Rock + Hard Place = Larry Kissell

The following post can also be found at WSOCtv.com as part of my election analysis:

North Carolina can claim its own dog fight in this year’s political battles—and it’s called the 8th Congressional District. The fight between Democratic incumbent Larry Kissell and Republican Harold “Just Call Me ‘The Big Guy’” Johnson has all the trappings of one of the most competitive elections in the country.

What makes the 8th so cutthroat? There are some key factors that play into the apparent closeness:

First, it’s Nancy Pelosi. Yes, she the representative from San Fransisco, about as far as one can get from North Carolina’s 8th district. But it seems that she is running in every district where there is a Democratic incumbent, and Larry Kissell is tied—hook, line, sinker—by Johnson and the Republican Party.

Second, it’s about vulnerability, and first-term members of Congress are the most vulnerable. Granted, Kissell has sought to differentiate himself from the national party, and voting against the health care bill (which matched up with the opinion of his district) can help. But he stood with his party, and that party tie is helping the Republicans brand him a Pelosi-Democrat, which energizes Republicans and irritates independents. Kissell’s standing wasn’t helped when an underfunded primary challenger showed his potential weakness, with only 62 percent of Democrats supporting his renomination in the May primary.

Next, the demographics, especially voter registration and behavior. By the looks of it, Democrats in the 8th District shouldn’t have anything to fear—they are 49 percent of the registered voters, compared to Republicans with 27 percent and unaffiliated voters with 23 percent. But this year’s mobilization and energy levels among Republicans (reversing 2008’s Democratic advantage that gave Kissell his win) is giving some pause.

While this district is appears to favor the Democratic Party, in 2004 the district voted as North Carolina did, going for President Bush by 13 percent. Then, when the political winds turned against the GOP in 2006, the district nearly unseated the long-serving Republican incumbent Robin Hayes, who won by only 329 votes over newcomer Larry Kissell, in the congressional race.

Then came the 2008 Democratic mobilization campaign, lead by Obama’s efforts. The mobilization wave not only doubled the district’s votes cast in 2006, but it propelled Kissell in his rematch with Hayes to win by 11 percentage points. Now, the pendulum appears to be swinging back to a political newcomer against the incumbent.

Finally, it’s about the “mood” of the nation and, especially in NC, voters ain’t happy. And when voters ain’t happy, no politician should take anything for granted, especially those in competitive districts like the 8th.

If Kissell hangs on, it will be one of the key victories to keeping the Democrats in control of the US House of Representatives. If he looses, it’s a sign that conservative Democrats in the South need life support.

Will Heath Care Really Doom Kissell and Shuler?

There's a story in the Washington Post about the 55,000 member State Employees Association of North Carolina (SEANC) labor union taking their vengence out on U.S. Representatives Larry Kissell and Health Shuler, along with Mike McIntrye, by running candidates to the "left" in November's general election.


Putting aside the fact that the SEANC has to gain enough signatures to put their "new party" (North Carolina First) on the November ballot, they may have also missed some important polls in the 8th and 11th congressional districts that point to the fact that most constituents in those districts don't like the healthcare reform bill, and that Kissell and Shuler at least were voting their constituents' desires.

Looking at a poll from PPP in Raleigh from January, 52% of the voters in the 8th Congressional district were opposed to the Democratic health bill, with only 35% in favor. Granted, this was in January and the final vote was taken in March, but not much could have changed to make that big of a swing in support for the bill in this conservative district. Kissell's overall approval rating of 45% at that time was fairly good, along with 53% saying that they would vote for Kissell over "his Republican candidate," considering that the same poll found only 40% approved of the job Democrats were doing in Congress.

In a March poll, PPP found that in Health Shuler's district, 53% said they were opposed to the health care reform bill, with only 35% in favor. So if SEANC is so adament against Schuler and Kissell for voting the way their constituents want them to, how does SEANC think they will win an election in those districts? Which leads me to ask...

Will "NC First" be the "Tea Party" of the left? If so, they have some early lessons to learn. The key rule of American electoral politics is "first past the post"; meaning, that if you get one more vote than the person who came in second, you win (with or without a majority vote plus one). Both political parties seem to be suffering from the "you're not pure enough" syndrome, meaning that those on the wings of the party (Tea Party on the right, SEANC on the left) aren't happy when elected officials play to the middle (or worse, to their district's political leanings).

