The Nature of the Maine Electorate

I met a friend for drinks in Washington DC last Friday night – and little did I know I was about to get into a heated discussion about the fundamental nature of Maine voters that would last for more than three hours.  Yes, you read that right, three hours.

The conversation circulated around a central question – is Maine part of a monolithic group of New England states that is increasingly Democratic and takes its cues from the liberal establishment in Massachusetts, or is it something else?

Three Maine natives fueled by adult beverages could not come to a consensus.

In the aftermath of this conversation, however, I feel compelled to make my case on the issue to the masses.

It was (and is) my position that Maine is not a blue state, or a red state – but rather it is a gray state.  That is, it is a state that is relatively balanced from a left-right perspective, and has a large number of voters who are open to anyone who knows how to capture their attention. It should be relatively 50-50 at every level of Government, from the Maine House all the way up to Congressional delegations.  When representation in this state is not proportioned relatively evenly, that means that one political movement is doing its job, and the other side is not.  Thus is the case in Maine for three decades.

I believe, with a fair bit of evidence, that each and every state in New England is politically unique, and while each presents different challenges for the Republican Party in general, Maine (and New Hampshire as well) is not in fact an inhospitable environment for the GOP.  In fact, it is a state that should be viewed completely separate from the rest of New England, politically.

The results we have seen most recently – Maine going for the Democrats in each Presidential election since 1992, hosting a Democrat in both Congressional districts since 1996, being solidly Democratic in the legislature for 30  years, and not electing a Republican governor since 1994 – have been due to many other factors, such as poor GOP organization, and excellent Democratic strategy and execution.

These results have given the appearance of a deep blue state, and because of that perception, national pundits and party operatives have essentially given up on Maine as a competitive toss up state.  This has caused the GOP – even some within the state – to “write off” Maine and many of its races, which actually creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts, and further solidifies the control of the state in Democratic hands.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Up until Edmund Muskie came onto the scene, Maine was as deeply red as a state could be.  Maine never once voted for Franklin Roosevelt – the same FDR who carried essentially the entire country in four consecutive elections.  Maine elected a virtually unbroken line of Republican governors and Republican state legislatures since Abraham Lincoln.  Democrats wrote off the state and most of its races every year, with rare occasions.

Muskie, and the Democrats of his era had a choice.  They could have continued to assume the state was permanently Republican, tried to score minor victories in a few races to slightly increase their influence, and try to achieve some small policy accomplishments when possible, or they could have tried to change the environment in Maine.  They chose the latter (Maine Republicans, have been choosing the former for three decades).

Muskie built a statewide machine of Democrats in Maine by taking advantage of untapped resources and potential – particularly by identifying “soft Republicans” who could be won over, and forging coalitions that built the infrastructure of a diverse, unique, and powerful Democratic Party.  The Democrats spent significant time, effort, and resources to grow their party and build a true grassroots, activist base – and out organize, out-think and out hustle the Republicans.

The time was ripe – nearly a century of unbroken power had atrophied the Republican establishment, and it was not prepared to respond.  The rug was essentially swept out from under them as Muskie Democrats utilized their organizational prowess, electoral coalitions and momentum to win elections and turn the tide of the state against the Republicans.

The result was that the very Republican Maine started to trend Democratic.  Since the arrival of Muskie, the machine and coalitions that he and his Democratic allies put together have elected a Democrat to the Blaine House 9 times, and the Republicans have only been able to elect one of their own 4 times.  In the early 1970s, the Democrats took control of both houses of the state legislature, and have yet to yield it back, save for very (very) brief periods.

But their success is misleading to many observers.  Results have given a certain impression about the nature of the Maine electorate, and it is not an accurate impression.

Has Maine grown increasingly Democratic?  Yes, of course it has.  But given their success one would expect that the state has a 2 to 1 Democratic registration advantage, and that the grassroots ideological bend in Maine is decidedly liberal.

That is simply not the case.  The Maine voter is a much more dynamic animal than that.

Democratic success is a hallmark of the party’s coalition building, messaging, organization, get out the vote efforts, etc.  To look at the 30,000 foot view of the voters in the state of Maine, we see a great deal of evidence that it is in fact a toss up state that simply has not seen a center-right counter-coalition organize itself into a formidable political movement that can re-balance the state.

