Stock Rising: Bachmann and Perry

Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
June 9, 2011, 2:22 p.m.

A Suf­folk Univ. poll; con­duc­ted 10/4-6; sur­veyed 500 LVs; mar­gin of er­ror +/- 4.4% (re­lease, 10/7). Party ID break­down: 39%D, 31%R, 28%I.

Obama As POTUS

- All Dem GOP Ind Men Wom Ap­prove 46% 85% 6% 35% 42% 49% Dis­ap­prove 48 10 88 55 50 46


- All Dem GOP Ind Men Wom H. Clin­ton 60%/33% 91%/ 8% 28%/62% 52%/35% 55%/36% 64%/29% B. Obama 48 /46 84 /10 15 /81 36 /55 45 /48 51 /43 G. Voinovich 39 /33 39 /36 39 /27 41 /36 37 /35 41 /32 S. Brown 38 /32 59 /13 13 /53 35 /35 37 /33 38 /31

Dir­ec­tion Of OH

- All Dem GOP Ind Men Wom Right dir. 31% 58% 11% 20% 28% 34% Wrong dir. 56 30 80 63 58 53

Do You Think The Fed­er­al Stim­u­lus Plan Has Been Ef­fect­ive In OH?

- All Dem GOP Ind Men Wom Yes 27% 51% 8% 19% 31% 24% No 59 28 84 77 60 59

House Gen­er­al Elec­tion Match­up

- All Dem GOP Ind Men Wom Gen­er­ic Dem 48% 96% 6% 30% 45% 51% Gen­er­ic GOP­er 41 2 86 43 45 37 Un­dec 10 2 5 26 9 10

(For more from this poll, please see today’s OH SEN and OH GOV stor­ies.)

When speak­ing with me about polit­ics, one of my good friends will some­times fol­low up with the ques­tion, “OK, now, Charlie, if you are wrong, why are you wrong?” For well over 40 years, this friend has been in­volved in mar­kets, polit­ics, and policy on Wall Street and in­side pres­id­en­tial ad­min­is­tra­tions. This in­di­vidu­al knows that no mat­ter how closely any­one watches Wash­ing­ton and polit­ics, and no mat­ter how ob­ject­ive one tries to be, any­one can be and is oc­ca­sion­ally wrong. Call it a pro­fes­sion­al haz­ard.

But ask­ing your­self, “if I’m wrong, why am I wrong?” is a very use­ful ex­er­cise. It makes someone ex­am­ine his as­sump­tions and evid­ence, look­ing for weak spots and cre­at­ing a self-im­posed alert sys­tem. The in­di­vidu­al is forced to care­fully watch if an as­sump­tion is look­ing less con­vin­cing and if the evid­ence starts point­ing in a dif­fer­ent dir­ec­tion. My as­sump­tion is for a much, much closer pres­id­en­tial elec­tion than the latest In­trade odds (cur­rently giv­ing Pres­id­ent Obama a 59.6 per­cent chance of win­ning) or the av­er­ages of ma­jor polls, which gen­er­ally show Obama with a low single-di­git lead over pre­sumptive GOP nom­in­ee Mitt Rom­ney. (Poll­ster.com has Obama up by six-tenths of a point, 46.8 per­cent to 46.2 per­cent; Real­clear­polit­ics.com shows a 3.3 per­cent Obama lead, 47.5 per­cent to 44.2 per­cent; and Gal­lup’s track­ing sur­vey through Sunday night shows a 1-point dif­fer­ence, 47 per­cent to 46 per­cent.)

The fight for a ma­jor­ity in the Sen­ate looks very much to be a 50-50 pro­pos­i­tion (there’s no chance of either party reach­ing any semb­lance of op­er­a­tion­al con­trol of the cham­ber.) Re­pub­lic­ans could pick up as few as two seats or as many as five. A gain of three or four seems most likely. Keep in mind that with so few states ac­tu­ally in play — roughly a dozen — a party could and of­ten does win three or four close seats by a com­bined total of 100,000 votes or few­er, cre­at­ing an al­most ran­dom­ness to the out­come. The closest Sen­ate races also of­ten break in the same dir­ec­tion: One party dis­pro­por­tion­ately wins most of the closest races, in a way that polls in in­di­vidu­al races can nev­er pre­dict.

The pres­id­en­tial elec­tion and the Sen­ate out­look both ap­pear quite close. Either party do­ing well in one or both is en­tirely pos­sible, but not pre­dict­able at all. Keep in mind that even when Richard Nix­on and Ron­ald Re­agan won 49-state land­slides in 1972 and 1984, re­spect­ively, their party in each case suffered a net loss of two seats. There is no guar­an­tee that the pres­id­en­tial and Sen­ate ar­rows will be point­ing in the same dir­ec­tion.

