2016 President

Our most recent rating of Republican presidential contenders features a top tier of three notably different candidates: A Midwestern governor (Scott Walker) who is known best by the activists who will help decide the nomination; a leading national figure (Chris Christie) who has irked conservatives; and a firebrand senator (Rand Paul) with devoted supporters who would shake up the party’s platform and, perhaps, identity. Chart 1: Updated Crystal Ball Republican presidential rankings First Tier Candidate Key Advantages Key Disadvantages Since Last Update Scott WalkerGovernor, WI •Midwest GOP gov. in Obama state •Heroic conservative credentials •Shown political durability •Too bland? Next Pawlenty? •Might not deliver home state •Would highly motivate left/labor – Chris Christie Governor, NJ •Dynamic speaker •Shown ability to pursue conservative agenda in Blue state •Less is more — the future slogan of a svelte Chris Christie? •Superstorm Sandy fallout •Not conservative enough for base? •Loose cannon ↑ Rand Paul Senator, KY •Tea Party favorite •Strong support from libertarian GOP wing •National ID and fundraising network •Too libertarian? •Association with out-of-mainstream father •Too dovish/eclectic for GOP tastes? ↑ Second Tier Marco Rubio Senator, FL •Hispanic •Dynamic speaker and politician •From most electorally valuable swing state •Future tough votes in

As we enter the dog days of Congress’ August recess, Americans are displeased with Washington. For instance, a recent poll found that 82% of Americans don’t think Congress has earned its break. Americans’ unhappiness with their leaders spares no branch of government: President Obama has seen his disapproval rating eclipse his approval rating since early June, and Congress has an approval rating in the teens. Even the Supreme Court has suffered to some degree. But while Congress has been unpopular since what seems like the beginning of time, Obama, as recently as earlier this year, basked in an approval rating in the low-to-mid 50s, which is decent in our polarized political era. However, the president seems now to be suffering from a case of the “second-term blahs.” Obama is the sixth of eight second-term presidents (counting Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, who served partial first terms after their predecessors died in office) in the modern age of polling to enter such a period. Most of the afflicted presidents saw their approval ratings permanently deteriorate, which may be a bad omen for Obama. Those who didn’t recover usually suffered because of a poor economy, scandal or war. Gallup’s comprehensive polling —

This article about the future of the American electorate is a response by Crystal Ball Senior Columnist Alan Abramowitz and political demographics expert Ruy Teixeira to an article published here last week by Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics. A previous Abramowitz/Teixeira piece on this topic is available here. — The Editors Do “missing white voters” offer hope for the Republican Party in future presidential elections? Sean Trende, a popular elections analyst for RealClearPolitics.com, thinks so. According to Trende, a large number of white voters dropped out of the electorate in 2012 because they weren’t enthusiastic about Mitt Romney’s candidacy. Trende has argued that getting these missing voters back to the polls could allow the GOP to overcome any advantage Democrats may gain from the growing nonwhite share of the electorate in the 2016 presidential election and beyond. Although Trende claims that he is not advocating “doubling down on white voters,” it is clear that his argument nicely complements the views of conservatives opposed to immigration reform and other policies designed to attract more nonwhite voters to the GOP. If you don’t think you can win a larger share of the nonwhite vote, then the only way you can win is by

Last week, Alan Abramowitz, Crystal Ball Senior Columnist, and Ruy Teixeira, an expert on American political demographics, wrote about the difficulties they foresee for Republicans in future presidential elections if they do not improve their performance with minority voters. That piece addressed a series of articles that analyst Sean Trende wrote for RealClearPolitics.com. Trende wished to respond to the Abramowitz/Teixeira piece, and he explains what he sees as the Democrats’ trouble with white voters below. — The Editors By late 2009, it was clear that Democrats had a problem. Some generic congressional ballot tests were showing Republicans with a seven-point lead, which would have been consistent with a 1994-style blowout. But analysts were nevertheless deeply divided over whether Republicans would even be able to take over the House, much less replicate 1994. Some argued that demographic change had insulated Democrats. Because of the growth of the non-white electorate, even if the Democratic share of the white vote fell to the 42% share (subtracting third parties) they received in 1994, Democrats would barely lose the national popular vote. This was a serious, credible argument. But in November 2010, Democrats won only 38% of the white vote. Taking into account exit polls,

