Madison supported this amendment because he did not want members to vote themselves a huge pay raise before the voters were allowed a chance to register their approval or disapproval of Congress. To quote Madison, “there is a seeming impropriety in leaving any set of men without control to put their hand into the public coffers, to take out money to put in their pockets.”

This amendment also protects members of Congress who express minority opinions on legislation or nominations. Imagine this scenario: The majority in Congress wants to pass a bill that it has the votes for, but it wants to look bipartisan in passing the bill. The speaker goes to the minority leader and says, “Have your members vote yes on my bill or we will vote to cut the pay of minority party members by half.” Seem implausible? Maybe, but the 27^th Amendment is an important protection against the tyranny of the majority.

In addition to being unconstitutional, cutting the pay of members of Congress is a misplaced (albeit popular) reform. While the $174,000 salary that members of Congress receive is certainly a decent salary, it is not excessive if one considers the other potential job options for members of Congress. Who can forget the million dollars that former-Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has been offered to run the Heritage Foundation? Dozens of other examples exist of members getting huge pay raises to work as lobbyists or other positions in the private sector after leaving Congress.

As the old saying goes, “You get what you pay for.” If you offer second rate pay to members of Congress, you will get second rate members. (Yes, even worse than now!) In other words, there needs to be a competitive salary for members of Congress in order to maximize the probability of attracting high quality individuals to the job.

Furthermore, if the pay of members of Congress is cut too much, then serving in Congress will become even more difficult for middle and lower income Americans than it is now. Members of Congress have to maintain two residences and must have an extensive professional wardrobe (among other living expenses beyond that of the average American). This isn’t a problem if you are one of the 50 richest members of Congress, but if you are a clean energy expert/advocate, high school teacher, or farmer/gospel music singer then a drastic pay cut might make it financially difficult to serve in Congress. At the very least, such an individual would be unable to build a financial nest egg in case of an election loss, which would disincentivize them from running in the first place.

All in all, a substantial pay cut for members of Congress would serve to make the membership of Congress even less economically representative of the country as a whole than it is now. While some people might be willing to take significant financial sacrifices to serve in Congress, enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.

In conclusion, even if you don’t agree that Mr. Nelson and Ms. McCaskill’s proposal is a bad idea, it is clear that it is unconstitutional. And when laws are legitimately unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has a way of striking that whole thing down.

[Note: The title of the article is a pun on the movie“Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.” The final line of this piece is a (hopefully satirical) reference to Rep. Todd Akin’s disastrous comments about “legitimate rape” in the 2012 election.]

Americans want gun control, but not badly enough | Harry J Enten

Gun rights advocates know that, despite Newtown, the US public is only lukewarm about gun laws – and is cooling all the time

After a month of reported congressional movement on gun control, negotiations have apparently hit a snag. Democratic senators have decided to break up proposals into different packages – such as Senator Dianne Feinstein’s push for an assault weapons ban – instead of presenting one “Obama gun package”. And, unsurprisingly, Republicans and Democrats can’t seem to agree on what parts should make up a background check bill.

On the surface, this seems like Washington dysfunction at its worst, especially since the percentage of Americans who want tougher gun control has stayed at its post-Newtown high: a majority still wants a ban on assault weapons, although legislation on that has pretty nearly no chance of passing through Congress. Over 80% of Americans do agree on universal background checks, including a majority of Republicans.

But a deeper look at the numbers suggests that gun rights advocates may be playing a stronger hand than at first glance.

1. Most Americans don’t see gun control as the most significant way to prevent mass shootings

Per a Public Religion Research Institute poll, only 25% of Americans believe that stricter gun control laws and enforcement would be the key to preventing massacres. That was second to mental health screenings, at 30%, and just ahead of moral and religious teaching, at 20%.

Even when we expand the issue out to allow for multiple answers, as CBS News did, only 21% think that stricter gun control would prevent gun violence by much. Almost half, 46%, think mental health screening would help a lot, while 36% think armed guards in public places would be most useful.

2. Guns as a whole are not at the forefront of issues for most Americans

Only 4% of Americans listed guns as the most important problem facing the country in the latest CBS News poll. Instead, over 50% chose the economy, jobs or the budget deficit. That matches other recent polling, and the recent focus on the sequestration illustrates this data.

You might say, “Of course, the economy is the No 1 issue for Americans – how could gun control come close?” And I’d agree: if gun control were really at the top of the heap, I’d expect it to be polling higher. During the healthcare debate of 2009-10, for instance, healthcare regularly broke the 20% barrier in polls on the most important issue in the US.

