Has America Flip-Flopped?

It’s Friday, April 17, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:

With this week’s Tax Day Tea Party protests, the Daily Show takes a humorous look into whether America itself has flip-flopped.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Nationwide Tax Protests
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

But could there be more truth to the comedy than Jon Stewart realizes? Earlier this week, Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com pointed out some interesting Gallup findings on America’s confidence in Fed Chair Ben Bernanke. The partisan split on his support has completely reversed itself.


In light of both the reversal of support for Bernanke and the Tea Party protests, it seems that Americans simply have greater confidence in their government when their party is in power - and are more likely to talk about “revolution” when their party is in the minority.

Obviously this is not surprising - what’s surprising is how it all happened so fast.

Are the Democrats Underperforming in Virginia?

In the race for Virginia’s governor, three Democrats will face each other in a June Primary while the GOP has their candidate all but officially nominated.

Who Are the Candidates?

•Terry McAuliffe - Democratic political consultant, former DNC Chair, and campaign manager for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign

•R. Creigh Deeds - Democratic State Senator and the 2005 nominee for Attorney General

•Brian Moran - formerly a Democratic House of Delegates member and the House Democratic Caucus Chair, also the brother of U.S. Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA)

•Bob McDonnell - formerly the Republican Attorney General


What’s Happening?

Recently Governor Tim Kaine convinced the three Democratic candidates to sign a petition to expand unemployment benefits so the Commonwealth could tap out the appropriate stimulus money. The GOP-controlled House of Delegates recently shot down a bill to do so.

Republicans are calling it a political stunt for an election year. But even if it is, it will probably work. With underemployment increasing as fast (if not faster) than unemployment, Virginians will appreciate the effort Democrats are making to look out for them.

Of course, the Democrats have a lot of ground to make up.

According to a recent poll released by Daily Kos and conducted by Research 2000, if the election were held [last week] McDonnell would beat each of the Democrats in a General Election.

If the general election were held today, the poll shows the results would go like this:
McDonnell 37% Moran 36%
McDonnell 40% McAuliffe 33%
McDonnell 38% Deeds 31%

Part of the reason for McDonnell’s lead is that the Democrats are all attacking each other - they have to: it’s a Primary. And it’s a wide-open Primary. The same poll also tracked support among the Democratic candidates for the Primary…

Moran is ahead with 24%, McAuliffe (who was leading in February) is behind with 19%, and Sen. Deeds is in last with 16%. That means 41% of Primary voters are still undecided. There are still two months before the Primary comes to a close, but that will be plenty of time for McDonnell to stay ahead of the divided Democrats.


What is the Party Doing?

The Democratic Party of Virginia is certainly concerned about keeping the Governor’s office, but they’re also becoming increasingly invested in taking the House of Delegates - one of the last places of GOP control in the Commonwealth.

The extent of their pressure on McDonnell appears to be press releases.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Governors Association has put some money into the race. They gave $100,000 to Common Sense Virginia, an anti-McDonnell PAC. That group is using the money for web ads.

Common Sense Virginia today is rolling out online commercials attacking the all-but-official Republican gubernatorial nominee for his views on women’s issues…

…With three Democrats battling for their party’s nomination for governor, McDonnell is using the preliminaries of the 2009 campaign to reposition himself as a moderate interested only in practical solutions…

…The ads will run for at least two weeks. They’re being posted on sites popular with women. Among them: Martha Stewart Living, Every Day with Rachel Ray and Women’s Entertainment Television.

But using new technology is not always useful. Common Sense Virginia clearly put a lot of time into their website, which is simply not the most effective thing they can do in their efforts to beat McDonnell. Meanwhile their web-ads are too long and require the viewer to do a lot of reading.



And for the few people that will see it, they won’t help but notice the majority of the comments under the video and on the PAC’s YouTube page.

jtvagop (1 week ago):
So the attacks on McDonnell's religion have finally started. You should be ashamed of Your intolerance.
…
perfidious2 (17 hours ago) :
your ads are false and all of virginia knows.
…
fishbait888 (17 hours ago)
"the common sense virgina ad is totally false"
-the post


BOB MCDONNELL FOR GOVERNOR!

Conclusion

At this point it seems that Virginia Democrats are either lacking the organizational skills or resources to mount an effective campaign against Bob McDonnell. Luckily there is a good five-month period between the Primary and General Elections for the nominee to do the grunt work. And McDonnell has planted the seeds of his defeat himself by opposing the stimulus package.