Of course, if the wings of the parties get their way, they will only create the "spoiler effect" of American parties: third-parties generally spoil the win for the candidate they are closest to politically/ideological, and help elect the person they don't want to win. Take, for example, Florida in 2000: not the "hanging chad" insanity, but the fact that Ralph Nader was on the ballot and took 90,000 votes that possibly could have gone to Al Gore. If Nader wasn't on the ballot, would we have had to deal with the Florida fiasco? Probably not, but the spoiler effect was alive and well.

So we have an electorate where the wings of both parties aren't happy, and the middle independents aren't happy--my question, is there ANYBODY out there happy in electoral-land? Well, besides us political junkies.

A Pox on Both of Your Parties

Let's face it--the American electorate is (to put it mildly) ticked off. National poll numbers are showing that the Democratic "majority-party" is out-of-favor with the electorate--but just as curiously, so is the Republican "minority-party." Why the "quotation marks" around "majority" and "minority"? Because we're not a "majority-party" nation, but a coalition country--but more on that later.

If one was a political analyst, one would think that the majority party's detriment is the minority party's gain--but not this year. Even in North Carolina, voters are expressing outrage at both parties--and it's incumbents that should be shakin' in their shoes right about now. With the filing deadline passed for the upcoming primary election (May 4), there are a slew of challengers facing off against incumbents. Typically, the safe bet is on the incumbent (name recognition, fundraising capabilities, strong organizational support)--but maybe not this year. It could be that both Democratic and Republican incumbents are the bulls eye of the American voter this year.

From a recent PPP survey of North Carolinians (788 respondents):

• Democratic Party Favorables/Unfavorables: 38%/51%
• Republican Party Favorables/Unfavorables: 32%/48%

So if you're a disgruntled voter, where ya gonna go?

Here's another question they asked: "Generally speaking when you vote this fall do you plan to support incumbents or vote for challengers?"

• Incumbents: 13%
• Challengers: 31%
• Not sure: 56%

Yikes. While it may seem early in the election season, to have only 13% of the electorate express a desire to return their current officerholder to another term doesn't seem to bode well for those folks running for re-elect. In particular, "independents" in the survey had no warm and fuzzy feelings for either party:

Among independents:

• Democratic Party favorability/unfavorability: 26%/55%
• Republican Party favorability/unfavorability: 21%/52%

While Democrats were split (21/21) over whether they would favor an incumbent versus a challenger and Republicans favored a challenger (42%) to an incumbent (7%), independents said that they would favor a challenger (32%) over an incumbent (7%), with 61% still not sure what they will do. Not a good sign, I'd say, for those folks seeking to hold their seats. I doubt that many current officerholders will be using the "power of incumbency" this year and reminding folks that they are the ones already in this mess. Even those incumbents with many years service may be running as a "newbie" this fall, if they can make it past their primary challenge.

As to the coalition vs. majority-party nation, while it may seem to some that the wins for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 were a radical shift in party alignment in the nation according to exit polls, don't bet on it: while party identification in the 2008 election benefited the Democrats slightly to the detriment of the Republicans, the ideological identification of the nation didn't change any from 2004. Meaning, we're still the same ideological country as we were when we re-elected George W. Bush, but we're more willing to change our party labels than we are ideological labels. Two years of good runs may catch up with the Democrats this fall, but the old line in campaign politics is that "you can't beat someone with no one."

Appalachia to Argentina: Can Things Get Any Worse for the GOP?

OK, so this isn't about Tar Heel Politics, but as it is from my homestate, I have to comment on the latest news about Gov. Sanford's admission of an affair with someone in Argentina.

Granted, it was hard to watch the rambling conference at first, but you could tell that some big shoe was going to drop--and did it ever. Sanford, a notorious pol who would challenge anyone who disagreed with his principles (and yes, he did have principles, whether you agree with them or not), especially those in his own party. Now, with the affair admission, Sanford has, like Ensign before him just a few weeks ago, left the GOP asking "who is going to be left in 2012?"

Sanford was seen as a darling of the fiscal conservatives, battling against the stimulus package with the principle that the federal stimulus monies would do more damage than letting the economy work itself out (or, paying down the state's debt instead of the mandated requirements). But now that's out the door with his affair. And what else is out the door is, "who's left for the GOP in 2012?"

Even with the race for 2012 already underway (the invisible primary), the GOP is finding itself with a depleted stall of potential candidates to go up against Obama's re-election. My bet is that they will go with someone with little name recognition at this point. Of course, Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin are still standing, but Palin has such little reach beyond social conservatives that it may just be Pawlenty who is considered the lead horse for the race. An early indication will be 2010's mid-term elections and how much Pawlenty, Palin, and others as yet to be named will be out there trying to revitalize the damaged GOP brand. But one can bet, it won't be Sanford.

