‘There are a ton of new polls this morning and most are really bad for Democrats’

That headline comes in a Tweet this morning from Taegan Goddard, publisher of Political Wire. Yes, polls are breaking for Senate Republicans. Normally, in mid-term elections, polls across the country show a turn or confirm a direction that forecasts election day. So the smart money is on the Republicans.

But before the GOP celebrates and begins looking toward 2016 with overflowing optimism, party leaders may want to ponder one more thing: This election should not have taken so long to show a direction. The Republicans should have taken a clear lead weeks ago.

The post mortem

Following the 2012 election, the Republican National Committee undertook an analysis to determine why the GOP kept losing elections. Many Republicans decided that the message was the problem. Others decided that the candidates were the problem. They went about trying to fix their perception of the problem. Whoa!

Too many Republican candidates or their political advisors tried too hard to fit the “message.” As they tried to adjust, many were not really “themselves.” Eventually, most found their footing. But that took a while and meant that voters needed more time to decide.

Luck helps

Republicans were lucky. Some Democrats stuck too long with the Democratic versions of Republican “messaging.” Senator Mark Udall of Colorado hammered on the “war on women” long after the voters wanted to move on. His Republican opponent is headed to a victory that Udall could have prevented if he had just been Udall all along.

One Republican has been headed to a big win all year – Governor John Kasich of Ohio. Why? He is who he is. In these days of issues-research-driven ads and candidates, Kasich is refreshingly simple. Ohio voters get it. They figured Kasich out long ago. But nationally, nobody has been talking about him. That ends Wednesday.

Wait! They’ve been here all along

The talking heads will talk up Kasich as a plausible presidential candidate. He will be “Chris Christie without the bullying,” “a smarter Rick Perry.” The spotlight may begin to focus on a few Midwestern Republican governors. That’s no surprise. That the mainstream media took so long to catch on is a surprise.

Will the Republican operatives in Washington figure it out? If so, when?

Are non-citizens voting in numbers that could change the results in close elections?

by Ken Feltman

A new twist is about to be added to the national debate on immigration.

Several conservative news outlets and blogs – PJMedia, for example -are reporting that non-citizens and illegal immigrants are voting in higher-than-expected numbers in elections. Hot Air discusses an Old Dominion University study of North Carolina voting by illegal immigrants and other non-citizens.

Some mainstream news outlets – the Washington Post, for example – have carried articles detailing the problem.

Media Matters dismisses the idea that elections may be swung by non-citizen voting. But other factors should trigger increased scrutiny of non-citizen voting. First, the close Minnesota Senate race in 2008 still haunts Republicans. Senator Al Franken won in a recount by 312 votes and went on to cast crucial votes in the Senate. Next, the White House’s anticipated actions on behalf of immigrants after the November 4 election coupled with the disputed evidence of non-citizen voting on November 4 is sure to keep the issue alive.

Put non-citizens voting in a search engine such as Google to find more articles. Then get ready to read and hear more about this as the 2016 Presidential campaigns heat up and the incoming Congress tackles immigration while President Obama considers executive action.

This is not going away. How much will it damage the hopes of law-abiding, productive but undocumented immigrants?

Little words can foretell big trends

by Ken Feltman

Focus groups across the country are smothering political campaigns with huge amounts of information. That information – call data by most of the young analysts who try to interpret it – is “crunched” and conveyed to the creative types who produce the ads that so many people complain about.

The data also provide insights into what words Americans use to express their feelings.

Here is one: Crazy.

Many more Colorado voters used the word crazy (or crazies) to describe Republicans than voters anywhere else. What does that mean for the future of the Republican Party in Colorado?

When asked, Colorado Republican officials most often responded with a laundry list of problems that they blame on Democrats. They quickly leaped to criticism of Democratic Senator Mark Udall, who is in a tough reelection fight.

Is Udall in a close battle partly because his Republican opponent is not thought of as crazy?

Senator Udall’s Republican opponent, Rep. Cory Gardner, was not perceived by focus group participants as crazy. Does the fact that crazy was not applied to Gardner have something to do with the close race in Colorado? A Colorado Democrat (female, 28) said, “the Republican isn’t bad, he’d be okay, he’s not like so many of them.”