But if the current lackluster campaigning continues, Virginia’s Blue Sweep cannot continue in Virginia. GOP backlash to Democratic priorities has already been seen this week in Tea Party protests across the country. The Republican base is mobile and active, even in less exciting times on the political calendar.

In fact, Democrats everywhere need to get the donors and volunteers active again - and soon - to counteract this backlash. Perhaps nowhere is a more critical starting point than the Blue Sweep’s poster child - Virginia.

Back in Minnesota…

It has been quite a while since we gave you a detailed update of the Coleman-Franken “race” in Minnesota, so we thought we would do so today.


A 3-judge panel ruled unanimously last week that Democrat Al Franken won the election for U.S. Senate back in November by 312 votes. Norm Coleman argued that Minnesota’s variety of procedures to count absentee ballots violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and disenfranchised over 4,000 voters. Politico reports on how the panel responded.

While acknowledging that errors were bound to happen in any election, the court said that the Minnesota Senate election was free from fraud and that errors did not reach a constitutional violation of equal protection.

"There is no evidence of a systematic problem of disenfranchisement in the state’s election system, including in its absentee-balloting procedures," the judges wrote. "To the contrary, the general election resulted in a ‘fair expression’ of the voters of Minnesota."

Attorney Ben Ginsberg - a legend of the Bush v. Gore battle, and is representing Coleman - said the judges spent "so much time in patting their back on the Minnesota system" that they "missed the issue" that thousands of voters are still being disenfranchised. "We’ll be at peace if all Minnesotans are enfranchised."

Staying on message, NRSC Chairman Sen. John Cornyn told supporters in a fundraising email that the Court’s decision was "fundamentally misguided" and that Democrats were being hypocritical. "It’s frankly shocking that many of the same Democrats who so loudly decried voter disenfranchisement during the Florida recount in 2000 have so quickly run away from that principle when it no longer fits their political agenda" said Cornyn’s email.

But the Democrats are hitting back with a radio ad. The ad tells Coleman to "stop putting his political ambition ahead of what’s right for Minnesota."

"Enough is enough," says the announcer, noting that Franken won the original election, the recount and a legal challenge. "America is in an economic crisis - and Minnesota faces unique challenges of its own. Minnesota deserves two Senators and voters deserve to have their verdict stand without delay."

Coming one day after a three-judge panel in Minnesota ruled that Franken "received the highest number of votes legally cast," the ad also represents a coordinated Democratic push to end the race.

The DNC-funded ad is playing on news radio stations in the Twin Cities.

Coleman, however, has already appealed the recent decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which has agreed to review the case. However, there is some question as to whether a quorum of Justices can be reached.

Two of the seven Minnesota Justices have already recused themselves because they served on the State Canvassing Board that has ruled on a great number of issues in this case. Now the legal community is wondering whether there will be three more recusals.

Justices Lori Gildea and Christopher Dietzen donated to Coleman campaigns, while Helen Meyer gave money to Sen. Paul Wellstone, whom Coleman challenged in 2002. These are certainly grounds for recusal.


But in order for a quorum of the Court to be reached - and to therefore decide the case - at least four of the seven Justices must be present. It is pretty unusual for a case to be undecided by the Court due to recusals.

If it does happen, the issue would be dead and Al Franken would finally take his seat in the U.S. Senate. If the Justices do not recuse themselves…well, we don’t know where we’ll be a month from now.

Should Democrats Pursue Gun Control?

In recent months there has been a glut of bizarre and often horrifying cases of gun violence in the United States. On Christmas Eve a man dressed as Santa Claus killed nine people at a house Christmas party in California. In March a gunman killed ten people including family members and an 18-month-old girl in Alabama.

On April 3rd a Vietnamese immigrant killed 13 workers in a shooting spree at a New York citizenship center. One day later, a laid-off worker in Pittsburg - convinced that the new Obama Administration was going to ban guns and become tyrannical - killed three police officers with an assault rifle and an AK-47.

And these are only a few of the stories.

Yet little is being done to pass strict gun control legislation in the United States. There are some very practical political reasons behind this.

According to a Gallup poll taken in October, 49% of Americans want stricter gun laws - a significant decrease since the 1990s. And a CNN/Opinion Research poll taken earlier this month shows only 39% of Americans still support stricter gun laws.




Gallup tracking also indicates that support for the Second Amendment is stronger than ever. Over the past 50 years, support for a ban on handguns has been cut in half.


