Campaign 2010: Democrats, Calm Down. Really?

Last time we chatted (see here and here), I noted that Democrats and progressives were becoming rather impatient with President Obama, fearing he was leading his party to a historic defeat in November that would result in the Republicans probably gaining control of the House and possibly even the Senate. Obama seemed to have been piddling about regarding the No. 1 issue: the economy. And a whiff of panic was in the air.

Scratch all that. Everything is fine now. Dems are doing just great. Obama's on a roll. Okay, I'm being a bit facetious. But maybe the gloom -- or that high level of gloom -- was premature. Part of that panic was caused by a Gallup poll showing the GOP with a 10-point lead over the Democrats. This made it seem that 2010 was going to be 2012 -- as in the disaster movie -- for the D's. But as Bruce Drake points out, a Gallup survey that came out this week had the Democrats and Republicans tied. Big difference. Meanwhile, Obama on Wednesday delivered a rock-'em/sock-'em speech outside Cleveland that demonstrated he can still come across as a decisive fighter. And Democrats could dare to hope: If Obama keeps slugging, if the polls are close, maybe, just maybe, we'll dodge a bullet, sidestep the falling piano, weather the storm, and manage to retain control of the House and Senate (albeit with small majorities).

On Thursday, The Democratic Strategist -- a newsletter put out by leading Democratic analysts Stan Greenberg, Ruy Teixeira, and William Galston -- released a paper fueling such hope. It began:

In recent days, as increasingly negative projections regarding the November election have appeared, a substantial number of Democrats have been seized with a genuine sense of panic. Many political commentaries have tended to suggest...that a major shift in basic attitudes is occurring-that many Americans are now shifting their allegiance to the Republicans and abandoning Obama and the Democrats. Many Democrats have a sinking fear that support for Obama and the Dems is somehow collapsing.

Andrew Levison, the author of the paper, notes something I noticed recently while reviewing polls: Obama's approval rating fell from a high of nearly 70 percent when he took office to the low 50s in the summer of 2009, and ever since it has stayed in the mid-40s-to-50 range. This is no "collapse," he maintains. Levison notes:

Obama was an unusually unfamiliar figure when he took office-certainly in comparison with someone like Hillary Clinton-and voters were extremely uncertain about how and where to classify him within their basic value systems. Obama's early appointments and calls for bipartisanship prolonged this uncertainty and many voters did not reach a final conclusion about him until June or July of 2009 when the ambitious scope of the health care bill finally convinced them that Obama was indeed basically a liberal or progressive Democrat.

This may not be the best news for Obama and the Democrats -- after all, Obama put that uncertainty to good use during the campaign -- but, Levison says, it does not mean that "major shifts are occurring in attitudes and that large numbers of Obama's former supporters are now sharply turning against him." Obama is now merely seen as a liberal president. When unemployment is near 10 percent, an approval rating in the 45-to-50 percent range is no surprise. (President Reagan and President Clinton each were in the low 40s, as they approached their first mid-term elections.)

As for the bouncing poll numbers about the congressional elections, Levison offers this useful observation: "The idea that people reconsider their basic party affiliation on a week-to-week basis runs counter to virtually everything we know about political partisanship and even at first glance it is clear that the movement in these views is limited to a relatively small group." The swings being picked up by the polls are not so great, he contends. There are no big shifts underway: "The fact that the elections this November may shift the balance of power in Congress is basically due to the fact that America is still essentially the same '50-50 nation' that it was in 2000. As a result of this sociological reality extremely small changes--such as a lower participation of pro-Obama demographic groups relative to others in off year election--can easily shift control of Congress."

In other words, Obama's triumphant win in 2008 did not mark a strategic realignment (as some Democrats might have wished), just as George W. Bush's win-with-an-asterisk in 2000 did no such thing (despite Karl Rove's best spin). And here's Levison's bottom line: "Democrats, calm down and regain some perspective. Yes, we'll suffer losses this fall, but there's actually not any profound anti-Obama or pro-Republican attitude shift going on."

If the Republicans do seize the House because of small changes, that will be small comfort for the Democrats. That recent Gallup poll that had the Ds and Rs even (among registered voters) also found the Democrats on the wrong end of a 25-point enthusiasm gap. Half of Republican voters told Gallup they were fired up to vote in the coming congressional elections; only 25 percent of Democrats said the same. This is no small matter. If voters are split roughly equally between Republican and Democratic candidates, but Republican voters are twice as eager to vote, the math ain't tough.

Which brings us back to small changes--because there likely won't be any big changes in the economy between now and the elections. If Obama can rev up Democratic voters and win back some independents, and if his party can get everything right in terms of mechanics (fundraising, advertising, get-out-the-vote efforts, etc.), then perhaps with all these small changes the Democrats have a chance of protecting their House majority. Nevertheless, a poll here, a speech there only offers so much reassurance. Democrats should keep the panic button close by. It still might come in handy.

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.