Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Obama's impact on the midterms

Democratic Congressional candidates this fall are only going to go as far as Barack Obama's popularity will take them.

On our last national poll Republicans led 80-3 on the generic Congressional ballot with voters who disapprove of Obama. Simply put if you disapprove of Obama there is almost no chance you're voting Democratic this year.

At the same time if you like Obama there's almost no chance you're voting Republican this year- Democrats lead 78-7 on the generic ballot with folks who do approve of Obama.

This may all seem like a no brainer but the data shows just how strong the trend is. For all the machinations that will take place in close Senate and House races across the country this year, how the voters feel about the candidates themselves may take a backseat in deciding the outcome to how they feel about Obama.


Christian Liberty said...

McGowan dropped out of SC Senate race. (

Another case of Democrats recognizing a losing battle.

Christian Liberty said...

See Rasmussen's Post "Bush Still Blamed For Bad Economy"

The relevant passage is this: "Yet while most voters place the blame on his predecessor, they still have more confidence in their own economic judgment than in Obama’s."

Obama's radically interventionist economic agenda is a liability to his popularity... and supporting his interventionist manhandling of the economy (and American's liberties and wallets) will prove a liability to Democrats.

The Tea Party principles are overwhelmingly popular. Either Democrats can renounce Obama's agenda and decide to govern and run as limited-government Tea Party candidates themselves... or they can guarantee their defeat to candidates who do embrace Tea Party principles.

Tea Party candidates are going to win in 2010 guaranteed. The only question is whether Democrats will have the good sense to renounce the progressive agenda and attempt to run as fiscally conservative candidates themselves, just like they did in 2006.

Democrats in 2006 ran as conservative candidates with a fiscally conservative platform (ethics reform, earmark reform, pay as you go deficit reduction). But once they signed on to a government-takeover of healthcare and global-warming-hysteria, they forfeited their electoral mandate. Either Democrats renounce the progressive agenda and attempt to run as fiscally conservative Tea Party candidates... or America will renounce them and vote in the real Tea Party candidates.

Since there have been so many comparisons to 1994, an interesting observation about 1994 is that it was the only election in the past 20 years in which conservative Democrats did better than moderate Democrats. Democrats who voted against Clinton's tax increases in the budget and assault weapons ban did better than those who voted with him. In 2006, Pro-Life Democrats did better than Pro-Abortion Democrats. In 2010, Democrats who vote against Pelosicare and against cap-and-tax and against the pork-laden union bailout "stimulus" will likely fair better than many who voted with Obama.

Since Obama is increasingly unpopular, Democrats' best hopes are to run AWAY from Obama and his unpopular agenda of increasing government control and tax-funded bailouts.

Christian Liberty said...

Indeed, the smartest thing Democrats can do is to run away from Obama. Vulnerable Democrats are already getting the message and acting more wisely. Blanche Lincoln co-sponsored Lisa Murkowski's efforts to repeal EPA regulations on CO2 emissions. Ben Nelson supported a filibuster of Becker as a labor nominee. Clearly these are some very smart decisions if they care about their political survival.

Bharat said...

I'd challenge someone to think of a person who has been more supportive on the president's agenda than Tom Perriello. We've been saying he's DOA for months now, myself included, but it turns out he has a chance in hell of keeping his seat. Is that because he supported Obama? Who knows, but I do think that this election can be salvaged for democrats based on their personal popularity if they are in a close race. The biggest difference between 2010 and 1994 is the strides we've made in targeting. Only about 26,000 votes nationwide gave Republicans the House in 1994 - it all comes down to targeting.

Web Statistics