Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Previewing Ohio

We'll start rolling out our Ohio poll results tomorrow but there's one finding on the poll that pretty much sums it up: by a 50-42 margin voters there say they'd rather have George W. Bush in the White House right now than Barack Obama.

Independents hold that view by a 44-37 margin and there are more Democrats who would take Bush back (11%) than there are Republicans who think Obama's preferable (3%.)

A couple months ago I thought the Pennsylvanias and Missouris and Ohios of the world were the biggest battlegrounds for 2010 but when you see numbers like this it makes you think it's probably actually the Californias and the Wisconsins and the Washingtons.

There's not much doubt things are getting worse for Democrats...and they were already pretty bad. Somehow the party base needs to get reinvigorated over the next two months or there's going to be a very, very steep price to pay.

36 comments:

wt said...

There wouldn't be much to get invigorated about if I were a Democrat in a blue dog district.

So, you're running ads about how independent you are from Nancy Pelosi, and how you like to stand up to Obama? Isn't there, like, totally a political party that does something similar and more consistently?

Anonymous said...

Where is my "Bush, Miss Me Yet? sticker?

Anonymous said...

Dummy! It's not getting worse! You only switched to Likely Voters! You lived in IllusionLand! All Dems were eager to bash Rasmussen, now Rasmussen has of the best numbers for Dems relatively!

JCordes said...

If Sens. Feingold, Boxer, and Murray *all* lose re-election, then I think I might start taking advantage of my Canadian citizenship.

DBL said...

Even if voters blame Republicans 100% for causing the problems, they elected the Democrats to solve them. They didn't. At least people had jobs when Bush was President.

Actually, it is getting worse for Dems. Below is the aggregate of generic ballot by month of only pollsters using registered voter. It excludes Rasmussen, as a result:

Jan: R +1.3
Feb: D +0.1
Mar: R +1.7
Apr: R +0.5
May: D +2.0
Jun: D +1.3
Jul: R +3.4
Aug: R +3.6

You are partially right. It really isn't getting that much worse compared to a month ago, but it has since two months ago.

Anonymous said...

JCordes, luckily for you Sen. Feinstein isn't on the ballot this year so if that is the only condition for you "taking advantage" of your Canadian citizenship you have conveniently set up a scenario where there is a zero percent chance of you being so obligated.

ted said...

Hey JCordes,

I guess you are not paying att'n to what is going on up North. Your fellow Canucks have gotten more conservative than us 'yahoo' Yankees.

I think you should wait til 2012 when America is finally able to start getting out of the liberal lunatic asylum that Obama-Pelosi-Reid have made us.

Rasmus said...

Anon #comment 6- he said Feingold, not Feinstein. And Feingold is on the ballot.

Rich said...

I don't think there will be caucus known as "Blue Dog" Democrat after Nov 2. They will have mostly been replaced by republicans.
If Ohio leans Bush at this point(a stunner), that state will be solid GOP from state house to out house come Nov.
In fact it means few, if any, Senate Dems win re-election in the midwest, south and southwest. The article is correct, the West Coast will be the battle ground states for control of the Senate.
In California there is another wrinkle. This is the first time in about 10-12 years when the GOP is offering good candidates all across the state in nearly all state races. Normally the GOP hasn't contested wide areas of the state. Now they are so I expect big GOP gains in CA too, including Barbara Boxer's seat.

Anonymous said...

"At least people had jobs when Bush was President."

So you are saying that Obama is the person responsible for job loss? Wow! I am indy McCain voter, not a big Obama fan and I will probably vote Republican but even I do not think that Obama is to blame for everything Bush did. Bush created the mess. Obama has not all he can do to fix the mess but to say things were better under Bush is bull. In an Obama Bush match up I would probably stay home or even suck it up and vote Obama.

"Where is my "Bush, Miss Me Yet? sticker?"

Wow, I did not think anyone liked Bush. All my Republican friends hate him. The only people who approved of him were pure partisan Republicans with no brain. I bet dems are praying for those bumper stickers. Even if they prefer Bush it does not mean they like him.

Rich said...

It is hard to understand the rising Bush nostalgia. 2008 was the scariest year of my life and I would assume many others. What explains it? I think one explanation is the passage of time has allowed a fuller story of the the causes of the Great Financial Panic of 2008. Its been shown that many Democrats, including Obama, obstructed reform efforts to stop the insane lending practices at Fannie, Freddie and other banks that directly caused the panic of 2008.

Anonymous said...

JCordes said...
If Sens. Feingold, Boxer, and Murray *all* lose re-election, then I think I might start taking advantage of my Canadian citizenship.
August 31, 2010 1:54 PM

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

And no, "Anonymous," Bush did not "create the mess," at least as far as the economy goes. Do you even realize that both houses of Congress (which are responsible for producing the budget - something they haven't done at all this year) have been controlled by DEMOCRATS since 2006?

DBL said...

Remember that the Democrats have had the House and Senate for four years and things were actually pretty good in 2006.

Reagan famously asked, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Well, people are doing that now. They're answering no.

