2006 Elections: A Return to a Blue Maryland? By Dan Nataf, Ph.D. Director, Center for the Study of...

2006 Elections: A Return to a Blue Maryland?

By Dan Nataf, Ph.D.

Director, Center for the Study of Local Issues

Anne Arundel Community College

www2.aacc.edu/csli

http://www.aacc.edu/


Key questions:

(1)To what extent did the 2006 elections represent a ‘return to political normalcy’ in Maryland

(2)Can we expect the political environment to get more competitive in the future?

(3)What does the political situation portend for governing style and priorities?

Ehrlich’s 2002 victory – the ascendance of ‘red’ Maryland over ‘blue’


What was the significance of Ehrlich’s 2002 victory? Was this a personal victory for Bob Ehrlich, or a general victory for the Republican Party and new policy priorities?


Republican Vote Statewide Offices 1990-2006

Governor, 46

Comptroller, 39AG, 41

Senate, 44

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

Governor

Comptroller

AG

Senate

2002: “Red” Maryland was impressive -Ehrlich majority counties include 55% of all Maryland voters

• Ehrlich high majority (60%+) include 47% of all Maryland voters

• Republican competitive jurisdictions included much (if not most) of Maryland


80%

75%

4%

75%75%74%

70%69%69%69%68%

4%

67%65%65%

9%

65%65%65%64%62%

14%

62%

57%

5%

56%

17%

39%

11%

24%

15%

23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Population % and Ehrlich '02% of County Vote

Pop %

Ehrlich 02%

2002 vs. 2006

Ehrlich drops from 51.6% to 47.7%

879,592 votes to 825,464 (-54,128)Dem rises from 813,422 to 942, 279 (+128,857)

• Ehrlich’s largest drop in counties that were most supportive in 2002 – down 7% from 67% to 60% in ’02 majority counties• Small drop in least supportive jurisdictions – down from 29% to 27% 0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Ehrlich Vote 2002, 2006

Ehrlich '02

Ehrlich '06


2006 Elections: A Return to a Blue

Maryland?Counties by Republican Score

Strong R 60+ Rep score

Leans R 55-59 Rep score

Contested45-54 Rep score

Leans D40-44 Rep score

Strong D0-39 Rep score

JurisdictionEhrlich '06

Rep Local offices Rep Gen Assem Rep Score

Carroll 70 100 100 90

Garrett 67 100 -- 84

Caroline 66 78 100 81

Frederick 60 82 88 77

Harford 63 77 75 72

Washington 61 73 75 70

Allegany 57 67 75 66

Kent 55 33 100 63

Somerset 59 27 100 62

Queen Anne's 67 55 -- 61

Anne Arundel 57 64 56 59

Calvert 57 55 -- 56

Talbot 64 45 -- 55

Dorchester 61 25 75 54

Wicomico 63 43 -- 53

Cecil 58 33 -- 46

Worcester 65 38 33 45

St. Mary's 58 45 25 43

Howard 49 25 50 41

Baltimore 51 7 30 29

Charles 48 9 25 27

Montgomery 37 0 3 13

Baltimore City 23 0 0 8

Prince George's 21 0 0 7

Composite Picture – More Blue Less Red


How Generalized was the Change from Red to Blue in 2006?

General Assembly - House of Delegates – Democratic Hegemony Reinforced

Party House of Delegates - Seats

District Splits District Count

Overall 2002 2006 Won Lost 2002 2006

Democrat 98 104 3 0 26 30

Republican 43 37 3 0 8 8

Democrat 2 1 7 5

Republican 2 1 6 4

•Republicans: 8 solid districts

•Democrats: 26-30 solid districts

•Contested: 13 (2002) to 9 (2006)


General Assembly - Senate – Status Quo with Democratic Lean

Party Senate Margins of Victory(contested

elections only)

Average # of Votes

(contested elections only)

2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006

Democrat 33 33 12725 13015 20977 22994

Republican 14 14 9992 5766 18215 18116

Overall 47 47 11731 12364

Democrats increase margins of victory and average number of votes


How Generalized was the Change from Red to Blue in 2006?

Trends in Party Registration –Democratic Hegemony Likely to ContinueParty Registration, 2000-06

57.00% 56.40% 56.00% 55.80% 55.30% 55.00%

29.60% 29.90% 30.00% 30.00% 29.30% 29.30%

13.20% 13.10% 13.00% 13.20% 13.90% 14.00%

Dem, 55.10%

Rep, 28.90%

Unaffil, 13.90%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Dem

Rep

Unaffil


How do Republican Candidates Win without Party Registration Advantages? Is there a mixed message despite Democratic registration advantage?

Democratic defectors hold the key to Ehrlich success in 2002:

All Rep and unaffiliated voters = 731128

Ehrlich ’02 vote = 879592

Democratic defections (and other party registrants):

148464

979740

1095069

561884614704

169244198833

731128

813537879592

825464

148464

119270

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

Dem Voters Rep Voters Unaffiliated Voters Total Rep+Unaffil. Ehrlich Vote Dem Defectors -Min

Party Registration and Ehrlich Vote '02, '06

2002

2006


How do Republican Candidates Win without Party Registration Advantages – Data from Anne Arundel County Exit Poll

Democratic defectors more numerous (17%) than Republican defectors (10%)

Unaffiliated voted disproportionately for Ehrlich (54%)


Party Registration

Ehrlich O’Malley Others Didn’t vote Cases

Democrats 17 79 3 6 180

Republicans 89 10 0 1 167

Unaffiliated 54 40 6 0 50

Other 83 8 0 8 12

What issues were salient in Governor’s Race in 2006? Data from Anne Arundel County Exit Poll

Depends how you ask the question!

