Congressman Steve Daines: Montana's Most Conservative House Member--Ever?

 I’m always skeptical when I get the e-mails and press releases from candidates attacking the records of their opponents. They are often prone to hyperbole and histrionics. In 2012, Jon Tester was called “liberal” and advertisements suggested he was an Obama clone for voting with the president “95 percent of the time”.  I recently received an e-mail from the Montana Democratic Party that says the following about “Shut Down Steve”: “Congressman Daines’ Tea Party agenda isn’t just hurting Montana families, it’s hurting Montana’s great outdoors for future generations”. An earlier e-mail claims that “Congressman Daines’ decision to side with extremists” hurts Montana.

Steve Daines’ own campaign has intimated that Walsh is in the pocket of out-state liberal interest who will “spend millions promoting Walsh.” The email continues: “But the fact remains that we're going to have to compete with millions of dollars from the Democrat elite, special interests, Hollywood, and New York liberals, like Chuck Schumer.”

How does one make sense of all of these allegations? Is Representative Steve Daines “too extreme” or “too conservative” for Montana? How can we objectively assess the voting records of members of Congress especially when the campaigns have little interest in an objective portrayal?

One way to evaluate the voting records of members of Congress is to examine their NOMINATE scores. NOMINATE is a measure of ideology developed by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal. This measure uses the roll call votes of members and plots every member along a left-right dimension ranging roughly between -1 and 1—with -1 the extreme liberal end of the scale, and 1 the extreme conservative end. This measure allows us to not only evaluate how liberal or conservative a member is relative to other members, it also allows us to measure how the ideologies of members of Congress has changed over time.

Recently, Poole and Rosenthal released their NOMINATE estimates for the first year of the 113thCongress. We can finally, with these scores, put Daines’ voting record into comparative perspective. In the first figure below, I plot Daines’ NOMINATE scores relative to every other member elected to serve in the House of Representatives for Montana in the post-war era (from the 80^th Congress through the first year of the 113^th). Democrats serving in the House are below the X-Axis, and Republicans are above the X-Axis.

Figure 1: NOMINATE SCORES for Montana's House Delegation, 80-113th Congresses

 The first thing that leaps out from these data is that, unequivocally, Daines has compiled the most conservative voting record of any Montanan elected to the House of Representatives. Of that there is little doubt—his NOMINATE score is far more conservative than Rehberg’s (who, by the way, was not particularly extreme ideologically) and further to the right of Congressman Rick Hill.

The second figure aims to put each House member’s ideological into additional comparative perspective. This time, I plotted the mean NOMINATE values for the Democratic and Republican Parties in each Congress. Then, I subtracted the NOMINATE value for each member of Montana’s delegation from that mean. The resulting value represents how far the member is their party’s NOMINATE average relative to the ideological center (which is zero on this scale). A positive value means the member is to the left of the party mean and a negative value to the right of the party mean. 

Figure 2: Montana's House Members Ideology Relative to Party Mean, 80th-113 Congresses

Note how much further the Republican Party has moved to the right compared to the Democratic Party’s move to the left. Second, note that Congressman Daines is pretty close to the Republican mean in the current Congress but—because the Republican mean has moved so far to the right—he is the most conservative individual Montana has ever elected to the House of Representatives even if he represents the center of his party. By comparison, note how centrist Congressman Rehberg appears relative to the rightward shift of the Republican Party during his time in Congress. Perhaps this ideological disparity explains why Rehberg's campaign was so concerned with nailing down his ideological right flank during the 2012 Senate race.

It is also interesting to note that the Democratic Party nationally has not moved as far leftward as the Republican Party has moved rightward—and furthermore, Democrats representing Montana in the House generally speaking have moved to the right of their party ideologically and closer to the ideological center over time (note how much more liberal the Democratic House delegation was in the 1950s and 1960s than the Democratic Party nationally has denoted by the positive purple bars on the left side of the graph). Montana Republicans, generally speaking, have been much further from that center and the distance has only increased over time.

