No Time to Rest on Our Laurels

Even though I only played a small part in the Georgia CD 6 special election (did two surveys there for a SuperPAC), the win by Karen Handel was supremely satisfying.  Competitive special elections receive an inordinate amount of attention because they are the only game in town (yes, South Carolina CD 5 happened the same day, but the attention and money differential was huge, even if the outcome was similar).

If the Democrats had won either race, there would be, in the immortal words of Bill Murray in “Ghostbusters,” “human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria.”  And that was in the age BEFORE Twitter!  Instead, the loss by Jon Ossoff led to more liberals crying (never enough of that!), a rant by Nancy Pelosi, and enough finger-pointing to plug a dike in the Netherlands.

Democrats should take cold comfort in the fact that their candidate in the special elections performed better than the Democratic congressional candidates in 2016.  Open seats are almost always closer races than incumbent races, so a tighter race in 2017 compared to last November doesn’t mean it is a moral victory.  There is no such thing as a moral victory in politics.

However, what the Handel win should not lead to among Republicans is hubris that everything is going to be great in 2018.  History argues strongly against that.  Now, that does not mean that Republicans will lose the House in 2018; as I like to say about politics, “Trends are trends until they change.”  After the 1988 presidential election, the “Republican Electoral Lock” was the hot conventional wisdom.  In 2016, it was the supposed impenetrability of “The Big Blue Wall” that led Hillary Clinton to take the campaign for granted.

However, it makes much more political sense to assume that recent political history will continue.  Which means Republican incumbents and open seat candidates better run for office as if their political lives are endangered.  Those who point to established mid-term trends indicating huge GOP losses may be just as spectacularly wrong.  I worked on several campaigns in 2006 where the Republicans were declared dead before bouncing back to eke out a win.  Other Republicans worked just as hard but did not get re-elected.  The voters are a cruel master (somewhere whilst hiking in the woods, Hillary Clinton is vigorously nodding her head).

The chart below underscores the impact of presidential job approval ratings on mid-term elections.  The conclusion should not be shocking, but it certainly is crystal clear.  Wave mid-term elections occur against the party in the White House when the incumbent president has an approval below 50{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222}.

Screen Shot 2017-06-28 at 10.48.53 AM

While you can argue extenuating circumstances impacted some of those results, it is hard to argue with the outcome.  And, with President Trump having a 40{09f965da52dc6ab4c1643a77bd40d1f729d807040cd8db540234bb981a782222} approval rating according to the RCP average, Republicans in potentially vulnerable seats need to fight for their political lives.  Those who do not work hard to raise money, engage voters, contrast with their opponent, and energize their base are going to be in grave danger of losing.  Take a lesson from the recent special elections, in which the candidates and the party ran extremely strong campaigns, put their opponents on the defensive, and took nothing for granted.  GOP incumbents in swing seats should study those races.

Yes, the district lines do help Republicans.  Also, the third chart in this post (scroll down) underscores the long road Democrats have to make in-roads in GOP-held seats.  While we have that going for us, the above chart underscores that we can take nothing for granted.

The second reminder to Republicans that 2018 is unlikely to be fun and games and Georgia 6-esque is the table below.  There is a school of thought that Independents do not matter in off-year elections, but the table below clearly cuts against the conventional wisdom.  The 2006, ‘10, and ‘14 data is from the exit polls, and shows Independents voting by double-digits in the direction of the wave.

Screen Shot 2017-06-28 at 11.09.14 AM

The 2018 data is the most recent congressional preference question from the NBC/WSJ poll, showing a deficit of double digits.  This underscores that Independents need to be a key message and tactical target of GOP campaigns.

It’s not all gloom and doom.  The table below shows that, despite the Democratic advantage on the congressional preference question, there has been no erosion in support for a Republican Congress from Republican-held congressional districts.