Nonetheless, a substantial majority of Democrats - 6 in 10 according to the CNN poll - support stricter gun laws, and Democrats are the ones in power. But Democratic members of Congress, particularly from moderate and conservative-leaning districts, are not going to support more gun control for a simple reason: gun control support among independents has dropped 17% since 2007.

Americans are evenly divided on the issue by age and region, and women are a little more likely to support stricter gun laws then men. The real demographical disparity is party affiliation. According to Gallup, you are more likely to be against gun control if you are a Republican than if you are a gun owner.


In February, Attorney General Eric Holder told the press "There are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstate the ban on the sale of assault weapons." But without the support of Congress - and most importantly, Congresspersons from moderate and conservative districts - those changes are not possible.

Simply put, incumbents fear losing their seats and will not support a bill that too many constituents would oppose. Under this line of reasoning, now is not the time for the Democrats to make a substantial fight for gun control legislation.

The good news is that, despite the increase of headline murders like the ones above, overall gun violence is decreasing. According to FBI statistics, the annual murder rate has decreased from 9,800 killings about two decades ago to about 5,500 killings today. Even if stricter gun laws were implemented, it is not certain they would be the reason for a decrease in gun violence.

At least this appears to be the thought on the minds of an increasing number of Americans.

What We’re Changing at WAYLA

We cannot tell you how happy we have been with the success of What Are You Looking At? so far. To make things even better, we will be trying out some new features in the weeks and months ahead.

So what can you expect?

1) As local races draw down this spring, we will begin to focus less on what is happening on the local scene and start looking at more polls and campaign strategy analysis this summer and fall. But don’t worry! We’ll still devote a post per week or (so to) local politics - perhaps more as the local elections in California and New York draw nearer in May, September, and November.

2) We’ll be trying a new layout soon that will not only be more visually appealing, but easier to navigate as well.

3) We’re expecting some new guest bloggers this summer to give you detailed and comprehensive analysis of some less obvious, but seriously important topics affecting American politics and campaigns.

We have also changed our tagline to “A political website for campaign people, by campaign people”. Unless it has an impact on elections or public opinion, we never really dive into policy issues - campaigns are what we know and campaigns are what we want to bring you.

So thank you for your continued reading. Tomorrow we’ll discuss public opinion on gun control policy in light of the recent and horrifying news stories regarding gun violence.

The Liberal Quadfecta - Gay Rights, Stimulus, Socialists, and Easter Eggs

It’s Friday, April 10, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:

With the Iowa decision a week ago today and recent legislation in Vermont and Washington, DC, FiveThirtyEight.com is having an unofficial “Gay Rights Week” according to blogger Andrew Gelman. They have done some very insightful posts on a Congressional fiat in DC, what the polls say about Americans’ attitudes towards gay marriage, and polls about employment discrimination against homosexuals.

We’ve mentioned before that Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) is feeling the heat from his constituents due to his rejection of stimulus funds. Now he is on the air in South Carolina defending himself.



Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-ÁL) recently told a group of local officials at a breakfast with them that “Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are socialists”. When asked to clarify, he said that 17 members of Congress were socialists. He did not name names, so it is unclear whether he had been thinking this for some time or if he was just pulling a Bob Dylan (Start watching at 0:47).



Finally, the Obama staff has released the design for this year’s eggs in the White House Easter Egg Roll. Pretty interesting.


Have a Happy Easter Weekend!

Giving the Troops a Chance to Vote

Approximately 96% of Americans believe it is important that U.S. military personnel should be given ample opportunity to vote in their elections. But according to a new study by the Pew Center on the States, about a third of the states do not give our troops enough time to cast their vote.

Furthermore, the study found that 25 states and Washington DC need to improve their absentee voting systems for military personnel abroad. They also mentioned that the other 25 states still have room for further improvements.

"For active-duty military serving overseas, the voting process takes an average of 29 days to complete in states that allow time to vote. For voters abroad hailing from “no time to vote” states, the process takes 66 days on average. The length of the process, however, can vary widely. For example, in Arizona and Kansas, the process can be as short as eight days, while it can take overseas military voters from Alabama 88 days from start to finish."

19 of the states that do give ample time are able to do so because they receive ballots from military personnel via fax or email. The study found that this raises concerns about how widespread the availability of this technology is, as well as concerns about voting privacy.

To read the report, including the “Lessons Learned” and suggested solutions, click here.

At WAYLA, we believe it is only right to correct these problems. Those who fight for our freedom deserve to partake in our freedoms.

