Obama’s National Approval Down, But Positive in Colorado

The latest Gallup poll shows President Barack Obama with a 46 percent approval rating, down from his recent high of 50 percent when he gave the State of the Union. A rating below 50 percent is considered threatening for a re-election. This blog assumes the national race will be won by just a couple of points, and smart campaigns will likely make the difference, along with the direction of the unemployment rate later in early 2012.

In a recent multi-state survey for anti-gun advocates, bipartisan pollsters tested Obama’s favorability in Arizona and Colorado. While favorability is different than job approval, and Obama is better liked than his performance is approved, it is still useful to go into a re-election with a positive favorability rating.

Colorado’s registered voters are about five points more positive than Arizona’s.  The same survey showed Arizona Senator Jon Kyl with 46 percent favorability (a Republican who just announced he would not seek re-election) and Colorado Democratic senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet with a 45 percent and 47 percent favorability rating, respectively.  The lower ratings than Obama’s was largely a reflection that about one-quarter of the population could not rate their senators.  Their positive-to-negative ratio was more than 20 points and better than Obama’s.

Denver Candidates Raise $2 Million

The combined candidates in the Denver mayor’s race raised more than $2 million the first two months of the year.  Fundraising frontrunner Chris Romer raised a third of it and more than doubled all other candidates in his February haul ($252,000).  Romer remains the frontrunner.  City Council members Michael Hancock and Carol Boigon are in a close race for second place in fundraising.

James Mejia had a weak February and needs to step up the pace if he wants to have the funds for an April advertising campaign. Doug Linkhart and Theresa Spahn, although crossing the $100,000 threshold, are not yet viable in the money race.

The Denver Post publisher Dean Singleton said last week that he greatly admired James Mejia. Is that a hint of an endorsement? The Denver Post endorsement should boost a candidate’s name identification and fundraising clout. In fact, assuming there will be a runoff, which is likely given the number of candidates representing various constituencies, the Denver Post’s endorsement could put one of the non-frontrunners in the June 7 election. If it went to Chris Romer, he could win without a runoff.

See Denver Post article: As deadline arrives, sweating begins in Denver mayor's race

Denver Mayoral Election – Will There Be Vision?

The election of the next mayor of Denver is as important as the election of the Colorado governor. Denver’s mayor, working with the region’s political and civic leadership, can, if they have the vision and leadership skills, help develop and design the key projects and programs that drive the region’s economy and quality of life improvements in the next decade.

Only the Denver mayor has the visibility and resources to promote both Denver and regional agendas, many of which will constitute the largest infrastructure projects in the state. The Denver airport was the state’s largest construction project for half a decade, and still constitutes a major source of construction activity and is a huge economic generator.

Denver has been fortunate to have a series of high-quality mayors who have helped maintain the city’s leading position in the metro area and state.

After several years of population decline, like most older cities surrounded by growing suburbs, Denver began to reverse the trend after the 1990 census. As of the latest count, the city has continued to add population and retain its first position in the region. Equally important, the city has maintained its economic vitality. Regional sales tax figures show Denver collected 30 percent of the sales tax in 1989 and receives 29 percent today. An amazing feat given the population and business growth in the suburbs and the comparative track record of core cities in other metro areas around the country.

Denver’s modern mayors – Federico Pena, Wellington Webb and John Hickenlooper – helped create a civic momentum that has kept the city and region progressing. Denver also had a civic and business leadership willing to join with political leaders to make investments in civic improvements that have maintained the city’s economic vitality and quality of life.

Pena started a flurry of plans and new projects in 1983 that laid the groundwork for 30 years of growth – a new convention center, new expanded airport, development of retail nodes on Broadway, Highlands and other sites, the baseball stadium, and LoDo investments, just cite a slice of one of Denver’s most productive decades in its history.

Webb got the airport opened in 1995, focused on in-fill in the newly opened up Stapleton and Lowry sites, promoted the sports venues Invesco Field and the Pepsi Center, and dedicated considerable passion to development of the Platte River Valley and its lower downtown connections.

Hickenlooper continued the investments as he began his two terms with a new justice center and half a billion dollars in bonds for improvements throughout the city. But, Hickenlooper added a regional perspective working with the suburbs on joint economic development projects, transit and water solutions.

Thus far, the 2011 mayoral candidates have lacked much in the way of vision and investment strategies. They feel Denver’s possibilities are constrained with a deep recession and multiple years of $100 million deficits. And, indeed, structural fiscal reform is the top priority. But, 1985 was an economic low point as Denver began its long climb to its revenue and two decades of growth.

