Politics: Need-to-Know Video

N2K: No Time to Rest for Obama

Add to Briefcase
April 4, 2011, 2:04 a.m.

A Win­throp Univ. poll; con­duc­ted 10/5-10; sur­veyed 741 LVs; mar­gin of er­ror +/- 3.6% (re­lease, 10/13). Tested: State Rep. Nikki Haley (R) and state Sen. Vin­cent Sheheen (R).

Gen­er­al Elec­tion Match­up

N. Haley 46% V. Shee­hen 37 Oth­er 1 Un­dec 13

(For more from this poll, please see today’s SC SEN and SC In The States stor­ies.)

Un­like re­cent wave elec­tions, the 2012 con­tests are shap­ing up as an op­por­tun­ity for voters to cast a pox on both parties — a split ver­dict sim­il­ar to the out­come two dec­ades ago, when Con­gress was al­most as un­pop­u­lar as it is today.

The 2006, 2008, and 2010 elec­tions were clear ref­er­enda on the parties in power. In 2006, voters re­act­ing to stag­nant wars in Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan, and to a fed­er­al gov­ern­ment whose re­sponse to Hur­ricane Kat­rina re­vealed its in­eptitude, voted out the Re­pub­lic­an Con­gress. In 2008, voters pun­ished Re­pub­lic­ans again. By 2010, the strug­gling eco­nomy and un­pop­u­lar health care le­gis­la­tion turned the harsh light of scru­tiny on Demo­crats, who lost con­trol of the House.

Now, with a di­vided gov­ern­ment near the nadir of its pop­ular­ity, voters are angry and politi­cians are pick­ing up the cues. Pres­id­ent Obama is try­ing to tap in­to that pop­u­list an­ger; so are Re­pub­lic­ans, fueled by the tea party move­ment. Voters’ dis­con­tent with Wash­ing­ton and their pess­im­ism about the eco­nomy, plus the tu­mul­tu­ous land­scape fol­low­ing the decen­ni­al re­dis­trict­ing pro­cess, is re­min­is­cent of 1992, the last time Wash­ing­ton was so un­pop­u­lar.

That year, Demo­crats con­trolled Con­gress while Re­pub­lic­ans held the White House. The eco­nomy was be­com­ing a drag (then-Arkan­sas Gov. Bill Clin­ton’s cam­paign strategist James Carville re­minded every­one that the elec­tion was about “the eco­nomy, stu­pid”). The ad­min­is­tra­tion and Con­gress were at log­ger­heads. And Cap­it­ol Hill was em­broiled in a check-boun­cing scan­dal that made every­one look like cor­rupt good ol’ boys.

Voters viewed all of Wash­ing­ton in a harsh light. In the fi­nal ABC/Wash­ing­ton Post sur­vey be­fore the 1992 elec­tion, just 17 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans said they had pos­it­ive feel­ings about the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, while 81 per­cent said they felt either dis­sat­is­fied or angry with the way the gov­ern­ment worked. That was the highest pess­im­ism the poll ever re­cor­ded.

And voters made plain that dis­gust. They kicked out an in­cum­bent Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­ent (and gave an in­de­pend­ent, Ross Perot, 19 per­cent of the pop­u­lar vote) even while they awar­ded a net nine Demo­crat­ic seats to the GOP. But that tells only part of the story: In total, 43 House mem­bers lost their seats, either in primar­ies or gen­er­al elec­tions, while five sen­at­ors found them­selves out of jobs.

“The mood of the elect­or­ate in 1992 was ter­rific­ally anti-Wash­ing­ton, very anti-in­cum­bent,” said Rep. Tom Cole of Ok­lahoma, who led the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Con­gres­sion­al Com­mit­tee in 1992. Voters “had the sense that the eco­nomy wasn’t in good shape and the people up here couldn’t get any­thing done. It be­came, really, an anti-in­cum­bent elec­tion, rather than an anti-Demo­crat or anti-Re­pub­lic­an elec­tion.

