For months, Quinnipiac’s Ohio polls found the Buckeye State remained faithful to its newly acquired blue state status, giving Barack Obama, Ted Strickland and the party’s Senate nominees high marks. But the July survey finds a collapse in the Democrats’ numbers - especially at the presidential and gubernatorial level:
- Barack Obama’s approval rating has plunged from 62%-31% in May to a mediocre 49%-44% in July. We don’t have to look very far to see where this dip is coming from: Two months ago, voters approved of Obama’s handling of the economy by 21%; now, 48% disapprove while 46% approve - quite a sharp drop.
- Governor Ted Strickland’s approval rating has also plummeted: It stood as 56-29 in May, now it’s down to 46-42. Here again, you can link the Governor’s fall to the economy: Two months ago, voters approved his handling of the budget by 3% but they now disapprove by 19%.
- In gubernatorial match-ups, Strickland leads former Rep. John Kasich 43% to 38% and former Senator Mike DeWine 41% to 40%; in May, he led them by 19% and 12% respectively. Strickland’s drop is fueled by independents deserting him.
The trendlines are so brutal that we will need to see some confirmation in upcoming polls. However, Quinnipiac’s numbers correspond to those of another pollster. In June, PPP found Strickland with a nearly identical approval rating, a nearly identical drop-off and as narrow a lead against Kasich. There is thus no denying that the Ohio Governor is quickly emerging as one of the most vulnerable incumbents of the cycle.
That this evolution can be directly tied to the economic crisis should be of great worry to Democrats. Ohio might no longer be the most important battleground state, but voters’ increasing disapproval of Obama and Strickland’s handling of the economy is symptomatic of the political trends across the economically distraught Midwest. Should these trends continue over the next year, Democrats could find themselves staring at a very tough cycle. Obama has time to recover by 2012 but vulnerable representatives and many Governors don’t have the luxury to time.
This poll thus points to the Democrats’ nightmare scenario: The economy does not recover over the next year, Obama’s approval rating falls to a mediocre level in swing states, the party’s Governors are also unable to overcome the stain of their state’s budgetary woes and Democrats suffer massive midterm losses at all levels.
Even if the political environment does not deteriorate enough for marginally vulnerable incumbents to fall, Democrats would be hard pressed to win the competitive open seats if they find themselves to any extent blamed for the economic downturn. Irrespective of the merits of Lee Fisher and Jennifer Brunner in Ohio or of Robin Carnahan in Missouri, it will be very hard for them to prevail if the GOP is enjoying any type of national breeze - even a slight one.
Quinnipiac’s poll also tested the Senate race and found that the large leads Democrats Lee Fisher and Jennifer Brunner were enjoying in May have melted away: Fisher now leads Rob Portman 35% and 31% while Brunner is only ahead 35% to 34%. Surprisingly, car dealer Tom Ganley, a political unknown tested for the first time, performs almost as well as Portman: Fisher is ahead 36% to 30% and Brunner 37% to 33%.
Yes, the Democrats keep their edge but Brunner and Fisher have a much higher name recognition than either of their Republican opponents; as such, much of their lead can be explained away by a notoriety differential. And here’s another reason that’s a bad sign. Voters really don’t know much about any of the Senate candidates, so Fisher and Brunner’s clear drop can be tied directly to Obama and Strickland’s declining popularity. And since this is an open seat, the party’s Senate prospects are sure to remain tied its executive leaders’ fortunes.
Quinnipiac also tested many gay-rights questions, finding that Ohio has not evolved as rapidly as other states: Not only do 60% oppose same-sex marriage but civil unions is only approved by 46% of respondents (versus 47%). On the other hand, it looks like some pro-marriage liberals responded “no” to the civil union question: When asked to choose between marriage, civil union and no legal recognition, 57% of respondents choose the first two options - including 65% of Democrats and 61% of independents. 57% also approve of a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation, versus only 35%.
With numbers like that, it’s unlikely gay rights can be used as much of a wedge issue in upcoming cycles. But the poll also suggests that Republicans might not need social issues anymore as Democrats are increasingly having to take ownership of the economic crisis.
So can Obama maintain high approval ratings into the next year? Can Democratic Governors avoid being blamed for the economic crisis since their party controls both the state capital and the national capital? We’ve always known that these fundamental questions will be crucial in determining the shape of the 2010 cycle, but now polls are sending warning signs of their own.
I think that Democrats need to bring the plants in and make every possible preperation for a very tough election cycle now. Start setting up strong GOTV operations for vulnerable Reps and governors soon and work with major unions to try and keep losses as low as possible. Using Obama’s database will also help.
In times of recession, when recovery doesn’t come quickly, Americans tend to be very fickle about their political leaders. This means that unless recovery comes before 2010, the Republicans have a good opportunity to make major gains in that year’s elections
I’m from Ohio and this isn’t surpriding: its the ultimate swing state in that no party ever dominates. Plus, its a Midewestern state who’s base of industrial jobs started crumbling under Carter, were pulverized under Reagan, and have only continued to decline under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. Under Republican rule Ohio has continued to hemmorage jobs and Democrats haven’t been able to do much either. This has less to do with parties than it does with economic reality: NAFTA and globalization have stripped Ohio of many of the jobs that made it strong and since both parties have similar economic platforms, Ohio is still in the process of rebuilding its employment base, and its still in the transitional phase away from industry and towards professionalization, which is why pockets of Columbus and small parts of Cleveland are growing yet much of the state is still stagnent. Also, due the economic situation, young people (like me) have left the state in large numbers and what remains is an older, more conservative population that reactionary on social issues, leaving much of the state ripe for Republicans who need not talk economics beyond tax cuts. Meanwhile, cities like my hometown of Youngstown continue to suffer regardless of what parties control them, and the fact that much of the state is still rural and agricultural means that the Republicans have a strong base and they only need a little effort to coax urban white populations to support them, which they usually do, although not 100%. To wrap up, Ohio should still be considered a fundamentally conservative state whose decline as an economic force (thanks largely to conservative econoics and the failure of liberals to offer anything better)have created an older, ethnically white voting population that is fundamentally conservative in principle, regardless of whether such stances are appropriate for current realities.
- Jarret