See Denver Post article:  Denver’s budget deficit a serious problem for new leadership

Four Competitive Senate Races in Western Swing States

Before the end of February, four U.S. Senate seats had come into play in western swing states – three with retirements (Kyl, Ensign and Bingaman) giving the Republicans a fresh start. Among the twelve states in the West, five are presidential battlegrounds and all, but Colorado, will have serious U.S. Senate contests.

• In Arizona, Sen. Jon Kyl just announced his retirement. Although Republicans have the advantage, with the right Democratic candidate and a far-right Republican primary winner, the race should be competitive.
• Montana’s Sen. Jon Tester will have a serious battle with the state’s only Republican congressman. Tester’s centrist philosophy is probably a good fit for the state, but he irritates New York and D.C. liberals and some special interests who may not offer him much support.
• Scandal plagued Sen. John Ensign has resigned, giving Republicans a fresh start. But, a bitter primary could leave a wounded Republican nominee. Democrats now have a stronger chance if they can find a top candidate.
• The retirement of popular and low-key Sen. Jeff Bingaman gives the Republicans an opportunity to mount a competitive campaign in New Mexico. Bingaman had been seen as a shoe-in.

The presidential race will be the dominant 2012 election with Obama looking to win three of the five swing western states and at least being competitive in the other two – New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada are at the top of the President’s list; Arizona and Montana are next. The four senate seats are in the middle and most competitive tier of western states.

The other senate races should re-elect incumbents or members of the same party – Wyoming (John Barrasso, R) and California (Diane Feinstein, D). Only Utah might be interesting due to Sen. Orrin Hatch having to navigate the Tea Party in a very constricted primary system. While Hatch is conservative by any indicator, he has been in the Senate a long time. Last spring, the Utah Tea Party refused to re-nominate Republican Sen. Bob Bennett.

Washington State will likely have a governor’s race due to Democrat Chris Gregoire not running again. Democrats hold the advantage. But the capstone state this year may be Montana because not only of a competitive U.S. Senate race, but Democrats must find a replacement for term-limited Gov. Brian Schweitzer. Already four Republicans have indicated they want to run. Democrats have a couple of political candidates, but advantage is Republicans.

See articles:
Los Angeles Times: Winning the West, Montana style
Real Clear Politics: Ensign will not seek re-election in 2012
Politico: Nevada Republicans see gain in losing John Ensign
Washington Post: The Fix: Heather Wilson’s primary prospects

2012 – A Two-Point Election

The latest Gallup polls confirm that, in spite of President Obama’s improved approval rating, the 2012 election will most likely be very close and depend on the strengths and vulnerabilities of the Republican candidate and the quality of the two campaigns.

One factor driving a likely close race is polarization. It is exceedingly difficult for a president to win any significant opposing party supporters. As the two parties have become more ideologically homogenous in the modern, post-Reagan era, polarization has increased. Obama begins with little approval from Republicans, but has support from four-fifths of Democrats. G.W. Bush had some residual post 9/11 Democratic support as he began his campaign in 2003 (it was also before he launched war in Iraq), but he finished office with a record high approval gap.

While Republican candidates begin early jockeying for position, the Democrats are engaged in an internal debate between Chicago and D.C. staffs and consultants. Did the 2010 midterm show that the re-election will be a closely fought battle in swing states with large numbers of independent voters and weak partisans or is the fight through the heartland based on turn out among traditional Democratic core constituents?

David Axelrod cites the former as his model and labels it the Colorado Plan. The Michael Bennet two-point senate win last November is his vision of the most likely 2012 scenario. Although many of the party’s old hands and especially its traditional labor, big city and coastal constituencies agree that the battle will be close, especially if a sluggish economy doesn’t motivate the party base, they disagree victory is in weak partisan swing states. They feel a full partisan battle aimed at the heartland – Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania – is the best strategy. They believe states that performed especially poorly for Democrats in the midterm must be turned around.

The latest re-election figures offer support for each view. As of February 5, 2011, Obama was in a dead heat with a generic Republican (45% to 45%).

As the campaign begins, there is very little gender gap, an area Democrats will change if they use the Colorado model.

Democrats continue to lose the White vote and carry substantial minorities. They also have a small advantage with Americans under 35 years old. It is not clear young voters and minorities will turn out above average in 2012 to provide the extra need to balance out older voters and Anglos.

Axelrod would point to the 41 percent to 41 percent tie between Obama and a generic Republican among independent voters to show that the race is in the middle, not the partisan edges. Labor and liberals would argue more Democrats, young and minorities are the key. Keep the message on the left.

