Even before the Democratic victory in PA-12, I was beginning to wonder if this fall would be the banner year that some Republicans and pundits forecast. While more people are inclined to support the GOP than were in the final days of the 2008 campaign and the early weeks of the Obama Administration, Republican party identification remains relatively stagnant.
They support the GOP because they’re not happy with the direction in which Obama’s Democrats are taking the nation. They’re still not convinced that the opposition party will reverse that direction. They could still move back into the Democratic column.
Perhaps, if we see a much stronger economy with real job growth, Democrats can help swing swing voters back to their side. Or maybe just an effective campaign. (Don’t think bashing Bush is going to do it. People know he’s gone back to Texas where he maintains a low profile.)
They may not even need do that to prevent large Republican gains. As Jim Geraghty observed yesterday on Campaign Spot:
. . . Obama’s approval is still even with or slightly above his disapproval in most polls, the generic ballot is still bouncing around and averaging close to a tie, and there are still incumbent Democratsin economically depressed parts of the country who are polling pretty healthily. (I can’t believe Californians are taking Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial bid seriously.) Massachusetts voters really want to endure another four years of Deval Patrick? Ohio’s willing to hope that Ted Strickland does better in a second term?
Americans are clearly dissatisfied with where they are, and a chunk blame the (mostly Democrat) incumbent governing class. But not quite enough of them are ready to see the 1994-on-steroids scenarios some have discussed. Of course, there’s five months to go. But I think the wilder visions of GOP gains aren’t in the cards yet.
Looking at polls in individual races, Michael Barone is more optimistic about Republican prospects:
Back in 1994, I wrote a column for U.S. News arguing that Republicans had a serious chance to capture a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. The article appeared on the newsstands on July 11, and was the first article I’m aware of that suggested that Democrats might lose the majority they had held for 40 years. My argument was based on a number of polls showing Democratic incumbents trailing Republican challengers. Usually House incumbents don’t trail challengers in polls at any point in the campaign, because they almost always start off better known. For an incumbent to trail in a poll is a sign of serious danger.
Such signs abound for Democrats these days.
Read the whole thing where he details some of those polls.
While I’m not yet convinced 2010 will be a banner year for the GOP, the one thing which does brighten my prospects is those polls. In my (adopted) home state where the Democratic presidential nominee won over 60% of the vote fewer than two years ago, the apparent Democratic nominee for the Senate (AKA incumbent Barbara Boxer) consistently polls under 50%, running only 3 points ahead of her most likely Republican opponent, a novice candidate, in the latest survey.
Other surveys have shown Republicans enjoying a significant advantage in enthusiasm. And Democratic claims not withstanding, Americans still oppose the Administration’s signature legislative initiative once they, to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, have found out what’s in it. Indeed, far more people strongly oppose Obamacare than those who strongly support it. And those most passionate about the issue are the folks most likely to vote on the issue.
I still think Republicans are poised to make large gains, but they’re not yet in the bag.
That made me laugh. 🙂
To be clear: For an economy to be strong and to have *real* job growth, i.e. growth in jobs that are useful and financially sustainable… that economy must save and invest. But the Obama administration is doing everything it can to defeat saving and investment. It creates Potemkin jobs, or the illusion of a functioning economy, by spending borrowed money.
Since the borrowing cannot continue indefinitely, neither can the spending, nor the associated jobs. By some estimates,
if America were to stopwhen America stops borrowing money from abroad,it would have to loseAmerica will lose another 17% of its present-day jobs. But until then, the Obama administration parties on.Considering what Ohio had to deal with before Strickland, he isn’t doing that terrible of a job. I think he has a fifty/fifty chance of getting re elected, which is better than some incumbent governors.
Like I said earlier, Republicans may have peaked a few months ago. They will have to hope for some weak growth and lack of movement on unemployment through the summer. I think they will make gains but people really blew it out of proportion. The game of expectations got away from the Republican Party and as long as Dems hold to the house, even by one seat, they can say its a victory.
I can’t believe Californians are taking Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial bid seriously.
The alternative is Meg Whitman. ‘Nuff said.
The Whitman problem is emblematic of the problem the Republicans face everywhere. The Democrats are despised, but the Republicans haven’t really presented an alternative vision. The answer to “Yes, we can” shouldn’t be just “No, you can’t.” It should be, “We can do better. Here’s how.”
