Skip links

2012 President

Sabato's Crystal Ball

A Populist Panacea?

I’ll admit it. I love populism. In my youth I was always drawn to populist candidates. For over eight months I’ve been predicting that 2010 would be the Year of the Populist, and this prediction has come true. Populism is the only approach that makes sense in this angry, miserable time full of resentful voters. A sincere populist identifies with, and advocates for, the needs of ordinary powerless people, who believe they are being screwed by big, impersonal institutions and elites. By the way, people usually believe this because they ARE being screwed. Populism can be a political vehicle for both Republicans and Democrats. The classic populist’s slogan is, “Keep the Big Boys Honest.” Big Boys can be defined as Big Government (waste, fraud, and excessive spending, taxation, and debt) from a GOP perspective or Big Business (greedy bankers, Wall Street money-changers, and corporate crooks of all varieties) from a Democratic perspective. Either approach can be successful. Whether from the Right or the Left, the populist politician must honestly suspect that there’s more going around in the dark than Santa Claus, and hanky-panky—designed to rip off the little guy—is its name. Establishment politicians of both parties who are the favorites

Larry J. Sabato

OBAMA’S FIRST YEAR

As we look back on a tumultuous first year for President Barack Obama, three questions matter. What have we learned about him? What has he learned about his job? And how much does the first year foretell about the Obama presidency? In many ways Obama in office has acted much as advertised on the campaign trail. He is methodical, cerebral, professorial, and unusually focused. “No Drama Obama”, as he is called, isn’t given to angry outbursts, emotionalism of any kind, or snap decisions. Many people prefer this kind of governing style, though it limits his effectiveness at times of national anguish and prevents him from employing populist tactics that could aid him politically. Obama trusts and follows his instincts even when he pays a political price. He took months to formulate a clear approach on Afghanistan, and the more criticism he received for the length of his policy review, the more determined he seemed to dot every “I” and cross every “T” before announcing his plans. The Afghanistan decision-making also showed us something else. Despite his image as a political liberal, Obama is usually cautious to a fault, splitting the difference whenever necessary. He is no revolutionary, as the disappointed

Larry J. Sabato

NOTES ON THE STATE OF POLITICS IN THE NEW YEAR

Surprise Retirements What a difference a day makes. Two Democratic senators, both likely reelection losers, throw in the towel. The incumbent Democratic governor of key swing state Colorado shocks everyone by declining to run for a second term. And the all-but-certain Democratic nominee for governor of Michigan, Lt. Gov. John Cherry, drops out because he can’t raise money. Maybe it’s just a series of coincidental announcements but it sure looks like a January panic by Democrats. These are some preliminary conclusions: Since last summer we’ve all been saying that 2010 would be a good year for Republicans. It’s turning out that way. January is a big retirement month, and it is often the time when speculation becomes reality. Looking just at the Senate, Democrats can now be fairly certain they aren’t going to have 60 seats anymore come 2011. Actually, Dodd’s drop-out may save a seat for them, if state AG Richard Blumenthal steps into Dodd’s shoes as the party nominee. But Dorgan’s seat is a goner as long as Gov. John Hoeven (R) runs. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) is very shaky. Also in serious to deep trouble: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA),

Larry J. Sabato

BIPARTISANSHIP AT LAST?

Not far removed from the shouting, sniping, and long elbows the two parties regularly display on Capitol Hill, the Democrats and Republicans are actually working together on something important–an overhaul of the presidential nominating process for 2012. Just down the hill, at the headquarters of the Democratic and Republican national committees, the two parties are working to revamp the oft-criticized presidential nominating process for 2012. With too many states voting too early a common complaint in 2008, the two parties each have their own commission studying a revamp of the system for next time. They could produce a later starting date, a spread-out primary calendar, and on the Democratic side, a sharp reduction in the number of unelected “superdelegates.” (The latter, a variety of party and elected officials, comprised nearly 20 percent of the last Democratic convention and drew criticism as being anti-democratic.) The big news, though, is that for the first time ever, the two parties are working concurrently and are consulting with each other in the process. The hope is that each might produce a final product that not only puts both parties on the same basic wavelength, but would enable them to present a common front in

Rhodes Cook

Obama’s Nobel Price Acceptance Speech

Obama’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech gets an A, no questions asked. It’s an incisive, practical take on just war theory that serves President Obama and, more importantly, America well. Good for him, and good for the speechwriters, too. But I would still argue that, maybe for the first time ever, the receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize is a net negative for the winner. Most people will only remember that Obama got an unearned award–for pleasing rhetoric and for replacing George W. Bush, not on account of real achievement. Moreover, Obama will hear echoes of the Prize for the rest of his presidency. The Left will batter him with it when he is not pacific enough, while the Right will bludgeon him when he “caters to the Nobel Committee’s sensibilities” by being too pacific. On the other hand, here’s a mild plus: Unlike other Democratic presidents, Obama won’t go panting after the Prize over the course of many years, shaping his behavior to please the Nobel Committee, since he already has the trophy in hand. Free at last, free at last… The real problem here is not Obama but the members of the Nobel Committee. Over the years they have

