Military Tops National Confidence List. Congress and Media Near Bottom.

If you remember the Vietnam era, it seems unbelievable the U.S. military is the institution Americans have the most confidence in.  The military has been on top since the 1990s.  And why not?  They are professional, disciplined, have honor and mostly get the job done.

In fact, if you were asked what Americans are really good at in 2011, it would be war.  From high tech to low tech, big engagements to small raids, U.S. forces are dominant.  Our best export is organized violence.  There are times our missions are unrealistic and strategies unfounded, but generally, we can make war better than most anything we do.

Unfortunately, Americans have much less confidence in their form of government.  Congress is at the bottom of the list, with the other two branches only getting about a third of the public saying they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in them.

Another bulwark of democracy, the media, is now closer to the bottom of the confidence list than the top.  Newspapers and television news nearly tie with 28 percent and 27 percent of the public, respectively, saying they have confidence in them.

There are some interesting pairings.  The criminal justice system only received 28 percent level of confidence, but police are near the top with 56 percent.  Big business and banks are near the bottom with less than a quarter of Americans having confidence in them, but small business is second in rank on this list with two-thirds of Americans saying they have confidence in it.  Organized labor is near the bottom with 21 percent confidence level and public schools, increasingly associated with their unionized staffs, has the confidence of only a third of Americans.

See Gallup articles:

Americans most confident in military, least in Congress

Americans regain some confidence in newspapers, TV news

Obama Could Lose Colorado

President Barack Obama won Colorado in 2008 by a landslide.  Democratic presidential candidates have only won four times in the 62 years since the Roosevelt era.  Not only is it unusual for a Democrat to win Colorado’s electoral votes, but it is more astonishing for them to win above their national average.  Obama’s 9 percentage point victory margin was 2 points greater than his national win.

But, there are a host of factors that make a repeat performance difficult, and Obama could lose Colorado.

·         In 2008, Democrats were coming off both Colorado and national sweeps.  In Colorado, the 2006 election gave them the governorship, a congressional seat and more control of both houses of the state legislature.  Nationally, they won the U.S. House and began the brief Pelosi era and took control of the Senate.

But, in 2010, Democrats lost two congressional seats in Colorado, contributing to Pelosi’s loss of the speakership, and they lost control of the State House of Representatives and all the statewide constitutional offices.  They did hang on to a Senate seat and the governorship, but in both cases, good fortune helped at least as much as good campaigns for the trend was bad.

·         The economy is the issue and the recovery is slow in Colorado, with state and local government budgets still dealing with cuts.  Unions remain on the defensive, with considerable resentment over pensions and pay for the public sector.  The economy is now Obama’s and not Bush’s.  While he may have inherited the problem, it hasn’t improved fast enough.

·         The political passion Obama mustered among minorities and the young in 2008 appears to have cooled, and Colorado’s Tea Party matched it in 2010, even if some of their ardor was for flawed candidates.  Their issues of deficits and growth of government reign supreme today.

·         The 2010 Colorado Senate race showed independent voters are the critical swing group and they are up for grabs.  Obama was an encumbrance last year with independents.  It will be impossible for Obama to make the case he’s outside the political wars of Washington as he did in 2008.  And, by most polls, Obama’s liberal image has been increased while liberalism as a preferred political philosophy remains popular with only about a quarter of the population.

·         The Republican nominee will be important, but he or she will not be George W. Bush with the Iraq War as the backdrop.  That fact alone will be worth a couple of points for the Republicans.

Although Bill Clinton won the state in 1992, he lost it four years later by 2 points to Bob Dole, who he beat nationally by 8 points.  Clinton won re-election, but not with Colorado.

Colorado will be a battleground state.  The Obama campaign expects a tough fight, which they think they can win as Michael Bennet did in 2010 – close and mean.

See Denver Post article:  AP-GfK poll: Slow recovery weakens Obama

Americans Quit Afghanistan and Libya

American support for foreign military action has collapsed.  President Obama’s effort to get out of Afghanistan is barely ahead of public opinion.  The modest U.S. effort in Libya has also lost support.

Democrats are the least supportive of the Afghanistan troops commitment (67% say troops out), but Republicans (54% oppose) are now less supportive than Democrats in Libya.