Perhaps the key question in American presidential politics is how the growing and overwhelmingly Democratic nonwhite vote will affect future elections. If Republicans can’t capture a bigger share of that vote, are they doomed to minority status in presidential elections? Or can Republicans find other paths to victory? In a series of articles for RealClearPolitics.com, Sean Trende — a shrewd analyst and contributor to our book that analyzed the 2012 election, Barack Obama and the New America — suggested that Republicans may be able to make up for deficits among nonwhite voters by improving their share of the white vote. In response, Crystal Ball Senior Columnist Alan Abramowitz and Ruy Teixeira, an expert on American political demographics, present a powerful counterpoint, arguing that Republicans will find it harder and harder to win national elections without better performance among nonwhite voters. Their persuasive take on the great American political demographic argument follows. — The Editors In the aftermath of Barack Obama’s relatively comfortable reelection victory in 2012 — a win fueled by massive margins among African Americans, Hispanics and other nonwhite voters — an intense debate has begun among Republican leaders and strategists over the future direction of the party. The

Accurately or not, Barack Obama has been compared to a number of famous politicians:  FDR, JFK, Ronald Reagan, even Jimmy Carter. But no one as yet has compared him to Michael Dukakis. Yet as a reference point, Dukakis might be as good as anyone. A look at his vote-getting performance in his unsuccessful 1988 presidential run in relation to Obama’s 2012 reelection victory shows both how far the Democrats have come at the presidential level, as well as where they have lost ground. Why compare these particular elections? Basically because of the parallels in their historical timing. Dukakis ran in the sixth and last presidential election in an era of Republican domination that lasted from 1968 through 1988. The GOP won the White House five times in this period. Meanwhile, Obama was reelected last fall in the sixth election in a more Democratic period that was launched in 1992. Beginning with Bill Clinton’s election that year, the Democrats have won four presidential contests and the popular vote in a fifth. Placed side by side, the two elections show just how much the political landscape has changed at the presidential level in the last quarter century. In 1988, Dukakis carried 10

“I was born an American; I will live an American; I shall die an American.” — Daniel Webster While Daniel Webster died an American in 1852, his political legacy does not belong to just one state, but two: New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Born in New Hampshire, Webster represented the Granite State in the House of Representatives from 1813 to 1817. But he then moved to Massachusetts seeking to improve his legal career, only to wind up returning to the House as a Bay State congressman in 1823. (Republican ex-Sen. Scott Brown is currently pondering the reverse move.) Webster went on to have a lengthy stay in the Senate, becoming part of the upper chamber’s revered “Great Triumvirate” with Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun. As a transplanted New Hampshirite representing Massachusetts, Webster’s individual case demonstrates how politics can be affected by the movement of Americans from state to state. In the aftermath of the 2012 election, the “demographics as destiny” discussion has dominated political analysis, with the latest data being provided by last week’s U.S. Census report on the 2012 electorate. But one demographic statistic hasn’t received much attention in the conversation: state nativity rates — that is, the percentage

One of the questions we asked prior to the 2012 election was whether or not state-level unemployment figures would matter much on Election Day. As it turned out, the answer was “probably not much.” Throughout the 2012 election cycle, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly jobs report became a highly anticipated event. Politicians, journalists and election handicappers (the Crystal Ball included) waited eagerly every first Friday of the month, anticipating what the national unemployment number would say about President Obama’s reelection chances. Then, toward the end of each month, the BLS released the state-by-state numbers, sparking further debate about the relative importance of state numbers, particularly in the swing states. In hindsight, the relentless focus on jobs numbers, at least in the states, was overwrought. Political science research indicates that while the national economic situation influences presidential races, the state-by-state rates do not appear to affect the outcome all that much. That the states swung relatively uniformly in their election results from 2008 to 2012, regardless of the changes in employment numbers, gives even more credence to the argument that individual state-level employment data are relatively unimportant. Just look at the case of Nevada. As Chart 1 shows, Friday’s state

UPDATE: The Crystal Ball‘s Geoffrey Skelley spoke with Paul Brandus of West Wing Report about this article. To hear the audio, click here. Perhaps Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R) should be nicknamed the “The Electoral College Count von Count” for his different ways of trying to count electoral votes. Much like the Sesame Street character, his fixation on counting can be both grating (to not only his political enemies, but also some of his political friends) and instructive. After his inability to push the Keystone State version of an electoral vote-by-congressional-district plan, Pileggi proposed a new bill that would proportionally allocate Pennsylvania’s electoral votes based on the statewide popular vote. Considering that Barack Obama won Pennsylvania by a little more than five percentage points while winning 100% (all 20) of the state’s electoral votes, Pileggi’s latest proposal is partisan, just like his previous plan. Because the Democratic presidential candidate has won the state in every presidential election since 1992, Republicans would love to win some of the state’s electoral votes even if their presidential candidate can’t win a plurality in Pennsylvania. Democrats see the proposal as a ploy to game the system, and we also get the sense