Although the two strategies are not mutually exclusive, the resolution of the debate will direct resources, and it will greatly affect Obama’s overall positioning, his message selection, tone and legislative strategy starting now.

See Gallup polls:
Nameless Republican Ties Obama in 2012 Election Preferences
Obama’s Approval Ratings More Polarized in Year 2 Than Year 1

Census Data is Out

The 2010 census data for congressional districts has been released.  Republican Front Range seats tend to have a surplus of residents, which need to be distributed.  Coffman, Lamborn and Gardner have extra votes and DeGette, Perlmutter and Tipton need population.  Polis is in the only Democratic seat that has a surplus.

The Sixth CD has sufficient population to add a State House seat, which will mostly be centered in Douglas County.

Google Revolution

“Now our nightmare is over. Now is the time to dream.”

A hero of the Egyptian revolution, Wael Ghonim, a 31-year-old Egyptian Google executive, whose Facebook helped propel the Internet-linked activist by social media and modern branding said, “Eighty-five million people live in Egypt, and less than 1,000 people died in this revolution. It shows how civilized the Egyptian people are.” He was threatened and held prisoner for two weeks to stop his blog. But, Mr. Ghonim is optimistic – “Now our nightmare is over. Now it is time to dream.”

Now, we all wait to see the result.

• The Egyptian revolution began January 25, on a day set aside to remember an Arab police revolt against British colonial rule, and ended on February 11, the day after Hosni Mubarak’s disastrous February 10 speech. The Tunisian government fell 11 days earlier on January 14. So, in less than thirty days, two regimes fell. Egypt’s only took 18 days.

• The Egyptian and Tunisian activists who most fueled the revolutions were part of a pan-Arab youth movement mostly born after 1990 and the wars and regime changes that shaped the current Middle East politics. In Egypt, the last major confrontation was a general strike in April 2008. The antecedents of the young organizers had been working on the effort for six years, but much of their work was hidden on the blogosphere.

• The younger children of old dictators appear more out of touch than their fathers. Gamal Mubarak encouraged his father’s slow and unresponsive hard line, including his fatal final speech. Saif al-Islam Gadhafi’s defense of his father’s regime is as bizarre as most of Moammar al-Gadhafi’s speeches. He took the lead in declaring women and children would die if Libyans didn’t bend to the will of his father.

• Ideas related to nonviolent, youth organizations, use of social networks and modern marketing techniques were imported, shared and infused into the youth organizations. From Serbian youth activists’ success stories to reclusive American political scientist Gene Sharp’s nonviolent theories, Arab youth borrowed, studied and argued best practices. Their nonviolent resistance undermined the legitimacy of the War on Terror techniques that old regimes were using to suppress their own oppositions. Another effective display of the asymmetry of warfare.

• The revolution brought many grievances and groups in Egyptian society together. Mr. Ghonim was most motivated by police brutality, and featured it on his website, “We are all Khalid Said” – the victim of a police beating. Some working and lower class participants were motivated by the poverty and lack of opportunity and others in the educated classes by the class conscience from a socialist perspective.

The dislike and primitiveness of state-run media was a factor as was the general resentment of the corruption and privilege of the ruling class. And, of course, the Muslim Brotherhood was a late player looking for its place.

• Mubarak was gone as soon as he became the one thing all the protests and protestors could agree on – from corruption, to no jobs, to anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment, to police brutality – all complaints converged on wanting Mubarak out. Of course, it helped that he played his limited hand so poorly and that there was one institution available to fill the void without stifling the promise of reform – the army.

• The events, which produced the most drama and best visuals – the five-hour battle for the Kasr-el-Nil Bridge on January 28 and the Mubarak supporters’ counterattacks on January 29 in Tahrir Square – helped the protesters and hurt the regime. The thugs helped de-legitimize the regime as the protestors remained undefeated, but mostly nonviolent. The thugs also finally activated youth elements of the very disciplined Muslim Brotherhood to weigh in.

• In the fast moving national crisis nearby regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran, and great powers, such as the U.S. and Britain, were mostly observers. Saudi Arabia and Israel preferred stability and current arrangements. The U.S. wanted a peaceful and measured transition. At various times, the U.S. appeared to be on the side of both the revolution and the establishment. In the end, events took over and the transition was abrupt, but at least for now, stable with some known players (the army), but not a clear process.

See articles:
New York Times: A Tunisian-Egyptian Link that Shook Arab History
Newsweek: Wanted: A Grand Strategy for America