Now, it’s possible for Americans to care about more than one issue at once, but it’s fairly clear that gun control can get lost in our current mess of unemployment, budget cuts, and a stalling legislature. But gun control tends to be tied with healthcare and immigration as the most important issue, at all of 5%. Right now, healthcare isn’t even a national issue so much as a state one, in parts of the country.

3. Most Americans don’t feel gun legislation needs to be passed this year

This doesn’t come as a shocker given my last point, yet gun rights advocates have to like this number: only 46% of Americans in the latest Pew Research poll believe it is essential to pass gun legislation this year. That number includes only 42% of independents, and in fact, only 71% of Democrats who think that gun safety legislation is essential this year.

This is a key point because Republicans might fear being seen, once again, as “too rigid” and the “party of no”, as many Americans feel they are. But they can rest a little easier when it comes to guns. The American public seems to be saying that there’s nothing wrong with a delay.

4. Public opinion on gun control will eventually run out

If new gun laws aren’t passed this year, then they likely won’t be passed at all. Past history indicates that the current tide of opinion in favor of gun control will ebb over the course of the year. After Columbine, the only event in recent history with a comparable increase in favor of gun control, the high-water mark dropped after a year.

The reasons are twofold. First, the movement in favor of gun control has been driven mostly by media coverage. The media has yet to abandon stories about gun control, but time and a business imperative will eventually take their toll. Newer and more compelling news stories will fill the headlines, and most people will follow where the news coverage leads.

Second, the general movement over the past two decades has been against greater gun control. Take a look at the image above and take away the Sandy Hook spike. Prior to the Newtown shooting, the percentage of Americans in favor of stricter gun control had dropped below 50% – the first time that had ever happened.

Thus, from a game theory standpoint, I’m not exactly sure congressional members who want minimal gun control should rush into any deal. They have the numbers to stop any gun control measures in the Senate by filibuster, and they have a majority in the House. As importantly, if they look at the polling, they’ll know that they won’t face much of a penalty from the public: America isn’t exactly clamoring for tighter gun control and believes that other steps would do more to curb gun violence.

This is not to say a bill on background checks won’t pass through Congress. It’s just that the current hold-up should surprise no one; and despite the weight of current opinion, the pressure to make a law on guns probably won’t increase.

Harry J Enten

Marco Rubio for 2016? Five reasons I wouldn’t bet on it | Harry J Enten

Recent prominence on the national stage leads some to tout Rubio as the Republican party’s possible saviour. I doubt it

Every once in a while, there is a political leader who comes along as a saviour for his or her party. Names like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan are examples of politicians who marked the beginning of new political eras. Many have pointed to Marco Rubio as one who may follow in these men’s footsteps – and lead his party to victory in the 2016 presidential election.

Rubio is said by some to be the candidate who could reverse the Republicans’ very poor electoral showing with the growing proportion of the electorate that is Latino. He has emerged as the leading GOP figure among the “gang of eight” senators proposing bipartisan reform of the nation’s immigration law – as a Tea Party favorite, he has even made strides in winning round opinion among strongly conservative talk radio audiences on this policy. And finally, he has been anointed to deliver the Republican party’s response to President Obama’s state of the union address on Tuesday night: the gift of a national stage to a rising star.

But at this point, I just don’t see the 2016 saviour scenario happening for the senator from Florida. Why not?

1. Republicans like to choose the next in line

Since 1960, it’s been fairly easy to predict who would be the Republican nominee. Every candidate except for Barry Goldwater has either run for national office previously or been the son of someone who has. Mitt Romney ran in 2008, before winning the nomination in 2012. John McCain took on George W Bush in 2000, before clinching the nomination in 2008. Bob Dole ran as a vice-presidential nominee in 1976 and a presidential candidate in 1980 and 1988, until he finally broke through in 1996. The list goes on and on.

The best example is Ronald Reagan. He was someone who supposedly took on the Republican old guard, who thought he was too conservative and distrusted his “voodoo economics”. The fact is that Reagan had actually first run in 1968 as a conservative outsider and lost. He was more successful in his challenge to Gerald Ford in 1976, but still came up short. It wasn’t until he was well-established and entered 1980 as a front-runner that he took the nomination.

Marco Rubio has never run for president, nor appeared on a national ticket. That’s not to say this rule is ironclad, by any means, but Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and most importantly, Paul Ryan are all in better position per this criterion.

2. Republicans choose the candidate backed by the establishment

One could argue that rule 1 is a manifestation of rule 2, but the fact is that Democrats and Republicans tend to pick the candidate with establishment support. That’s the thesis of the book The Party Decides. The idea is that the candidate who has the most party backing almost always wins.