Division, Division, Division

The second release of findings from the most recent Elon University Poll finds that both North and South Carolinians agree on one thing: yes Carolina, there is still political division. Interestingly, South Carolinians agree more than their cousins to the north when it comes to the political grand canyon that we currently reside in.



65% of Palmetto State residents believe that the country is more political divided these days than in the past, with 55% of Tar Heels agreeing.



And one doesn't have to look very far to find the division. A significant majority (57%) of all Carolinians believe that Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C. are opposing one another more than usual.



Another example of division comes to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, otherwise known as the stimulus package: 46% in both states oppose/strongly oppose the package, while 46% support/strongly support the package. North Carolinians favored the package slightly more, while the reverse was true once you go below "South of the Border."



There is some agreement, however, that both Carolina states share with one another. Too much has been done for "large banks in danger of failing" (75%), "financial institutions in danger of failing" (67%), and "U.S. auto companies in danger of going bankrupt" (65%), while too little has been done for "homeowners facing foreclosure or who have already lost their home" (47%) and "small business owners struggling with staying in business" (67%).

What does this mean? Well, the backlash against Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue seems to be alive and well in the Carolinas, with an intense animosity towards big business and elected officials.

What this might entail for the upcoming mid-term election is too far out to know, but if this numbers hold over the next year, and the general economy doesn't start to recuperate before this time next year, then it's going to be an ugly for incumbents of both political parties--and that could translate into a potentially tough race for North Carolina's U.S. Senator Richard Burr.

North vs. South (Carolinas, that is)

Through the very kind folks at Elon University's Poll, we have some early indicators as to how President Obama is faring in the Carolinas, and beyond that, some interesting perspectives on how residents in the Carolinas see national issues--and it's not always eye-to-eye (this beyond the token "who does one refer to when one says 'Carolina' in the context of college sports").

Anyway, as to be expected based on last fall's general election returns, President Obama has a higher approval rating in the North (56% approve or strongly approve) than in the South (47.4% approve or strongly approve), with a combined approval rating of both states at 52.3% (approve/strongly approve).

Ironically, though, sizable portions (49.5%) of both Carolinians disapprove of his handling of the economy (personality seems to trump policy at this point, as matched in some national polls). But when broken down between the sister states, Tar Heels give him a 50-44% approve/disapprove rating, compared to Palmetto residents who give him a 40/55% approve/disapprove rating.

Again combining residents, a majority of Carolinians believe Obama is trying to do too much (50%) versus 38.7% who believe he is focused on the right number of issues. But broken down, 54.8% of Southern Carolinians feel that Obama is doing too much, versus 46.5% of Northern Carolinians.

Along with some other interesting numbers, two things really stick out to me in the poll.

First, when asked "do you think the [Republican Party or the Democratic Party] is doing a better job of managing the economy?", respondents in both states said:

• Democratic Party: 36.7%
• Republican Party: 19%
• Neither party: 33.9%

But when broken down within both states, South Carolinians, who should be more supportive of the GOP, answered:

• Democratic Party: 34%
• Republican: 19.6%
• Neither party: 35.3%

For the Republican Party to garner such low ratings is kind of surprising in the Palmetto State, but this could be due (partly, I would say) to the fact that the state has the second highest unemployment rate under a currently unpopular Republican governor.

The other interesting tidbit is that while the economy and jobs & unemployment (two separate issues) garnered the top two spots in "the most important issue facing your state," North Carolinians ranked those two higher than South Carolinians, while Southerns ranking elementary and secondary education (at 14.8% of respondents) twice as high as Northerns (only 6.7% of Tar Heel respondents said it was the most important issue).

If education continues to be a critical issue, then that may be an opening for exploitation by the Democrats in South Carolina, once ranked as an endangered species.

The poll was conducted by Hunter Bacot and his staff at the Center for Public Opinion Polling, part of Elon University's Institute for Politics and Public Affairs. The margin of error (MoE) for the overall poll is +/- 3.9%, with NC's MoE +/- 5.3 and SC's MoE at +/- 5.7%.