In the House, Re­pub­lic­ans look to have about a 75 per­cent chance of re­tain­ing their ma­jor­ity. The odds are very high, ac­tu­ally high­er, though, that they will lose a few seats, prob­ably in the five to 10, maybe in the 15, range. Hav­ing scored his­tor­ic, al­most bib­lic­al gains of 63 net seats in 2010 (the most for either party since 1948 and the most in a mid-term elec­tion since 1938), Re­pub­lic­ans are some­what over­ex­posed, with some losses be­ing in­ev­it­able. GOP losses won’t likely be nearly pro­por­tion­al to their 2010 gains. Two years ago, some of their wins were, in ef­fect, the re­claim­ing of seats that they lost in back-to-back hor­rif­ic elec­tions for them in 2006 and 2008. Also, the re­tire­ment of a num­ber of con­ser­vat­ive Demo­crats, not­ably Blue Dogs in the South, bor­der South, and in dis­pro­por­tion­ately rur­al and small-town dis­tricts, will off­set po­ten­tial sub­urb­an gains else­where.

Vet­er­an Demo­crat­ic poll­ster Stan Green­berg of­fers up an al­tern­at­ive view. Not­ing the polls of his own firm and plenty of oth­ers, Stan points to signs that, while the Demo­crat­ic Party’s brand has it’s own is­sues with fa­vor­able-un­fa­vor­able and pos­it­ive-neg­at­ive gaps (dif­fer­ent poll­sters test these things in vari­ous ways), in­vari­ably, the GOP has high­er un­fa­vor­ables and neg­at­ives than fa­vor­ables and pos­it­ives. Like­wise, this ap­plies to com­par­is­ons of “Demo­crats in Con­gress” and “Re­pub­lic­ans in Con­gress.” It would seem that, in the minds of in­de­pend­ents (and to a less­er ex­tent in those of oth­ers), Demo­crats have not covered them­selves in glory. The GOP brand has taken on con­sid­er­ably more wa­ter.

Green­berg’s the­ory is that it is not one thing but the com­bin­a­tion of factors. In some states, not­ably in Wis­con­sin and Ohio, ac­tions by Re­pub­lic­an gov­ernors and state le­gis­latures pushed way too far. They took po­s­i­tions and pushed policies that looked ex­treme to many non-ideo­lo­gic­al in­de­pend­ent voters, some­times rub­bing mod­er­ate Re­pub­lic­ans the wrong way as well. Then there is Wash­ing­ton, where Green­berg ar­gues that Re­pub­lic­ans — par­tic­u­larly Budget Chair­man Paul Ry­an and his budget, nearly uni­ver­sally em­braced by fel­low party mem­bers in Con­gress — come across as too ideo­lo­gic­al or too harsh. Fi­nally, there was the over­heated rhet­or­ic in the 20 or 21 Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial de­bates. It was a con­ver­sa­tion clearly aimed at the party base but over­heard by oth­er voters, who found much of the talk more than a little exot­ic for their tastes. Each of the eight GOP pres­id­en­tial con­tenders, in an Au­gust de­bate sponsored by Fox News, said they would not go along with a budget pro­pos­al that in­cluded $10 in spend­ing cuts for every $1 of tax in­creases. Po­s­i­tion­ing that far to the right is way too out there for most in­de­pend­ent voters, who re­spond well to the sug­ges­tions of bal­anced ap­proaches to de­fi­cit re­duc­tion.

While I don’t buy in­to Green­berg’s ar­gu­ment of a po­ten­tial Demo­crat­ic wave, if any kind of par­tis­an wave is likely to de­vel­op — bar­ring some cata­clys­mic polit­ic­al, mil­it­ary, or eco­nom­ic de­vel­op­ment at home or abroad — it sure seems more likely to break in fa­vor of the Demo­crats, as he’s sug­gest­ing, as a res­ult of a back­lash against Re­pub­lic­ans go­ing too far to the right. I don’t yet see signs that the Re­pub­lic­ans’ ob­ses­sion with their con­ser­vat­ive base has reached a tip­ping point that will cre­ate a Demo­crat­ic wave. But if I were a Re­pub­lic­an lead­er, I’d at least con­sider the pos­sib­il­ity.

What We're Following See More »
Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
3 days ago
Trump Tells NATO Countries To Pay Up
4 days ago
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
4 days ago

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Ethics Cops Clear Mueller to Work on Trump Case
5 days ago

"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."

Senate Intel to Subpoena Two of Flynn’s Businesses
5 days ago

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA) will subpoena two businesses owned by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Burr said, "We would like to hear from General Flynn. We'd like to see his documents. We'd like him to tell his story because he publicly said he had a story to tell."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.