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.

Lessons in Statistics: The New MSU-Billings Poll

I saw on my Twitter feed that MSU-Billings has come out with it's latest Montana public opinion poll. You can read the article about the poll findings here and go look at the full report here. I take some issue with how this poll was reported and how some folks are talking about it in the Twitter-verse.

First, let's talk gay marriage. The poll results indicated that a plurality of Montanans favor gay marriage, with 46.6 in favor and 42 percent opposed. The problem with this statement is the margin of error in the poll is 5 percentage points. This means a majority of Montanans might actually support gay marriage (5+46.6 is 51.6 percent) OR less than a plurality support it (46.6-5 = 41.2). So, is not accurate to say that a plurality of Montanans support gay marriage. It would be better to say that opinion on gay marriage is mixed and that support for gay marriage is statistically tied with opposition to it.

Second, let's talk about job approval ratings. Montana Cowgirl, one of the Montana state politics blogs I follow, sent a Tweet saying that Steve Daines is the most unpopular politician in the state. Here are the job approval numbers in the poll:

Steve Bullock, Approval: 53 percent.
Jon Tester, Approval: 44.7 percent
Max Baucus, Approval: 44.1 percent
Steve Daines, Approval: 39 percent

Remember that margin of error? We can confidently say that Steve Bullock is more popular than Steve Daines because the Bullock's approval rating could be as low as 49 percent or as high as 58 percent. Bullock might be as popular as Tester and Baucus, and Steve Daines might be as popular as Tester and Baucus. Or Steve Daines might really be the most unpopular elected official (39-5 = 34). But we cannot confidently, based upon these results, say that Steve Daines is the most unpopular elected official with the large margin of error.

What is most interesting, however, the number of folks who are undecided about Daines and Bullock relative to the senators:

Baucus, undecided: 16.9
Tester, undecided: 15.9
Daines, undecided: 37
Bullock, undecided: 33

What this tells me, and I can stay this with statistical confidence, is that Steve Bullock and Steve Daines are the least KNOWN statewide elected officials. And, look at the disapproval numbers:

Bullock, dispprove: 14
Daines, disapprove: 24
Tester, disapprove: 39.4
Baucus, disapprove: 39

Looked at this way, I could say with confidence that more Montanans who can express an opinion on on Tester and Max Baucus neither clearly approve or disapprove of the job they are doing. I can also say, however, that among those who express an opinion on Daines' job that more approve of the job he's doing than disapprove (39-5 = 34, and 24+5=29). He and Bullock are the only ones according to these numbers who have a statistically discernible pro-job approval rating outside the margin of error.

Clearly, among those Montanans who express an opinion on Steve Bullock really like the job he's doing. I suspect that part of that has to do with a) Bullock's not associated with the mess and Washington and b) the legislature has gone home, so he's not associated with any divisive doings in Helena at the moment. Main lesson: It's good to be the Governor when Washington is blowing up.

All three of our federal officeholders likely have depressed job approval numbers because of the government shutdown and the debt crisis. What will be interesting to watch is whether Daines, in particular, can increase his approval ratings among those who are currently undecided about him.

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.

Max Baucus Has a Challenger. Can he compete financially?

Roll Call this morning broke the news that former Montana State Senator and 2012 gubernatorial candidate, Corey Stapleton, is running for the chance to take on Democratic Senator Max Baucus. Stapleton came in second place behind eventual nominee Rick Hill with 18 percent of the vote in June's primary. Some have said that Stapelton's showing was surprising in that he eked out well-known conservative Ken Miller by a bit more than 100 votes. Here's a copy of his web announcement:



Stapleton served as a state senator, so political scientists would label him a quality challenger. He has three important hurdles to overcome. First, I'm sure his name recognition went up during the gubernatorial campaign, but Montanans likely still don't know him well. Second, he'll have to clear the field of other Republican candidates--and to do so he'll have to raise a substantial sum of money quickly to demonstrate his seriousness as a candidate. The third challenge is overcoming the significant money advantage Max Baucus already has should Stapleton get the Republican nomination. Roll Call recently released the fourth quarter FEC filings for incumbents, which I retweeted yesterday. The link is here. Senator Baucus raised $611,000 in that quarter and is sitting on nearly $3.6 million in cash. Of the Democratic incumbents listed in competitive elections, only Senator Landrieu (D-LA) raised more (and she raised just north on $1 million). Of the Democratic incumbents listed, only Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) had more cash on hand ($3.7 million). If Max Baucus can match Senator Tester's fundraising, expect to see those quarterly numbers to jump above the $1 million mark soon. Tester raised $13 million for the 2012 campaign. I expect we'll see Max match or likely exceed that number.