And the Numbers keep adding up

With about a month to go before the election, much has been made about the dramatic increases in voter registration. I took a look at the NC State Board of Elections website, and just compared the most recent totals for voter registration at the end of two most recent weeks: the week ending 9/27 and 10/3. Here's some figures:

• Change from 9/27 to 10/3: +31,114 new registrations

Of those new registrations:

• Voters declaring affiliation with the Democratic Party: 16,067 (51.6% of the new voters)
• Voters declaring an "unaffiliated" affiliation: 8,844 (28.4%)
• Voters declaring affiliation with the Republican Party: 5,978 (19.2%)

With the deadline of registering to vote coming soon (October 10), North Carolina has over 6 million registered voters on the books. Out of this 6 million registered voters, a similar pattern is holding yet again: 14 counties account for over 50% of the registered voters in the state. In order of size of registered voters, and the percentage of the state's total registered voters, are the following counties:

1. Mecklenburg: 599,523 (10%)
2. Wake: 562,940 (9.3%)
3. Guilford: 339,261 (5.6%)
4. Forsyth: 211,688 (3.5%)
5. Cumberland: 198,566 (3.3%)
6. Durham: 184,537 (3.0%)
7. Buncombe: 171,367 (2.8%)
8. New Hanover: 140,653 (2.3%)
9. Gaston: 122,698 (2.0%)
10. Union: 116,526 (1.9%)
11. Cabarrus: 105,697 (1.7%)
12. Pitt: 102,245 (1.7%)
13. Catawba: 101,893 (1.7%)
14. Orange: 100,967 (1.6%)

The counties that are home to major metropolitan regions--Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, Fayetteville, Asheville, New Bern, and now Greenville--are narrowing the field of voters into the (primarily) "interstate" counties. And, as has been the case in recent elections, a smaller number of counties make up the majority of votes cast in North Carolina.

While the candidates and their campaigns in the state-wide races (president, U.S. Senate, governor) are probably focusing on these interstate counties and their surrounding areas, what will be interesting to watch is the other 86 counties (some in the metro regions and those consider "rural") will behave come Nov. 4. Increased voter registration will most likely increase turnout, but it's good to remember that you can register a voter, but getting them to the polls is like a horse--although getting them to "drink" may be easier with the intensity and energy surrounding this year's election water.

Will Tar Heel Whites Vote Black?

In teaching my U.S. Campaigns & Elections class this fall, I constantly remind my students that as a social scientist, I (and they) study human behavior, and that's pretty dangerous. Because at some point, our data (i.e., human beings as voters) will lack reliability (read: people lie). I know, I know, how dare someone point out that human beings would be deceitful and not give honest answers when asked by a social scientist. Well, here's some evidence from a recent poll that will give pause to how we are interpreting this fall's election, especially in North Carolina.

To put my argument (that human beings lie) into context, here's the results of two questions asked on a New York Times poll taken over the summer, when both nominees were well known to the general public:

Do you think most people you know would vote for a presidential candidate who is black, or not?

• Would: 69%
• Would not: 16%
• Don't know/no answer: 15%

Would you personally vote for a presidential candidate who is black, or not?

• Would: 90%
• Would not: 6
• Don't know/no answer: 5%

So while "most people" would personally vote for presidential candidate who is black, some of us know of "someone" who would not vote for a presidential candidate. So while we're all willing to vote for a black candidate, there are some of us out there who are not.

In a recently-released Elon University poll, a similar set of questions were asked of North Carolina respondents (411 respondents, with a margin of error of 4.9%):

All things being equal, would you rather vote for a black person, a white person, or would a presidential candidate's race make no difference to you?

• Vote for a black person: 0.7%
• Vote for a white person: 2.9%
• Race doesn't make a difference: 95.9%
• Don't know: 0.5%

Do you know people that will not vote for a presidential candidate is who is black?

• Yes: 54.7%
• No: 43.3%
• Don't know: 1.9%

So, in North Carolina, half of us know someone who won't vote for a black presidential candidate, but it ain't us. Sound fishy?

Well, in the study of white voting behavior when it comes to black candidates, there are two schools of thought. As noted in his excellent study of Changing White Attitudes toward Black Political Leadership, political scientist Zoltan L. Hajnal wrote that while some scholars point to the public opinion polls that report white respondents willing to vote for black candidates and that the number of black elected officials has increased in primarily white areas (states, cities, etc.), the other side of the scholarly fence point to the fact that when there is a white and a black candidate in the same election, whites vote for their own.

For example, in 2006, the U.S. Senate race in Tennessee featured Bob Corker (white Republican) and Harold Ford (black Democrat). In the exit polls from that race, white respondents went 59% for Corker to 40% for Ford. Of course, this was a particularly nasty election battle (the television ads were particularly fierce against Ford), with Corker winning the seat 51% to 48%.

What Hajnal found in his study is that when white voters see black political officials in office, they find themselves more comfortable and will vote for the black incumbent, as opposed to when a black challenger is first running for elected office. As this is the first presidential election with a black candidate as a party nominee, it will be interesting to see how white voters respond and react.