Obama, America, and Islam

President Barack Obama addressed the Turkish Parliament yesterday in his first ever Presidential speech to a predominantly Muslim nation.

He told them that the U.S. "is not and never will be at war with Islam" - a powerful statement that demonstrated his willingness to reach out to the Muslim world. He also had this to say:

"we will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better – including my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country – I know, because I am one of them."

It is a strong message because many in the Muslim world see the American President as one of their own though not a fellow-believer himself. It may be exactly the move the President needs to make for a positive change to our foreign policy.

But how will it be seen back home?

Turks, Iraqis, and others in the "Muslim world" can not re-elect the President, Americans do. Luckily for Obama, the majority of Americans support the efforts to reach out to Muslims.

According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 81% of Americans feel it is important to improve relations with Muslim nations. 65% of Americans said they felt Obama would handle that task "about right".


The answers to the second question split largely on partisan lines. According to the Washington Post "nearly half of Republicans said Obama is apt to overreach in his efforts to advance U.S. relations, while large majorities of Democrats and independents said they think he will walk the right line."

That being said, the poll also found some disturbing figures out Americans' attitudes towards the Muslim faith.

48% of Americans hold an "unfavorable" view of Islam, while only 41% hold a "favorable" view - the largest such difference recorded by the poll since it was first taken following 9/11. And While 58% said Islam is a "peaceful" religion, a sizable minority of 29% believes even mainstream Islam promotes violence.


The poll also found that 55% of Americans lack a basic familiarity with Islam, and about 53% of Americans do not personally know a Muslim. These individuals were much more likely to hold negative views.

In fact, most of the demographical trends were not too surprising.


While the poll suggests that Americans are becoming more antagonistic to Islam, other trends provide more hope for reconcile. 20% more Americans say they are familiar with Islam than they did in 2002. 6% more Americans say they know a Muslim than they did in 2001.

Only 1% of Americans are Muslim, but if more Americans get to know them and their faith, the less critical they will be of Islam.

But that could be a long time from now, and President Obama’s message to the Muslim world might be saying more than he wants it to. Yes, Americans want to reach out to the Muslim world, but with such persistently negative views about Islam in the United States, Obama puts himself at risk when he speaks of how his life was enriched by Muslims. In fact, a March 11 Pew poll found that 11% of Americans still wrongly believe the current President is a Muslim himself.

The President has had to decide between a message that brings safe political security and a message that brings bold change in American rhetoric on the international stage.

Of course, there is a certain benefit to consistency in politics and this is exactly the kind of change he promised.

Do you think President Obama’s remarks will help him or hurt him politically? Leave a comment!

What is the Future of Gay Marriage in Iowa?

As you have probably heard by now, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously Friday that marriage must be open to gay and lesbian individuals. Because gay marriage is now legal in a “heartland” state - and not just liberal coast states - this is an historic ruling that will most certainly uplift liberals and terrify conservatives.


But one need look no further than California to know that a State Supreme Court ruling can quickly be overturned by the people - the infamous Proposition 8 killed California’s short lived legality of gay marriage.

Will the same thing happen in Iowa?

An amendment to the Iowa Constitution will be necessary to overturn the Court’s decision. The process to do so will take at least three years - so gay marriage will still be legal in Iowa until at least 2012. It requires approval of consecutive General Assemblies of the State Legislature (the next of which will not begin until 2010) and a statewide referendum.

Theoretically, neither should be too difficult to achieve. A poll taken by the University of Iowa in November found the majority of Iowans (62%) opposed gay marriage.

Yet almost half of those who opposed gay marriage did approve of civil unions - a popular stance among Iowa’s Democratic politicians.


There are two ways such a referendum would move forward. The first is an amendment that would ban gay marriage but set up a way to ensure civil unions. It would be the moderate position that would gain majority support in the State Legislature and many opposed to both gay marriage and civil unions may support it out of pragmatism. But there will be plenty of conservative voters who will not be able to bring themselves to vote for any recognition of gay unions, and a majority might not be reached.

The other way is an amendment that bans both gay marriage and civil unions - an amendment that principled conservatives could support and that most moderates would prefer to the status quo. This would be an amendment less likely to pass through the State Legislature, but more likely to pass by referendum.

Either way, it is not hard to imagine the battle lines already being drawn for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Iowa, with the war chests and political forces already gathering together for a face-off in the years to come. And with three years before a possible referendum to finally ban gay marriage in this Midwest heartland state, both camps will have plenty of time to wage a strong campaign to shift public opinion far enough to their side.