We can debate the origins of the financial crisis all we want and even blame Bush 100%. That doesn't change that Obama and the Democrats were elected in 2008 to get us out of this mess. We can debate how much Obama, Pelosi, and Reid et al are to blame for that, but it's worse out there than it was two years ago and much worse than it was four years ago.

Republicans sat at home in 2006 and 2008 and watched while congressmen they didn't like much were voted out. Now they get to replace them. At most there'll be 105 Republican House members who were there in 2004.

I think Democrats will do the same thing this year. That may mean losing control of the House, but they can try to get it back with better candidates in 2012.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't read too much into this. Voters clearly preferred Clinton to Bush in 2001 before September 11th and wanted him back. Also W won't be on the ballot in 2012 it will probably be Romney who is basically Kerry with a GOP hat on. OK, so the House will probably go to the GOP (although I think the Dems will scrape back in the Senate) but that means the GOP will also have to take responsibility for America's problems.

Anonymous said...

Galloway
Everybody forgets the d-rats took control of Congress in 2006, so who caused the collapse-Barney FRank , Schumer, and the boys. Can you say Fannie and Freddie , CRA, GSEs.

Anonymous said...

Galloway
Bush and McCain tried to put regs on fannie and freddie. Google this and i think it was about 15 tries since 2002 and its was ignored.

Anonymous said...

Far too many idiots don't get that the Dems won Congress in 2006 . The Dems that year also had a majority of the Governorships including the victory for Strickland in Ohio. Do you really think it is a coincidence that the economy crapped out then?

Sadly the majority of Americans polled prior to Obama's election said they thought the the GOP controlled Congress.

Yes Bush and a GOP Congress are much much better than this mess.

Signed: Not a GW Bush lover.

Anonymous said...

DBL, Anon...the deregulation of the financial industry and the corporatizing of America starts with Phil Gramm and ends with George W. Bush. Hint: Deregulation looks good for a little while, and then it hits. (i.e. it hit 8 years after it was passed).

Bush's tax cuts, (but most particularly not paying for the war), the prescription drug "scheme", no child left behind, and other economic policies favoring the top 0.1% got us into this mess.

Plain and simple, Obama hasn't done enough.

Russ said...

Oh, PPP, your polling continues to make me laugh.

Ohio resident here, and believe me, we don't want Bush back. lol Well Republicans do but that shouldn't be surprising. What's the sample breakdown?

It's a shame you're one of the most inaccurate pollsters when it comes to issue polling and favorable/approval ratings (yet have shown so-so results in head-to-head races).

Your polling is always good for a laugh though...you do have that going for you. :)

Ben (The Tiger in Exile) said...

Are you gents sure about the last Obama vs. Bush national numbers you got?

Because this numbers would put W ahead, no?

Zornorph said...

I am so looking forward to Gov. John Kasich. I was rooting for him when he first ran for Prez back in 2000, but he got no traction and dropped out before voting started. Things would have been so much better if a budget hawk like him or McCain had been elected instead of the borrow-and-spend Bush.

Anonymous said...

The deregulation of the financial industry happened under Clinton, not Bush. So you can't blame Bush for that. You can blame congressional Republicans and Bill Clinton if you like but that doesn't fit into the anti-Bush narrative.

How exactly did Bush's tax cuts, which only 18% were for the rich, cause the real estate market to collapse? If running up deficits causes recessions than why is Obama running up quadruple the deficit to get us out of the recession?

The recession started with Barney Frank and the Democrats forcing Fannie and Freddie to give home loans to people who couldn't pay them back because they felt it was unfair that only rich people could buy houses. Other banks made the same loans to keep up. Bush asked Congress for tighter regulation of these loans. The Democrats blocked this, yelling that the Republicans didn't want to help the middle class. Of course, the home loans didn't help the middle class in the long run.

Even if Wall Street hadn't created a financial house of cards with the loans, the real estate market would've still collapsed.

You can lay some of the recession on congressional Republicans, some on congressional Democrats, some on Wall Street, some on greedy real estate agents and bankers, some on all those people who took out loans they couldn't pay back, some on the business cycle, and yes, put some blame in Bush's lap. You can say it was all Bush's fault if you like, it just doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

Anonymous said...

When President Bush left office, unemployment was 6.5 %. I'm betting the millions of private sector workers who lost their jobs in the last two years would give their right arm to have only 6.5% unemployment again!

Amy said...

Bush was deeply despised by a majority at worst or simply disliked at best. Now? Well, this recent poll is just one example of his improving image.

Dustin Ingalls said...

"Because this numbers would put W ahead, no?"

Huh?

Rich Vail said...

I've spent the past 2 years working in various restaurants...barely making ends meet. I've just been hired to work as a cabinetmaker since I closed my business in Oct 2008...

The "it's all Bush's fault" meme of the Democratic Party and their enablers in the MSM is not in fact correct. As many commenters have pointed out, Sen Charles Schumer & Chris Dodd along with Congressman Barney Frank were the individuals concerned with forcing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to give home loans to people who couldn't pay them back...they were also instramental in blocking W's attempt to end the practice in 2002 and John McCain's try in 2005...but, it was Congress being taken over by the Democratic Party in 2006 the precipitated even wilder irresponsible spending as well as pushing the GSE's to give 125% "no money down" loans to people who couldn't pay them back...that's where the blame lands.