“I think you’re go­ing to see something very sim­il­ar this cycle, where in­cum­bents need to be on their toes,” Cole said.

For all the at­ten­tion the “Re­pub­lic­an Re­volu­tion” class of 1994 re­ceived, more new mem­bers came to Con­gress after the 1992 elec­tion. More than a quarter of the en­tire House — 110 mem­bers — were fresh­men (com­pared with 85 in 1994).

This cycle’s mood mir­rors 1992. Just 9 per­cent of the elect­or­ate ap­prove of Con­gress, ac­cord­ing to a re­cent CBS News/New York Times poll. And 79 per­cent told ABC News/Wash­ing­ton Post poll­sters they are dis­sat­is­fied with the way the coun­try’s polit­ic­al sys­tem is work­ing, only 2 per­cent­age points off the 81 per­cent who said the same thing just be­fore the 1992 elec­tions.

And, as in 1992, re­dis­trict­ing is adding to the tu­mult as even seem­ingly safe mem­bers have to con­tend with thou­sands of new voters who want change. As in 1992, no in­cum­bent next year is truly se­cure, wheth­er in primary or gen­er­al elec­tions.

“If I were run­ning a cam­paign com­mit­tee, I would be telling my col­leagues: “˜Most people in this room should not as­sume that you’re safe,’” said Mar­tin Frost, a former Texas rep­res­ent­at­ive who sur­vived 1992 and later led the Demo­crat­ic Con­gres­sion­al Cam­paign Com­mit­tee. “If I were in of­fice, I’d be run­ning like hell no mat­ter how well I’d done in the last couple of elec­tions.”

Re­dis­trict­ing helped Re­pub­lic­ans pick up a num­ber of South­ern seats in 1992, but they also made gains in tra­di­tion­ally Demo­crat­ic New York and Mas­sachu­setts, thanks to in­cum­bents who were em­broiled in the House bank­ing scan­dal. Demo­crats picked up seats in states such as Ari­zona, Cali­for­nia, Illinois, and Flor­ida partly be­cause of changed demo­graph­ics, and partly be­cause of their own cre­at­ive map­mak­ing.

Frost be­lieves the anti-in­cum­bent mood may ac­tu­ally be stronger today than it was then. Re­pub­lic­ans must con­tend with an act­iv­ist base that still be­lieves its party should be more ideo­lo­gic­al. Demo­crats have their own dis­cord among lib­er­als, al­beit less in­tense than the GOP’s strife.

Warn­ing lights are already flash­ing on Cap­it­ol Hill.

“They sense the rest­less­ness of their own elect­or­ates, who are equally dis­sat­is­fied with any­body up in Wash­ing­ton,” said Re­pub­lic­an Cole. “These are the kinds of things that put in­cum­bents in jeop­ardy.”

What We're Following See More »
ANNOUNCED BY SCARAMUCCI
Sarah Huckabee Sanders Is New Press Secretary
6 hours ago
THE LATEST
SAYS IT WAS “AN HONOR”
Spicer Staying on Through August
6 hours ago
THE LATEST
FIRST IN WEEKS
On-Camera Press Briefing Today at 2
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
HE LASTED SIX MONTHS
Sean Spicer Resigns
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

He resigned this morning, "telling President Trump he vehemently disagreed with the appointment of New York financier Anthony Scaramucci as communications director." Per Politico, "chief of staff Reince Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon" were opposed to the appointment, while "Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, and Deputy National Security Adviser Dina Powell" were supportive..."Another White House official said Spicer was gracious while breaking the news of his departure, offered some praise for Scaramucci, while saying he would help with a transition."

Source:
STAFF IS PUSHING BACK
Trump Wants Scaramucci to Helm WH Communications
10 hours ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump is expected to announce that Wall Street financier Anthony Scaramucci will be White House communications director, according to two sources familiar with the planning. Trump has left the role open since Mike Dubke resigned in May, and the President has vented frequently to his friends about the performance of his press operation." According to NBC News, Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus are resisting the move.

Source:
×
×

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.

Login