In North Carolina, one can see a partial test of this scenario, in the guise of the May 5th Democratic presidential primary between Obama and Sen. Clinton. Sen. Obama carried the major metropolitan counties along the interstates with over 55% of the vote, along with the "majority-minority" counties in the north-eastern part of the state and stretching along NC's "black-belt" counties. However, Sen. Clinton won significant portions of the white majority NC mountain counties with 55% or more of the vote in these conservative counties (only Buncombe, with UNC-Asheville, and Watauga, with App State University, counties went more than 55% for Obama).

If Sen. Obama is to win North Carolina, some estimates indicate that he needs at least 36% of the white vote. This will be a critical test to see if there is truth in the statement, "whites vote black."

Is It 4 or 20 for McCain?

According to the polls at RealClearPolitics, it would appear to be good news for both Senators McCain and Obama in North Carolina, depending on which poll you believe.

For the McCain supporters, both history and the Research 2000 and Survey USA polls are worth noting. President Bush won North Carolina in 2000 and 2004 by 13 and 12 points respectively, and with Research 2000 showing a 17 point lead and Survey USA showing a 20 point advantage, McCain should believe that North Carolina will be a reliably Red Republican state at the presidential level in seven weeks.

For the Obama supporters, a trio of polls, taken around the same time, tell a different story: PPP shows a 4 point McCain lead, Civitas shows a 3 point McCain lead, and a just released poll by CNN gives McCain an statistically insignificant 1 point lead over Obama. Not seeing the internals of the CNN poll, we don't know how Obama is doing with several key groups, most importantly with whites in the Tar Heel state.

For Obama to win North Carolina, he needs to claim a higher percentage of white support than what other polls are showing. For example, in the Survey USA poll, only 26% of whites are supporting Obama. Even with a huge turnout of black voters, the senator from Illinois needs to break into the mid- to high -30s in order to claim North Carolina's electoral votes. While there's 48 days to do so, money and manpower will be critical to pulling himself up ten points among white voters.

PS--sorry for the delay in posting since July. It's been a hectic beginning of the school year here at Catawba, but I hope to be able to do some more analysis and posting now that we've got things going here on campus.

Follow the Money Trail in the Tar Heel Senate Race

A recent swath of polls done in North Carolina show that incumbent U.S. Senator and Republican Elizabeth Dole has regained a comfortable lead against Democratic challenger and N.C. state senator Kay Hagan. Most recently, Rasmussen released a poll last week showing that, unlike Sen. John McCain (who was only up 3 points over Sen. Barack Obama in the state), Dole has a double-digit lead in the Tar Heel state. This, when combined with a Survey USA, Public Policy Polling, and Civitas polls since June 1, shows Dole with a double-digit lead of anywhere from 10 to 14 points. But more importantly than polls at this stage of the political season is the poll of money--specifically, campaign contributions.

It is often quoted that "money is the mother's milk of politics." And in the upcoming battle for the U.S. Senate seat in North Carolina, both campaigns are seeking to ensure that they've got plenty of milk on stand-by for this fall's contest.

In Federal Election Commission filings released for the quarter ending June 30, current U.S. Senator and Republican Elizabeth Dole raised nearly $1.65 million while Democratic challenger Kay Hagan raised $1.42 million. Out of Dole's fundraising, $1.28 million came from individuals, while Political Actions Committees gave $331,306 to the Republican's efforts. Out of Hagan's fundraising, $1.14 million came from individuals, while PACs gave $282,700 to the Democrat's efforts.

As we enter the critical period leading into the general campaign (which "informally" begins around Labor Day), Hagan had $1.21 million on hand, while Dole had $2.7 million. One of the key tests for whether this U.S. Senate race will be a competitive one will be how much Hagan will be able to raise before the true campaign begins. With most Americans turning their attention to the waning days of summer, getting those last minute vacations in, and watching the Beijing Olympics, both candidates will probably be shoring up their bank accounts prior to Labor Day's festivities beginning.

One other interesting note about this race: the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, or DSCC, has apparently reserved ad time in the tune of potentially $5 to $6 million. With that large of a media buy, it may be indicative of a race that the national Democratic Party has its eyes on.

Just a cursory glance at the filings at the Federal Election Commission's website for this race shows that the DSCC seems to be very interested in this Tar Heel race. When compared to the other competitive senatorial races around the country by Charlie Cook, Kay Hagan was second, only to the Oregonian Democratic challenger, in receiving money so far in this election cycle (2007-08 as of July 20): a total of $145,802 was sent by the DSCC to Kay Hagan's campaign in "party coordinated expenditures."

This, combined with the potential media buy, will probably lead to the Tar Heel state being awash in mother's milk come the November general election.