Now, Daines’ record is certainly the most conservative of any House member to serve the state. Is that too extreme? He is not as extreme or conservative as other members of the House. Congressman Daine’s NOMINATE score is to the left of the average member of the House Tea Party Caucus (whose average score is .794). The most right member of the Republican Party is Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin who has a NOMINATE score of 1.257. The most liberal Republican is Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina who has a NOMINATE score of .054. To the immediate left of Congressman Daines is Congressmen Barton and Hall of Texas and Congressman Lankford of Oklahoma. To his immediate right are Congressmen Hunter (CA), Hartzler (MO), and Renacci (OH).

Although Congressman Daines has made some votes to establish moderate credentials, most notably his vote for the Violence Against Women Act, his global voting record as calculated using the NOMINATE algorithm clearly shows he is quite conservative and without a doubt the most conservative Montana has elected to the House of Representatives. A big part of Daines’ conservative record simply reflects how far to the right the Republican Party has moved in the past twenty years.

Is Congressman Steve Daines "too extreme" for Montana?  That will be for the voters to decide.

Of Campaign Ads and Campaign Arcs

Today, Congressman Steve Daines announced that the first TV ad of his Senate campaign will drop on Montana's stations tomorrow. Watch "Interview" below:



Let's compare it to Jon Tester's first ad from 2012, "Combine":




And Denny Rehberg's first ad, "Honest":





Note how Tester and Daines start with positive biographical narratives. This is the traditional campaign arc followed by most campaigns. Rehberg's Senate race, alternatively, chose to use a contrast ad instead of starting with the positive, biographical narrative.

Also note that in 2012, Tester aired his first spot in March of 2012 after organizations had been airing ads for over a year. Rehberg dropped his first spot in May. Daines is launching his ad in February. Why? First, Daines has less name recognition than either Tester or Rehberg. He needs to build that up--the earlier, the better. Second, I suspect Daines wants to build up his favorability ratings as well before the hits start coming from outside groups (that could happen at any time). Third, Daines has raised more money than the Democratic candidates in the race and has more on hand. He might hope that this early expenditure puts pressure on the Democrats to start their own ads, too--which would put some pressure on their financial resources earlier than they would like.

Political science scholarship is mixed on the effectiveness of early ads. Most recent work suggests that ad effects decay quickly (see for example the discussion in Sides and Vavreck's book The Gamble), thereby suggesting that early advertising is not terribly useful or beneficial. I think, however, that the story is not so clear, especially when an early advertising buy occurs when the airwaves are essentially free of other messages (at the very least, Ridout and Franz find some positive effects of early advertising in their 2008 book). At the very least, I conclude that Tester's March-April buy in 2012, which represented the single largest advertising advantage in terms of spots aired during the campaign (when you include the outside group CSS that had an ad up attacking Rehberg on congressional pay raises in March), helped the Tester campaign over the long haul because it helped remind some Montanans that they genuinely liked the guy even if they disagreed with him politically. Political scientists generally under-appreciate the power of positive advertising and the likeability of a candidate as a factor in voting decisions.

Will the Daines ad buy yield a similar result? Time will tell. If anyone has information on the size of the buy and on what stations, I'd love to know.

Max Baucus Shocks Washington and Montana...and just made Montana interesting for 2014

Tuesday morning, I had just gotten back from dropping my youngest off to day care and was getting ready to transcribe my last interview for chapter 2 of my book on the Tester-Rehberg race. I was damn excited—I was going to get the chapter started this week, and once that was finished, the rest of the book was going to fall into place.

And then, at about 8:30 a.m., my former student Jim Cave posted a link to the Washington Post story breaking the news: Max Baucus was retiring at the end of his term.