Thus George W Bush in 2000, who had never run for national office before, won lots of endorsements from the party bigwigs. And we saw how elected officials carried Romney to victory by coming out and bashing Newt Gingrich in 2012, at the moment when he threatened Romney’s lead in the primaries.

Marco Rubio is, at this point, almost the antithesis of the Republican establishment. He won his Senate seat in 2010 by challenging the party pick Charlie Crist. Once in Washington, Rubio has continued his anti-establishment ways. His second-dimension “DW-Nominate” score, which has been a pretty good measurer of establishment activity, is negative. From the debt ceiling to the fiscal cliff, Rubio has consistently voted against legislation that the leadership voted for.

3. Rubio is likely too conservative

People may be being fooled, currently, into thinking that Rubio is a middle-of-the-road politician. After all, he’s from the swing state of Florida and is sponsoring immigration reform. Rubio was, in fact, the seventh most conservative senator in the 112th Congress. His voting record puts him sandwiched between arch-conservatives Jim Inhofe and Ron Johnson.

Very conservative nominees can win a party’s nomination, as did Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The issue for Rubio, though, is that these folks became nominees when the party had just recently been in the White House. When the party has been out for two terms or more, the nominees tend to be a lot more moderate – because the party wants to win and wants a centrist pick. The most conservative nominee after the party had been out of office for more than two terms was George W Bush, the “compassionate conservative” who, at the time, was not seen nearly as rightwing as he later was.

Rubio running from the right doesn’t make too much sense, especially considering that, these days, somewhat conservative and moderate voters hold a 2:1 advantage over very conservative voters in Republican presidential primaries.

4. Rubio is largely an unknown

How much do we really know about Marco Rubio, and how he’d perform on the big stage? I mean, besides making a Time Magazine cover story, Rubio is quite untested. With relatively little media scrutiny, he had to fight through a credit card expenses scandal (an Ethics Commission ultimately threw out the case); he has also been exposed as having embellished his family history about his parents’ flight from Fidel Castro’s Cuba.

The fact is that we are almost always surprised by what candidates look like once they are under the spotlight. We found out that Rick Perry couldn’t debate to save his life. Newt Gingrich’s outsider status was severely compromised by his lobbying activity when he was out of office. Gary Hart had, in fact, been involved in a sexual affair.

If past experience holds, there are bound to be more awkward questions for Rubio than he has hitherto faced.

5. A Rubio run would face a competitive GOP field

This one is, perhaps, the most obvious: there are potentially a lot of very plausible Republican nominees. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, and Paul Ryan are all not so far-fetched names for a run in 2016. Half of these candidates are more impressive than the Republicans that ran in 2012. Even if Rubio leads a very, very early field, the other candidates combined total 80%. The probability of one of these other hypothetical candidates winning is far greater than Rubio’s chance of taking the pie.

Conclusion

If Rubio takes the plunge for 2016, I would bet against him. Given the hurdles a Rubio candidacy would face, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if he never runs at all.

Harry J Enten

How the fate of gun control is tied to presidential popularity | Harry J Enten

Polling shows that Obama’s approval rating is closely correlated with opinion on gun control. That suggests trouble ahead

Want to know how people feel about President Obama’s gun control plan?

Simply ask whether they approve or disapprove of how the president and his administration are doing their job. The two questions are nearly perfectly linked, and that could have major consequences for the future of gun control legislation.

The latest ABC/Washington Post polls prove the strong relationship. Many individual gun proposals are highly popular. In fact, seven tested gun measures, including background checks and bans on assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns, have majority support ranging from 51% to 88%.

When you attach Obama’s name by calling it “Barack Obama’s proposals”, the Post discovered that 53% of Americans favor the proposals – nearly identical to Obama’s approval rating of 55% in a separate Post poll last week. Gallup found the same, with 53% in favor of Obama’s gun control plan, compared to his monthly approval rating of 52%.

Drill down to specific demographics and the link between approval of the gun plan and approval of Obama’s administration becomes even clearer. Neither the Post nor Gallup asked about the plan or Obama’s approval in the same poll. The Post did, however, enquire about Joe Biden’s favorability. Biden’s net favorable of +11 percentage points is very close to Obama’s net approval rating of +14pt from the prior poll, meaning that the two are closely correlated.

[Note: we test Biden because we are examining small sub-samples and the sampling error on margins (for example, for favorable minus unfavorable) of less than 350 people is about 10pt or greater, which makes comparing different poll sub-samples difficult. By restricting ourselves to the same sample of people, as we can with Biden's favorables and the gun package, we can compare the answers among the exact same group of respondents.]

