Sadly, this will be the only post we have time for today.
Gov. Devall Patrick (D-MA) has picked a temporary successor for the late Senator Ted Kennedy.
Politico reports that a new poll finds State Senator Criegh Deeds (D-Bath) within 4 points of the GOP's Bob McDonnell in Virginia's race for the Governor's mansion.
Political writer Bob Cesca tells the Huffington Post that if Republicans took over Congress, they would try to impeach President Obama.
A recent Gallup poll finds that the GOP's image is improving.
Tom Schaller at FiveThirtyEight.com ponders the expansion of Congress, and what that would mean for the two major political parties.
And here's last night's political jokes:
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Healthcare, Congress, and the Midterm Elections
Early last month, we asked “Will Healthcare Reform Survive the Tea-Baggers in August?” Well, now it appears that it all depends on your definition of “reform”.
For many progressives, reform is dependent on the creation of a public option as an absolute minimum. Ideally, many of them would prefer a single-payer system or even a national healthcare service. For others, reform is possible without a public option - even if they do agree with a public option, they still see the value in other reform measures, such as an end to pre-existing conditions.
In fact, Marc Ambinder recently wrote a very interesting piece in the Atlantic that Democrats have actually held together and healthcare reform will survive - even if it’s without the public option.
But now some are wondering if the rowdy August recess and the Town Hall protesters have had some other meaningful impact: namely, putting members of Congress at risk in next year’s midterm elections.
From Gallup:
But will the healthcare debate sink Congress?
First, let’s take a look at Gallup’s most recent Congressional approval polls. While still low at 31%, it’s a bit of a boost since last year, when Congressional approval was at just 19%.
And most of that boost has come from Democrats (and a plurality of Americans identify as Democrats).
So while approval is still low, it does appear to be considerably better than it used to be for members of Congress.
Next we turn to our friends at FiveThirtyEight.com where Joshua Grossman points to recent special elections in California and Iowa as evidence that Democrats - who control both chambers in Congress - are still “alive and kicking”.
538’s chief blogger, Nate Silver, would likely agree. As we posted earlier, he recently used a model to find that a majority of Congressional districts probably approve of healthcare reform - and healthcare reform with a public option!
He even lists each member of Congress and how much their district probably supports or opposes the public option.
Yet Tom Schaller would probably disagree. He relays an analysis from the Cook Political Report which compares the 2010 midterms to the 1994 Republican Revolution. While most of the Cook report has to do with ethnic makeup of the electorate (white voters make up a considerably higher percentage of the turnout in midterms) there is some evidence that particular issues will play a significant role.
From the report:
Schaller even points out that this may be why the Blue Dogs have been so reluctant to support a public option - despite Silver’s claims that it might actually help many of them.
Ultimately, though, it seems far fetched to say that healthcare reform will be the single biggest issue in next year’s elections. Most Congressional elections come down to the on-the-ground circumstances of competitive (typically open-seat) races and rather than a particular national issue. Voters might say that healthcare reform will be a major issue in their decision now - after all, now is the time that healthcare is a big issue - but voters tend to forget a lot in 14 months.
Furthermore, Congressional approval is usually pretty low, but incumbent members of Congress never seem to lose their seats. Americans hate Congress, but love their Congressmen.
Still, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen the 2010 midterms have been compared to 1994. In the end, there’s probably no good way to say - at this point - what impact the healthcare debate will have on the voters in November next year.
For many progressives, reform is dependent on the creation of a public option as an absolute minimum. Ideally, many of them would prefer a single-payer system or even a national healthcare service. For others, reform is possible without a public option - even if they do agree with a public option, they still see the value in other reform measures, such as an end to pre-existing conditions.
In fact, Marc Ambinder recently wrote a very interesting piece in the Atlantic that Democrats have actually held together and healthcare reform will survive - even if it’s without the public option.
"After August, under the worst case scenario, there is majority support for the following major changes to health care: real (albeit limited) competition in the insurance industry (even absent a public plan). A cap on what a person pays for catastrophic illnesses. An end to insurance company recision policies. Guaranteed issue. A basic benefit package. Significant subsidies to help people who earn as much as $64,000 a year pay for health insurance. Better cost and coverage incentives. And lots more. Say what you will about these reforms -- maybe they're incremental -- but they're a foundation for center-left policy in the future."
But now some are wondering if the rowdy August recess and the Town Hall protesters have had some other meaningful impact: namely, putting members of Congress at risk in next year’s midterm elections.
From Gallup:
But will the healthcare debate sink Congress?
First, let’s take a look at Gallup’s most recent Congressional approval polls. While still low at 31%, it’s a bit of a boost since last year, when Congressional approval was at just 19%.
And most of that boost has come from Democrats (and a plurality of Americans identify as Democrats).
So while approval is still low, it does appear to be considerably better than it used to be for members of Congress.
Next we turn to our friends at FiveThirtyEight.com where Joshua Grossman points to recent special elections in California and Iowa as evidence that Democrats - who control both chambers in Congress - are still “alive and kicking”.
"It’s certainly possible that Obama will antagonize the Democratic base by not advocating strongly enough for a public option in his health care proposals. It’s also possible that the drum beat of Republican attacks on everything associated with Obama and the Democrats will continue to drive down Democratic support among Independents. The pendulum tends to swing over time. But for now – looking at actual elections, not polls which can be spun any which way – there’s no hard empirical evidence of significant changes in the electorate’s behavior since November of 2008."
538’s chief blogger, Nate Silver, would likely agree. As we posted earlier, he recently used a model to find that a majority of Congressional districts probably approve of healthcare reform - and healthcare reform with a public option!