It is a fight that the nation will look to with the utmost interest - with greater attention paid to it than Proposition 8 in California or similar efforts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, or Vermont. As a moderate state that represents rural, traditionalist America, Iowa may very well become the defining example of progress in the history of the Gay Rights Movement.

As they say in Presidential contests, "as Iowa goes, so goes the nation".



UPDATE: A recent post by Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com finds that Iowa could potentially defeat a gay marriage ban by 2012.

Using a model he developed, he finds that each year a proposed ban will lose 2% of it's support. By 2012 one could expect such a ban in Iowa to pass with only 50.4% - basically a toss-up. He also includes a timeline of when we can expect each state to vote down theoretical gay marriage bans.

These findings seem to be consistent with the general notion that younger voters support gay marriage by wider margins. As older voters die and younger people reach the voting age it becomes harder and harder to pass such a referendum. This is, of course, in addition to the broader change in attitude among Americans - many of whom are finding themselves supportive of gay marriage when they use to oppose the idea.

Where the 2008 and 2010 Elections Overlap

It’s Thursday, April 2, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:

After his defeat in court on Tuesday, former Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) appears to be finished, despite his motion for appeal. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has taken up the issue of seating Democrat Al Franken once again.

In New York’s 20th Congressional District, Democrat Scott Murphy leads Republican Jim Tedisco by only 25 votes. With the race to be decided by absentee ballots, Michael Barone of the Thomas Jefferson Street blog analyzes what we can expect.

Meanwhile, the 2010 elections have just begun. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) - who is currently the most vulnerable incumbent according to FiveThirtyEight.com - has already released this ad criticizing his likely primary opponent, former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA).



And with the troubles in the financial industry, the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee - Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) - is at risk of losing his seat. A new Quinnipiac poll shows him 16 points behind former Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT).

Nail-Biter in New York’s 20th

If you stayed up all night to watch the returns for the special election to replace now-Senator Kristin Gillibrand, you might want to turn off the TV, get some sleep, and come back to read the following summary of where we are.

MSNBC.com posted the latest regarding NY-20 less than an hour ago.

From NBC's Mark Murray
In the essentially tied special congressional election in New York, two things will now happen:

1) Counties will begin recanvassing the vote on Friday, although some counties will begin that as early as today.

2) Counties will need to begin counting absentee and military overseas ballots. Absentee ballots -- as many as 10,000 were requested -- have to be postmarked by Election Day and received by April 7. Military overseas ballots must be postmarked by Election Day and received by April 13. Some counties will wait to count these ballots until the April 7 and April 13 dates, while others will begin counting them as they come in.

Long story short, we probably won't know the winner until at least April 13.

Another thing: One vote count shows Democrat Scott Murphy leading Jim Tedisco by 59 votes and the other one has him leading by 65 votes. The discrepancy is due to the hand count in one precinct giving Tedisco six more votes than the machine count. This will obviously be resolved during the recanvass.

It looks like we may have another Minnesota on our hands (remember the Franken-Coleman debacle that still has not ended?)

Either way, stay tuned to WAYLA as we keep you up-to-date on this race in the weeks (or months) to come.

Wisconsin Heads to the Polls Next Week

Today WAYLA reports on local politics from Wisconsin.

The Badger State will vote for two important, non-partisan, state offices on Tuesday, April 7th - the State Supreme Court and State Superintendent.

State Supreme Court
The typical issues of crime and excessive lawsuits have come up recently in the race for state Supreme Court. While these issues have done well to elect conservative judges to the high court recently, it may not be as relevant this time around.

As we mentioned in a post in early February, the state’s business lobby - Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce - has decided to stay out of the race. So far they have certainly kept their word.

Unlike in years past - where conservative Supreme Court candidates won almost entirely because of WMC support - conservative judge Randy Koschnick faces an uphill battle against incumbent Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. Koschnick trails Abrahamson by considerable margins in campaign money and no third-party group has come to assist him.

Nonetheless, Koschnick remains optimistic. He says that because more than 4 in 10 likely voters are undecided he has a real chance knocking off the incumbent. But local political scientists disagree.

"In Wisconsin Supreme Court races, there is a large incumbency effect," said UW-Madison professor Katherine Cramer Walsh. "People don't follow the doings of the state Supreme Court."

Charles Franklin, a UW-Madison professor and co-founder of the Internet site www.pollster.com, was also hard-pressed to explain Koschnick's optimism.