See:

Gallup poll:  Americans shift to more negative view of Libya military action

Pew Research Center:  Record number favors removing U.S. troops from Afghanistan

Keep the Stock Show in Denver – Downtown that Is

Regional competition for the convention business is natural. Suburban areas will find developers who want to use tax subsidies to build major convention facilities –and Aurora is an ambitious city. It is only slightly more than half the size of Denver, but fights above its weight.

However, as a core city, it’s important for the region that Denver maintains and grows its job base. And, downtown Denver’s retail viability is key to the city’s sales tax revenue.

Wellington Webb was a good mayor, but he failed to grow the Colorado 8th Avenue health science center. Now, it’s mostly a benefit for Aurora. John Hickenlooper was a good mayor, but he failed to resolve the stock show’s space problem.

Michael Hancock should not start his administration losing the stock show to Aurora’s new convention center. It should stay close to downtown Denver.

Schwarzenegger’s Political Career Over. Can He Still Sell Movies?

Arnold Schwarzenegger, late in his term as governor, had a 39 percent favorability rating and a 55 percent unfavorable. In the latest California Field Poll, his favorability has collapsed to 20 percent statewide and only 10 percent in his home county, Los Angeles.

While his term of office had ups and downs, the collapse was related to his announcement of fathering a child with his household employee.

Twenty percent is a new low for California governors, and reflects that Schwarzenegger has no political base; not Republicans, conservatives, Democrats or liberals – they all have an unfavorable opinion of him.

Gray Davis, who Schwarzenegger replaced after a recall, had a 27 percent final favorability, and a 41 percent today. Pete Wilson, governor in the 1990s, was in office during a calmer period and left with a 50 percent favorability. His current low rating partially reflects that a quarter (26%) of California voters couldn’t rate him.

Schwarzenegger’s shaky personal life was always a greater threat to his career than political mistakes in office.  But, Hollywood is amazingly tolerant of sexual and personal aberrations, and careers have continued after extraordinary controversies.  So, Schwarzenegger can expect a recovery, although it’s hard to see a Kindergarten Cop or Twins as his next role.

2011 Denver Mayor’s Election is Over. New Era Begins.

Analysis of the Denver mayor’s election was cut short by the media’s coverage of the prostitution allegation and its even more extensive explanation for media coverage rules and decisions.

“Chris is a very able guy. He just didn’t have a persona to fit this election at this time.” Roy Romer, 2011

Former Governor Roy Romer, the father of Chris and an indefatigable campaigner, may have summed up his son’s mayoral campaign defeat best - his persona did not fit this electorate in this election. The candidates were similar on the issues but wildly different in life stories, and this election was about the candidates’ personalities and their backgrounds.

Hancock’s personality was his greatest asset. Although his life story is less exotic than Barack Obama’s, his upbringing was much more challenging. It showed that Hancock’s good temperament is extraordinary in the face of chaos and tragedy. The ins and outs of this election highlight the narrative that dominated it – a narrative that will guide the new administration.

Community Organizer vs. Investment Banker
Hancock’s career as a community activist and city official was comfortable for Denver, a liberal city and seat of much of the state’s government. Romer, an investment banker, was immediately handicapped with voters by having one of the least favored professions, as well as being the son of privilege. He tried to use his private sector credentials as an asset for creating jobs but many did not view mortgage banking in public finance as an attractive resume or even particularly private sector.

Continuity vs. Change
Romer started with the premise that Denver was stalled and change was needed to “go to the next level.” Michael Hancock’s campaign recognized that voters expected some change, but didn’t really want that much. John Hickenlooper was judged a successful mayor, and Denver, albeit with some problems, a great city. They wanted someone to manage it, not change it, and Hancock said he had the city management experience to start on day one.

Good Guy vs. Tough Guy
Hancock has a friendly and easy-going personality, and it showed in his measured approach as a councilman and council/president. He emphasized collaboration and consensus. Romer chose an aggressive style and a tough guy image. He said it was needed to balance the budget and say “no” to city employees. Hancock made clear he was as concerned with social justice as a balanced budget. And in his view the budget would be balanced in the normal process without hardship. It may be that in the post Wisconsin environment, a Democratic city like Denver is less interested in tough budget cutting than fair budget balancing.

Insider vs. Outsider
Although Denver has never before elected a city councilperson to the mayor’s office, this turned out to be the year that continuity and experience on the job were valued. Hancock’s greatest challenge may have been getting past his fellow councilpersons in the general election. Romer hoped that another Hickenlooper-type was desired to bring a business approach and outsider’s perspective. Unfortunately the year was wrong, and Romer was no Hickenlooper.