Among the 24 subgroups tested, the correlation between a subgroup’s opinion towards Joe Biden and Obama’s gun plan is 0.98 – nearly perfect. Moreoever, 95% of the differences in subgroup net favorables on Obama’s gun plan are predicted by their respective opinions of Biden. You rarely see two variables this closely linked. That’s even higher than the strong explanatory power that evangelical voting had in forecasting the Republican primary.

The median difference between a group’s opinion towards Biden versus Obama’s gun package is 2pt, which matches the 1pt difference between favorability for Biden and Obama’s gun control package overall. That’s ridiculously small. It means that if a respondent liked Biden, who substitutes for the administration, then the person liked the gun plan. Among independent voters, Biden’s net favorable is +5pt, and the net favorable impression of Obama’s plan is +7pt. Republican responders register -51pt net favorables for both. Among region, the median difference is only 3pt. Biden, for example, had a net favorable of +12pt in the south, while Obama’s gun plan had a favorable of +10pt. In the battleground of the midwest, Biden stood at +4pt and Obama’s gun plan was at +5pt net favorable.

So much for the correlation, but what does it mean for the future of gun control legislation?

In short, it means the gun control debate is likely heading in the direction of healthcare. In that political fight, as with this one, individual proposals polled well, but attaching Obama’s name to a proposal polarized opinion.

The key difference this time is that the net approval for Obama and his administration is about 14pt higher than it was when the healthcare bill passed in March 2010. That’s at least part of the reason why Obama’s gun safety proposals are polling much higher than his healthcare reform bill did three years ago.

This is also the main explanation for why President Obama’s gun plan is doing fairly well among independents and southerners. Obama lost both groups in the 2012 election, yet his post-election bounce has temporarily endeared him to them.

The chances are that he can’t maintain this surge in popularity, as most second-term bounces don’t last as long as the first-term ones. Obama will likely maintain a positive net approval overall, but not among certain subgroups. If his subgroup approval eventually matches his election margins, then he’ll start to show negative numbers among independents and southerners.

The question, then, is whether the high correlation between support for Obama’s administration and its gun policy signals that support for gun control is also poised to drop. It makes sense that it would. I’d also anticipate that this drop will be among the same subgroups as for Obama’s overall approval. That’ll mean that the current support for the gun plan among independents and southerners goes up in smoke.

Many House representatives up for re-election in 2014 are likely aware of the relationship between Obama’s gun proposals and his approval. Right now, that’s not an issue, but a fall in Obama’s approval would make this high correlation a problem. I don’t believe that legislators from areas where Obama’s approval is negative would want to be associated with a bill whose popularity is tied directly to presidential ratings. I’m talking about senators from red states who are committed to opposition, or waffling, on gun control – like Max Baucus, Mark Begich, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, and, to a lesser extent, Kay Hagan.

So, we shouldn’t be surprised by a decline in support for Obama’s gun control package, nor by more obfuscation from vulnerable Democrats, who want to tread very carefully on guns. This doesn’t mean any gun package is over before it’s begun. Universal background checks, which are supported by about 90% of the public, seem to be picking up some steam.

But gun control legislation, on the whole, will be difficult to pass – and not just on the face of the proposals, but because red state legislators facing re-election simply won’t want to be associated a bill so closely tied to the popularity of President Obama.

Harry J Enten

How Senate Democrats, not just House Republicans, will block gun control | Harry J Enten

A filibuster-proof majority in Senate is already a stretch, but red state Democrats up for re-election may make it unreachable

Vice-President Biden’s group will make recommendations to President Obama this week on gun control. Majorities of Americans support numerous new gun restrictions, yet I’m pessimistic that anything will get through Congress. Why?

You might expect me to cite the Republican-controlled House, but the chances that the Democratic-controlled Senate will pass anything are not much better.

The Democrats need 60 votes to achieve “cloture” or avoid a filibuster, and that seems near-impossible. Assuming all 55 Democrats vote for a piece of gun control legislation, another five Republicans must join the coalition. I can only think of four Republicans who are gettable.

Mark Kirk, from blue state Illinois, has a lifetime F-rating from the NRA and has voiced support for an assault weapons ban. Susan Collins, from Obama-voting Maine, and Dan Coats of Indiana have each received a C+ from the NRA, and worse grades from the Gun Owners of America. Finally, John McCain of Arizona only has a B+ from the NRA and a C- from the Gun Owners.

These four Republicans, plus all the Democrats, equal only 59, which, of course, isn’t 60. Every other Republican has at least an A from either the NRA or the Gun Owners. There would have to be a major change of heart from at least one Republican in order to avoid a filibuster or make cloture.

But even if you got that magical one Republican, the openness to discuss gun control from West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, isn’t likely to be shared by six red state Democrats who are set to run for re-election in 2014.