"Challengers in nonpartisan spring elections face a huge problem gaining enough visibility and name recognition to mount an effective challenge," Franklin said. "To do so, they need large amounts of money, or the backing of powerful interests who advertise independently."

In an independent poll taken late last month, Abrahamson led Koschnick 41% to 13%. And since then Abrahamson has ramped up the campaign with ad-buys, where as Koschnick has suffered the consequences of poor fundraising and been unable to get on TV.

Even if Koschnick were to build name-recognition now it would likely be too late. Most of the time, the voters that wait until the final few days before the election to make their choice end up splitting their support about 50-50. Mathematically, Koschnick is almost entirely unable to win.

State Superintendent
It has become a heated race between the current deputy State Superintendent, Tony Evers, and the self-proclaimed outsider, Rose Fernandez.

Fernandez recently attacked Evers for an email exchange between him and a school administrator in Green Bay regarding a fundraising event. Jeff Dickert, the school administrator, did not realize it is illegal to use a state email account to discuss political fundraising. Fernandez called it a “win-at-all-cost mentality” that sets a poor example for Wisconsin schoolchildren.

Evers then countered with a press release from State Rep. Don Pridemore's office which called Evers “a bad choice to lead Wisconsin's Department of Public Instruction.” Evers' campaign manager Peter Knudsen said he did not have any evidence that Fernandez was involved, but “that's what we'd like to know.”

But the biggest issue in the race appears to be the involvement of WEAC - the state’s teachers union - which supports Evers. WEAC’s PAC has spent a total $574,000 on the race so far. Fernandez - who is running as the candidate of change to emulate the success of the Obama message, despite being the conservative candidate in the race - has attacked the union as a principle source of failure in the Wisconsin education system.

So who is more likely to win?

It’s a tough question - there is evidence for victory on both sides.

Evers has the support of WEAC which not only helps him financially, but WEAC is organized and can get teachers to the polls. There are already reports of calls to members telling them to vote early for Evers, and the calls can be expected to increase come GOTV weekend. There is no counter-WEAC group organized enough to give the same meaningful support to Fernandez.

Fernandez does, however, have plenty of support. She trailed Evers in the primary by only 4 points, and actually beat him in Milwaukee. Additionally, there are rumors that internal WEAC polling shows Fernandez ahead going into the general election.

For both races, we’ll know for sure a week from tonight.

Missed the Sunday Morning Talk Shows? We Got You Covered…

President Barack Obama on Face the Nation.


Watch CBS Videos Online

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) on Meet the Press.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama All Over the Friday News

It’s Friday, March 27, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:

President Barack Obama will appear on the CBS Sunday morning talk show, “Face the Nation”. His Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, and former opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), will appear on the NBC equivalent, “Meet the Press”.

The President has taken an interest in the New York Congressional race to replace now-Senator Kristin Gillibrand. The DNC has released the following ad.



Obama’s virtual town hall meeting opened up a lot of questions on the same topic - marijuana. Politico has the story.

And most importantly, the President will redirect troops to Afghanistan. The strategy is said to require more than 4,000 additional troops in the volatile country.

California Budget Left to Voters

Today WAYLA reports on local politics from California.

The people of the Golden State will go to the polls for a special election in May to decide a number of important ballot measures.

With projected budget shortfalls - which California is not unfamiliar with already - the State Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have reached a deal to make cuts and raise taxes to correct the budget problems in the midst of a slow economy. Five important pieces of the budget corrections will have to be approved by the voters.

According to a new poll, none of these proposals have a very positive outlook.

Proposition 1A
This measure would cap state spending while extending billions in temporary tax hikes for two years. It has drawn considerable attention from conservative talk radio and even the unions are considering a campaign against the proposition. If the election were today it would fail to pass by a 46%-39% margin.

Proposition 1B
This measure would make up for education cuts in 2009 by increasing funding for education in the future. The powerful teachers’ union supports the proposition - a major reason why it is included in the proposals. Voters are split with 44% supporting and 41% opposed.

Proposition 1C
By far the least popular measure, it would let the state borrow $5 billion against future lottery revenues - the most important part of the budget solution. If it were on the ballot today it would be defeated by a 50%-37% margin.

Propositions 1D and 1E
These are twin measures to loosen restrictions on money that Californians have dedicated solely to children's health and mental health programs under previous initiatives. While they fall short of the necessary 50% threshold at this point, they are both slimly more backed than opposed.