Screen Shot 2017-06-28 at 10.48.41 AM

So far this election cycle, the movement to Democrats on the preference question has all come from Democratic-held districts.  At this point in time (things can change!) this means Nancy Pelosi would win her district by an even bigger margin than in previous years (given her last seven years as leader, that’s excellent news!), but that Republicans would turn in results similar to 2012 and 2016.

So, the voters are sending some mixed signals.  It serves as a warning to be ready for a potentially difficult mid-term cycle, but also that Pelosi should not be measuring the drapes in the Speaker’s Office yet.

The NBC/WSJ poll is conducted by Bill McInturff from Public Opinion Strategies and Fred Yang from Garin Hart Yang Research.  This analysis is my own and does not necessarily reflect the views of NBC/WSJ or Garin Hart Yang Research.

Similar Articles

  • Public Opinion Strategies Polls in 18 Successful 2019 Elections
    read more

  • National Survey: Health Insurance Costs Top Health Care Concerns for Voters
    read more

  • Public Education Update
    read more

  • Public Release of Research: Strengthening HCAHPS Patient Experience Surveying
    read more

  • Republicans and the 2020 Election
    read more

Public Opinion Strategies helped us to clarify what we wanted to learn and then conducted research and analysis that shed light even beyond the questions we set out to ask. They were very receptive to our suggestions, responsive to our queries, and flexible when we needed them to be.

Public Opinion Strategies has consistently offered unparalleled advice and spot-on polling that has shaped how and where we spent money and deploy key resources. Additionally, they have always been an excellent steward of limited campaign resources, ensuring we spend wisely and not a dollar more than necessary in order to get the information we need.

Robert Blizzard and Public Opinion Strategies did a great job for us throughout our successful campaign for Congress. Robert gave us accurate data, spot on analysis, and professional advice, all of which were essential to our victory.

Public Opinion Strategies is one of our go-to pollsters when it comes to testing public support for bond ballot measures and other initiative proposals. They are available to provide ongoing consultation with regard to crafting of ballot questions, public outreach messaging, and related efforts.

ACLI has worked with Public Opinion Strategies for decades, through several tough industry battles—often ones in which public opinion does not naturally fall on the side of insurers. Yet Bill and his team consistently provide invaluable strategic advice by refining our messages and helping us frame our issues in a way that makes them understandable and persuasive.

The data from Public Opinion Strategies provided important insight and informed our public awareness campaign. We sincerely appreciate their professionalism and expertise in this arena.

Nicole McCleskey and the team at Public Opinion Strategies have been invaluable to me, both during my campaigns and as Governor of the State of New Mexico. It’s not just the accuracy of their numbers, but guiding the overall strategy that makes them so valuable.

Public Opinion Strategies has been a part of our team in Missouri for more than a decade. With their data and guidance, Republicans here were able to attain a majority in the House in 2002 for the first time in fifty years, and we have been able to grow that majority to the point that we now have a record, veto-proof majority.

In my tenure at two leading business associations, facing huge and complex consumer issues, I have benefitted enormously from the objective advisory skills of Bill and his team. They do their homework, they are rigorous, dispassionate and thoughtful. Turning questions into answers is a clever tag, but it’s also an apt description of the professional talents of the firm.

I consider Public Opinion Strategies to be a part of our team. That is the way we have always worked. They have helped us to understand our needs and fashioned research solutions to meet those needs. They have helped us to meet killer deadlines by being flexible, executing rapidly, and insuring quality. Teamwork is the best way to describe it.

Accuracy, speed, and deep knowledge of key issues and public sentiment are the hallmarks of quality opinion research, and on these measures Public Opinion Strategies consistently delivers. I have had the pleasure of working with Public Opinion Strategies for more than 15 years on dozens of issues, and they are undoubtedly the gold standard.

Public Opinion Strategies’ track record of success and wealth of experience in political campaigns and issue advocacy are why they are one of the most trusted and well respected public opinion firms in Washington, D.C. Their insights and perspectives have helped to inform a wide array of public affairs activities across multiple industries.

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By :