The reason is that regardless of how Americans view gun control right now, research indicates that they are likely to be at least somewhat affected by cues from their party leaders. This is especially the case if the party is out of power, as the Republicans currently are. You saw this during healthcare reform debate of 2009 when most Americans were in favor of Obamacare at first, then turned against it once it became a partisan issue and Republican leaders resisted the reforms. Americans then opposed the new law even as they still supported most of the policies contained within it. A similar outcome is possible this time, as Republicans leaders have not indicated much of any movement on gun control.

Pew Research found that Americans who prioritize gun rights over gun control, as well as gun owners, are more likely to say that the Republican party does a better job of reflecting their views on gun control, by margins of 44 percentage points and 22pt, respectively. Americans against gun control are more likely to be politically active than their pro-control counterparts: they are 17pt more likely to to contribute money, contact a public official, sign a petition, or express an opinion on a social network. I can’t imagine a senator from a red state, especially one in which there are more guns per household than the national average, wanting to go up against a barrage from pro-gun forces.

That’s why Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Tim Johnson of South Dakota all have A ratings from the NRA. They all come from states ranked third or fourth in gun ownership – at least 57% of households have a gun in the home. Baucus voted against a renewal of the assault weapons ban in 2004; Begich said he’d vote against it even after Newtown; and Johnson has seen his NRA grade go from a C+ in 2003 to an A, with an NRA endorsement, during his 2008 re-election fight.

The electoral prospects for each man adds to the unlikelihood that any will cast a vote in favor of serious gun control legislation. According to Public Policy Polling (PPP), Baucus has a net approval rating of -3pt and leads a generic Republican candidate by only 3pt. Begich won election 2008 by only 1pt and is rated as “vulnerable” by the Cook Political Report, which also pegs Johnson as the incumbent most likely to lose in 2014.

Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, too, is likely a goner on serious gun control legislation, despite a C from the NRA. She voted against renewing the assault weapons ban in 2004, and pretty much every other gun control measure of the past eight years. She won re-election in 2008 by six points – against a relatively weak opponent and in a state that voted for Romney by 17pt. She is “at risk” per the Cook Political Report. In Louisiana, 44% of households have a gun, 14th most in the nation.

Only Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas could go in favor of gun control. Hagan has an F from NRA, though she voted in favor in loosening regulations across state lines and calls herself a strong supporter of the second amendment. Pryor has a C-. He also voted to renew the assault weapons ban in 2004, and has wavered only occasionally since.

Again, the issue is that the Cook Political Report puts both of them at risk, come election season. Hagan’s net approval rating of -2 per PPP means she can’t afford to lose many voters, even if her state ranks only 23rd in the nation for households with guns, at 41%.

Pryor might be in an even worse spot. In 2012, Obama lost Arkansas by 24pt, and Democrats lost their control of the state legislature for the first time since Reconstruction. Democrats had three of the state’s four representatives in Congress during Pryor’s last election, but don’t have a single one now. He simply doesn’t need enemies in a state where 55% of households have a gun – sixth most in the nation.

So, I don’t think you can count on any red state Senate Democrat who is running in 2014. Taking away these six leaves the pro-control caucus with 53 votes in the Senate, at most – even with the four Republicans. Counting Hagan and Pryor only leaves the pro-control caucus with 55 votes.

Let’s also be real here. Joe Manchin has only said that “everything should be on the table”. He hasn’t actually committed to anything concrete. Neither have Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, nor Jon Tester of Montana – all red state Democratic senators given A-ratings by the NRA – committed to anything specific.

That’s why the smart analysis says that the chances of Congress passing serious gun control legislation decrease by the day. The House is a foregone conclusion. When all these numbers start getting added together, I’m not even sure you can find a simple majority of senators to agree on tougher gun control. A filibuster-proof majority, meanwhile, is likely impossible.

Harry J Enten

Establishment v insurgent: the Capitol’s new political dynamic | Harry J Enten

The old left-right ideological model for how Congress votes has lost explanatory power. Something different is afoot in US politics

Over the past few weeks, I’ve written a lot about ideology and polarization. Most of that has focused on the left-right differences. But there’s another shaping theme in politics that is also present: establishment v insurgent.

Presidential campaigns, for example, usually come down to those who are backed by the establishment and those who are not. The candidates backed by the establishment usually win, and the outsiders almost always lose. It’s the main thesis of the great book The Party Decides.

That’s why many political scientists thought that Mitt Romney winning the bulk of congressional endorsements for the Republican nomination in 2012 meant that he would almost certainly capture the nomination. His establishment support came from both left and right of the party, and was actually slightly more conservative than either Gingrich’s or Santorum’s, despite Romney donor profiles indicating that his public was moderate.

