Against The Grain

One of the dominant myths of this election season is that Republicans have nominated too-extreme tea party candidates who are not electable in general elections, making it difficult for them to maximize their gains. It's been easy for cable talk show hosts to make that argument, given the high-profile, seriously-flawed candidacies of Christine O'Donnell and Carl Paladino, among others.

But in reality, the clear majority of conservative and tea party nominees have proven themselves to be squarely in line with the electorate's mood and are well-positioned to usher in one of the most conservative Congresses since 1994.

Despite the Democratic portrayal of the tea party as extreme, Americans have soured over the increased scope of government under President Obama and the Democratic Congress -- and are looking for a course correction. A newly-released ABC News/Yahoo poll shows that 55 percent of Americans think the tea party can "effectively bring about major changes in the way the government operates." It's a far cry from the official Democratic Party argument that the tea party represents the American fringe.

Republican candidates who have openly advocated for conservative principles are, by and large, outperforming GOP colleagues who have run to the center.  Businessman Ron Johnson, who has directly taken on Sen. Russell Feingold's economic liberalism, is over the 50 percent mark in most public polling. That's all the more impressive, given that Feingold held strong personal approval ratings back home and represents a Democratic-leaning state in Wisconsin.  

In Pennsylvania, former congressman Pat Toomey, an outspoken fiscal conservative who headed the anti-tax Club for Growth before running for the Senate, has led Democrat Joe Sestak in most polls, and is the favorite to win Arlen Specter's seat.  

Marco Rubio's success in the Florida Senate race has been so sweeping that it's easy to forget that the New York Times Magazine tagged him as the potential "First Senator From The Tea Party" in a January cover story.

Even in California, Carly Fiorina is running a close race against Sen. Barbara Boxer despite advocating positions well to the right of the California electorate -- opposing abortion rights, gun control regulations, and cherished environmental regulations. It's simply that kind of year.

In the final weeks before the midterm elections, President Obama has adopted an inside-baseball closing argument against Republicans: campaign finance. Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee have now publicly gone after the Chamber of Commerce and other third-party groups backing Republicans, accusing them of buying the election and blasting them for not disclosing their donors.

It's a telling line of attack. All expectations were that Democrats would hold a significant financial fundraising edge over Republicans, and that the money advantage would be their one saving grace in surviving an otherwise punishing election year. This was the near-unanimous conventional wisdom well after the Supreme Court loosened campaign finance restrictions in its Citizens United v. FEC decision, and even months after third-party groups like American Crossroads formed with the express intent to help Republican candidates.

Instead, the third-party money has evened the playing field, allowing underfunded Republican challengers to be financially competitive with well-heeled Democratic incumbents. Without groups like American Crossroads, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would have been able to dominate the airwaves against Republican Sharron Angle, who ended the primary campaign nearly broke while Reid was sitting on more than $8 million.

The story has been the same in Senate and House races throughout the country, where most Democratic members preparing for competitive contests used the advantages of incumbency to stockpile campaign cash -- with significant amounts coming from political action committees, hardly the "cleanest" form of campaign money. Challengers don't have that luxury.

House Democrats have begun sounding an optimistic note that they will avoid a midterm wipeout as the base starts tuning in, campaigns engage, and President Obama travels the country reminding voters of the stakes.

A New York Times piece last weekend asserted that the "resilience of vulnerable Democrats" is complicating Republican efforts to win back control of the House, a narrative that quickly took hold in other news outlets. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has flatly refused to entertain the possibility that her majority is at risk, at least publicly.

But when you look at the national polling metrics and the race-by-race picture in the House, there's little evidence of any Democratic comeback. If anything, Republicans are in as strong a position to win back control of the House as they have been this entire election cycle.

Much of the newfound glimmer of hope comes from a misinterpretation of polling data released by Democratic campaigns and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Many of the polls aren't all that encouraging for Dems, but have been spun to present a misleadingly optimistic picture.

