WASHINGTON - Less than two months until Election Day, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that more than half of registered voters disapprove of President Bush's job performance, even more disagree with his handling of Iraq and a strong plurality prefer a Congress controlled by the Democrats — all suggesting that Democrats are still poised to pick up seats in the upcoming midterms.
But the poll, which comes out more than a week after administration officials have made a series of speeches on terrorism and after gasoline prices have declined, also shows that Bush and the Republican Party have established a slightly stronger footing than they've held in months. Bush's job approval among registered voters is up two points — giving him his highest rating in the poll since November — and his handling of Iraq is up three, although both gains are within the margin of error.
All these polls will leave the Dems fat and happy and so secure that they are taking over, they won't bother to show up at the polls.
Not a chance. Follow my every Monday morning essays on why WE will pick up seats. And:
Posted on Sun, Sep. 10, 2006
One Last Thing | Congress races look less certain for Democrats
By Jonathan Last
If you watched even five minutes of television last week, you probably saw a dozen political ads. The 2006 midterm campaign has begun in earnest, and it's now an eight-week sprint to Election Day. So what's happening out there?
For months, the numbers indicated that Democrats were poised to make gains in the House and Senate. The numbers still look good for Democrats, although not as good as earlier in the summer. Let's start with the generic congressional ballot.
This poll question isn't a great indicator of electoral success, but its dx/dt (the rate of change of x with respect to time, t) can illuminate broader changes in the political climate. In June, Scott Rasmussen's generic congressional ballot gave Democrats a whopping 47 percent to 34 percent lead among likely voters. His latest poll, conducted in mid-August, showed the Democrats' lead shrinking to 8 percentage points. The Gallup generic ballot gave Democrats a 54-38 margin in June. In the latest Gallup, those numbers narrow to a 47-45 edge. But remember: These numbers are useful only as indicators of the general atmosphere. People vote for candidates, not generic party labels.
Out in the land of actual candidates, Democrats still have the advantage. But the numbers there are closing, too. (Remember the Second Rule of Politics: All races tighten.) In the House, only about 40 races were in play at the beginning of the summer. That number has shrunk. Democrats need to pick up 15 seats to elect a Speaker Pelosi. The way things look now, they should gain at least eight seats. About 16 races remain toss-ups.
Three states to watch are Indiana, Pennsylvania and Iowa. Indiana and Pennsylvania each have three vulnerable Republican incumbents (Hoosier Reps. Chris Chocola, John Hostettler and Michael Sodrel and Pa. Reps. Jim Gerlach, Curt Weldon and Michael Fitzpatrick). If those races start to move in the Democrats' favor, then something is afoot.
In Iowa, the reverse is the case: The state's First District is open, and the Third District features a weak Democratic incumbent, Leonard Boswell. If Republicans gain strength here, it may mean that the Democratic tide is lower than expected.
In the Senate, Democrats need to gain six seats to take power. This was always an ambitious goal, but it seems less likely today than it did three months ago. During that time, Rasmussen has shifted five Senate races from "leaning Democrat" to "toss-up."
Democrats still have good chances in Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, but they look shaky in Maryland, New Jersey and Michigan, three states where the GOP has legitimate shots to gain seats. For a bellwether, watch the Missouri race, in which incumbent Republican Jim Talent has a slender lead over Democrat Claire McCaskill. Talent won in a 2002 special election by just 21,000 votes. Missouri is a swing state. Both candidates are solid. As goes Talent, so go the Republicans.
Pulling back from the micro, we see two other dynamics worth noting. The first is the waning of the Incumbent Rule. This electoral rule, first formulated by pollster Nick Panagakis, postulates that at the close of elections, undecided voters break for the challenger. The theory is that voters already know the incumbent and aren't going to discover anything new at the last minute that helps them decide in his or her favor. Panagakis built this rule on polling data from the 1970s and '80s, when he found that about 80 percent of undecided polls were breaking for challengers.
Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal now suggests that the Incumbent Rule has been slowly eroding. From 1992 to 2004, he points out, the proportion of undecideds breaking for challengers has steadily decreased. It has gotten to the point at which, as Slate reported after the 2004 election, President Bush picked up 46 percent of voters who decided in the last week and 44 percent of those who decided in the last three days. The New Incumbent Rule seemed to be in effect in Connecticut last month, when Sen. Joe Lieberman received a last-minute surge of support.
Which leads us to the final piece of the 2006 puzzle: Lieberman. The left was thrilled when Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to Internet darling Ned Lamont. Now the two are locked in a general-election fight with Lieberman running as an independent Democrat, but the race may have broader implications.