Twelve years prior, George W Bush triumphed over the moderate John McCain on the back of establishment support. Likewise, Hillary Clinton saw her 2008 hopes fade because of her inability to lock up support from establishment congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

No one can doubt that this establishment v insurgent dynamic has been present in Congress for a while, but “DW-nominate” scores indicate that this dichotomy is becoming increasingly important. These scores seek to rank congressional members’ ideology in two dimensions, based on their rollcall voting record. In my previous analyses of polarization, I’ve used the first dimension, which usually does a good job at placing members on the liberal-to-conservative spectrum. The second dimension has rarely been used in recent years because it hasn’t seemed to stand for anything.

In the past Congress, however, the second dimension has begun to have more explanatory power – among Republicans, especially. That is, something beyond just being conservative or liberal is beginning to predict voting patterns of congressmen and women. The vote-view folks and I think that this dimension is along an establishment v anti-establishment axis, though one might also argue that it is geographically based – since many insurgent Tea Party members are from the American south.

Consider the debt ceiling debate of 2011. People on both the liberal and conservative side of the aisle supported the bill. Oddly, House Democrats and Senate Republicans were the two groups most likely to oppose the bill.

If the voting had been strictly along partisan lines, we’d expect the best fit line to be straight up and down. That is, the vote could easily be determined as being to the left or to the right. Instead, we have more of a diagonal line that goes from upper left to lower right in the House and upper right to lower left in the Senate. What that means is that there are liberal and conservative elements behind the voting, but there is also something else happening. You might call it a rather strange vote in which the Tea Party caucus, progressive caucus, and black caucus voted all together – though, arguably, it could be explained as establishment House Democrats and establishment House Republicans voting together. In other words, how many times can we expect John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Steny Hoyer, Kevin McCarthy, Nancy Pelosi, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz all to vote the same way on a relatively divided debate?

The coalition was slightly different with the recent fiscal cliff vote, yet it displayed a similar pattern. Again, there was a left-to-right element, with more Democrats voting in favor this time. But there was also a “second dimension” element.

The lines are, again, diagonal. The differences among Democrats largely disappeared, but they were as present as ever among Republicans. The “establishment” Republicans largely voted in lockstep with one another, while the anti-establishment folks also banded together, voting the other way. The fit is certainly not perfect, with establishment figures like Cantor and McCarthy voting no – thought that actually matches well with the press coverage afterward declaring that Cantor’s vote indicated a break with the establishment leadership, rather than the fact that he’d newly discovered a conservative soul.

This divide between establishment v anti-establishment was present throughout the 112th Congress. Whether it was the 2012 omnibus bill, or the highway and student loan funding bill of 2012, outsiders such as blue-staters Michele Bachmann and Marco Rubio voted alongside southerner Rand Paul and westerner Mike Lee. Others with similar left-to-right rankings, but who were closer to the establishment, such as Senator John Barasso, Representative Cantor, Representative Billy Long of Missouri, and, yes, even very conservative Mitt Romney-backed Representative Steve King of Iowa often voted the opposite way.

It’s necessary to note that while the insurgents seem to be rising, it was the establishment that won in all the situations. My guess is that they will continue to win, even if they need to adjust. That’s why I’m skeptical about whether we’re really likely to see a “Republican civil war” in the coming years, or even the 2016 presidential nomination season.

In practise, the establishment tends to line up behind the eventual winner of the nomination before a war breaks out. That’s why even the hard-fought 2008 Democratic and 2012 Republican nomination winners became quite clear by the end of February in the nomination seasons. Further, if Republicans do well in 2014, which they should given the midterm landscape, then this should placate those currently calling for heads.

The ability of the party establishment to hold onto power might explain why Paul Ryan voted for the fiscal cliff package. Ryan is pretty far to the right in the left-to-right ideological rankings. He’s even been seen as fairly anti-establishment over the long term. Yet, he voted for each and every one of the “establishment” positions on the four key financial bills discussed here. Ryan may be looking to capitalize on the establishment credentials he built up during his run as vice-presidential nominee. We’ll have to see if his future voting record also supports the idea that he’s shifted toward the establishment.

In the meantime, it looks likely that this establishment v insurgent divide will continue through to the next Congress. The votes for and against John Boehner for house speaker did not split according to the liberal-to-conservative spectrum for Republicans, but rather among the second dimension: between establishment v anti-establishment forces. In short, this should looks set to be yet another unproductive and unwieldy Congress.

Harry J Enten

Mitt Romney

Americans on the fiscal cliff deal: meh | Harry J Enten

The polls say most expected a compromise – though not so many like what they got. But the deal-makers fare slightly better

The fiscal cliff was averted last week as both the House and Senate agreed on an imperfect package. What do Americans think of this legislation and those who passed it?

