archived: 23 - 29 Apr, 2006 Back Next
AVOID EXCESSIVE EXUBERANCE
Bush’s approval ratings are dropping to new levels. Does that translate into an electoral tsunami that will sweep Democrats to power in one or both Houses of Congress?
The early indicators are mixed.
The Senate
In reality, there are some nine US Senate seats that will determine majority control. TPJ’s Senate watch list is below:
|
|
Democratic Party Candiates |
|
|
Republican Party Candidates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Democrat Senate Seats |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MN (Dayton Retiring) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very Vulnerable - Open |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amy Klobuchar (D) |
43% |
|
Mark Kennedy (R) |
42% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NJ-Menendez |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very Vulnerable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sen. Robert Menendez (D) |
40% |
|
Tom Kean, Jr.(R) |
36% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MI-Stabenow |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vulnerable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debbie Stabenow (D) |
48% |
|
Jerry Zandstra (R) |
37% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WA-Cantwell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vulnerable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maria Cantwell (D) |
48% |
|
Mike McGavick (R) |
40% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MD (Sarbanes Retiring) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vulnerable - Open |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Cardin (D) |
49% |
|
Michael Steele (R) |
35% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NE-Nelson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly Vulnerable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Nelson (D) |
52% |
|
Pete Ricketts (R) |
29% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VT (Jeffords Retiring) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remotely Vulnerable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders (I) |
70% |
|
Richard Tarrant (R) |
25% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Republican Senate Seats |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MO -Talent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very Vulnerable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claire McCaskill (D) |
42% |
|
Jim Talent (R) |
41% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MT-Burns |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very Vulnerable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Morrison (D) |
47% |
|
Conrad Burns (R) |
45% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OH-DeWine |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very Vulnerable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sherrod Brown (D) |
37% |
|
Mike DeWine (R) |
46% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PA-Santorum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very Vulnerable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Casey, Jr. (D) |
52% |
|
Rick Santorum (R) |
41% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RI-Chafee |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vulnerable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Brown (D) |
40% |
|
Lincoln Chafee (R) |
47% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TN (Frist Retiring) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vulnerable - Open |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harold Ford (D) |
36% |
|
Ed Bryant (R) |
45% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AZ-Kyl |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly Vulnerable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Pederson (D) |
33% |
|
Jon Kyl (R) |
56% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Democrats currently have 4 Senate seats that are problematical; Minnesota (Open Seat), New Jersey (incumbent Democrat just appointed), Michigan and Washington. Democrats must hold all of these seats. At the moment, two are on the “critical” list and established Democrats in Michigan and Washington are not performing above 50% against their closest potential Republican opponent – which is not good.
Republicans have 6 seats they hold at risk; Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Tennessee (Open Seat). Democrats must win all six seats in order to achieve majority status.
The critical point here is that while Bush’s approval ratings are falling, the Republican Senators as most risk are in jeopardy but holding their own – at the moment. As of this writing, Democrats look very likely to pick up three seats; Pennsylvania, Missouri and Montana. Democrats could easily lose one or two seats. Not the tsunami that Bush’s approval ratings might suggest.
The House
The House races are much more difficult to handicap, as not a lot of public polling takes place in the competitive districts this early in the election. Democracy Corps has generally analyzed the House races and writes an analysis with which TPJ agrees:
In national polls,
Democracy Corps uses the actual candidate names in each congressional race
(and generic language in cases where there is no clear nominee), providing a
level of specificity lacking from any other national measure of the
congressional contest. Looking at the combined results of three national
surveys (including more than 3,000 likely voters), it shows a tremendous
disparity between seats held by incumbent Democrats and Republicans.
In contests where a Democratic incumbent is running for re-election (199
House seats in this database), the Democratic candidates enjoy a 26-point
advantage and claim a strong majority of the votes (57 to 31 percent)
In open seats with no incumbent running in this cycle (20 House seats), the
Democratic advantage is even higher – a remarkable 63 to 28 percent
Most importantly, in races where a Republican incumbent is running for
re-election (217 House seats), the Republican candidate leads by just 4
points (42 to 46 percent) and fails to claim majority support – a sharp
contrast from the strong position of Democratic incumbents.