The 2008 Almanac of American Politics has a great deal of information that helps prove this point.  An explanation sets the tone for an examination of the state as “anyone’s game”:

Now ticket splitting is very much the norm here.  In 2000, Maine voted 49%-44% for Al Gore, 69%-31% for Republican Senator Olympia Snowe and 66%-32% Democratic in its two House races.  In 2002 Maine reelected Republican Senator Susan Collins 58%-42% and elected Democrat John Baldacci as governor by 47%-41%.  In 2006 Maine reelected Baldacci by 38%-30% over a Republican, with 22% for an Independent Maine Course candidate and 10% for the Green party nominee.  Maine has more partisan turnover in state legislative seats than just about any other state; in its small seats Mainers vote for the person, not the party.

But the inherent nature of Maine as a toss up state goes beyond the psychology of ticket splitting.  Take for example party registration.  As of the printing of the almanac, the breakdown was as follows:

• Democratic Party – 309,525 (31.1%)
• Republican Party – 279,641  (28.1%)
• Independents – 404,582 (40.7%)

A three percentage point difference is all that separates the Democrats and Republicans in Maine.

For context, in the real Democratic strongholds around the country, the registration shows why:  Maryland is +26.2% Democrat, Massachusetts is +24.6%, New York is +20.4%, Rhode Island is +20.4%.

I could go on, but obviously my point is made.  If anything, the Republican Party is in a relatively strong position in Maine.

If you think being down three points in voter registration means it is hard for a party to win, look at Colorado, where Republicans enjoy a 5% registration advantage, but have a Democratic Governor, two Democratic Senators, and five out of seven US House seats in Democratic hands.

Or look to Louisiana where Republicans have a nineteen point deficit in registration, yet have somehow found a way to elect a Republican governor, Republicans to six out of the seven congressional districts, and a Republican Senator as well.

The point is, when you start off basically even, your success or failure has to do with organizing, identifying and forging electoral coalitions, getting out the vote, and harnessing the voters of your state.  Maine should be a toss up in every category and for every level of government, but it is not.

Part of the reason Maine should be much more even politically, is the strength of the Independent vote.  Maine hosts a 40% Independent vote, and that is a symptom of neither the Republican Party, nor the Democratic Party speaking to what voters truly want.  As both parties continually rely on the same models and tired strategies to elect their candidates and ignore outside the box political organizing, more Mainers decide they’d prefer to look for a “third way”.

But in my experience (which is admittedly observational and anecdotal), most voters in Maine who say they are Independent fall into the category of “fiscally conservative, socially moderate”.  Generally (important word) a Maine Independent voter wants to spend money wisely, keep taxes low, pay for social services that work, discourage state dependence, etc., while not being very receptive to engaging on the culture wars or using the state to push a social agenda one way or the other.  In other words – they are kitchen table issues voters who are frugal and want to be mostly left alone and live their own lives how they see fit.

That type of person used to make up a large portion of the northeastern Republican Party – the so called “Yankee Republicans” – and those voters are a big reason why Republicans with certain reputations for moderation and common sense are overwhelmingly re-elected.

These voters also quickly turn away from the Republican Party when it emulates its national echo chamber, and engages in culture war (people’s exhibit A:  Chandler Woodcock).  The sin isn’t actually being culturally conservative, it is presenting yourself as a culture warrior in a state who wants a common sense pragmatist who can positively effect their life.

Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins don’t win big in Maine because they are “liberal Republicans”, as the national talking heads will tell you.  They win big in Maine because they are perceived as reasonable, thoughtful people who temper the extremes (they wanted to round the sharp edges off Bush’s tax cuts, and the also Obama’s stimulus – they moderate that which has power) and search for consensus and rational solutions.

Regardless if that is the reality or not, that is their perception, which is why they win.  A pro-life Republican with a stronger fiscally conservative reputation could win just as big – but only if they shared the same type of reputation for prudence.  You will never get me to believe either woman needed to vote for the stimulus and feign fiscal liberalism to get re-elected.  Never.  If anything, I suspect they could have scored some huge points if they had voted against it.

For Mainers, it is less about issues, and more about approach.

For too long the national and state GOP has believed that their difficulty in Maine is a result of the state being a mini-Massachusetts – an electorate that is liberal, and loves high taxes and big government.

The sooner both wake up to the fact that Maine is a highly winnable state that the GOP could realistically gain majorities in without “selling out”, the sooner they will succeed.

Running common sense candidates who talk about the issues voters actually care about, offering pragmatic solutions, being better organized, and actually understanding where you can build some solid, reliably Republican coalitions (which is in my opinion the biggest weakness of the party today) are all key to winning.

It is well past time to start thinking creatively in GOP politics.