And the latest news; noted conservative right-wing bastion Harvard announced that government spending increases unemployment and lowers productivity.
In related news, Harvard also announced that remoras, lampreys, leeches, and other animals who live parasitically do not improve, and in fact tear down, the quality of life of their host.
One major difference between 2012 and 1994 id that in 1994 the GOP insurgents had political momentum, an agenda, and a leader who could articulate that agenda to the American public. Today, the GOP is seen by many as part of the problem, as home to too-many incumbents…and it’s the Tea Party movement that has the momentum and the agenda, but no cohesive leadership or candidate-slate armed directly at the incumbents.
Whitman is running ads strongly against illegal immigration, condemning the “sanctuary cities” such as San Francisco, which she mentioned by name. I heard one last night.
As for 2010 vs. 1994: I agree that the key point is whether the GOP is going to (re)construct itself as a true alternative to statism. If they do: they may well retake Congress. If they don’t – if they insist on being “moderate”, “thoughtful”, or whatever is the latest euphemism for Statist – then they will still gain, but not enough to retake Congress.
Which is really, really entertaining to watch, given her past record.
That being said, I share V’s cynicism — after all, Arnie rode into office with promises of conservativism and fiscal responsibility, and promptly proceeded to dump it all to win a second term.
Either Whitman or Poizner has to realize that they have to do the unthinkable in this state, which is to take the unions head-on and destroy them. That also means that they likely would be one-termers. I don’t know if either has the figurative balls to do that.
Whitman is running ads strongly against illegal immigration,
Even McCain is also running a secure-the-borders campaign, demanding border enforcement, demanding a wall, demanding national guard troops… all things he has previously opposed. I know people consider McCain’s opponent a buffoon, but in what way is JD Hayworth any more of buffoon that Al Franken?
And it’s sad that the comparison even has to be made.
There’s not a Chris Christie anywhere in California, but that’s kind of to be expected. California is renowned for the phoniness of its citizens, so a blunt politician like Christie would not get far.
I’ve a question for ppl in Calif or NY. Why would any conservative or Republican want to try to clean up a liberal mess and nightmare? If elected, Whittman will get little help and assistance in her efforts. And if she is marginally successful, do you really think she’ll get the credit?
Excellent article.
The election is NOT in the bag, yet many on our side are behaving as though it is. That overconfidence creates apathy, which our side cannot afford.
Democrats are going to fight tooth and nail for each and every seat, using every dirty tactic in their arsenal. They’ve already started.
Every person who disapproves of the Obama/Democrat agenda needs to assume that Democrats will RETAIN control of both houses if we dont each get personally involved volunteering our time and money.
America simply can’t afford anything less.
I’m starting to get a little worried here in Nevada. The primary for the senate race is still a week and a half away. Although polls show all of the top three Republican candidates beating Harry Reid, I think it will change once there is a nominee. The latest poll I heard about showed Sharron Angle with a slight lead over both Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian. The problem is that while Angle has been endorsed by the Tea Party Express, Mark Levin, and others, I don’t think she could win the state. There is a big north-south divide in Nevada, and Angle is from the less populous north and has never held statewide office. What’s more, some prominent moderate Republicans are starting to make noises about possibly not supporting her if she is the nominee. If Angle wins the primary, Harry Reid might just be able to hold on after all, which would be a disaster.
1. It’s too early to make predictions.
2. Democrats are likely to lose seats. They picked up seats over the last two elections that normally would go to Republicans which will be hard to hold on to. In addition, it would be highly unusual for a party in the majority in both houses plus the White House not to lose seats in a midterm election.
3. If the employment situation does not improve, Democrats will suffer at the polls.
4. It will be hard for Republicans to convince Republicans that they will cut spending and reduce the deficit. They have no record of such during the lifetimes of the majority of Americans. How many of us are old enough to remember the Eisenhower administration? Republican leaders were telling us deficits didn’t matter up until Obama was elected. Republicans haven’t been out of the majority long enough, nor has the leadership changed enough for most Americans to believe they have actually changed. That said, as Democrats aren’t exactly living up to expectations, they do have some openings.