I'm not a big fan of Geo. Bush, never have been. But the GOP holds a share of the blame as well. In 2002-2006, they attempted to spend their way to a "permanent majority" just as the Dems are now...both failed miserably.

Now if we can elect Congressmen/women and Senators who will NOT spend money we don't have, and actually eliminate those Departments/programs that either overlap or are mere jobs programs in disguise (Dept's of Ed, HHS, HUD, Commerce, etc) and bring spending under control...we just might get out of this mess in under a decade.

FDR proved in the 1930's that Keynesian economics doesn't work. Those policies that he followed added at least 7 years to the Great Depression...Mr. Obama's policies are doing exactly the same thing.

Anonymous said...

Anon, Barney Frank became chair of the Financial Services Committee after the damage has been implemented in 2007. Check the facts for yourself. What happened from 2003-2007, as you did say, played out in 2008 and 2009. But Barney Frank was not in charge of policy during the 2000s.

Anonymous said...

DBL said...
"Remember that the Democrats have had the House and Senate for four years and things were actually pretty good in 2006".

The Democrats did not take over Congress until January 2007 - NOT 2006

DBL said...

You guys read things that aren't there. No one said Barney Frank was chairman of the financial services committee, only that Barney Frank was the biggest advocate for the high risk loans.

Yes, the Democrats took over congress in 2007. That's why I say things were good in 2006, the year before they took over. The Democrats took over on the first work day in 2007, so you could say the Democrats took over at the end of 2006.

But even if I was in error on either of these, you're making replies that are irrelevant to the premise of my statements. I said that the Democrats share blame because Barney Frank and the rest of the Democrats pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make the loans, pressured other lenders to follow suit, and then refused to perform oversight on Fannie or Freddie.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html

Anonymous said...

"Where is my "Bush, Miss Me Yet? sticker?"

That's like saying I miss the drunk driver who wrecked my car and sent my family to the hospital because I am not satisfied with the mechanic.

[face-palm city!]

Dano said...

FDR not only proved that Keynes works, by decreasing unemployment and improving GDP every single year that keynesian economics was tried in the 1930's. But, he proved the naysayers out-of-touch with reality by actually cutting the keynesian economics in 1938. What happened in 1938? The obvious is what happened. Unemployment shot back up and GDP shrank. It took an extra three years and billions extra to recover from the mistake of the anti-Keynesians.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth

Even now, most economists say that Obama's stimulus was too small (they don't even qualify Bush's stimulus as real stimulus because it was just a handout to the banks and wall street). Obama and the economists correctly predicted that the benefits from Obama's stimulus would last about a year and a half and then fade. In the first 18 months of Obama's keynesian stimulus, Obama has thwarted a depression and saved/created 2.8 million jobs according to the latest CBO estimates.

Compare that to the non-Keynesians who made the recession much worse all through 2008 by blocking Dem stimulus back when it would have had even more positive impact, have thwarted nothing and who have cost this country millions of jobs.

DBL said...

Would that include the $152 billion Democratic Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 in January 2008? How about the Democratic Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 in July? President Bush signed them and the Republicans didn't block them. Of course the Democratic backed Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was the response to the meltdown.

All Keynesian economics does is temporarily delay unemployment. The U.S. government borrowed money to keep teachers, police officers, road and infrastructure workers employed an additional year. Once they stop spending stimulus money these people are going to be where they would've been 18 months ago, out of a job. All those jobs that were created or saved are no longer saved.

Keynesian economics counts on government tricking the private sector into thinking the recession is over by throwing money out there. Of course the private sector knows that once the money stops things will go back to how they were before. So they don't hire anyone.

Keynesian economics only works if the private sector does what they're told. They haven't. So the recession is still going strong. I know that my industry hasn't gotten any better since January 2009 and I still can't get work.

TRUTH FIRST said...

President Obama is bringing social and economic justice to America. There are those to oppose this because they fear the truth. The truth is, America has been a wound on the Earth and President Obama is healing the wound. Those who attack President Obama are a virus and they must be stopped.

Dustin Ingalls said...

"That's like saying I miss the drunk driver who wrecked my car and sent my family to the hospital because I am not satisfied with the mechanic."

Haha, awesome analogy. Obama should borrow that and expand on his great, Clintonesque "no, you can't have the keys back because you can't drive" metaphor he's been using in his stump speech the last couple months.

Misterbill said...

America Haters like Truth First love Obama because he is one of them. Fortunately, there are far more who love this country, and that will be reflected in the November election results.

Freedomfighter said...

On August 31, 2010 1:54 PM, JCordes said..."If Sens. Feingold, Boxer, and Murray *all* lose re-election, then I think I might start taking advantage of my Canadian citizenship."

You Lefties always promise this, but never follow through. You all promised to leave if Bush got elected, then again if he got re-elected. But you stay.
Unless your taxes go up enough, then the richest bail to some tax-friendly country no matter WHO'S in charge here.

Shut up about leaving. Just GO!!!

 
Web Statistics