Larry J. Sabato

PRESIDENTS AND THEIR PARTY’S PRIMARIES

On many of the great issues of the day, President Barack Obama has drawn some criticism for a lack of decisive leadership. But he has shown little hesitation in taking sides in some high-profile Democratic primaries that could just as readily divide the party in 2010 as unite it. In Colorado, Obama is backing appointed Sen. Michael Bennet over former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. In Pennsylvania, the president is supporting former Republican and newly minted Democratic senator, Arlen Specter, over Rep. Joe Sestak. In New York, the administration is clearing the primary field for appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Already, the White House has pressured Democratic Reps. Steve Israel and Carolyn Maloney to stay out of the race. And Obama emissaries have put the heat on New York’s poll-challenged Democratic governor, David Paterson, to drop any thoughts of a 2010 election bid. White House supporters say it is good politics for Obama to try and fashion the strongest possible Democratic lineup next year and argue that his hands-on approach is consistent with his role as leader of the party. Critics, though, complain that the administration’s tactics are heavy-handed and are undemocratic, denying Democratic voters a fair chance to make their

Rhodes Cook

Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize

I didn’t need my coffee this morning. The stunning Nobel announcement sufficed. I’m only competent to address the political implications. For President Obama, the enhanced prestige is an intangible element that can help him on the international stage. It may also make some difference in his quest for health care reform. This is because the success of a health care bill now depends almost entirely on Democratic votes in Congress, and Democrats will be the ones most impressed by the award. What a difference a week makes, huh? The Nobel Peace Prize certainly wipes out the embarrassment of Obama’s Olympics disaster! Also on the plus side, think of the TV ad that David Axelrod can craft for Obama’s 2012 reelection. The other three U.S. presidential winners either received the award in their second terms (Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson) or long after the White House years (Jimmy Carter). Obama will be the first one who can actually put the Nobel Prize to good political use. The Prize is not an unalloyed plus, however. Even to Obama supporters, the award seems ridiculously premature. To give him the prize for a few speeches, a new “tone”, and certain issue positions is odd. We’ve

Larry J. Sabato

Ideology in the American Public

Is the United States today a center-left nation or a center-right nation? There is no question that Barack Obama’s victory in the 2008 presidential election and the Democratic gains in the 2006 and 2008 congressional elections dramatically changed the ideological make-up of America’s political leadership. On almost every major domestic and foreign policy issue, Barack Obama is well to the left of his predecessor in the White House, George W. Bush. And it is equally clear that the ideological makeup of Congress has shifted significantly to the left since 2006. But did this leftward shift among our nation’s political elite reflect a similar leftward shift among the American public? Despite the results of the last two elections, some conservative pundits and politicians have argued that there has been no leftward shift in ideology among the American public. They claim that the United States was and is a center-right nation. In their view, the Republican Party did not lose the 2006 and 2008 elections because it was too conservative but because it abandoned its conservative principles during the Bush years. It follows that to revive its fortunes the Party should not move to the center, as some moderate Republicans have suggested,

Alan I. Abramowitz

Despite Falling Poll Numbers, Little Evidence of Erosion in Obama’s Base

Over the past several weeks President Obama has seen his approval rating fall from the low-60s to the low-50s in national polls. The president has come under attack recently not only from pundits and politicians on the right upset with his proposals to expand the role of government in health care and energy but from some commentators on the left who feel that his policies are too cautious and don’t go far enough to address the challenges facing the country. Despite the grumbling on the left, however, there is little evidence thus far of erosion in support for the president among the groups that comprised his electoral base in the last election. The figure below shows a scatterplot of the relationship between Mr. Obama’s share of the vote in 2008 and his approval rating in the Gallup Poll during the week of August 17-23 among 25 demographic groups. These results indicate that the president continues to enjoy strong support among African-Americans, Democrats, liberals, Hispanics, younger Americans, and those who seldom or never attend religious services. All of these groups voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama last November. His support is weakest among Republicans, conservatives, older Americans and regular churchgoers. All of