Let’s just say I did not spend a single minute on the book yesterday. Instead, I spoke to everyone and everybody about Senator Baucus’ retirement and its political implications. Not too long ago, I had written a piece saying that Max Baucus remained a favorite for reelection. I still maintain that was the case had he remained in the race. His war chest of $5 million is formidable, incumbents are hard to beat, and thus far the Republican candidates who have announced are not raking in the cash (Baucus raised $1.5 million in the last fundraising quarter compared to Corey Stapleton’s $140,000. No numbers have been reported yet for Champ Edmunds). Sure, the Senator’s approval ratings were not great. Sure, the race would be tighter than people might have expected. And sure, I can spin a yarn about how Senator Baucus’ situation looked pretty similar to Senator Frank Church in Idaho in 1980 (who also was chair of a powerful committee supporting the agenda of an unpopular president in his state and who ultimately lost a close race). But at the end of the day, Baucus would raise $15 million, Governor Schweitzer would stay away, the Republicans would not field a challenger comparable to Idaho Congressman Steve Symms, and Baucus would win a seventh term. So why did Senator Baucus step away when reelection, while tough, would likely be the order of the day?

There are lots of reasons why, but I’m not sure fear of losing is one of them. I can point to instances where an incumbent walked away with the sure knowledge that they would lose (Jim Bunning and John Ensign come to mind recently). But the case wasn’t as clear with Baucus. His fundraising was strong, his organization solid, and he appeared to be keeping strong challengers and the money flowing to them at bay. Senator Corey Stapleton MIGHT have some strong political skills, but who would know his story if he didn’t have money to tell it? Maybe Baucus feared the formidable Governor Schweitzer in a primary. Doubtful, too. While it is clear to me that Governor Schweitzer misses the game, what would Schweitzer gain from such a move long term? He MIGHT beat the Senator, and he MIGHT have won in the fall, but he would have upset the political establishment in the state and in the party. An establishment that’s useful when governing and perhaps useful if one wishes to run for higher office in the future (such as the presidency). Primary contests against well-entrenched incumbents are tough to pull off even in an environment where it has happened more regularly than in the past (see Senator Dick Lugar and Bob Bennett).

I think three factors were important in the Senator deciding to retire. First, I think he knew full well that he would need to raise $15 million to win this race, which he was fully capable of doing as Senate Finance chair. But, I don’t think he wanted to do it. Raising money is a tough and long slog that requires lots of travel all over the country. That’s a tall order at any age, but particularly so at 71.

Second, it is not clear that going back to the Senate for another term would be all that and a bag of chips. Consider this: Senator Baucus is chairman of a powerful committee that isn’t as powerful when the party leadership has shown a willingness to legislate outside and around it. That makes that chairmanship less powerful, less interesting, and less prestigious. Add the fact that many of the long-term members the Senator has served with have either left the chamber or have died. These were folks he had relationships with and that he could influence. He has far less influence as a centrist in an increasingly polarized body without those long-standing relationships. Consider the number of centrist politicians who have left the chamber recently: Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Dick Lugar, Olympia Snowe, Bob Byrd, and Tim Johnson to name only a few. I’m sure that if I sat down and did a rigorous analysis, I’d find that centrist Senators have been increasingly likely to step aside in recent years because of the constant difficulties they face in being pulled by each extreme in the two parties. Every vote that is taken because a potential campaign issue—something to not take lightly in an era of Citizens United where a person can raise millions of dollars and dump it into your race unexpectedly and at the drop of a hat. The ability to control the campaign narrative is rapidly disappearing in this environment. What’s the point of winning if you can’t ultimately govern in the manner you believe is best?

Third and finally, the Senator made mention of his wish to come back to Montana and spend time with family. Anyone who lives in Montana and has made a life here knows that Montana gets into your soul and bones. People live here because of the land, the space, and the lifestyle. Travelling back and forth to Washington over forty years is hard enough, but to leave Montana? That’s almost impossible and heart-wrenching. As Governor Schweitzer said, can you blame him for wanting to come home? The Senator is newly re-married and is building a house in Bozeman. Given the shock waves throughout Montana and the surprise by which the announcement took his own staff, I believe the Senator when he says that the reason for announcing his retirement was largely personal and not because of any fear of losing. He wants to come home while he still can and enjoy the Last, Best Place unlike so many friends that died in the Senate, away from their homes.