With such lukewarm support to some measures, and outright opposition to others, state leaders are eager to campaign for the proposals.

The dynamics of the special election are volatile, and public opinion could swing dramatically once campaign advertising begins. The poll found more than 10% of likely voters are undecided on most of the ballot measures. Also, voter turnout is likely to be low, and it is unclear what mix of Californians will wind up casting ballots in the oddly timed election.

…Schwarzenegger and Democrats who lead the Legislature have joined forces to raise money for mail and television ads promoting the ballot measures. The Republican governor, state Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) and Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) also have pushed the measures in joint meetings with opinion writers at major newspapers in the state.

On Wednesday, Schwarzenegger said failure to pass the measures would be "disastrous" for California.

But many of these politicians are feeling the pressure of a lack of public approval. The California GOP has decided to cut campaign funds from the six Republicans that voted for the budget compromise and three of those Republicans are facing recall threats from angry conservative activists.

And Schwarzenegger and the State Legislature are facing their own unhappiness from constituents.

…the poll raises new doubts about Schwarzenegger's effectiveness as a messenger in the campaign. His popularity matches the record low he set in December 2005, with 33% of likely voters approving of his job performance and 57% disapproving. For the first time, even a majority of Republicans questioned by the Public Policy Institute pollsters give Schwarzenegger negative job ratings.

The Legislature, too, is at a record low, with an 11% job approval rating and 80% disapproval.

If the measures fail to pass the State Legislature and governor will have to rethink their approach to fiscal discipline during the recession.

Tony Quinn, a nonpartisan election analyst who specializes in California politics, said voters seem to be so turned off by Sacramento's dysfunction that they have not focused on the gravity of the budget measures on the May ballot.

If voters reject them, he said, lawmakers will "finally have to do some things that the public notices."

"What about early release of low-risk prisoners? That might not be very popular, but they may be forced to," he said. "What about reducing Highway Patrol hours? Or not having as many cops on the beat?"

For these reasons, state leaders will want to get the budget figured out sooner than later - specifically with these proposals. Their campaigns for these measures must succeed for their own sakes. Otherwise they might face even greater political pressure.

Bloomberg Continues to Top the Polls

Today WAYLA reports on local politics from New York City.

A new Quinnipiac poll finds that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg continues to be viewed favorably by his constituents. Some results in the polls are rather striking.

For example, 55% of residents said they would describe Bloomberg as "cold and businesslike" while only 30% said he was "warm and friendly". Yet 62% still approve of the job he’s doing.

Bloomberg, it seems, would agree that he doesn’t need to be "warm and friendly" to be a good mayor.

"These are very serious times," he said. "I don't find anything warm and fuzzy about the potential of people losing their jobs or losing their homes.

"I don't find anything warm and fuzzy about city government having to reduce expenses and find alternative revenue sources. That's the job, and that's what I'm going to do."

Despite a four-point drop in his approval rating - due to budget cuts and tax hikes that came with the poor economy - pollsters say Bloomberg doesn’t need to sweat. According to Maurice Carroll, who directed the poll, "his job approval has gone from astronomical to merely stratospheric…He's within the atmosphere [now]."

And to make matters worse for his 2009 competitors, his name recognition is difficult to beat. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) - who said he may drop his candidacy due to the economic work that needs to be done in Washington - has only 44% name recognition.

City Comptroller Bill Thompson is looking to the black community to be a major factor of his overall support. But the poll found only 44% of African Americans could identify the official.

And Bloomberg continues to beat them in hypothetical head-to-head races. If Thompson was to win the Democratic Primary and face Bloomberg today, the incumbent would win 49%-35%. If Weiner was to face Bloomberg today, Bloomberg would win 46%-36%.

Of course, Bloomberg will not be facing anyone until November, which gives all candidates time to wage the tough campaign.

"Bloomberg is so far ahead - he won't be that far in November - but what difference does it make?" Carroll said.

He predicted voters will peel off as the budget cuts start to affect communities and as the campaign heats up and he cautioned that Bloomberg's image as "cold and businesslike" could hurt him.

"People like to like the people they vote for," he said.

But polls from 2004 also showed New York City residents to view Bloomberg as cold and in 2005 he was re-elected by a landslide. And with him this far ahead already, will his challengers really be able to climb back?

Only time will tell.

Is the Stimulus More Popular Than Republicans Anticipated?

Today WAYLA reports on local politics from South Carolina.