Many in Washington did not think a deal would be reached, but Americans expected Congress would hammer out an agreement on time.

In every single Gallup poll taken during the month of December, the majority of respondents guessed that Congress would reach a solution that avoided the cliff. That majority shrank to 50%, but still held as late as 22 December, despite pessimistic reports. The ability of the public to predict better than most pundits fits with research that shows Americans also do a very good job of forecasting the results of presidential elections.

But while most Americans expected a deal, they didn’t much like it. By a slim 45% to 43% plurality, Gallup found more Americans disapproved than approved of the fiscal cliff deal. This broadly concurs with Pew Research’s finding that 38% approved and 41% disapproved of the deal. The percentage of Americans who registered agreement is far less than the 68% of Americans who’d said they wanted “compromise” from their Washington leaders back in December.

Independents and Republicans, in particular, looked for agreement – just not this one. Only 27% of Republicans and 39% of independents approved of the passed fiscal cliff legislation per Gallup. That compares with the approximately 60% of each group who had wished Congress to pass “compromise” legislation in December. Meanwhile, the 67% of Democrats who approved of the fiscal cliff deal largely matches the approximately 70% of Democrats who wanted a bipartisan piece of legislation.

The reason for this before-and-after discrepancy, as Pew Research discovered, is that 57% of Americans think President Obama got more of what he wanted, while only 20% feel the same way about Republican leaders. That affirms the fiscal cliff legislative rollcall, in which, by a near 2:1 margin, House Republicans opposed the law, while House Democrats approved it by more than a 9:1 margin.

That’s not to say Republican leaders made a mistake compromising, in the eye of the public. The percentage of Americans who approved of generic congressional Republicans’ handling of the fiscal cliff negotiations had been stuck in the 20s throughout the process. This percentage reached a low of 25% per Gallup and 19% per Pew, after the deal was passed.

Yet, Republican House speaker John Boehner who, despite much protestation from his own caucus, managed to get the deal through the House, actually received a boost in his approvals: 31% of Americans approved of Boehner’s handling of the fiscal cliff deal in Gallup polling – higher than any other congressional leader.

For Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who played a leading role, with Vice-President Joe Biden, in crafting the final form of the fiscal cliff bill, approval of 28% was also higher than the generic Republican congressional approval. In both cases of these named Republican leaders, the net approval (approval minus disapproval) of about -20pt is about 20pt higher than the net approval of generic congressional Republicans, at -40pt per Gallup.

Some might say that named Republican leaders only have higher approval because it’s easier to hate a no-faced person, but I’m not sure I agree. Only 27% approved of Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid’s performance in Gallup’s polling, which is slightly lower than the percentage of Americans who approved of named Republican leaders. It’s also lower than the 34% who approved of the generic Democratic leaders in Congress. It does seem that Americans are willing to reward both the Democratic party they saw as more compromising and the Republican leaders who showed a willingness to compromise.

The ability to compromise is also probably part of the reason that President Obama has consistently received the highest ratings on the fiscal cliff negotiations from Americans: 46% of Americans approved of Obama’s handling of the fiscal cliff negotiations, while 48% disapproved. That approval is slightly down from earlier, though the -2pt net split is about 20pt better than those of our named congressional leaders. Given that Pew Research has the split at 48-40 for the president, I’m guessing that this is mostly statistical noise. Obama, of course, had been hounded from some on his own side for being too compromising on the fiscal cliff deal. Vice-President Biden, who took the lead with McConnell on final negotiations, also had a -2pt approval/disapproval split, with approval at 40% and disapproval at 42% per Gallup.

Indeed, Americans may be split on the overall bill and may not love those who compromised – but they like the compromisers more than those who stuck to their guns. In other words, voters expect their leaders to be adults and make deals. Further, American “optimism” in avoiding the fiscal cliff was rewarded. We will have to wait to see whether Americans will be as positive when it comes to predicting the outcome of the political battle over the debt ceiling in the next few months.

Harry J Enten

What early polling can – and can’t – tell us about 2013′s key US elections | Harry J Enten

In races like the New York mayoral election, most candidates’ lack of name recognition makes early polling highly unreliable

Polls taken early in the election season are a most interesting phenomenon. The media loves them, while some think they are a waste of time.

The record shows that early surveys can tell us a lot about where a race will end up in the case of midterm House and even Senate elections. But in the 2013 elections, early polling is, at best, a very rough guide, and at worst, can tell us absolutely nothing.