Positive Campaign vs. Negative Campaign
Not only did a positive campaign fit Hancock’s temperament, it also gave him a platform from which to criticize his opponent without looking negative.

Arguably, the Romer campaign felt they had no choice but to go negative. It was clear his campaign had stalled before the general election and fell behind shortly after. However, the move to immediately attack caused a significant counter reaction.

After the vicious Romanoff-Bennet primary last summer and the hard-fought fall Senate race, Denver voters simply had no stomach for another negative campaign. Also, Hickenlooper made not using negative advertising a signature attribute and a successful strategy.

Romer’s negative ads, reinforced by the aggressive direct mail and robo calls from nominally independent big labor, reinforced his outsider, tough-guy image – a misguided approach for this electorate.

Liberal vs. Center
Hancock had the benefit of being the favored candidate of most of Denver’s liberals and their powerful network. They, along with the African-American community, gave him his surge in the general election and protected him during the negative onslaught. They made it clear he was their candidate on school reform. Even though both Hancock and Romer had similar platforms and credentials, the endorsement of Romer by the usually powerful teachers’ union may have backfired, sending any reform-minded fence sitters into Hancock’s camp.

Romer’s effort to unite Republicans with centrist Democrats and Latinos was a difficult strategy, especially when running against a popular African-American candidate.

The narrative of this election will define the new administration. Expect the familiar, with more continuity than change. An indicator is that the transition committee is made up of well-known faces. Necessary budget cutting will be done, but likely without draconian cuts. Whether it is the right civic narrative for the challenges Denver faces remains to be seen, but it will have a Hancock personality, friendly and consensus-building.

Politics is Getting More Complicated, Nationally and Locally

Politics in Larimer County
Politics in Larimer County is far more complex than a simple two-party system. As a previous report on Larimer County politics described (June 21), the partisan identity of local voters varies from strong partisan (21% for both strong Democrat and strong Republican) to weak partisan, independent leaning and pure independent voters (42% of voters) (see first column on table below).

Variation is also reflected in voters’ self-described political philosophy, which includes a contingent of strong ideologues leaning 2-to-1 conservative (9% strong liberal versus 18% strong conservative), and an overwhelming 70 percent of voters identifying themselves as middle-of-the-road or moderate leaning either right or left.

Although self-identified conservative and conservative leaning voters exceed liberals (strong and leaning) by 42 percent to 31 percent (see top row of table below), the middle-of-the-road voters clearly hold the balance of power in Larimer County and are prepared to vote for more liberal candidates under the right circumstances.

When party self-identification is compared to a voter’s political philosophy (ideological self-identification) (see table above), 71 percent of strong Democrats call themselves “liberal” (which includes “very liberal” and “moderate lean liberal”). Eighty-six percent of strong Republicans label themselves “conservative” (including “very conservative” and “moderate lean conservative”).

Democrats with weaker partisan identity also are 10 points less liberal and more likely to label themselves “conservative” or “middle-of-the-road.” For example, a fifth (21%) of “not very strong” Democrats call themselves “conservative.” In contrast, the majority of Republicans from all partisan passions call themselves “conservative” (80% or more).

The 18 percent of voters who call themselves “pure independents” are also diverse in their ideological views. Nearly half (46%) label themselves “middle-of-the-road,” but 19 percent are “liberal” and 29 percent “conservative.”

National Poll
A recently released Pew Research Center poll describing a more complex, but similar comparison in national politics, laid out eight politically active groups blending Republicans and Democrats with political ideology and used a cluster methodology that incorporated demographic characteristics and issue positions. The Pew typology provides an update and revision of a similar type of survey conducted in 2005.

The major findings are that the U.S. political environment contains voters with strongly committed ideologies at each end of the political spectrum, and there is a growing middle of voters that hold strong views, but are hard to predict on a simple partisan or ideological scale. Nationally, in the Pew typology, there are more Democratic identifying voters than Republican (25% Republican and 40% Democrat leaning identifiers), and a third (35%) lean independent.

The conclusion from this analysis is that although America may be represented by two parties, in fact, there are more than half a dozen different variations on the parties.  And, there is a fragmented group that labels themselves and mostly behaves independent from the two parties, but has intense and eclectic political views.  It is a trend that is evidenced among Colorado independent voters. After uniting the factions that make up parties, the modern politician must compete for independents, many of whom have very “unmoderate” viewpoints on major issues.