Three of the House seats Democrats had targeted were in Connecticut, where incumbent Republicans Nancy Johnson, Rob Simmons and Chris Shays were thought to be vulnerable. Johnson now looks like a solid hold for Republicans; Simmons and Shays have smaller leads. If Republican turnout increases in support of Lieberman, it could pull Simmons and Shays along. Certainly, Democrats would have had a better chance at these seats without Lamont's insurgent candidacy.
And what if Lieberman beats Lamont and retains his Senate seat? Lieberman leads now, but the race is still a toss-up. Most people assume that Lieberman would vote for the Democratic Senate leadership, but what happens if Democrats wind up with 50 seats and Lieberman's vote is the difference between Majority Leader Reid and Majority Leader McConnell? No one really knows.
Not for another eight weeks, anyway.
Contact Jonathan V. Last at
jlast@phillynews.com.
© 2006 Philadelphia Inquirer and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.philly.com 2 Georgia Races May Threaten Democrats' Struggle for Power
Two congressmen face well-known opponents whose bids are aided by GOP redistricting.
By Richard Fausset, Times Staff Writer
September 10, 2006
ATLANTA — Riding a wave of discontent over the economy, Iraq and gas prices, Democrats are hoping to win enough seats to retake the House of Representatives this November. But their success could also hinge on their ability to keep the seats they already have — and doing so could prove difficult in two key races in Georgia.
Democratic U.S. Reps. Jim Marshall of Macon and John Barrow of Savannah are facing hearty challenges from a pair of former Republican congressmen with name recognition and the ability to raise big money. Bolstering their chances are new district boundaries drawn up by the first GOP-dominated Georgia Legislature since Reconstruction.
ADVERTISEMENT
The outcome of the races could have broad national implications. The Democratic Party needs a net gain of 15 seats to obtain a majority in the House. Its candidates are posing serious threats to Republican incumbents in states such as Indiana, Connecticut and Pennsylvania.
But Republicans have also identified a handful of vulnerable Democratic incumbents, and are hoping to pick off a few of them to thwart a Democratic return to power.
"Everyone's focused right now on where Democrats can gain seats, and properly so — it's a Democratic year," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "But if Republicans can steal even a few seats from Democrats, it will probably eliminate the chances of a Democratic takeover.
"Georgia has two of these races — I really don't think there is another state where there are two Democratic seats that are at least somewhat vulnerable."
Carl Forti, communications director of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Marshall and Barrow were among 10 House Democratic incumbents his party considered beatable this year.
Others include veteran Iowa Rep. Leonard L. Boswell, a septuagenarian who has had health problems and who is facing a well-funded Republican challenger; Rep. Melissa Bean, an Illinois freshman whose victory was aided by the lackluster campaign of her 2004 rival; and Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, whose district includes President Bush's Crawford ranch.
In Georgia, as in much of the South, the Democratic Party has been dramatically losing ground in recent years. Since 2004, Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state Legislature and the governor's office.
Democrats grumbled when the ascendant Republicans redrew congressional maps, which were introduced last year. Republicans said they were correcting years of Democratic gerrymandering.
This year, Barrow, a former county commissioner from Athens, and Marshall, a former mayor of Macon, were left with districts that had fewer registered Democrats. Barrow even had to leave Athens, his longtime hometown and, as the home of the University of Georgia, a Democratic redoubt, because it was left out of the boundaries of his redrawn 12th District. He moved to Savannah in January.
In November, Barrow will again face off against Max Burns, a conservative farmer who served in the House for one term before being defeated by Barrow in 2004. In the 8th District, Marshall is facing Mac Collins, a trucking entrepreneur who was a congressman from 1993 to 2003 and lost a bid for U.S. Senate in 2004.
Barrow and Marshall call themselves conservative Democrats — and point to their routine flouting of the party line. Both voted for the strict House bill addressing illegal immigration, both oppose gay marriage and both oppose set timelines for a withdrawal from Iraq.
Perhaps as a result, their Republican rivals have emphasized the bigger picture in their campaigns — namely, what would happen if the Democrats took control of the house. In a recent Collins TV ad, his opponent isn't mentioned at all. Instead, the ad targets House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who would presumably become House Speaker with a Democratic majority.
The ad says Pelosi would give "amnesty" to illegal aliens, doling out "welfare, food stamps and free education."
"How do we stop her?" the ad says. "Elect Mac Collins."
In a recent news release, Burns' camp also points to the alleged perils of a Pelosi-led Congress, noting her opposition to the National Security Administration's wiretapping program.
"At a time when our country needs to clearly remain on the offense against terrorists, John Barrow supports leaders who want to retreat and take away the programs necessary to win the global War on Terror," Burns said in the release.