In a House race, where many voters are unfamiliar with challengers until the very end, it's not nearly as instructive to look at who's winning as it is to see whether the incumbent is winning a majority of the vote. Traditionally, most of the undecided vote breaks toward the challenger -- especially in a wave election. It's not uncommon for a congressman to be up "double digits" but still be in serious trouble, given the anonymity of the opponent.

And a staggeringly high number of Democratic incumbents are below the 50 percent mark, including members in much of the polling conducted by Democratic firms released to counteract the GOP narrative. House Race Hotline editor Tim Sahd compiled an invaluable database of all the House race polling conducted this cycle and found 66 Democratic incumbents sitting below that magic 50 percent number.

The lion's share of attention paid to the Tea Party movement has gone to its Senate candidates, a slew of outsiders who have touted their opposition to excessive government, shaking up the Republican Party and upending races across the country.

But for a real sense of whether the Tea Party is a short-term fad or a long-term force, look no further than the gubernatorial landscape, where at least four outspoken conservative candidates with connections to the movement are within striking distance of running state government -- some of them in true Democratic bastions.

In Maine, Minnesota, Illinois and New York -- all states President Obama won by double-digit margins -- Tea Party-backed candidates whose messages are unlike anything voters have heard in decades are on the doorsteps of the governors' mansions.

CLEVELAND -- There's no shortage of political tumult in the Buckeye State this year, where the Democratic-held governorship and at least six Democratic-held House seats are in jeopardy. But what makes it particularly notable is that the state represents several key demographic groups whose changing perspectives will give serious insight into President Obama's broader political standing for 2012.

The voters Obama is losing -- white-collar managers in Columbus, blue-collar union workers in Youngstown, pro-life independents around Cincinnati -- are exactly the types he needs to win re-election in 2012, and they're backing away from his party in droves. Obama tallied a whopping 60 percent disapproval rating in Quinnipiac's latest Ohio poll, with nearly two-thirds of voters disapproving of his economic performance.

That dissatisfaction extends across the board to Democrats on the statewide ballot. The Quinnipiac poll showed Gov. Ted Strickland down 17 points to Republican John Kasich and Republican Rob Portman leading Democratic Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher by 20 points in the Senate race. A separate CNN/Time poll was striking in that the two statewide Democrats were badly underperforming in nearly every part of the state, among almost every key demographic.

Working-class Democrats are abandoning the party to support Republicans with both Wall Street and Washington ties. The business-friendly base around Columbus, which swung towards Obama in 2008, now gives both Portman and Kasich substantial leads. A sizable share (42 percent) of Kasich backers in the Quinnipiac poll said they were casting their vote specifically against Strickland, who was once one of the most popular chief executives in the country.

The gloomy numbers for Ohio Democrats are all the more telling, given that the two Republicans on the statewide ballot are near-perfect punching bags for the White House's signature message -- that Republicans are beholden to the wealthiest few, Wall Street and big business. Kasich worked for Lehman Brothers as an investment banker during his time in the political wilderness, before the company went bankrupt. Portman stood side-by-side with former President Bush heading the Office of Management and Budget, and is an advocate for free-market and free-trade principles that are often received warily by the Buckeye State's blue-collar electorate.

Yet they're both leading by eye-popping margins, and Democrats are already privately discussing the possibility of moving money out of Ohio into other, more winnable, states. In a sign that the populist attacks focused on Kasich's past haven't had much of an impact, Strickland abandoned his own Wall Street attacks on Kasich in favor of a more positive message touting his economic record in Ohio -- a tough sell in a state with a 10.1 percent unemployment rate, ninth-highest in the country.

This should be a golden age of political prognostication. Any armchair strategist with an Internet connection can get loads of insider information and blog or tweet their viewpoints. Congressional polling, once a true commodity because few media firms commissioned it regularly, has proliferated, with numerous start-up pollsters releasing data that's eaten up on a daily basis by junkies.

But amid all the information, I'm finding that we've lost a lot of old-fashioned common sense in evaluating and understanding races. We've become beholden to numbers, any numbers, at the expense of states' and districts' fundamental characteristics and candidates' and campaigns' own unique qualities.