He even lists each member of Congress and how much their district probably supports or opposes the public option.
Yet Tom Schaller would probably disagree. He relays an analysis from the Cook Political Report which compares the 2010 midterms to the 1994 Republican Revolution. While most of the Cook report has to do with ethnic makeup of the electorate (white voters make up a considerably higher percentage of the turnout in midterms) there is some evidence that particular issues will play a significant role.
From the report:
"In 1994, it wasn't easy to be a Bush-district Democrat who voted for both the Clinton budget and the Brady handgun bill. In fact, out of the 12 Democrats who fit this description and ran for reelection, two thirds lost. So far this year, 20 of the 49 McCain-district Democrats have already voted for the "cap and trade" bill. If the House Democratic leadership insists on putting a health care bill with a public option to a vote, how many of these 20 can be relied upon to take on more political risk?
On the other hand, the lessons of 1994 might serve as a reality check for GOP challengers to Democrats who plan to vote against their party's leadership on both of this year's dominant agenda items, such as Reps. Bobby Bright (AL-02), Parker Griffith (AL-05), and Chet Edwards (TX-17). In districts with challenging numbers, the strategy of voting (and running) against party leadership has persisted for generations, if sometimes for only one reason. It works."
Schaller even points out that this may be why the Blue Dogs have been so reluctant to support a public option - despite Silver’s claims that it might actually help many of them.
Ultimately, though, it seems far fetched to say that healthcare reform will be the single biggest issue in next year’s elections. Most Congressional elections come down to the on-the-ground circumstances of competitive (typically open-seat) races and rather than a particular national issue. Voters might say that healthcare reform will be a major issue in their decision now - after all, now is the time that healthcare is a big issue - but voters tend to forget a lot in 14 months.
Furthermore, Congressional approval is usually pretty low, but incumbent members of Congress never seem to lose their seats. Americans hate Congress, but love their Congressmen.
Still, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen the 2010 midterms have been compared to 1994. In the end, there’s probably no good way to say - at this point - what impact the healthcare debate will have on the voters in November next year.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Approval Ratings - Does Obama Have Anything to Worry About?
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday shows Obama doing well with public opinion.
On the other side of the spectrum, Republicans are taking a lot of heat for being too partisan.
On the economy, not only do voters believe Democrats are better suited for fixing it than Republicans (48%-20%), but they are giving Obama a long leash. Only after 18 more months of recession (by September 2010) will the majority of voters blame Obama for the weak economy - about the same number that expect it to be over by then.
If the economists are right, this is good news for Obama. Nate Silvers from FiveThirtyEight.com charts the different expectations between economists and voters.
But perhaps most significant figure in the poll was this:
…these attitudes about Obama have helped fuel a big jump in the percentage of Americans who believe the U.S. is headed in the right direction, according to the poll. In January’s NBC/Journal poll, 26 percent said the country was on the right track; now 41 percent think that.
Will this Democratic honeymoon last?
Although American generally viewed the GOP negatively, the Republican message seems to be rubbing off.
In fact, while Obama’s approval rating has been consistently hovering between 60-70%, his disapproval rating has been growing steadily.
From Gallup Daily:
And the figures from the Real Clear Politics poll averages seem to confirm this trend.
As long as the old Reaganite arguments work, the GOP will continue to use them - even if it means appearing partisan in the short term. After all, once public opinion shifts on economic policies (to “doesn’t stimulus mean big government?”) the political environment could be dangerous for Democrats.
In the survey, 68 percent have a favorable opinion of the president, including 47 percent whose opinion is "very positive" — both all-time highs for Obama in the poll. Moreover, 67 percent say they feel more hopeful about his leadership and 60 percent approve of his job in the White House.
Yet the percentage of Americans who are confident that Obama has the right goals and policies for the country — 54 percent — is slightly smaller, suggesting that the president is more popular than his policies are.
On the other side of the spectrum, Republicans are taking a lot of heat for being too partisan.
Just 26 percent view the Republican Party positively, which is an all-time low for the party. That's compared with 49 percent who have a favorable view of the Democratic Party.
On the economy, not only do voters believe Democrats are better suited for fixing it than Republicans (48%-20%), but they are giving Obama a long leash. Only after 18 more months of recession (by September 2010) will the majority of voters blame Obama for the weak economy - about the same number that expect it to be over by then.
If the economists are right, this is good news for Obama. Nate Silvers from FiveThirtyEight.com charts the different expectations between economists and voters.
But perhaps most significant figure in the poll was this:
…these attitudes about Obama have helped fuel a big jump in the percentage of Americans who believe the U.S. is headed in the right direction, according to the poll. In January’s NBC/Journal poll, 26 percent said the country was on the right track; now 41 percent think that.
Will this Democratic honeymoon last?
Although American generally viewed the GOP negatively, the Republican message seems to be rubbing off.
The top three concerns about Obama's stimulus were that it contains too much pork-barrel spending, that its tax cuts are too small and that the spending is focused in the wrong areas.
What's more, 61 percent say they're more concerned that the federal government will spend too much money and will increase the size of the deficit, than they are concerned that the government will spend too little money in trying to get out of the recession.
In fact, while Obama’s approval rating has been consistently hovering between 60-70%, his disapproval rating has been growing steadily.
From Gallup Daily:
And the figures from the Real Clear Politics poll averages seem to confirm this trend.
As long as the old Reaganite arguments work, the GOP will continue to use them - even if it means appearing partisan in the short term. After all, once public opinion shifts on economic policies (to “doesn’t stimulus mean big government?”) the political environment could be dangerous for Democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