To be competitive, Stapleton need not raise more than Baucus. He only needs to raise enough--probably in the neighborhood of $10 million. Can he do it and can he clear the field of other Republican challengers? We'll see.

Baucus, a Poll, and High on the Hog--Oh my!

Lots of developments in Montana in the past 48 hours.

First, Senator Max Baucus recently announced that he's running for re-election in 2014 and has purchased $25,000 in radio ads to be aired...wait...THIS WEEK in several markets throughout the state. Read the story here. More on this below.

Second, a new poll is out in the Montana Race that is actually taking place this year shows...wait...A Rehberg lead within the margin of error. Again, the races is: too close to call. Here's that Rasmussen poll (with all the qualifiers from my previous posts about Rasmussen).

Third, AP had an article in Montana papers two days ago slamming both Senator Tester and Congressman Rehberg for living "high on the hog" by staying in fancy hotels and eating expensive meals, which are picked up by their campaign accounts. Read that piece here.

Whew! Where to start? I think we'll start with Montana's senior senator, Max Baucus. According to news accounts, the ad stresses his role in the payroll tax extension and features a testimonial from a prominent Republican businessman.

In an earlier post, I asked whether the Tester television ads were put up too early--and came to the conclusion that they were not. Well, I can certainly say that if Senator Baucus is putting up radio ads in 2012 for an election in 2014, that can only signal trouble. Not that it is a secret...Senator Baucus' approval ratings have been on downward slide since 2008. Last year's Billings Gazette poll found his approval rating at only 38 percent, certainly not encouraging for someone hoping to get reelected. Clearly, the radio ad is meant to stem that downward spiral and help Montanans remember why they've elected him for so long: he has political clout, seniority, and is often the pivotal voter in the Senate. His central position politically is only accentuated by Nebraska Democratic Senator Ben Nelson's impending retirement. Even if Democrats lose the majority, Republicans will not gain a filibuster proof majority--and will be looking to cut deals with conservative Democrats like Baucus.

All of that said, I'm shocked--shocked--that Senator Baucus would insert his reelection into the conversation during an already competitive Senate election. I'm not sure how this benefits Senator Tester--it merely detracts from his media message and his efforts. I'm puzzling through this one and coming up empty.

On the Tester-Rehberg poll, there's not much to be said. The race is close--we already knew that. Perhaps the one thing worth mentioning is this is the first poll taken after the emergence of two Libertarian candidates. And, interestingly, these candidates poll about 6 percent of the vote. Of course, with a margin of error at 4.5 percent, support for a third party candidate could be as low as 1.5 percent or as high as 10.5 percent. But note that only THREE percent of voters did not express a clear choice. Lots of money will be spent trying to help those voters figure things out (and lots of money will be spent making sure those who have already made up their minds get out and vote). Another Montana blogger, James Conner, crunched the numbers in this year's Tester-Rehberg polling and compared them to the Burns-Tester race in 2006. He concludes that the patterns might suggest some concern about Senator Tester's reelection. You can read his analysis here.

Finally, the AP piece on campaign expenditures and reimbursements. The piece essential puts a pox on both Republican and Democratic houses, suggesting neither candidate is the frugal, average guy they purport to be. I guess, as an observer of politics, my reaction was "meh". When individuals travel on business, they get reimbursed for their travel and meals. What's all the fuss about? If a candidate travels on campaign business, they get their expenses reimbursed. Sometimes some expensive meals might happen at a fundraiser. Sometimes the fundraiser is held at a nice hotel to encourage big donors, and you have to pay a large amount for a room in a hotel that is in a good location.

The fuss is, of course, is that both Rehberg and Tester represent Montana. And Montana is a poor state that is not too kind about others making too much money or looking like they have gotten too far ahead of the Joneses. This is especially true when it seems that public figures are profiting from their public position. In another state, this type of story might never have been noticed or even written. But in a state--and in a race--where that "one of us" connection is so important and a contestable point between the candidates, this article seems to suggest that neither Senator Tester nor Congressman Rehberg are as "one of us" as they would have us believe.

Is that a problem? Politically, it might be. While it doesn't bother me much that a member of Congress might have a nice dinner at fundraiser once in a while or stay at a nice hotel, I can see why it might upset folks who can barely make ends meet. And even if though these bills and reimbursements are standard operating procedure in campaigns (and, from my limited experience, they are), one thing that both candidates might do to avoid negative press in the future is to apply the government travel and meals reimbursement limits to their campaign travel, too. At the very least, this would avoid a story like the one that appeared in the paper this morning, which draws attention away from their core themes and messages. In the end, however, the story serves to increase the cynicism of voters and as someone who studies Congress, I'm not sure we need to be doing much of that right now.