Let’s take a look at the history of polls from early to late in the campaign for past contests in the races being held this year. The Massachusetts special election upcoming later this year may or may not feature Republican Scott Brown. The polls at this point have him ahead of almost all his opponents, except for, perhaps, Governor Deval Patrick.

The issue here is that none of his opponents is really well-known, which is why I wouldn’t dismiss any of them at this point. The plurality of voters have not formed an opinion on possible Democratic candidates like Mike Capuano, Ed Markey, or Stephen Lynch. The same holds true for possible Republican candidate Bill Weld.

As for the history, at this point in the 2010 Massachusetts special Senate election, Scott Brown was down 30pt to eventual Democratic nominee Martha Coakley. In fact, he was still down by 30pt with only two months to go. Yet he went on to win by 5pt.

Some might say 2010 was an exception, but just look at another special election, a year later, for West Virginia governor. The only pre-primary poll in that race had eventual Democratic candidate Earl Ray Tomblin ahead of Republican candidate Bill Maloney by 33pt. Tomblin would only retain the governor’s mansion for the Democrats by a little less than 3pt.

The bottom line is special elections can turn on a dime, especially when name recognition is low.

Another place where name recognition may be affecting early polling is in New Jersey. I already discussed how current polls that show Chris Christie well ahead of his Democratic opponents are likely inflated by a post-Sandy bounce. One would expect that his approval rating will eventually fall back to a still impressive mid 50s level.

That’s exactly where polls put another incumbent Republican Christine Whitman in 1997. Whitman led then relatively unknown state senator Jim McGreevy by about 15pt in early data. Whitman’s approval rating and polling lead held into the final month; but then, McGreevy rapidly closed the gap and only lost by 1pt.

Pre-Sandy polls put Christie ahead of declared Democrat Barbara Buono by a similar 16pt. Christie actually led by only 6pt over possible Democratic candidate Richard Codey. Christie is, no doubt, the favorite, but New Jersey is a Democratic state – and the last Republican with a good lead nearly lost.

Right next door to New Jersey is the New York City mayoral race. Early surveys have the probable Republican candidates down by 50pt to a generic Democrat in this Democratic bastion. Maybe that will hold, but I’m betting it won’t.

You don’t really have to look far to understand that polling in New York City mayoral elections is about as reliable as the subway after midnight. They were well off in 2009 and that was not an anomaly.

Polls had Democrat David Dinkins ahead of Republican Rudy Giuliani by 20pt two months out in 1989, and by 14pt in the closing weeks. Dinkins won by 2pt.

Republican Mike Bloomberg overcame an early 40pt deficit because of the 9/11 attacks to beat Democrat Mark Green in 2001. Democrat Freddy Ferrer was ahead of Bloomberg by 8pt in March of 2005. By November of that year, surveys had Bloomberg leading by 30-40py. Bloomberg took the race by 19pt.

And, of course, we don’t even know who the Democratic nominee will be for mayor this year.

Finally, in the great Commonwealth of Virginia, early gubernatorial surveys have Democrat Terry McAuliffe barely ahead of Republican Ken Cuccinelli. As in Massachusetts, however, over 45% of voters have no opinion of either candidate. There is also talk that Republican Lt Governor Bill Bolling may run as an independent, which could really throw this race for a loop.

Early surveys in the last two Virginia gubernatorial elections were off the eventual margin by 10-15pt. In 2005, Democrat Tim Kaine trailed Republican Jerry Kilgore by 5-10pt through the summer of 2005. It was only in the final months that he pulled ahead and won by 6pt. In 2009, Republican Bob McDonnell was ahead of Democrat Creigh Deeds by mid single digits through the early fall. He ended up winning by 17pt.

Thus, in the four marquee races for 2013, early polls should be taken with a big grain of salt. In all four cases, we have examples in the past 15 years of early polls being anything from 15pt to upwards of 30pt off.

That’s not to say the early polls won’t be right this time. It just means that if they are, there will definitely be some luck involved.

Harry J Enten

Margin of Σrror

Category Archives: US Senate

The Manchin-Toomey gun law defeat heralds trouble for Senate Democrats | Harry J Enten

The final three: the Democratic senators against gay marriage | Harry J Enten

Bill and Claire’s Unconstitutional Adventure

Americans want gun control, but not badly enough | Harry J Enten

Marco Rubio for 2016? Five reasons I wouldn’t bet on it | Harry J Enten

How the fate of gun control is tied to presidential popularity | Harry J Enten

How Senate Democrats, not just House Republicans, will block gun control | Harry J Enten

Establishment v insurgent: the Capitol’s new political dynamic | Harry J Enten

Americans on the fiscal cliff deal: meh | Harry J Enten

What early polling can – and can’t – tell us about 2013′s key US elections | Harry J Enten