These numbers clearly reinforce the notion of a change election and suggest
that Democratic candidates should continue their strategy of linking
Republican candidates across the country to the failed leadership in
Washington. But they also reinforce the lesson that Democratic challengers
must make this election a clear choice between the direction that President
Bush and the Republican Congress have taken our country or a new direction
AND they must define that new direction with a clear vision and agenda that
speak directly to the many challenges facing our country.
Democracy Corps is making the point that TPJ has been making over the past months. The November elections could be a tsunami, particularly in the US House, if and only if Democrats make it happen. Democrats must keep making the case that Republican leadership in America is leading the country wrong directions. The Democratic Party leadership, at all levels, then has to set a vision that Americans can identify with.
It is a case that Democrats have to make every day.
_____________________________________________
KUDOS FOR THEM DEMS
Amy Sullivan, an editor of the Washington Monthly, has authored a thought provoking piece that the Democratic Party leadership in Congress is “Not as Lame as You Think.” Sullivan makes very valid points that Democrats should read and appreciate.
Sullivan makes the following points:
On virtually all of the major slips this White House has made in the past year, there have been unnoticed Democrats putting down the banana peels. One of the best examples—and certainly the issue that sent Bush's poll numbers southward—was the Dubai port deal. The little-noticed administration decision to contract with a United Arab Emirate-owned company to run terminals at six ports around the United States mushroomed into a public relations disaster for which the Bush administration was uncharacteristically unprepared. Within a week of the story breaking, congressional Republicans had vowed to pass legislation undoing the deal, Bush angrily declared he would veto such legislation, and polls showed that three-quarters of Americans were concerned the deal would jeopardize American security. Even more damaging, the issue shifted public opinion about who can best protect the country from future acts of terrorism. For the first time since 9/11, Democrats pulled even with Republicans on this question.
. . .
In the winter of 2005, Bush unveiled his Social Security privatization plan, the domestic centerpiece of his second term. The president invested a tremendous amount of personal political capital in the effort, featuring it in his 2005 State of the Union address and holding carefully choreographed town meetings to simulate public support for the idea.
Most of the press corps expected the debate to be a painful defeat for Democrats. Not only were moderates predicted to jump ship and join with Republicans to support the president's plan, but Social Security—one of the foundational blocks of the New Deal social compact—would be irrevocably changed. But then a funny thing happened. Reid and Pelosi managed to keep the members of their caucuses united in opposition. Day after day they launched coordinated attacks on Bush's "risky" proposal. Without a single Democrat willing to sign on and give a bipartisanship veneer of credibility, the private accounts plan slowly came to be seen by voters for what it was: another piece of GOP flimflam.
. . .
Consider, for instance, what happened last fall when Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), a Vietnam veteran and hawk who initially supported the Iraq war, called for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. When reporters asked Pelosi what she thought of Murtha's statement, she replied that the congressman spoke for himself, not the caucus. Her response was immediately denounced by liberal critics and portrayed by reporters as evidence of Democrats' lack of message, discipline, and shared conviction. In fact, as Howard Fineman would later report, Pelosi had worked behind the scenes to convince Murtha to go public with his change of heart and orchestrated the timing of his announcement. Knowing that the credibility of Murtha's position would be damaged if it looked like he was the token hawk being used by "cut and run" liberal Democrats, Pelosi made the strategic calculation to put Murtha in the spotlight by himself for a few weeks before stepping forward to endorse his suggestion.
The strategy worked, and it allowed Murtha to visibly establish Democrats as the advocates of what now looks like the position toward which our Iraq policy is headed.
. . .