In recent weeks Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) has been earning national attention for his opposition to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

He has twice requested that this cornerstone legislation of President Obama’s economic plan be used to pay down South Carolina’s debt rather than job creation and public works. The White House told him he must spend the money as the law stipulates.

And while Sanford is becoming better known among Americans, he has not been doing so well among his constituents.

From The State:

Many speculate Sanford is planning to run for president in 2012 and is opposing the stimulus plan to win praise from Republican hardliners.

That infuriates some South Carolinians who think they are left to deal with the impact of Sanford’s decisions while he draws praise nationally.

"He’s stirred up strong feelings amongst his constituents, and failed to adequately address those feelings, which is one of the biggest mistakes in crisis communications," said Jonathan Bernstein, who owns a California-based crisis communications firm. "So people will, no doubt, reach their own conclusions as to the governor’s motives."

With a 10.4% unemployment rate in South Carolina - the second highest in the nation - many South Carolinians are desperate for job creation. Unsurprisingly, Sanford’s approach to the recession has made him slip in the polls.

A new poll commissioned by South Carolina Senate Democratic Caucus finds that residents disagree with Sanford’s stance on the stimulus by a 53%-37% margin. Even worse for Sanford, President Obama is seen considerably more favorable than the governor.


Although a poll taken on behalf of a partisan institution is not completely reliable, individual stories of discontent from residents should draw concern.

Out-of-work electrician Everette Walker needed no prompting to express his feelings about Gov. Mark Sanford’s leadership.

"The man is selfish," said Walker, 62. "Here’s a man with a $3.5 million home who doesn’t care if the rest of South Carolina can afford a loaf of bread. It sets me on fire."

…Donna Maddox of Lexington considers herself a Republican but is concerned about Sanford’s rejection of stimulus money that could extend benefits for the unemployed and create jobs.

"My light bill is due next week, and I have no way to pay it. My house payment is due the first of April, and I can’t pay," said Maddox, whose husband was laid off in January from his longtime job.

A homemaker with medical problems, Maddox spent Wednesday afternoon at Harvest Hope Food Bank, filling out paperwork and getting a grocery cart full of groceries.
Maddox thinks paying down debt is a good idea. But, she adds, "We’re not promised tomorrow."

"Whoever thought I’d be here today, getting food? We need help now."

This is yet another case of local Republican politicians using the stimulus bill as a basis for opposing the Democrats and advancing their careers. But it is a major gamble to bet against the stimulus succeeding.

If the stimulus works nationally, but South Carolina is left behind due to Gov. Stanford’s ambitions, he should know he will be doomed politically - whether he is running for President or not.

Olympic Games Must Overcome Local Politics

Today WAYLA reports on local politics from Chicago.

According to GamesBids.com, Chicago has moved into last place in likeliness to host the 2016 Olympic Games. The speculated frontrunners are Tokyo and Rio de Janeiro with Madrid and Chicago a little further behind.

But despite the weary outlook for Mayor Daley’s hopes to host the world’s most important sporting events, the public enthusiasm for the games does not have a very positive outlook either.

Several political groups in the city are taking a strong stand against the Olympics, going so far as to plan protests for an International Olympic Committee visit to the candidate city. The money to be spent on the games, some argue, could be better used for public needs. Others cite the potential harm the games would do to the local environment and architectural integrity.


From today’s Chicago Tribune:

"If [Daley] wants to air his dirty laundry to the world, that is entirely up to him," Denise Dixon, a member of a group pressing for contracts and housing for poor people and minorities, said at a City Hall news conference last week. "He doesn't want to see demonstrations in the street when they get here. He better come up with something."

…Asked about possible protests, Daley said…"First of all, we don't even have it. ... This is not a sure thing. Maybe people think it is, but you do not have it"

…Daley has said no city money would be used for the Games, despite a $500 million guarantee from the city against any operating deficit and a pledge that property-tax money would be used to help build the $1 billion athletes' village on the site of Michael Reese Hospital.

Daley also argued that support for the Olympics is strong in Chicago, with 77% of residents saying they backed the bid in an October survey.

But according to a poll conducted by the Tribune last month, while 64% of residents approved of Daley’s push for the Olympics, 75% were against the use of taxpayer funds to cover any private financial shortfalls, and 54% believed that private funding would not be able to fully cover the costs.

Ultimately, with these public perceptions, it should not be a surprise if support for the Olympics in Chicago continues to fall.

And while the IOC is used to protests on their visits, public support is a major factor for a bid. In order to get the games, Daley and Chicago 2016 need to better boost public approval.