Love him or hate him, one cannot deny that Senator Baucus has been responsible for millions of dollars in federal dollars and projects throughout Montana over the years. He has played an important role in conservation, healthcare reform, the Bush tax cuts, and free trade. What Max Baucus has done for the state and the legacy he leaves behind will be debated for years. The political implications of his departure will be felt well beyond Montana. It will mean a new finance chair in 2015 regardless of which party wins control of the chamber, and I suspect that Senator Tester will seek Senator Baucus’ seat on agriculture. 

Senator Baucus’ stepping aside has created a rare open seat opportunity in Montana, the first since 1976. Open seats provide the best opportunity for the party out of control to capture a seat. Generally, this means well-qualified challengers on both sides of the aisle jump into the fray.

This open seat, however, is not truly “open” because there is one candidate sitting in the catbird’s seat that would alter competitive dynamics dramatically. What he decides determines whether this race will be truly competitive or whether the Democrats will retain the seat with little effort. That candidate, of course, is ex-Governor Brian Schweitzer. He is currently the most popular politician in the state. He has a flair for the dramatic and is beloved by independents in an independent-minded state. And he is often talked about as presidential material. While in the past I have generally dismissed the Governor as a Senate candidate, the situation is now different. 2016 is a long way off and with increasing chatter of Clinton and/or Biden running, the path forward for the presidential nomination becomes more challenging for the ex-Governor. While Schweitzer acquitted himself well in two national convention speeches, he is still a relative unknown without a large national fundraising apparatus in place. A Senate seat might provide him with the platform to build a national brand, and that might be tempting for someone who I believe to be clearly interested in the White House. Without an incumbent in the way, he would clear the Democratic field and perhaps the Republican field of any of the stronger candidates. If he wins, Schweitzer and the Democrats become the prohibitive favorites in the race.

Should Schweitzer not run, then the top three Republican candidates are Congressman Steve Daines, former Governor Marc Racicot, and former Congressman Denny Rehberg. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. Steve Daines ran a good race, but he just got elected to the House and turning around and cobbling together a Senate race may look disingenuous to the voters. It is also risky. If he loses, there’s no clear political path forward for him. Former Governor Racicot is nearly as popular and well-thought of as Governor Schweitzer and he might prove to be the most formidable challenger to him. But he’s been a lobbyist for quite some time and has spent a lot of time in Washington. Wouldn’t the Democrats love that narrative as it worked so well against Congressman Rehberg in 2012. As for Congressman Rehberg, people know him, all the dirty laundry has already been aired, and he might fare better in a comparison to another candidate who is not dirt farmer Jon Tester. On the other hand, I’m not terribly convinced that’s what he wants to do. It would be his third try for the Senate, and I suspect he likes the time he’s spending with his family after sleeping on that office coach for 12 years. 

If any of the three entered the race absent Schweitzer, then it would be difficult to see which Democratic candidate could be competitive. The best candidates would be statewide office holders like Denise Juneau, Linda McCullough, or Monica Lindeen simply because all three have statewide name recognition and have put together winning statewide campaigns. That said, neither have a long list of accomplishments that the voters know much about and they would need to raise considerable amounts of money to compete with well-connected Republican candidates like Daines, Rehberg, or Racicot. If none of these Republicans run, then the race is truly wide open and could become one of the most competitive in the country as either party would have a shot of winning the seat.

The 2012 Senate campaign was a long, tough slog that witnessed more television spots than any other Senate race during the cycle. The race cost more than $50 million when you tally all the outside money and the sums raised by parties and the two candidates. Whether Montanans will be subjected to another campaign as intense and close depends largely on one man: Governor Schweitzer. When will he decide? Time will tell, but I believe it is in his best interest to wait as long as he can before that decision is made and announced. No one will make any decisions about their own future plans until he makes his, and given his statewide recognition and his favorable job reputation, he can afford to keep everyone else waiting. And that’s just the way the Governor likes it, to be sitting in the catbird seat.