Alan I. Abramowitz

The Myth of the Independent Voter Revisited

Independents are hot. If you’ve been reading the opinion columns in the newspaper or watching the talking heads on television, you probably know that political independents are the largest and fastest growing segment of the American electorate. You also know that independents don’t care about party labels, vote for the person instead of the party, and hew toward the center rather than the poles of the ideological spectrum. And you know that appealing to this growing bloc of independent voters is the major goal of modern political campaigns. Unfortunately, almost everything that you’ve read or heard about independent voters recently is wrong. True independents actually make up a small segment of the American public and an even smaller segment of the electorate; the large majority of those who call themselves independents actually have a party preference and these independent partisans think and act almost exactly like regular partisans. And the major goal of modern political campaigns is not appealing to a mythical bloc of independent voters, but unifying and mobilizing partisans. The myth of the independent voter was exploded in a book by the same name that was published back in 1992. In The Myth of the Independent Voter, a

Alan I. Abramowitz

A Note on the Sotomayor Confirmation Vote

Like almost everything else in Congress, Senate votes on Supreme Court nominations have become much more polarized along party lines in recent years. That was certainly true of the recent vote on President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. While all 59 Democrats who were present voted to confirm Sotomayor, 31 of 40 Republicans voted against confirmation. An analysis of the Senate vote indicates that a combination of three factors accurately predicted support for confirmation among Republican senators: the 2008 presidential vote in a senator’s state, a senator’s personal ideology, and whether a senator was retiring from elected office. The 9 Republicans from states carried by Barack Obama voted 6-3 in favor of confirmation; the 31 from states carried by John McCain voted 28-3 against confirmation. The 6 Republicans who had announced that they were retiring from elected office voted 4-2 in favor of confirmation; the other 34 voted 29-5 against confirmation. Finally, 8 of 21 Republicans who were classified as moderates or moderate conservatives based on their voting records in the 110th Congress voted for confirmation; only 1 of 16 who were classified as strong conservatives voted for confirmation. The results of a logistic regression analysis of the confirmation vote

Alan I. Abramowitz

WHO’S ON FIRST?

Every year, about this time, I hear from people who have watched their state set the order of candidate appearance on the fall ballot. Some states put candidates in chronological order of their official filing with the elections board, while others choose candidates or parties by lot. In fact, the smorgasbord of ways each state arranges candidates is staggering, both in its variety and, often, its complexity (for a complete list of how each state determines ballot order, click here). Regardless of the method, inquiring political minds want to know, does it make any difference? This is a question that has long fascinated political scientists. We like to study the behavior of voters. What leads citizens to vote the way they do? Surely, the candidates’ platforms, personalities, and party affiliations matter most, along with the circumstances of the election year (war or peace, prosperity or recession, scandal or clean government, and so on). Yet many elections are decided by a handful of votes, not just the national contests that soak up attention, such as the Florida Bush-Gore presidential match-up in 2000, but also many lower statewide offices and local offices. Even a slight nudge in one direction or another could

Larry J. Sabato

ARE THE TOP JOURNALISTS INSIDERS OR OUTSIDERS?

Something truly astonishing appeared in a Washington Post column on July 25, 2009 (click here to view). It was written by Frank Mankiewicz, former press secretary to Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY) and the man who is perhaps most widely remembered for announcing RFK’s death in June 1968. Mankiewicz was also the political director of Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern’s losing 1972 campaign. The column contained a two-fold revelation about the just-deceased Walter Cronkite, the longtime CBS News anchorman. Here are the disclosures, in Mankiewicz’ own words: “Armed with a poll showing Walter Cronkite to be the most trusted man in America, I proposed that [McGovern] put forward Walter Cronkite for vice president. My idea met with instant, and unanimous, disapproval. He’d never accept, and we’d look bad, colleagues said…Decades later…McGovern [told] Cronkite that his name had been proposed…but was rejected because we were certain he’d turn us down. “On the contrary, George,”…Cronkite replied, “I’d have accepted in a minute; anything to help end that dreadful [Vietnam] war.” “In the late 1960s [presumably 1967], just after he returned from a long visit to Vietnam, Cronkite had sought a meeting with Sen. Robert Kennedy. The meeting was understood to be off

Larry J. Sabato

FIFTY YEARS LATER

The following article is the unedited version of a commentary piece as submitted to the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Fifty years have now passed since the dark days of Massive Resistance, when public schools in some Virginia localities were shuttered rather than integrated. Virginia has had an overall proud and constructive history; yet except for the original sin of slavery, Massive Resistance is the most indelible stain on the state’s soul. When today’s young people are told about the school closings, they are astonished. In retrospect, it is almost unbelievable–even for those of us who lived through the era–to accept that public education ceased in order to prevent “the mixing of the races.” But the nightmare was all too real. I was a young boy growing up in Norfolk when my father told me that my cousins were no longer able to attend school. Even as a youngster I had noticed the commotion, as well as the separate water fountains and the “Impeach Earl Warren” billboards. One Sunday, an African-American serviceman came to religious services. As he sat down, every white person in the pew moved. I was five or six years old, but I still vividly recall the anguish and humiliation

Larry J. Sabato