Over in the Senate, Reid temporarily silenced his critics when he staged a showdown last fall, shutting down the Senate to compel Republicans to discuss pre-war intelligence. GOP promises to pursue inquiries into how the intelligence was gathered, interpreted, and used had gone nowhere, and Democrats had no institutional means to conduct their own investigation. So Reid forced the issue, invoking an obscure parliamentary procedure that sent the Senate into a closed session. Republicans were furious, but they were also backed into a corner. Reluctantly, the leadership agreed to restart the investigations, putting the issue of intelligence back in the national spotlight. The in-your-face move signaled that Reid had the inclination, and the electoral security, to push Republicans around in a way that his predecessor Tom Daschle never could
. . .
Perhaps figuring they have little left to lose, Democrats have begun turning up the heat in countless small ways. When in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Bush quietly suspended the Davis-Bacon Act in order to allow federal contractors to avoid paying the prevailing wage to workers involved in clean-up efforts, Miller led Democrats in handing the president a rare defeat. Appalled that "the President has exploited a national tragedy to cut workers' wages," Miller unearthed a little-used provision of a 1976 law that allows Congress to countermand the president's authority to suspend laws after a national emergency. While it is usually nearly impossible for Democrats to get bills through the all-powerful House Rules Committee, Miller's maneuver would have bypassed that step and guaranteed an automatic vote by the full House. Bush, faced with a vote he was sure to lose, reversed his earlier action and reinstated Davis-Bacon.
. . .
Of course, the point of all this is not just to annoy Republicans and stymie their efforts, but to win back Congress in fall elections. Leading that charge for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), a former Clinton White House enforcer much-admired for his bare-knuckle approach to politics. The man they call "Rahmbo" has no patience for anyone who would go down without a fight or waste time crying into their chai tea about the odds against them. And so he has scraped, cajoled, and arm-twisted to expand the number of congressional races that Democrats are seriously contesting from a few dozen to nearly 50 this time around. Emanuel has done it by throwing out old ideas about who gets to be a Democratic congressional candidate—career politicians, such as state representatives or city councilmen moving up the ladder—and going after military veterans, sheriffs, ministers, and even one former NFL quarterback. With more Republican retirements being announced every day (not to mention resignations by the stray congressman or two headed off to prison), Emanuel's chances of spearheading the biggest Democratic victory in over a decade look better than ever.
Sullivan does note that Democrats have not been able to formulate clear positions on critical issues:
On some of the defining issues of the day, Democrats are indeed conflicted and divided. Most Americans and virtually the entire Democratic base wants universal health care, and yet congressional Democrats compete to offer marginal changes to the system. On a key economic issue like bankruptcy, too many Democrats sell out to lobbying interests, making it hard for the party as a whole to attack Republicans over it. Iraq has dominated the political scene for nearly four years, but Democrats couldn't agree whether to get into it, and now they can't agree on how to get out.
TPJ commends Sullivan’s article to all Democrats.
INTO THE ABYSS – PART II
Last week, TPJ noted from an analysis of Bush’s approval/disapproval ratings state by state that as bad as his polling numbers are that he was still trending down. Three new polls were published this week confirming TPJ’s assessment. Fox (33%), Pew (35%) and Gallup (35%) are all well below Bush’s average approval rating at the end of March and beginning of April (37%).
In fact, TPJ suspects, particularly with the Fox and Pew polls, that both are reporting a bit too low. For example, the current Fox poll is -3% from its previous poll in early April. A 3% change in a poll result within two weeks is highly suspect. Such dramatic shifts, not accompanied by some major, national development, are rare. And, at the same time that Bush’s approval in Fox was dropping precipitously, Pew’s 35% approval rating is actually +2% from their previous poll.
TPJ believes, again, that the average of all polls for April (36.40%) is a better indication of Bush’s level of support. Even with the average of all polls, public approval of Bush continues to decline. With gasoline prices rising dramatically over the past two weeks, and nothing else appearing, one suspects that Bush’s approval rating is headed below 36% in the near term.
|
|
Approve |
Trail Mo |
Disapprove |
No Opinion |
Spread |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOX/Opinion Dynamics |
4/18-19/06 |
33 |
|
57 |
1 |