In a phone interview, Barrow said voters in his district respected him for voting not according to dogma, but according to the district's best interests. "Ms. Pelosi only controls her vote," he said. "She doesn't control mine."
On Thursday, Bush traveled to Pooler, Ga., a Savannah suburb, and spoke at a fundraiser for Burns (who, unlike Collins, has lagged behind his Democratic opponent in the money race, despite raising more than $1.1 million through July 1).
Bush focused on national security, telling the GOP donors that Burns "understands the stakes" in the war on terrorism.
Democrats may disagree with that assessment. But everyone seems to agree the stakes in these two races could be greater than who represents a handful of Georgia counties.
*
September 11, 2006
Less Promise for Democrats in N.Y.
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
In a year when Democrats hope to take control of the House of Representatives, New York would appear to be fertile ground for toppling Republican incumbents. Democrats have a statewide edge in enrollment, and a popular incumbent, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, is at the top of the party’s ticket.
In fact, just a few months ago, Democrats envisioned significant gains in New York, perhaps picking up as many as four seats, possibly even five. But that goal now seems increasingly remote, and there is an emerging consensus among political analysts that the party’s best chance for capturing a Republican seat is the battle to succeed Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress, who is retiring.
At the same time, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee plans to spend roughly $50 million on advertisements for races around the country, according to Republican estimates. But none of that money has been set aside for New York races, except for Mr. Boehlert’s seat in the 24th District in the Utica area, according to Democrats involved in the races.
The shifting local fortunes for Democrats could have serious political implications beyond New York. The party needs 15 seats to take control of the House. Even one victory in New York would be an important step toward that goal, giving the Democrats a cushion if they lose elsewhere in the nation.
The situation in New York is particularly surprising given the state’s reputation as a Democratic bastion. National and state party officials have spent months trying to create buzz around those races. But Republican incumbents, in New York and elsewhere, have been trying to shift the focus of the races away from hostility toward the Bush administration to more local concerns, like the potential loss of federal aid to their districts if they lose veteran congressmen.
Representative John E. Sweeney, one of the Republican incumbents, said the situation in New York demonstrated the drawbacks of the Democratic effort to present the midterm elections as a national referendum on President Bush and the policies of Republican leaders in Washington. “Congressional races are local,” he said. “There can be superseding events like Watergate. But those are rare. These races really are a referendum on the people running.”
In addition — and perhaps most important — the incumbents in New York are benefiting from being in legislative districts drawn to keep the Republican incumbents in place.
The Democrats’ inability to gain traction can be measured in the fund-raising disparity between them and Republicans, and is reflected in interviews with strategists in both parties and independent analysts. The national party assesses the strengths of a campaign according to several factors, including the ability of candidates to raise money on their own and their standing in polls.
Some Democrats argue that national party leaders are making a strategic mistake by not being more aggressive in contesting Congressional seats early in a heavily Democratic state like New York. This year in particular, strong campaigns by Eliot Spitzer and Mrs. Clinton, who are both expected to win primary races tomorrow by wide margins, could help generate a huge Democratic voter turnout on Election Day.
Dan Maffei, a Democrat running against Representative James T. Walsh, a Republican representing the Syracuse region, argued in a recent interview that the national party should do more to help him and other Democrats challenging potentially vulnerable incumbents in New York. He said that such support would, if nothing else, give Democrats a strategic advantage in the larger battle for the House and force national Republicans to allocate resources that they otherwise plan to use to defend Republicans elsewhere in the country.
The Congressional campaign committee “needs to be contesting in more districts,” Mr. Maffei said.
“If you open up this front,” he said, “the Republicans will have to defend it.”
Among the seats Democrats have hoped to capture is the Albany-area seat held by Mr. Sweeney, a four-term Republican who has come under criticism for his ties to lobbyists. Kirsten Gillibrand, the Democrat trying to unseat him, also argued that Democratic leaders in Washington ought to be aggressively expanding the map by stepping in with financial support for races like hers.
The campaign committee should “invest in a range of races in a range of districts so it can come up with a winning combination on Election Day,” Ms. Gillibrand said, though she noted that national party leaders had lent support by, for example, helping her raise money.
Representative Charles B. Rangel, a Harlem Democrat who is the dean of New York’s Congressional delegation, said he understood the strategy of national Democratic leaders, given the limited amount of money the party has. But he expressed hope that more money would pour into New York as some races tightened.
In the meantime, he said, the unusually high level of public unhappiness with the direction of the nation works in favor of Democratic challengers, as long as they have enough money to keep their campaigns running. “It is just as important as money,” he added.
Some Democrats say nothing should be read into the fact that the House Democrats’ campaign committee has not begun investing heavily in New York races, noting that it is still early in the fall campaign season and that national Democratic leaders have offered support by making campaign appearances with the challengers and helping them raise money.
