Author: Ron Nehring

Milton Friedman famously observed that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. In the political world, the Democrats have learned that something of the reverse is also true: there is nothing so temporary as a permanent political trend.

One year ago, Democrats were proclaiming they had established in 2008 a winning political coalition that would last a generation. Independent voters had joined labor unions, ethnic and other groups to form an invincible coalition that would guarantee Democrat victories for the foreseeable future.

Well, the “foreseeable future” lasted about as long as a failed one season comedy on NBC.

What a difference a year makes. Today, Democrats are clearing out of two governor’s offices while Republicans are preparing to move in. A Republican is preparing to take a seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, four counties in New York State fell this month, and the list goes on.

“Hope” and “change” may have been enough in 2008, but that didn’t cut it in 2009.

Thankfully, Internet content remains largely free of government intrusion and regulation. Americans are increasingly going online for news, to plan their travel, and perform other everyday tasks like banking and keeping up with relatives. They’re also going online for the information they need to determine how they will vote. As candidates and parties consequently step up their online presence, outdated campaign finance laws are giving the bureaucrats a new opening to impose restrictions and regulations on Internet content.

Consider Scott Wagner, the candidate for St. Petersburg mayor whom the Florida Elections Commission ordered to take down an online ad because it didn’t include a “Paid for by” disclaimer. Wagner argued the “paid for by” disclaimer should not have been required because it was only “paid for” by someone once it was clicked on, not before.

Democrats are playing defense in some key U.S. Senate races that should otherwise be considered safe.

Historically, Senate incumbents already tend to be a bit less safe than House incumbents simply because one cannot gerrymander a state. House lines are often drawn and redrawn to protect incumbents, while states don’t change borders without something major…like a war. Even in that revolutionary year of 1994, 92% of House members seeking re-election won, while 90% of Senators won.

A review of the position some incumbent Democrat Senators find themselves in shows a level of vulnerability that is out of the ordinary, and certainly a far cry from the last two election cycles which saw heavy Democrat gains.

We’ve already discussed on these pages how Sen. Barbara Boxer is barely clinging to 50% re-election support in a state that went heavily for Obama and she’s represented for 17 years in the Senate alone, plus the House. But a look at some other states shows she is not the only Democrat incumbent with concerns.

The latest Field Poll is out, and Senator Barbara Boxer has cause for great concern.

The word in Washington is already that Boxer, a 17-year incumbent, is among the most vulnerable Democrat Senators seeking re-election next year. Despite being a Democrat incumbent in a blue state that that voted strongly for Obama, Boxer consistently polls well below her colleague Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) and evokes much stronger negative responses from voters in polls than her fellow California senator.

After last week’s Field Poll, the state’s junior senator can be expected to step up her re-election efforts. She needs to.

Boxer is a three term incumbent, and well known to Californians. Yet she only earns the support of 51% of registered voters. Because incumbents are inherently better known among voters than challengers, the rule of thumb is that any incumbent who scores at or below 50% of likely voters has cause for concern.

The political landscape is changing rapidly as the public rejects the most extreme elements of the governing agenda Democrats continue to pursue. Several leading political indicators have moved decidedly in favor of the Republican Party, and no significant indicator shows any substantial movement in favor of the Democrats.

News reports covering the current political environment rarely draw a distinction between leading indicators showing where we are going, versus lagging indicators pointing to where we have been. To understand current political trends, it’s important to understand which indicators demonstrate change is taking place, and in which direction.

In reviewing the current political landscape, three indicators provide a picture of where the American electorate is going: party self-identification, generic ballot strength and presidential approval. I discussed each of these in my report to the state party convention on Sunday.

Republicans in California this year fought in the toughest political environment for our party since 1974. In no cycle since then have our candidates had so many externalities to overcome on their way to Election Day, with the bottom dropping out of the world financial system in October, the summer energy crisis, an incumbent President with approval ratings in the 25% range, and other external factors beyond the control of either party.

Given this environment, how did our candidates perform?

Let’s start with Congress. Unlike states like Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, New York, Connecticut, and many others, California held each of our Republican Congressional seats, including open seats in Northern and Southern California. These results contrast with the predictions Democrats were making to anyone who would listen that Dana Rohrabacher, Brian Bilbray, Dan Lungren and Tom McClintock were all at risk of being defeated. None were.

During the final weeks of the campaign we were all subjected to endless Democrat predictions that they would reach a two-thirds majority in the legislature so they could raise taxes. Another grand plan defeated by Republicans.