Closed-ended:

Economy -21%

Education – 18%

Taxes – 16%

Crime - 13

Open-ended:

Education – 18%

Taxes – 8%

Economy – 5%

Crime -4%


Issue Type of Poll Closed-ended

Issue Closed

Open Ehrlich

O’Malley

Economy 21 5 53 44

Education 18 18 43 57

Taxes 16 8 69 31

Crime 13 4 55 40

Growth 8 3 62 39

Cost of living 6 3 50 50

Slots 6 3 80 20

Healthcare 5 0 13 88

Environment 3 3 40 60

Work with legislature

3 0 25 75

College tuition 3 2 60 40

Nothing cited 0 51

Total 100 100

Conclusions about the Electoral Scene


Many reasons to expect Democratic hegemony to remain1. Party registration advantage relatively stable

2. Large population concentrations in urban, established suburban areas with strong Democratic leanings

3. Very high association of African-Americans with Democratic votes unlikely to change

4. High probability of Democratic victory creates positive momentum – easier recruitment of qualified candidates, larger pool of potential candidates, abundant financing

5. Republicans face identity problem – need a Schwarzenegger approach – but Ehrlich was close to that. Will Republicans turn more conservative?

6. Short-term Democratic advantages due to national climate

Conclusion about the Electoral Scene


Republican ascendancy requires perfect storm1. Personable candidate with reasonable track record and

name recognition; appealing ticket

2. Short term sharp rise in Republican high saliency issues – taxes, morals, national defense, immigration

1. Attract religious swing voters – Catholics

2. Attract blue collar white males in declining industrial areas

3. Significant disaffection of unaffiliated and weak Democratic voters

4. Influx of conservative voters – BRAC?

5. Appeal to minorities – Hispanics, Asians, etc

6. Growth of new suburbs/exurbs

7. Supportive national environment

8. Clever campaign!

Election Implications about Governing


Politics, Priorities and Governing Style

The Ehrlich period was characterized by:

• Political competition between the Republican governor and the Democratic legislature

– Democrats perceived the Republican governor as a usurper – an interloper without real legitimacy

– The goal was to wait him out

– Partisanship – taking credit and avoiding blame was especially significant:

• BGE

• Increases in taxes and fees

• Increases in college tuition

• Levels of programmatic funding - Thorton

• Improvements in the economy

• Gaps or surpluses in the state budget

• Medical malpractice insurance




The Ehrlich period was characterized by:

• There wasn’t that much ideological conflict between Ehrlich and the Democrats – mostly posturing and issue specific conflict – like slots, ICC

The O’Malley campaign:

• O’Malley – campaigned on standard Democratic fare – picking at issues like college tuition, healthcare coverage, environmental stewartship, but without much discussion of budget realities – structural gaps (after all Ehrlich claimed to have left a surplus!)

• O’Malley’s election changes the tone mostly and the substance somewhat.




The O’Malley period – two possible scenarios:

• (1) The Democrats will feel that they can’t rock the boat much.

– They have lost or nearly lost the governorship twice in the last 12 years.

– The clearest mandate for governing is that won by the victorious gubernatorial candidate, so evidently the public is very ‘moderate’ and wants things run on the basis of incremental change and peaceful relations between the governor’s office and the legislature.

– The period will be characterized by shared credit for modest achievements.




The O’Malley period alternative scenarios:

(1) Continued– The “Centrist Agenda” presented by O’Malley for the first

year seems in keeping with scenario 1.• Goals are achievable or dilemmas postponable

– Healthcare – no clear plan, but lots of talk

– Funding Thornton – but no compensation due to geographic cost differences

– Environmental – limiting usage of Open Space to land preservation

– No new major new tax initiatives

– Rainy Day money postpones day of reckoning

– Hiring limits restrain rate of growth in government operations




The O’Malley period alternative scenarios:

• (2) The Democrats will feel that they are ascendant, have huge majorities in the General Assembly and can finally press a liberal agenda.

– Wait until next year – then plead with public to pay higher taxes

• Revoke Glendening era income tax cuts

• Reinstitute 2 cent property tax cut from Ehrlich’s last year

• Consider increasing sales tax or broadening its applicability

• Develop expensive new healthcare plans

• Fund lots of infrastructure for BRAC

• World class education, etc. etc.




Democrats need to ask themselves:

• What kind of mandate did the last elections provide?

• Why did Ehrlich lose – unpopular policies, bad timing, campaign issues, compelling candidates?

• What will it take to keep those 100,000 swing voters voting Democratic…or is the Republican party so down that they need not worry?

Financial officers need watch which of the two scenarios unfolds: the first promises austerity and budget-tightening, the second suggests greater resources but greater possible electoral volatility.

2006 Elections: A Return to a Blue Maryland? By Dan Nataf, Ph.D. Director, Center for the Study of...

Documents

Transcript of 2006 Elections: A Return to a Blue Maryland? By Dan Nataf, Ph.D. Director, Center for the Study of...