“We continue to feel great about our opportunities in New York and even more so than we did a couple of months ago,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Independent analysts say that several factors make New York an especially difficult place for challengers. The state has 29 House seats, and 9 are held by Republicans, most in upstate areas where districts have been drawn to give Republicans a significant edge, countering increasing Democratic enrollment in the state.
The situation in New York contrasts with the political dynamic elsewhere in the Northeast, a heavily Democratic region that is central to the party’s plans for wresting control of the House. In Connecticut, for example, two Republican seats are being fiercely contested in races described as toss-ups. Republican incumbents are also facing stiff challenges in a handful of other states, including Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio and Florida.
Amy Walter, an analyst of House races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said that independents would not play nearly as crucial a role in New York’s Congressional races as they do in states like Connecticut and Pennsylvania because New York’s districts tend to be heavily Republican.
“New York is a tougher place for Democrats than other parts of the Northeast,” she said.
The Gillibrand-Sweeney contest in the 20th Congressional District outside Albany underscores the challenges that Democrats face in New York.
Ms. Gillibrand, a lawyer, has been a strong fund-raiser, taking in nearly as much money as Mr. Sweeney. And she and her advisers have run a tenacious campaign, generating headlines by exploiting some of Mr. Sweeney’s actions, including a $2,000-a-person “Skiing With Sweeney” weekend getaway he organized that was attended by lobbyists at a resort in Park City, Utah. Mr. Sweeney denied doing anything improper. A spokeswoman said that a lobbyist involved with the trip represented two companies that employ more than 2,000 people in the congressman’s district, and that Mr. Sweeney had discussed economic development efforts with him.
But for all that, Ms. Gillibrand appears to have a long way to go in a district where there are nearly 100,000 more Republicans than Democrats. A recent poll released by the Siena Research Institute showed Mr. Sweeney with a 19-point lead.
The Sweeney-Gillibrand race shows how Republicans have deliberately focused on local circumstances and personalities rather than on national issues, at a time when President Bush continues to show weakness in the polls around the country.
For example, one advertisement that the Sweeney campaign began airing in June talks about the congressman’s “humble roots” in Troy, a blue-collar city in the district, and describes his father “as a union guy who worked three jobs.” Fittingly, the advertisement is called “The Kid From Troy,” and it concludes that Mr. Sweeney’s rise to Congress is nothing short of a “New York story about America’s promise.”
Ms. Gillibrand, whose campaign released a poll showing Mr. Sweeney ahead by a smaller margin, sought to play down the significance of polls showing her far behind and predicted that the Democrats’ campaign committee would begin funneling resources into her race as she closed in on Mr. Sweeney.
“In the abstract, this is not an obvious race,” she said. “But I have made the case from the beginning that this race is winnable because of the changing nature of our district, the voting record of John Sweeney and the strength of our campaign.”
Republicans say another reason for the situation shaping up in New York is that their party’s incumbents quickly turned their attention on potential challenges to head off serious problems later.
For example, two Republican incumbents in New York, Mr. Walsh and Mr. Sweeney, began running advertisements in June, long before the traditional start of the campaign season, on Labor Day.
Even Thomas M. Reynolds, a Buffalo-area congressman who is the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, weighed in with advertisements of his own, in late July, apparently to head off attacks from his Democratic challenger, Jack Davis, a multimillionaire businessman.
“The G.O.P. incumbents recognized the difficult environment early on and mobilized to beat back their challenges early,” said Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee. Mr. Reynolds has been highlighting his ability to deliver federal aid to the economically struggling region.
Democrats say there is plenty of time for challengers to close any gaps. To that end, one prominent liberal group, MoveOn.org Political Action, is running advertisements attacking Mr. Sweeney and John R. Kuhl Jr., a first-term Republican from the Corning area, as part of a national campaign to help Democratic challengers who are in so-called second-tier races: contests that have the potential to become competitive but are not considered competitive yet.
The seats that the Democrats had identified as enticing targets include those held by Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Walsh, Sue Kelly of Westchester, and Mr. Boehlert. State Senator Raymond A. Meier, a Republican, and his Democratic opponent, Michael A. Arcuri, the Oneida County district attorney, are fighting for the seat that Mr. Boehlert is vacating.
The Democrats have also had their eye on Mr. Reynolds, who in 2004 won with 56 percent of the vote over Mr. Davis, who has vowed to spend $2 million on his campaign this year.
Great point Kitty. Those automated Political surveys go straight to my answering machine. In 2004 the Exit polls were wrong because Republicans do not speak to on the street pollsters. Better things to do like Hug their Children.