Pundits have treated Joe Miller's upset of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, last month as a huge shock, but much of that surprise was based on months-old polls giving Murkowski a comfortable edge. Delving into the fundamentals of the contest (with the great benefit of hindsight), all the warning signs were there. Murkowski's family name had been greatly damaged since her Senate appointment, and Sarah Palin weighed in against her with an assist from Tea Party groups.

Flash back several months ago to Arkansas, where, on the basis of one (now discredited) poll, reporters largely wrote off Sen. Blanche Lincoln's chances in the Democratic primary runoff. This, despite the fact that Arkansas Democrats are a fairly moderate bunch who won't automatically support the more liberal candidate, even in a primary.

Flash back to last year's special election in New York, where polls showed third-party conservative Doug Hoffman holding a seemingly insurmountable lead over Democrat Bill Owens in the campaign's final days. Every poll showed Hoffman winning, one showing him with a landslide victory, even as the de facto Republican nominee gave Owens a last-minute endorsement. But Hoffman, for all the hype, was a lifeless campaigner with zero charisma. I was in Plattsburgh in the run-up to the election, amazed at how uncomfortable Hoffman looked on the campaign trail, and how he was struggling to distill his message even to his own supporters.

I had a hunch that something was amiss -- that Hoffman wasn't capitalizing on the national attention -- but the polls were the polls...

So in the spirit of going with common sense over the in-the-moment numbers and hype, here are four cases where the current narrative tilts in one direction, but where political gravity is bound to set in by Election Day.

One of the biggest crutches for House Democrats this election cycle is that, despite the brutal environment, Republicans have been staring at a significant financial disadvantage that would make it difficult for them to spend enough money in enough races to win the majority.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee already has reserved $49 million in advertising time, more than double the National Republican Congressional Committee's initial reservations, and it's held a significant cash-on-hand advantage throughout the cycle.

But the money picture is starting to look like less of an advantage for Democrats. The NRCC outraised its Democratic counterpart in each of the last four months, a sign that the Republican donor base is highly energized and that special interests have begun to hedge their bets on who will be controlling the House next year.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now pressuring her well-off colleagues in safe districts to contribute, recognizing that even $49 million isn't enough to protect the dozens of vulnerable incumbents who all could use additional money against their opponents. House Republicans expect to have several more strong fundraising months before the election, and they plan to take out a loan that should give them about $7 million in additional funds, closing the money deficit. (Just yesterday, the NRCC expanded its initial advertising buy to include four more Democratic targets.)

Republicans' money gap would be more significant in a less volatile environment. But, because of several unique factors this cycle, GOP party strategists are more confident now about their financial standing than they have been at any point -- and here's why:

House Republicans are at the precipice of a historic election cycle this November if all indicators remain as troublesome as they currently are for Democrats. Combine President Obama's sagging approval ratings, a stagnant economy, the worsening state of the war in Afghanistan and an unusually high number of seats Democrats hold in Republican-friendly territory, and we're facing a "perfect storm" scenario where Republicans could win the 39 seats necessary to retake control -- with the prospects of even greater gains well within reach.

This week's Gallup tracking poll shows Republicans with a 10-point edge on the generic ballot, 51 percent to 41 percent -- the largest since it began tracking the question in 1942.

Democrats acknowledge the tough environment and the large number of races in play but believe that their financial advantage will make a critical difference in races where Republicans are running unproven, underfunded challengers. And the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee boasts a proven get-out-the-vote program in most of the targeted districts, which it argues can make the difference for incumbents facing tight races.

The national media's coverage of House races has largely focused on the most vulnerable Democrats, like Reps. Tom Perriello, D-Va., John Boccieri, D-Ohio, and Debbie Halvorson, D-Ill., for a sense of the national tide. Those members all have notable biographies, and in a normal election year they would be the ones most worth tracking to get a sense of the national mood. But in this tumultuous election environment (the Cook Political Report is tracking 120 races), we already know the national mood: Voters are fickle, angry at Washington and more eager to consider an alternative candidate than ever before. If Republicans make even moderate gains, as most analysts anticipate, the members at the top of the most vulnerable lists will likely all be gone.