Can Mitch McConnell benefit from the contrast with crazy Republicans?

The states with the next largest percentages of crazy comments are South Dakota, Missouri, Texas and Kentucky. When focus group participants who said they are Republicans used the word crazy, they often used it as a substitute for Tea Party, except in South Dakota, where it was used most often to describe Washington.

Kentucky voters, both Democrats and Republicans, used crazy to describe ardent supporters of Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). Kentucky Democrats also used it to describe Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Washington. Republicans sometimes applied it to Washington but, in more cases, to Paul.

McConnell is in a close fight for reelection. Will he benefit from the contrast with Paul and his supporters? Here is what one Kentucky independent voter (female, 59) said: “I had doubts about Mitch McConnell. Then I listened to Rand Paul and decided McConnell was pretty good after all.”

Are voters falling out of love with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul?

Even when they support Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Texas Republicans seem to accept describing Cruz as crazy. One Texas Republican (female, aged 35) said, “It takes someone who’s a little crazy to get something done in Washington.” How many people, in Texas and elsewhere, have thought or said something similar? Another Texas Republican (male, 63) said, “Cruz makes (Governor) Rick Perry look good.”

Senators Cruz and Paul have devoted followers but seem to be accumulating more and more critics within the Republican Party. A California Republican (male, 27) described them as “dysfunctional.” A Missouri Republican (female, 56) said, “I listened and liked what they said at first but the more I learned, the more they seemed extreme. And they attract even more extreme people.” A Texas independent (male, 42) said, “I voted for Cruz but he won’t get things done. He’s part of the Tea Party. It’s their way or nothing. They won’t work with anybody else.”

A Republican from Texas (male, 33) said, “I supported Cruz at first but he has this huge ego. It will become harmful if he doesn’t change.” Another Texas Republican (male, 51) followed up that comment: “He won’t change. He thinks the rest of us are wrong.”

Is the obstructionist streak in the Tea Parties beginning to wear thin with voters? We will need more data before we can make that statement, but we know that the word crazy is used by voters of all persuasions to describe Republicans much more often than Democrats.

Democrats can’t stand Ted Cruz. Neither can many Republicans. But those who like him, really like him.

by Ken Feltman

In two focus groups last week, Texas Senator Ted Cruz turned out to be the most polarizing possible 2016 candidate. Not one Democrat admitted that he or she might be convinced to vote for Cruz, no matter what happens between now and election day in November 2016. (You can see some comments made by Democrats in earlier posts below.)

Republicans were split. About half of the Republicans believe that Cruz will take the party too far to the right to win, even if they agree with some or all of his positions on issues. Another roughly 20% are not sure Cruz can win but want to wait and see how the campaign proceeds. They want to decide whether he can broaden his appeal before committing. The remaining 30% are much more enthusiastic about Cruz as a presidential candidate, but almost half of them worry that Cruz cannot be elected. Even if he is not electable, these Republicans will support him.

The Republicans who participated in these focus groups are hoping that other candidates enter the race. They are not impressed with the current possibilities. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is a major disappoint; About two-thirds of these GOP voters have written him off due to the Bridgegate scandal. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is not known enough for these Republicans to have a firm opinion. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s latest negative publicity had not sunk in yet.

Senator Rand Paul is viewed in much the same way as Senator Cruz. Several mentioned former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, whose biggest detractors are Democrats who do not want another Bush in the White House. Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP Candidate, creates little enthusiasm.

To sum up overall impressions: Democrats are less concerned about who their candidate will be. They intend to support their nominee. Republicans have a significant percentage who are currently unhappy with the choices. Look for other candidates, especially those who may appeal to more moderate Republicans, to explore running.

Those potential Republican candidates would we wise to expect that the Cruz supporters (and other “hard” conservatives) not only may not support them, but may not come out to vote, except possibly for a third-party (Tea Party) candidate. In addition, the Democrats do not seem inclined to consider voting for any Republican in 2016.

One focus group was held in Ohio and the other in North Carolina.