So for a sense of whether the wave will be large enough to sweep in a Republican majority, it's much more useful to look at the bellwether races that aren't at the top of the target lists. Here are the five Democratic congressmen whose struggles on Election Night would indicate Republicans are in clear position to win a majority in the House:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie may not be running for president in 2012, but he's articulated an economic vision that's well-positioned to gain momentum with whoever emerges as President Obama's Republican challenger in two years.

Christie's decision to slash spending, delay property tax cuts and take on the state's powerful teachers unions to control a bloated budget was initially seen as a fool's errand in a Democratic-friendly state where special interests reign and government waste has been seen as a byproduct of the state's political culture. His political career could well have been derailed before it began, at the hands of the sizable majorities Democrats hold in the state legislature and their allies.

But Christie not only passed an austerity agenda against influential opposition, his popularity has soared in the wake of his victory. A new Quinnipiac poll shows that, after implementing the cuts, he has become one of the more popular executives in the country. Christie's approval rating of 51 percent now exceeds Obama's in the traditionally Democratic state, and he holds a 61 percent rating among independents. The accomplishment is all the more impressive given that governors of both parties have seen their approval ratings collapse during economic recession.

"He's the Rex Ryan of the statehouse -- it's his management style," said a Christie strategist, referencing the blunt-spoken New York Jets coach. "Spending cuts are tough to swallow, but a lot of people relate to the fact there are times when you've got to cut your budget, tighten your belt. This is what we have to do to get our house in order, and people understand that."

The lesson: Leadership makes a difference; voters recognize when politicians are pandering to them and credit them when they make tough decisions, even if they don't poll favorably. (Compare Christie's approval with that of another governor, Florida's Charlie Crist, who avoided tough fiscal decisions and has seen his approval ratings plummet throughout the year.)

In recent weeks, political reporters, Democratic operatives and establishment Republicans alike have raised the specter that the Tea Party movement is jeopardizing GOP prospects in the midterm elections, likely costing the party numerous Senate and House seats by helping nominate a batch of outlandish candidates in pivotal races.

Last week, after Ken Buck's upset Senate primary victory in Colorado, Politico wrote that Republican primary voters "are again and again choosing offbeat candidates shunned by national party strategists and imperiling potential Republican gains this November in the process." Bob Schieffer echoed this popular view on CBS' "Face The Nation," saying: "I thought from the beginning the Tea Party was a bigger problem for the Republican establishment than maybe it was for Democrats."

Not so fast. Looking at the overall congressional picture, precious few contested races are at risk for the Republicans because the GOP nominee is too extreme to win.

The only Senate race where a Tea Party candidate has seriously threatened Republicans' chances is in Nevada, where Sharron Angle translated the conservative movement's support into a surprise primary victory over two other underwhelming and gaffe-prone Republicans, Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian. Her long, controversial trail of comments and voting record have given Democrat Harry Reid a chance to win a seat that once seemed as good as gone.

Elsewhere, however, the impact of untested conservative candidates is negligible. In races where Republican leaders preferred the politically established candidate, the Tea Party version is working out just fine.

Even though it's shaping up to be one of the worst midterm environments for Democrats in decades, Republicans still aren't being given much of a chance to retake control of the Senate. The bearishness is rooted in the reality that the GOP needs to win a net of 10 seats to retake the Senate -- a significant hurdle that has only been achieved three times in the last 60 years. (Perhaps the bar should be set at nine, with Sen. Joe Lieberman, I/D-Conn., a possibility to caucus with Republicans if they're within striking distance of a majority.)

But the reality on the ground is that nearly all of the competitive races are trending the Republicans' way, and the Republicans have put enough seats in play to have a shot at maximum impact if they run the table. The Cook Political Report now lists 11 Democratic-held Senate seats as leaning Republican or pure toss-ups. Republicans are defending seven seats in competitive races, but the main GOP-held seats at risk are Florida (where Gov. Charlie Crist could win as an Independent and become a nominal Democratic vote) and, to a lesser extent, Kentucky and Missouri. In wave elections, toss-up seats traditionally break one way, in the direction of the party with momentum.